A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment


Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

Motion adopted Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Mardetanha, Martin Urbanec, and Tks4Fish solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2020 Arbitration Committee election.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  1. Proposed. This is a standard motion each year in advance of the election. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  3. Katietalk 20:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  4. bradv🍁 20:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  5. Mkdw talk 20:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  6. Maxim(talk) 20:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  8. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  9. WormTT(talk) 07:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  11. SoWhy 08:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  12. – Joe (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Arbitrator discussion
Community discussion

Requests for enforcement

Heba Aisha

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 Heba Aisha

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 06:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Heba Aisha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 20:45, 17 October 2020 "According to media report in the meantime ... assassinated Bhartiya Janata Party leader Satyanarayan Sinha" introduced in a BLP with a purported attribution to an unspecified "media report".
  2. 20:50, 17 October 2020 "According to media reports he assassinated his rival Chunnu Singh at Chhath ghat in Neura" introduced in the same BLP with a purported attribution to an unspecified "media reports".
  3. 21:16, 17 October 2020 "... faced Asha Devi, the wife of Satyanarayan Sinha who was murdered by him. After the conviction of ..." introduced in the same BLP cited on 21:19, 17 October 2020 to a source which states "... is the main accused in the murder of former BJP leader Satyanarayan Sinha".
  4. 10:11, 18 October 2020 Removal of a DS alert on BLPs with the edit summary of "I m aware of this and this is put to create a negative image of mine by the user who is not agreed to me on other article".
  5. 10:19, 18 October 2020 Re-introduction of the same BLP violations after being warned on 09:20, 18 October 2020.
  6. 11:43, 18 October 2020 Bans me from their talk page with the claim that it is for their peace of mind.
  7. 00:02, 19 October 2020 Re-introduction of the same BLP violation, but this time followed up with a number of edits which add "was accused" or some variation of that but leaves out the line stating "After the conviction of ..." still unsupported by any source and which still gives the impression that the subject of the article was convicted (obviously).
  8. 00:20, 19 October 2020 Follow up comment on the talk page stating "I have made edits to change the words and put those words which presents him as accused not convicted.This shouldn't be reverted as of now." There are still a number NPOV violations which were introduced on the page but the above is the most apparent instance.

Similar instance of gaming behavior in a previous dispute.

  1. 17:30, 11 October 2020 Restores disputed content with a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of policy in the edit summary.
  2. 17:39, 11 October 2020 Immediately opens up an RfC on the talk page without any proper formatting.
  3. 17:41, 11 October 2020 Leaves this comment on my talk page stating "Untill discussion is over the editing of content under discussion amount to WP:Vandalism...discussion can go for 30 days.Plz be aware with rules of WP:Rfc".
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)
  1. 21:03, 18 August 2020
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
  1. 21:05, 18 August 2020
  • They claim to be aware of the sanctions as well.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Mostly appears to be WP:CIR issue along with some WP:GAMING behavior. I have tried my best to make them understand policies but to little avail. Date and time of the diffs are in IST. Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Heba Aisha, I don't have a WP:COI with main parties, this is a mainstream encyclopedia which is reliant on the coverage of mainstream newspapers on current affairs and not a place to promote minor viewpoints or formations. I nominated that article for deletion because it isn't notable enough for a separate article, imv.
You still don't seem to understanding that the lines you left even after your "fixes" still imply that he was convicted for murder.

In the 2020 elections to Bihar Assembly Ritlal faced Asha Devi, the wife of Satyanarayan Sinha who was allegedly murdered by his men. After the conviction of Yadav she had been winning Danapur seat for three consecutive terms on the ticket of Bhartiya Janata Party.

Whereas the source that you yourself cited very explicitly states that "Yadav was released from Patna’s Beur jail in August this year, after being granted bail by the Patna High Court in a money laundering case." In comparison the slanted article that you quoted from here uses an ambiguous "in connection" to refer to his incarceration which makes me wonder if this is just a CIR issue. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Regarding that "provocation", I'll stand by what I said as in it's not my job to clean up after their violations of wikipedia policies which is what they "virtually begged for" (Special:Diff/984103289) after being asked to provide a source (Special:Diff/984103134). Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

There's also this inappropriate canvassing of sorts (see Special:Diff/984241297 and Special:Diff/984090635) which I suppose is an example of gaming as well, they also don't seem to understand that they can't !vote twice in an AfD (see Special:Diff/984097633). Frankly, there's too much of these little CIR issues which ultimately build ups into disruption especially with the amount of resistance they provide towards changing their behavior. Tayi Arajakate Talk 18:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Since they banned me from their talk page, which I agreed to on 12:04, 18 October 2020, I'd be glad if someone else notifies them.

  • Seems unnecessary now that they have responded. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Heba Aisha

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 Heba Aisha

plz check properly now I have made the edits and changed the sentences into accusation as no conviction was mentioned in the source. It means I undid the lines with which Tayi Arajakate had problems and now nothing libelous is left.The user has lodged this complaint without properly observing my recent edits. Heba Aisha (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

So the new sentences after my recent edits goes like. 1.According to media report; in the meantime Ritlal was made an accused in the assassination of Bhartiya Janata Party leader Satyanarayan Sinha at Jamaluddin chowk near Khagaul.

2.According to media reports he is also accused in assassination of his rival Chunnu Singh at Chhath ghat in Neura

3.In the 2020 elections to Bihar Assembly Ritlal faced Asha Devi, the wife of Satyanarayan Sinha who was allegedly murdered by his men.

