From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



MapSGV is indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action (not an AE action). Sandstein 22:36, 1 March 2018 (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 MapSGV[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Elektricity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 06:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
MapSGV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions

The user MAPS should be Topic banned from India-Pakistan articles indefinitely as they have shown that they cannot engage in debate without antagonizing others and attacking others. If disruption continues on other projects , perhaps a site wide ban.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 04:56, 1 March 2018 This is one of the long list of perosnal attacks from the user. He has made no contributions to the project since his return some months ago (The contributions log shows only some reverts and the rest is very WP:POINTY content on talk pages etc.)
  2. 04:52, 1 March 2018 Along the same lines, accusations, aspersions.
  3. 08:02, 27 February 2018 More personal attacks. "Keep your agenda driven disruption out"
  4. 09:01, 20 February 2018 Another personal attack.
  5. 13:35, 20 February 2018 A somewhat lengthy perosnal attack. Includes, "You are fooling yourself if you really believe such nonsense", " It's a shame that you waste so much time on Wikipedia yet you don't agree with it core principles for the sake of your POV" etc.
  6. 13:43, 20 February 2018 More personal attacks.
  7. 14:25, 20 February 2018 User also dispalys classic WP:TRUTH attitude.
  8. 15:09, 20 February 2018 Another personal attack.
  9. 09:33, 21 February 2018 More of WP:POINTY comments, which may be considered benign on thie rown, but as a pattern they are clearly disruptive.
  10. 09:57, 21 February 2018 More personal attacks, like "Quit trolling already. It won't help you". "You need to worry about your disruption which is occurring throughout Wikipedia despite your very bad past that is further going to affect your future in Wikipedia. It is funniest when a disruptive POV pusher is trying to lecture."
  11. 13:13, 21 February 2018 Another personal attack, calling a troll and "I am editing since 2014, but I never saw this much nonsense ever before on Wikipedia" (He has only 100 or so edits in that period and none of them are mainspace green edits, just reverts or comments like these)
  12. 16:04, 26 February 2018 Again, another rude and antagonistic summary.
  13. 07:26, 27 February 2018 Edit warring (Diffs continue below)
  14. 04:30, 28 February 2018 Again WP:TRUTH
  15. 00:13, 1 March 2018 Deleting the RFC template started by another user and accusing them of being a sock.
  16. 04:53, 1 March 2018 Twice, added the same accusation as well.
  17. 04:58, 1 March 2018 And then again made the same edit to the RFC.
  18. 05:23, 1 March 2018 Another personal attack.
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.
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [1] 20 February 2018
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This user has made no contributions to the project and thier presence is just antagonizing others. PErhaps if an experienced editor with thousands of edits messes up and makes a personal attack or pointed remark once in a while, he can be warned about it. But this user has around a hundred or so reverts/comments and out of those this large number is antagonistic. He should be removed from area of conflict. The India-Pak articles are very contentious even to begin with, and antagonizing remarks and personal attacks like this just destroy any chance of collaboration that there may be, causing irreparable harm to wikipedia.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning MapSGV[edit]

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 MapSGV[edit]

I would like to commend the analysis made by Lorstaking below, that I have been constantly harassed by some editors who are doing nothing but personalizing small and rather easy content disputes.

Every of my comment was a reply to actual personal attack that often included false allegations that I am an SPA, sock,[2][3][4] and no evidence was ever provided for these claims.

Civil POV pushing is a huge problem where a person looks to justify his disruption by falsely labelling every kind of opposition to his disruption as "personal attack" while exhibiting clear WP:IDHT, engaging in edit warring, misrepresenting sources, and such disruption is too prevalent here. Finally what degrades the quality of this website is these editors who are socking for a long time or they have been blocked/topic banned still they are insulting other editors (such as me) by calling them a sock/SPA and engaging in disruptive POV pushing, making personal attacks. But when you dispute any of their argument you are misrepresented as someone who is making personal attacks. That is nothing but WP:GAMING. — MapSGV (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MBlaze[edit]

This request should not be entertained as the filer is a blatant sock of a disruptive topic banned editor, [5] and is on the verge of getting site banned himself. —MBL talk 06:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Lorstaking[edit]

MapSGV's actions are perfect especially when we recognize the fact that he is a productive editor who is unfortunately dealing with a disruptive wikihounding sock of a topic ban evading user.[6] Elektricity is just trying to take wrong advantage of slow SPI processes and by filing this spurious report, where he deliberately failed to notify MapSGV, he is digging his own grave. Lorstaking (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: I think you are only reading what MapSGV has said, but you are not reading what he was replying to. Users have engaged in great amount of incivility against him as well as range of false allegations in order to evade their WP:CIR issues. I can clarify the diffs right here:

  • [7] was a reply to [8] where an editor falsely labelled reliable sources as WP:FAKE not just once but two times.[9][10] Not to mention that WP:FAKE refers to fake/non-existing references, not reliable sources that meets WP:VERIFY.
  • [11] was a reply to [12] where other editor personalized dispute by telling "80 edits over a 4 year period starts making such POV edits across longstanding war articles out of no where, we have far more to worry about".
  • [13] was a reply to [14] where other editor called him to "drop your POV stick, because an SPA whose first edits involve adding contentious OR and POV across several articles doesn't have a very bright future on Wikipedia.'' Clearly a personal attack because MapSGV is not an SPA but someone who had edited subjects such as Libya, Egypt, Hinduism, cuisines, India, China, and more before the other editor made such personal attack in place of discussing the article.
  • [15] was a reply to [16] where other editor made false accusations of personal attacks and ignored the discussion about content.
  • [17] was a reply to [18], where other editor called him, "You are not only a POV warrior, but an [[WP:SPA]] whose only purpose is to cause disruption. And you are definitely [[WP:SOCK|not a new user]]" (calling him MapSGV a sockpuppet without evidence).
  • [19] this was a reply to [20], where the editor made false allegations of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, despite sources supporting the content without any question.

Above diffs involve interaction with only 2 users, who have a bad block log and history of sanctions for editing in this very same area and even in above diffs you can see clear WP:IDHT. And this all started only after MapSGV argued that results must show that India won the war because that is what zillions of reliable sources say, but these two editors went to make personal attacks on him in place of providing sources that contradict the sourced content. I think they deserves to be sanctioned for their incompetence if anything. FWIW, 6 people against 3 have agreed with what MapSGV wants on talk page.

I wouldn't go on describing rest of the diffs that are either free of ARBPAK coverage or they are a product of wikihounding and other sorts of harassment from the filer, who also was falsely alleging MapSGV to be a "sleeper-esque"[21] and "throw away sleeper"[22] for days before filing this spurious report.

Talking about personal attacks, I don't see even a single personal attack here from MapSGV or false accusations like rest of others have carried out against him. There is no prohibition on much larger level of incivilities[23] in Wikipedia. Though I understand that this allegation of "personal attack" has been overblown in this report because filer failed to find his way to misrepresent sources, use self-published and non-reliable sources on the article for his POV pushing, hence he resorted to filing a spurious report. You can also have a look at the SPI where Capitals00 shows the evidence of him filing same spurious reports from his main account.

I would better recommend this report should closed as spurious or the filer should be blocked for his deception and using the noticeboard for battleground. We should let the SPI have its run. Lorstaking (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning MapSGV[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I would like to see the outcome of the SPI before taking action here. Otherwise, the evidence presented seems to consist of very low-level incivility, though the sheer volume of it could be a problem. GoldenRing (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I do think this is actionable. Personal attacks are prohibited, irrespective of whether the other user is a sockpuppet. @MapSGV: please respond promptly. Sandstein 18:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The response by MapSGV is unsatisfactory, as it only attempts to excuse MapSGV's misconduct, rather than convince us that it will not reoccur. Incivility by others is no excuse for incivility of one's own. The scope of the problem as demonstrated by the diffs in evidence requires action. MapSGV has made only 223 edits so far, which of course raises socking questions of its own given the user's fluency in Wikipedia jargon, but it matters here insofar as this means that the 18 diffs reported here constitute close to 10% of the user's total edits. This is an unacceptable signal-to-noise ratio. I am indefinitely blocking MapSGV (as a normal admin action) as a net negative for Wikipedia. If they are unblocked, I anticipate imposing a topic ban. Sandstein 22:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man[edit]

No action. GoldenRing (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2018 (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 The Rambling Man[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 21:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#The Rambling Man prohibited :

The Rambling Man is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. TRM asks if anyone in Women in Red has articles to nominate for DYK for March 8 Not a vio, obviously
  2. "Well, yes, it was just an opportunity to promote women in general. I understand if you're no longer interested in that. Sorry I mentioned it." Insulting the motivations of the two editors who declined the offer
  3. "...the fact that no-one here is interested in getting eight women hooks onto the main page for the whole day is clear..." Again insulting the editors who'd rather create articles than shepherd nominations they didn't want to make in the first place
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. Blocked for violating the same prohibition in March and September 2017 - see enforcement log in case
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning The Rambling Man[edit]

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 The Rambling Man[edit]

Statement by power~enwiki[edit]

This looks like a complete waste of time. Saying that people aren't interested in DYK isn't insulting their motivations. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by GreenMeansGo[edit]

Sarek, please do us all a favor and withdraw this. This is silly. GMGtalk 21:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning The Rambling Man[edit]

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


In addition to the standard WP:ARBPIA restrictions, Al-Andalusi is restricted to one edit or one series of consecutive edits per 24 hours on an article for six months. --NeilN talk to me 20:54, 4 March 2018 (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 Al-Andalusi[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 07:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Al-Andalusi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. Revision as of 07:43, 25 February 2018 revert 1 in Middle East Monitor. Much of the revert is of this Revision as of 12:56, 30 January 2018 edit by an extended confirm user.
  2. Latest revision as of 08:07, 25 February 2018 revert 2 in Middle East Monitor of content added by an extended confirmed user [24].
  3. Revision as of 16:14, 23 February 2018 Addition of category "Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict" to Middle East Monitor, indicating ARBPIA awareness.
  4. Revision as of 07:51, 25 February 2018 revert1 of Middle East Eye - removal of some 45% of the article's contents. Much of this content by reverted back into the article in Revision as of 11:59, 23 January 2018 by an extended confirmed user (and then some).
  5. Latest revision as of 08:06, 25 February 2018 revert2 of Middle East Eye, of content added in Revision as of 08:03, 25 February 2018.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. Revision as of 09:01, 8 June 2017 6 Month Topic Ban for personal attacks and 1RR.
  2. Revision as of 09:57, 9 June 2017 1 week block for not following topic ban
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

As may be seen here Al-Andalusi talk page I requested Al-Andalusi self revert [25]. This was replied to with a Nope, I did not. [26]. user:EdJohnston also [27] said this appeared to be a 1RR violation, and urged Al-Andalusi to self-revert. Following a discussion on why this was or was not a revert Al-Andalusi concluded by [28] Like I said, any change to an article can be framed as a "revert" if one wants to push a certain narrative. Here, you are referencing an edit made a month ago, which tells me how ridiculous this revert claim is. I can go back to some of your edits and demonstrate the same, and claim you've been reverting and violating 1RR on articles. As an editor, it's not expected of me to review an article's history and check each and every edit made to an article, before I can make a change to it, and hope that I'm not "reverting" and violating 1RR.. Some 10 hours later - we're here.

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

  • Willingness to self-revert - I filed this report after my reading of a long user talk page discussion ended with a stmt indicating clear unwillingness, in my eyes, to self revert or account for edits being reverts - and a day after the inital talk page exchange.Icewhiz (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • ARBPIA relevance: revert2 in Middle East Monitor and Middle East Eye are clearly both ARBPIA releated as it is directly involves Hamas. Revert1 to Middle East Monitor also involves Hamas, and the organization itself covers Israel-Palestine as its main focus arguably making any edit to it ARBPIA related. It could perhaps be argued that revert1 in Middle East Eye is not ARBPIA (there are merits either way), however as revert2 is clearly ARBPIA and the limitation is per page per ARBCOM decision - Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. and not on a per edit basis - this would appear to be a violation regardless due to ARBPIAness of revert2.Icewhiz (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding the attack on Capitals00 below - I did not canvass or contact him. He had however filed the previous AE report against Al-Andalusi on Acid throwing (a non-ARBPIA article in general, but ARBPIA related in the Gaza/West Bank section covering usage of this by Islamists against so called collaboraters) which led to the previous topic ban. I would assume he has AE watched.Icewhiz (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Kingsindian: - most of the content in the 3 successive edits by Al-Andalusi between 05:04 and 07:43 - combined diff are reverts of 12:56, 30 January 2018 by User:Zakawer who is in good standing. The grandson bit has been there for a while - however most of the other content removed is quite recent (not that technically this should be an issue - WP:3RR (modified by WP:1RR from 3 to 1, but retaining the definition of revert) does not stipulate a time limit or an age requirement regarding undoing of other editor's actions. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.). In any event - this is for the most part quite recent material - and as this is not an often edited article - Zakawer was the last major edit prior to Al-Andalusi editing the page - making this very close in terms of diffs.Icewhiz (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Kingsindian: @NeilN: - I had not intended to bring this up vis-a-vis previous requests, however I shall since it has been brought up here. @Shrike: asked them to self-revert [29], as did I [30] this revert violated the original author clause in regards to edits 30 minutes previously - which was not done. I also asked TP request self-revert on original authorship and revert which was not done - they cited BLPCRIME - however this is a PUBLICFIGURE, and this is not relevant (besides other problems here). Excluding the 1RR vios in this report - there were 4 previous requests (1 Shrike, 3 myself), of which 2 were not done (both involved the "original author provision", however they were clear violations of it). I did not report these at the time due to a combination of WP:AGF (e.g. on the first example he wasn't editing for 3 days - so I AGFed he may have been away) and since I do not report everything. What made me report this one - was the talk page reply to the request which treated "reverts" as "narrative", and labelled the request as "ridiculous".Icewhiz (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @NeilN: The proposed remedy would not resolve the "original author" clause addition to ARBPIA (it would be good on straight 1rr) - a problem above as well as in requests by Al-Andalusi, e.g. this mistaken request (as I was not the original author) for a self revert on my TP Revision as of 04:24, 28 February 2018 - half of which was a category written in Farsi (which Al-Andalusi reverted back in, and requested a self revert on).Icewhiz (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
Latest revision as of 07:36, 26 February 2018

Discussion concerning Al-Andalusi[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Al-Andalusi[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Added - Feb 28:

Technically, any edit can be said to reverse some of a previous edit; however, this is not the way the community interprets reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy. Wholesale reversions (complete reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version.
  1. I was not involved in the article around the time the first edit was made by Zakawer, a month ago.
  2. I was not aware that I was actually undoing someone else's edits as part of my changes. As far I was concerned at the time of my editing, I was doing routing editing. So far, NO evidence has been presented that shows that I was aware of this fact at the time (directly or indirectly).
  3. The fact that the admins are split on this indicates that (a) there is no clear definition of reverting, and what properly distinguishes reversions from edits in general, and (2) there is no clear definition of "recent" here. A month old, 6-months old? a year old? I think any admin worth a damn knows what a revert is, and "revert 1" is not one of them.
  4. That said, this is gaming the system of the worst degree. In fact, the originator of the report spells it out here for you guys: the definition of revert does not stipulate a time limit or an age requirement regarding undoing of other editor's actions. I have no doubt in my mind, and this is already made clear from the report, that Icewhiz would not have found it an issue to cite a year old edit (if it was available) to support his claims that I partially reverted it.
  5. I've had a look around at a few pages, and if that's the rule, then almost every editor is violating the rule many times. I don't really understand the thinking behind this at all. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN:, you claim that my intent was clear. What was my intent? Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: Sir, your ignorance is showing. You use the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas interchangeably and I think it's time to clarify a few things. (1) Hamas no longer claims that it is part of the Muslim Brotherhood, and made that official in their new charter declared in May 2017. (2) the main Muslim Brotherhood is not even a 1RR article to begin with. Of the troubling edit that you are using against me, 95% of it revolved around the Brotherhood, not Hamas. The mention of "Hamas" in the "See also" section is quite tangential and I think you will agree with it. I kindly ask that you re-consider your position in light of the above. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: That's not a response. Sorry. Your claim that my intent was to "remove content that states the site is sympathetic to Hamas" is demonstrably false. Look at the Middle East Monitor#Criticism section, and you'll find that I left sourced "pro-Hamas" accusations there. Not to mention, Muslim Brotherhood != Hamas. The diffs speak for themselves indeed. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Kingsindian:. I don't have a problem with self-reverting in this case. This is the very first thing I stated in my statement. I was just waiting for a clear confirmation that my first edit indeed counts as a revert. That said, it is clear that NeilN and GR have made up their minds from day 1, and further discussion would be futile. Their one-sidedness is glaringly apparent. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Capitals00[edit]

I had resumed watching editing of Al-Andalusi since he came off from a topic ban in December. I could see continued POV editing[31][32][33] that led the topic ban before, but this time I had decided not to report Al-Andalusi myself. Unfortunately, it didn't helped Al-Andalusi.

