Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352

Thomas Meng

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

Request concerning Thomas Meng

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Neutral_point_of_view (2007) and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun_Gong_2#Neutral_point_of_view (2012) :

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

July 21, 02:36. Thomas Meng added "truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance" to the Background section, citing scholar Benjamin Penny. This was now the third time in the Persecution of Falun Gong article that these principles were mentioned. This was not the the general topic article about the Falun Gong which should, of course, discuss the group's moral teachings.
July 21, 02:45. Binksternet removed two of the three mentions, as off topic and promotional, leaving the instance where the moral principles were criticized, because it was relevant to the persecution topic.
July 21, 18:19. Thomas Meng restored challenged text, "truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance", the three moral principles of Falun Gong, adding a partisan paid political statement as a citation.
July 21, 19:01. Binksternet started a talk page discussion about truthfulness as a moral principle.
July 21, 22:48. Thomas Meng argues that scholar Benjamin Penny affirms that Falun Gong adherents follow the moral principles, that they strive to be good people.
July 22, 23:31. Thomas Meng restored challenged text.
July 28, 20:25. Thomas Meng argues that WP:WEIGHT should determine how the Falun Gong moral principles are portrayed.
July 28, 20:34. Thomas Meng argues that scholar Heather Kavan should not be cited per WP:WEIGHT.
August 2, 00:03. Thomas Meng restored the challenged text, adding citations for support.
August 3, 03:23. Thomas Meng restored the challenged text, removed the valid Kavan cite, and cast aspersions on James R. Lewis (scholar) by linking him to Wuhan U.
August 3, 03:28. Thomas Meng restored the challenged text.
August 4, 17:26. Thomas Meng violates Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources by casting aspersions on the cited scholar James R. Lewis (scholar).
August 5, 02:34. Thomas Meng says lack of further discussion affirms his POV, states his intention to restore the challenged text. Previously, Horse Eye Jack had said there was no consensus to do so.[1]
August 5, 17:30. Thomas Meng restored the challenged text, removing the Kavan citation.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

May 18. Notice given to Thomas Meng about discretionary sanctions on Falun Gong articles.
July 23. AE block on Thomas Meng by Daniel Case (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Thomas Meng has not been discussed in previous arbitration requests. He registered his username in April 2020. He was blocked by Daniel Case on July 23 because of a discretionary sanctions violation, tendentious editing at Li Hongzhi, an article in the Falun Gong area.

In all of his edits and arguments in the Falun Gong area, Thomas Meng has sought to promote a positive image of Falun Gong, arguing against a very well-researched NBC News report because they failed to describe enough of Falun Gong's positive attributes.[2] Thomas Meng has argued against the validity of scholars Heather Kavan and James R. Lewis who have published negative findings about the Falun Gong. Such arguments are further instances of tendentious editing, the part about disputing the reliability of apparently good sources. Thomas Meng has tried to retain or insert promotional material into the Persecution of Falun Gong, including an attractive photo of people meditating,[3] and the three moral principles which cast the group in a good light. These are completely inappropriate for an article about persecution. In this topic area, Thomas Meng is behaving exactly like an activist for Falun Gong, and as such he is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification of Thomas Meng

Discussion concerning Thomas Meng

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

Statement by Thomas Meng

Below are some points in response to Binksternet's accusations:

[4]—I have pointed to the fact that Kavan's view lacks WP:WEIGHT (without dispute from other editors), since all 6 scholarship sources provided (+ [5]) contradict the content of Kavan's conference paper. Interestingly, Binksternet deleted all of this well-sourced content and replaced them with the Kavan source. More than that, he did not even present Kavan’s source with in-text attribution, and simply represented the content of that source as if they were facts.

[6] [7]—I pointed to the fact that the James R. Lewis source does not meet WP:THIRDPARTY.

However, I did not remove this source, or revert Binksternet’s edit as he did with mine. Instead, I had merely added a clarification that he works at Wuhan U. My edit was promptly deleted by Binksternet without any edit summary and without consensus. Note that none of my concerns about Lewis were addressed. Instead, Binksternet simply called my arguments baloney (without saying why) and accused me of having COI issues.