After that I also talked to a very senior editor Fylindfotberserk according to his advice the article just needed minor edits to remove libelous words.User talk:Fylindfotberserk#Ritlal Yadav That's what I did and I don't think something more could be done as all sources talk only of subjects crime history. Heba Aisha (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually this is a sort of personal attack by this user who is not liking my steps like opening up WP:RFC on Talk: 2020 Bihar Legislative Assembly election#Rfc about keeping RLSP and its alliance as a seperate front in tabular form and not representing candidates in constituency list? as amidst the edits by many users he is repeatedly removing the Grand Democratic Secular Front from the article.It seems he has some WP:COI with main parties.A support for this lies in his delition nomination for Grand Democratic Secular Front where I m also keeping my views against him. So to derail my works and made me blocked he is on personal attack mode.Heba Aisha (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

According to sources used on Ritlal Yadav
  • "Jailed gangster Ritlal Yadav wins Bihar election against JD-U and BJP rivals". India Today. Retrieved 2020-10-17.

Ritalal, who is at present lodged in the Beur Central Jail in connection with multiple criminal cases, including murder charges, defeated candidates of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Janata Dal-United.

Ritlal, who was appointed the general secretary of the Rashtriya Janata Dal during the Lok Sabha polls last year, had entered the poll fray as an independent after the party declined to field him from the Patna seat which had gone to the JD-U quota under the seat-sharing formula.

Known as the 'terror of Danapur" because of his alleged criminal activities in the area over the years, Ritlal had defied his party by filing the nomination papers from the jail even though the RJD had later disowned him.

Ritlal, who has been lodged in the prison for the past five years in connection with the killing of the BJP leader Satya Narayan Sinha, husband of the party's sitting legislator from Danapur Asha Sinha, had hit the headlines recently after his prison cell was raided by Patna police leading to the recovery of documents related to the railway tenders. It was alleged that he was demanding extortion from the contractors who were bidding for railway tenders in the Danapur division of the East-central railway from the jail. In 2004, he was accused of killing two contractors - Anil Kumar Yadav and VijayYadav in the air-conditioned coach of Danapur-Howarh Express.

Last year, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) moved to confiscated his movable and immovable property worth crores of rupees.

Meanwhile, Lok Janshakti Party candidate Dr Suman Kumar Singh, better known as Ranjit Don, lost from the Nalanda seat to the JD-U candidate Reena Devi.

Ranjit was arrested way back in 2003 for being the alleged kingpin of the racket involved in leaking the question papers of the several medical and engineering entrance tests in the country.

Dear admins; if I failed to write in WP:POV;I don't know what neutral from this source anyone can extract. When the sources itself are full of crime records. This is nothing just personal attack to teach me a lesson so that I can learn not to counter him on righteous things.Heba Aisha (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

In a nutshell if someone have decided to target other nothing could be done to change his mind. I even ask him to do minor copyediting here [3] after the advice of senior editor and I was very calm virtually "begging" politely to him but he was on attack mode trying to provoke[4].So according to him I turned accusation into conviction.....but in my recent edits I did what he wanted [5] [6] [7]....It means problem solved....then why he is here????? Certainly he knows admins don't gonna read article if they are not aware of the subject area and invoking a number of policies(which actually not applies here) he gonna give them belief that he is trying to save wikipedia......and block me. That's all I have to say.Thanks

Heba Aisha (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I told you already that if you have problem in reading hindi ask for translation rather than resorting to blatant vandalism.The 2nd source says this. "बिहार चुनाव: पति के कत्ल के आरोपी डॉन से है पत्नी का मुक़ाबला, रीतलाल पर हैं 33 केस". Jansatta. Retrieved 2020-10-17.

Now the contest between the two leaders on this seat is going to be quite interesting. Ritlal is the main accused in the murder of Satyanarayana Sinha, the husband of Asha Devi, who was in the year 2002.

other hindi sources also say this ...plz stop proving me a policy violator I have made more contribution than you and 98% of them are undisputed. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding allegations in murder of Asha devi Husband

"Bihar Assembly Election 2020: BJP Danapur MLA Asha Sinha to contest against RJD's Ritlal Yadav, accused of killing her husband". Avinash Kumar. Hindustan Times. 13 October 2020. Retrieved 20 October 2020.

Heba Aisha (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 Yes I realized but the problem occurred due to a hindi source depending upon which I wrote this article.(I am reading daily edition of Dainik Bhaskar i got it there).The language was fancy and it didn't cleared in which case he was jailed for 10 yrs.(he has 33 cases against him) It seemed that he was jailed for that murder only. But as soon as I realized I made necessary edits.Its not fair to bring me here for a single mistake given until now 98% of my edits are undisputed. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 yes but confusion occurred due to sources(case of murder is on trial....I researched now) but it was a minor error and I don't liked user who reported me here to revert whole article to stub version.something he is doing across numerous articles. Actually if any other editor had been there he must have corrected that minor mistake but since I was against him at many other forum example delition discussion of Grand Democratic Secular Front he saw it as a pretext to book me for that and ban me.Sorry for inconvenience.Heba Aisha (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
see example this sentence Ritalal, who is at present lodged in the Beur Central Jail in connection with multiple criminal cases, including murder charges, . It creates confusion.... Source is above.Heba Aisha (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Special:Diff/984241297 and Special:Diff/984090635) regarding these. The user is a newbee and he has created a number of thread on the talk page of Bihar legislative assembly elections 2020....helping him to keep comment at right place and not making many thread is not a Gaming behavior. Also I do not believe in vandaling pages liks Tayi Arajakate if small issue is present.It is seen that many people added about GSDF in the article but he reverted it expressing WP:OWN behavior. See[8] and [] This is blatant vandalism. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

[9] an admin relisted the article and asked for more comments for thorough discussion.And he is presenting it as an incompetency of mine that I voted twice.Heba Aisha (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