I must say that Icewhiz has made best efforts to mentor Al-Andalusi about his violations,[34][35] however Al-Andalusi is not willing to improve. Continued POV editing[36][37] is concerning. Either a topic ban or a block is warranted. Capitals00 (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

It is deceptive of Al-Andalusi to claim that he doesn't know me because he can't really forget these two ARE complaints: [38][39] that I had filed, yet he claims that this is a "sign of either Wikipedia:Sock puppetry or WP:Canvassing", this alone shows that Al-Andalusi treats Wikipedia to be his WP:BATTLEGROUND. Capitals00 (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: I have his talk page on watchlist as well, I did interacted him before filing a complaint here,[40] obviously when I said you have "made best efforts to mentor" to mentor him, I was referring to your discussions made on his talk page that I read since last December. Capitals00 (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
In the light of above WP:IDHT from Al-Andalusi[41] I believe that indef topic ban is the solution. He already had a 6 month topic ban back in June 2017, which he had violated and was blocked for a week. Even after all that there has been a lack of improvement. Capitals00 (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown[edit]

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

Statement by Kingsindian[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

What is the "revert 1" cited by NeilN a revert of? Kingsindian   09:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: May I suggest another approach? If you look at Al-Andalusi's talkpage, you'll see a couple more instances where Icewhiz asked them to self-revert due to 1RR and they (eventually) did. That suggests that they genuinely thought that this case was not a case of 1RR. The main point is that the first "revert" was of an edit more than a month ago (actually it has been fought over for years).

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

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

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

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

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

A more general comment: during the last ARCA request, I raised this point (of an edit potentially being the revert of an edit indefinitely long in the past) multiple times. My warnings were pooh-poohed by the Arbs who said the scenarios that I was painting were all implausible and the admins at AE will apply common sense anyway, etc. Now, amirite or amirite? I suggested (tongue-in-cheek) in that section that we block a random ArbCom member when my warnings come true. Kingsindian   06:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: Yes, that's what used to be a safe practice to deal with the tweaked 1RR in this area. Unfortunately, with the recent ARCA request, that no longer suffices, because you have to wait 24 hours after the the other person's revert to be completely safe, and what counts as a revert isn't clear. Yeah, it's stupid, but I warned against it repeatedly and ArbCom passed it anyway.

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

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Al-Andalusi[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This does not appear actionable to me. To begin with, no specific remedy that is to be enforced is cited, but only a whole case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, which comprises several remedies. Assuming that the 1RR restriction is to be enforced, the cited diffs don't establish, in my view, clear-cut 1RR violations, but rather situations that can come about in the course of ordinary editing (putting aside the merits of these edits by either side). Because 1RR is a very problematic restriction that is easily violated in the course of even constructive back-and-forth editing, I'm very reluctant to act on it except in the clearest of cases, i.e. repeated direct reverts. Sandstein 10:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Revert 1, Revert 2. I'd say that was a 1RR violation. --NeilN talk to me 15:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Kingsindian, this addition. --NeilN talk to me 13:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Al-Andalusi You are citing an essay. Policy says "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Admins look at the intent of the edits and your intent here was clear. There is also no admin "split" here. Four admins (including EdJohnston) agree you violated WP:1RR. A three to six month topic ban seems appropriate. --NeilN talk to me 14:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Al-Andalusi To remove content that states the site is sympathetic to Hamas. I'm not saying the removals were not justified (or were justified). I'm saying the intent of your edits is clear. --NeilN talk to me 14:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • This response from an editor coming off a six month topic ban in December is not encouraging at all. The diffs speak for themselves. --NeilN talk to me 15:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Kingsindian: Looking at this, I would say that Al-Andalusi doesn't understand WP:1RR, period. And looking at the subsequent block, it was again involving Hamas. Is there anything Al-Andalusi brings to the table that would justify always having an extra warning step before reporting? And bear in mind it's pretty easy to duck these self-revert requests by laying low until someone else uses their WP:1RR opportunity and reverts. --NeilN talk to me 20:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Kingsindian: 1) If Al-Andalusi understood WP:1RR there wouldn't be editors constantly reminding them to follow it. 2) We're not applying WP:1RR to only content changed within the last 24 hours. That's a non-starter. 3) A month is hardly "indefinitely long" - please don't resort to hyperbole. Bottom line: If you remove some content and another editor adds similar content then don't remove it within 24 hours of your first removal to be safe. Sandstein, do you have any further comments here? --NeilN talk to me 16:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Al-Andalusi: I'm trying to come up with a solution that would eliminate the need for other editors to constantly ask you to self revert. "Al-Andalusi is restricted to one edit or one series of consecutive edits per 24 hours on an article" would probably work. What do you think? --NeilN talk to me 19:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • If no admin objects I will be implementing a restriction as follows: "In addition to the standard WP:ARBPIA restrictions, Al-Andalusi is restricted to one edit or one series of consecutive edits per 24 hours on an article for six months." --NeilN talk to me 00:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't have scads of time to look into this. I don't think we should be insisting that editors bringing complaints here must fill out the form exactly correctly in every respect or we will simply dismiss the complaint; this is not a judicial proceeding and it seems clear enough to me what the complaint is getting at. I agree with NeilN that the diffs he links seem a clear 1RR violation (not to mention that this also appears to be a revert of a recent edit in the same 24-hour window). And Al-Andalusi's response here is not encouraging. My gut feeling is that spending three to six months away from ARBPIA would be a good thing. GoldenRing (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @NeilN: actually I think your first diff is a revert of this - the original page creation back in 2015. While this perhaps makes that revert a bit more muddy, I still think it's clearly a revert and part of an effort to remove Islamist associations. And even without it, I still count two reverts in 24 hours. GoldenRing (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @GoldenRing: Can you please recheck? I don't see where you're getting that from. --NeilN talk to me 17:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that the edits cited by NeilN were indeed reverts. I think a few months away from the topic might be a good idea as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


Enough is enough. This entire report has become a wall of minutia, none of it actionable by itself, and frankly I'm left with the choice of doing nothing, or topic banning everyone who was foolish enough to participate in this mud slinging mess. WP:AE reports need to be concise, need to be convincing, need to be as simple as possible. This isn't ANI or a bar brawl, and frankly, there is enough blame to go around. Dismissing everything without action. Everyone who participates should consider themselves fully informed of the sanctions available, and if needed, sanctions can be issued to individuals without additional prior notice. Dennis Brown - 01:43, 7 March 2018 (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 Mar4d[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 03:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Mar4d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS 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 
  • 20 February 2018 Falsely accusing other editors of POV pushing "in complete mockery of WP:ARBIPA" instead of rebutting their arguments. This is the first of the many ad hominem comments made by this user on the article's talk page.
  • 20 February 2018 Another ad hominem attack directed against the other editor, and this was after he was told to focus on the content.[42]
  • 21 February 2018 Again launches ad hominem personal attacks on MapSVG with unfounded accusations in place of rebutting his arguments.
  • 21 February 2018 Doubles down on the personal attacks, calling MapSVG, among other things, a sock without evidence.
  • 22 February 2018 Deliberately falsified the numbers with a misleading edit summary that he was fixing "per ref" and the "numbers are unsourced", when in actual fact the sources (both in the infobox and in the India–Pakistan military confrontation (2016–present)#2018 section) clearly supported the numbers.
  • And, the explanation that he gave on the talk page — that there were no figures available for 2016[43] — gave the impression that he didn't even read the refs because the figures from 2016 were already sourced in the infobox (see refs [20]–[22]), and this was discussed already a couple of months ago.[44] He never replied when I quizzed him asking if he had even read the sources.[45]
  • Added objectionable material on Rape in India[46] by adding his opinion, "However, in reality", "further exacerbated the crisis", and using unreliable sources. One editor reverted him for using unreliable sources and he reverted that editor saying that his sources are "RS"[47] and made another controversial edit[48], another editor reverted him pointing out the use of unreliable sources,[49] he again restored the reverted content[50] and left a firovolous warning on the talk page of the editor that he didn't provided any reason to revert him,[51] after that the discussion on talk page was held, where everyone opposed his edits, and in middle of the discussion he again removed the content that was being supported by the involved editors[52] though required a little bit of improvement that took no time,[53] but unnecessary edit warring from Mar4d clearly making 3 reverts in such sensitive article is concerning.
  • On Kashmir conflict:
  • Reverted King Zebu because he made his edits "without consensus"[54]
  • Reverted Kautilya3 because he made his edits without adhering to "WP:NOCON and WP:BRD"[55]
  • RegentsPark criticized Mar4d that his "reversion does not make sense"[56]
  • Reverted Kautilya3[57] by disregarding WP:NOCON and WP:BRD himself, the content was being discussed and had no consensus. And, it took him ony two minutes to post a request at WP:RFPP for full page protection of his preferred version,[58] despite that version had no consensus.
  • Quickly reverted the IP's revert of non-consenus controversial content[59] by disregarding the sanctions placed on this page. The first point of the sanctions clearly reads "A second revert without discussion restriction. A second revert of any edit, however minor, that is done without an explanation on the talk page will lead to an immediate block."[60]
  • What's even more concerning is that the content dispute was raised on WP:DRN on 14 February but Mar4d never commented on it, despite being a party of the dispute.[61]
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. See Mar4d's block log
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [62].
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Mar4d was adamant in his personal opinion that the Siachen conflict is an "ongoing conflict" and adding a result "is like adding a conclusion on Kashmir conflict",[63] despite multiple reliable sources saying to the contrary that the conflict ended with the ceasefire in 2003. One just has to take a glance at the talk page to notice the outright personal attacks he made on others (including false accusations of socking, SPA, etc), not to mention that he kept engaging in stonewalling, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, repeating the same personal opinion over and over again, and resorting to ad hominem strategies in place of refuting the arguments of others.

As per discussion with Sandstein on MapSVG's talk page,[64] Sandstein told that he "will take a look" if a separate report is filed against those who also engaged in misconduct. The report against MapSVG was filed by a user who was already under a SPI investigation[65] and the report resulted in sanctions on MapSGV despite much of the diffs were showing his responses to ad hominem personal attacks and false accusations made by Mar4d, despite objections by multiple editors, and Mar4d's misconduct is much more than just incivility because it also concerns edit warring, treatment of Wikipedia as battleground, use of unreliable sources, misrepresentation of sources and lack of collaborative approach to resolve content dispute. For all these factors Mar4d should be sanctioned. —MBL talk 03:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Mar4d, will you stop beating around the bush and tell us how your ad hominem attacks, false accusations of WP:SPA, socking, etc do not constitute personal attacks and why you should not be sanctioned for them?
He has made a lot of baseless accusations and engaged in deception. I will just rebut a few of them:
  • Mar4d was the one who was actually engaged in "provocative conduct", as evident from the diffs I supplied above. I never defended anyone's "personal attacks", as Mar4d claims. I provided a multitude of reliable sources to back up my claims so did the other editor, MapSVG, unlike Mar4d, who is still WP:NOTGETTINGIT and repeating his personal opinion. I focused all my comments on the content, unlike Mar4d, who was simply resorting to ad hominem strategies.
  • Mar4d is simply deceiving, when he says, "MapSGV's additions which MBL later pursued, apart from constituting tendentious editing, contain basic factual inaccuracies including WP:SYNTH." Either Mar4d do not understand what WP:SYNTH means or he is just deceiving like I said, and if it's the former, he shouldn't be editing in this topic area at all. He is the one who engages in tendentious editing all the time. He really ought to stop making allegations that he cannot substantiate.
  • The version[66] prior to my edit had the death count at "193–201 soldiers killed". Mar4d deliberately changed the numbers, in this edit with a misleading edit summary, to 158. His version contained the following refs in the infobox: "[20][21][22][23]c[24][25][26]". These refs clearly supported the death count of 195 (not including the BSF claims). His claim that there were "lack of 2016 figures" is obviously false as demonstrated in the refs. The fact that he did not responded when I quizzed him just strengthens my claim that he didn't even read those refs.
  • Such deception alone is grounds enough for a sanction, in my opinion.
  • And, lastly if Mar4d thinks that I'm engaging in "BATTLEGROUND", "problematic editing" etc then he should file an ARE report and present evidence, and if he fails to do so then he should be sanctioned as soon as possible, because such groundless accusations are completely unacceptable. —MBL talk 12:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Statement exceeding 500 words removed as an administrative action. Sandstein 22:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Dennis Brown: you asked to provide the outcome of an RFC that went against Mar4d's preferred choice and then you will have something to make your decision on. However, misconduct is not just limited to Siachen conflict, it also concerns other subjects, as others have already noted. In particular, concerns have been raised regarding Mar4d's misconduct on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research and Analysis Wing activities in Pakistan, and I would urge you to read the closure of the AfD and compare the closing admin's note with every comment of Mar4d as well as a few others who !voted there and have also participated in this report. This case seems already crystal clear that who is engaging in sanctionable disruptive behavior. —MBL talk 05:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Dennis Brown: as you can see, at least a couple of editors have already mentioned that Mar4d refused to respond at the DRN that Kautilya3 had filed following a series of edit-wars, where Mar4d was a party (along with Dilpa kaur, NadirAli, Kautilya3) since he was also making reverts on the article that led to DRN. But I'll repeat it again:
You can see in the edit summaries of Mar4d in the reverts that he made:
  • "Restore longstanding text; please do not make such unilateral changes involving major content removal without consensus on talk"[67]
  • "AFAIK, there is a section on talk where modifications to this entire section are under discussion, disputed content is in complete disregard and violation of that; please note WP:NOCON and WP:BRD"[68]
  • Following these edit wars, Mar4d had been notified on 14 February via his talk page about the filing of this dispute on WP:DRN by Kautilya3.[69] But Mar4d was not participating on DRN and he was still making controversial reverts on article during the course of DRN.
  • Here's the timeline:
  • On 24 February, NadirAli made major edits[70] that were reverted by Kautilya3,[71] saying: "Rv; I don't agree this is WP:NPOV; please wait for the discussion to be concluded".
  • On 24 February, Mar4d reverted Kautilya3[72] without gaining consensus for the controversial edits, and like I already said, it took him only 2 minutes to request full protection for his preferred version[73], then some IP reverted Mar4d[74], but Mar4d reverted the IP[75] in violation of the first point of the page sanctions.[76]
  • While NadirAli and Kautilya3 discussed a lot, Mar4d never participated in the DRN until it ended on 1 March as failed.[77] Clearly Mar4d had enough time to respond and since he is interested in this article and wanted to retain the controversial content, he had to make efforts in solving the content dispute raised in DRN. —MBL talk 16:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Mar4d[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Mar4d[edit]

