Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:11, 12 May 2015 editOccultZone (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers224,089 edits →Statement by EllieTea: suggestion← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:30, 12 May 2015 edit undo168.1.75.18 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit →
Line 270:		Line 270:
	:*].		:*].
	The warning would be a caution about their future editing at ]. It would tell each person that they could be banned from the article and its talk page unless they showed by their further edits that they were making a reasonable effort to solve the disputed items and reach consensus. That effort could include RFCs, posts at WikiProjects, use of ] or any other recognized method of ]. Nobody would be allowed to make any edit that they have reason to believe lacks a talk page consensus unless it is routine text editing or uncontroversial maintenance. So, no bold edits. Of course, only those who choose to make further edits to the article would be risking anything, and the only parties to be warned at this time are those in the above list. I invite comment on this strategy from the parties, admins or anyone else. ] (]) 05:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)		The warning would be a caution about their future editing at ]. It would tell each person that they could be banned from the article and its talk page unless they showed by their further edits that they were making a reasonable effort to solve the disputed items and reach consensus. That effort could include RFCs, posts at WikiProjects, use of ] or any other recognized method of ]. Nobody would be allowed to make any edit that they have reason to believe lacks a talk page consensus unless it is routine text editing or uncontroversial maintenance. So, no bold edits. Of course, only those who choose to make further edits to the article would be risking anything, and the only parties to be warned at this time are those in the above list. I invite comment on this strategy from the parties, admins or anyone else. ] (]) 05:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

			===Request concerning TheRedPenOfDoom===
			; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks\|168.1.75.18}} 07:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

			; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks\|TheRedPenOfDoom}}<p>{{ds/log\|TheRedPenOfDoom}}
			<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

			;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] :
			:''"TheRedPenOfDoom is admonished for treating Misplaced Pages as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves."''

			;Additionally: ] :
			:''"Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions."''
			<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->

			; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
			<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->

			==== Refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing per WP:BATTLEGROUND or accept the validity of the Arbitration Committee's findings ====
			# Argues that wikipedia ''is'' in fact a battleground
			#
			# , Nazi analogy re: Arbom's GamerGate enforcement
			# , Defense of Nazi analogy
			# , Continued
			# , Further criticism, note closing comment: ''"Gamergate Ahoy! Keep them socks coming!"''
			#

			==== Adds an anti-Gamergate "flag" to their user page ====
			# , Evidence of battleground mentality

			==== Continues battleground behavior ====
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			# , Note edit summary
			#
			#
			# , Note edit summary and heading
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			# , Note edit summary
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			# , Responds with ''"If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas"'' to an editor who posts ''" a Pro-GamerGater I am not a troll"''

			==== In response to the comments above, they're politely reminded to avoid battleground behavior ====
			# , ''"This could be taken as battleground mentality by others, commenting on the editor and not the content."''

			==== Continues despite reminder ====
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#

			==== Additional ====
			# , Inappropriately redacts a link posted by a new editor (the link contained no BLP violations) and attempts to intimidate the editor.
			# , , Repeatedly uses a derogatory term for Gamer-gaters, also referenced in the poster on their user page
			# Alleges without substantiation that editors {{u\|Masem}} and {{u\|Thargor Orlando}} are conspiring offsite with Gamergaters to edit the article. This misinterpretation is indicative of their perception of anyone they view as opponents


			;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
			<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
			*Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.


			; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
			<!-- Add any further comment here -->

			While these linked edits are the most problematic this editor's contributions to the topic area are generally unconstructive and combative. I encourage those reviewing to

			In summary: the result of the sanction seems to have had little or no effect on the editor's BATTLEGROUND mentality, only a reduction in the frequency with which they post in the topic area. The several months elapsed since their sanction, their inapparent change in attitude and their reluctance to avoid the topic area or accept the committee's findings of wrongdoing suggest only explicit prohibition will eliminate this disruption.

			I expect arguments in opposition will focus on my status as an IP editor rather than the substance of my filing, suggesting the message is less important than the messenger. Such arguments should be weighed accordingly.

			I expect secondary criticism for not constructively engaging on the editor's talk page prior to filing. Please note the editor's pattern of dismissing or ignoring rather frequent criticisms on their talk page from more respected editors, across a broad range of topics, then consider the likely effect an IP editor's comments would have. ] (]) 07:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

			; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
			<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->



			<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
			===Discussion concerning TheRedPenOfDoom===
			<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
			====Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom====

			====Statement by (username)====
			<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

			===Result concerning TheRedPenOfDoom===
			:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
			<!-- When closing this request use {{hat\|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
			*