Heba Aisha The addition of the claim that Yadav murdered Sinha [10] when the source only says he stands accused, is an extreme BLP violation. Can you please address that specific edit? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Heba Aisha: Okay, so you recognize that it wasn't supported by the source, and that you need to stick very carefully to what the sources say? Also, please keep responses to your own section. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Heba Aisha

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • There's a fair bit to go through here, but I don't want to see this go without attention just because a couple other cases sucked so much air out of the room. I will try to take a look at it over the next couple days. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


Kolya Butternut is subject to an interaction ban from interacting with SPECIFICO indefinitely. SPECIFICO is reminded to, when possible, avoid interaction with or comments regarding Kolya Butternut as well, and that any inappropriate conduct is likely to lead to this sanction being made reciprocal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning SPECIFICO

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Kolya Butternut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 03:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
GamerGate sanctions, BLP discretionary sanctions

Diffs of recent edits section :

October 13-17, 2020 AE case contains evidence that on Sept. 16th they made a knowingly contentious rewrite of the section Ansari#Allegation of sexual misconduct, without first discussing it, after weeks of disputes about one of its sentences, and then gaslit on the talk page to give the appearance of consensus. After the AE close resulted in no action, I reverted their rewrite.[11] (m[12]) They have completely disregarded the arbitration complaint.
Diffs of edits:
  1. 01:49, 18 October 2020 They restored the DISRUPTIVE, NOCONSENSUS rewrite with an edit summary containing:
    • False claim of one month consensus (The rewrite was immediately and repeatedly challenged,[13][14][15] and was part of the previous AE case.)
    • False claim of BLP violation used to justify a rewrite with mostly unrelated changes. (See below)
  2. They ignored my requests for them to revert their rewrite and discuss their proposals.[16][17]
Diffs of relevant AE sanctions demonstrating long-term behavior
  1. 3 June 2018 WP:AN/EW warning by NeilN, BLP: This was the second time in just over two days where SPECIFICO incorrectly claimed to be reverting to longstanding content or content that had consensus. [30], [31] That's two strikes. A third strike involving an article covered by discretionary sanctions will likely mean sanctions will be imposed.
  2. 20 May 2018 logged warning by TonyBallioni for violating behavioral standards.[18]
  3. 22 April 2017 sanction by NeilN for a pattern of disruptive behaviour which contributes to a poor editing climate, described here.[19]
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • See previous AE case above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I believe GamerGate sanctions were enacted to prevent disruption like this — from an editor who has repeatedly belittled women who have made allegations of sexual misconduct.[20][21]

The 11 month stable consensus section[22] has never been respected by SPECIFICO, and yet they demand that their bulldozed rewrite remain in place while I am expected to somehow discuss reverse engineering each of their edits until RfCing a disputed sentence which was removed from a paragraph which was removed from a section which was rewritten? SPECIFICO is reversing the onus and has no respect for the consensus building process. (If you can't follow all that, good luck following the original content dispute.)[23]

(Aquillion has noted the stability of the article as a whole.[24] The section itself only had copyedits and one sentence added in 11 months.)

This is all unnecessary complications which can be avoided by simply restoring the stable version and working out what to RfC from there. Regardless of all the convoluted content details, what we know is that SPECIFICO has been violating the DS with their disruption, which can be prevented by banning them from editing Aziz Ansari for at least six months (but they could still be permitted to vote at RfCs).

If anything is unclear in this report, please ask for clarification before making a statement judging the case.

More about SPECIFICO's consensus claim

SPECIFICO suggests that they alone created a consensus version by claiming that the section has not been updated since the allegation occurred in 2018.[25] That's simply not true; for example, our initial dispute was over preexisting 2019 media commentary text,[26] and the only source SPECIFICO added from after the event was a 2019 source which they selectively chose to deprecate the allegation story as "some combination of as-told-to and reported piece and morning-after group-chat gossip".[27]

Regarding the BLPVIO claim

There was no BLPVIO, because as I explained to them,[28] the section already included Ansari's denial of the allegation — his public statement that the encounter "by all indications was completely consensual."[29] ("Apologies" are not required per WP:BLPVIO, and critics disagree on whether he apologized.[30][31] Regardless, the apology text is unrelated to the rest of the rewrite, and this is a distraction from the original content dispute.

