Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive276

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Yurivict (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :

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

1. 02:51, 19 November 2020 Attempts to give credence to the conspiracy theory of voter fraud by Dominion voting systems using affidavits, violating WP:NOT and WP:OR
2. 04:26, 19 November 2020 Repeat addition of the same content as above.
3. 23:44, 22 November 2020 States that "Mass media outlets like CNN/CBS/MSNBC/New York Times/etc don't seem concerned about objective news reporting, and instead have long turned into the instruments of propaganda." and continues to claim evidence of voter fraud.
4. 21:19, 26 November 2020 Same as above
5. 17:41, 29 November 2020 "the voting data posted in Pennsylvania after Nov 9PM is forged"

Awareness Critera: Met, in 2017, and one on the 20th of November

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Yurivict, while a long standing editor, attempted to give credence to the conspiracy theory of voter fraud by Dominon voting systems in the Sidney Powell article, and has continued this disruption at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Why the mainstream media are considered RS when they continuously and demonstrably lie?, accusing reputable media outlets of being "liars", showing WP:CIR issues. Yurivict previously opened a thread entitled Since it is obvious that it has been no Russian interference, this article should be either renamed or deleted on the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections talk page in February 2018, showing that they have consistent pattern of this behaviour. I request an AP2 topic ban.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Done

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.

The claims of incivility are false. On every occasion I provided extensive logical reasoning for what I said, and repeatedly asked Valjean to explain his reasoning, and he consistently failed to answer, no matter how much I tried. I expressed the only reasonable conclusion possible in this situation: that he lacks the ability for logical reasoning and discerning truth from falsehood. There is no incivility there, only logical conclusions. Valjean's user page indicates that he is a far-left activist, expresses his hatred towards certain current politicians, and is here on Wikipedia to promote his political causes. In his other edits he also expressed his conviction that he "is on the right side of history". This apparently justifies the means for him.

RS are voted on by Wikipedia editors. I pointed out the obvious problem with inveracity of statements in sources being incompatible with sources being considered RS. Despite my numerous attempts to provide proof that the information asserted by mass media is false, others consistently plainly rejected all arguments, showing their extreme level of bias. I literally couldn't get even one bit of acceptable argumentation as to why the mass media statements in question should be considered correct. One of the most egregious examples is the user stating "Yes, 98% of the batch [of 23,000] could just be votes for Biden." This answer is just one example of extreme, acute bias that far transcends the boundaries of reasonableness. Yurivict (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

("Reply to Liz"): I never said this. Please do not attribute any broad statements to me that I never said. Yurivict (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

("Reply to Bishonen"): This is **not pushing**. The page in question is a voting page, where editors express their opinion about sources in order to establish if they are RS. You appear to think that only certain opinions are welcomed, and not others. This undermines the very process of voting. Yurivict (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

("Reply to Cullen328"): I never said that I reject any fundamental process. I only questioned specific statements from the media as to their veracity and compatibility with being RS. Yurivict (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

("Reply to Valjean"): Valjean feels personally attacked and hurt, despite none of the above was meant. His remark about "it is known that the sky is blue" only shows how pre-opinionated he is. He votes with the expectation of a particular outcome, not with open mind and intention to establish what the average opinion is. He has the mentality of a classical far-left activist. Yurivict (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

("Reply to Koncorde"): Regarding your false assertion: "The subject of this request has already posited his opposition to "an adherence to reliable sources and consensus" and advocated the use of the least reliable sources currently being promoted. This somewhat renders your argument moot." - I never said anything like this. I only asked the question about veracity of statements in specific media. To this moment I still didn't get an answer. Please stop your insinuations. Yurivict (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

("Reply to Valjean" (again)): You don't qualify to claim anybody's "INCOMPETENCE" because you couldn't even answer a basic logical question with three simple clauses in it, which led to this whole discussion. You are essentially wrong in everything you are saying. Yurivict (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

("Reply to Valereee"): I only asked a specific question about a specific statement. People didn't like my question and couldn't answer it, and blew it out of proportion. It's so depressing that after the Wikipedia voting process people begin to judge you and blame you about how you voted. You obviously don't value freedom of speech and freedom of opinion, the values I hold dearest. Yurivict (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that items (3), (4), (5) above (in Diffs) are in talk pages discussing sources, and asking a specific honest question about source's statements. Why can't an editor ask questions about sources? This is an OUTRAGE!!! A persecution of a dissenting opinion. "Please vote as long as we agree with your vote, or else you will be banned!" It is OUTRAGEOUS to see this happening on Wikipedia! Shame! This is totalitarian and completely un-American! Yurivict (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The major issue here is Yurivict's open opposition to RS and a lack of basic competence to evaluate the reliability of sources:

Yurivict constantly uses unreliable sources in their arguments.

They also engage in:

• [1] [2] multiple deletions of reliably-sourced content;
• edit warring with unreliable sources;
• defends unreliable sources and attacks RS;
• considers our RS mechanism to be broken.
• the dubious distinction of being one of the very few editors (unsurprisingly with PackMecEng and BlackBird1008) to defend Newsmax. It is now SNOWBALL deprecated.
• incivility, personal attacks, and failures to AGF[3][4][5][6]
• a warrior for "truth" over verifiability.
• Their thread at WP:RS/P #Why the mainstream media are considered RS when they continuously and demonstrably lie? is a master class demonstrating a complete absence of competence regarding sourcing.

I believe an AP2 topic ban is necessary, as well as a topic ban from all controversial subjects, as their basic incompetence regarding sourcing will continue to be a problem. -- Valjean (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Below, Yurivict states: "You appear to think that only certain opinions are welcomed, and not others. This undermines the very process of voting."

Let's use an example. If we have a vote about the color of the sky, and knowing that all RS state that the "sky is blue", ONE editor then votes that the "sky is not blue", based on their use of unreliable sources and disbelief of all those RS, that vote shows the editor is not accepting what RS say. It shows that the editor is at odds with our RS policy and is not competent to evaluate the reliability of sources, even though that ability is a fundamental and absolute REQUIREMENT here. Such a vote is not welcomed but scorned.

Yes, editors are allowed to express their opinions, but if those opinions reveal they are not in harmony with our policies or RS, it has consequences for them. We do not allow such editors full and unfettered rights and access to any and all forms of editing, as they cannot be trusted. We clip their wings, and a topic ban is one way to do that. We allow children to play with balls in the gym, but we do not allow them to play with balls in the antique store. -- Valjean (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The comments by Yurivict on this page reveal a complete absence of understanding their problem, so I am now convinced that an indefinite community ban is required, but that is apparently not an option on this board. Is a block allowed? The degree of NOTHERE and INCOMPETENCE are truly stunning. Conservapedia is thataway.....>>>>> -- Valjean (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• InedibleHulk, I already retracted that. -- Valjean (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yurivict, "couldn't even answer a basic logical question" is not what happened. I certainly could have done so if I had the time and inclination, but I know when not to waste my time. -- Valjean (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who left the notification [7] and a polite reminder to Yurivict that they needed to abide by Wikipedia policies regarding Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:FRINGE items such as conspiracy theories, I should make a statement.

I remain concerned by Yurivict's attempts to push misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories related to elections in the United States. This includes at Jon Ossoff (link [8]), Matt Bevin (link: [9]), Andy Beshear (link: [10]), and Sidney Powell (links: [11] [12] [13]).

I am also concerned by their demonstrated disregard or opposition regarding Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy, as can be seen in the evidence provided by Hemiauchenia. Similar comments occurred in the thread "Important notices" that following my notification and polite reminder on their talk page (page link as Yurivict has now deleted it from their talk: [14]), in which they responded to various editors (not just myself): "That edit contained truth, not a fringe theory. Wikipedia's reliable sources mechanism is broken and it doesn't allow really reliable sources to be cited" [15], "I am sorry that you are so brainwashed and so devoid of the ability of independent thought and analysis" [16], "And when RS is not really RS, your documentation is garbage, garbage in, garbage out" [17] and "The One America News TV channel does honest, excellent reporting; NewsMax accurately reports current US news; The Epoch Times (https://www.theepochtimes.com/) has very reliable information; same can be said about American Thinker (https://www.americanthinker.com/) and Big League Politics (https://bigleaguepolitics.com/). Mass media outlets like CNN/CBS/MSNBC/New York Times/etc don't seem concerned about objective news reporting, and instead have long turned into the instruments of propaganda." [18] This can also be seen in a post they made to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources: [19].

They were last warned about inserting WP:FRINGE content into Wikipedia in 2018 [20] after a series of comments to Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections [21][22][23][24][25]. Reading their edit history, they appear to have stopped in this case after their discussion was closed with the comment "Closed. This borders on trolling. The article cites 406 reliable source that support that Russia interfered with the elections.Wikipedia is not a court where proof has to be presented. Come back with 406 reliable sources that say Russia didn't do it and then we will have a basis for a discussion." by MrX [26]. In 2020 similar reminders have not been enough.

I think their expertise in other matters, such as computer programming, is valuable for wikipedia but in the area of American politics they appear to have trouble with evaluating source reliability. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be incomplete if I did not also state my concern with their multiple attempts to paint Valjean as a "far-left activist" in this very discussion [27] [28]. Their comments stating that they "repeatedly asked Valjean to explain his reasoning, and he consistently failed to answer" do not match the evidence in page history. In the thread on Yurivict's talk page, Valjean repeatedly explained their position ("You have a duty to follow that policy and prioritize verifiable information from RS, not your subjective ideas of "truth". That information must come from what we consider RS (IOW accurate sources, regardless of any left or right bias), not from the fringe and unreliable sources that you consider reliable. They are misinforming you.") and Yurivict made repeated and direct insults towards Valjean: "If you really believe so I have no choice but think that you totally lack the ability to discern what is true and what is false, and should never edit Wikipedia articles about any subject matter"[29], "Wikipedia editors approve what is considered to be a "reliable source", and approve it again by editing accordingly or advocating for the system, like you do here. Which, again, brings us to the conclusion that you can not discern what is true and what is false."[30], "Hence, this is almost a mathematical proof that you can't discern what is true from what is false" [31]. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and personal attacks are reasonably not cool, but arguing for or against the reliability of sources is fine, it's how we all find consensus (especially at RSN). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never did any edit warring. I only argue about reliability of sources, specifically about veracity of certain statements in mass media. Yurivict (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to suggest you were guilty of these things, just that such things should be considered punishable offences, while one's thoughts on reliability (and any related discernment process or system) should not. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe affidavits can be considered credible evidence without being presumed proof. If such credible evidence reportedly exists, that merely disproves a claim of "there is no credible evidence", everything else is everything else. I also believe a desire to investigate or discuss election fairness can be held by anyone concerned, not just Trump supporters, but including them. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean, as a man who was indefinitely banned from everything for what I and several others think was a stupid reason, I must say it seemed to constitute cruel and unusual punishment, and if you choose to pursue that for this guy, we can no longer be work friends. We won't be work enemies. I'll just pretend you don't exist. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean, it's not retracted in your statement, it's at 01:10. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one mentioned regarding this statement: "Yes, 98% of the batch could just be votes for Biden. Occams razor." To be clear; to me the user was making, has been making, and continues to make unfounded assertions that there is evidence of fraud, that affidavits qualify as such, and that amateur analysis of no notability stand on their own as hard and fast factual interpretations of the facts. In effect;

1. the user argues that we must reject reliable sources characterising the lack of evidence of fraud as a lack of evidence of fraud.
2. to do this the user presents unreliable sources (usually the unfiltered claims of lawyers) / primary sources (affidavits, legal submissions, including those not even submitted and never likely to be submitted as a case) and / or use the existence of self published sources and WP:OR as evidence of fraud in order to invalidate the RS opinion.
3. failure to accept parts 1 and 2 is because "You are extremely biased." Koncorde (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The subject of this request has already posited his opposition to "an adherence to reliable sources and consensus" and advocated the use of the least reliable sources currently being promoted. This somewhat renders your argument moot." - I never said anything like this. I only asked the question about veracity of statements in specific media. To this moment I still didn't get an answer. Please stop your insinuations.