As Willard84 noted above, this is yet another unsubstantiated, half-baked report with absolutely no substance. Note the same recurrent theme of allegations and accusations by a highly-involved editor(s); and the same, usual pattern of misrepresentation, and near-farcical cherry-pickings. What is deeply regrettable is the constant misuse of forums like arbitration, ANI, and other noticeboards, for settling personal vendettas and mudslinging over content disputes, to the extent of a WP:WITCHHUNT. The ultimate objective, it seems, is to drive out experienced, well-meaning editors from a topic area plagued by nationalist edit-warring. MBL has an axe to grind over their multiple content disputes and problematic editing, and in my defence below, I'd like to point out why:

  • The article in question is Siachen conflict, where the infobox summarised the conflict as following: Ceasefire since 2003. This has been the longstanding version of the article as covered by WP:RS, and is predated by three separate discussions on talk (please see this, this, and more particularly, this consensus). It is therefore surprising when MapSGV, an account with barely 80 edits prior to February and no history on the article (yet strangely well-versed with editing norms and Wikipedia jargon), turns up and replaces the "ceasefire" on the infobox with "Indian victory". There is no edit summary let alone any explanation. Any admin who is remotely familiar with WP:ARBIPA knows these sanctions are in place to prevent exactly this type of disruption. This edit was later raised on the talk by another editor (as it rightfully should be), and MBL was one of the first editors to defend MapSGV's editing and personal attacks. Since a large part of this complaint actually seems to focus on my interactions with MapSGV, I'd like to point out MapSGV has just been topic banned for 6 months (which was downgraded from a block). Since MBL apparently wasn't satisfied with that sanction, the timing of this A.R.E. is honestly questionable. Please note that so far as my interactions with MapSGV are concerned, I am not the only user, neither the first one, who raised red flags over his editing [78] [79]. The allegation of "unfounded accusations" holds no ground, and should there be any doubt, please do revisit the provocative conduct which actually led to MapSGV being sanctioned in the first place. .
  • I won't get too much into the nitty-gritties of the content dispute here, but the core of the dispute mainly stems from the issue that MapSGV's additions which MBL later pursued, apart from constituting tendentious editing, contain basic factual inaccuracies including WP:SYNTH. The article is on the current, ongoing conflict over the disputed Siachen glacier (part of the Kashmir conflict), whose status quo has been dicated by a ceasefire since 2003. Any editor well-versed in WP:MILHIST knows what a ceasefire means. It is not on the 1984 operation whereby India occupied the glacier (also summarised), which has a separate article under Operation Meghdoot. There's a difference between both.
  • As for this edit, this took into account the existing references supplied, which cited 138 casualties for 2017 and 20 casualties for 2017. The confusion appeared to stem from the (lack of) 2016 figures, as the sources did not appear to indicate how the updated figure of "206–212" was calculated by MBL. Again, this was perfectly reasonable, and I left a query in regards to this.
  • Please refer to this discussion which, unsurprisingly, MBL is not even part of. There is no foul play here. There were consistency and summary issues with the lead of that article as seconded in that discussion, and if you have any doubt, please refer in particular to the comments and sources there left by admin Vanamonde93.
  • Lastly, you really need to read and understand WP:CONSENSUS if you want to edit with the "collaborative approach" you talk about. Because as it stands, you visibly have no idea let alone even a fraction of involvement in the discussion on Kashmir conflict. Perhaps, just perhaps, if you had even bothered to read the talk page, you would've at least been informed enough to know what issues around half a discussion editors there are talking about. And thinly-veiled threats/stunts like this [80] [81] hardly qualify as WP:CON. Mar4d (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Response to AshLin by Mar4d

Other comment/s

    • I also concede that the conversation at Talk:Siachen conflict got heated, and out of hand too quickly. Revisiting it, it certainly could have been more toned down and succinct, at least on my part, irrespective of what was being dished out left and right. And sure, if there are outstanding concerns with regards to a user's editing history, I'll try to keep it contained to an WP:SPI or relevant noticeboard. Point taken. Mar4d (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
That being said, there's some tremendous level of cherry picking going on, on behalf of deeply involved parties. Therefore, much of the accusations and diffs here are completely skewed, one-sided, and extremely out of context. I have neither the time nor resources to go back and dig out every "he said, she said" diff. This vain exercise is essentially cherry-picking one edit of a hundred to build a case, but one does not equal a hundred. Mar4d (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Statement exceeding 500 words removed as an administrative action. Sandstein 22:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Dennis Brown: There is no bad faith at all here, and this is not conduct based. The case at the WP:DRN was genuinely (and positively) put forth by NadirAli, which covered the main points under contention. The purpose of DRN is to complement or help form consensus where there's an existing, and in this case longstanding, dispute, and any involved party is free to add as much or little summary of the issues they feel need to be raised, if compelled. If something is achieved from this mediation, the merrier. The main issues were raised sufficiently as you can see. Unfortunately, I have been inactive the entire last week of February owing to real life engagements, so there was no voluntary commitment I could provide. However, I did leave my two cents and a suggestion on the talk page prior, on 24 February [82], to indicate a way forward for all. Mar4d (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Capitals00[edit]

His conduct on AfD of Research and Analysis Wing activities in Pakistan has been also concerning where he is tirelessly defending an article that is surely going to get deleted. Some of his comments over there are:

  • "another disposable !vote for the sake of !voting"[83]
  • "too many users voting on this AfD seem to be involved."[84]
  • "you acquainted with all these acronyms in your such short time of editing"[85]

These comments seems to be unnecessary assumption of bad faith and attempts to dispute the credibility of the editor who made their vote!, and that is also a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. These comments had to be made on content or why the article should be kept or deleted.

While other recent examples of disruption have been already provided, there are also some examples that date a bit earlier, but still relevant enough to show the long term pattern of nationalistic POV editing.

  • The scenario of censoring result parameter that mentions "Indian victory" [86](with reliable sources), then making personal attacks on his opponent by calling them an SPA or sock[87] and using his own personal opinion against tons of reliable sources, such disruption is not new or limited to Siachen conflict.
Just like this he was also removing "Indian victory" on Umayyad campaigns in India[88] and then edit warring the editor[89] while removing the reliably sourced content and not getting consensus for his edits that were likely never going to be accepted.
On talk page, he made personal attacks against the editor such as, "I haven't asked for a brushdown on WP:NPOV, least of all from an obvious WP:SPA"[90], while there was no incivility from this editor and he was not an SPA either.
Continued to have WP:LASTWORD on talk page despite disagreement from 3 editors[91] who supported what reliable source state, not personal opinions of Mar4d.
  • Independence Day (India): Edit warring[92][93] against IPs that were removing the problematic content[94][95] added by a paid editing sock.[96] I reverted Mar4d and opened a section on talk page,[97] where he made no response. Point is that why he even defends the problematic content that is not actually defensible or he thinks of stopping only when the objections have been made by one of his common opponent?
  • 2016–18 Kashmir unrest: Invoking WP:BANREVERT by restoring problematic edits of a paid editing sock [98], he reverted Mblaze Lightning who removed the problematic content[99] and then Mar4d restored the same content again[100] without gaining consensus on talk page.[101]

If Mar4d had been sanctioned for such disruption earlier, I am sure that we wouldn't be having the problems highlighted by Mblaze Lightning above. Capitals00 (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement exceeding 500 words removed as an administrative action. Sandstein 22:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by WBG[edit]

  • And, it took him ony two minutes to post a request at WP:RFPP for full page protection of his preferred version, despite that version had no consensus.--This is definitely non-actionable.See WP:WRONGVERSION.
  • What's even more concerning is that the content dispute was raised on WP:DRN on 14 February but Mar4d never commented on it, despite being a party of the dispute--DRN is voluntary.
  • I don't see how Mar4D's behaviour at the article and corresponding discussion at Talk:Rape in India#Revert or at 2016–18 Kashmir unrest is remotely disruptive/sanctionable.
  • I will agree though, that his conduct at Talk:Siachen conflict could have been somewhat better.
  • At any case, I don't suppport MapSVG's T-ban and will neither support any over-the-top action over here.A reminder to Mar4D to comment on content and not on contributors will be probably sufficient enough.~ Winged BladesGodric 06:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by NadirAli[edit]

This looks like the latest effort in MBlaze Lightning's series of spurious reports against opposing editors.[102]

None of the diffs show any sort of problematic statements from Mar4d, who is one of our encyclopedia's most productive editors. If there are some statements from him about MapSGV's provocative behaviour that should not be a call for alarm because even the administrator Sandstein is suspicious of that account.[103]. I do wonder why users like MBlaze Lightning and Capitals00 are so desperate to support MapSGV and so quick to file spurious reports. Capitals00[104] left no stone unturned to argue against MapSGV's block and topic ban. Such desperation was in their tone as if it was their own account they were defending. But none of these 2 had any presence on his talkpage before the block.

  • As for the reverts shown[105][106] on Kashmir conflict there is nothing wrong with them because there is a policy of reverting contentious new edits while they are being discussed on the talkpage according to WP:NOCON.
  • Reverting Kautilya3 here[107] was not a problem because contrary to MBlaze Lightning's claims, the version Mar4d restored did have WP:CONSENSUS from the deeply involved editors.[108] No less than five users wanted it. Only one user, Kautilya3 himself, opposed it and he even refused to explain his objections (He said So, if and when I come to review the proposed paragraphs, these are the principles I will use. When we run into disagreements, I will take them to WP:DRN. For the time being, let me just say that none of the proposed sections is ready for the mainspace).[109] WP:1AM does not overturn the WP:CONSENSUS of everyone else.
  • Reverting this disruptive IP[110] ought be the action of any normal Wikipedian.
  • There was also no 1RR violation. No second reverts within 24 hours.

I do think a WP:BOOMERANG should be this case's outcome. Owais Khursheed filed an WP:SPI last year which the administrators ignored.[111] The SPI claimed that the filer was using IP socks to harass opposing editors. Now we saw this behavior from an Indian IP again today at Talk:Kashmir conflict.[112] I translated it and reported it To CambridgeBayWeather:.[113] I would suggest a full investigation. Enough is really enough.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Response to Kautilya3[edit]
  • I am not surprised by Kautilya3's comment given the content disputes he has. Pakistani editors are receiving threats from Indian

IP [114][[115][116] in the background of WP:WITCHHUNTS such as these [117][118][119][120] involving false accusations against opposing editors by Kautilya3, MBlaze Lightning and Capitals00. A lot is explained, especially when there are suspicions of WP:TAGTEAM[121][122] and IP socking[123]. No tagteaming from Mar4d who has a long and lengthy involvement in the content dispute at Talk:Kashmir conflict unlike those who turn up to do reverts and deliver one liners in support of Kautilya3's position with hardly any other talkpage input.[124][125].

  • I took an analysis of Talk:Siachen conflict. I found Mar4d's side of the discussion very constructive. He was very polite and far more interested in sourcing than the other users whose obsession was sneaking in 'Indian victory'. Granted there were a few times he made comments outside of content but that was in response to incendiary comments from MapSGV[126][127], MBlaze Lightning[128] and Capitals00[129].--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Response to Kautilya3 again[edit]

To Dennis Brown: The claims made by Kautilya3 are wrong and the diffs shown are out of context. The DRN dispute was over a sentence while the later 2 reverts (none on the same day) by Mar4d concerned three larger sections. I will provide the context here.

A large dispute over three POV sections began in late October between me, Mar4d, KA$HMIR and Kautilya3,[130] which led to two Rfcs. After the Rfcs ended KA$HMIR started on the 11th of January a new section on Talk:Kashmir conflict where an alternative text for three POV sections were being discussed.[131] I was keeping an eye on the talkpage because I had previously been part of these discussions with Kautilya3. Meanwhile discussion between KA$HMIR and Dilpa kaur on the alternative texts continued with some uncooperative input from Kautilya3. The discussion went dormant. We later found out that KA$HMIR had been busy when he responded[132] to Dilpa kaur's ping 13 days later.[133]

During the dormancy period there was a dispute over a sentence modified by Kautilya3 in one of the three sections awaiting alternative texts. Mar4d first reverted that edit on the 9th of February because there had been text which was deleted in the process of Kautilya3's edit, which had the misleading edit summary of Copy edit and add sources. The edit actually deleted text.[134] That is when the smaller dispute began in the background of the larger dispute since October.

Kautilya3's addition of new material was first objected to at the talkpage by Dilpa kaur at 1:45 10 February 2018. It was only after the talkpage objection was raised to Kautilya's edit that Mar4d made this second revert[135], which was appropriate as a discussion had begun over the new contentious edit.

After this the discussion on the sentence went to DRN (note not the three sections), in which I participated. As Winged Blades points out DRN discussion is voluntary and it was probably wise that Mar4d did not participate, as the discussion between me and Kautilya3 failed, as had all other previous discussions on the talkpage between me, Kautilya3 and Mar4d at Talk:Kashmir conflict.

While the DRN on the sentence (the smaller dispute) was getting nowhere, KA$HMIR who says he had been busy arrived and gave us his alternative texts (for the sections contested as part of the larger dispute). Everyone except Kautilya3 agreed to them so I added them into the mainspace. The new text had gained WP:CONSENSUS. That Kautilya3 was WP:STONEWALLING, by giving vague declarations that the text was ″not ready for mainspace″ (without even explaining his objections to the text), does not change anything because his was a case of WP:1AM which does not affect WP:CONSENSUS.

Kautilya3 reverted my addition of the alternative text which had consensus,[136] following which Mar4d asked him to explain his specific objections to the text,[137] which Kautilya3 did not, only giving vague statements like ″it was not ready for mainspace″.[138]--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

A call for behavioural investigation[edit]

Following that a mysterious IP from India arrives to revert Mar4d and threatens to get him blocked like Xinjao if he does not keep Kautilya3's version.[139] Mar4d reverting that[140] should not be a problem.

But the question that leads us to is who is this mystery IP? What this mystery IP threatened is unfolding as we speak on this AE thread. I would call for a behavioural investigation on the filer and his supporters with the IPs. They have already been taken to SPI because of similar activity of the Kautilya3-supporting Indian IPs[141] but the administrators closed it because they thought in December that there was insufficient evidence to link the accounts. I would call for a fresh new investigation.

I will be keeping an eye on Kashmir conflict and Talk:Kashmir conflict because we have just received threats that some Indian accounts are going to turn up to support Kautilya3 this time to get ″rid″ of the consensus version.[142]. Translation provided {{to}CambridgeBayWeather}} here.