Reactions to community comments about the facts

@Johnuniq: please strike your comments which are misrepresenting what happened and ignoring my diffs showing that they knew their rewrite enjoyed no SILENTCONSENSUS. As I requested above, if you say you are "puzzled", please ask for clarification before repeating false narratives. I do not "want to add" text; I want to restore the status quo ante version so we can end this confusion and discuss SPECIFICO's many proposals. (Editors at the talk page are arguing against proposals I am not making.) This repetition of false narratives feeds on itself; please do not contribute. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: The fact that we just closed an AE case is precisely the point; SPECIFICO has completely ignored warnings about their behavior and continued being disruptive immediately by restoring their edit and making editing Aziz Ansari impossible. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging continues to misrepresent the SPI case about sockpuppet User:Kevin4762, which Dreamy Jazz closed and which was part of the investigation for the previous AE. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Please save the community the trouble of my AE appeal of an IBAN. The issue here is that it is impossible to edit collaboratively and the community does not want to do anything about it; it's easier just to kill the messenger. We can't count on another user to report this behavior when admins here did not have the stomach to deal with my previous report. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Dennis Brown is shockingly misrepresenting what happened at their talk page. I reported new disruptive behavior to them after their AE close where they warned SPECIFICO. I did not ask for the previous case to be relitigated. Their comment below that they do not care to examine the new behavior, and their comment that "no one has an appetite to enact harsh sanctions" is telling of the real problem here. I even proposed minimal sanctions above to simply allow content discussion to continue to prepare for (likely multiple) RfCs. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Swarm: That's not at all what's happening and I think that's obvious to anyone who scratches below the surface. In addition, I have never argued for preserving the stable version or even argued that that's a reason for the revert. I have repeatedly asked that we keep that stable consensus version in place while we discuss or RfC controversial edits which I've said violate WP:NPOV and WP:V. And I'm not sure how you can argue that this is a "straight up content dispute" while also arguing that my conduct is inappropriate. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Regarding the SPI, do you appreciate that that was part of my investigation into SPECIFICO's long-term behavior for my AE complaint? I am shocked by the reaction to it; I feel like no one is willing to extend good faith to me. I don't understand the concern with "outing"; I had to cite SPECIFICO's (self-disclosed) IPs to connect them to Kevin4762. Just look at User talk:Kevin4762; this is the staged argument I described with SPECIFICO's IP; SPECIFICO uses their new named account in the last comment. I always check if an editor is a sockpuppet when investigating their behavior, and SPECIFICO's second edit[32] creating a userpage raised the red flag to look further, and literally their first edit was identifying themselves as the IP.[33] Editors in their first block[34] discussion[35] accuse SPECIFICO of not being a new editor and provide research in the comments connecting them to the IPs and pointing to activity at Talk:Peter Schiff, and that's where this Kevin character was used: Talk:Peter Schiff/Archive 2#Allegation of Edit warring by anonymous, IP-identified, user (Ctrl+F to find where SPECIFICO name's Kevin). SPECIFICO's comment, "it was not I but 'kevin' who changed the template to infobox person" is textbook sockpuppeteering behavior. From there it's necessary to perform a thorough investigation, which I feel is straightforward due diligence. It's perplexing to me that SPECIFICO's history beginning their editing career with a sockpuppet is not relevant character evidence. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

What about an agreement for me to not report SPECIFICO's misconduct? That appears to be the only complaint about my behavior. If I am unable to edit or discuss content to the point where I would have to comment on their behavior, I would have to move on. For example, it is unfeasible to for me to edit Aziz Ansari at this point, so I would move on to avoid conflict, following the example of the other editors there. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: What would be an improved wording? "...for me to not file conduct complaints"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: It's hard to see how that proposal is not punitive. If the only complaint about my behavior is filing complaints about SPECIFICO, and I agree not to, then I would think sanctions would be unnecessary. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Is no one going to answer my question about how an IBAN is not punitive if I agree to not file conduct complaints about them? I even offered to not comment about their behavior and leave articles before I feel that's necessary. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Can you give me something to work with for why it's not sufficient? Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade and Bishonen: We have to consider the appeal process, because you are 100% wrong about this case. I haven't looked into the appeal hierarchy yet. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Could someone please tell me what's wrong with the word misconduct? That's literally the characterization of the behavior the AE process is used for: Please use this page only to...request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Thank you for the response. I think it's important to be honest about what the evidence shows we can expect about their future behavior, but if what you object to is my conduct reports then I can stop filing them. There clearly has been no behavioral investigation, but that will not be necessary if the disputed conduct complaints cease. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: There has been no proper behavioral investigation into either of us, so it's improper to make a ruling about either of us, but that isn't necessary if the complaints stop.
The rest of your question is complex; I believe that the problem is obvious to anyone who SPECIFICO has chosen to make their enemy,[36] and to many other perceptive individuals who have spent time observing disputes in which they have participated. I believe many people don't see the problem; I believe many people are afraid to report the problem. I don't think their behavior will be ignored per se, but certainly folks will be discouraged from reporting them if they see the reaction to my reports.  WP:SEALIONING is a difficult problem for the community to address; this behavior is not unique to SPECIFICO.
I cannot make conclusions about the participants here who I have little experience with, but I am not impressed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning SPECIFICO

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 SPECIFICO

Statement by Jonahloci

blocked confirmed sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zalgo. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

To the admins evaluating this case, please also consider KB's Sockpuppet accusation against SPECIFICO at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPECIFICO/Archive#06_October_2020. KB demonstrates no sign of ceasing their harassment of SPECIFICO. I recommend a one-way ban, or a tban inasmuch as their conflict is centered around Aziz Ansari. I think TheTimesAreAChanging explained it much better than I can! Jonahloci (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging

While I know that SPECIFICO may be too busy editing articles to waste her time responding to Kolya Butternut's latest tirade, this attempt to rehash an AE report a mere four days after it was closed by Dennis Brown with a result that was not to the OP's satisfaction is plainly tendentious and disruptive. At a minimum, WP:BOOMERANG sanctions should be imposed to deter Kolya Butternut from misusing this administrative forum to "win" content disputes or to harass SPECIFICO (such as a temporary ban from commenting at AE or even a topic ban from Aziz Ansari). Combined with Kolya Butternut's unsuccessful effort to dox or "out" SPECIFICO at SPI just two weeks ago, which was called out by the clerk at the time, this escalating pattern of harassment and weaponization of Wikipedia's administrative tools against a perceived opponent may merit additional sanctions against the filer, such as a lengthy block or one-way interaction ban, followed by an indefinite WP:NOTHERE block if the harassment continues.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I propose a one-way IBAN between Kolya Butternut and SPECIFICO. This is yet another case of Kolya Butternut complaining about SPECIFICO's opinions, not his behaviour. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Objecive3000

@Kolya Butternut: I think your suggestion might have had a chance had you not included the word "misconduct". O3000 (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

We've gone past the first law of holes. I suggest instituting the one-way IBan before Kolya talks their way into something more stringent. O3000 (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Calidum

I'm involved in this ongoing dispute concerning Aziz Ansari (though I haven't commented on it lately). I must say based on my interactions with KB, as seen on the relative talk page, I think we ought to be taking a hard look at whether they should be allowed to continue editing Ansari's article and any related pages at all. -- Calidum 02:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

AE #1, 8 Sep 2020, Specifico v. KB, involved (among other things) Specifico referring to KB as "it". Closed with "Kolya Butternut is reminded to be more mindful of the boundaries of their TBAN. SPECIFICO is warned to be more careful in their use of gender pronouns, and to avoid the use of object pronouns for human beings. No further action at this time; if anyone wishes to file a broader AE request looking at the general conduct of either user, they are free to do so." Because of that last sentence, we can't fault editors for bringing further AEs.