[8] There were comments to the effect that mentioning FLG's three core principles is undue. I made a serious and thorough effort at addressing these concerns by citing many reliable sources that prove the relevance of FLG's tenets to the persecution. After waiting for 1+ days without further objections, I proceeded to edit.

Binksternet claims that FLG's tenets are challenged texts, but they are widely supported by well-established scholarship. The only challenges come from 1. Lewis, a professor at Wuhan U, an institution under the persecuting party's leadership 2. Kavan's conference paper that runs counter to the WP:WEIGHT of academic opinion 3. Binksternet's anti-FLG POV as demonstrated in his edit summaries [9] and [10], which violate WP:ADVOCACY.

[11]—I presented the relevance of this photo in this diff. Instead of disputing its relevance, Binksternet turned to arguing, without evidence, that the photo is "promotional".

[12]—I proved that the photo conforms to scholarly findings and that it's not "promotional". Binksternet was unable to prove otherwise, so simply asserted no promo photos, just no.

[13][14]— I made detailed comments showing that the NBC article is not proper to cite in a BLP. Without engaging my comments, Binksternet simply dismissed my input, saying that it is not our problem, and that it's perfectly fine.

Despite Binksternet's bald assertion, I did not simply revert his edit. I left the NBC untouched, and instead, added a source from the WSJ, per WP:RSOPINION, that presented a response to NBC's accusations, [15].

Yet, [16] – Binksternet promptly removed the RS content, asserting that it is a ridiculous reply, even though WP:NPOV says that all major viewpoints should be represented, which include the target attacked by NBC.

But I did not revert back, as our discussion carried over to another related article. Please refer to my talk page for the entire context of this dispute [17]

So, I'm not the tendentious editor here. In all my edits, I have tried assiduously to abide by all WP:PG's, including WP:BLP, and have logically addressed every concern from other editors. I invite everyone to thoroughly read our conversations on these talk pages.--Thomas Meng (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Horse Eye Jack

On the 30th I warned Thomas Meng for edit warring on Li Hongzhi. Their response was to immediately accuse me of talk page harassment (this was my first ever time posting on their talk page) and to claim they were only carrying over a settled consensus from another page. That consensus was apparently from the discussion in question here, I could not verify that a consensus had ever been reached and I believe their statement to be untruthful. The discussion can be found at User talk:Thomas Meng#Edit warring at Li Hongzhi and adds strong support to the case for WP:NOTHERE. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ian.thomson

I've been dealing with Meng at Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong over the moral principles bit. Other users and I have explained how it's simply undue for a tangent article to be going into their core teachings and how the sources don't really demonstrate that FLG is being specifically being targeted for claiming those principles (another pro-FLG editor could say they only "sort of" fit). He displays serious WP:IDHT issues whenever it comes to objections to his edits, reading any message to the contrary as affirmation of his desires (when he doesn't straight up ignore them). That doesn't work in a consensus based project. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheBlueCanoe

I don't recall ever dealing directly with this editor, but Ian.thomson referenced a comment I made above, so I'll make a quick note.

As a content question, there is actually good reason to cite Falun Gong's moral teachings in Persecution of Falun Gong, because several scholarly journal articles and chapters draw a direct connection between these things (e.g. some academic commentators believe that the persecution was precipitated, in part, by a clash of visions between the theistic Falun Gong and the materialist Communist Party. The Communist Party itself said that Falun Gong needed to be suppressed because its moral tenets of truth, compassion, and tolerant, were incompatible with Marxist ideas). I cited some examples on the relevant talk page,[18] and there are more than that. Inclusion of relevant content on the page is fully justified. I'm frankly more concerned by the OP's repeated removal of this content and his apparent misrepresentation of sources on the same topic.[19][20][21][22][23]

Anyway, content disagreement shouldn't be solved at AE. There are behavioural issues on these pages, but they implicate editors on both sides of this dispute, and should probably be referred to ArbCom.TheBlueCanoe 01:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel Case

This is what I would have said if he had opened an appeal (which as he noted he couldn't have) when I told him I couldn't erase the block from his record:

As I had explained to him, I did not intend to get involved, when Binksternet reported him to AIV.