This is not surprising. The filer and Capitals00 have rocked up to the article before to do reverts to Kautilya3's versions[143][144] They also have hardly any major input on the discussions at talkpage, dropping by to give one-liners in support of Kautilya3 and his reverts[145][146]. This shows evidence of a WP:TAGTEAM. And I will be keeping an eye to see who turns up on the page and I will report them for a behavioural match with the bully IPs.

It is also interesting to see here that Kautilya3 supported the editor MapSGV.[147] Kautilya3 claims MapSGV's personal attacks are not so ″egregrious″ to warrant a block. This is even though several admins find his behaviour worthy of a block.[148]. Then again Kautilya3 admits that the people Mar4d is reverting are pro-Indian editors-″reverting and name-calling any pro-India editors that he runs into″. Yet he does not say anything to these tendentious pro-India editors (all editors are required to be NPOV in their editing) but chooses to support action on the productive Mar4d instead, my guess is to get less opposition in his content disputes. With the number of content disputes Kautilya3 has with Pakistani/Kashmiri.Chinese many editors would say that his editing is not always neutral.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by TripWire[edit]

Another WP:WITCHHUNT attempt by MBL (see previous one), no wonder Capitals00 has also joined the bandwagon. They have become so desperate in casting WP:ASPERSIONS that they will say anything to put across their point (I dont even know Capitals00). I think there's a dire need to implement WP:BOOMERANG strictly so that such frivolous reports are avoided in the better interest of WP.—TripWire________ʞlɐʇ 09:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Additional comments

Mar4d shouldn't be compared with MapSGV (even though his banning apparently seems the cause behind this report). Below are some edits by MapSGV (any sensible editor would feel offended at such a tone, a + for Mar4d for not loosing his cool); Mar4d was just trying to bring MapSGV to the table so that the issue(s) could be discussed:

Statements by wearied passers-by[edit]

  • How about a 6-month topic ban from AE for everyone involved? Uanfala's sock (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Peoples colony[edit]

Blocked sock. Dennis Brown -

Accusations are over the top to the extent that I started laughing immediately. Come on every one behave like community not rivals. I strongly support Mard for many reasons I observed while reading all relevant contributions and edit history

  • Self less Dedication to wiki cause (Like every good wiki contributor)
  • Dealing with difficult discussions
  • Trying best to avoid few hard nut users.

At any case, I don't support any ban on Mard. I encourage MBlaze Lightning to cheer up and be sport. Peoplescolony (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kautilya3[edit]

There was a time when Mar4d and I used to jointly defend India-Pakistan conflict pages from going toxic. Those days are long gone. Mar4d's fall from grace began with an atrocious article called India and state-sponsored terrorism that he created jointly with another editor. Since then I have been hard put to find any objective edits made by Mar4d. He basically edits along national lines, reverting and name-calling any pro-India editors that he runs into.

  • On the Siachen conflict article, Mar4d was basically battling reliable sources with WP:OR.
  • On the Kashmir conflict article, he is basically tag teaming with NadirAli, who in turn is doing edits for KA$HMIR and Dilpa kaur. All these editors call themselves "deeply involved editors". As MBlaze has pointed out, Mar4d reverted a fairly innocent edit citing WP:NOCON and reinstated a highly problematic edit ignoring WP:NOCON. You can just check the amount of reliably sourced content that has been removed in the second edit with not a single word of explanation.

Winged Blades of Godric states that participation in WP:DRN is voluntary. That it is. But it would have been polite for Mar4d to mention either on the talk page or at the DRN that he has conceded the points at dispute. Instead, if he just lets the others carry the burden, then I am afraid it reinforces the impresison that he didn't actually dispute anything, he was just WP:TAGTEAMING. Doing so in a highly contentious subject like Kashmir conflict is very problematic.

I am afraid, at this point, Mar4d is part of the problem rather than solution. Sandstein has drawn parallels between this case and that of Willard84 above. But I don't think there is any comparison. Willard84 is a highly productive editor as I pointed out above. On the other hand, Mar4d has not producing anything worthwhile in the last couple of years. His role seems to be limited to reverting edits and noise-making on the talk pages. A sad fall for a once-great editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, here are the details of the DRN referral regarding Kashmir conflict (not Siachen conflict):

It is also worth pointing out that at the time when Mar4d claims AFAIK, there is a section on talk where modifications to this entire section are under discussion, the concerned talk page section was empty [149]. (Why there should have been an empty talk page section is another issue, but let us ignore that.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Ma'az says Mar4d is a "very productive" editor, citing a high edit count. This is clearly a fallacy. I have pointed out that Mar4d has contributed extremely little content to Wikipedia in the last couple of years. His edit count has been going up due to reverts and talk-page battles. Nevertheless, he is clearly the leader of the pack. And, as a leader, he needs to take responsibility for the increasing viciousness on the India-Pakistan pages. His increasing arrogance on talk pages has been visible for a long time. Here, for instance, he removed long-standing infobox entry citing "Indian victory" in October 2017, resorted to name-calling opposing editors including me. Even earlier in April 2017, he was brushing aside my legitimate concerns regarding the status of Gilgit-Baltistan saying, I'm not even sure why we are debating this; and it is a rather unproductive dispute raised on your part,.... I warned him in December 2017 about his tendency to take responsibility for POV edits of topic-banned editors, and was once again confronted with obstinacy. This degeneration has been long in coming. At this point, Mar4d is a net negative for Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Samee[edit]

The report is frivolous with no tangible evidence for anything actionable against a single user. I do not expect good faith from MBlaze Lightning pro tem for their multiple pointless warnings over a single incident of routine patrolling. Ironically, they’re taking a wikibreak to attend their education [per their user page] and don’t have enough time yet they find it at ease to file such reports. Perhaps WP:NOTHERE and in retaliation to MapSGV t-ban.  samee  talk 05:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by AshLin[edit]

  • Support. Its been years since I have had any interaction with User:Mar4d. I recently returned to editing WP and came across Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Research_and_Analysis_Wing_activities_in_Pakistan. Here I saw him up to his old tricks once again. He attempted to discredit all dissenting voices as can be seen in this diff. After my own vote which was succint, he tried to paint my vote as meaningless for not being verbose via this diff. Mar4d has a long history of edit warring and wikilawyering. He has been blocked 5 times to date. From above it appears that he has got into contentious disputes over seven articles this year alone. He routinely attacks or undermines the editors and their posts in the debate. This is not the one-time behaviour of an editor who gets swept into a dispute through misplaced emotion. This is the behaviour of a serial offender, who intends to get away with whatever he can. This behaviour of his is most commonly seen in the field of India and Pakistan articles. Hence I support a discretionary sanction to topic ban him from India-Pakistan articles. AshLin (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by D4iNa4[edit]

Edit warring against consensus or edit warring when your edits are obviously not going to receive any support is also disruptive and Mar4d had been doing that on Rape in India, by showing clear failure to realize that the problems that had been already told to him during reverts and further discussion.

I have to disagree with above comments by Winged Blades of Godric, because seeking protection for your non-consensus version after edit warring yourself for it is called disruptive editing. Mar4d also violated page restrictions with his 2 reverts[150][151] by restoring the controversial version that had no consensus.

Mar4d's conduct as detailed by Capitals00 and AshLin above on an on going AfD is also problematic. He has created a toxic environment on this AfD by assuming bad faith towards other editors. He is still not getting per this comment on AfD that he is attacking other editors.

@Dennis Brown: Evidently Mar4d was uncivil since his first comment on Talk:Siachen conflict[152] and MapSGV was still committed to "focus on content"[153], but Mar4d continued making personal attacks,[154] along with pushing personal opinion over WP:RS. He was attacking multiple other editors[155][156], but MapSGV was supporting what WP:RS say and unlike Mar4d he didn't engaged in original research. Evidence shows that Mar4d was a bigger problem not only for talk page but also for the main article.

@Dennis Brown: Mar4d also avoids participating in DRN, and it is evidenced by above diffs regarding the incidents that took place in relation to Kashmir conflict, where Mar4d was a party of dispute resolution that spanned its duration from 14 February to 1 March,[157] it was expected that Mar4d would respond there and help resolving the content dispute. It seems that Mar4d was not interested in resolving content dispute but rather keeping his preferred version, which is also apparent with his edit warring against consensus and seeking protection[158] very soon after making the revert.[159]

The diffs provided above concerning India–Pakistan military confrontation (2016–present)[160], shows source misrepresentation from Mar4d and further establishes that Mar4d cannot be trusted with these controversial and sensitive subjects.

There are more issues with Mar4d than what has been highlighted here. Mar4d is Wikihounding edits of Störm by disrupting every of his AfD nominations even when most of those AfDs ends up against Mar4d's vote![161][162][163][164][165][166], Störm had already asked Mar4d before to stop this[167] but Mar4d is not willing to.

Also after reading these personal attacks from NadirAli[168], TripWire[169], Samee[170], I find it obvious that you can't justify the actions of Mar4d. You can only make personal attacks and false accusations against others in order to defend him.

How many times Mar4d has been already blocked for his disruption? No one has time to have a watch over him, just to find out how much trouble he is creating. When Mar4d was blocked indefinitely from November 2015 to July 2016, the environment was much better but since he has returned we are only having more problems.

Given the evidence here, as well as Mar4d's outright rejection of any misconduct and further misrepresentation despite being the root of many problems. When more better editors like Darkness Shines get topic banned indefinitely from this same noticeboard,[171] I am really seeing no reason why Mar4d should not be sanctioned for his long term problems. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sandstein: RegentsPark is WP:INVOLVED and appears have to have been canvassed to this report by Mar4d himself.[172] RegentsPark has been involved with Mar4d as an editor for a long time by participating in same content disputes.[173][174][175] In one of the above incident cited as evidence of misconduct of Mar4d, RegentsPark was also involved in content dispute.[176] I think his comments should be moved due to his close involvement. I am amazed that he is marginalizing the widespread issues into content dispute of a single article where he was canvassed by Mar4d, who posted a non-neutral and disparaging message on his talk page attacking other editors.[177] D4iNa4 (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by 1990'sguy[edit]

Mar4d has been badgering votes on the AfD where I participated,[178] and he is belittling the editors who are actually making policy-based argument unlike him.[179][180] There seems to be a long pattern of edit warring and disruptive editing, even his block log speaks about it and it also includes a block for long term sock puppetry that Mar4d carried out for almost 7 years.[181] I think any editor would be very cautious after incidents like that, but Mar4d has shown a lack of improvement and like Kautilya3 noted above, Mar4d has been more problematic than what he was before. His responses above further confirms my assessment, and I recommend a topic ban on Mar4d. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by code16[edit]

I was involved on the Siachin dispute briefly. He was arguing a point based on the relevance of sources presented by the other side, and I supported him on that. I did not see anything worth topic-banning Mar4D over. Code16 (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Ma'az[edit]

Mar4d is a productive editor and his conduct is satisfactory and cooperative. Regrettably, some editors have possibly reported this for their own interests. Differences exist but they can be resolved with sincerity and respect for each other. If anything needs to be done here, it's to end what is quite obvious. Mar4d is one of Wikipedia's most productive editors (ranked 800th on edit counts). If any unilateral action is taken against him, it would be certainly against the principles of equality and justice.  M A A Z   T A L K  16:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Very aggressive reply. VICIOUSNESSS, ARROGANCE, I think you need to calm down a bit. Emotional rhetoric adds fuel to fire. I think we should respect each other, assume good faith and lean towards resolving controversies instead of exaggerating them.  M A A Z   T A L K  18:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SheriffIsInTown[edit]

  • Note: This report is filed on 4 March 2018 regarding edits ranging between 20 February 2018 and 25 February 2018, there is a nine day difference between latest reported edit (25 February 2018) and the date of filing (4 March 2018), please decline this request as stale per Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale.

This report seems to be a frivolous attempt to get a tit for tat ban for Mar4d in response to the ban on MapSVG and deserves WP:BOOMERANG. Mar4d’s comments referenced here, here, here and here are very decent comments and more of an advice to the editor in question than an attack. MapSVG’s behavior has been proven to be problematic by the ban on him. If he was doing all things right then there is no reason for a ban.

Mar4d’s comments should be considered as friendly warnings and pieces of advice for MapSVG by an experienced editor such as Mar4d. Editors like MapSVG and MBL should learn from his experience so they do not get banned at the end for their badly behavior. If he would have paid heed to Mar4d’s advice, today he would have been ban free. Mar4d’s statement about POV pushing was a generalized statement and not an attack against specific editor(s).

The warning given here to Capitals00 was accurate in that situation. That is what the template is for. He removed the content without giving adequate explanation and he received the warning, I don’t see any threats to life in that warning.

Mar4d advising MapSVG[edit]

20 February 2018

  • I am surprised that such edits are even being made, in complete mockery of WP:ARBIPA.
  • please do not initiate an edit war whilst this issue is up.

20 February 2018

  • Edits like these are a textbook case of invoking topic bans, so the least you can do is adhere to guidelines and tread carefully. Thanks
Mar4d’s reported edits[edit]

Edits which are reported as objectionable edits are clearly not objectionable at all. When there is a conflict, edits by any party can look objectionable to another party. Edit in Rape in India is clearly supported by many reputable sources.

but unnecessary edit warring from Mar4d clearly making 3 reverts in such sensitive article is concerning., only two edits were in 24 hour period, the third was many hours into the second day.