Just in case there is any confusion, their words on the subject:

I am arguing not for inclusion of anything into Wikipedia, but against certain sources being RS. You can't use the sources this arguments is made against as a basis that the argument is wrong, due to circular reasoning.

I don't believe I am misrepresenting this position, or insinuating anything, when the user says (to paraphrase) "you can't use reliable sources against the argument for dismissing my claims, oh and by the way here are some unreliable sources I'd like to use" this sort of statement is taken in conjunction with below edits and edit summaries to make it clear that this is not a "question about veracity" as claimed and is instead an open rejection of wikipedia norms.

Rejects reliable sources:[32] argues against using existing reliable sources [33][34]

Attempts to use unreliable sources[35] and argues for overturning RS with self published nonsense and OR [36][37] Koncorde (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AP2 TBan is a foregone conclusion. WP:OR. W:CIV, WP:IDHT, WP:CIR, WP:RS, WP:BLUDGEON. I think a community ban for WP:NOTHERE is more difficult, particularly since this is AE, not ANI. Although, I'm generally in favor of saving time. O3000 (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Nsk92. On competency, the word is broad. A driver who refuses or is unable to abide by the rules of the road is as dangerous as one ignorant of the rules. Although, better not to use the term here. On a block, if this is closed with a TBan here, and then immediately filed at AN/I for a block – it would fail. Therefore, a block shouldn’t be issued here. O3000 (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An AP2 ban would not be sufficient. An editor who can't even pretend to accept the underlying basics of Wikipedia can't edit here, and should be indeffed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good grief! Why was this thread re-opened after having been closed[38]? Because Valjean said something they shouldn't have? Well, either give Valjean another warning and a strong smack on the back of the head or issue a block. Neither action requires reopening this thread and wasting time by needlessly prolonging the discussion here. At the time the thread was originally closed by Johnuniq, there was overwhelming consensus among the uninvolved admins in favor of an AP2 topic ban for Yurivict. There is still an overwhelming consensus among the uninvolved admins in favor of an AP2 topic ban for Yurivict. A proposal for a community ban can be pursued later at WP:AN if someone wants to file it, but that is beyond the remit of AE. WP:CIR is a red herring here. Yurivict is a long term editor with a long term record of constructive contributions. They certainly know exactly what they are doing, and the current underlying issue is tendentious editing. That is exactly what topic bans are for. For those arguing for an immediate indef block, while the level of disruption here is indeed quite severe, I am not aware of the situations where an indef block had been applied as ain initial AE remedy. Given that Yurivict was a constructive editor in the past, I think that an AP2 topic ban should be given a chance to work. So please re-close this thread and move on. If someone really wants to participate in an interminable thread, there a few of those currently ongoing at ANI. Nsk92 (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In April 2020, Valjean said that I appear to have no knowledge of the subject I was working on with him: [39]. Then, when reminded he's not supposed to question users competence, he struck that remark but in the very edit in which he struck it he (surprisingly) repeated it: [40]. When asked to remove that repetition of the claim that I appear to have no knowledge of the subject, he did so, now adding a claim to the effect that I have failed to understand something or other: [41]. He subsequently stated that I will "likely like" unreliable sources: [42]. There were additional such remarks, but you get the drift. I decided to let it go at the time, as we normally do with Valjean. But the truth is that he doesn't follow the sanction he received, and he isn't going to in my opinion, so Admins have to decide if they care. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As this closed before I had a chance to chime in, posted the following at closing admins page:

Here you closed an AE filing against BullRangifer (now going by the username @Valjean:) stating clearly "BullRangifer is warned that he must not speculate about the competence of other users in discussions regarding a topic under discretionary sanctions"...yet in the case you just closed against Yurivict, Valjean violated this many times..I count Valjean questioning Yurivict's competence twice and saying he is also incompetent twice and the second time they used all caps. Valjean's zeal not only to topic ban but to even site ban a long term contributor with a clean block log, while violating portions of a prior verdict against them is stunning. Your close on the Bullrangifer case was less than a year ago and perhaps their name change was confusing but sanction should have also been applied against Valjean for this violation of an earlier AE judgement you made. Are you going to address this or do I have to open up another case for this violation?

Above, Valjean violated DS warning he recieved in January 2020 while still using his prior BullRangifer username. Apparently, as demonmstrated by Shinealittlelight above, this is not a one off since he recieved his AE warning less than a year ago. For an editor so anxious to have a previously never before sanctioned or blocked editor not only topic banned but community banned as well, yet to continue to violate the warnings of their own sanctions recieved here is an indication of problematic behavior that should also be addressed.--MONGO (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• So, Yurivict, are you saying that everyone who believes in and accepts Wikipedia's assessment of reliable sources is biased? Because if you do, we are getting into competency territory that is larger than a topic ban. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yurivict, this was my understanding after reading your comments at Reliable sources/Perennial sources talk page. Your comments read as if you believed sources the Wikipedia community has concluded are reliable, aren't. I'm not trying to "silence" any one, I just want you to understand that Wikipedia has, over many years, come up with policies and standards that you must accept if you want to edit on the project. These rules aren't specific to any particular political orientation, they are ones we all must follow. You can challenge individual sources through discussion at RSN but the wholesale dismissal of accepted mainstream reliable sources as "biased" will make editing, especially on contemporary political articles, difficult if not impossible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hemiauchenia's report and diffs as well as IHateAccounts's post are very complete and convincing. Pushing One America News, NewsMax, Epoch Times, and American Thinker as reliable sources, as done here, is nothing short of hair-raising. I strongly support an indefinite topic ban from American politics. Perhaps more is needed, also, in view of the user's general attitude to our policies concerning reliable sources.[43] Bishonen | tålk 20:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Sadly, Yurivict rejects at a fundamental level the processes by which Wikipedia editors evaluate the reliability of sources. Their repeated insistence that the existence of "affidavits" somehow proves consequential election fraud is ludicrous, and has been universally rejected by judges in all the contested states. Accordingly, I consider a topic ban on post-1932 American politics to be essential, and if they disrupt in other topic areas, an indefinite block will then be required. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleting reliably-sourced information and at the same time promoting sites like OANN and Epoch Times is a red flag from editing AP2 articles, even without the incivility when called out on it which is still going on today at WP:RSP. One day, such editors will understand that we don't allow sites like these to be used not because of their political affiliation, but because they print falsehoods as news stories on a regular basis. Such sites make Breitbart look like a paragon of unbiased reporting. An AP2 TBAN is required here. Black Kite (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This is so depressing. A long-time productive editor who suddenly this month drastically changes their editing pattern. Yurivict seems to have gone off the rails along with the US sociopolitical system. I do agree that we need diverse opinion, including about what qualifies as a reliable source, and I do worry that we silence conservative opinions. But honestly, Yurivict, if the WSJ and National Review aren't giving credence to the stuff OAN's going on and on about, we can't take it seriously either. The WSJ/National Review should be the gold standard for editors on the right. If they don't think it's a big deal/true, we don't either. Support AP2 TBAN for now. —valereee (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yurivict, you're incorrect. I do value freedom of speech and of opinion. But in the RS discussion, you were stating your opinion as fact: These statistical abnormalities mathematically prove that the voting data posted in Pennsylvania after Nov 9PM is forged, and certainly didn't occur naturally. You're free to state that as your opinion. When you argue your opinion as fact at a discussion board, you've stopped behaving as an editor and started behaving as an advocate. The fact you had to go to rumble to find a source to support your opinion, and then had to work backward to argue that since rumble is saying what you believe to be true, rumble must be RS, is just a logical fallacy. —valereee (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Beyond My Ken summarizes it succinctly. But if an indefinite block is not within the remit of AE, then an indefinite AP2 topic ban is clearly warranted as a minimum. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I had closed this request as an indefinite AP2 topic ban but MONGO has reminded me on my talk that my close of a January 2020 WP:AE request included: "BullRangifer is warned that he must not speculate about the competence of other users in discussions regarding a topic under discretionary sanctions." User:Valjean notes that Valjean is BullRangifer renamed. In the January case, BullRangifer/Valjean gratuitously referred to "competency issue" (diff). In this case, their statement above starts with "lack of basic competence to evaluate the reliability of sources" and has other mentions of that term. I'm not sure what should be done about that as the two cases are wildly different. However, I have re-opened this for further consideration. Any further evidence regarding Yurivict could be posted but the main purpose of continuing is to consider what should result regarding the competence issue. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• To be honest, I almost quoted WP:CIR myself in my rationale, because this is, in the end, a competency issue - an experienced editor who either does not understand or, worse, deliberately ignores a core policy in the shape of WP:V. Black Kite (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Heba Aisha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Anony20 (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

1. [44] Added glorifying image of a famous warrior on the top of caste article. Though I told in my edits that read User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. Individuals donot represent caste but reverted my edits.
2. [45] Showing biasness towards various social groups . They didn't liked Rajputs to be compared with Jat and Ahirs, a bid to assert supremacy of former. WP:POV WP:COI issue
3. [46] Personal attack on LukeEmily
4. [47] Personal attack here too.

User talk:Anony20#Alert for India/Pakistan/Afghanistan related articles he is aware of the sanctions. See here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The accounts activity says that they want glorification of a particular caste only as all the edits shows seek to glorify the community. Even they removed sourced content earlier which they found objectionable to their caste.

On their talk page they accused me of bombarding the page with notifications. So it will be helpful if someone notifies them on my behalf.Heba Aisha (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen is right I have not placed that sources on ur talk page and your activities shows that you are concerned with caste glorification only rather than productive contribution. Ex: Here You blanked sourced content as you didn't find it good.[48]Heba Aisha (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark regarding content on Rajput related articles we went for RFC for nearly one month.(Bishonen is witness). LukeEmily presented many sources of high quality and the editors who accused me or him of being partial were asked to bring similar quality sources but they failed. After RFc ended they are here again with another pretext. As for example in the above diff. Mr. Anony20 says: He need LE agreement on other articles too.Clear sign of creating disruption in future for WP:POV pushing attitude. They edit pages related to particular caste only and it is clear that WP:COI issue is there which may be problematic in future.Heba Aisha (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have already gone long discussion on issue and many ppl like NitinMlk and Мастер Шторм asked them to bring sources to contradict what is written. See Talk:Rajput#RfC about deletion of allegedly derogatory words in Origin section. But they are here again and again with personal attacks and new kind of disruption. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I usually patrol previously edited pages and if someone have forgotten to give warning I do it. I have done this not only in the case of LE but in case of other editors also. Again.....it is clear to me that you are primarily concerned with WP:COI related to Rajputs as you have mentioned in your message that "I m trying to uplift the lower caste's status and degrade those of upper caste" (it means you are strivi g to maintain the superiority of Rajputs over other caste...in fact your remark on Jat, Ahir etc here [49] makes it clear. Also you had problem with the verifiability of picture because Rajput were not looking Royal there....on the same note editors like you also challenged this image

(Rajputs don't look royal here)...but none of you are challenging this image .... though both of them are of British period.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have myself taken this image during my tour and you found it bogus because you wanna portray every rajput as royal(though it is not true...most of them are cultivators)....btw during this Bihar election many media channels have surveyed voting behaviour of Caste and I can post link of one such video in which they visited the same village from where this image belongs ....if admins are interested they can check "dressing pattern " looks of Bihari Rajputs.Since Wiki don't allow external link.....those who are interested can type this keyword on Youtube and watch how Rajput of bihar look.[✅ सोनपुर के राजपूतो ने न लालू नितिश ने और मोदी क्या किया] and you replaced that image with image of nobles who took part in 1857 revolt ...ironically there were few ruling families in Bihar and most Rajputs who constitute 4% of Bihari population were peasants. If admins have seen video.....I would recommend a topic ban as this is clearly WP:COI which may impact Neutrality (it is still impacting when you are challenging encyclopedic image) Heba Aisha (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my pictures related to Bihar...I m not concerned with degrading or rising status of caste groups but I contribute towards whatever I like.:Heba Aisha (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to this[50] I have provided the method to check verifiability of image above and its not single revert.