Revision as of 07:30, 12 May 2015

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347

Xtremedood

Blocked 48 hours for edit warring as a regular admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Xtremedood User who is submitting this request for enforcement OccultZone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Xtremedood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:ARBIPA Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Claiming a popular battle to be a "hoax" clear attempt to WP:RGW. Edit warring , failure to understand WP:CON, "2 against 1 is not a consensus". Blanking of the material that he don't like. Indeed, if he claims that it is 'unsourced', then why he don't remove the opposite material that is also unsourced? WP:SOAPBOXING. WP:ASPERSIONS, "Your edits often seem disruptive and unprofessional", though the editor in question seems to be making good edits. Canvassing a particular side. Attempts to turn Misplaced Pages into a battleground along national lines,(4 Indians and 1 non-Indian) a warning can be found here, this was his response. That is all from last 7 days. He had demonstrated this sort of battleground mentality in the last report as well. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC) 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 @Sitush: Your edit was far different than this kind of remark, his is misleading, while yours clearly questions about its qualification as WP:RS. You removed it because you thought that the source is unreliable, while Xtremedood objected to each of them because he believes that the whole battle is hoax. There is big difference in what he is thinking and what others are thinking. Concerning the 2 recent ANIs during this report, his edits do violate WP:CENSOR of material that is often sourced with a reliable source and when it comes along with the BLP violation that has been added below, we will have to think more. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC) It is still WP:SOAPBOX to misrepresent the credibility of the source, call it unreliable but don't connect it with the group that concerns some sort of ethnicity. How about this edit? This was the article where I found him first. Then the AfD of Battle of Rajasthan was clearly unwarranted. He could try RfC or any other WP:DR method for addressing his doubts. Although he went to canvass and comment on the nationalities of those who he opposed, even though none of them(except maybe 1) have revealed their nationality, overlooking is likely going to cause more disruption and lower chances for sanctions in future. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC) Agreed with Kautilya3, a warning will suffice. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning Xtremedood 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 Xtremedood OccultZone has already made a complaint in the past which was dismissed. He seems to have been stalking my contributions, rather than engage in a pragmatic debate on whether or not the Battle of Rajasthan article should be deleted. To claim a battle with such limited sources is "popular" is a clear fallacy. OccultZone has not been able to provide a single legitimate source as to the relevant location of the supposed conflict, the generals involved, and why there are sources saying that conflict continued till 739 A.D. when OccultZone's sources say the decisive battle to stop all battles occurred in 738 A.D. 1) I have not violated WP:RGW, as various other users have agreed with me about the scarcity of sources pertaining to this supposed battle. There are even other users claiming that the article's name should be changed (thus opposing the legitimacy of this as a "popular" battle). 2) These edits do not constitute "edit warring." FreeatlastChitchat and I have been debating for over a month as to whether certain content should be allowed or omitted on the article. There was a DRN discussion mediated by Keithbob, in which we discussed in great detail this article. There has been no resolution as of now, and FreeatlastChitchat's attempt to mediate has also been rejected. Clearly OccultZone seems very desperate to try gather up information about me, he seems to be stalking my contributions. He does not know the background information pertaining to this whole thing. The 3RR was also respected. In the past he also accussed me of making wrong edits of the Mughal-Sikh war battles. However, a thorough investigation found (by administration) that I was correct in my edits. OccultZone's heavily biased accusations should therefore be dismissed. 3) Consensus was not reached in this matter.I agreed to wait for consensus after OccultZone's first complaint. However, OccultZone did not answer my relevant questions pertaining to the sources at hand. From April 20th to April 29th, there was no response. OccultZone, rather than wait for consensus simply reverted the article on April 28th, . This means for 8 days he did not make a response, and randomly suggested that 2 against 1 constituted a consensus, which it does not according to WP:Consensus. OccultZone has failed to answer why the 3,843 figure by the Indian government should not be in the Indian Claims section when that section exists. He also failed to properly detail why the source was supposedly incorrect. The source that I wanted was a third-party source (non-Governmental) and it may therefore be less biased. 4) Once again, OccultZone seems to be stalking my contributions without properly analyzing the context of these changes. I had a meaningful discussion with Nijgoykar in which he verified the source of an Arab invasion (the sources were largely Indian) but was unable to verify the source of "forced conversion," therefore the changes meet proper discussion. see ]. WP:Verifiability states "All material in Misplaced Pages mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." I was looking to verify this information and followed proper procedure. As for the Invasion of Rajasthan difference, I have stated it here that I deleted it: ]. There is simply no source for a 40,000 Hindus against 100,000 Arabs battle occuring during this time. OccultZone may be ignorant of the immense dynamics of warfare. 100,000 soldiers is not a small figure. There should be some historical record of this. I am still waiting for anyone to source me this figure. As for the third link, I have already stated that there is no historical record of the battle of Rajasthan existing. The only sources are biased and do not adhere to WP:Identifying reliable sources. 5) This does not adhere to the 5 points outlined in WP:Soapboxing. OccultZone did not wait for Administrative decision, rather he tried to delete the template. This is not right. He should have atleast tried to contest it. This may represent heavy ideological bias. Simply saying "not a hoax" here does not suffice to not contest it. 6) Once again, OccultZone seems to be stalking my contributions without properly analyzing to context or simply trying to defame. The context of the conversation may be seen here . 7) This does not constitute canvassing. Another user (AshLin) first invited 2 people. Consensus on AfD is not based upon a tally of votes, as outlined here: ]. Bringing forth more diverse discourse may provide for more policy-related discourse. See the full dicussion here. 8) Statement was aimed at fostering more diverse dialogue. See point 7. OccultZone's twisting of statements should not be taken seriously. There are clearly a lot more users with interest in Indian topics being involved than many other users. OccultZone is on record of using blackmailing attempts, threatening me to withdraw a statement or he will inform administration. He said "If you wouldn't retract that part from your comment, I would consider bringing you to either WP:ARE or WP:ANI.". This constitutes clear blackmailing. He also displays immense bias by simply deleting a template, rather than try and engage in constructive dialogue by contesting it. The real battleground mentality is being displayed by OccultZone in his failed (previous) attempt to accuse me of wrong edits on the Mughal-Sikh related articles, his inability to properly address concerns pertaining to the 1971 war article, and his "speedy keep" bias pertaining to the Battle of Rajasthan. Xtremedood (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Response to Dolescum As to adhere to Misplaced Pages's policy WP:Other Stuff Exists, which states "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." If that section did not exist for these articles , then it should not exist for this one. The heavy anti-Muslim bias is something I wish to oppose that sadly exists on certain articles on Misplaced Pages. This bias goes against NPOV. I provided my reasoning in the edit summary . It was based upon sound reasoning. I did not brake any revert rules, it was a one time edit. Any changes I made can be found in that edit. Better left for discussion on the talk page. Xtremedood (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Response to Delibzr I am not the one who put A.R. Rahman on the list, look at the history, it has been there longer. I simply organized the format and added some new figures. Your source for Dharmendra that he was a Sikh does not work, I looked at the source. The source indicated in the article states he was a former Hindu. If you have a legitimate source feel free to remove it and to discuss it in the talk page with me. Your accustion of me removing content on the Criticism of Sikhism page is baseless. The link for the supposed criticism does not work ], either fix the link or provide me proof of that. I did not find any source that said that Nanak had a debate with Mullahs in Makkah. The whole story sounds fishy to me as why would a person