I really wish people would not make reports citing arbitration enforcement to AIV. It is not the place for it. But whatever one might wish, it was reported that night, and I decided I owed it a look. As I told Thomas, indeed there was something there. Two weeks after Thomas's removal of some content he considered dubiously sourced led to a contentious discussion where two other editors strongly opposed the edit (and one briefly popped in to support him), he had retutned and restored it. This to me was clearly editing against consensus.

I would have let it pass because as Thomas does point out, the warning and report came after his last edit. And vandals get to walk in that situation. But there are discretionary sanctions on that article, and even though I looked at the sanctions log, where no new enforcement has been recorded for over a decade, it is still in force. So I decided to block him.

It's not often that I have the kind of cordial discussion with someone I've blocked that I did with Thomas, and I was certainly open then to the possibility I might have overreacted.

However, seeing what has happened since, I'm not surprised it has ended up here. Since only now have I been able to read his long explanation to me, I must say that he isn't doing himself any favors. In his position, I would have tried to explain that there was consensus for his edit, regardless of how it seems otherwise. But, instead, he basically says, well, he upset me so much that I had no choice:

At that point, I realized the futility of attempting to logically discuss with Binksternet by using WP policies and RS evidence, given his unrelenting anti-FLG agenda demonstrated in both discussions. So, on that same day, I went to Binksternet's talk page and gave him a warning, at the same time, back to the BLP article and removed the NBC hitpiece despite his objection.

Even in an area not under DS, that attitude is asking for a block. I agree Binksternet's tone could have been less confrontational, that he could have entertained the idea that Thomas had a legitimate criticism of the NBC article and worked from there rather than a blanket assertion that everything NBC reports is beyond question (Not necessarily). But ... that's not something you resolve by completely disregarding the other person and going and doing what you want, especially after leaving a templated warning on their talk page. You don't do that and then wonder why you've forfeited a lot of good faith all of a sudden. Daniel Case (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PaleoNeonate

My recent involvement is noticing disruption on Falun Gong related articles and occasionally having a look. I confirm that I've seen at least one instance of editing against consensus with a moment of silence after an objection on the talk page taken to mean consensus existed. This is a running-in-circles situation as other editors would have to revert and repeat over and over the same policy and source based arguments. At a recent ANI report I expressed my intention to eventually file AE reports, but considering the limited time I can put in Wikipedia and that a 0R sanction was already applied to some editors, it didn't seem as urgent. While admins are to take the decision, I would propose trying 0R first before applying a complete topic ban in the area. I wasn't personally familiar with this type of sanction until recently (vs 1RR, topic, partial or full blocks). It might allow discussion while also hopefully preventing reinstating edits when repeated arguments are eventually ignored by other editors, possibly breaking the loop.

For context: this is a difficult topic where good and bad exists on both sides of a complex debate that also involves human rights. China has a bad record of human rights violations; Falun Gong also accumulates a bad public record in relation to propaganda and exaggerated claims. A persecution complex exists and is used to promote and validate beliefs, while at the same time the group faces true challenges. An effort is done to select reliable independent sources that report about these.

One of the comments suggests this is a content dispute that should be solved at ARBCOM, but that's not the proper venue for that, we'd still be on the talk page or at mediation if AE wasn't necessary (and ARBCOM is also to address behavioral and policy violation issues and apply technical solutions). It seems that socking of long-term-abuse editors historically occurred on both sides as demonstrated recently at ANI (SPI).

Lastly, the argument was still presented here that the reason for persecution are tenets like truth, when it is clear that it is more perceived extremism allowing members to deny authority and feel above the law. It is of course debatable where the line can be drawn under a difficult regime and I think that most editors are sympathetic to this. In this case, the mention of those religious and philosophical tenets have their place at the main article rather than presented in the persecution article as being the cause of their ills, especially when scholars point out that they can be used as justifications. Unfortunately, the situation has also been exploited by other opportunistic groups with a political intent to foment public anti-Chinese sentiment and promote various conspiracy theories.