• Abusive language and accusations(Even after warning of Bishonen earlier one month before [51])
• Reverting sourced content on Rajput (To undo a lot of productive edits: basically to get rid of word Shudra)Heba Aisha (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to this [52] in Bihar caste certificate are issued to only Other Backward Class and SC ST. And this shows ur lack of understanding in this area.Truly a case of WP:CIR.Heba Aisha (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok finally see this news report. I urge @RegentsPark: and @Bishonen: to check it [53]..it have many images of Bihari Rajputs. And Mr. Anony20 wants only image of princes and nobles.Clearly a glorification attempt.Heba Aisha (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In above diff. You have again accused me of sockpuppetry which is after Bishonen warned u months before.I m not showing WP:OWN behavior. The news article I shared has the current image of Rajput ppl and since Kingship ended long ago....we should update the article with new image.[54] since it is licenced image my image is usable here. See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY about ur view supported by majority of ppl even they are wrong.The article is about common Rajputs and not Landlords which you are trying to portray through image.Also see User:Sitush/Common#Castelists we should refrain from keeping notable people on top of caste article. The image you put are of freedom fighters mainly zamindars who participated in 1857 revolt against british not the commoners. Heba Aisha (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The image Anony20 has used is also used on this article [55] it is the image of Kunwar Singh and his attendants who were Rajput landlords and chieftain.Plz see the article admins. Bihari Rajput is an article about a social group not handful of landlord from same caste.PS: He has opened separate talk on WP:AN.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No way plz read carefully... Revolt of 1857 in Bihar specially Arrah was primarily a Landlord's revolt.Plz stop putting specific personalities on top of caste article.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2020 (UTCs

Admins plz take note it is what we call User:Sitush/Common#RoyalPuffery since 1971 privileges have ended and every caste has poor and rich now. The news article I shared shows how Rajput ppl look nowadays.I m still opposed to putting pic of some notable personalities (here Kunwar Singh) and his attendants on top of caste page. If this is so Teli ppl will put Narendra Modi on the top of their respective caste article and so do other castes. Plz take required action as WP:Wikihounding refers to engaging an editor on multiple fronts which he is doing by opening another discuss on WP:ANHeba Aisha (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Plz see the caption and even title of image mention Koor Singh with his attendants check on Kunwar Singh article.You have uploaded a poor version of same image. Heba Aisha (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No just cropped one...both represent same ppl.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No I would like to take this matter to RFc at talk page because anyone can see to compare that both represents the same thing I.e group of warriors who are notable and you also said in your previous comment that that the person in centre is Kunwar Singh.Also ur image is of doubtful copyright status as I can see.Heba Aisha (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified that why it was removed?.It represents Kunwar Singh and his attendants as you also said..here[56] ...against the policy.Heba Aisha (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are uploading copyrighted image from facebook on commons...which was deleted by admins. Plz be aware of the Copyvio rules.You violated it by uploading Amethia Rajput and I believe that all other images are also non free.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I had raised my concern with the image uploaded by Heba Aisha in the page of Bihari Rajput. The complainant replied to me there(Check talk page of Bihari Rajput)[57] and simultaneously provided unnecessary sources on my user talk page[58]. To be noted, I have never asked the complainant of those sources but only raised the concern with the image in Bihari Rajput page. I asked Heba Aisha about the need to abruptly flood those sources to my user talk page, to which she marked this as ds/aware and then WP:AE

Hi Bishonen, first of all, let me clarify that I haven't complained about HA's message rather I had asked her about the reason to flood my talk page, I guess I was wrong in thinking so, as you have pointed out that those were footnotes. Secondly, my purpose is neither to demean any caste nor to glorify any as pointed out by HA in his/her allegation against me. I'll prove it in the next paragraph but let me first highlight that my edits which HA has highlighted are of August and I haven't edited any of those pages from the past 3 months. Just after pointing out the image uploaded by HA on the talk page of Bihari Rajput, it was reverted by LE without any reply to my concern on the talk page of Bihari Rajput and within hours I received HA's message that I have been reported. I ask you to check the talk page of Bihari Rajput[59] to get a clear insight of my concern and how it was overlooked. I suppose wikipedia is a platform to discuss and contribute and it should remain so.

Now coming to HA's allegations, what I have seen HA and LE doing, is to edit each page related to Indian castes with recent and often disputed sources, so that all the castes can be put at the same level. One can check my edits if I ever tried to demean any caste through my edits on their page. There are multiple sources to counter the edits that were made by HA or LE repeatedly on pages of Rajputs in August, although I left that argument with them as I am not always active on wiki. If HA or LE are concerned to know why I had objected their edits, then I can share some of the sources, though I am in no mood to do so now, still HA can check:

1) Shail Mayaram; Against History, Against State; p. 202: Ancient North India witnessed rule by various Kshatriya dynasties and Kshatriya republics of Haryanka, Surasena Yadav 2, Sakya, Moriya, Yousheya & Arjunayana clans.

2) Jai Narayan Asopa (1990); A socio-political and economic study, northern India; Prateeksha Publications. 89 : the word “Rajput” is an ethnicity of various lineage-kinship networks of various Kshatriya clans ( kuls ) and their subclans ( khaaps ). From Kumarpala Prabandh of 1435 AD, there has been a tendency to enumerate these clans to 36

3) Smith, Vincent A. (October 1907). Coin of Vyagrahamukha of the Chapa (Gurjara) Dynasty of Bhinmal”; 923–928: For instance, the first political appearance of Chavda Rajputs was in the form of Vyaghramukha Chavda, a Bhinmal ruler, under whose reign the mathematician-astronomer Brahmagupta wrote his famous treatise in 628 AD

4) Nandini Kapur Sinha; State Formation in Rajasthan; Mewar, p. 37: Sri Pravarasena (530-590 CE), the Hunnic ruler was separated by the early Guhilot Rajput inscriptions ( Samoli Inscription 646 CE) barely by a few decades and yet the latter showed neither political affiliation nor cultural similarities. Rather they showed political affiliation to the Moriya Rajputs of Chittaurgarh

5) Babur Nama; Journal of Emperor Babur; p. 289: Due to his military reputation, Sanga built a Confederacy of Rajput states of Eastern Rajasthan, Chambal and Doab that first defeated a Mughal force at Bayana but was routed at Khanwa.

I was infuriated by the repeated reverts and edits which were made by them in August but still I left it to them as I am not much active on wiki. Although, I still don't know the reason behind raising this concern after 3 months when I haven't edited those pages in between and raising it after I pointed out HA on talk page of Bihari Rajput. Thanks

Heba Aisha, LukeEmily you guys still haven't answered, why the edits of Rajput article is highlighted now if I haven't edited it from past many months, and highlighted it only when I challenged the image uploaded by HA "Rajput men watching Mallah" on Bihari Rajput as misleading. Bishonen, RegentsPark I ask you to have a look at the talk page of Bihari Rajput.

LE if you are here for discussion about the edits on Rajput page, then I must tell you that Shail Mayaram quotes that "some Kshatriya lost their status in time while Sudra rose to power to rule". It doesn't say anything about the origin of Rajput or Kshatriya, it rather speaks about status. Even the Nand dynasty was of a Sudra (or barber to be specific) but he isn't counted as a Kshatriya or Rajput (Life Unshackled By Mallikarjun B. Mulimani). And none of your sources predates Kumarpal Prabandh which clearly states 36 royal races which are still counted in pure Rajput clans. Regarding other castes like Bhil, Gond, Ahir, Gujjar, Jat there are numerous mentions of them attempting to fake their genealogy to connect themselves as descendants of Rajput(Like Mah Ranjit Singh Jat to Bhati Rajput, Mah Surajmal Jat to Jadaun rajput of Karauli, Ahir rewari principality to Jadaun of Tirjala) or by Sanskritization/ Arya Samaj uplifted their status and adopted the lifestyle and titles of Rajput(1910 Yadav Mahasabha, instructed Ghosi/Pal/Gadariya/Ahir/Gwala/Gop to adopt Yadav 'a Kshatriya title'). As I have said, I am in no mood now to have a discussion about Rajput article, but still LE if you're interested then we can have it on the talk page of Rajput.

Regarding my accusation of taking LE and HA as a group, I found a pattern in the time of their joining of wiki and making repeated and often humongous amount of edits on the pre existing pages of Indian castes. (Take a look of edits in August [60][61]) Whenever either of them was challenged or his edits were reverted, then the other one would either revert it or would drop a message in user talk page, the same thing happened in the case of Bihari Rajput. When HA's uploaded image was objected, LE came in picture abruptly, it left me to think as if they are working as a group with a certain agenda to generalize all the castes or to uplift the earlier marginalized one.

If my purpose would have been to glorify a caste or race then I must have been active in making edits to the pages of a caste. But, I rarely make any edits like I did one after 3 months on the page of Bihari Rajput[62]

Heba Aisha don't try to divert from your earlier arguments here. Instead of answering my question, you're beating around the bush with such false allegations on me[63] Secondly, in my above remarks I have pointed out Sanskritization and the wrong quote of LE regarding Shail Mayaram. Again you've come in defence of LE like earlier instances and trying to portray me as a caste supremacist which I am not. I think you should see the recent remark of KashKarti on Bihari Rajput[64], he agrees with my point and maybe there are many more who feels same like KK. If you had a problem with my edit on Bihari Rajput, you could've pointed out me on its talk page. I guess there is no monopoly of a single user on wikipedia and it works on consensus and discussion. So it's nothing like I can't challenge your "Rajput men watching Mallah" image on Bihari Rajput if I didn't find it verifiable. For just reverting an unsourced image with a sourced image doesn't goes for topic ban under WP:COI

The pic uploaded by me on Bihari Rajput is of rajput rebels from Bihar and I guess not all of them are noble which you've misunderstood. Or tell me what you understand by the term "nobles". Have you checked the caste certificates of that group of men, that you're adamant that they are all rajputs? If you have their caste certificates then may be you can upload them on drive and cite it's link on wikimedia. But still I feel that image is not a representation of community.

Heba Aisha your recent accusation[65] are truly a personal attack on me. I simply asked you how did you verified those men as rajputs and you're attacking my sensibility and knowledge under WP:NPA. You are making false allegation against me by quoting Bishonen August remark[66] and quoting them as one month old[67], I have already quoted it in my above(1st para). I can't take your beating around the bush just because I challenged your image on Bihari Rajput. You are not ready to accept my argument and repeatedly making fresh allegations against me. Another user has disagreement[68] with the image which you had uploaded in that article and I would like to hear from KashKarti, why that image and your argument to defend it were not satisfactory. I think you would listen to KK if not me.

When did I asked you to upload images of prince and princes?[69] RegentsPark, Bishonen I would like if you interrupt Heba Aisha as HA is making false allegations against me and trying to demean me with hoaxes. Pls have a look at the comments of HA, LE and mine to know how newly fabricated accusations are made against me. Also, HA what are you trying to prove by sharing articles from news websites, are they in anyway relevant with the allegations you're making here?

Heba Aisha is showing authority over Bihari Rajput WP:STEWARDSHIP WP:OWNERSHIP , not ready to listen to my arguments WP:POVRAILROAD, making newly fabricated/misleading false allegations against me WP:NPA and misinterpreting my statements[70] WP:Civility, HA is singling out me when another user KK has a similar view on Bihari Rajput[71] WP:Wikihounding. This is clearly WikiBullying WP:BULLY @RegentsPark: Just because I challenged her image on Bihari Rajput, HA is misquoting my statements, portraying me a caste supremacist, highlighting my 3 months old comment which I haven't used after the warning of Bishonen, making false allegation against me that I actively edit Rajput page which I haven't edited from past many months. And all these allegations and accusations just because I pointed HA in talk page of Bihari Rajput[72] is HA acting as an owner of that page.

