Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

BengHistory

Latest comment: 2 years ago22 comments6 people in discussion

BengHistory is indefinitely topic banned from all South Asian social groups, broadly construed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

Request concerning BengHistory

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TrangaBellam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: BengHistory (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

30 July 2021 Alleges that I have had short term memory loss. Then they realize about indeed making a pioneer claim (which was my ground for requesting a citation) and proceed to cite a source which is blacklisted.
Has been already informed (five days earlier) that we cannot interpret pre-modern texts for ourselves. Yet, in the same post, they propose that we read a 400-500 year old source without waiting for 'reliable' modern authors to quote them.
30 July 2021 Requests that I provide quotes for certain controversial text-bits. This is not objectionable in itself except that they know of me having already provided them at an admin's talk-page, to satisfaction.
Still iterating the same point at his reply over (6).
28 July 2021 Claims that other editors are failing to see a design, whereby I am denigrating the subject. This was in response to an editor who stated the lack of anything seriously objectionable in my edits and even thanked me for doing a great job. (That editor had been earlier pinged multiple times by BengHistory to provide their views!)
In the same post, that invited editor also noted my wording about a rivalry with Kayasthas to be okay and supported by more yet-uncited sources. Despite this, BengHistory raises the same objection (verbatim) once again.
More IDHT behavior over BengHistory's response at this thread.
At the talk-page, BengHistory pinged another editor to give their opinions on whether my framing of a particular source was correct or not. They had a discussion with me and was satisfied of my framing but BH is still continuing with the antics over semantics at Point 2. Sheer refusal to understand why no long-term editor is agreeing with him.

No diffs are provided for (1). I request that BengHistory provide evidence of a single edit where I (TrangaBellam) said that authors belonging to XYZ caste are unreliable. WP:ASPERSIONs.

Misrepresenting a female professor of History, teaching at a reputed university, as a guest-faculty and young scholar is misogyny. I stand by my comments referred in (8). BengHistory is yet to admit that they were wrong.

That's all. I won't bother to rebut each and every misrepresentation by BengHistory unless requested by an administrator of this site. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Tendentious editing and intense acrobatics on semantics to promote a particular caste bolstered by a (mistaken) belief that our article shall be polished paraphrases of scholars. That is, every single word must be quotable to some scholar. On top of that, as Diff-Set-3 exhibits, a WP:IDHT attitude. Violation of WP:NPA at Diff-Set-1. Probably part of a sock-farm - see User_talk:RegentsPark#AS24 where one of his tag-mates was blocked after pursuing the same line of argumentation.
The page was recently 30/500-ed to avoid the sudden influx of these new editors. Earlier the editor-in-question was given a final warning by an admin.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning BengHistory

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 BengHistory

I am simply amazed that Trangabellam and Ekdalian have complained about me whereas it is they who have been acting with a non-neutral attitude. The talk-page is there for the respected admins to see so I am confident that they would easily be able to judge the events that took place there. I just want to draw attention of the respected adjudicators to the following points:BengHistory (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

1) They at one point of time summarily rejected any Baidya authors (Sengupta for example, see Ekdalian's comments) deeming them as unreliable, and when I questioned the logic of that and explained that by their logic authors of other castes are also questionable, they accused me of distinguishing in terms of caste and misrepresented it to an admin. Great morality indeed, accusing the accuser for something committed by themselves (Ekdalian classified some editors as 'Baidya editors').BengHistory (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

2) They freely changed words and added their own while quoting a source (like 'indicated' has been changed to 'accorded', or 'apparently' has been added) in such a way that it changes the proposition entirely. Thus flouting WP:NPOV BengHistory (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

3) One misquoted a source to portray a different picture of the caste-hierarchy in Bengal (viz. H Sanyal regarding Chandimangal) BengHistory (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

4) One was putting exclamatory marks at the end of the statements and inserted words like 'apparently' (which visibly ridicules certain eminent persons), which were not there in the quoted sources. When challenged he came with a laughable explanation that he was following they style of the author. BengHistory (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

5) Clear words like 'Semibrahmins' and 'fallen brahmins' were removed from a quote on the pretext of 'balancing the article with neutrality', 'agenda-free reading', and 'taking a practical view', all of which amount to WP:SYN BengHistory (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

6) One did not come up with page numbers/quotes even when repetitively asked about the same regarding certain words. BengHistory (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