who Sikhs claim to be a non-Muslim (who are not allowed in Makkah) go there and have a debate with religious leaders? The whole passage seems kind of weird and the link did not work. You need a legitimate source for that. Xtremedood (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by Dolescum Further to the appearance of removing material he disapproved of, Xtremedood recently attempted to remove all mentions of Criticism of Muhammad from the Muhammad article. The reason given was to point to the Jesus article and provide a very selective reading of WP:OSE. Dolescum (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by Delibzr Xtremedood has brought bad references(rumor sites ) on List of converts to Islam from Hinduism. He claims that A. R. Rahman was a Hindu who converted into Islam, when he was atheist. He claims that Dharmendra was a Hindu who converted to Islam, when he is a devoted Sikh, same with his son. He is violating biographies of living persons on these articles. On Criticism of Sikhism he removed what he disliked, and wanted to see. Reference was already accessible and supported that info. Xtremedood has misused references on Battle of Rajasthan, and he has insulted the academics. That article is not going to be deleted or even end up with a merge or redirect, that means his participation was totally disruptive on that AFD. He had to use talk page not AFD or speedy deletions for his doubts, but he seems not to be capable of engaging in a proper discussion without edit warring. He has issues with WP:COMPETENCE. Delibzr (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Xtremedood you went ahead to claim everyone to have been converted into Islam and you remove what you don't like. Link is working and book is available online. What you do is, you hate if anything goes against you. I am shocked that you are not blocked for your propaganda pushing. And User:EdJohnston, Xtremedood is still violating BLP by putting false information on List of converts to Islam from Hinduism. His agenda is to spam that Mughal Empire won over Maratha Empire, when it is highly opposite. He removes any mention of Maratha victory or expansion by putting his own opinion. He is still misrepresenting refs, and making disruptive page moves. I would ask for a few months of ban from this whole area. Delibzr (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC) User:EdJohnston you had told not to make any reverts anymore and discuss the content instead, Xtremedood returned to violating BLP and edit warring in just 2 days, see Delibzr (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by Calypsomusic Xtremedood (talk · contribs) is adding source misrepresentation in articles In Muhammed bin Qasim he writes about other scholars: Elliot who hated Islam U.T. Thakkur, a staunch Indian nationalist Elliot is a mainstream pillar of British historiography on medieval India, so the claim that he hates Islam is absurd. Xtremedood is claiming that this source "Maclean, Derryl N. Religion and Society in Arab Sind, Brill Academic Publishers, 1989 ISBN 90-04-08551-3 pg.22-29" says that Elliot "hates" Islam. But the source says nothing of the sort about Elliot or Thakkur: There is also a series of unexplained edits by him with blanking of sections, for example here and here He even marked one of those edits as Minor in the edit summary. His disruptive editing has been brought to his attention by @Kautilya3: @FreeatlastChitchat: @OccultZone: @Kansas Bear: @Ghatus:, and at DR and at ARE but as these edits show, nothing has changed. Statement by Sitush Xtremedood was basically right regarding the Battle of Rajasthan. Ok, it wasn't deleted but it is already changing dramatically because (a) the "battle" only seems to exist in the eyes of Hindu nationalists and their ilk; (b) as the later comments here indicate, the title is likely to be changed. Effectively, it was a hoax title, if not an entirely fictitious article. Xtremedood is also basically right here. They've dealt with it poorly at the end but 2 vs 1 is not much of a consensus, perhaps especially when Ghatus is involved, and using a Government of India source in the way that was being proposed clearly wasn't ideal. Xtremedood should have run through WP:DR for options but underlying it all is a desire to use decent sources and that has struck me in my other limited dealings with them. I don't have time to go through everything but I do know from things I've seen at Mughal-Maratha Wars that Xtremedood is basically one of the good 'uns there, which Delibzr and Ghatus are not. This type of thing from Delibzr is clearly very poor but Xtremedood's reversion was in turn reverted and Ghatus, who should know better, seemed to have no inclination to set things straight. Similarly, Xtremedood is wanting to use modern reliable sources there but the other two seem not so keen - again, Ghatus could have done something with the article given things said in this thread but they showed no inclination and seem arguably to still be insisting that an outdated historian with a very well known Hindu bias should carry weight disproportionate to NPOV. Xtremedood's way of handling things might be better but it is my suspicion that they are up against a series of pro-Hindu, pro-India "usual suspects". It's at worst a "six of one and half-a-dozen of the other" scrap and I can feel the frustration. They should be advised to make better use of things outlined at WP:DR and given a decent warning that if they do not then things could get worse for them very quickly. That's all, although warnings to others who are involved might not go amiss. - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC) @OccultZone: you say this is soapboxing. It isn't. The subject area is rife with Hindutva and less extreme pro-Hindu sources, just as it is rife with stuff from the other extreme. They're making a very good point and I've lost track of the number of times I've had to do similar. The difference seems to be that I usually get away with it, probably because I'm relatively a big beast here rather than a newcomer. I doubt very much you would cite SOAPBOX at me for that, and if I'm right then you shouldn't do it for Xtremedood. I removed that particular source 12 hours ago, and no-one has put it back yet (and shouldn't!) - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC) @OccultZone: Xtremedood was making the point that the source was unreliable - the thing is mentioned just above the response from them that you diff'd. It is unreliable and, as likely as not, it is influenced by the Hindutva revisionism because it is quite evident that the author knows nothing of substance about which he is writing. The book is a dreadful potted history, of the sort that could be cobbled together from op-eds, news stories, populist websites and the like. Why anyone tried to defend it is beyond me. I'm sure Xtremedood has not behaved perfectly in all of this. I'm equally sure that the same could be said of others. Rap him on the knuckles, dish out a general warning to all involved and point in the direction of WP:DR. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by Kautilya3 My feeling is that Xtremedood is a bit of an overenthusiastic new editor, whose infractions are nothing unusual. He made a series of POV edits here, which I queried on the talk page. When he didn't respond after a few days, I reverted them. On the AfD for Battle of Rajasthan, his original point was well-made and I supported deletion initially. His overenthusiasm shows in the huge number of posts he made on the AfD page (something like 60-70 in a week). But the subject is a tricky one. So, on balance, we decided to retain the page but work on the content and the somewhat problematic page title. I think a mild warning to be a bit more cooperative with the other editors is all that is needed. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Xtremedood This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Battle of Rajasthan, where Xtremedood has nominated an article for deletion. Xtremedood's questions seem valid to me, and if his behavior regarding that article is the main issue, I'm not seeing any reason for an AE sanction. A review of the AfD comments by others suggests that, if the Battle of Rajasthan article survives, it is likely to be changed to describe the overall Arab invasion of the 8th century and will not focus on this single poorly-attested battle. I would close this AE request with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Per the reasoning in Sitush's comment, I am planning to close this soon with no action, unless other admins think sanctions are needed. User:Delibzr and User:Xtremedood have also clashed at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism and I've left warnings for both parties. See details at the AN3 report. That dispute needs either a talk page consensus or a report at WP:BLPN. The reference that Xtremedood included to justify having King Chakrawati Famas in the list is not suitable for Misplaced Pages. Even the current, greatly reduced List of converts to Islam from Hinduism contains dead links as references for the conversion of some living people. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC) As pointed out by User:Delibzr, Xtremedood has reverted again at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism without first getting a talk page consensus. This is contrary to the warning I issued per the AN3 complaint. So I'm blocking Xtremedood for 48 hours for edit warring. He is already notified under WP:ARBIPA. I don't see the need for any action beyond that for the present AE complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for edit warring as a regular admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Xtremedood