That image is not of zamindars but rajput rebels. HA is misquoting the title.[73] HA, those attendants are not zamindars themselves, instead Babu Kunwar Singh(man in middle is the only zamindar in that image)[74] Note: I have appealed to Admin as I am being constantly misquoted and misinterpreted by HA.

I am not putting an individual's image. Neither it's a pic of zamindars in their traditional attire, so it doesn't reflect royal status. It is a group of rajput rebels from 1857.

In my above statement, I have clarified it's not an individual's image, also the caption of image doesn't mention any notable person. Going by your argument HA, I would like to state that "group of unverified people with semi clothed man and children watching Mallah" doesn't reflect Bihari rajput in any sense.

HA, the image of Kooer Singh which you've uploaded and the one uploaded by me are different. Yours is an engraving while mine is the original picture. Do read the caption, it doesn't mention kooer singh, period.

I have made it clear, it's the original picture while the one uploaded by you is an engraving of it. If you can't find difference between the two, I would suggest you to leave it to the admin, period. Even the caption beneath your uploaded image reads "from a photograph", as I've said it's an engraving of the original picture. I feel I don't need to clarify it further.

Update: Hi @Bishonen:, HA has removed the image from Bihari Rajput. The reason for it's removal quoted by HA was already discussed here and on the talk page of Bihari Rajput. "The picture was of Bihari rajput people and not of an individual personality". Need your interference in this regard to stop such repeated edits by HA on Bihari Rajput.

@RegentsPark:, @Bishonen: HA is using foul methods to revert my edits on Bihari Rajput. HA is misleading and misusing wikicommon[75] to get my uploaded image deleted(Quoting original photograph to be a duplicate of a later engraving)[76] It's a serious case of asserting domination by HA. HA is asking or more appropriate would be to use 'misleading' other users to delete my uploaded image from wikicommons [77] [78] When I have already clarified that the image which she's showing is an engraving(Read the caption of HA image) while mine is the original photograph.

I fixed the talk page section of Anony20 that I had posted earlier so the references stay in that section only. Was reading this conversation (as I was looking at Anony20's edits today after his post on my talk page) but was not sure if I should comment. However, since , Anony20 is posting misleading information, and because Bishonen gave me permission to discuss, I will do so. First of all, his allegation is absurd. Heba and I do not work together nor do we edit the same topics. In fact, I have no interest in Indian Politics (especially north Indian) and I do not have any know-how of most of the topics from Bihar that she edits. We did agree on some of the Rajput edits as we both felt that the page was one sided and since then Anony20 has been calling us twins, dumbos and what not. I personally am not offended by name calling but I do not like vandalism as it results in considerable waste of time. For example here, Anony20 reverted many academic sources that were coincidentally all unpleasant [79]. Specifically his revert got rid of the words "Shudra" , "illiterate" "peasant" and "Rajputization" - everything that is unpleasant. etc. I just checked and Anony20 reverted the version to a version that was several days old by going back about 50 edits! The Rajput caste page was full of glorification when I read it. Evidence does indicate that Anony20 objects to any unpleasant edit on the Rajput page. I honestly feel that he and some others are involved in caste promotion. Anony20, I did not remove any existing sources or text, did I? Here is the response to the sources that Anony cited above.

None of the sources that Anony20 listed directly contradict the sources that were added to origin and even if they did it does not justify the blanking of sources unless you are involved in WP:PUFFERY. Anony20, the section specifically talks about origin of the community and not what some people might have called them later and none of the sources you just stated discuss the origin and even if they did, it does not mean you can blank out 10-12 high quality academic sources. You can simply add more opinions as Sitush has said. In fact if you do a search for Kshatriya and Maratha you will get a lot of sources too. But the origin is a different issue. Even if you add every source you mentioned above to the Rajput page, it will not contradict what is in the origin section as every view has been mentioned. Neither Heba nor I removed any of the existing sources. But you came in and reverted a lot of hard work in a few seconds by blanking out the new additions and reverting the page to an old version. Ironically, Marayam whom you quoted above says the following about Rajput origin.

1.Mayaram, Shail (2010). "The Sudra Right to Rule". In Ishita Banerjee-Dube (ed.). Caste in History. Oxford University Press. p. 110. ISBN 978-0-19-806678-1. In their recent work on female infanticide, Bhatnagar, Dube and Bube(2005) distinguish between Rajputization and Sanksritization. Using M.N.Srinivas' and Milton Singer's approach to social mobility as idioms they identify Rajputization as one of the most dynamic modes of upward mobility. As an idiom of political power it 'signifies a highly mobile social process of claiming military-political power and the right to cultivate land as well as the right to rule. Rajputization is unparalleled in traditional Indian society for its inventiveness in ideologies of legitimation and self-invention. This was a claim that was used by persons of all castes all over north India ranging from peasants and lower-caste Sudras to warriors and tribal chiefs and even the local raja who had recently converted to Islam. 2.Ishita Banerjee-Dube (2010). Caste in History. Oxford University Press. p. xxiii. ISBN 978-0-19-806678-1. Rajputization discussed processes through which 'equalitarian, primitive, clan based tribal organization' adjusted itself to the centralized hierarchic, territorial oriented political developments in the course of state formation. This led a 'narrow lineage of single families' to disassociate itself from the main body of their tribe and claim Rajput origin. They not only adopted symbols and practices supposedly representative of the true Kshatriya, but also constructed genealogies that linked them to the primordial and legendary solar and lunar dynasties of kings. Further, it was pointed out that the caste of genealogists and mythographers variously known as Carans, Bhats, Vahivanca Barots, etc., prevalent in Gujarat, Rajasthan and other parts of north India actively provided their patron rulers with genealogies that linked local clans of these chiefs with regional clans and with the Kshatriyas of the Puranas and Mahabharata. Once a ruling group succeeded in establishing its claim to Rajput status, there followed a 'secondary Rajputization' when the tribes tried to 're-associate' with their formal tribal chiefs who had also transformed themselves into Hindu rajas and Rajput Kshatriyas.

I already gave you about 10 more academic sources here:User_talk:Anony20#No_personal_attacks. Here are 10 *more* FYI (in fact, I have not come across any modern high quality academic source that opposes these views) and I am not even adding all the sources like Koyal, Sinha etc.:

Peasant/Pastoral origin:

3.Eugenia Vanina 2012, p. 140:Regarding the initial stages of this history and the origin of the Rajput feudal elite, modern research shows that its claims to direct blood links with epic heroes and ancient kshatriyas in general has no historic substantiation. No adequate number of the successors of these epically acclaimed warriors could have been available by the period of seventh-eights centuries AD when the first references to the Rajput clans and their chieftains were made. [...] Almost all Rajput clans originated from the semi-nomadic pastoralists of the Indian north and north-west.

4.Daniel Gold (1 January 1995). David N. Lorenzen (ed.). Bhakti Religion in North India: Community Identity and Political Action. State University of New York Press. p. 122. ISBN 978-0-7914-2025-6. Paid employment in military service as Dirk H. A. Kolff has recently demonstrated, was an important means of livelihood for the peasants of certain areas of late medieval north India... In earlier centuries, says Kolff, "Rajput" was a more ascriptive term, referring to all kinds of Hindus who lived the life of the adventuring warrior, of whom most were of peasant origins.

5.Doris Marion Kling (1993). The Emergence of Jaipur State: Rajput Response to Mughal Rule, 1562–1743. University of Pennsylvania. p. 30. Rajput: Pastoral, mobile warrior groups who achieved landed status in the medieval period claimed to be Kshatriyas and called themselves Rajputs

6.André Wink (1991). Al-Hind the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: The Slave Kings and the Islamic Conquest : 11Th-13th Centuries. BRILL. p. 171. ISBN 90-04-10236-1. ...and it is very probable that the other fire-born Rajput clans like the Caulukyas, Paramaras, Cahamanas, as well as the Tomaras and others who in the eighth and ninth centuries were subordinate to the Gurjara-Pratiharas, were of similar pastoral origin, that is, that they originally belonged to the mobile, nomadic groups...

Illiterate and non-Kshatriya origin:

7.Norman Ziegler 1976, p. 141:...individuals or groups with which the word was associated were generally considered to owe their origin to miscegenation or varna-samkara ("the mixing of castes") and were thus inferior in rank to Ksatriyas. [...] What I perceive from the above data is a rather widespread change in the subjective perception and the attribution of rank to groups and individuals who emerged in Rajasthan and North India as local chiefs and rulers in the period after the muslim invasions(extending roughly from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries). These groups were no longer considered kshatriyas and though they filled roles previously held by kshatriyas and were attributed similar functions of sustaining society and upholding the moral order, they were either groups whose original integrity were seen to have been altered or who had emerged from the lower ranks of the caste system. This change is supported by material from the Rajput chronicles themselves.

8.Norman Ziegler 1976, p. 150: Rajputs were, with some exceptions, almost totally illiterate as a caste group

9.Reinhard Bendix (1998). Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait. Psychology Press. pp. 180–. ISBN 978-0-415-17453-4. Eventually the position of the old Kshatriya nobility was undermined not only by the Brahmin priests but also by the rise of a warrior caste in northwest India. Most of the Rajputs were illiterate mercenaries in the service of a King.

10.Sara R. Farris (9 September 2013). Max Weber’s Theory of Personality: Individuation, Politics and Orientalism in the Sociology of Religion. BRILL. pp. 140–. ISBN 978-90-04-25409-1. Weber however explained this downgrading of their status by the fact that they represented a threat to the cultural and intellectual monopoly of the Brahmans, as they[Kshatriyas] were also extremely cultured and educated in the art of administration. In about the eight century the Rajput thus began to perform the functions that had formerly belonged to the Kshatriya, assuming their social and economic position and substituting them as the new warrior class. Ancient illiterate mercenaries, the Rajput did not represent a threat to the Brahmininc monopoly and were more inclined to accept the Brahmans' superiority, thus contributing to the so called Hindu restoration.