On Kashmir conflict, the reporting editor himself accepts that Mar4d gave valid policy reasons for the reverts made on different days, actually many days apart, these edits also involved different material, for example 4 February 2018, 11 February 2018 and 24 February 2018 Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Mar4d[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Both in this case and in the one concerning Willard84 above, it appears to me that we have several areas of problematic editing that are probably best addressed with topic bans for a number of editors. However, in both cases the report mixes genuine potentially problematic conduct such as edit-warring and personal attacks with what seem to be mere content disputes, which means that we don't have a clear-cut case. Moreover, a thorough investigation of several article histories would be needed to identify everybody who needs sanctioning. I don't currently have time for this. As such, I can't currently propose any specific action, which is not to say that action is not necessary. Sandstein 17:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Sock stuff. Dennis Brown - 12:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello admin my blocked friend mapSVG told me edit on his behalf to let all admin know that mard and his friends are isi spy working for pak agencies to spread propaganda against India please unblock mapsvg and block all pak editors on this page. Thanks advance. KarunArjun (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Hello there, KarunArjun. Whatever that comment may or may not say about any other editors, it tells me that you are here for no good. Blocked. Bishonen | talk 18:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC). Also, as long as I'm here, I might as well inquire of @Peoplescolony: whose sock are you, please? Bishonen | talk 18:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC).
  • {{checkuser needed}}. Blocked User:PAKHIGHWAY looks interesting. Dennis Brown - 23:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
    • KarunArjun is  Confirmed to Saltpot99 and Rayanakho/Hranday8. This is Nangparbat.
    • Peoplescolony is LanguageXpert. This edit restores a version from 2013 that was curated by PPPPMLN/Maria0333. The CU log shows LanguageXpert using the same range within the last six months.
    • PAKHIGHWAY looks like Mfarazbaig and/or another account from the Liborbital SPI that uses an ISP in a country from a different part of the world than one would expect. They edited articles that were created by Bk2006 and Faizan which may be more than a coincidence. Previous PAKHIGHWAY SPI case.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I blocked and tagged Peoplescolony. Almost collapsed this SPI like section, but it may be related to the merits, so didn't. Dennis Brown - 02:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I haven't read all the available information, but from what I have, MapSGV is a bigger problem than Mar4d as far as talk page behavior. The core of this is a content dispute which needs to go to WP:DRN. Probably the most effective thing an admin could do is full protect the article and force everyone to DRN, an option I won't rule out. It is either that or a handful of sanctions. I strongly suggest the interested parties simply take this to DRN now before someone else gets ham-fisted with the tools. As usual in this topic area, there are no saints. Dennis Brown - 12:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
    • It still needs to go to DRN. I don't think any admin is going to pour over all the available sources to make a decision on sanctions when there isn't a clear consensus or decision on a complicated issue. If you can show that you tried to go to DRN and he refused to participate, or you had an RFC it it went against his version, then we have something to base a decision on. Otherwise, you are asking us to get involved in a content dispute. As for civility, everyone there is a bit uncivil but nothing so extreme I would take action. These are heated topics, a bit of minor push and shove is expected. Dennis Brown - 14:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
    • MBlaze Lightning, do you have links to the DRNs he refused to participate in, including the invite on his talk page? If he has been refusing to participate in DRN and still warring over content, that would be enough for me to consider a topic ban for bad faith editing. That doesn't rule anyone else out, but that is a bright line from my perspective. Dennis Brown - 14:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It is hard to make any sense of what's going on here (to my untutored eye, the who won the Siachen conflict imbroglio borders on the ridiculous) and I'm tempted to agree with Uanfala and just topic ban everyone. But that's not really practical. Either topic bans for several, though not all - editors, perhaps leaving Kautilya3 and Mar4d to argue it out, or DRN as per Dennis seems to be the way to go. --regentspark (comment) 15:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
    Actually, the only workable solution (I think) is that we have two editors discussing content with a mediator overseeing the discussion. No mediator will be able to follow the discussion if all the editors involved are allowed to comment. --regentspark (comment) 15:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
    @D4iNa4: I don't see myself as involved (I've probably overlapped with most of the editors in this mess and it would be odd anyway considering that the DS in the areas here have been imposed by me). But, of course, if other admins think I am then I will withdraw my comments. --regentspark (comment) 16:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


Short version: indef block of Born2cycle by myself. See final statement for details. This is not an WP:AE action, it is a normal admin action. Dennis Brown - 02:04, 8 March 2018 (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 Born2cycle[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 17:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. Special:Permalink/829071352#Closers:_Determining_CONSENSUS_rather_than_"consensus" Permalink to WT:RM, where he continued to bludgeon the discussion, not appreciate that others could have different views on policy than him that were legitimate.
  2. Permalink to discussion on my talk page as of 6 March 2018 acceptable challenging of a close of a controversial move, but quickly became a back and forth, and led to the eventual conversations elsewhere, including for background.
  3. Special:Permalink/829095159#Criteria_for_determining_whether_someone_is_"commonly_called_X"_for_WP:NATURALDIS Permalink to WT:DAB discussion as of 6 March 2018: shows continued forum shopping and trying to move a specific close he didn't like to a policy discussion.
  4. 2 March 2018 at WT:RM We just have to figure out how to get the community to select one: shows inability to understand the consensus based process of RMs and that people can have legitimate differences of opinion on naming policy and guidelines.
  5. 6 March 2018 at WT:DAB: Stop trying to rationalize around this. again, failure to understand that other editors may legitimately disagree with them. the behavior they were warned for, and which has caused this dispute to be on three different pages currently.
  6. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive977#Born2cycle: previous discussion at ANI around the behavior in this RM
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)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
For full disclosure, I am one of three editors who closed the requested move at Sarah Jane Brown. I'm filing this AE request not because of criticism of me or because of B2C's views that we got the close wrong, but because he has refused to drop the stick and has now engaged in conversations on three pages (my talk, WT:RM, and WT:DAB) about the correct understanding of policy, has insisd that everyone who doesn't understand it like he does is wrong, and is now attempting to change policy (or clarify) policy based on the outcome of an RM that he didn't like. He has gone from pages with successively less page views and visibility as he has continued to fight the outcome of this move and argue over the policy surrounding it (my talk is more active than WT:RM and is where you'd expect people to come to see discussion over an RM close and he has basically been shut down at WT:RM, so he shifts the conversation further to WT:DAB, which is even less visible). Through this process, he has consistent shown the very attitude that the committee warned him about years ago: he is unable to see why people might view the article naming policies and guidelines different than him. An ANI was opened which can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive977#Born2cycle, which discussed his behavior at the specific RM and in general to RMs.
As a procedural matter, the DS are only authorized around policy discussions, which while this was triggered by a specific RM, B2C has tried to shift it into a larger policy discussion around natural disambiguations on multiple forums, and this has become disruptive. Additionally, as he was warned as a party in that case years ago, his general behavior in this process that matches that should be subject to enforcement of the warning.
I'm not sure what the best outcome is here: the DS apply to article title policy discussions, and I think a full topic ban there might be beneficial, or if a more tailored restriction might be better. Obviously not asking for blocks. Apologies to the reviewing admins for linking to the archived discussions mainly instead of diffs: there is so much back and forth here that the entire discussion seemed easier to link to than many diffs, and the template said it was allowed. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Iridescent, NeilN, and Thryduulf: I went with AE over ANI as I felt the structured format would be more likely to actually stop the current disruption than the freewheeling nature of ANI would be given the sheer amount of text that has already been poured into the SJB issue. In terms of a sanction that I think could work, would end the current mess, prevent this from happening in the future, and would be within the discretionary sanctions limitations would be Born2cycle is banned from discussing Wikipedia article naming policies, guidelines, and conventions outside of individual WP:RMs and WP:MRVs. A quick review of their project space contributions over the past year shows that this would be unlikely to limit their views in RfCs and the like, and it would also prevent user talk messes where they continue musing about naming conventions after seeking an initial clarification. This would also seem to fall pretty clearly within the scope of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#Discretionary_sanctions, even as amended. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • B2C: the issue is that you shopped the close around in places that would not be normal to discuss it (namely the RM talk page and WT:DAB). WT:RM was essentially a rant about how people need to agree with what you think consensus is when they close discussions, and the WT:DAB was you trying to change consensus when you were told that you were wrong on what it was at WT:RM, even though there had just been a massive communitywide discussion that addressed the very topic at least in one case. While I think you are in good faith trying to help achieve community consensus on these issues, your approach actually causes the opposite to happen: people just disengage from the conversation because it becomes too tedious, and the result becomes whatever you and the small group that sticks with it wants. That isn't healthy for our page naming conventions.
    Re: the First Amendment and muzzling thing: I don't really care at all what our policy is, nor do I care the title for SJB. I filed this because your obsession with this title and attempts to fix the ways closers close RMs and when that doesn't work fix the policy itself to your liking make it so that it is difficult for others who have equally valid views as you to comment without getting exhausted and giving up. That is disruptive, and that was dealt with in the ArbCom case. That is why we are here. To the First Amendment point: this isn't like the government telling you what you can and can't do. This is like a private non-profit you volunteer for telling you that you can't continue volunteering in one area because you made mistakes and are likely to continue to make mistakes because you don't view them as mistakes. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Dennis Brown, I'd support that, but I would add a topic ban from article naming policy, guideline, and convention discussions outside of RMs as I proposed above in addition to your wording. The whole problem here is that he went from RM to talk page, to WT:RM to discuss RM closing practice to WT:DAB to try to change the policy since he thought everyone got it wrong. As I said above, a quick review of his contributions shows that he isn't a major RfC participant or anything of the sort. In other words: it would prevent us from being back here after the next RM close he disagrees with, while not having that much impact on his everyday editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Born2cycle[edit]

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 Born2cycle[edit]

I think Tony means well, but he is totally misunderstanding my efforts. I suggest that when he has an issue with someone's behavior, he at least first try to resolve it by reaching out on that person's talk page, which he has not done with me. By the way, I did do that with him, and he suggested the discussion continue "in other forums"[183], which is exactly what has happened, and now he's complaining about that. I think my statements speak for themselves, but it's clear Tony and others misunderstand. I am accepting the opinions of others, I'm just trying to bring attention to certain issues. Building consensus through discussion, or trying to do that, is all I'm doing. This is how WP opinions evolve, for better or for worse. Nobody is required to participate in these discussions. Some people are interested. I'm open to changing my opinions - and I like to know what others think and why. This is all part of the process. I'm not demanding anyone see anything any particular way. I hope this is all I'll have to say about this. --В²C 18:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Faberge situation, my recollection (it was over a year ago) is I reverted some page moves, my moves were reverted, so I started an RM. Consensus did not agree with me, and that was the end of it. --В²C 18:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

In general, I have some strong opinions about how to improve WP in the area of titles. This is no secret; see my user page. Naturally, not everyone agrees with my opinions and ideas. Sadly, some develop animosity towards me personally as a result. So, you're seeing some of them pile on here. After the Sarah Jane Brown RM, I had three different major points to make, which I tried to make at the appropriate places. I expressed my concerns with the close at the closer's talk page. I shared my belief that closers should be encouraged to look for community consensus in discussions rather than counting raw !votes at the Wikipedia talk:RM. And I raised my question about the interpretation of WP:NATURALDIS at WT:D. As far as I know, all these are normal and appropriate issues to raise and discuss. --В²C 19:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Folks, not one person has even requested I change my behavior on my user talk page. I assure I would have responded by changing my behavior had that happened. I honestly don't get what the issue is with me commenting as much as I do, I do feel each of the recent discussions I started and participated in were fruitful (and I appreciate participation from everyone else), but I can certainly stop without being required to do so. I'm disappointed that so many people see my behavior as "rolling the dice" until I get "my way". I've tried to explain myself everywhere I post, my user page and my FAQ, but to little avail, apparently. But I get the message. Thank you. --В²C 19:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent, pardon my lack of clarity. Yes, of course people have commented on my behavior on my talk page in the past. Above I meant no one came to my user talk page in regard to my behavior in discussions since the SJB decision, which is what apparently sparked this. More specifically, Tony did not come to my user talk page about this. On his talk page he suggested discussion continue on other forums ("People are free to continue the conversation in other forums.") [184], and then, when I continued discussion on two other forums (WT:RM and WT:D, just as he suggested, he found my behavior to be problematic in those discussions. But instead of Discuss with the other party on my talk page, he came directly here. That's what I meant. I would have appreciated a far less contentious approach to addressing this issue by starting on my user talk page. As to sanctions, none are necessary. If I'm not abiding by any policies, anyone and everyone including you and Tony is of course free to notify me on my talk page of what policy I'm violating, how I'm in violation, and I will immediately comply. Speaking of policies I might be violating, I'm reviewing WP:TE. WP:REHASH seems close, but even it seems to embrace exactly what I believe I have been doing: "If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones." What I started at WP:RM was a totally different argument than what was argued at the SJB RM. And the WP:D was focusing on one particular aspect, and was more a question than argument. I thought that discussion was particularly fruitful, by the way. Did you read it? Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Criteria_for_determining_whether_someone_is_"commonly_called_X"_for_WP:NATURALDIS. The issue of whether NATURALDIS needs to be updated, or whether SJB is an unusual exception, continues to be discussed there, and not just be me. I honestly don't see how my efforts there, starting it or participating in it, is a violation of any policy. But again, if it is, please let me know which one and how. I promise to comply. --В²C 22:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • PROPOSAL: Dennis Brown, et al, what if I agreed to comment usually only once per RM and in any title-related discussion on policy/guideline/style talk pages, and never more than three times, not including correct edits? "Usually" would mean that more than half of two or more participations in such discussions over any given period of time. For example, if I commented more than once in 5 out of the last 8 such discussions, I would be in violation. Would that address your concerns? --В²C 21:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
General response to all comments[edit]

I'm probably going to bury myself by saying this, but I'm just astonished by all the responses here. People I've respected and thought I had many productive discussions with are characterizing me and my behavior in a way that is totally foreign to me. I have no idea what most of you are talking about. And it's like you forget there is a real live human being behind the persona of "Born2cycle". Yes, I have strong opinions that I'm passionate about. I care about Wikipedia and want to make it better. I care about the community - the editors and the user. Yes, my opinions about improving WP, especially in the area of title decision-making (an area I'm guessing most of you don't care much about), are based on reasons, and I go out of my way to explain them. See my user page. And FAQ. This is a crime? Pardon my French, but WTF? You guys are literally talking about muzzling someone because you don't want to be forced to read what he has to say any more (as if anyone is forced to read anything anyone comments about), or because you don't care about what I do care about. Please keep in mind that we're talking exclusively about my "Tendentious Editing" on TALK pages, where, you know, we're supposed to TALK. In discussions, I tend to err on the side of clarity. Again... this is a crime? What's the point of talking if you're not even understood? Sometimes my opinion is with the majority; sometimes it's with a minority. Sometimes I'm persuasive; sometimes I'm not. Isn't all this normal? How it's supposed to go?

It has been claimed, below, that discussing with me is a waste of time because "discussions [for me] are weaponized to defeat [my] enemies". First of all, I have no enemies. Some may think of me as an enemy, but that's a one-way street, I assure you. The idea of using a discussion as a weapon is inherently preposterous, at least in my mind. The whole point of diplomacy (i.e. discussion) is to avoid use of weapons! Discussion is the methodology of peacemakers. That's how I see it. but if people are seeing discussion as "weapons", well, that explains much (smh). And I certainly am not trying to defeat anyone. All I'm trying to do is make title decision-making less problematic and less contentious. Yes, I realize the irony in that, but the road to peace is often built with debate.

I realize I often I hurt my own position by being too verbose, but, again, I tend to err on the side of clarity. And it's not like I'm copying/pasting the same text all over the place. Every single one of my talk page posts is an original edit; each character typed in one by one, like this one. I care deeply about what I'm writing about and I put an inordinate amount of my personal time into it; I get that not everyone else appreciates this. So the solution is to muzzle me? What is the matter with you people? Is that how you treat people in the real world? If so, I'm glad I don't know you in real life, but I doubt you do. Thankfully, for the 1st Amendment. If we had freedom of speech equivalent to 1st Amendment rights on WP, there would be nothing to discuss about my "behavior" here, would there? Consider that. It's not like I'm yelling "Fire!" in a theater, am I?

Or, think of it like this. What if my exact same comments were made not by me, but by, say, three different people, A, B and C? The exact same words, but randomly signed by A, B or C instead of by just one person. How would anything be any different? All those who choose to be involved would still have to read the same text, consider the same arguments. There are claims that my postings are disruptive. But if they were made by A, B and C instead of by me, they wouldn't, would they? So, what is it about what I'm doing that is so problematic? What's the fundamental problem? If you're going to go through sanctioning someone, how about clearly explaining what the reasons are for the sanctioning - what is the real problem you believe you're addressing? Because, other than an apparent desire to muzzle me for tribal emotional reasons that we thankfully counter in the real word with recognition of free speech, I, for one, have no idea. --В²C 17:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, somebody, please help me. I understand what "better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors" means. What I don't get is how I am not receptive to compromise or how I am not tolerant for the views of others. Being tolerant does not mean agreeing. For example, I'm tolerant of the decision at SJB - I just don't agree with. And I dropped it (though some feel I didn't, so we disagree about that too - how about some tolerance for my views?) --В²C 20:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


From WP:FORUMSHOP: "Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question."