AE #2, 26 Sep 2020, Thucydides411 v. Specifico. Another editor had removed content that had been in the article for years [37] [38] and Thucydides reverted the removal. Specifico re-removed the content with this 24 Sep 2020 edit, with the edit summary "Typical nonsense conspiracy theory pandering to his fans and the ignorant", which is either a BLPVIO (if aimed at Assange) or uncivil (if aimed at Thucydides). That thread was closed with "No consensus for sanctions".

AE #3, 13 Oct 2020, KB v. Specifico. That involved (among other things, including edits to Aziz Ansari) two statements made by Specifico on 7 Oct 2020 about Thucydides: "Too bad that Thuc would take advantage of Awilley's tireless volunteer efforts and attention to continue his crusade for this bit of self-serving Assange propaganda" and "Thuc pins us to the lowest rungs of Graham's triangle, repeating his POV ever more insistently". That thread closed with "SPECIFICO is reminded that being rude isn't particularly helpful in discussions, and it is a slippery slope that can lead to sanctions later ..."

AE #4, 21 Oct 2020, KB v. Specifico, is the current thread, involving this 18 Oct 2020 edit at Aziz Ansari with the edit summary "Restoring current consensus version that has been stable for a month ...".

So in this AE #4, Specifico is reverting someone claiming that if the content has been stable for a month, it's the "current consensus version". But in AE #2, Specifico was arguing the exact opposite, re-instating a reverted edit that removed content that had been in the lead for years, and claiming that the onus for inclusion was upon those who wanted to include it. This sort of editing is disruptive, and it should be addressed. An IBAN won't help. Lev!vich 20:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Bilorv

Having succeeded in bludgeoning all other users at Talk:Aziz Ansari to death, KB and SPECIFICO have now reached an impasse. But let's not call the users' behaviour the same. One—SPECIFICO—is repeatedly making demeaning and aggressive comments towards a specific person (known pseudonymously as "Grace"), and the other is not. A one-way IBAN is a ludicrous suggestion because SPECIFICO will then have "won" the game they are playing, that of forcing their opinion to be accepted as "consensus" through deliberate poor etiquette. Topic banning both users from Aziz Ansari and/or a two-way IBAN are more reasonable suggestions. Yet it seems to me that this would not solve the issue of SPECIFICO's continued disruptive modus operandi on contemporary American biographies (a possible scope for a wider topic ban).

Statement by Atsme

Seriphamblade - please, no i-Bans, they suck and create more problems than they resolve. We're not dealing with a couple of kids fighting over the game controller - these are 2 adults. I really dislike boomerangs which are typically punishment for filing a case against a seasoned editor over a content dispute, and I very much dislike vexatious litigation for whatever reason. In this case, we're dealing with a relatively new editor (KB) who just learned a valuable lesson. Let it go. KB needs to tone it down, and specificolly avoid interaction with SPECIFICO, (pardon my play on words because even something that silly has been used as a reason to warn/block/t-ban an editor - I think it was warn, it was me, and today SPECIFICO and I get along famously.) Let's get back to the basics - disruptive editing at an article - nothing here to take action over. It has been brought to the attention of AE because of DS, the parties have been duly warned - log it as such in DS, and let them get back to work. Next time it happens - t-bans all the way around. That simple.  [stretch] Atsme 💬 📧 17:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

Topic ban them both from AP2 at least until the end of the year.--MONGO (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

While most of the discussion of remedies seems to have focused on ibans, the issue here seems entirely confined to a single article, Aziz Ansari; all the other process stuff has directly stemmed from that. I would just topic-ban one or both of them from that article (only) and leave it at that. This has the advantage of being a simple, straightforward, easy-to-enforce resolution that seems like it would definitely end things, whereas ibans (especially one-way ibans) are much trickier and go way beyond what's needed to put a stop to what's ultimately a dispute on a single page that has gotten waaaay out of hand. --Aquillion (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SPECIFICO