My word count is already near 500... —Paleo Neonate – 11:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Thomas Meng

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

I think it is time for arbcom. There aren't enough interested admins willing to get involved in the FG topic area --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Justice delayed is justice denied. On the face of it, Thomas Meng should be sanctioned for repeatedly adding promotional material without consensus. In practice these are some of the lesser POV-pushes on this topic lately, and we haven't fixed it yet. So maybe it is time for a third ArbCom, or, failing that, a logged warning. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: I can't be the only AE admin working in this topic area. If other admins don't want to get involved, arbcom is the only shot --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero, I agree, the problem is that pretty much none of the requests are simple and obvious: behaviourally I would say this falls squarely into tendentious editing / POV-pushing / whatever, but there are complicating issue of the merits of the content that make it a tough call, otherwise I'd have chipped in before. I have been looking at this for days thinking "wtf do we do with this?". It's not just FG related. Look at Ni Yulan, largely written by Thomas Meng. There is outrage screaming from every line. This is a WP:RGW case where the wrongs are indeed great. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aman.kumar.goel

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

Request concerning Aman.kumar.goel

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Za-ari-masen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Aman.kumar.goel (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:ARBIPA :

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

Incessant violations of WP:EW and WP:OWN on Bangladesh liberation war

8 August 2020 Reverted an edit by Aditya Kabir in POV dispute over the interpretation of the sources
7 August 2020 Reverted an edit by Kmzayeem to remove citations added by the editor in a POV dispute
7 August 2020 Reverted another edit by Kmzayeem in a POV dispute over the result in the infobox
20 June 2020 Reverted an edit by DdBbCc22 in a POV dispute over the number of strength of the combatants
14 June 2020 Reverted another edit by DdBbCc22 in the same POV dispute
9 June 2020 Reverted an edit by Zarifobayed360 in a POV dispute over result in the infobox

There is no evidence of sock/block evasions in the edits. These diffs are just the most recent edit warring on Bangladesh liberation war, there are further cases of edit warring by Aman.kumar.goel in the earlier history of the article, all in content disputes. The edit wars in August have come even after a concern was raised at WP:ANI on Aman.kumar.goel's perpetual edit warring on this and other articles. Note that Bangladesh liberation war is only one example of the unabating edit warring tendency of the user. There are plenty of other articles in the IPA area where the user has engaged/been engaging in edit wars in content disputes, often tag teaming with others. A simple look on his contributions can prove it. If needed, I can provide more diffs if the limit allows.

Other conduct issues

7 August 2020 Violates WP:DE, WP:BULLY and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Left a DS alert on an editor's talk page who was already notified about the same discretionary sanctions on 8 July 2020, as the editor is involved in an ongoing dispute with Aman.kumar.goel. Made false accusations of dubious edit summaries and others.
17 July 2020 Violates WP:BULLY, WP:BATTLEGROUND by making false accusations of WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:Civility at a WP:ANI discussion. Another editor reviewing the case also validated the fact of false allegations by Aman.kumar.goel. Also misrepresented several diffs as WP:EW. The ANI discussion was filed without even discussing the contents in the article talk pages or seeking dispute resolution.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

13 February 2020 Blocked to prevent further disruption caused by his engagement in an edit war on Siddha medicine.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): 13 May 2020

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 8 August 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

These are just the incidents that came into my notice. Aman.kumar.goel has a perpetual tendency to violate WP:BATTLEGROUND mainly to intimidate his ideological opponents instead of seeking effective dispute resolutions, a fact that is also corroborated by an admin with this statement. As it seems in different discussions, the user even refuses to admit that he has been engaged in an edit war. This only means that there wouldn't be any change in his disruptive conduct unless a sanction is enforced. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Aman.kumar.goel's statement: It is quite self-contradictory when Aman.kumar.goel himself says he made reverts in the ongoing disputed article and yet claims the allegation of disruption is false. Pedantic perusals like 2 or 3 reverts, partial or full revert don't matter when the gist of the report is the tendency to edit-war, not limits of reverts.

Regarding WP:VERIFY, I already provided the source in an earlier edit and the discussion was mainly about the false claim of consensus by Aman.kumar.goel at the user talk page.