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: OccultZone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Xtremedood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIPA

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

Claiming a popular battle to be a "hoax" clear attempt to WP:RGW.
Edit warring ,
failure to understand WP:CON, "2 against 1 is not a consensus".
Blanking of the material that he don't like. Indeed, if he claims that it is 'unsourced', then why he don't remove the opposite material that is also unsourced?
WP:SOAPBOXING.
WP:ASPERSIONS, "Your edits often seem disruptive and unprofessional", though the editor in question seems to be making good edits.
Canvassing a particular side.
Attempts to turn Misplaced Pages into a battleground along national lines,(4 Indians and 1 non-Indian) a warning can be found here, this was his response.

That is all from last 7 days. He had demonstrated this sort of battleground mentality in the last report as well. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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

@Sitush: Your edit was far different than this kind of remark, his is misleading, while yours clearly questions about its qualification as WP:RS. You removed it because you thought that the source is unreliable, while Xtremedood objected to each of them because he believes that the whole battle is hoax. There is big difference in what he is thinking and what others are thinking. Concerning the 2 recent ANIs during this report, his edits do violate WP:CENSOR of material that is often sourced with a reliable source and when it comes along with the BLP violation that has been added below, we will have to think more. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It is still WP:SOAPBOX to misrepresent the credibility of the source, call it unreliable but don't connect it with the group that concerns some sort of ethnicity. How about this edit? This was the article where I found him first. Then the AfD of Battle of Rajasthan was clearly unwarranted. He could try RfC or any other WP:DR method for addressing his doubts. Although he went to canvass and comment on the nationalities of those who he opposed, even though none of them(except maybe 1) have revealed their nationality, overlooking is likely going to cause more disruption and lower chances for sanctions in future. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Kautilya3, a warning will suffice. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Xtremedood

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 Xtremedood

OccultZone has already made a complaint in the past which was dismissed. He seems to have been stalking my contributions, rather than engage in a pragmatic debate on whether or not the Battle of Rajasthan article should be deleted. To claim a battle with such limited sources is "popular" is a clear fallacy. OccultZone has not been able to provide a single legitimate source as to the relevant location of the supposed conflict, the generals involved, and why there are sources saying that conflict continued till 739 A.D. when OccultZone's sources say the decisive battle to stop all battles occurred in 738 A.D.

1) I have not violated WP:RGW, as various other users have agreed with me about the scarcity of sources pertaining to this supposed battle. There are even other users claiming that the article's name should be changed (thus opposing the legitimacy of this as a "popular" battle).

2) These edits do not constitute "edit warring." FreeatlastChitchat and I have been debating for over a month as to whether certain content should be allowed or omitted on the article. There was a DRN discussion mediated by Keithbob, in which we discussed in great detail this article. There has been no resolution as of now, and FreeatlastChitchat's attempt to mediate has also been rejected. Clearly OccultZone seems very desperate to try gather up information about me, he seems to be stalking my contributions. He does not know the background information pertaining to this whole thing. The 3RR was also respected. In the past he also accussed me of making wrong edits of the Mughal-Sikh war battles. However, a thorough investigation found (by administration) that I was correct in my edits. OccultZone's heavily biased accusations should therefore be dismissed.

3) Consensus was not reached in this matter.I agreed to wait for consensus after OccultZone's first complaint. However, OccultZone did not answer my relevant questions pertaining to the sources at hand. From April 20th to April 29th, there was no response. OccultZone, rather than wait for consensus simply reverted the article on April 28th, . This means for 8 days he did not make a response, and randomly suggested that 2 against 1 constituted a consensus, which it does not according to WP:Consensus. OccultZone has failed to answer why the 3,843 figure by the Indian government should not be in the Indian Claims section when that section exists. He also failed to properly detail why the source was supposedly incorrect. The source that I wanted was a third-party source (non-Governmental) and it may therefore be less biased.

4) Once again, OccultZone seems to be stalking my contributions without properly analyzing the context of these changes. I had a meaningful discussion with Nijgoykar in which he verified the source of an Arab invasion (the sources were largely Indian) but was unable to verify the source of "forced conversion," therefore the changes meet proper discussion. see ]. WP:Verifiability states "All material in Misplaced Pages mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." I was looking to verify this information and followed proper procedure. As for the Invasion of Rajasthan difference, I have stated it here that I deleted it: ]. There is simply no source for a 40,000 Hindus against 100,000 Arabs battle occuring during this time. OccultZone may be ignorant of the immense dynamics of warfare. 100,000 soldiers is not a small figure. There should be some historical record of this. I am still waiting for anyone to source me this figure. As for the third link, I have already stated that there is no historical record of the battle of Rajasthan existing. The only sources are biased and do not adhere to WP:Identifying reliable sources.

5) This does not adhere to the 5 points outlined in WP:Soapboxing. OccultZone did not wait for Administrative decision, rather he tried to delete the template. This is not right. He should have atleast tried to contest it. This may represent heavy ideological bias. Simply saying "not a hoax" here does not suffice to not contest it.

6) Once again, OccultZone seems to be stalking my contributions without properly analyzing to context or simply trying to defame. The context of the conversation may be seen here .

7) This does not constitute canvassing. Another user (AshLin) first invited 2 people. Consensus on AfD is not based upon a tally of votes, as outlined here: ]. Bringing forth more diverse discourse may provide for more policy-related discourse. See the full dicussion here.

8) Statement was aimed at fostering more diverse dialogue. See point 7. OccultZone's twisting of statements should not be taken seriously. There are clearly a lot more users with interest in Indian topics being involved than many other users.

OccultZone is on record of using blackmailing attempts, threatening me to withdraw a statement or he will inform administration. He said "If you wouldn't retract that part from your comment, I would consider bringing you to either WP:ARE or WP:ANI.". This constitutes clear blackmailing. He also displays immense bias by simply deleting a template, rather than try and engage in constructive dialogue by contesting it. The real battleground mentality is being displayed by OccultZone in his failed (previous) attempt to accuse me of wrong edits on the Mughal-Sikh related articles, his inability to properly address concerns pertaining to the 1971 war article, and his "speedy keep" bias pertaining to the Battle of Rajasthan. Xtremedood (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Response to Dolescum

As to adhere to Misplaced Pages's policy WP:Other Stuff Exists, which states "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." If that section did not exist for these articles , then it should not exist for this one. The heavy anti-Muslim bias is something I wish to oppose that sadly exists on certain articles on Misplaced Pages. This bias goes against NPOV. I provided my reasoning in the edit summary . It was based upon sound reasoning. I did not brake any revert rules, it was a one time edit. Any changes I made can be found in that edit. Better left for discussion on the talk page. Xtremedood (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Response to Delibzr

I am not the one who put A.R. Rahman on the list, look at the history, it has been there longer. I simply organized the format and added some new figures. Your source for Dharmendra that he was a Sikh does not work, I looked at the source. The source indicated in the article states he was a former Hindu. If you have a legitimate source feel free to remove it and to discuss it in the talk page with me. Your accustion of me removing content on the Criticism of Sikhism page is baseless. The link for the supposed criticism does not work ], either fix the link or provide me proof of that. I did not find any source that said that Nanak had a debate with Mullahs in Makkah. The whole story sounds fishy to me as why would a person who Sikhs claim to be a non-Muslim (who are not allowed in Makkah) go there and have a debate with religious leaders? The whole passage seems kind of weird and the link did not work. You need a legitimate source for that. Xtremedood (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dolescum

Further to the appearance of removing material he disapproved of, Xtremedood recently attempted to remove all mentions of Criticism of Muhammad from the Muhammad article. The reason given was to point to the Jesus article and provide a very selective reading of WP:OSE. Dolescum (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Delibzr

Xtremedood has brought bad references(rumor sites ) on List of converts to Islam from Hinduism. He claims that A. R. Rahman was a Hindu who converted into Islam, when he was atheist. He claims that Dharmendra was a Hindu who converted to Islam, when he is a devoted Sikh, same with his son. He is violating biographies of living persons on these articles.