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I tried a couple of links and I just don't get it. The first substantive link appears to be "01:49, 18 October 2020" with a "False claim of one month consensus". My reading of the edit summary is that SPECIFICO was thinking of WP:SILENCE and I think it is correct that the article had been without the disputed text for a month. Does anyone else support the text that Kolya Butternut (KB) wants to add? The only recent comments at Talk:Aziz Ansari seem to be arguing against KB. The correct way to resolve an issue like this is to start with a relevant noticeboard (e.g. WP:RSN since seems to be disputed on talk). If WP:RS and WP:DUE and WP:BLP appear to be ok, then start an RfC with a clear question. Johnuniq (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "Silent consensus" remains only so long as the silence is not broken. As soon as someone does object, be that in an hour or in a year, the "silent consensus" vanishes. That aside, we just closed this request, and I think we're at the point of use of AE as a means of harassment. I think it might be time to take some action against the filer here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I would entirely agree with the suggestion by Vanamonde to refer this to AN for community sanctions. It's right about enough of this constant bickering. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • If the general feeling here is a one-way IBAN on KB with regards to SPECIFICO in the BLP/GG/AP2 topic areas, I've got no objection to that as the resolution. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • For your reference, KB, since you asked me specifically: I have read your proposal, and do not believe it to be at all sufficient. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • There are a few outlier proposals here, ranging from an acceptance of KB's "voluntary restraint" proposal to a topic ban from the topic areas, but the general consensus seems to settle on a one-way IBAN. This would, at this point, restrict KB from interacting with SPECIFICO on the topics covered by GG/AP2/BLP. It is unclear whether an AE IBAN could be sitewide, and I do intend to ask about that at ARCA, but those can take a while to answer and this shouldn't be left open waiting on it. So unless any uninvolved admin strongly objects in the next 24 hours or so, I intend to close this with a one-way IBAN on KB with regards to SPECIFICO in the topic areas of GG/AP2/BLP. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Could we please give interaction ban to these two users, including filing AE requests against each other, and be done with it? Sure, if one or both of them regularly breaches our policies, there will be another user to notice this and to file ANI/AN/AE/AC whatever case.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
    Ok, based on the discussion I would agree to the one-way interaction ban as well. One year would be fine, with the understanding that if issues reappear after a year, we can go for an indefinite interaction ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I think an interaction ban is necessary. We cannot impose a site-wide IBAN here, but we could do an IBAN across GG-, AP2-, and BLP-related articles. Alternatively, we could go to AN for a site-wide IBAN. One of those options strikes me as being long overdue. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Dennis Brown: I agree that there's been substantive engagement from admins here, but my understanding is that we do not have the standing to apply site-wide sanctions; our remit extends only to areas under ARBCOM sanctions. And if that sounds bureaucratic, enacting something that will inevitably end up at ARCA immediately does not seem wise to me. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Dennis Brown, Guerillero: I'm still uncertain of our standing when it comes to a site-wide sanction; however, I think Dennis Brown's proposal is the right way forward, regardless of which venue it is coming from. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I didn't study the merits of this case, doesn't seem to be necessary. After the last close, KB took it to my talk page, where it should have been clear I wasn't interested in relitigating the case. They said they were going to file a new AE case, but I thought it was just talk, that they weren't really thick enough to do so. I would not support a 2 way ban, which would be unfair to SPECIFICO. I would support a 1 way ban (and I hate those) with a *request* to SPECIFICO, asking him to avoid discussing KB. I would imagine he would be fine with that request. I do not think we need to drag this to AN, btw, although that is utterly allowed. We already have enough eyes and experience with the situation to handle it here, as a non-AE remedy. While a 1 way iban is certainly an option, so is a tban, btw. Dennis Brown - 17:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Vanamonde93, we can do anything that any single admin can do, so yes, we are limited to a degree. I forget that AE is setup that way. If any admin thought that a block, or other sanction that doesn't require a "community" consensus was appropriate, they could, but this might not be that case. So I agree that WP:AN is the way to go. Dennis Brown - 21:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • You're right Guerillo, as long as it is a DS sanction or based on action in a DS area. In that case, I would propose a ONE way interaction ban, one year duration, which will end up acting as a tban in areas that SPECIFICO edits, as KB will need to avoid articles where SPECIFICO is active (although not every article he's ever edited). This is an ugly solution and KB isn't going to enjoy it, but it's the least aggressive solution I can think of. We don't need a consensus to do this, any of us can simply unilaterally impose it, but I think it would be best if we did seek consensus among the admins here at AE. Dennis Brown - 01:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
It's probably already clear, but I am fine with anything resembling a tban and 1 way iban. I don't think that SPECIFICO is a saint, but I would oppose a 2 way iban simply because I haven't seen anything that justifies it on his part. My opinion is that a one year duration is probably the right way to go, but I'm not fixed on duration. Dennis Brown - 09:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it is well within our right to impose a project-wide interaction ban between two users that started to cause issues within a topic area under DS. I also think that going to the community would be a fair option --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
    I am feeling an interaction ban and a topic ban from Aziz Ansari for KB --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not impressed by this report in the slightest. What's going on in that article is insane. This is a straight up content dispute, that has been going on for months, with Kolya endlessly arguing about preserving the "stable version". There is no such thing as preserving the "stable version". The concept literally isn't valid. See WP:STABLE#Inappropriate usage. And yet the phrase has been written two dozen times on the article's talk page. Stonewalling edits for the meta-reason of "needs consensus" or "needs to be discussed" or "restoring stable version" is not valid, it's disruptive editing. I don't see anything particularly egregious about SPECIFICO's behavior except that KB disagrees with them and is stonewalling their edits while refusing to pursue dispute resolution, choosing to file frivolous AE reports instead. I don't think a two-way IBAN is a reasonable solution, that's a sort of no-fault sanction for two editors who have an interpersonal problem, and I'm seeing this is more of a behavioral problem on KB's end. Reviewing KB's own complaints about Specifico's "misconduct", there's really nothing there. However as an uninvolved observer, KB's tendentiousness is quite obvious. I don't think a topic ban or one-way IBAN would be an "ugly solution" here, it seems to be the relatively straightforward solution. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • In general I dislike I-bans, especially one-way I-bans. It's just hard on the editor with the one-way to expect them to make absolutely sure the other editor hasn't edited an article "too recently", and it can be a tempting invitation for abuse by the other editor. But the SPI referenced by TheTimesAreAChanging shocked me, and the continued use of 'misconduct' is troubling. I think it's possible a 1-way I-ban is the only real solution. Changing my mind. This is a newish user. Let's accept their promise to not comment or action on the other editor's behavior. —valereee (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    KB, for me the problem with What about an agreement for me to not report SPECIFICO's misconduct? is that you appear to be assuming there is clearly going to be future misconduct, but you're promising you won't be the one to report it. If you'd worded it as "What about an agreement for me to not make reports about SPECIFICO's conduct?", it would have felt like a neutral offer. Just my interpretation. —valereee (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    KB, when you say There clearly has been no behavioral investigation, but that will not be necessary if the disputed conduct complaints cease what I'm hearing is "I'm the only person who clearly sees and is willing to call out an obvious problem, and if I stop reporting, everyone else is just going to ignore it." Is that an accurate reflection of what you intended? —valereee (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    KB, FWIW the other editor has plenty of people watching their talk, and it's IMO unlikely the majority would be afraid to report a problem just because of your experience here. At worst your experience here would cause people to be in general cautious of taking people to noticeboards. Which IMO they should be. For the vast majority of cases, taking someone to a noticeboard should be treated as a last resort. General advice: don't go to noticeboards unless someone else drags you there. Much better to just go to some admin or other experienced-and-known-to-be-helpful user's talk and ask for help/advice. I just did that myself yesterday in hopes of avoiding taking someone to ANI. I'm changing my opinion to accepting your promise of just avoiding commenting/reporting on the other editor's behavior and leaving it to others. —valereee (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I generally don't like IBANs and would prefer something with less grey area like a ban on taking each other to noticeboards. But if a ban is to be imposed I think it should be two-way. From what I can remember this noticeboard feud started with this AE report] by SPECIFICO against Koyla Butternut. (Remember? the one where SPECIFICO called Koyla "it"?) And to be fair, we closed that one with the statement "...if anyone wishes to file a broader AE request looking at the general conduct of either user, they are free to do so." We certainly got that in plenty. ~Awilley (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure why a one-way AE IBAN couldn't be sitewide — I agree with Guerillero (who has Arbcom experience) on that. I myself have a one-way IBAN instituted by the Arbcom itself, where I am the non-banned party (no need to mention the banned party here). Why would an AE ban be different from a direct Arbcom ban? An IBAN for only GG, AP2, and BLP would indeed cover most of it, but I also see it as an invitation to borderline disputes. As for some people's generalized dislike of one-way IBANs, I'll just point out that in practice, they work just like two-way IBANS — I can't, and won't, in reality mention the user who's IBANned from me, as it would look like provocation and quite rightly cause outrage. It's just that a formally one-way ban in some cases, such as regarding KB versus SPECIFICO, is more fair. Summing up, I'm for a sitewide one-way IBAN against KB, but if that doesn't gain traction, I will alternatively support the same for the GG, AP2, and BLP areas only. I do not support a two-way IBAN in any form. Bishonen | tålk 12:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC).
  • Bishonen, hey, I might have a bit of ArbCom experience myself after all. I don't recall that question ever having come up though. My main concern is that the DS page says enforcing administrators are not enforce discretionary sanctions beyond their reasonable scope. That's generally been considered to mean that something like a topic ban can only be as wide as the scope of the case it's imposed under (which makes sense, "sitewide topic ban" is just another way of saying "site ban"). I don't think it's ever really been considered with IBANs though, but they've generally been imposed the same way; just within the DS area. I think it would make sense if they could be imposed sitewide, as a sitewide IBAN is not analogous to a total site ban, but I'd be hesitant to just go ahead and do it without knowing whether it will fly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (since we are breaking format..;) If we block an editor, that also extends to all articles not within the scope of AE. In this case, extending the scope of the iban to being sitewide is likely doing a favor for a lot of people, as there won't be another case asking if an interaction was DS related or not. I'm fine either way, but I don't think a sitewide iban is beyond our scope since this is because of problems in DS areas. Dennis Brown - 20:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Searching Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log for "one-way" shows several examples of site-wide one-way interaction bans imposed from discretionary sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • You are quite correct. Looks like it's better settled on that than I thought. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