7) Authors of repute like Nripendra Dutta have been termed as fanciful.BengHistory (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

8) When I questioned Swarupa Gupta's reliability (they were always judging academic qualifications of sourced authors and I pointed out that she is a young research fellow), it was twisted to show me as having gender bias ! Such dishonesty! BengHistory (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

9) One of them have been thoroughly disrespectful and have been using words like 'blabbering' and 'ramblings' and 'Do I care about your threats?', and now he is making a great noise about 'short-term memory loss' ! BengHistory (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

10) An entire article is being centred upon the ritual status of a caste (and questioning the claim of that caste with a tone of disdain and selective referencing) which have little relevance for international readers, and important facts regarding that caste (literacy rates, for example) are being thrust in the small-fonted notes. As if it is only the ritual status that is worth considerations and all of the rest comes at best as a note. BengHistory (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

11) There have been serious inconsistencies in selection of sources. At one point of time they disagreed to include Census reports as they are seemingly unreliable, quoting whatever poeple say. Now the same census reports are being quoted to opine that Baidyas' claims are on 'slender' grounds. BengHistory (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

12) Trangabellam had removed all my replies to his questions from the talk-page, and when I referred to that he simply retorted that he was doing so because indentation of my replies was not in order. BengHistory (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Ekdalian

The user BengHistory has been editing a related article on Vaid with the same intension of glorifying their caste. I have warned the user in his talk page (discretionary sanctions notice), and reverted his edits, explaining the same in the edit summaries as well as the user's talk page. In spite of all these, BengHistory has reverted my edits without any explanation! It is quite evident (from all his edits) that the user is here for promoting his caste only, and not to build an encyclopedia. I believe he should be blocked from editing as per WP:CASTE.

Differences: 1 2 3

Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (BengHistory)

I am starting to contribute to wikipedia on topics I have focused on during my research days (mainly Ayurveda, Vaidyas of India, and Brahmin kingdoms). Does it mean that my edits in this page are unreliable by that reason only? Do I need to edit thousands of other pages which I have no clue about before I can contribute on something I have studied about? Mr. Ekdalian reverted all my additions by terming them 'unconstructive' (and suggested as if I am somehow not entitled to add or change anything in a page, cf. his comment on my userpage) without discussions, and he and Trangabellam have regularly posted threats of sanctions on my userpage (without any particular reference). All content added by me in the Vaid page was verbatim quotes from sources, the respected admin can see for himself/herself. Such vindictive attitudes will only discourage future contributors, and I request the admins here to take a note of it. BengHistory (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Result concerning BengHistory

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

I recommend to BengHistory that they reconsider their statement. They should use their words to defend themselves, and to convince us that action is not necessary rather than drawing attention to the perceived flaws in others. The strategy of blaming others to defend themselves rarely works here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
BengHistory's point 12 in their statement might be in connection with their 29 July 2021 comment which interspersed replies in someone else's comment. It's fine to not be aware that replies like that are not wanted, but mentioning it here shows a lack of awareness of what a mess their comment made. Some article edits I looked at did not seem helpful. For example, this is not suitable due to the lack of sources. Combined with their statement here, I support an indefinite topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
- BengHistory was alerted regarding WP:GS/CASTE on 26 July 2021. The diffs show too many problems and BengHistory's statement indicates an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's procedures that is not sustainable in a topic under discretionary sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Apologies for not being able to comment earlier. BengHistory appears to be a truculent editor focused on a particular caste and I don't see that going away in a hurry (e.g., this latest diff after multiple warnings about sourcing). An indefinite topic ban from all South Asian Social Groups is the minimal action here. I think there are also WP:CIR issues (cf. the odd signing of posts and the two separate entries on this page), but perhaps it is too early for doing something about that. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Loveall.human

Latest comment: 2 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

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 Loveall.human

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: Loveall.human (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:ARBIP

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

05:39, 24 July 2021: Falsely claims on article about 13th-century commander that Sanjjanaa Galrani converted to Islam and cited this source which nowhere confirms conversion to Islam but ensures not to give weight to such unconfirmed claims. See WP:CIR.
On this diff he is also throwing WP:NPA by falsely accusing other editor of vandalism: "Is this vandalism?".
08:07, 24 July 2021 After being correctly told that "source say that these "speculations" are not verified and "remains to be seen when the truth will be revealed""[1] Loveall.human doubles down with his WP:CIR by saying "The "speculation" and "remains to be seen when the truth will be revealed" was clearly about her marriage, not on her conversion." And again falsely accusing the editor of "mass vandalizing" and of being a part of an "unhealthy mob bullying pattern that is being observed in pushing far right wing POV"