On Criticism of Sikhism he removed what he disliked, and wanted to see. Reference was already accessible and supported that info.

Xtremedood has misused references on Battle of Rajasthan, and he has insulted the academics. That article is not going to be deleted or even end up with a merge or redirect, that means his participation was totally disruptive on that AFD. He had to use talk page not AFD or speedy deletions for his doubts, but he seems not to be capable of engaging in a proper discussion without edit warring. He has issues with WP:COMPETENCE. Delibzr (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Xtremedood you went ahead to claim everyone to have been converted into Islam and you remove what you don't like. Link is working and book is available online. What you do is, you hate if anything goes against you. I am shocked that you are not blocked for your propaganda pushing.

And User:EdJohnston, Xtremedood is still violating BLP by putting false information on List of converts to Islam from Hinduism. His agenda is to spam that Mughal Empire won over Maratha Empire, when it is highly opposite. He removes any mention of Maratha victory or expansion by putting his own opinion. He is still misrepresenting refs, and making disruptive page moves. I would ask for a few months of ban from this whole area. Delibzr (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston you had told not to make any reverts anymore and discuss the content instead, Xtremedood returned to violating BLP and edit warring in just 2 days, see Delibzr (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Calypsomusic

Xtremedood (talk · contribs) is adding source misrepresentation in articles

In Muhammed bin Qasim he writes about other scholars:

Elliot who hated Islam

U.T. Thakkur, a staunch Indian nationalist

Elliot is a mainstream pillar of British historiography on medieval India, so the claim that he hates Islam is absurd. Xtremedood is claiming that this source "Maclean, Derryl N. Religion and Society in Arab Sind, Brill Academic Publishers, 1989 ISBN 90-04-08551-3 pg.22-29" says that Elliot "hates" Islam.

But the source says nothing of the sort about Elliot or Thakkur:

There is also a series of unexplained edits by him with blanking of sections, for example here and here He even marked one of those edits as Minor in the edit summary.

His disruptive editing has been brought to his attention by @Kautilya3: @FreeatlastChitchat: @OccultZone: @Kansas Bear: @Ghatus:, and at DR and at ARE but as these edits show, nothing has changed.

Statement by Sitush

Xtremedood was basically right regarding the Battle of Rajasthan. Ok, it wasn't deleted but it is already changing dramatically because (a) the "battle" only seems to exist in the eyes of Hindu nationalists and their ilk; (b) as the later comments here indicate, the title is likely to be changed. Effectively, it was a hoax title, if not an entirely fictitious article.

Xtremedood is also basically right here. They've dealt with it poorly at the end but 2 vs 1 is not much of a consensus, perhaps especially when Ghatus is involved, and using a Government of India source in the way that was being proposed clearly wasn't ideal. Xtremedood should have run through WP:DR for options but underlying it all is a desire to use decent sources and that has struck me in my other limited dealings with them.

I don't have time to go through everything but I do know from things I've seen at Mughal-Maratha Wars that Xtremedood is basically one of the good 'uns there, which Delibzr and Ghatus are not. This type of thing from Delibzr is clearly very poor but Xtremedood's reversion was in turn reverted and Ghatus, who should know better, seemed to have no inclination to set things straight. Similarly, Xtremedood is wanting to use modern reliable sources there but the other two seem not so keen - again, Ghatus could have done something with the article given things said in this thread but they showed no inclination and seem arguably to still be insisting that an outdated historian with a very well known Hindu bias should carry weight disproportionate to NPOV.

Xtremedood's way of handling things might be better but it is my suspicion that they are up against a series of pro-Hindu, pro-India "usual suspects". It's at worst a "six of one and half-a-dozen of the other" scrap and I can feel the frustration. They should be advised to make better use of things outlined at WP:DR and given a decent warning that if they do not then things could get worse for them very quickly. That's all, although warnings to others who are involved might not go amiss. - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@OccultZone: you say this is soapboxing. It isn't. The subject area is rife with Hindutva and less extreme pro-Hindu sources, just as it is rife with stuff from the other extreme. They're making a very good point and I've lost track of the number of times I've had to do similar. The difference seems to be that I usually get away with it, probably because I'm relatively a big beast here rather than a newcomer. I doubt very much you would cite SOAPBOX at me for that, and if I'm right then you shouldn't do it for Xtremedood. I removed that particular source 12 hours ago, and no-one has put it back yet (and shouldn't!) - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@OccultZone: Xtremedood was making the point that the source was unreliable - the thing is mentioned just above the response from them that you diff'd. It is unreliable and, as likely as not, it is influenced by the Hindutva revisionism because it is quite evident that the author knows nothing of substance about which he is writing. The book is a dreadful potted history, of the sort that could be cobbled together from op-eds, news stories, populist websites and the like. Why anyone tried to defend it is beyond me.

I'm sure Xtremedood has not behaved perfectly in all of this. I'm equally sure that the same could be said of others. Rap him on the knuckles, dish out a general warning to all involved and point in the direction of WP:DR. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kautilya3

My feeling is that Xtremedood is a bit of an overenthusiastic new editor, whose infractions are nothing unusual. He made a series of POV edits here, which I queried on the talk page. When he didn't respond after a few days, I reverted them. On the AfD for Battle of Rajasthan, his original point was well-made and I supported deletion initially. His overenthusiasm shows in the huge number of posts he made on the AfD page (something like 60-70 in a week). But the subject is a tricky one. So, on balance, we decided to retain the page but work on the content and the somewhat problematic page title. I think a mild warning to be a bit more cooperative with the other editors is all that is needed. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Xtremedood

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

Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Battle of Rajasthan, where Xtremedood has nominated an article for deletion. Xtremedood's questions seem valid to me, and if his behavior regarding that article is the main issue, I'm not seeing any reason for an AE sanction. A review of the AfD comments by others suggests that, if the Battle of Rajasthan article survives, it is likely to be changed to describe the overall Arab invasion of the 8th century and will not focus on this single poorly-attested battle. I would close this AE request with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Per the reasoning in Sitush's comment, I am planning to close this soon with no action, unless other admins think sanctions are needed. User:Delibzr and User:Xtremedood have also clashed at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism and I've left warnings for both parties. See details at the AN3 report. That dispute needs either a talk page consensus or a report at WP:BLPN. The reference that Xtremedood included to justify having King Chakrawati Famas in the list is not suitable for Misplaced Pages. Even the current, greatly reduced List of converts to Islam from Hinduism contains dead links as references for the conversion of some living people. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

As pointed out by User:Delibzr, Xtremedood has reverted again at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism without first getting a talk page consensus. This is contrary to the warning I issued per the AN3 complaint. So I'm blocking Xtremedood for 48 hours for edit warring. He is already notified under WP:ARBIPA. I don't see the need for any action beyond that for the present AE complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese

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 Roscelese

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Padenton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity_and_Sexuality#Roscelese_restricted : specifically "making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert" and failing to "discuss any content reversions on the pages's talk page"

2) Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to the following restrictions. She is:
indefinitely restricted to making no more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page;

indefinitely prohibited from making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;

indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes.