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 Beshogur

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 19:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Beshogur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:AA2 :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 25 October "keep your bias to yourself"
  2. 25 October Doubles down at Diyarbakir but this time removes native names in a form of a note. Disingenouous edit-summary: "pure aesthetic purpose".
  3. 24 October Removes Kurdish, Armenian, Assyrian, and other native names from the Diyarbakir article. Diyarbakir has historically and continues to be a multi-cultural city. Such removals have gotten various users banned before.
  4. 22 October. Insists on using Azeri names instead of the much more common Armenian names of villages in Karabakh. He then slow edit-wars to maintain this over the course of this month: 20 October, 20 October, 10 October. Even goes so far as to remove the fact that there's an Armenian school in the village [39]. It is still questionable whether Azeri forces are in control of this part of NK. Nevertheless, this is against WP:COMMONNAME and the user has been told several times already to stop doing this, let alone edit-war for it.
  5. 20 October Blanket removal of loads of reliably sourced information pertaining to Azerbaijani nationalism and the Armenian Genocide on Pan-Turkism article with an edit-summary that is entirely false and misleading.
  6. 20 October Consistenly refers to Artsakh forces as occupiers, the official language of the Azeri government. The long-standing consensus in AA2 articles has always been to use more netural terms like control and/or more legal terms like de facto. Beshogur has been on a spree to call the Armenian forces occupiers in many instances since the flareup of the conflict. Some other examples: 24 October, 24 October, 24 October, 22 October, 22 October.
  7. 2 October Uses very questionable sources to justify military changes on the battlefield. The NK war is very fluid and to rush to judgement on the capturing of one village is disruptive, let alone edit-warring to maintain it is doubly so. Edit-warring diffs: October 3, October 3, October 3 (WP:GAME with this one as it's only 8 minutes over the 24 hour mark of the initial revert). Beshogur's edit-warring lead to him getting immediately blocked. Even after the block and another reminder of AA2, the user continues to disrupt the project and it appears that is not willing to revise his approach towards it.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 3 October blocked for disruptive edit-warring by admin Rosguill (talk · contribs)
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Warned about AA2 sanctions:

  1. 25 October
  2. 1 October
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Wikipedia is not a venue to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, nor is it a WP:BATTLEGROUND. The removal of native names and the insistence with calling Armenians occupiers coupled with the edit-warring and a disruptive pattern of editing should raise alarm bells. The user has a history of edit-warring and was just recently blocked a couple of weeks ago for it.