His overall unhelpful presence on this page started from 04:15, 24 July 2021, when he started to derail a conversation about a 13th-century commander by talking about "Muhammad Ali or Michael Jackson or Cat Stevens", "constitution", and more unrelated subjects. He then ignored a request by another editor to "stay on the topic"[2] and doubled down with derailing on every single message.

This all happened after he was already cautioned by multiple editors about WP:BLPCAT, WP:V and other relevant policies per his talk page after he had added names to an article by relying on unreliable sources and WP:CIRCULAR.[3]

But he still does not understand any of those policies.

During his unblock request, one admin had noted Loveall.human to be WP:NOTHERE and he would "end up blocked again for POV-pushing, edit-warring, or something along those lines".[4] I think it could be true, given the continued display of incompetence and battleground mentality. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 22:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Toddy1: I don't see any justification for the behaviour that is prevailing since September 2020 with this account. CIR, together with battleground mentality is the last thing we would want for any subject.

@Trangabellam: That edit was correct as it removed unreliable sources and improperly sourced entries. What Black Kite restored has nothing to do with earlier version per his own statement since he used new sources for the entries he restored.[5] 09:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [6]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: User talk:Loveall.human#Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Discussion concerning Loveall.human

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 Loveall.human

See my responses in italics. General layman comments, if anything violating some Wiki jargon (no intention), let me know. Rest assured, the statements below are with evidences to back.

"05:39, 24 July 2021: Falsely claims ..". - Sanjjana Galrani was not FALSELY claimed. It was in the context of that account doing mass reverts on many articles without any discussion in talk page/relevant article page.

"08:07, 24 July 2021 After being correctly.." - I have given evidences of the pattern where 'multiple' article reverts were made without communicating/discussing it which I presume is vandalizing. I stand by "unhealthy mob bullying pattern that is being observed in pushing far right wing POV" with enough evidences here. To be specific, the convert from Hinduism to XYZ article lists only are almost barred from growing for more than 4 years with consistent mob bullying patterns that is observed.

"His overall.." - How is 'unhelpful' presence decided? How is talking/discussion in the relevant page regarding criteria for conversion is 'derailing', especially with that account to understand why he was doing mass reverts without discussion?

"He then ignored.."- I did not ignore the request or derail on the 'topic', I remained on topic, evident from the link you have posted itself. The further discussions continued, precisely it was relevant.

"This all happened.."- Was cautioned only ONCE by ONE editor, even that editor who did not communicate back multiple times despite I gave him proper source who had done mass reverts without verifying. Before and after caution, I have not added any row without proper source or research. Context is I had added more than a dozen names, after careful research with proper sources being cited. WITHOUT any discussion or pointing out which row is having unreliable sources, the edits were removed en-masse. After the first mass reverting of my edits itself, I STOPPED doing any edits to those articles, and I was trying to have the folks who do mass reverting to communicate in article's talk or user talk page why and which specific entry of its source is inaccurate (instead of communicating, I was filed with reports to block me).

"But he still.." - Indeed, am still learning. Which specific policy and evidence to claim this statement. And which I was warned for not understanding and have violated?

"During his unblock request.."- That was his prediction/prophetic 'opinion' commenting on a sock report which turned out to be false (like another TWO sock reports on me). Why is that there is no discussion on topic/talk page due to relentless sock reports and blocking efforts on me with wiki jargons keeping wiki users busy with answering such reports instead of learning/collaborating/discussing/editing? And I am accused of "battleground mentality" for asking to discuss/communicate. If anything, I could also probably claim I am being wiki-bullied relentlessly abusing wiki admin processes, just to maintain far right wing POV only with overwhelming evidences from the reporting pattern on me and others. It's evident, how wiki process is abused, is I am spending now more time on relentless reports on me based on false accusations, than actually contributing to Wiki.