These restrictions may be appealed to the committee twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. Should Roscelese breach any of these restrictions, she may be blocked for per the standard Enforcement provision below.

Passed 8 to 2 at 01:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

22:23, 3 May 2015 "Per disc. w/SY86, rv back to Amaury's version. EllieTea, since in the short time you've been editing you've shown repeatedly that you can't/won't accurately represent srcs w/o falsification or OR, I suggest you gain consensus for edits *before* making 'em" This reverted a week and a half's worth of contributions, over 70 edits total. There is no discussion with SY86 pertaining to this, on the talk page, or on either user's talk page. Even so, there was absolutely no attempt by Roscelese to explain the reasons for the mass revert, every explanation claimed there were previous explanations provided, yet previous explanations have been addressed and un-responded to.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: None that I'm aware of

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

Not applicable. User is under restrictions from previous arbcom case above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Between April 26th and May 2nd, EllieTea made several good faith edits to False accusation of rape. While the bulk of the changes were fine, there were a few reverts by other users, including Roscelese, EvergreenFir, and SonicYouth86. After seeing these reverts, EllieTea made an effort to discuss them on the talk page: 1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. Actually, every section in the current revision of has EllieTea attempting to explain and discuss his/her edits. Maybe a little overkill in the number of sections, but nothing too bad.

During this time, Roscelese's only responses to EllieTea were:

EllieTea responded here:

(more uncivil "blatantly nonsensical", "I am strongly inclined to revert all your edits wholesale, back to the version from a few days ago, unless a trustworthy editor confirms that they actually conform to sources") EllieTea responded here (showing sources and asking for an explanation):

And so forth... Every section in the talk page goes on like that. With EllieTea providing sources, quotes, etc. while Roscelese and Sonicyouth generally ignored rebuttals and sources provided.

Finally, Roscelese reverted the page back over a week (with the first diff I listed above). At this time, the only explanation she provided was "Per disc. w/SY86, rv back to Amaury's version. EllieTea, since in the short time you've been editing you've shown repeatedly that you can't/won't accurately represent srcs w/o falsification or OR, I suggest you gain consensus for edits *before* making 'em" (in the edit summary), and on the talk page: "I've reverted back to Amaury's version from April 25. EllieTea's conduct in the article and on this talk page gives me little hope that their edits conform to WP:V and WP:NOR, as in the week they've been here, they've blatantly misrepresented sources numerous times. EllieTea, since you are unable to edit the article in accordance with policy, I suggest that you propose edits on the talk page, gain consensus, and let other users implement them if consensus is achieved." I was unable to find any such discussion, and even then I found Roscelese unilaterally reverting the entire article to a week before a bit extreme given all the attempts by EllieTea to discuss it. I reverted the change "Undid revision 660693403 by Roscelese (talk) WAY too large a revert. You owe it to EllieTea to go through and carefully revert the edits that are bad, not just flip the table. WP:REVERT" and left a response on the talk page Talk:False_accusation_of_rape#Revert. My revert was later undone by an editor who had never been involved in the discussion and did not get involved in any discussion (but from the Arbitration case, has a clear history of helping Roscelese). This discussion went on for a while between myself, Roscelese, Sonicyouth, and EllieTea. EllieTea and I repeatedly asked for Roscelese and Sonicyouth to explain what was wrong with the bulk of the edits, all requests for specifics were refused with WP:IDHT accusations and refusal to even link the section where it was discussed. ― Padenton|✉ 21:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

While putting this together, a related ANI was opened, here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problems_with_User:Roscelese_and_User:Sonicyouth86 ― Padenton|✉ 21:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Responses to discussion

@Beyond My Ken: That is correct. I do not know much about other incidents involving Roscelese, but judging from User talk:Roscelese it seems like there may be more if someone is interested in looking into it. Regarding the second question, there was nothing for her in the Enforcement log for the arbcom case, so I don't believe so. ― Padenton|✉ 22:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: I would respectfully disagree that just because an edit summary was provided that the revert was properly explained. There is no explanation here as to what the problem was with the edits, and there were many good non-controversial edits that were reverted in this en masse rollback despite improving the article. All previous explanations had been addressed, and some of the changes by them were discarded. Yet these explanations do not apply to the revert in the diff above. I do agree this is not clear cut. ― Padenton|✉ 20:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@Sonicyouth86: I do not and have never disputed that some of EllieTea's edits have issues, and that they were rightfully reverted. What we are discussing here is the revert en masse of all of EllieTea's changes to the article, with no discussion and no explanation. As for SPA and "Only a minuscule fraction of their edits are not about this topic." that is blatantly false. If we look at the analysis, only little over 1/3 of EllieTea's article namespace edits have been in articles remotely related to the topic of rape. ― Padenton|✉ 20:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I see no presented evidence to support Sonicyouth86's ridiculous accusation that "it's no coincidence that Padenton and ElliTea, who support the same edits on talk:False accusations of rape, filed an AE and ANI report essentially at the same time, obviously in an effort to have Roscelese removed from the article so that they can have free reign." I give permission for a CheckUser to examine my email logs. The only email I received, related to this, was an email from a user un-involved in the dispute on 5/4 informing me of Roscelese's sanctions. This request is not out of malice intent towards Roscelese. As for the timing of this arbitration enforcement request, that is unfortunate, but I was too busy putting this together (and you can look at its initial length) to notice that an ANI was filed while I was working on it. However, I quickly mentioned and linked the other discussion both here and at ANI, which is easy to verify, so that point is moot. I would have gotten to opening an AE last week, but I have been busy with a lot of final projects and papers for university the past few weeks. ― Padenton|✉ 20:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
If any uninvolved admin feels I have acted wrongly in attempting to resolve this dispute on the talk page and eventually bringing it to Arbcom enforcement to discuss whether Roscelese's actions violate previous arbitration committee decisions, I will happily accept a warning (as suggested by Sonicyouth86) for my actions. ― Padenton|✉ 20:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

~~I categorically deny any involvement in canvassing (as accused by Roscelese "Check out their canvassing of another blocked SPA") as I have never edited Cubancigar's talk page.~~ (misunderstanding, redacted 21:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)) The only editors I notified of this discussion are those that saw my linking of it in the ANI, and those I linked above.(Roscelese herself as well, of course, as required) The supposition that because I asked Roscelese to provide more of an explanation for her en masse revert, that I am somehow in cahoots with EllieTea is absolutely ludicrous. I simply feel that EllieTea put in a lot of work, most of which improved the article, and should not have been reverted in its entirety, especially with no explanation provided, nor other attempts at dispute resolution. ― Padenton|✉ 20:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sonicyouth86: I'll try to respond to all of these.