Note: There are many more. This is in addition to the other 10 sources I had provided on your page - so 20 sources plus at least 5-6 more that are not here. All sources are very high quality(Cambridge, Oxford, SUNY etc.) The amount of high quality material available discussing Rajputization is really overwhelming. It has also been linked to Female Infanticide (please see Rajput#Female_infanticide) and hence is an important topic. There is no intent to disparage or insult or offend any community but we have the duty as editors to use WP:RS on Wikipedia and not revert it if the source is acceptable.LukeEmily (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Heba Aisha, I'm sorry to get technical here, but WP:GS/CASTE is not an arbcom discretionary sanction, it's a community sanction (and one that I don't think the user has been warned about). Requests per that sanction need to go to WP:AN, not here. On the other hand, it might be simpler for you to leave it here and merely change WP:GS/CASTE to WP:ARBIPA, which means the arbcom discretionary sanctions for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. That would work perfectly well. You actually involve both of the types of sanctions in your report above, referring to the alert for ARBIPA, so leaving it here and changing WP:GS/CASTE is probably your best bet. Bishonen | tålk 12:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Anony20, is what you have posted above the extent of your defence? It seems extremely thin. You are mistaken in thinking HA added those sources at the bottom of your page. (Even if they had done so, I don't see that there is much in that for you to complain of. What about the other points raised here?) Those sources are footnotes to an earlier post by LukeEmily on your page, here, from September, and they are a list of reliable sources that you had removed from the article. They are highly relevant to LE's post. I'll make a more general comment on this case later. Bishonen | tålk 13:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• I'd be very interested to hear also from LukeEmily, who has been involved with Anony's editing and arguments — indeed, Anony has several times treated LE and HA as a "team", or implied that they're one person,[80][81] an aspersion that seems highly unlikely to me. Bishonen | tålk 16:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• I'm somewhat on the fence here. In August 2020, Anony20 behaved frankly atrociously. This is bad in several ways: attacks on Heba Aisha, attacks on Sitush, unacceptable caste commentary. Compare also my warning (aggressively received) to Anony20 here. They were then far from new, having started editing in 2018, but as of today they have only made 113 edits altogether. So in that sense could be considered a newbie still — a newbie editing one of our most fraught topics, castes and social groups. Their August edit here to Rajput is atrocious in another way: removing all content that could be seen as negative — as LukeEmily points out, removing terms such as "Shudra" , "illiterate" "peasant" and "Rajputization" — plus a whole raft of reliable sources supporting those terms. That was pure caste promotion. A very bad edit. But what I would like to know is this: Anony20 took a break from 1 September to 26 November. Is there anything really bad from the last few days? There is certainly this recent nonsense about 'twin users'. But literally all they have done at any article in November is add images to Bihari Rajput. I think Heba's complaint about these images is a bit overblown, and altogether that Heba's timing in bringing this complaint is not the best. The point where a user has taken a three-month break and has only returned a few days earlier is not a good time to take them to WP:AE. Unless somebody can point to egregious talkpage edits in November, I would close this with a warning to Anony20: Anony, you shouldn't talk down to people such as LukeEmily,[82] who obviously understands sourcing in the area far better than you do, but listen to him and other competent users, and to educate yourself about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If there is obvious caste promotion from you going forward, admins are now watching, and you're likely to be topic banned from all articles and discussions about castes and social groups. P.S. Oh... I just saw that Anony20 has taken Heba to ANI[83] over the same stuff that is being discussed here. What a terrible idea. I suppose I'll write it down to inexperience. Sigh. Bishonen | tålk 16:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• The last two diffs in OPs complaint are concerning. Accusations of sock or meat puppeting, "dumbo", "twin sister", are all personal attacks. I'm not sure whether the caste related diffs are egregious content related stuff but these personal attacks are not a good sign. At a minimum, Anony20 needs to be made aware that they can be topic banned from specific topic areas (caste related India articles, for example) unless they shape up. If there is evidence of disruptive content editing (I don't see anything that stands out but haven't looked carefully), I'd be willing to support a topic ban.--RegentsPark (comment) 16:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bishonen: I suggest closing this with a warning to Anony20. I tried reading the walls of text above but .... A note to the commenting editors, "in future, please be brief!". --RegentsPark (comment) 17:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Muirchertach1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :

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

1. 05:31, 4 December 2020 Adds unreferenced claim at Kenosha unrest shooting that all those shot by the perpetrator were attacking him
2. 05:36, 4 December 2020 Adds unreferenced claim to the same article that a protester struck the perpetrator in the head with a skateboard, when the reference only says the shoulder
3. 16:29, 4 December 2020 Edit wars to add back the unreferenced claim from diff #1
4. 16:30, 4 December 2020 Edit wars to add back the unreferenced claim from diff #2, claiming police witnesses testified yesterday that he had a head wound in the area, when there's no reason why he couldn't have received the head wound at any other point during his shooting spree.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 15:01, 10 November 2020 Blocked for edit-warring at Stop the Steal
2. 15:50, 20 November 2020 Further block for edit-warring at the same article

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

• Notified here

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm not sure if the blocks are part of the AP2 sanctions, but as they are AP2 related it seems reasonable enough to mention them.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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.

I think at this point, an editor who has done nothing but POV push and disrupt articles to do so and only has 132 edits with 3 blocks is showing their true colors. The only reasonable outcome is a lengthy block, if not indefinite. Praxidicae (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Drmies way works too. :P Praxidicae (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 132 edits, already 3 blocks, in the last 50 edits I do not see a single good one - I am afraid an indefinite block would be the most reasonable solution here.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Ah, well, an arbitration request. Sorry, I blocked Muirchertach1 already per NOTHERE. If y'all want to discuss and come to some sort of solution that's different from an indef block, feel free to unblock and enact whatever the consensus dictates. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Heba Aisha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

OnlyTruthShallPrevail (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

Topic ban from all Rajput related pages.:

--

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

1. [84] mass changes to remove high quality sources and replace with unreliable people of india book.Ignorant of WP:Citation
2. [85] Attack on a senior editor about the consensus on sources which was made earlier.
3. [86] Royal puffery , caste promotion
4. [87] personal attack on another editor in collusion with an ip...both of which are disrupting Rajput articles(obviously both are having WP:COI with Rajput caste.They are talking about some fight for this cause.chariotrider555 can explain it better.(but keep it short@chariotrider)

[[88]], it could be his sockpuppet

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

User seems to be aware of sanctions, as he is talking about blocking other editors. And many other policies.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Making it short for reviewing administrator.

1. User:Sitush/Common#Castelists, contains previous consensuses on editing caste articles. It says popular prakashan and British Raj era source(pre 1947) are not reliable.The third source is not any history book but a book on indian army and its regiments which donot qualify for WP:HSC. The user has been told about this but continuously edit warring with others and personal attack.[89] The two source he posted in comment are such sources.

1. [90], personal attack here too.Tagging Drmies and Bishonen.WP:CIR issue and lack of understanding regarding policies.Heba Aisha (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. In rest three sources (all of which carry information about Ajay Jadeja) none of the source have self identification by him as Rajput caste member,(This is required as per

User:Sitush/Common#Castelists) so there is complete incompetency regarding the edits.Heba Aisha (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Use of Britannica (tertiary source) to replace more reliable sources.[91].Admins plz be quick.Here too[92] Heba Aisha (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark, may be...but regarding sourcing and conduct, many times several editors have notified him.Also, he clears his talk page very frequently to end up old messages. If one observes his activity...thing like Response to bully , vandal which he uses for other editors warrants action. I can see WP:CIR issue too as he seems to be unaware of common editing policies and donot tries to listen to other editors ex:Britannica row.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

OnlyTruthShallPrevail (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC) I request an audit of all edits done by Chariotrider555 and Heba Aisha into various Jadeja, Rajput and India articles. If you see arbitrary reverts with no direct reference and/or edits without any effort to build consensus on talk page of the relevant article, please ban these accounts from edit any India related articles. There were such arbitrary edits done by Chariotrider555 on Jadeja page in the Nov 2020, and hence that account was penalized with temporary blocks for such actions. Please also add well referenced content that I added in my last edit as of Revision as of 17:43, 9 December 2020 in Jadeja article. Please don't let these bullies push their unfounded opinions on wikipedia.[reply]

Jadeja article has been misused by Chariotrider555 to publish its opinions without direct reference. Heba Aisha along with other accounts are supporting the Chariotrider555 by misusing their privileges provided by Wikipedia. Here is my response and complain about aforementioned accounts.

• Objectionable Material #1 that Chariotrider555 wants to keep: Quote from Jadeja article "However, historians state that such illustrious descent has no historical basis, and was fabricated by Brahmins in order to give mainly low caste illiterate warriors greater status and prestige in a process called Rajputization. In the process, a Brahmin would somehow "discover" that a budding tribal king descended from an ancient Kshatriya lineage, and the newly declared Rajput would surround himself with the paraphernalia of Brahmanism and become a patron of the Brahmins." that is repeatedly added by Chariotrider555. Chariotrider555 also started reverting the article and engaged in edit wars. As a result that account was temporarily blocked by (JBW) on 23:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC). I have repeatedly requested for direct reference to Jadeja dynasty that proves that they were peasants or shudras prior to formation of Cutch State. So far they keep pointing me to Rajputization material, which doesn't have a single mention of Jadeja Dynasty. Rajputs are not monolith like any other large community, and they drastically vary in the lineage, customs, religion, food habits etc. On the contrary, I have provided direct references that traces Jadeja dynasty to Samma Dynasty of Sindh. ^[1] This book has been compiled by diverse and reputed authors. Another dauting reference is from celebrated author Purshottam Vishram Mawjee ^[2].[reply]

• Objectionable Material #2 that Chariotrider555 wants to keep: Quote from Jadeja article "Mujahid Khan II, the ruler of Palanpur was married to a Jadeja lady Manbai. Mansarovar tank, named after her, was then constructed.". First of all this is the first line that Chariotrider555 and Heba Aisha wants to keep as part of Jadeja history, not any academic work about the migration of the Samma factions into Kutch peninsula or their relationship with Sultans and Governors of Ahmedabad or how the dynasty spread across parts of Gujarat and established new Princely states like Jamnagar, Rajkot, Gondal etc. Moreover, There is no direct quote provided even after requesting in the talk page that traces Manbai to Jadeja dynasty.

• There is other negative material about marriage and female infanticide, that is well referenced. I have supported this material. Hence the claim from Heba Aisha that I am projecting a caste is totally unfounded. On contrary, I want the article to be factual and touch all aspects of the dynasty, not just derogatory fantasy that Heba Aisha or Chariotrider555 wants to promote without any direct reference. There seems to be an organized eco system that pushes their unreferenced narrative, rather than objective, fact based and reference based material. I initiated a topic on talk, but they haven't cared to explain anything, yet they just keep on adding this fantasy back in to the article.

• Notable people: I have provided direct references for Ajay Jadeja to prove that he is related to Jamnagar royal family. But that keeps on getting removed with no explanation. That is also a topic on talk, but they don't want a logical, reference based discussion.

• With regards to collusion, if you have any algorithms that can check for collusion between accounts. Please apply it to my account and whoever I am accused of colluding with. Then, please also apply that to Heba Aisha and Chariotrider555. Whatever pair seems to be colluding more, please enforce Wikipedia policy as a punishment.

• You can check the talk page to see my efforts to have topic by topic rebuttal with reference and requests to Chariotrider555 to provide direct reference in jadeja talk page. It is bit lengthy, but should be considered in this process in my opinion.

I have spent a lot of time researching and adding more material for Jadeja, in my edits yesterday with clear reference for each and every line that I added. I was requested to clarify about a word, and then I added a reference for that too. But the problem with Rajput phobic accounts like Heba Aisha and Chariotrider555 is that they want to be the jury on what is an acceptable reference, which is not a policy driven and scalable for platforms such as Wikipedia. I recommended them to vent their frustration on a personal blog or social media websites. My yesterday's all hard work and efforts was removed by these colluding eco system without caring to explain on initiating any talk about what was objectionable. I think these Rajput-phobes can't accept anything that is not derogatory for the community. I am not getting paid to edit Wikipedia and make it a better place, so I cant fight with these account who seems to have full time job to keep watching and editing articles related to India. Mine was an honest, fact based effort to make an article better for which I have lot of knowledge as I spent my entire childhood and teenage in Saurashtra and Kutch. These Rajput-phobic accounts may not have good references, but they are for sure driven by hate towards Jadeja, Rajputs, Hindus, Brahmans and India. I won't be able to match their energy that is derived from pure hate, since I am not emotionally involved in the topic and trying to remain objective. Rest I leave up to the Arbitration committee, and will follow the decision that comes about. Please consider remedy item that I have suggested as well in above section. Best wishes and hope only truth prevails.

Consolidating other references related to Jadeja and Kshatriya to provide handy way for arbitration committee to find facts and references for the article that sparked this arbitration request.