@Vanamonde93 - I was given unfair judgement mistakenly by the admins in the first sock report action on me, which took months to prove that crafted shared interest sock reports is not enough evidence to the admins. With or without warning, I have been careful to contribute only with proper sourcing. Admins to take note, not a single edit has been made by me WITHOUT citing any verifiable source. If so, the onus is on the one who is accusing and am concerned too of Wiki having any stain of inaccurate or false information. Careful reading of above with evidences provided by the one who raised himself shows the complaint had blatant FALSE accusations. All are equal here with different roles in Wiki. It is expected for admins with privileges entrusted to be role models to behave neutral/academic. For Aman Kumar Goel, he is observed with repeated and consistent bullying patterns of abusing wiki processes to maintain far right wing POV (Hindu Nationalism type) as discussed here. A different view is healthy, but enforcing only far right wing POV by choking others without even discussing by abusing processes is taking wiki processes and admins for granted. And the articles, I edited was with competence with careful research invested. I am even doubting with similar pattern observed in another user's page that if there is competence by the folks who are doing such mass reverts without being specific to help identify which one is inaccurate. Loveall.human (talk) 06:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Vanamonde93:

- The 'context' matters here, which is sheer lack of communication/discussion except mass undoings, untagging, block/threats etc. as detailed in ANI. And that talk discussion happened only 'after' raising ANI. I did not imply or stated if that specific source alone was sufficient (re-read the talk I said it is just 'one' of the sources), rather the 'context' was about 'lack of communication/discussion' that is unproductive for those lists stalled for YEARS.

- There has been 'three' sock reports on me with desperately crafted reports turning out FALSE, now another report targeting me (another lengthy discussion on the crafted sound bites to explain the context instead of contributing to Wiki) and the ANI discussion on the systematic pattern of the one who is filing with far right-wing POV. The 'discriminatory' disruptive bullying for adding rows 'only' to the list of Converts to Christianity/Islam 'from Hinduism' alone here is also the context (millions of natives of India switching to Christianity/Islam is a fact and even dead personalities who changed faiths with citations were removed, why only 'from Hinduism' is stalled like this for so many years?).

- Warning me is just feeding one more sound bite that will be used for another kind of report in future based on the chronic pattern observed who is desperately targeting me for POV push. Despite glaring evidence, this is grossly 'unfair' and is further encouraging misuse of wiki admin processes to push Hindutva far-right supremacist POV. I suggest, as admin, please re-read the 'context' to help discipline actual trolls and not contributing editors who are targeted with series of sock/block reports by POV pushers. Sad, that system allowed to be misused where now I am doing more edits answering these targeted crafted bogus reports than actual edits. Loveall.human (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Vanamonde93: I have a day job, so can respond on mostly weekends. I have not ignored and have answered above for that question. If despite mentoring/informing an editor disrupts by 'misusing' a source, then it is understandable for not paying heed to discipline with warning. Here, however, the edits after researching with citations (contestable can be discussed, but there were no self-opinions out of thin air) were removed for specific kind of pages only without communication and there was a discussion in the 'talk' page (not actual article) with regard to that. Snipping sound bites in between a conversation alone is not sufficient, please see the context and the systematic pattern. Has there been any edit warring after the mass undoings and untags? No. Rather, I was asking users around to communicate why there had been massive undoings without explanation, and the 'discussion' started only after ANI. Wiki processes should help weed out actual trolls, here is an editor who just wants to contribute/learn is being bludgeoned with socks and reports with crafted soundbites and jargon which takes so much effort to explain. I, too, am concerned with inaccurate entries which 'stain' the Wikipedia articles. Ascribing dishonest intentions with the word 'misuse' of a source is incorrect and sounds opinionated. As, answered earlier, there were other sources too for improving the veracity. It's not the material loss of 'warning' from admins I detest, but the wiki admin processes being again allowed to be misused with relentless socks and reports by far right POV admin reportees causing hierarchical elite structure as beginners are not well versed/free to throw wiki jargons and targeted reports like these. With more privileges should come more responsibility and more grace to judge. Loveall.human (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Toddy1

Regarding the first diff that Aman.kumar.goel complained about, Aman.kumar.goel wrote above: On this diff he is also throwing WP:NPA by falsely accusing other editor of vandalism: "Is this vandalism?". The inference that the diff is evidence of a personal attack by Loveall.human is not reasonable. If you accept that posting a message saying that an edit was vandalism is a personal attack then anybody who uses standard warning templates such as Template:Uw-vandalism3, Template:Uw-subtle3 and many others at Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace is guilty of making a personal attack.