Regarding SPA: You can't really count talk page discussions (nor this meta-discussion) as being part of the rape topic. That is why it's best to discuss article-namespace edits when discussing whether someone's an SPA. It is true, that many of the recent edits EllieTea has made in Article namespace are on these related articles, however, I do not agree that they are all problematic, and SPAs usually have much fewer edits, never reaching even 100. It is common, and understandable that editors may have a specific interest in a broad topic which leads them to direct their work to those topics. There are plenty of experienced editors that I have a lot of respect for that do so in articles related to rape.
Regarding support of EllieTea's edits: As for my first comment in this dispute (where I said I had no problem with EllieTea's edits), it should be read as there being no significant policy issues with the edits as a whole, not that they are not up for discussion, and it was following a comment earlier that day by Roscelese threatening to revert EllieTea's edits wholesale. Try not to think of me as defending EllieTea's edits, I do not agree with every single one, some were rightfully reverted as they happened, others could use a few additional un-involved opinions (perhaps by RfC or DRN), but there were also a fair number of non-controversial edits which improved the article. My point has been that more explanation and more discussion on both parts would have been fair, and a mass-rollback such as what took place here is rarely called for, nor the solution.
Regarding "no discussion": You are correct that there was discussion, from all parties (Except Binksternet), though incorrect that I have said that there was no discussion. What I have said is that the concerns were discussed and EllieTea attempted to address them, in some cases dropping the change and moving on to others. But for many of the changes, EllieTea made multiple attempts to bring them up for discussion, which he/she is allowed to do, though these attempts were ignored. And when the rollback came, no explanation was provided.
Regarding timing: I'm not really sure how the end of the protection could have been the trigger for the ANI or AE, I haven't checked the time the protection ends, I've been busy all week. I forget who it was (I looked earlier) but the protection was requested by some random editor who hadn't been involved in any of this. ― Padenton|✉ 22:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Roscelese

Statement by Roscelese

I was just going to ignore the wall of text at ANI, but now that the same dispute has been dragged here for no apparent reason, I suppose I ought to leave a sentence or two. In brief: The offending user's refusal to acknowledge my explanations of why their edits violated policy repeatedly != my violating my sanction by not explaining my reverts. Moreover, "the source does not contain that statistic or anything approaching it" is not remotely personal, and "that editor is an SPA" is obvious from their edit history. Check out their canvassing of another blocked SPA, too: –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Questions for Padenton by Beyond My Ken

Please correct me if I am wrong, but what you are reporting is essentially a single incident between Roscelese and EllieTea, is that right? And the AN/I report you cite is about the same incident as well, not an additional incident, yes? Do you have evidence of any other incidents besides this one?

Also a general question to whomever can answer it: has Roscelese been warned or sanctioned for violating this restriction before? I see nothing in the Enforcement Log. BMK (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. BMK (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sonicyouth86

As I stated at ANI, EllieTea (talk · contribs) is an obvious SPA whose editing is limited to the subject of (campus) rape and false rape accusations. Only a minuscule fraction of their edits are not about this topic. ET promotes the POV that “only a small percentage (of rape accusations) is known to be true”. Their edits demonstrate a clear bias which corresponds with their stated bias. All that Roscelese did was discuss those edits, explain how they violated WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and revert some of those POV pushing edits together with other experienced editors like EvergreenFir and Binksternet. I think that it's no coincidence that Padenton and ElliTea, who support the same edits on talk:False accusations of rape, filed an AE and ANI report essentially at the same time, obviously in an effort to have Roscelese removed from the article so that they can have free reign. I listed some examples of EllieTea's misrepresentation of sources, edit warring, and POV pushing on the ANI noticeboard. Padenton has clearly been unhelpful in the topic area, claiming over and over again that I and Roscelese have been uncivil to EllieTea or accusing me of refusing to discuss, which is demonstrably false. I suggest a warning for Padenton and a topic ban for EllieTea who is obviously WP:NOTHERE. --SonicY (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Padenton: You keep trotting out this myth that EllieTea's edits were reverted "with no discussion and no explanation." Even a cursory glance at the talk page reveals that your statement couldn't be more incorrect.

As for the SPA thing, EllieTea made 222 article edits since registering their account in June 2009. More than half (134) of their article edits were made this year, and of those 134 edits almost 100 were about rape, campus rape, rape charges against an NFL player, false rape accusations. If we exclude the 13 edits to the Leila Araghian article and 6 edits of the article about a bridge designed by Araghian, all other non-rape related edits this year were minor like adding wikilinks , changing the date format , italicizing text , small copy edits . With the exception of one edit in 2013, all of their article talk page edits had to do with rape . So it's more than fair to say that the vast majority of EllieTea's edits and especially all of their substantial edits are limited to one topic area which is (false accusations of) rape.

You claim that you have never disputed that some of EllieTea's edits have issues. But you actually did say that you see no issue with EllieTeas edits to the article. Your contribution to the discussion was to a) post blanket approval of EllieTea's extremely problematic additions (see previous link), and b) defend EllieTea's misrepresentation of sources like here. You have actively enabled EllieTea's disruptive behavior and persistent original research. And here you are, requesting sanctions against an experienced editor whose only "mistake" was to engage with an SPA and explain over and over which edits were problematic and why. --SonicY (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Padenton: I didn't mean to imply that you received emails from EllieTea or that you coordinated your complaints against Roscelese off-wiki. What I meant to say was that you were the only other editor who supported the same POV and same content as EllieTea, and you defended even the most obvious misrepresentation of sources. So I regard it as no coincidence that you and EllieTea would request sanctions against Roscelese after the article protection expired and after I mentioned that I intended to take ElliTea and your behavior to ANI or AE. --SonicY (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Padenton: Short reply re your second and third point:

Yes, there were significant policy issues with the edits as a whole. You just basically repeated your blanket defense of EllieTea's problematic contributions. There were persistent OR and NPOV issues with the edits as a whole. Actually worse than OR, blatant misrepresentation of sources, misrepresentation that corresponds with EllieTea's stated POV.

EllieTea refused to follow the BRD cycle, restored their edits without consensus and while discussion was ongoing (e.g., ). Even when EllieTea participated in discussion they refused to listen on many occasions, simply repeating their original research even after it was conclusively demonstrated to them with long quotes from sources that their edits misrepresented the sources (e.g., discussion -> refusal to listen). --SonicY (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: this arb case doesn't allow the remedy of discretionary sanctions – the GamerGare ArbCom case does. I intended to request sanctions against EllieTea under the GamerGate discretionary sanctions and I made the mistake of mentioning it to Padenton, and he took it to AE first. The GamerGate discretionary sanctions apply to "any gender-related dispute and controversy" and probably cover the false accusation of rape page. Should I start a separate AE request? --SonicY (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: I see no evidence that Roscelese was aware that the GamerGate discretionary sanctions are in force for the false accusation of rape article. And I don't see how Roscelese could have possibly violated those terms by sticking to 1RR and by removing original research and POV. The editor who is aware because they received a DS alert and whose behavior has been problematic is EllieTea. --SonicY (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EllieTea

If I have understood this discussion, an important issue is whether Roscelese justified the mass revert of my edits. Roscelese did give an explanation for the mass revert, on the Talk page. That explanation states that my edits violate WP:VERIFY and WP:OR.