• Kshatriya and Rajput reference: ^[3]
• Ajay Jadeja References: ^{[4] [5] [6]}

Response to Heba Aisha by OnlyTruthShallPrevail

--OnlyTruthShallPrevail (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC) I requested a further clarification from User:Sitush/Common#Castelists on the talk page as to why British Raj era sources are not counted. Is that user's personal opinion or is there a reference to it. My comment [93] in that talk page was reverted without caring to explain. This is the eco-system that I was referring to, which shadow links to each other and create their own echo chamber that is based on their opinions rather than actual references. Also, Jadeja is not a caste. Rajput is the caste, please understand basics before commenting on the articles.[reply]

OnlyTruthShallPrevail is requesting an audit of Heba Aisha's and Chariotrider555's unreferenced and arbitrary edits that removes anything they don't like and adds anything that like without proper reference. If they found guilty, please ban them from all India, Rajput and Jadeja related topics permanently. --OnlyTruthShallPrevail (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--OnlyTruthShallPrevail (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Hello, @RegentsPark: and @In actu:. Thanks for your comments. I would like to respond to your comments [94] 1) I am not an expert on everything. Hence, I am trying to help where I can. I am intimately familiar with caste topics pertaining to western parts of state of Gujarat in India. I am editing them to make them more elaborate and factual with direct references. The reason you see more edits from my end on Jadeja is because other users keep on spamming it with unreferenced article. Moreover, I am just getting started on Wikipedia editing, so not yet well versed with all the tools to reduce number of edits. Also, I am helping on other articles with spelling, grammar and composition as much as I can. 2) If it is Wikipedia policy to not allow users who are editing articles related to only one kind of topic, then these policy should apply to OnlyTruthShallPrevail and Chariotrider555, correct? Also, if you are going to ban me from editing caste related topics, then rather ban me from Wikipedia. This platform is not for me in that case.[reply]

The user in question, User:OnlyTruthShallPrevail, has been ignoring community consensus to not use British raj era and the "People of India" series, as they have been deemed unreliable. The other issue is that User:OnlyTruthShallPrevail keeps removing a statement that states that Jadejas were not Kshatriyas, descendants of the deity Krishna, or part of the Chandravanshi/Yaduvanshi/Lunar dynasty. Several reliable sources have been provided that show these claims are common to all Rajput clans, which the Jadejas form a part of, and were fabricated by all Rajput clans. They state that Rajputs sought to improve their status as illiterate, low caste warriors, by creating fabricated claims to semi-mythical ancient royal Hindu dynasties to bolster their claims to royalty. Such royal descent claims are known to have been fabricated by genealogists as provided by sources, but British raj era historians and some later historians were not aware of this. User:OnlyTruthShallPrevail claims that just because these sources do not mention the Jadejas specifically, they cannot be used. The sources do not say that there were any exceptions among subcastes of Rajputs (like the Jadejas), and so User:OnlyTruthShallPrevail claims that they do not belong on the article. If you go to the general Rajput talk page [[95]], one can find long discussions on the claim that Rajputs were Kshatriyas, but they eventually came to consensus that such claims were fabrications, and that all Rajputs come from low caste origin as the modern, academic sources state. However, User:OnlyTruthShallPrevail only wants to retain century-plus year old sources that were often not written by academics, in order to glorify the Jadeja caste. The same discussion could happen on every Rajput subcaste page where a user could say that the academic sources do not mention a particular subcaste, so that their particular subcaste must be an exception to the content provided by sources on all Rajput clans. Chariotrider555 (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Latest example of caste glorification and assumption of bad faith by User:OnlyTruthShallPrevail [96]. Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Latest accusations of trolling and bad faith by User:OnlyTruthShallPrevail [97] and [98] Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No where in the article it said before that Jadeja descendent from Krishna. Rather, it said that Jadeja claims to be descendants of Krishna, which is well referenced. Unfortunately, you don't want to get educated on difference between the two. I have tried at least four times, but seems to have failed.

OnlyTruthShallPrevail's edits are showing a pattern of promotion of the Rajput community(especially Jadeja). Using WP:OR, personal comments in the article although the source does not mention it(please see Rajputization), using pre-independence 1904 Rajput caste member and low quality non-academic sources to contradict academic sources and so on, deleting sourced content from journals that is not pleasant such as [[99]]- these edits started after this discussion started. LukeEmily (talk)

Accordin to this ANI report, OnlyTruthShallPrevail has been harassing Heba Aisha -- who filed this AE report -- and Chariotrider555 -- who commented here -- on their talk pages. The report was filed by Firestar464. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OTSP has harrassed User:Chariotrider555 and User:Heba Aisha, accused them of bullying, trolling, and sockpuppetry, and refused to heed warnings on his TP. His user page is also very polemic. Lastly, they have treated WP as a battleground and made a polemic statement against users mentioned above. Firestar464 (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I think a topic ban from anything to do with castes is warranted here, the stuff about Rajput-phobes and accusations of bad faith warrant that (@OnlyTruthShallPrevail: have you read the word limit instructions at the top of this page?). --RegentsPark (comment) 22:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @RegentsPark: I'm wondering if a block is required --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 18:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The way I'm seeing it, OnlyTruthShallPrevail seems to be solely interested in a few caste related articles. The charitable thing to do is to ban them from editing caste and giving them the opportunity to show that they can be a responsible editor. But, a WP:NOTHERE block is definitely on the cards and I'd support that as well.--RegentsPark (comment) 18:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Heba Aisha: It doesn't look like OnlyTruthShallPrevail has been notified of discretionary sanctions in the IPA area?--RegentsPark (comment) 14:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Heba Aisha: Unfortunately, the user must be alerted that there are DS sanctions before an arb enforcement action can be taken. I'm going to close this report as deficient. I've blocked the user as WP:NOTHERE as an ordinary admin action. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing user

GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the World War II history of Poland.[100]

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[101]

(Reformatted manually on Fri. Dec.4th - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

In light of [102] and [103]

Since June 25, 2018, I have learned a lot about the proper use of tools available to Wikipedians and relevant policies' significance. I was sanctioned[104] as a result of a request submitted by Icewhiz on June 24, 2018, and I respected the decision to the best of my knowledge. I edited Wikipedia almost every day since then in other topic areas. I believe that my clear and transparent presentation here demonstrates that I can use templates and other tools correctly and my technical competence as an editor is satisfactory. In 2018, I was invited to appeal the ban in six months, showing substantial, competent, prejudice-free editing in other topic areas. My intention was/is to appeal the topic ban once I'm ready. However, since that time, I was reported continuously by various accounts similar to this report. I do not want to focus on the negative, but that I have learned a lot and affirm that my editing is no longer an issue. I'm just an ordinary editor. And if not for constant and mostly spurious reporting to get me sanctioned by known users using this lengthy topic ban as a springboard, my record would be clean. In the end, I would like to recognize the misconduct that led to my original t-ban. I was too quick-tempered on that particular article [105]; I should not have allowed myself to falter. I have long learned from that accident, and this is not going to occur again. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not currently active in arbitration enforcement. I therefore leave it to my administrator colleagues to determine whether the sanction should be lifted or modified, and do not object to any uninvolved administrator doing so. Sandstein 11:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand half of what is going on in Polish Nazi history on Wikipedia, I understand CommanderWaterford was involved and that there is much heat. While my knowledge of the past is poor, I did come across GizzyCatBella in the present. This edit (scroll down to the bottom of diff) by GizzyCatBella in which she sneaked Aryanization into Affirmative action, a mere hour after Zezen did so, tells me everything I need to know about GizzyCatBella. User:Bishonen blocked Zezen citing WP:NONAZIS a few days later.--Astral Leap (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support the appeal per my comments above. As for the comment by AL above, which links to the SPI they were discussed at in their very post above, and who opened the account just a few months ago but is already active in AE and many other parts... "Polish Nazi history on Wikipedia", really? This "tells me everything I need to know" about that account, indeed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to point out (with the obvious disclaimers) that if Guerillero's logic was extended to the RW, then all a convicted prisoner would have to do to be released is to make an absolute nuisance of themselves. The only reasons that GCB's topic ban should be lifted is either that they have shown that they don't need it anymore to edit non-disruptively, or that the topic ban is shown to have been unwarranted in the first place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a sanction is to reduce disruption on Wikipedia. Some admins clearly believe that the current sanction is not doing that. However -- without having closely evaluated GCM's edits, just going on my observations of the complaints that their editing has engendered -- I very much doubt that having no sanction whatsoever is going to make the situation any better. Rather than lifting the current sanction and leaving nothing in its stead, perhaps some thought could be put into crafting a sanction which would reduce disruption caused by GCB's editing? Just removing the sanction seems to me to be akin to throwing up one's hands and walking away instead of dealing with the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @GizzyCatBella: Please properly format this request using {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} as instructed in both the header and the editnotice for this page. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I am amicable to lifting the topic ban; it is causing more disruption than it is preventing. That being said, if the problems that lead to the current topic ban reappear, the new topic ban should probably cover a much wider topic area. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Guerillero's statement encapsulates my own, thus saving me the time from writing anything original! El_C 16:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ymblanter, sounds good. Thanks for stepping up! El_C 04:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There was no activity here for always a week, and the only way I can close this request now is to accept the appeal (which would also mean that the request above is rejected). If anybody has additional considerations, please present them within a couple of days (or feel free to close the appeal).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Astral Leap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

GizzyCatBella (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

TBAN and other questionable edits

Full disclosure: I came about to scrutinizing GizzyCatBella's edits after she filed a bogus sock-puppet case against me. User:Nsk92 suggested that GizzyCatBella deserves further scrutiny in light of her multiple AE blocks, an AE topic ban and her sneak revert of a WP:NONAZI blocked user's edits, placing Aryanization in Affirmative action.

Generally questionable edits:

1. [106]: sneak reverting (hidden at bottom of copy edit) of Zezen's addition of Aryanization to Affirmative action. Zezen was WP:NONAZI blocked by User:Bishonen in part due to this edit.
2. [107]: Derailing discussion to attack User:Trasz she is in dispute on other pages.
3. [108][109]: Changing "antisemitic (branded "anti-Zionist")" to "anti-Zionist". Not only is this unsupported by the sources, GizzyCatBella doctored quotations. In page 121 of book she placed it says "and in the aftermath of the "anti- Zionist" campaign of 1968", with scare quotes, yet GizzyCatBella doctored this to: "and in the aftermath of the anti-Zionist campaign or 1968" without scare quotes. This omission completely changes the nature of the quotation.

Edits that violate WWII in Poland TBAN (or skirt awfully close)

1. [110]: Includes significant WWII in Poland content. Under "Second World War" section: "A labour subcamp of the Stalag II-D prisoner-of-war camp was also operated in the town by Germany.", under "Post-war Poland": "After World War II the city became again part of Poland, under territorial changes demanded by the Soviet Union at the Potsdam Conference, and was handed over to Polish administration on 1 June 1945..."
2. [111]: Discussing inclusion criteria for list whose first entry is The Holocaust, second is Nazi genocide of ethnic Poles, and also has Polish Operation of the NKVD.
3. [112]: Article is about Polish myth on region lost in WWII.
4. [113]: The article is about the WWII educational policy of Poland's ruling party.
5. [114]: One of the main topics of the WWII Potsdam Conference was the allocation of Polish territory.
6. [115]: Removing German place name of formerly German village allocated to Poland in 1945.