WP:Gaming the system, WP:Wikilawyering by Aman.kumr.goel can be validated by the comments of different editors, this for example. It should be noted that before filing this report I tried discussing with Aman.kumar.goel here about his edit-wars and asked him to self-revert but the user refused to respond. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to RegentsPark's statement: Sources are already provided as none of the edits look unsourced, the dispute seems to be over the interpretation of sources. But the content dispute is not the point here, the report is about Aman.kumar.goel's incessant edit-warring tendency, there is no way that the reverts he made could be exempted per WP:EW. And BLW is not the only article, here are some of his recent edit-wars on Ayurveda (2 July 2020) (article is placed on 1RR where he tag-teamed with others), Nathu La and Cho La (5 July 2020) (again tag-teaming with others on the same infobox POV dispute), List of administrative units of Pakistan by Human Development Index (26 July 2020, 26 July 2020, 30 July 2020) and countless others.

Also notice his WP:BULLY and WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, since multiple editors (including an admin) has corroborated the concern, there is clearly a pattern here. I have enough reasons to believe that the moment this report is closed without action, Aman.kumar.goel will continue his edit-warring and bullying, disrupting several articles. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Aman.kumar.goel

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

Statement by Aman.kumar.goel

It needs to be noted that OP filed this report after he failed to WP:VERIFY his sources,[24] and failed to implement his POV on the article per Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War#To update a information even after his toxic attempt to poison the well by falsely alleging me of "totally disruptive ... WP:Gaming the system and WP:Wikilawyering" as clearly visible from his talk page message. I made 2 reverts on the article in question this month and these 2 edits should be technically counted as one revert, instead of 2 reverts.

Needless to say, such a misleading complaint which is nothing more than a clear attempt to weaponize a content dispute deserve WP:BOOMERANG. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kmzayeem

I'm one of the participants in the current dispute at Bangladesh Liberation War.

I have had my share of editing disputes and I know these South Asia-related topics always tend to be a heated area but earlier at least I had seen there was a desire to have a peaceful resolution from both sides. The one here at Bangladesh Liberation War is quite unprecedented in my eight years of editing experience. When my edit was reverted, I tried to follow WP:BRD and continued discussing at the article's talk page without making any further edit. Suddenly, I discover Aman.kumar.goel's misleading warnings at my talk page with allegations of "dubious edit summaries", "blatant source misrepresentation" and "Misrepresenting "consensus"". These issues were already being discussed at the article's talk page and instead of continuing the discussion there, he left this bad faith message at my talk page which I found disruptive, not to mention the inappropriate DS alert notice already stated by the OP. Today, I found another warning by Aman.kumar.goel at my talk page, this time accusing me of WP:CANVASSING, pointing towards this message. As it can be seen, my message was entirely neutral and the editor I invited to the discussion was Aditya Kabir who is one of the major content contributors to this article (perhaps the only one currently active among them). Aditya Kabir was also involved in the peer review process of the article.

It does seem to me that Aman.kumar.goel is applying WP:POV railroad tactics with such antics, just to take control of the article. --Zayeem ^(talk) 20:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark

I see this as more of a sourcing issue than a behavioral one and see no reason for action since OP hasn't really documented a pattern of behavior that is outside our norms. As a person with lay knowledge of the events in the article, I'm surprised that sources can't be found that support OPs position (I'm tangentially involved since I expressed that surprise on the talk page!), but Wikipedia is built on well sourced content and that's what counts. If there are sources, then I suggest WP:DR as a better venue. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: The diffs that you've added do show aggressive editing on Aman.kumar.goel's part. Combined with the discussion on the Bangladesh Liberation War outcome, that is evidence of marginal battleground behavior. I don't think this rises to the level of sanctions, yet, but a warning is definitely worth considering. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aditya Kabir

@Guerillero: Sorry to drop in. But does this comment, made four days after this warning, count as "bludgeoning the conversation"? May be this counts as edit warring. Also, incivilities, threats, bullying and lawyering is being continued by what look like a WP:GANG now (I'll be happier if I'm wrong, of course).

Srijanx22 (talk · contribs) posted this.
Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs) posted this to the article talk, and this to my talk page.
Orientls (talk · contribs) posted a lot of incivilities: this, this, this, this, this and more.