In the diff Loveall.human is asking the basic question - what are the criteria for inclusion in religious categories and lists. The answer for living people is WP:BLPCAT - which was given in Talk:Malik Maqbul Tilangani#july in response to Loveall.human's question. It does not seem reasonable to bring Loveall.human to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement for asking the question on a relevant article talk page.

Both sides need to calm down. Aman.kumar.goel is one of a number of editors who are doing a good job trying to impose some discipline on these lists of religious conversions. I understand his/her frustration. But please try to understand, you too get it wrong sometimes.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Aman.kumar.goel: As far as I can tell, Loveall.human has not engaged in battleground behaviour since his/her unblock in April 2021. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by User:TrangaBellam

I request AKG to explain this edit. Some of the entries have been already restored by User:BlackKite. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by XYZ

Result concerning Loveall.human

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

I'm quite unimpressed by Loveall.human's conduct here. Distinguishing between a statement that a source is reporting, and one that it's making in its own voice, is critical to all parts of Wikipedia, and Loveall.human seems unable or unwilling to understand the distinction. They also seem to have a single interest here, which isn't the healthiest, a break from religious conversions might not be the worst thing.
That said, this particular topic has gotten quite nasty, with a number of recent noticeboard complaints (1, 2), and I'm concerned the broader dispute around religious conversions may need admin evaluation; there seems to be a bit of a throwing-shit-at-the-wall approach here from multiple parties. Black Kite, you commented on the ANI discussion; any thoughts? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Based on Black Kite's comment, I am no longer comfortable with sanctioning Loveall.human, but a logged warning about source use is still, I believe, justified. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Loveall.human, Generic statements about your edits being supported by sources arent' very helpful. In the talk page discussion linked above you imply that this source was sufficient for the content it is used for in this revision. Are you still defending that claim? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
In the absence of any further input, I will close this with a warning in a day or so. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Loveall.human, the problematic conduct of other users has also been noted; see Black Kite's comment below; but you did misuse a source, as the diffs show, and when I questioned you directly about it you ignored my question, even though you're clearly watching this discussion. I think a warning is very much warranted. If you want further admin input, I'm happy to ask others familiar with the broader topic: @RegentsPark and Bishonen: any thoughts on this? Vanamonde (Talk) 00:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Vanamonde93 I am unconvinced that Loveall.human's behaviour is and better or worse than numerous other actors in this area. I note that the filer of this AE has significant previous in trying to remove political opponents from their areas. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hugo.arg and Kazimier Lachnovič

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

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 Hugo.arg and Kazimier Lachnovič

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Pofka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

Hugo.arg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
Kazimier Lachnovič (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: Dispute resolution noticeboard case Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 207#Pahonia which resulted in Talk:Pahonia#RFC: Pahonia (closing statement of the RFC by an administrator) and WP:CONS

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

1: Wikipedia:Consensus decision of RFC reverted by Hugo.arg
2: Wikipedia:Consensus decision of RFC reverted by Kazimier Lachnovič
3: Wikipedia:Consensus decision of RFC reverted by Kazimier Lachnovič
4: Wikipedia:Consensus decision of RFC reverted by Kazimier Lachnovič

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

User Kazimier Lachnovič is already well known for his national hatred against Lithuania and Lithuanians, so it is not surprising that he continues to perform disruptive edits in the Lithuanian topics. Here are his edits in which he called the Lithuanians as rubbish in a discussion concerning with Pahonia (1, 2, 3). He also recently performed an intensive edit warring before the Wikipedia:Consensus was reached (see edit history of article Pahonia from 3 April 2021).

Also, Kazimier Lachnovič previously was warned that he is a full-time edit warrior already in 2010, and was even blocked for edit warring in Lithuanian topics (blocking message by an administrator ; report).

Moreover, Kazimier Lachnovič was also blocked multiple times in the Lithuanian Wikipedia for his disruptive behavior (Kazimier's blocking history). Same with user Hugo.arg (see his blocking history).