Edits that violate violence immediately prior/after to WWII in Poland TBAN (The TBAN includes: any acts of violence by, in or against Poland, or by or against Poles or Polish Jews, during or immediately prior to or after World War II)

1. [116]: Vote in RFC whose content difference includes anti-Jewish violence immediately after WWII: "In 2008, Wolniewicz addressed a packed crowd at the Basilica of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in Krakow and shouted "The Jews are attacking us! We need to defend ourselves", in an event protesting against the Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz book and alongside Jerzy Robert Nowak." Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz is about anti-Jewish violence immediately after the end of WWII.
2. [117]: This facility was known for torture and incarceration of without trial of Polish Jews and other minorities between 1934 and until the Polish collapse in September 1939 ([118][119]), included in anti-Jewish/Polish violence immediately prior to WWII.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. April 2018 AE block
2. June 2018 AE TBAN
3. May 2019 AE block
4. June 2020 AE block

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

AE blocks and TBANs above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Replying to GizzyCatBella's statement, does she expect editors to ignore the diffs? To be brief, I'll highlight just one falsehood. In the Polish city of Kołobrzeg she writes that "The edit is entirely about the Middle Ages", but if you search the diff for:

1. "A labour subcamp"

2. "Propaganda in Nazi Germany"

3. "was handed over to Polish administration on 1 June 1945"

There are three separate paragraphs she edited that are on 1939-1945, not the Middle Ages. And her opinions on Aryanization and Affirmative action are even worse than the TBAN issue.--Astral Leap (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After I wrote the above, GizzyCatBella struck her point no.1, responding to User:Ealdgyth saying she was mistaken and would have done so anyway without me commenting on her falsehood (which disingenuously was presented as "extremely bad faithed and dishonest" on my part), but other points are blatant falsehoods. She said: "3 - False; there is no mention, NONE, about WW2 in Poland in the entire article" on diff. However, the article had "which after 1945 were separated from Poland" (The 1945 World War II Potsdam Conference again, which affirmed the reallocation of Polish land during the war). The article was all of 3 lines and less than a day old, created by User:Buidhe. GizzyCatBella should know 1945 is related to World War II, and should be able to read three lines. And again, I am even more worried about her placing Aryanization in Affirmative action. The aryanization edit is more worrying than all the other Polish edits, and this worrying irrespective of aryanization being a World War II topic taking place in Nazi territory, including Poland.--Astral Leap (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to this statement by GizzyCatBella, does she think Wikipedia editors are fools? She links to End of World War II in Europe, that states:

The Potsdam Agreement was signed on 12 August 1945. In connection with this, the leaders of the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union planned the new postwar German government, resettled war territory boundaries, de facto annexed a quarter of pre-war Germany situated east of the Oder-Neisse line, and mandated and organized the expulsion of the millions of Germans who remained in the annexed territories and elsewhere in the east.
— Wikipedia editors, End of World War II in Europe

The Potsdam Conference and agreement are a core part of WWII in Poland, see also: Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II, Recovered Territories, Kresy. The agreement transferred the Kresy eastern territories, seized in the 1939 invasion, to the Soviet union while awarding the Recovered Territories, conquered in 1944-1945, to Poland. I am unsure what alternative is worse here: GizzyCatBella taking us for fools or GizzyCatBella actually believing what she is writing.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potsdam Conference is included in Category:World War II conferences, and Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II has "immediately" in the title.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[120]

This report is of tit-for-tat type and resembles all other attempts of getting me blocked where users were issued an interaction ban due to stretched pieces of evidence[121] such as the ones below. Please allow me some extra time to address it due to my real-life issues at the moment. I'll ping administrators @Guerillero:, @El C:, @RexxS: involved in prior case since they are the most familiar with my situation and a long-overdue topic ban lift. Hope they have time to look at it also. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

(Update - I'm so sorry that I have no time to address this today; I should respond by tomorrow's end.)

First, I would like to note that Astral Leap and Nsk92 coordinated this report's filing[122] (User talk:Nsk92#Can you take a look?) so Nsk92s comments are not independent. (to be continued..) - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(thank you for the wait)

So Astral Leap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who spent on Wikipedia a total of 31 hours editing time [123] since their account initiation back in February/June 2020 [124], was generous enough to dedicate his exceptional skills of know-how around here and, according to their own words [125], examined up to 1000 of my last edits to find all of this.

Let's take a look at what they have discovered:

Generally "questionable" edits

1 - This has been addressed already following the question of EdJohnston [126] I answered in detail[127],[128]. Why is the junior account of Astral Leap bringing up yet again here and as the #1 issue that has been addressed already even though this report is about my alleged breach of the topic ban? Because based on that one diff they wish to paint a false picture and brand me a "NeoNazi" or "NeoNazi friend" right at the intro, as they shamelessly referred to me on their talk page[129].

Regarding Astral Leap's latest comment regarding Aryanization [130] - Astral Leap has no idea what my opinion about "Aryanization" is. Them ascribing any such views to me is dishonest, manipulative, and a personal attack. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2 - With the mentioned user, I don't have disagreements; I had issues with that user stocking my edits [131][132][133] hence my note to them[134], but that is a different affair.

3 - False, I haven't "doctored" anything; it was an anti-Zionist campaign, and it is supported by sources [135] (pl. Kampania anty-Syjonistyczna w Polsce 1967-1968 --> eng. The anti-Zionist campaign in Poland 1967-1968 -->google translate[136])

Edits that "violate" WWII in Poland TBAN

1 - False; I haven't touch anything in regards to WW2 in Poland; (I'm meticulous about not touching that for almost 3 years now!) The edit is entirely about the Middle Ages, which can be easily seen[137]. Yes, the article does have some info in it about WW2 but that’s because it’s a general level article about a city which goes over the city’s history. I didn’t make any edits to the part concerning WW2, so this presentation of a diff is extremely bad faithed and dishonest.

Update - fell into the trap again! - I just remember now! (I see that Astral Leap commented on it already) Sorry, I didn't remember this incident when I was writing the above, I remember now, and I was fooled again while writing the above response. This is also regarding my closing note below. Here is how I reacted when I accidentally breached my topic ban, which I did a few minutes earlier with this diff [138]. I self reverted [139] right away. I also expected one of the new accounts would arrive soon to revert me and it did here [140] (surprise, surprise - within 14 minutes). Do you see how closely these sock accounts follow me!? 14 minutes. And here is the trap! That was a deliberate setup, and the anon sockpuppet knew about my topic ban. My original revert was ONLY about the Middle Ages [141] However the new account added at the very bottom some minor things related to WW2 [142] with tricking edit summary "bring back lead and remove nonconstructive changes". Bringing back the lead and remove, eh? They do it all the time to me, as I outlined in my closing comment. Now, I remember exactly when I noticed that trap. Soon after, I reverted the new account [143] believing that I’m reverting the Middle Ages part and and missed that sneaky additions. Then I didn't have a chance to correct myself because the new account reverted me [144], so I left the article. I meant to inform RexX and EI_C about it but I forgot. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few examples of past set-up attempts by the brand new accounts that were unsuccessful— all the same modus-operandi as the above.

• a - A brand new account (now blocked as a sockpuppet of Icewhiz [145]) arrives within 9 minutes to revert my edit [146] please note at the bottom the sock puppet sneakily adds material related to WW2 hoping I'll not notice and revert "His wife and daughter, after being briefly imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp, joined him".
• b - Here, a blocked sock puppet of Icewhiz arrives within 9 minutes to revert my edit [147] but at the bottom modifies article adding words about WW2 "During the Second World War.... University faculty members utilized"
• c - Here, a brand new account arrives within 27 minutes to revert me [148] at the article about Czechoslovakia to revert me and sneakily adds material about WW2 in Poland at the bottom "...was annexed by Poland following an agreement with Nazi Germany"
• d - Here, a brand new account arrives to regress my edits [149] and attaches at the very bottom WW2 related material "The ethnic German inhabitants were Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950.."
• e - Here, a brand new account arrives to revert me[150]. Please note at the bottom the account sneakily removes material related to WW2 "The camp ... September 17–18, 1939 after the Soviet invasion of Poland" hoping that I'll revert without noticing it.
• f - Here, a brand new account arrives at completely unrelated to WW2 in Poland discussion pretending to support me with a comment about WW2 in Poland.[151] --->These are just a few examples of numerous instances of attempts to get me tricked into a topic ban violation just to illustrate the issue better.

2 - False; I haven't discussed anything in regards to WW2 in Poland, there was no mention of anything WW2 when I composed that comment [152]

3 - False; there is no mention, NONE, about WW2 in Poland in the entire article[153]

4 - False; there is no mention, NONE, about WW2 in Poland in the comment. I only noted that it was a new account.[154]

5 - False; I haven't touched anything in regards to WW2 in Poland.[155]

6 - False; there is not a single word about WW2 in Poland in the article.[156]

Edits that "violate" violence immediately prior/after to WWII in Poland TBAN

1 - False; I haven't discussed anything about WW2 in Poland or violence against the Polish Jews. That person is a post-war philosopher, not a historian specializing in WW2 in Poland or a person involved in the war.[157]

2 - False; Bereza Kartuska was not a prison for "Jews" or such like Astral Leap is falsely claiming. The source does not support what Astral Leap claims at all. Bereza Kartuska was a prison mainly for far-right extremists, communists and Ukrainian nationalists. Regardless, it operated before WW2, so outside the scope of the topic ban. The fact that Astral Leap is manipulating the truth here about the nature of this subject and what's in the sources in a shameless attempt to get someone blocked should raise all kinds of red flags regarding that editor.

Answers to Astral Leaps added comments

Regarding this comment -->[158] World War 2 in Europe ended in April/May 1945. [159] Potsdam Conference took place in July/August 1945 [160] after the War. STOP MISLEADING PEOPLE! - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another personal attack! [161] "I am unsure what alternative is worse here: GizzyCatBella taking us for fools.." I'm not taking anybody for a fool! Astral Leap, full stop now. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note:

I will take the time and bring this significantly bothering me issue to this board as well. My initial topic ban introduced in 2018 was a consequence of the filing of now globally banned user Icewhiz[162]. Since the introduction of the ban, I was continually being reported (10 times already if I count correctly) by Icewhiz/his peers/new accounts in an attempt to get me banned or blocked. I outlined the history of that in the last case under ("AE cases filled upon me" [163]). Since the conclusion of that case, I'm being followed by a bunch of newly created accounts that arrive quickly at the articles I edited to revert my edit or challenge me on talk pages. As an example: this new account [164] this one [165], this one [166], this one [167], this one [168], this one [169], this one[170] this one[171], this one[172], this one [173], this one [174], this one [175], this one [176] and more..They even impersonate me filing SPI reports. That just happened on October 22 under [177], but since then, that fake report has been deleted, and I can't provide a proper diff anymore. I think you can view it in your administrative records. Sometimes they purposely enter WW2 Poland related information [178], understanding that I'm Topic Banned from that area. These examples are from the last 3-4 months only, but this is going on for a lengthier time than that, with greater or lesser frequency; I summarized the latest occurrences here already [179]. I'm constantly on alert following my topic ban restrictions and not to stumble into a trap set up by socks, or I'm struggling with the reports aimed at blocking me. I have to tell you that this is extremely exhausting. I'm hoping to get my topic ban lifted soon, being encouraged by the positive comments of the administrative team members, such as El_C-->[180] or RexxS-->[181]. If you would consider that at the same time, that would make me extremely happy (you can't imagine how happy) and would return enjoyment in editing. Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella replying to Ealdgyth

Look Ealdgyth. It took me well over an hour to compose that update,[182], collecting diff, underlining what's important and describing the situation. I'm not a fast typer, I write offline and then copy/paste things. After I already posted my response, which took me an entire night to write, I noticed and recognized that incident myself. Just before I was ready to post the update, I saw that Astral Leap already commented on it. So no, my update wasn't triggered by Astral Leap's response. I would write that update anyway. "You should know by now that you need to check over EVERYTHING when you're reverting," you say? Yes, I'm careful, 1000 edits Astral Leap checked I'm careful, three years of the struggles of not breaching my topic ban, I'm careful. I have indeed been stalked and harassed mostly by throwaway accounts or brand new accounts like Astral Leap. Their purpose has been to drive me off Wikipedia by starting edit wars with me, setting up traps, and filing spurious AE reports. This is part of a pattern, and I cried about to El_C and RexxS. Until you are subject to the same kind of campaign of harassment, you should withhold judgements, especially when the topic ban breach here was minor and done by accident due to the deliberate setup. Aside from that one mistake, the rest of Astral Leap's report is blatantly false, just like I stated. And by the way, my name is Gizzy, not Grizzly as you wrote [183] (speaking about making mistakes) - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ealdgyth for correcting my name[184], but I was not offended by the misspelling or anything like that; I only pointed it out to show that we are all making mistakes. Believe me; I'm sooo careful about not breaching a topic ban that it's an obsession by now. I'm currently collecting a few other similar setups where I immediately detected it and didn't fall into the trap. Bear with me; I have to dig through the diffs. I'll try to do it today, I'm exhausted, but I'll try. (PS - Icewhiz wanted me to be sanctioned for misspelling his name --> GizzyCatBella is directed to write Icewhiz's name properly...[185] or for placing discretionary sanctions note on his talk page [186] - I'm showing you this to show how far back these block attempts go) - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, I posted some of those diffs here [187] How many times is needed to finally succeed to entrap somebody? 10? 20? 100? Hope that made it easier to understand what I’m dealing with for the past 2-3 years. Nightmare :( - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella replying to Guerillero

You see User:Guerillero, and I truly believed it is not within the scope of the topic ban because Potsdam Conference happened after the WW2 in Europe ended (see End of World War II in Europe) (Poland is in Europe), the war ended in April/May 1945:

The final battles of the European Theatre of World War II as well as the German surrender to the Allies took place in late April and early May 1945.