Asking help from WP:MILHIST editors made the gang even more aggressive and combative. Not a desired outcome. May be the whole discussion needs some moderation. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Aman.kumar.goel

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

@Aman.kumar.goel, Za-ari-masen, and Kmzayeem: The warning that Aman.kumar.goel left to Kmzayeem worries me. That being said, I agree with RegentsPark. I think all of you should try to establish a consensus about who "won" the war with an RfC. I am going to look dimly upon any of you bludgeoning the conversation, refusing to participate, on your return to this forum without an discussion started. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

श्रीमान २००२

रीमान २००२ topic banned from India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan by Doug Weller --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 12:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning श्रीमान २००२

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: SerChevalerie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: श्रीमान २००२ (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

15:12, 8 August 2020 Added unproved allegations to Tahir Hussain (politician) (Article currently in AfD)
11:42, 7 August 2020 Added controversial information about Hussain's confession
15:24, 6 August 2020 Created page with the line "who was instrumental in the 2020 anti-CAA riots"
15:26, 8 August 2020 (RevDeleted, visible to admins only) Added WP:BLP violations related to ex-AAP councillor Tahir Hussain's involvement in Delhi riots at Stone pelting in India
17:35, 25 June 2020 Added WP:BLP violations related to Harsh Mander at Shaheen Bagh Protests
17:39, 25 June 2020 WP:BLP violations on Harsh Mander
17:25, 27 June 2020 Removal of sourced information from Ramesh Pokhriyal

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

17:59, 25 June 2020‎

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User was warned about violating WP:BLP in June by Doug Weller and Tayi Arajakate over his edits (given above) regarding Harsh Mander. User was warned to not present statements made by the police as statements of fact. However, here we are again in August, with the user's new target being Tahir Hussain. Hussain's name has long been a point of WP:BLP violations in the article and the Talk page of 2020 Delhi riots (multiple admins have reverted multiple edits regarding Husain's involvement in the riots). He has repeated the same behaviour in this article, violating WP:BLP multiple times, showing no signs of stopping. I added a WP:PROD notice on Hussain's page today, which the user removed, without properly reading or addressing the relevant sections of WP:BLP and WP:NPOL that I had linked. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User's contentious editing and WP:OR has continued, now on the article on National Women's Front. Created a whole section on "Love Jihad and Forced Conversation" (you read that right) which is based on a single unproved instance of the president of the organisation being linked to the case. No mention of the organisation itself being involved. SerChevalerie (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified user

Discussion concerning श्रीमान २००२

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

Statement by श्रीमान २००२

Statement by Vanamonde93

I recommended this user be brought here after applying revdel to one of their edits (under IAR because I am tangentially involved). Jumping from "supporters of X threw stones at property" (which is what the source said) to "X threw stones" (which is what they wrote) is the sort of egregious OR that we do not need in an area under discretionary sanctions. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tayi Arajakate

I should clarify that the problems with their editing on the Shaheen Bagh page go much beyond that violation of WP:BLP regarding Harsh Mander. In general, there was quite a bit of NPOV violation which inadvertently gets noticed more through its consequent BLP violations. They didn't pursue it further but it seems they have moved on to other pages with the same pattern of editing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning श्रीमान २००२

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 post-1947 Indian politics is in order --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what restriction would work best here, but post-1947 Indian politics probably comes closest from my reading of edits and talk page comments: the user has some hot button issues. Maybe a 3-month TBAN in the first instance? Guy (help! - typo?) 15:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero and JzG: oops. I've topic banned him indefinitely from the entire IPA area. I hadn't looked here, just his contributions and of course he hasn't posted here. I prefer indefinite bans as they can always be appealed and that seems less time consuming then one where the editor can just ignore the area for 3 or 6 months and come back when it's finished. But if you all think I should change either the time or the scope, go ahead. Doug Weller talk 12:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller, I don't disagree, it seems a little harsh but he is aggressively clueless in a number of ways. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support Doug's ban. I've practically stopped using time-limited bans, especially for POV-pushing SPA's. It's more of a learning experience for them to be "forced" to edit other areas during the ban, in order to have constructive work to point to in an appeal. If they simply leave for three months and then return to their favorite area, they're most likely to be just as disruptive. Bishonen | tålk 10:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

This works for me. I was going to do a more narrow slice of the pie, but all of India works --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 12:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kmzayeem

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

Request concerning Kmzayeem

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Srijanx22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

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

15 July: Edit misrepresented source. Source doesn't mention any "victory". While a quote from p.159[25] was cherrypicked and misrepresented by the editor, he apparently ignored the cited page no. 162 which says anything but "Military victory of Nawab of Bengal".