I've been accused of forum shopping below, more than once. This is a charge made in good faith, but in error. Per the above, there were multiple issues involved, and I raised each at the appropriate place.

  1. I questioned the close of Sarah Jane Brown at the lead closer's talk page, User_talk:TonyBallioni#Sarah_Jane_Brown. This is the appropriate place to do that.
  2. I considered and discussed continuing with a Move Review with another editor, Amakuru, on his talk page, User_talk:Amakuru#SJB, also an appropriate place for that.
  3. The series of closes at SJB culminating with this one inspired me to post about the responsibility of closers to determine community consensus per WP:CONSENSUS and Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Determining_consensus rather than counting raw !votes. I did this at WT:RM, also as appropriate. See Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Closers:_Determining_CONSENSUS_rather_than_"consensus".
  4. One of the specific issues at that close had to do with how WP:NATURALDIS applied in that case, and, more generally, in cases like this, where the middle name is not commonly used in reliable sources. I wanted to explore this general issue further, and so I raised it at WT:D (the home of WP:NATURALDIS, specifically at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Criteria_for_determining_whether_someone_is_"commonly_called_X"_for_WP:NATURALDIS.

In retrospect I can understand given the timing and the fact that I raised each of these issues related to the close it can appear to be forum shopping, but it's not at all. Each is a separate general legitimate issue to raise at each of the respective venues, and raised appropriately after the close. If you actually look at each of the discussions, particularly at what I initially posted at each, you'll see that you couldn't reasonably do that at any of the other forums. It's not like I posted the same thing at multiple places; not at all. That is, each one was different and belonged where I posted it. Unfortunately, because of the timing and the participants, the discussions often did tend to drift back to the topic of rehashing the SJB close, but that was not my intent, and I stated as much in most if not all instances. Thank you. --В²C 17:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni: despite my explanation here, you still claim that I "shopped the close". You describe in your own slanted way what I did at WT:RM: "... essentially a rant about how people need to agree with what you think consensus is when they close discussions". Even if true, how is that shopping the close? My statement speaks for itself, there was no "need" for anyone to agree with me about anything; not implicitly nor explicitly. I'm sorry you read it that way, but I can't be responsible for words you read that are not there. The dearth of you quoting any of my actual words to back up your claim of me "shopping the close" and ranting about others "needing to agree with what I think" is telling. What, by the way, do you even mean by "shop the close"? The close was done. There was nothing left to say about it, especially not at WT:RM. If I wanted to challenge it beyond what I said at your talk page, I would have gone to MRV. Other than being most recently inspired by that close, my "rant" was not about the close. Do you really not see that? Perhaps read it again. As to WT:D, you claim that was me "trying to change consensus when [I was] told that [I was] wrong on what it was at WT:RM". Again, I'm bewildered that that is what you think that was about. It's like you didn't even read what I wrote there. Exactly what consensus do you think I was trying to change? The only issue there was the wording and meaning of NATURALDIS. This happens all the time after RMs. When RMs seem to go contrary to what policy says, a reasonable issue to pursue is whether some policy wording might need to change. For example, that's how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC got expanded at WP:D to include the historical significance criteria. Because at some RMs the consensus was that a certain topic should be "primary" due to its historical significance even if it's not the one most likely to be sought by users searching with the term in question. So the policy was updated accordingly, but only after someone (perhaps even me - I can't remember) brought it up on the WT:D talk page. The same kind of thing here. In fact, as a result of my starting that discussion, at least one editor even suggested an actual edit to address the issue I raised. You know, the issue my post was raising, as opposed to the one you imagined it to be about (to change some unidentified consensus about who-knows-what). --В²C 19:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Primefac[edit]

Another related incident (B2C refusing to accept the results of an RM) was at Fabergé egg. I had closed an RM at Danish Palaces (Fabergé egg), part of which resulted in a new/procedural RM to codify some questions raised at that RM. Following the close of the second RM (RM2), B2C calls into question the result of RM2, claims that it's not valid, and undoes all of the moves resulting from RM2 (see Talk:Fabergé egg/Archive 2). They then proceeded to start a third RM attempting to reverse the result of RM2, which was strongly opposed.

These two RMs (the eggs and Brown) are the only two major interactions I've had with them, and I have consistently seen a battleground attitude where if it doesn't 100% absolutely match the written law of page naming, it's wrong and everyone who believes otherwise is wrong. It's not conducive towards a productive working environment, and undoubtedly has a chilling effect on RM participants. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SarekOfVulcan[edit]

Considering the lengthy discussion you started on Tony's talk page, B2C, I'm not sure what you think would have been accomplished by him re-starting another discussion on essentially the same topic on your talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Those aren't "three different major points", B2C, they're pretty much the definition of WP:FORUMSHOP. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I honestly don't see how my efforts there, starting it or participating in it, is a violation of any policy. But again, if it is, please let me know which one and how. For some reason, that feels an awful lot like sea lioning to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@Born2Cycle: Um, no, it's unfair to everybody else here to run an algorithm to figure out if you're being disruptive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf[edit]

(Commenting here as I proposed sanctions in the most recent AN/I discussion, I'm uninvolved with the specific move discussions). It's less than a month since B2C was brought to AN/I where in a lengthy thread he was reminded (several times) about the arbcom finding and that his behaviour was not well thought of by a significant number of editors. Yet now we're here with evidence that he hasn't learned a single thing and continues to display the exact same behaviour. I think it's time that some restrictions were imposed - the AN/I showed some support for a restriction on the number of comments he may make in any single RM or other article titling disucssion, a prohibition on nominating articles at RM that have had a recent previous discussion (1 year iirc), and a limit to the number of concurrent RM nominations he may make. I'd consider adding to that a requirement that he may challenge the result of an RM discussion only through a formal move review nomination, with a maximum of one such discussion per page. I don't know whether AE has the authority to do that in this case or not though. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Born2Cycle: Folks, not one person has even requested I change my behavior on my user talk page. Maybe, maybe not. However many people did at the recent AN/I, it was clearly implicit in the discussion you were involved with on TonyBallioni's talk page and the Arbitration Committee did so several years back. The evidence suggests that you haven't been taking the hint. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I would agree that TonyBallioni's suggestion of Born2cycle is banned from discussing Wikipedia article naming policies, guidelines, and conventions outside of individual WP:RMs and WP:MRVs. has merit, but I'd place it in addition to the suggestion I made earlier rather than as a replacement for it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: yes, this has been going on for years. The arbitration case concluded in March 2012 (6 years ago) and a quick glance at some of the evidence presented there shows behaviour essentially identical to today from October 2011. Thryduulf (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Based on B2C's most recent comments, and in agreement with iridescent I withdraw my previous proposal and now support a complete topic from all discussions related to (a) article titling policies, guidelines, conventions and similar; and (b) the title of any page on Wikipeida, including but not limited to requested moves and move reviews. The sole exception is a single, short comment in a move review, intiated by another editor, of an RM he closed. Such a comment must be confined to his own actions and reasoning and must not comment or speculate on the actions, motivations or reasoning of any other editor. If he chooses to demonstrate he can edit collaboratively in other areas, that's excellent, if he chooses not to then that's his choice. He's had all the rope I'm prepared to extend. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment by SN54129[edit]

  • Sup Born2cycle. Just an FYI, put per the arb guidelines, "If you must respond to some statement by another editor on the arbitration request, then you must do so in your own section. There may be no threaded discussion (that is, comments in any section but your own) on any arbitration request; any such threaded discussion will be summarily removed by a clerk or arbitrator."
  • Also, I thikn the point that SoV / TB are making is that it would be qualitatively the same discussion—where ever it actually took place. Unfortunately, it's almost never the case that the "clock of sanctions" is re-set by merely moving the discussion to a different page. Further, I draw from that they believe that such an effort would be unhelpful as it would merely retead existing ground. ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 19:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by ValarianB[edit]

As a participant in the Mrs. Brown discussion, and reading some of the following discussions on other talk pages and such (what a fascinating, years-long topic people have invested in this!), a line at User_talk:TonyBallioni#Sarah_Jane_Brown that was most concerning was this, Very similar claims were made in most of the multiple "no consensus" closes for the RM proposals listed below when they were closed based on trying to find "consensus" (and failing) rather than trying to find WP:CONSENSUS (like they should have), yet in each case eventually there was an RM in which WP:CONSENSUS was finally recognized, and the disputed finally resolved.. This person seems to have an end goal in mind, the "Right Decision", and will initiate discussion after discussion after discussion until that comes about. It seems antithetical to the Wikipedia to just roll the dice every few years hoping that the right set up people will show up, while the "wrong" set of people fail to. ValarianB (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]

When B2C writes above: "...I meant no one came to my user talk page in regard to my behavior in discussions since the SJB decision, which is what apparently sparked this.", in all probability that's because anyone who has ever dealt with B2C, or followed the long-running B2C saga on the noticeboards, is aware that asking B2C to change their behavior is essentially like talking to a brick wall, and almost never results in any change in behavior. I mean, this has been going on for, what, years? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Awilley[edit]

I also commented in the AN/I discussion so I'm putting myself here. My only involvement that I can remember was as part of a 3-admin close panel some years ago at an RM where B2C had participated. I only remember it because they were so overbearing and tendentious in their approach. Anyway, I second support for the limited sanctions of the type proposed by User:Thryduulf that would limit the creation and participation in RM discussions but without shutting them out completely. It is their field of expertise and passion after all, I just think they need a throttle for the sake of everybody else. ~Awilley (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Jayron32[edit]

  • Discussions with B2C involved are not fruitful, because he's not interested in compromise or even consensus. For him, discussions are weaponized to defeat his enemies, which is not a productive way to move a consensus-built organization forward. As can be demonstrated with the most recent move discussion, even if consensus is against him, his argument is that it isn't a real consensus, because <reasons>. And he's quite willing to use discussion as a bludgeon to wear down those that hold different positions than he does, to the point where he thinks he can win by default because people don't want to deal with that, not merely because the concede that he has valid points, but that through the sheer repetitive weight of his arguments, he's got to be right. He may even be right some times; but that's irrelevent when his discussion technique does not foster a collaborative working environment. --Jayron32 14:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MelanieN[edit]

I have not interacted with B2C for years and have no opinion on the SJB title. I’d just like to note, reading this discussion, that he is his own best evidence against himself. In his latest comment, he continues to display exactly the behaviors that he has been accused of and warned about for at least six years. Instead of reflecting a "better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors," he accuses others of "an apparent desire to muzzle me for tribal emotional reasons". Illustrating his persistent IDHT attitude, he says "I have no idea what most of you are talking about." --MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by andrewa[edit]

The discussion between myself and B2C at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#See wt:DAB#Criteria for determining whether someone is "commonly called X" for WP:NATURALDIS is relevant I think, and my views are expressed there. Andrewa (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (SmokeyJoe)[edit]

I first encountered born2cycle at wt:consensus (Wikipedia_talk:Consensus/Archive_11), where I remember being intrigued at his interesting new perspective, before soon deciding that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of concensus, that he was pushing for an algorithmic method for deciding consensus that eliminated human opinion and compromise for minority views. To quote his fourth statement from his first day there:

“I don't think so, and, in fact, suggest de-emphasizing if not eliminating other references to "compromise" on the page. I mean, what exactly in the consensus building process is supposed to be compromised? What standards are to be lowered? What principles are to be ignored? What policies dismissed? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)”

Also I note in passing that he has 90 posts on that archive in less than one month. Working towards consensus is a tricky art, but this editor burst onto the scene, and dominated the conversations telling everyone how is should be done, with a pathological inability to comprehend “compromise”. He also doesn’t understand that policy is meant to describe, not prescribe, best practice. Looking back at the details, nothing has changed.
The B2C problem is complicated because he is often right about something, if that something is the detail of titling policy. Where I think he is lacking is with the concept of “consensus”.
B2C has complained that no one has reached out to him to explain the problem. This is not true. I have made a number of such posts on his talk page. It was not productive, because if he doesn’t like the direction of the conversation he archives or deletes the thread. More productive conversations were being held on my talk page, although he would disengage after taking a point but not learn anything, not change any behaviour.
Examples of failed attempts to explain things to him on his talk page include:
A topic ban is desperately needed. However, I don’t think banning him from RM discussions is completely necessary. Possibly, he could be limited by posts or kilobytes to single discussions. I propose that instead he should minimally be banned from all policy and guideline pages relating to titling, closing discussions, and consensus. It's on these pages that he crosses from obnoxious to long term disruption. Probably, a ban from all Wikipedia policy and guideline pages would be better. It’s not as if he attempts to contribute to policy areas other than on titling, and if his new hobby were to be telling the community how to do things on some other matter, I predict it will not be net-productive.
While occasionally, the community has to tell a volunteer that their particular efforts in a particular area are not wanted, it’s not a good for any one volunteer to tell another volunteer, it can be helpful to provide some suggestions. My suggestions for B2C would include:
  • Cycling, roads, highways, or any other mainspace pages.
  • WP:AfD
I wish him well, but he needs to broaden his hobbies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Born2cycle[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Quite aside from whether this breaches the sanctions or not, the attitude expressed in Not everyone agrees with my opinions and ideas. Sadly, some develop animosity towards me personally as a result. is about as clear-cut an embodiment of the tendentious editing mentality as I've ever seen. I'd be inclined to take this to ANI to get consensus for a "Born2cycle is restricted from commenting on page naming disputes outside of the formal Requested Move process" restriction, rather than trying to put a band-aid over the issue here; sure, I can block for a week, a month, a year, but it's fairly clear that the problem will immediately restart as soon as the block expires if there isn't a formal restriction in place. ‑ Iridescent 19:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
    Born2cycle, you claim that not one person has even requested I change my behavior on my user talk page—forgive my sarcasm, but you are aware that at the time of writing a large part of your userpage consists of a list you've created of instances of assorted people requesting you change your behavior? I really don't want to do this, but your apparent unwillingness here even to admit the possibility that it's possible that you could be wrong and everyone else could be right is pushing me towards an indefinite block ("undefined" not "infinite") unless you're willing to accept a restriction along the lines proposed by Thryduulf above. ‑ Iridescent 20:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
    OK, in light of this I think we're done here unless anyone other than B2C has anything further to add. That after all this you specifically explain that you can't understand the difference between "me versus the world" and "opinion held by multiple people"; that you somehow think that the First Amendment (which relates to the US government and has not the slightest relevance to Wikipedia's internal administration; we'd be perfectly within our rights to ban users from using the letter "w", or to block all editors with eight-character usernames, if there was community consensus for it) is relevant here; and that you think that those criticising you are operating from "an apparent desire to muzzle me for tribal emotional reasons that we thankfully counter in the real word with recognition of free speech", not a unanimous consensus that you're acting inappropriately and against both the spirit of Wikipedia in general and against your restrictions in particular, makes me feel that if you don't get it now you're never going to. Despite recognising that it would be a de facto site ban unless you choose to work in a different part of Wikipedia, I'm now of the opinion that at least a temporary total ban from everything relating to article renaming is the only thing that's going to put a stop to this. ‑ Iridescent 20:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The "Born2cycle's editing on the disputed pages and related subjects has hampered efforts at resolution, specifically by excessive responses and not following the spirit of WP:BRD" finding of fact in the Arbcom case seems to be highly relevant here, specifically the "excessive responses" part. Initially I thought banning Born2cycle from all meta-discussions involving the title of the Sarah Jane Brown article would be sufficient but Primefac's statement has me leaning towards a broader restriction. --NeilN talk to me 19:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I opined at the ANI, but little good it did, and I consider myself uninvolved. We do have the authority to topic ban him from RM and moves in general, and anything else his behavior has touched on in 4.2 of the Arb finding. I think Iridescent is correct that this is a textbook case of WP:TE, which means any sanction would be on the table but as a standard admin function, not an AE action. I don't think going back to ANI is required as the evidence is fairly clear, although a sanctioning admin could volunteer for review at WP:AN afterwards. I don't think kicking this can down the road is going to benefit anyone, and something firm that covers a broad enough scope, needs to be done. Dennis Brown - 01:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    • How about: "For an indefinite period of time, you are topic banned from discussing the moving or renaming of any page, while on any page of the English Wikipedia website." Zero talk about any move, anywhere on the domain, from anywhere on the domain, so it is a broad ban, yet narrow enough to allow him the opportunity to participate in the 98% of the encyclopedia that isn't about moves/renaming. Dennis Brown - 20:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I participated in the RM but I have not interacted with B2C further, so I consider myself uninvolved. Looking through all that has been presented in this request, this seems to be one of the most obvious cases of WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:STICK I have seen to date. B2C basically voiced their disagreement with the way a certain RM was closed everywhere but WP:MRV, the only place it fits. And as Primefac points out, the SJB discussion was not the first time B2C acted this way (as, of course, basically does Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation which included a warning that B2C's contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.). As Iridescent says, this has WP:TE written all over it. I don't think acting here is like putting a band-aid over the issue though. Per Dennis Brown, topic banning B2C from all article titles related discussions is a possible sanction that can be imposed by the currently allowed DS on the aforementioned case and should be sufficient to either get them to drop the stick or be forced to drop it. Regards SoWhy 08:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • A topic ban from naming discussions would, of course, effectively be an indefinite block - it's all he does here. His last 500 mainspace contributions take you back to July 2012, and most of those were related to article naming as well. On the other hand, of course, someone who's only really here to argue amount article naming - whilst not quite approaching WP:NOTHERE - isn't exactly improving the encyclopedia either. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that the last observation by Black Kite is the most pertinent. Somebody who is apparently here only to quibble (at excruciating length) about article naming really, really needs to find another hobby. Or professional help. I support a topic ban about anything related to article titles. Sandstein 22:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This has been a long and tedious report. As per remedy 4.2 it the above named Arbitration case Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed. The scope of this remedy refers to discussions about the policies and guidelines mentioned, and does not extend to individual move requests, move reviews, article talk pages, or other venues at which individual article names may be discussed. Disruption in those areas should be handled by normal administrative means. we are not authorized to use discretionary sanctions in the manner I have described above. Therefore, I have no choice but to either take a case to WP:ANI or use standard admin discretion. I think there is sufficient evidence that Born2cycle has violated the principles in WP:TE, and to the point that it violates WP:DE in a clear and convincing way, and that a larger ANI discussion is not required. I note that there is a consensus to this effect here. Therefore, I have indefinitely blocked them. Of course, any admin may unblock them with any condition, including the condition I mentioned above, that they 100% avoid all rename/move discussions at any level, on any page. To be clear, this is a standard admin action, not an WP:AE action, thus reviewable on his talk page or at WP:AN. Dennis Brown - 01:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by ScratchMarshall[edit]