Potsdam Conference took place from July 17 to August 2, 1945 after the war

The Potsdam Conference (German: Potsdamer Konferenz) was held in Potsdam, Germany, from July 17 to August 2, 1945.

But besides that, all I did at that article is this[188]:

I haven’t touch anything related to Poland and I have not been topic-banned from the history of World War II in general. I have been topic-banned from "the World War II history of Poland". - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella replying to El_C

El_C, believe me, I have learned a lot during those three years while being topic banned. BIG TIME. Not only that I learned the hard way from my mistake that resulted in a topic ban, but I'm also very certain I'll not repeat it. Thank you for having trust in me; I appreciate it so much, and I'll not disappoint you. I'll draft the appeal and post it here below. Please provide me some time to do it; I'm really exhausted; I hardly slept in the past two days. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I dislike the tit-for-tat nature of the events that led us here, but in terms of substance this report has merit. IMO, the diffs provided by the OP either skirt extremely close to violating GizzyCatBella's TBAN or actually do violate it. For instance, I believe that the edits [189] on Potsdam Conference and [190] on Talk:Bereza Kartuska Prison violate the TBAN. The future of Poland was a major topic at the Potsdam Conference, Potsdam Conference#Poland, and the decisions made at Potsdam finalized the post-WWII arrangements for Poland. The Bereza Kartuska Prison describes, incliding in the lede, that suspected German sympathizers were incarcerated there immediately prior to the start of WWII and they were freed when WWII started and Germany invaded Poland. GizzyCatBella already has 3 AE blocks and they should have known by now to stay well clear of anything that can be interpreted as breaching their topic ban or coming close. (See User talk:GizzyCatBella/Archives/2022/June#Arbitration enforcement warning for extra discussion on the topic where GizzyCatBella promises to be more cafeul.) Instead they keep pushing the envelope closer and closer to the edge, and sometimes over it. Clearly, some additional sanction is needed, either a wider topic ban under the same Eastern Europe arbcom case, or a longer block. Nsk92 (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After Astral Leap prepared this repor at User:Astral Leap/sandbox, they did contact me at User talk:Nsk92#Can you take a look? and asked for my opinion. I did offer it there, in a single post[191]. I did not edit the report, nor did I suggest any extra diffs to be added to it. That was the extent of the "coordination" here. In any case, I hope that the report will be evaluated based on its substantive merits and not on any ad hominem considerations regarding percieved motives of the commenters. Nsk92 (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re GizzyCatBella's comment: "World War 2 in Europe ended in April/May 1945. Potsdam Conference took place in July/August 1945 after the War. STOP MISLEADING PEOPLE!". The comment is a blatant, and rather unconvincing, attempt to wikilawyer around the plain meaning of the topic ban. The topic ban was not for "World War 2 in Europe" but for World War 2: "For the avoidance of doubt, this includes any acts of violence by, in or against Poland, or by or against Poles or Polish Jews, during or immediately prior to or after World War II, as well as persons known for their involvement in the World War II history of Poland." World War II ended on September 2, 1945 with the unconditional surrender of Japan, well after the Potsdam Conference. Nsk92 (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grizzly Gizzy - YOU are responsible for your edits. You should know by now that you need to check over EVERYTHING when you're reverting. If you think folks are out to get you, then you should be extra careful. Frankly, you seem to be too caught up in the hunt for socks and folks out to get you and not enough caught up in making sure your own edits are good and within the bounds of your topic ban. Spend more time inpsecting edits and less time blindly reverting.

And I'm not impressed with the impassioned declarations that all the diffs were false but then when the exact problem is pointed out, suddenly you remember? Did you not LOOK at the diffs presented? Or did you just assume they were false without inspecting them ... I'm AGFing that it was the first, but after a while, this will be harder and harder to do. (And this was after you needed extra time to deal with the filing here - I would hope that if someone asks for extra time they .. use that time to be sure they are replying to the matters brought to the noticeboard.) -- Ealdgyth (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologizes for the misnaming. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no way out to get GCB. In fact, I did not report her even though I noticed that there was (what appeared to me) to be a TBAN violation at the Bereza Katruska article. However, I agree with the comments above that the case should be evaluated on its merits, regardless of the possible motivations of the filing party. (t · c) buidhe 02:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two aspects to consider here. First, the filler himself linked to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CommanderWaterford/Archive, which GCB opened against them. While that case was closed with no action, per comments there by parties and CUs I think it is quite clear (WP:DUCK) that AL is not a new account. Whether they are avoiding scrutiny due to sanctions on their past account or not, it is hard to tell for sure since nobody has yet positively identified their previous account, but filling this revenge AE is clearly contributing to the WP:BATTLEGROUND, and that kind of mentality, in turn, was something that did result in a number of editors active in the topic area that AL and GCB both frequent getting banned. Therefore, some sort of WP:BOOMERANG is highly recommended, as editors should be made to de-escalate, not escalate, one way or another.

As for the edits reported here, they seem to be the usual borderline stretching of the 'widely construed' wiki-legalese. IMHO there is no violation here, except by extreme stretchy standards - like editing an article about Europe or planet Earth would be bad too? Because GCB was banned from the topic area which is located in the smaller subset of such articles... c'mon. Like the Bereza Kartuska, it was a non-issue during the war, but sure, if you dig deep enough you can make a connection between it and anything. This further reflects the usual battleground-ish attempt to roll the proverbial dice and see if something sticks this time ("hey, maybe random admin x will conclude one of the dozen diff I throw this time is actionable? Let's spin the admin lottery wheel!"). This is also doubly troubling when it comes from a new account (AL's activity is a few months long). This fits the modus operandi of a number of disruptive editors, who create such temporary accounts for the purpose of 'staying around until burned' and taking the occasional potshots at their opponents, hoping that every now and then they can take them down with them. AE admins should be extremely familiar with this tactic.

Frankly, I feel that GCB has been doing pretty well dealing with the topic ban they've been settled with. The more active one is, the more likely it is one will make some borderline edit once in a while, and per diffs above, GCB has been trying to stay away from breathing the ban, every now and then asking me or another editor whether they can make an edit or not. This is cumbersome, stressful, and a waste of time, particularly when we consider that this topic ban originates from the Icewhiz-era. If Icewhiz (now site-banned for real-life harassment of myself and others) haven't been here to goad and provoke others, the odds are good GCB would never have been topic banned in the first place. I suggest lifting her topic ban, which should bring us closer to the desired stability and quiet of this topic area from the pre-Icewiz era. Things were relaxed and peaceful until they appeared, and now that they have self-destructed, we should ensure things go back to the way they were, and not let them or any fellow sock travelers take innocent victims down with them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Since I noticed Postdam Conference being mentioned and comments about some editors being fools... well, GCB's topic ban states that is includes "events... during or immediately prior to or after World War II". In my view, immediately, implies days at best, not months (for example, I'd consider Gleiwitz incident from 31 August to be "immediately before", but not the March 1939 German ultimatum to Lithuania, with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of mid-August meriting a warning for 'skirting on the edge'). Likewise, three months is not "immediately after WWII", though of course, if one prefers a geological time scale... Anyway, for future similar bans, I'd suggest using wording that is less ambiguous. If I was the one imposing such a ban, to avoid weaseling, stretching, and ban-shopping, I'd either use precise dates or would have made used undisputable definitions like "any event included in the Category:Aftermath of World War II" or such. Not that I think this particular category is the best since it includes events from the 1950s like the Korean War which are presumably even further removed from the concept of 'immediacy', but anyway, using categories to define the scope of topic bans would at least remove the onus from admins on having to figure out if the adjective "immediate" in historical context refers to seconds, days, months or years. Something to consider in the future. Oh yeah, the comment about fools. Well, I think it will be foolish indeed if the bad-faithed attempts for ban-shopping above remain unaddressed. Boomerang, please. Battleground-creating socks should not be tolerated. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not harass (or be harassed) other editors. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kristallnacht is from 1938, so even less immediate than anything else discussed. And no, Nazi Germany is not covered by GCB's topic ban. It was a country created in 1933 that was later involved in WWII, that's all. You might as well dig a random difference from some Poland-related topic GCB does often edit, it would be as relevant, and you know what - you can probably list a good hundred diffs GCB did on Polish topics. Good luck convincing anyone that they are relevant. I have to say, this random diff throwing & ban shopping by accounts that had no prior involvement in this topic area is... interesting. I hope some CUs are watching this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby: Let the admin make a ruling what does 'immediately before a historical event' means - and in either case it would be rather unfair to penalize a user for whom that was never clarified before. In my view, that adjective should ref3er to hours or days at best. In your view, months or years? Huh. I just googled for "immediately before Pearl Harbor" and the first hit is [192] which begins with events from mid-19th century. So maybe immediately should means a century or so before the event? It amazes me how badly this topic ban was worded; perhaps any admin who tries to impose a topic ban should have one imposed on them first, just to make sure they understand the importance of being as precise as possible with vocabulary and terms used. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xx236: [193] Yes, this is a terrible abuse of Wikipedia, and clearly this merits our immediate and strongest response. Hopefully against parties which use such joke-diffs as a form of fake evidence/ban shopping (=wP:BATTLEGROUND). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the following topic ban breaches?

• Herschel Grynszpan, a Polish Jew, "Nazis used his assassination of the German diplomat Ernst vom Rath on 7 November 1938 in Paris as a pretext to launch Kristallnacht" – immediately prior to World War II
• Kristallnacht – immediately prior to World War II
• Propaganda in Nazi Germany – "propaganda used by the German Nazi Party in the years leading up to and during Adolf Hitler's leadership of Germany (1933–1945)"
• Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world "The relationship between Nazi Germany (1933–1945) and the leadership of the Arab world"

Robby.is.on (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: It would seem the Nazis were "persons known for their involvement in the World War II history of Poland"? Kristallnacht was less than a year before World War II started. I think you'd find few major events in Germany in the 20th century which are closer to the outbreak of the war.

As for your baseless insinuations about sockpuppetry: I have been editing here for a long time, many, many years before I noticed off-putting things happening in Poland-related articles and before the fake Nazi death camp hoax was uncovered.

@Xx236: As far as I know, the topic ban is not limited to controversial or substantial edits? Robby.is.on (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robby informs about a terrible crime:

• Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world

I have checked and found 'the'. Please explain me why this 'the' is criminal? Is this Wikipedia better without the 'the'? Xx236 (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have also found this meaning of 'immediately' - 'without any intervening time or space'. Xx236 (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I said this before and I'll say it again: I am calling for the immediate revocation of GizzyCatBella's topic ban. Unfortunately, I am writing somewhat in haste, but I'll try to elaborate further soon. El_C 19:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I would agree, Guerillero. That said, I'm not sure I would agree with Piotrus' notions of 'days rather than months,' either. Is it the end of the war or the beginning of the postwar? It's hazy. At any rate, the ban is not defined as a post-1945, etc. ban, so that is why, procedurally, it is not a "clear" violation. But beyond this singular instance, I think the ban should have been revoked months ago. It is my view that GizzyCatBella has absorbed the necessary lessons from and has suffered enough penance for it. So, GizzyCatBella, I encourage you to draft an appeal at any time. Hopefully, other admins also share my view that this ban is (still) producing more heat than light, and that in the interest of everyone's collective time here at AE, it ought to waived. El_C 23:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Postdam Conference is pretty clearly within the scope of the topic ban --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @El C: FWIW, I agree that the ban is not sustainable at this time --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, I endorsed overturning the ban below --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 02:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• To prevent automatic archiving--Ymblanter (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Will close this in an hour, when I have more time in the office.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]