Note: Kmzayeem understands that "mention about ... victory" in the parameter should be supported by the source or else it is removable,[26] but he himself continues to insert claims about "victory" of other side of the conflict without finding a supportive source and continues to WP:EDITWAR;

9 August: Misrepresenting source when "victory" is not supported by the source.
14 August: Same misrepresentation of source as above, cherry picked a quotation "could generally win victories" and ignored the full quotation that "could generally win victories in western Bengal"[27] (but not the whole war)
14 August: Accepts that he misrepresented source, but continues falsification of source. "Success of Nawab of Bengal in repelling the invasions" is still not supported by either sources.
14 August: Doubles down with misrepresentation of source, falsely claiming sources justifies "military success of Bengal Subah" for the parameter, when they don't.
15 August: Cherrypicking and misrepresentation continues.

Other pages:

6 August: Misrepresented two websites ([28][29]), which make no mention of a "victory", while removing scholarly sources on the infobox.
6 August: Doubles down with his misrepresentation of sources, and demands "WP:HISTRS" while himself sticking to unreliable websites per his own article edit.
6 August: Violation of WP:CANVASSING by selectively notifying an editor.
13 August: Falsifying credibility of reliable sources by calling independent scholarly sources to be unreliable.
13 August: Keeps misrepresenting this scholarly book published by Rowman & Littlefield as "a technical dictionary and a tertiary source" even after being told against it.

While talk page disruption on Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War is seemingly endless from this user, the latest talk message that encouraged me to file this report is most egregious;

This book has made no mention of "victory" anywhere, but Kmzayeem claims it says "Bangladesh's victory".
Cites a novel with this book, and claims it says: "During the 1971 war... When the war ended and everyone... celebrated the victory of Bangladesh..." when the actual quote from the book is "When the war ended and everyone in the novel celebrated the victory of Bangladesh"(emphasis mine). Though he removed the word "in the novel" and replaced it with "..." which provided a false notion that the source is providing a scholarly analysis than discussing a novel.

Some other sources are unavailable so I can't confirm them, but the deceptive misrepresentation of the above sources seems very deliberate.

Most of these diffs come after he had been adequately warned on his talk page,[30] for edits that involved similar extent of disruption, but evidently, it is continuing in violation of WP:COMPETENCE and WP:IDHT. Srijanx22 (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [31]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [32]

Discussion concerning Kmzayeem

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

Statement by Kmzayeem

It's quite remarkable to see Srijanx22 decided to discuss the contents here with misleading allegations rather than responding at the talk page, despite being cautioned for not assuming good faith just yesterday.

The so called misrepresentations at Maratha invasions of Bengal were already refuted at the talk page. The sources indeed indicate that Nawab of Bengal had military upper hand on all the battles over the Marathas which imply victory, two sources were added with relevant quotations. I didn't "accept" the misrepresentation rather changed "victory" to "Success of Nawab of Bengal in repelling the invasions" as a compromise which also matches the lead description of the version restored by Srijanx22, so I'm not sure what is being disputed here that he reverted my edit and along with it, removed about 1000 bytes of sourced contents outside the infobox, the removal of which hasn't been explained by the OP anyway despite being asked to. That seems like a needless revert on what purpose I'm not sure.

In the 6th August edit at Bangladesh Liberation War, I added a "note" describing Pakistan's surrender to Bangladeshi-Indian joint forces to change the result in infobox to "Bangladeshi-Indian victory" and added some links containing the surrender document to cite the description within the note. So what misrepresentation the OP is talking about here? This also had already been explained at the talk page quite comprehensively.

The book clearly shows "Bangladesh's victory" in page 58 in my search. The OP neither waited for my response at the talk page nor tried to check any technical error.

The "novel" stated by the OP is actually a scholarly article titled "The Blame Game: War and Violence in Dilruba Z. Ara’s Blame" from Asiatic Journal, analyzing fictions on historic wars and conflicts, the quotation was the author's own words and not excerpt from the fiction. I already provided the volume and issue no. in the discussion, yet, I'm not sure why the OP is describing a journal article as a novel.