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

For his disruptive behavior, Kazimier Lachnovič is already placed under the discretionary sanctions by two administrators: firstly by Barkeep49, then by Ymblanter, but he continues to perform edits which are incompatible with the Wikipedia:Assume good faith principle, thus constantly aggressively violates the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.
Article Pahonia is under the discretionary sanctions since 23 April 2021 (statement by an administrator El_C).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I request to permanently lock article Pahonia in order to ensure the Wikipedia:Consensus reached by the Wikipedia community as nobody should be able to continue edit warring in the future in this disruptive article. WP:LISTEN.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Hugo.arg and Kazimier Lachnovič

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 Cukrakalnis

One of the two nominated users, Kazimier Lachnovič, is a notoriously problematic user, whose behaviour has not changed an inkling following the DS applied to him. Instead of learning from them, he continues pushing his POV and personally insults those disagreeing. Instances of this are this, this and this, among many others. Looking at the evidence, it is clear that Kazimier Lachnovič should be issued a global block. --Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

I am deeply uninvolved with this dispute and just have some housekeeping comments. I believe that the "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" should be Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Standard_discretionary_sanctions. If that is the case at hand, then Kazimier Lachnovič is formally "aware", having been alerted in this April edit. I do not believe Hugo.arg is aware, because:

There are no logged alerts in their user talk history
They have never alerted others, as shown in their contributions
They have not participated in any Arb cases/requests in this topic area, as shown in their Wikipedia: namespace contributions

I hope this has been helpful. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Kazimier Lachnovič

First of all, as Belarusian I obviously have more important things to do now that to fight obvious absurd here. The deletion of the article about the national emblem of Belarusians is obvious vandalism and a clear manifestation of supporting the terroristic pro-Russian Lukashenko's regime by the English Wikipedia. So, many Belarusians are arrested and tortured by the regime for using Pahonia, that according to the English Wikipedia is just the emblem of the foreign state (Lietuva). Calling these people "traitors" is exactly what the regime does in its propaganda. So, thanks a lot for helping the Lukashenko's propaganda! Be sure, Belarusians will never forget such "help". --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

jc37

Talk:Pahonia#RFC:_Pahonia

Besides merely closing the RfC, to my knowledge, I have no interaction with any of this.

As of coming my online just now, it doesn't appear that Kazimier Lachnovič has continued reverting. If they had, I would have issued an immediate preventative block.

As I don't regularly handle Arbitration enforcement requests, I am fine with leaving that with whomever addresses this here. For whatever it may be worth, please consider me notified and having given my "explicit prior affirmative consent", per the top of this page.

(Though of course if I see continued WP:DE, I may sanction (block/protect/etc) as any uninvolved admin might, to help prevent disruption, etc.) - jc37 04:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

If it matters, I support User:El C's protection of the page [7]. Extended confirmed editors may be able to bypass it, but hopefully the fact that it is potected even in this way, will act as a preventative measure. - jc37 04:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

After reading User:Ymblanter's comments, I think this looks like a pretty straightforward case of WP:NOTHERE. - jc37 16:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Ymblanter

I will only be making a statement concerning the behavior of Kazimier Lachnovič, since Hugo.arg apparently have not been notified of discretionary sanctions, and also did not demonstrate long-term disruptive behavior. Concerning Kazimier Lachnovič, most of their recent contribution on the English Wikipedia is changing names of the files they have renamed on Commons, work a bot usually does, and outside of this activity they do not have so many contributions, therefore I will sometimes provide diffs from Commons, where their behavior is equally problematic. First, their statement, just above mine, clearly demonstrated battleground mentality. They participated in the edit-warring, leaving this edit summary (Vandalism based on illegal RfC closure, clear national discrimination of Belarusians), whereas the RfC was closed by a perfectly neutral administrator, and reverts were legitimate; this was their message at the talk page of the administrator. Indeed, in my observations, Kazimier Lachnovič only knows two methods of dispute resolutions: reverting forever (see this as an additional example to what is being discussed in this AE request) and insulting their opponents. Note them calling me Nazi in this Commons thread. When challenged against these insults, they first double down (like with this Nazi accusation), and then typically say that they only would be discussing anything with "reasonable users" (thus implying their opponents are unreasonable) and disappear, You can find the examples in the threads presenting by Cukrakalnis above. In the same threads, there is evidence of off-wiki coordination they participated in (which resulted in coordinated reverts on en.wiki). I have no opinion whether Pahonia must be an article or a redirect, but I know that this attitude is not compatible with the technical ability to edit the English Wikipedia, which, in my opinion, should be revoked.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