Consider the diff between before and after the mass revert. Roscelese should be able to specify some aspect of the diff that shows a violation of VERIFY and some aspect that shows a violation of OR.

I ask that Roscelese be required to specify such aspects. EllieTea (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by OccultZone

I agree with the suggestion of EdJohnston, however, I just believe that this kind of rule should be officially imposed on this article for everyone else. Restricting these few editors is likely going to introduce some trouble, there is clear possibility of having any other editor who would edit against consensus. We can solve that problem, by installing a editnotice on the article, Template:Editnotices/Page/False accusation of rape, and it should warn against making any major edits without consensus. Whoever would edit against consensus and refuse to self-revert might be reported here or to any admin who wants to keep a watch in this area. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Roscelese

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

This complaint may be closed unless it identifies exactly where Roscelese broke the Arbcom restriction. The three parts of her restriction are:

indefinitely restricted to making no more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page;
indefinitely prohibited from making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;
indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes.

I don't see a complaint here that Roscelese broke the 1RR. And nobody has presented diffs showing Roscelese reverting with no edit summary. The only clause where you might have a case is the third one, about casting aspersions or personalizing disputes. What I can see is Roscelese using some harsh language, but there is intense disagreement about how to interpret some of the sources about false rape allegations. There is some indication that more than one party is descending into minute analysis of sources that may violate WP:NOR. Charges of misreading sources are not exactly aspersions if there is good-faith disagreement on how to interpret the sources. As yet, this does not add up to a clear case against Roscelese. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

What we have here is a set of people who appear to be ineffective in finding consensus. In lieu of sanctions for this complaint, I think we should consider a period of full protection of False accusation of rape. That would require editors to reach consensus on the talk page before an admin would change the article through the {{Edit protected}} process. The alternative of topic banning all the people whose collaboration is deficient isn't available to us because this arb case doesn't allow the remedy of discretionary sanctions. The only person in the current complaint who can be sanctioned is User:Roscelese because she has a specific restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If you want to use discretionary sanctions, you can invoke WP:ARBGG, which authorised DS for "any gender-related dispute or controversy" (see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions). Salvio 09:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are the pagelinks for the article:

False accusation of rape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Let's assume that WP:ARBGG is applicable and gives us the authority for page bans, I'd be tempted to close with warnings to all the people who reverted at False accusation of rape between April 26 and May 4. That group would include

The warning would be a caution about their future editing at False accusation of rape. It would tell each person that they could be banned from the article and its talk page unless they showed by their further edits that they were making a reasonable effort to solve the disputed items and reach consensus. That effort could include RFCs, posts at WikiProjects, use of WP:DRN or any other recognized method of WP:Dispute resolution. Nobody would be allowed to make any edit that they have reason to believe lacks a talk page consensus unless it is routine text editing or uncontroversial maintenance. So, no bold edits. Of course, only those who choose to make further edits to the article would be risking anything, and the only parties to be warned at this time are those in the above list. I invite comment on this strategy from the parties, admins or anyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom

Request concerning TheRedPenOfDoom

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: 168.1.75.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#TheRedPenOfDoom_admonished :; "TheRedPenOfDoom is admonished for treating Misplaced Pages as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves."

Additionally: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Recidivism :; "Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions."

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

Refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing per WP:BATTLEGROUND or accept the validity of the Arbitration Committee's findings

24 February 2015 Argues that wikipedia is in fact a battleground
12 March 2015
12 March 2015, Nazi analogy re: Arbom's GamerGate enforcement
13 March 2015, Defense of Nazi analogy
13 March 2015, Continued
16 March 2015, Further criticism, note closing comment: "Gamergate Ahoy! Keep them socks coming!"
8 March 2015

Adds an anti-Gamergate "flag" to their user page

23 March 2015, Evidence of battleground mentality

Continues battleground behavior

10 February 2015
10 February 2015
11 February 2015
12 February 2015
13 February 2015
14 February 2015
15 February 2015
15 February 2015
15 February 2015
15 February 2015
16 February 2015
16 February 2015, Note edit summary
22 February 2015
23 February 2015
24 February 2015, Note edit summary and heading
24 February 2015
24 February 2015
24 February 2015
24 February 2015
24 February 2015
24 February 2015
27 February 2015
27 February 2015
5 March 2015
9 March 2015, Note edit summary
9 March 2015
9 March 2015
9 March 2015
11 March 2015
15 March 2015
17 March 2015
21 March 2015
21 March 2015
23 March 2015
23 March 2015
23 March 2015
23 March 2015
24 March 2015
24 March 2015
24 March 2015
26 March 2015
26 March 2015
30 March 2015
8 April 2015
12 April 2015
23 April 2015
24 April 2015, Responds with "If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas" to an editor who posts " a Pro-GamerGater I am not a troll"

In response to the comments above, they're politely reminded to avoid battleground behavior

24 April 2015, "This could be taken as battleground mentality by others, commenting on the editor and not the content."

Continues despite reminder

Additional

26 February 2015, 26 February 2015 Inappropriately redacts a link posted by a new editor (the link contained no BLP violations) and attempts to intimidate the editor.
16 March 2015, 8 May 2015, 10 May 2015 Repeatedly uses a derogatory term for Gamer-gaters, also referenced in the poster on their user page
17 March 2015 Alleges without substantiation that editors Masem and Thargor Orlando are conspiring offsite with Gamergaters to edit the article. This misinterpretation is indicative of their perception of anyone they view as opponents

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

While these linked edits are the most problematic this editor's contributions to the topic area are generally unconstructive and combative. I encourage those reviewing to confirm this with their own random sampling.

In summary: the result of the sanction seems to have had little or no effect on the editor's BATTLEGROUND mentality, only a reduction in the frequency with which they post in the topic area. The several months elapsed since their sanction, their inapparent change in attitude and their reluctance to avoid the topic area or accept the committee's findings of wrongdoing suggest only explicit prohibition will eliminate this disruption.

I expect arguments in opposition will focus on my status as an IP editor rather than the substance of my filing, suggesting the message is less important than the messenger. Such arguments should be weighed accordingly.

I expect secondary criticism for not constructively engaging on the editor's talk page prior to filing. Please note the editor's pattern of dismissing or ignoring rather frequent criticisms on their talk page from more respected editors, across a broad range of topics, then consider the likely effect an IP editor's comments would have. 168.1.75.18 (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning TheRedPenOfDoom

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TheRedPenOfDoom

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