One of the diffs shown by the OP is not even my edit. The amount of falsification of diffs here is quite hideous.

The turn of events at the two articles also seem quite strange. Srijanx22 began reverting my edits at Maratha invasions of Bengal on 10 August, when the discussion at Bangladesh Liberation War was going pretty hot along with off-discussion "battles". The dispute at Bangladesh Liberation War was approaching a consensus on 16 August with mediation by uninvolved editors from WP:MILHIST and now the OP files this misleading case against me with pretty much identical false allegations that the opposing participants at Bangladesh Liberation War threw at me.

Leaving everything on the arbitrators, please do what deem necessary, including any action required against me.

Quite an eventful August for me, more to come I guess. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Kmzayeem

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

Chartreuse&Puce

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

Request concerning Chartreuse&Puce

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Struthious Bandersnatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Chartreuse&Puce (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

21:31, 17 August 2020 Chartreuse&Puce added a statement to the article with a string of references; I examined the references and found that they all either contradicted the statement or did not support it, so I re-wrote the statement and dropped most of the references; Chartreuse&Puce reverted my changes soon thereafter in this diff. The latter action appears to violate the talk page restriction "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)."

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 19:30, 13 August 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is the first time I recall encountering discretionary sanctions and I'm mostly just following the instructions on the article talk page which say, "Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard."

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

22:58, 17 August 2020

Discussion concerning Chartreuse&Puce

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

Statement by Chartreuse&Puce

I am not really sure what I supposedly did wrong here. I wrote, correctly, that the Supreme Court had not ruled specifically on the issue of the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents. Then, someone inserted dicta from the 1982 Plyler v. Doe case. The Supreme Court in that case specifically stated that its ruling was only applicable to K-12 education. Any dicta in the case, like that statement that was inserted in the edit by another editor, is not relevant to the issue of birthright citizenship. So, I reverted the language back to the correct language. Then, someone else stated, absurdly, that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling is "irrelevant" and reverted the language back so it now reads incorrectly.

Further, this is not a matter for consensus. Wikipedia editors are in no position to determine that the limited applicability of a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is irrelevant. And they certainly should not be cherry-picking statements from dicta in a case which is not applicable to birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants in an effort to make a supposedly unbiased Wikipedia argument read the way they would like it to.

The reference to Plyler v. Doe statement needs to be removed from this article, and the language reverted back to the correct language. Chartreuse&Puce (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The references I used were cut and pasted from the Wikipedia article on anchor babies. As for my ability to interpret Supreme Court decisions - they do not need to be interpreted by me or any other Wikipedia editor - the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the ruling in Plyler was limited to K-12 education; the ruling is simply not applicable for any other purpose. To remove language from case dicta to support a statement about birthright citizenship is definitely cherry-picking, made worse by the fact that Plyler case is not about birthright citizenship, as clearly stated by the Supreme Court. There should be no mention of Plyler in the Wikipedia article, in particular within the birthright citizenship section. This isn't complicated, and it certainly is no reason to have me banned. Chartreuse&Puce (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you said you banned "them". Please be aware that there is only one of me. Thanks. Chartreuse&Puce (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Struthious Bandersnatch

@Chartreuse&Puce: I added the Plyler v. Doe quote from your source about birthright citizenship which you added to the article. If it was cherry-picked, your own verifiable and reliable source is the one that cherry-picked it.

If you can't interpret and follow the rule "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)" it doesn't say much about your ability to interpret SCOTUS decisions. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 14:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Chartreuse&Puce

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

I topic banned them from AP, but I really should have just NOTHERE blocked them. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chartreuse&Puce: You cite the NYT and [Politifact for your position, but Plyler v. Doe isn't even mentioned. The Green Bag article says the opposite of what you contend. That plus your edits on George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon ([33][34]) and the BLP issue at Talk:Kamala Harris that you should not be allowed to edit about american politics. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chartreuse&Puce: Please see Them (pronoun). --RegentsPark (comment) 20:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

English language grammar - the word "them" is a plural pronoun, regardless of what is discussed in the Wikipedia article. Please see my 2nd grade teacher. :) Chartreuse&Puce (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

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