Appeal unanimously declined. Sandstein 08:45, 8 March 2018 (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 editors" 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 
ScratchMarshall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Topic ban from the subject of Biographies of Living Persons,
imposed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive977#ScratchMarshall_promoting_conspiracy_theories logged at special:diff/828627380
Administrator imposing the sanction 
NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 

Statement by ScratchMarshall[edit]

Neil posted this 19:24 March 3rd: User_talk:ScratchMarshall#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban after MrX posted this 18:19 March 3rd which was 1 hour 5 minutes afterward.

I am appealing this sanction because I do not believe my 2 redacted to the article about this person violated BLP policy. This was the keystone in the allegations made against me, and I believe it is grounds to have the case reviewed because it was a fraudulent accusation.

I tried to talk directly to NeilN to appeal but special:diff/829060226 shows he denied my stage 1 appeal of direct communication.

At special:diff/828310006 MrX left me a warning on my talk page on March 1st. MrX accused me of violating BLP policies.

At special:diff/828529765 Acroterion banned me for 48 hours on March 3. Acroterion was an involved administrator. He alleges I posted defamatory speculation.

These actions center around these edits. I must link the history page directly because of the lack of 'prev'. Presumably Acroterion scrubbed the history, I don't know how to check that.

Neither of them would give any sort of detailed explanation as to how they supposedly thought I was violating BLP.

MrX had mentioned:

Removed per WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:BLP. is not a reliable source and you can't use Wikipedia to speculated about conspiracy theories about living people.

I hadn't seen a problem with linking to heavy because the "5 Fast Facts" article was (and still is) cited on the article, I was merely duplicating the source in the talk page to discuss it.

I will not edit the BLP article or its talk page until the sanctions are lifted, but it is essential that I am able to LINK to it, since it contains important evidence required for my appeal. shows a version of the page as MrX left it on February 28. It includes 2 articles by Stephanie Dube Dwilson from, one of which was the one I had mentioned on the talk page. I submit this as evidence that MrX had absolutely no problem with Heavy, because he left these sources intact.

Yet when I cited them merely on the talk page, this was somehow a BLP violation?

I hadn't noticed that at the time, but had respected the objection as there were plenty of sources to cite and I had no attachment to Heavy. So that is why I created the "Business Insider" section, to provide an alternative more reputable-sounding source to see if MrX objected to it. So far, the citation of Allan Smith's article has not been redacted, so I assume no.

You can read at User_talk:MrX#I_require_some_clarification how I attempted to learn more information about MrX's objection. Everything except what he erased in special:diff/828524383.

This surrounds my addition of a talk page contribution citing an article on by a reporter named Eliana Block. This is not visible in the BLP talk page because of the removal of diffs, presumably by Acroterion.

This was a Washington DC news source which is the largest market-size affiliate of CBS. It's been around since 1949.

I was using these sources to report on notable debunkings. This has been twisted as if I were promoting the material which was debunked.

I ask uninvolved admins, what serves to propogate conspiracy theories more?

  • reporting on proof from reliable sources which debunks said theories, so that people will know they are false claims and not repeat them
  • removing proof from reliable sources, interfering with the debunking, so that people will not know they are false claims and may keep repeating them

What I did in this removed post, what Eliana Block did, was point out that some troll took a photograph of the Stoneman Douglas yearbook and said it was another school's yearbook, that a bunch of gullible people ran with that, and then a Stoneman Douglas student disproved the allegation by doing a live video showing the page was from the SD yearbook and not any other school's.

Twitter is not a reliable source on its own, but it is when verified by reliable sources. Eliana Block of WUSA 9 is a reliable source, so it is grounds to link the the secondary source she cited.

I am perplexed by these accusations and how nobody has spoken against them, because it is entirely clear that I was presenting reliably sourced debunkings of false accusations for discussion on the talk page, the exact opposite of promoting the accusations.

This was not in any way promoting conspiracy theories. Debunking false accusations innoculates against conspiracy theories. Any theory based on "Redondo Yearbook" claim falls apart with the proof of it being a Stoneman Yearbook.

Response 1 of 1 to D4iNa4

I do not believe the citation of Eliana Block's article or her Joey Wong video source was a BLP violation. If there was some aspect besides posting this which Acroterion believes was a BLP violation when he rolled back my edit, I leave it to Acroterion to clarify that. So far Acroterion's comments on this that I'm aware of are limited to:

Reposting defamatory speculation verbatim is a gross violation of BLP. Veiling it as discussion of conspiracy theories doesn't make it complaint with policy.

Acroterion might take this opportunity to rephrase the nature of objection to the suppressed diffs if it was something other than citing from Eliana Block.

If that's all it was, then yes, I do not believe doing so was a BLP violation, so suppressing that citation seems like an abuse of admin tools. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Response 1 of 3 to NeilN


we don't debunk fringe conspiracy theories by mentioning them in a BLP and then saying "but this is all unproven" - we simply ignore them.

I direct Neil to look at some statements presently included in articles, which I did not add.


Claims were also made that Hogg was being "coached" by his father
A video was published mischaracterizing a 2017 Los Angeles CBS television report
posts that wrongly claim that Hogg and other students are crisis actors


false claims that it never happened or that it was staged by "crisis actors"
Harrison, sent an email to the Tampa Bay Times stating "[b]oth kids in the picture are not students here but actors that travel to various crisis [sic] when they happen
Kingston suggested student demonstrators were paid by billionaire George Soros or were supported by members of Antifa.
A video with a description espousing a conspiracy theory that Stoneman student David Hogg was a "crisis actor" reached No. 1 on YouTube's trending page

Here we can see specific details of false allegations are reviewed rather than ignored.

Do you have plans to remove all of this and issue BLP warnings to whoever added these details? ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Response 1 of 1 to Mr X

Your ANI appeal was a farce because only admins could view what was deleted. The opinions formed by people unable to see the suppressed diffs hold no weight. You actively misrepresented my edits as being BLP violations when they were not. You poisoned the well, ensuring there could be no neutral discussion at ANI. That is why an admin-only discussion is important. Acroterion was involved. Your calling him "uninvolved" is a falsehood.

Response 1 of 1 to Acroterion

More vagueness from you:

an unnecessary catalog of speculations, in considerable detail, on the conspiracy theories associated with Mr. Hogg

If my words are so detailed, why do yours remain so vague? The only thing I recall speculating on was why Hogg could've been in Redondo in 2017. I said I thought it was probably a summer vacation but that I would not add that to the article unless I found a source with that. I did end up finding said source.

That's not a conspiracy theory, that's an ANTI-conspiracy theory.

So really, be specific, because I think you're avoiding any specific details or examples of what I allegedly pushed because they don't exist.

Extensive discussion of BLP-violating allegations of this kind are unnecessary and are a lightly-veiled way of placing conspiracy theories about living people into Wikipedia namespaces

These aren't BLP-violating allegations. The most offensive claim, that Hogg was a crisis actor, remains up on the page, and I did not put that there. All I did was bring up on the talk page was the debunking of memes.

You keep talking as if you could read my motives, yet to anyone who understands this, debunking theories against Hogg would be the last thing someone would want to do if they wanted to promote conspiracy theory.

Someone wanting to promote conspiracy theories would only post un-debunked theories, or only post theories in isolation without their debunking.

Acroterion, please explain why the source you removed and the action you took (what I will term the "Block Block" because you blocked me after reverting an addition of an article by Eliana Block) are in line with BLP.

How did Eliana Block's article endanger Hogg's reputation? As SarekOfVulcan has pointed out, there is no obvious BLP violation in those diffs.

I have reconsidered my redaction of some of ScratchMarshal's edits as essentially futile, in that, clothed as they are in refutation, they aren't blatant BLP violations

Thank you for admitting that you abused your admin tools. I see these are no longer redacted. If you un-redacted the diffs, that should weigh in your favor, but that you only did so after your abuse was highlighted is no longer worth much.

You still haven't actually restored the sections to the page though, which I think you should do, since you have admitted they are not BLP violations.

They are not "clothed". You are assuming bad faith. These are reliable sources and I was responsibly trying to discuss how notable they were on the talk page instead of rushing to put them in the article. ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Response 2 of 3 to NeilN

When you said "what you advocated here" you linked to a diff where the only URL I added was

The title of that article is "David Hogg: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know" by Stephanie Dube Dwilson, from 20 February 2018.

This was a source ALREADY PRESENT IN THE ARTICLE. I may as well go track down who added it...

@CookieMonster755: appears to be the one who added it, on February 25: special:diff/827485615

Notably MrX edited directly after this (less than 2 hours later): special:diff/827498926 and did not object to this source in any way.

So this source remains in the article for 7 days and when I reproduce this same source (untouched in the article for a full week, nobody voices any problems with it) suddenly MrX has a problem with it! Interesting.

Were you aware that this source was already in the article for a full week, that I had not added it, that MrX had been aware of the source and had no problem with it being in the article?

Is there not an obvious double standard being applied where it's okay for CM755 to add this to the article and for MrX to tolerate it, but citing the same article on the talk page is suddenly sinister? ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Am I in trouble? :( CookieMonster755 05:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Response 3 of 3 to NeilN
The source is currently used as a reference for factual material, not as a reference for reports on fringe/conspiracy theories presented by fringe sources.

MrX claimed Heavy was an unreliable source and reverted my edit. You can see this Feb 1 at special:diff/828309263

Either it's a good source or a bad source. That Hogg was the target of an easily disproven yearbook claim IS factual material. However fringe LagBeachAntifa9 was is irrelevant, because enough people ran with it that it ceased to be fringe, as enough people were repeating the claim for Stephanie Dwilson to report on it, as well as other sources.

The problem here is you are insisting it is "fringe" based on your own WP:OR, in direct contradiction of other sources which prove it is not fringe. That was why I followed up with and

The way we resolve disagreements on notability is by weighing sources, not injecting personal opinions.

I took careful note of what Acroterion said. It was a "lightly-veiled" attack against me, and you are clearly endorising this form of personal attack against me.

I was discussing widely-covered debunkings of theories which had caused enough waves to be worth reporting on to debunk by these reporters. There is no 'veiling' going on here. I was not and am not promoting those theories. Promoting discredited theories by posting the proof which debunks them would not make any sense. Why would someone promote a toothless theory?

The theories which seem more dangerous to me are the broader ones without associated 100% debunkings of specific facts, like the allegation Hogg was coached or that he was a crisis actor. I never added those to the page, and their presence concerns me. These are the allegations which hold BLP risks, not "a video proved a page of photos was from the Stoneman Douglas Yearbook and not the Redondo Shores yearbook". That holds 0 risk to Hogg. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN[edit]

I looked at the report filed by MrX at here and agreed with their statement, "ScratchMarshall has largely spent his time on Wikipedia subtly pushing far-right propaganda and conspiracy theories in the style of a concern troll" based on the evidence presented. The "concern troll" description is apt as we don't debunk fringe conspiracy theories by mentioning them in a BLP and then saying "but this is all unproven" - we simply ignore them. Editors have tried to communicate this to ScratchMarshall and their reactions can be read in the linked ANI thread. I feel a BLP topic ban is needed and justified as this editor needs to learn what "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" means. --NeilN talk to me 20:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  • @ScratchMarshall: Fringe as largely presented in fringe sources. Like what you advocated here. --NeilN talk to me 20:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @ScratchMarshall: You're not getting the point. The source is currently used as a reference for factual material, not as a reference for reports on fringe/conspiracy theories presented by fringe sources. You are constantly using the same technique (another example). You should take careful note of what Acroterion said below, especially the last three sentences. --NeilN talk to me 02:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

And now we have this. --NeilN talk to me 03:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MrX[edit]

I carefully documented the fringe POV-pushing and disruption, at AN/I. Several editors reviewed the evidence and supported the same conclusion that I made. An uninvolved admin applied discretionary sanctions in accordance with policy. There is no legitimate basis for this appeal, so it should be denied.- MrX 🖋 21:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Acroterion[edit]

ScratchMarshal has been spitballing BLP-violating conspiracy theories on talkpages and in articles since last summer. MrX has amply documented this behavior over a range of topics. It has long been best practice on conspiracy-infused topics to refrain from quoting the conspiracy allegations in any more than the briefest terms. At Talk:David Hogg (activist) ScratchMarshal opened discussion by posting extensive quotes discussing the CTs with no clear emphasis other than getting it on the talkpage.