May be to clarify my personal position, before I get a new portion of accusations: I am no fan of Lukashenko, and I am all for support of Belarusian language. I am in fact an opponent of Lithuanian nationalism, and I really dislike the fact that they portray Nazi criminals as national heroes. However, here we have an example how a good cause is being pursued by completely inappropriate methods.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Hugo.arg and Kazimier Lachnovič

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

jc37, as I noted on my talk page (diff), I didn't realize that EC users were also circumventing the RFC's consensus by fiat when I imposed the indef ECP (by way of RfPP), but as mentioned, now that I do, I'd deem any further such reverts to be a cause for sanctions (including but not limited to revoking said EC rights). Sorry, I have not reviewed this report otherwise to comment further on it at this time, one way or the other. El_C 05:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Manish9893

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Manish9893 is indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed (WP:ARBIPA). Johnuniq (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

Request concerning Manish9893

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TrangaBellam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: Manish9893 (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

08 August 2021 Vandalism.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

WP:NOTHERE.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Done.

Discussion concerning Manish9893

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 Manish9893

When the google search and many documents clearly show that his age is 43 years

And his reign started in 1178 And Death in 1192 Which is clearly 14-15 Years What is the sole need for mentioning dashrath verma quote that his age was 26 years at death. When the Pictures of him at various places show him as a well aged man which is 40+ How come he, born in 1166, becomes king at 1178.

This Section was Not needed.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Manish9893

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

The single diff given in evidence shows a change at Prithviraj Chauhan from a sourced estimate of the birth date (in encyclopedic language) of 1166 CE, to some broken English claiming 1949 with no explanation or source (and 1949 is ludicrously wrong). The broken information remained until reverted six hours later. However, looking at Manish9893's previous edit shows they also changed the infobox to show 1149 so the 1949 is probably just a bad typo. I don't see any compensating good contributions. Article talk shows nothing regarding this issue but it does show a lot of arguing from socks. Given this is a highly contested topic with a thin line of volunteers maintaining articles, an assumption of good faith about Manish9893's edits has to be balanced by their very inappropriate nature and incorrect English. If there is no further discussion, I propose that Manish9893 be indefinitely topic banned from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan topics. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

User indefinitely blocked as an admin (not AE) action. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

Request concerning অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TrangaBellam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা (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

08 August 2021 Multiple aspersions and admin-shopping. This is his second edit after a one-week long block (see below for details) had expired. The first edit was reverting me to restore poorly sourced content.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

23 July 2021 - Blocked for a week for Personal attacks or harassment WP:CASTE

Edits that led to the block included 1 (17 July 2021), 2 (19 July 2021), 3 (20 July 2021), and 4 (23 July 2021) among others.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

WP:NOTHERE. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#BengHistory might be relevant.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

Discussion concerning অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা

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 অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা

Statement by (username)

Result concerning অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা

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

A WP:NOTHERE block is definitely required. The editor is unable to provide reasonable sources and this repeated questioning of the motives of others is problematic. I'd just block them but family issues are keeping me away from Wikipedia for the next week or two. --RegentsPark (comment) 04:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
I agree with RegentsPark. The assumptions of bad faith coupled with the poor sourcing would normally be enough for a topic ban from the area, but this user has only 72 edits and most of them are problematic. I don't think they are here to write a neutral point of view encyclopedia. I support a WP:NOTHERE block. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Having reviewed the user's contributions, I agree with the above and will soon indefinitely block the user as a normal admin action. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Shakespeare143

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

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 Shakespeare143

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: Shakespeare143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: Has expended considerable effort pushing fringe theories at Talk:Indo-Aryan_migrations and Talk:Indo-Aryan peoples; no diffs provided because virtually every post substantiates my point.; On Hinduism in Arab states:

9 August 2021 Unsourced content, not based on anything in the body.

On List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll:

8 August 2021 Addition of content sourced to an SPS (iUniverse is an outlet for self-publishing); adds the same content twice in different categories, presumably to inflate its importance. Incidentally, I haven't been able to verify whether the source even supports the content; no page number was provided, and searching the text doesn't give obvious results.
5 August 2021 More contentious claims from a self-published source. Advances the fringe claim that 400,000,000 Hindus were killed in the Islamic conquest of the subcontinent (no, that's not a typo; 400 million is the claim).
24 June 2021 Same page, same content; makes reference to WP:RS, indicating that he was quite aware of the concept even in June.

On Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh:

1 August 2021 Addition of somewhat promotional claim without sources.
3 August 2021 Readds the same content, this time sourced to a) an unreliable source, and b) a news article that is evidently based on a press release or equivalent statement.
4 August 2021 Doubles down on previous edit, replacing dodgy website with yet another press-release-based article, despite my having pointed the problem out (see previous edit summary visible at the same link).

More fringe pov-pushing:

16 May 2021
9 August 2021 Adding large chunks of content from a blog-post by the subject of an article, to the point of violating WP:SOAP, since no secondary source has given that content credence.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No previous sanctions, but reams of warnings on talk page.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. For convenience; alerted by Chariotrider555 on 15 April 2021. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Shakespeare143's edits are replete with unsourced content, terrible sources, and a generally flippant attitude towards WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Shakespeare143

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 Shakespeare143

Not every sentence on Wikipedia needs a citation (Wikipedia describes this in detail). Am I correct?

Regarding claims about Indo-Aryan Migrations and Indo-Aryan Peoples: I'm merely suggesting improvements to articles on the Talk page (I consider myself to be helping to reduce bias on Wikipedia, not promoting fringe. I provide evidence for suggestions).

Hinduism in Arab states claim: It's in the body and so is the source. I was just improving the intro.

List of wars etc claim 1: It belongs in multiple categories. I posted on the Talk page months ago and achieved consensus. It's a book so I thought it was relatively reliable, especially because I found the author on Google Scholar. Page 148: "The Persian historian Hasan Nizami, in his Taj-ul-Ma 'sir, records of Muhammad Ghauri’s conquest of Ajmer that ‘one hundred thousand groveling Hindus swiftly departed to the fire of hell and the invaders ... ‘". I didn't include the page number previously because I couldn't find it earlier.

claim 2: That Wikipedia page is asking for high and low estimates, and I don't think 400 million is a fringe claim. I got consensus before posting it.

claim 3: I don't understand his/her claim.

HSS claims: There are many sources backing up my edit. I didn't include the source in the first edit because I thought that it was a noncontentious edit and I see pretty much every Wikipedia page filled with unsourced material, so I thought although sourced is preferred, unsourced is not preferred but okay sometimes (only if there actually are RS sources to back it up of course). Furthermore, even governors and mayors of cities have made statements supporting my edit. I apologize if I made a mistake in not including an RS originally.

More fringe pov-pushing claim 1: Please explain how. This is the Talk page, and I thought it was not fringe.

claim 2: This is by Kak himself, so I thought it was okay to include. And I thought it was relevant because it discussed Wikipedia.

Summary: I don't think I have flippant attitudes toward WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV. I've read about those policies and one of the reasons I edit on Wikipedia is to make Wikipedia less biased. To reiterate: I like the WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV policies, and I 100% welcome and like any and all criticisms and hope to improve based on those criticisms, because this makes me a better editor. Thank you Vanamonde for suggestions, and I sincerely apologize for any mistakes I've made. I'll be happy to explain any other edits I've made. Question: Is it ok if my statement is more than 500 words? It isn't now, but just asking.Shakespeare143 (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Bilorv

Just dropping in to answer Shakespeare143's question Not every sentence on Wikipedia needs a citation (Wikipedia describes this in detail). Am I correct? No, this is not correct. Wikipedia:Verifiability explains right at the top, Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. You may be thinking of the rules for inline citations (when a blue reference symbol is needed, rather than just a reference being present at the bottom of an article). WP:MINREF gives the "only" four situations when inline citations are needed, but in practice almost all content in the India–Pakistan topic area will fall into one of those situations. I see no good reason not to give an inline citation for every piece of information you add to an article. — Bilorv (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by TrangaBellam

I agree with Vanamonde93 and support a TBan. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Shakespeare143

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

I looked through the contributions and talk page and I don't know if a topic ban will do much help. The user is trying to push their narrative and refuses to take in any feedback and a topic ban may not do much other than shift this problem to another area. However, I'd be willing to consider a topic ban if others think it may be more appropriate than a block. —SpacemanSpiff 07:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

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

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia'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 and 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:Wikipedia noticeboards