The comments by ScratchMarshal at Talk:David Hogg (activist) are an unnecessary catalog of speculations, in considerable detail, on the conspiracy theories associated with Mr. Hogg, and taken in mass they are fringe gossip on a BLP talkpage. When warned of BLP concerns by MrX,[185] [186] ScratchMarshal waited a couple of hours and reposted the discussion MrX objected to on the talkpage[187]. This kind of gaming of other editors' clearly-stated concerns is disruptive and led directly to my block. In reviewing ScratchMarshal's edits at Talk:David Hogg (activist) I have reconsidered my redaction of some of ScratchMarshal's edits as essentially futile, in that, clothed as they are in refutation, they aren't blatant BLP violations, but it doesn't change my reasons for blocking. ScratchMarshal's backhanded practice of framing the allegations as debunked reports posted in full for discussion is a way of skirting the letter of BLP.

Extensive discussion of BLP-violating allegations of this kind are unnecessary and are a lightly-veiled way of placing conspiracy theories about living people into Wikipedia namespaces. Talkpages are not fora for speculating about conspiracy theories. Acroterion (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by ScratchMarshall[edit]

  • @ScratchMarshall: do you still believe that you were correct here? D4iNa4 (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
    @D4iNa4: Correct about what? There's a whole lot of text there to be opined on. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
    Asked if ScratchMarshall really believes that he was not involved in BLP violation and Acroterion was abusing admin tools when he suppressed the diffs of talk page, due to BLP violation. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
    I don't see a BLP violation in those suppressed diffs. What do you think is the vio? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • So, the problem is that ScratchMarshall is trying to end-run BLP by pushing fringe POV links (and thus muddying articles with bad stuff); this here - this proceeding - is exactly what they want to have happen. Discussing this is doing their work for them.--Jorm (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by ScratchMarshall[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Based on the linked ANI thread and NeilN's statement, I would decline the appeal. ScratchMarshall's statement of appeal is confusing at best. Sandstein 20:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I concur with Sandstein. NeilN has laid out a reasonable case for why the sanction was placed. It is my view that this appeal should be declined. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
    • As a note, I've blocked ScratchMarshall for disruptive editing for forum shopping over this and unwarranted attacks on Acroterion. This is a regular admin action, and I do not think makes me involved re: this appeal. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I also concur. I see no basis for granting this appeal. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I now think that a one-way interaction ban with Acroterion would be of significant benefit - SM seems barely able to comment without making yet another personal attack against them. This is in addition to the present 1-week block and any other block or ban proposed. Thryduulf (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I saw the ANI report yesterday, and I've now had time to examine User:ScratchMarshall's relevant editing history, the case made by User:NeilN for the sanction, the original report made by User:MrX and the evidence presented (and in which I would judge the assertion "ScratchMarshall has largely spent his time on Wikipedia subtly pushing far-right propaganda and conspiracy theories in the style of a concern troll" as accurate), and comments made by User:Acroterion (among others). I think a solid case for a BLP topic ban has been made and adequately supported, and I would decline the appeal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've been quietly watching this and the ANI thread; and looking over ScratchMarshall's editing history, and think the enforcement was spot on here; the assessment of his editing is accurate and his editing needs to change. I would deny the appeal as well. --Jayron32 13:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've had the time to look at a cross-section of this editor's work and I agree with the assessments above. Taken in isolation, each edit is generally benign enough. When you look at the editing pattern as a whole though, it is clear that the intent is concern trolling and the inclusion of a particular political POV in the subject area. I would decline this appeal on those grounds. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC).


No admin has expressed an interest in taking action. See also the result of the request concerning Mar4d below. Sandstein 08:49, 8 March 2018 (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 Willard84[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Excelse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 05:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Willard84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS 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 

Warned by EdJohnston in July 2017 that: "If you continue to edit war on any topics related to India or Pakistan you are risking a topic ban."[188]

  • There was a huge discussion regarding his disruption on this template and other namespaces on EdJohnston's talk page. But nothing has improved.
  • Once this protection was removed, he resumed edit warring [193][194] against consensus.
  • Claiming there is "no consensus"[195] regardless of the majority agreement of 8 editors against the non-consensus version of an editor who was topic banned from the subject and remains blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.
  • Template ended up getting protected again due to his edit warring.[196]
  • Misleading an admin that "consensus was actually not reached",[197] and continued deception on talk page[198] where he claimed that there was no consensus because, "Pakistani editors seems to be in unison that these changes were not warranted, though despite this being a template on Pakistani history, Pakistani editors’ opinions are actually in the minority here."[199] This argument about ethnicity of involved editors is an example of WP:BATTLEGROUND.
  • The template editor rejected the request and said, "I see a consensus above which contradicts your request".[200]
  • Removes long term sourced content by falsely asserting that "This has been discussed",[201] regardless of any discussion.
  • Removes it again[202] in middle of new-born discussion.
  • After that he removed the content from lead again, by moving it to section.[203] (I added this sentence on 05:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC) after reading below comments )
  • Added an image without explaining the "puffery" he added.[204]
  • Edit warring to restore the puffery:[205][206]
  • Bludgeoning on talk page for adding the puffery against policies.[207]
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
From block log:
23:48, 6 July 2017 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) blocked Willard84 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 4 days (account creation blocked) (Edit warring: at Godhra train burning per a complaint at WP:AN3)
07:31, 3 June 2017 El C (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Willard84 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Block evasion: Violation of the three-revert rule)
02:29, 3 June 2017 El C (talk | contribs) blocked Willard84 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule)
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

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

@Sandstein: I don't know anything about the report against Mar4d, though his messages and comparison of the report against him with this report about Willard84 is described in the first point of WP:SANCTIONGAME. We have a "clear-cut case" here that Willard84 had made 4 reverts in less than 24 hours on 1988 Gilgit Massacre right after coming off from a 4 days block back in July 2017. But he wasn't blocked for edit warring because EdJohnston thought it would be better to give him a stringent warning that further edit warring will lead to topic ban.[209] With Willard84's demonstration of his incompetence here we can simply agree that there are no chances of improvements. Since he has continued to edit war and there are many other issues with his disruptive editing and he has completed enough requirements for a topic ban, I am not sure what else needs to be clarified here. Excelse (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Willard84[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Willard84[edit]

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

And as for the issue of consensus on the Pakistani history template page, once the third party declared they had seen consensus, I dropped the issue without further debate. This complainant neglects to mention that fact.Willard84 (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
In response to User:Capitols00 below - this is a user who has tried and failed to get me blocked in the past. His friend User:Excelse, also jumped in that argument to join the witch hunt, and now roles are reversed. These two users act in unison to make these accusations every few months. His list of accusations seems impressive but is a paper tiger. He’s complaining that I removed Sanskrit from the Mt Kailasha page, which isn’t true. As shown on the talk page, I actually just moved it out of the lead because a few months back someone had removed this Chinese script and replaced it with Sanskrit, despite this being a Chinese mountain. He also claims claims that I removed Punjabi from a page about “Sikhism” though the Punjabi is still on that page about a temple in Pakistan. What he neglected to mention is that a user had tried to remove the Urdu name, and replace it only with Punjabi script. He also claims I removed a sectio about a Hindu temple - probably in an attempt to convince you of anti-Hindu bias, but he seems to neglect that the page it was removed from was about a fort, and that the temple in question has its own page, Prahladpuri Temple. Another ridiculous attempt to malign me is when he claims I removed Sanskrit from the Peshawar page, when it was actually changed to [the IAST] version of Sanskrit which is exceedingly commmon practice. He then claims I downplay the number of burushaski speakers in India, despite the fact that the NPR source in the article did indeed say 100. He tried to confuse you by pointing to a different source that says 300-400. That wasn’t the source in the article - but he’s using this new source to make a point.The rest of his list of accusations is similarly misconstrued. That’s probably why he’s scraping the bottom of the barrel for edits from months ago to build his case.
That isn’t exactly the same sort of malicious intent Capitols00 tries to portray. Those are two random ones I chose. I can dedicate more time to a point by point rebuttal. But judging by how frequently Capitols00 joins these witch hunts (three cases in just a few days!), it should be no surprise that he’s jumping on the band wagon again. This sort of behavior, and misrepresentation of facts, ought to be themselves sanctioned like WP:BOOMERANG.Willard84 (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Statement exceeding 500 words removed as an admin action. Sandstein 23:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Raymond3023[edit]

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

The report was filed at 05:43 (UTC). At 08:37 (UTC) Willard84 changed timestamp of his 1 hour older response and makes a misleading claim that OP "neglects to mention, he didn’t inform you that the issue on the Nanga Parbat page that he complained about was resolved",[211] after leaving a message on talk page at 08:32 (UTC), despite the report was filed almost 3 hours ago. Willard84 is now attempting to get away from the article by claiming that he "resolved cordially" when he is clearly giving up on the article and he failed to remove the sourced content and failed to get his puffery accepted because his disruption has been highlighted in this report. But I am sure he will resume his disruption on that article for his WP:OR.[212]

Furthermore, edit warring of Willard84 didn't even stopped with this one edit[213] and one revert,[214] because after he failed to remove the content from lead, he still removed it from lead by creating a new section called "Etymology" and moving material there[215] and he provided no reason for his edit. Since his aim was to get rid of the meaning of the word from the lead, I would count it as 2 reverts for removing the meaning of the name, and 2 additional reverts for adding puffery. In total, he made 4 reverts.

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

Statement by D4iNa4[edit]

Willard84 you can't ignore your long term pattern of your nationalistic editing by making false accusations against others. Even if you had never edited the the main Template:History of Pakistan, your behavior on it's talk page has been purely disruptive, though you edit warred enough to get the template protected twice by restoring to a pseudohistorical nationalist version written by an editor who used a sock to notify you recently.[216] The template should be totally unprotected the way Template:History of India is, even though it is much more edited and visited than Template:History of Pakistan. But due to your disruption I think we will never reach there unless you are topic banned. I am really seeing no justification for your actions. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Response to D4Nai by Willard84[edit]

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

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

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

Statement by Kautilya3[edit]

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

Statement by Lorstaking[edit]

I agree with the filer, Raymond3023 and D4iNa4 but I disagree with Kautilya3. Another warning would be a waste of time since he has been already warned and blocked enough times for what he has been doing and he is not still not understanding the serious problems with his editing. According to his own statements here, he still believes that even if none of his edits were accepted they were still correct and also that others are engaging in misconduct by not accepting them. He still believes his edits are correct where he is treating princely states and their subdomains (Phulra, Khanate of Kalat, Dir, etc.) during British Raj as the main power as per his own edits[217][218] to paint a wrong picture that Pakistan was never really colonized by British and was mainly ruled by these vassals. Willard84 also wants to mention initial and outdated rumors about Godhra train burning as facts even after being told otherwise by Edjohnston and not just the involved editors. You just can't expect him to collaborate without creating enough problems.

His input on talk pages[219][220] can be also described as mass bludgeoning just like his statements here, some of them have been already removed by Sandstein.[221]

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

He is saying in one of his statements here [222] that everyone is allowed to revert but he is now gaming 3RR by not reverting 3 times in 24 hours. Clearly that is how he managed to revert 4 times on Nanga_Parbat[223][224][225][226] In short words this is a clear case of disruptive nationalist POV pushing and WP:CIR. Lorstaking (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Willard84's further deceptive approach can be described by his recent statement here on this page, falsely claiming that I "had commented on just an hour earlier" before MapSGV reverted him, ([227][228]: seems more than 22 hours to me) despite the fact that I had commented on the template against the problematic version in 6 October 2017.[229] Also that he deceptively cherry picked this diff to claim the request was "was quickly shut down", when I was the one to "shut down" the request.[230]
I must also add that Willard84 was edit warring, bludgeoning and misrepresenting consensus on talk page for restoring problematic version of an indefinitely blocked topic banned sockmaster upon the request from his sock.[231] Months ago, he was doing this same thing[232][233] when this editor was blocked indefinitely for being WP:NOTHERE.[234] Willard84 attempted to get his topic ban overturned before,[235] despite being the only person to oppose any sanction on him at WP:ANI.[236][237]
Willard84 has really left me in no doubt now. He is a case of WP:CIR whose deceptive approach is harmful for this project. Lorstaking (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Response to Lorstaking by Willard84[edit]
I don’t have time to rebuke rehashed accusations that were already brought up above, but it’s clear what Salem 1620 must have felt like.
Anyway, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this user, Lorstaking, has been spending an unusual amount of effort to defend User:MapSGV, whose account has been blocked above, by petitioning arbitrator User:Sandstein above to rescind his decision. The accusation that I tried to downplay British rule is exceedingly ridiculous- as a review of the edits would make very clear.
Lorstaking and MapSGV have an unusually deep relationship that appears to have only developed in the end of February 2018 when MapSGV started making a significant number of edits. He randomly jumped back into editing after a 2 year hiatus on 19 February 2017, and seems to have somehow rapidly developed a deep relationship with Lorstaking, who took the unusual step of writing a lengthy character defense of MapSGV. Lorstaking even opened a case to challenge sanctions against MapSGV, although this was quickly shut down.
Yet now, Lorstaking finds his way on here to join a witch hunt. Perhaps in retaliation, because MapSGV somehow randomly appeared on the Template:History of Pakistan that Lorstaking had commented on just an hour earlier, and reverted my edit before threatening me with blocks on the talk page. He also seems to be unusually well-versed in Wikipedia lingo for someone who apparently just parachuted back in after a making a few dozen edits.Willard84 (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Capitals00[edit]

While a number of recent examples of continued disruption have been already provided, I think it is nonetheless worth it to describe the problem to be bigger and continuous. I have observed Willard84’s edits over a long period of time and many of them have proved to be problematic. Here are a few examples of nationalist editing over a broad range of articles:

These edits show Willard84's problematic editing behavior across many articles. Despite previous warnings and blocks, it has continued and Willard84's own comment indicates that this problem will remain. I would recommend a topic ban on India and Pakistan related articles broadly construed. Capitals00 (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mar4d[edit]

  • I will second Kautilya3. These are content disputes, not conduct disputes if it all. In the limited time I have known Willard84, he has been an extremely productive editor and the majority of his contributions, particularly to Pakistan topics, have been outstanding and one of the best I've seen on Wikipedia. One only needs to go through his contributions log and his article creations to appreciate this user's presence in this topic area, and his expertise in finding reliable sources to improve under-covered subjects. What I see here is mostly a collection of stale, cherry-picked diffs cobbled together to form a mudslinging contest, by a group of editors who belong to the most controversial topic area on Wikipedia which is riddled with content disputes and nationalist edit warring. The timing, content and structure of this ARE is clearly suspect and in extremely bad faith, as I have raised below. Mar4d (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Willard84[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Both in this case and in the one concerning Mar4d below, it appears to me that we have several areas of problematic editing that are probably best addressed with topic bans for a number of editors. However, in both cases the report mixes genuine potentially problematic conduct such as edit-warring and personal atacks with what seem to be mere content disputes, which means that we don't have a clear-cut case. Moreover, a thorough investigation of several article histories would be needed to identify everybody who needs sanctioning. I don't currently have time for this. As such, I can't currently propose any specific action, which is not to say that action is not necessary. Sandstein 17:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)