Beshogur (talk · contribs) makes several claims in his rebuttal that must be answered. For one, he refuses to acknowledge the importance of WP:NCGN by removing anything pertaining to Armenia or Armenians in these villages as the war continues. He goes so far as to point to an ongoing discussion that he started (might I add, the WP:VOTESTACKING is quite obvious there) to which no consensus has been reached. Yet, even as the discussion continues and no consensus has been reached, he continues using the term occupation. Another fallacy in his argument is that not only did he do this before he opened that discussion, he did it after. In other words, gaining consensus does not phase him in this regard.
He then states that he only calls these villages occupied if they're outside of the NK Republic. This is false. In the 20 October diff, for example, he added this phrase to the article: "When it was under Armenian occupation, Hadrut was twinned with:" Hadrut lies plainly in NK boundaries. With that said, the term occupation is still used by him whether or not these territories are in NK boundaries.
His response for the Madagiz issue is misleading. The issue with Madagiz is not the infobox, but rather the first sentence of the article to which he changed the first sentence to the official name rather than the WP:COMMONNAME even as he was told several times to avoid doing so. The slow edit-warring of this is also a recurring problem given that he has been blocked several times for edit-warring. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Beshogur

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 Beshogur

About occupation. Literally every international source, including OSCE minsk group mentions this as an occupation. Both Zengilan and Fuzuli cities were outside the former NKAO, and those cities had predominantly Azerbaijani majority. If you knew it, both cities' Armenian names are not its native names, but had been renamed after the Armenian occupation. (discussion about the term)

Additional note:

  • Füzuli (city)'s old names: Qarabulak, Karyagin, and Varanda, named after 1993 when the city actually became a ghost town after NK war, and outside NKAO.
  • Zəngilan: Pirchivan, Zengilan, and later renamed to Kovsakan after Armenian occupation, another place outside NKAO.
  • Jabrayil: renamed to Jrakan after NKR war, another ghost town, and outside NKAO.

These are not traditional names used by Armenians but later renamed by an occupying state.

To clarify Madagiz yet again, I am not against that name, the problem is, you are changing "official_name=" into Madagiz. @Rosguill:, an admin, even realized that he was also wrong about that. See talk of that page. And I didn't move that page at the first place, stop putting the blame on my.

About Diyarbakir, I found a note better for an excessive name section. For the first edit, I removed it because it was already on the name section below. That's the main reason. If that was wrong, my apologizes, that was not my intention.

For Iranian Azerbaijan. That article had been under scope of WP Azerbaijan. Removing is ok, but restoring it not?

Also I don't think it's ok to judge me of my block which is already passed. Regards.

For his second statement: Before accusing me of Votestacking, administrators are free to check my editing or mail history. I did not sent any user, nor did notify about that requested move. Beside that, I do not call only places outside NKAO occupied, I call them all. I was clarifying the name issues, these cities not being majority Armenian at the first place, and the names being changed after Armenian occupation. To clarify Madagiz yet again. I didn't move the article at the first place. I thought that it was looking weird when you had two different names. As I explained, I am not against its old name, and that had been solved on the talk page, why do you bring this up every time?

Additional note: UN: "Demands the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan;"[1]

About the status of Madagiz. AJ report about Azerbaijan building road to Madagiz.[2] Another by Euronews from inside of Madagiz.[3] Beshogur (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ "A/RES/62/243". 14 March 2008. Retrieved 2020-09-28.
  2. ^ [1]
  3. ^ [2]

Statement by (Wikaviani)

Beshogur is not assuming good faith when they interact with fellow Wikipedians and the compelling evidences provided by EtienneDolet make me wonder if Beshogur is here to build an encyclopedia, or rather, to be on a mission of Turkification.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

How could you explain your edit. Mine is not disruptive, you're is. And what kind of conspiracy is that?
I explained my edit thoroughly in my edit-summary, just take the time to read it instead of attacking fellow Wikipedians. Your above answer alone is enough to show that you are not assuming good faith when you interact with others, and judging by EtienneDolet and HistoryofIran's comments, you have been behaving like that for a while here, on Wikipedia ...---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 11:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Well your edit was wrong then. Again I apologize for my text. Beshogur (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
With all due respect, it's not up to you to decide what is wrong or right, it's a matter of reliable sources and consensus.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
You alone, isn't a "consensus", removing WP Azerbaijan from that page. You do not have any reliable source that shows Azerbaijan Republic isn't related to Iranian Azerbaijan. Pure original research. Beshogur (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I never said that i alone am a consensus, again, you better read what people say instead of attacking them. Also, i would be interested to understand how a 102 years old country (Republic of Azerbaijan) can be related to a historic region that predates the Republic by centuries ? I suggest you to answer this question on the Azerbaijan (Iran) talk page.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 12:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Because R of Azerbaijan is populated by same people, speaking the same tongue? Beshogur (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I will answer on the article talk page, but your argument is clearly irrelevant.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (HistoryofIran)

Beshogur has a tendency to not assume WP:GF of his fellow editors. These are two of my recent experiences with him:

1. I was removing information from Turkestan which was not WP:RS, which then led to him create a whole section just to say this:

you will almost claim that such a region does not even exist.

2. Because I was arguing that the President "Library" of Azerbaijan was not RS, because it is a country without freedom of press, (I did also say that the source cited Wikipedia and Tourism Az amongst others, which was ignored), clearly without any bad intention, my own background for some reason became involved in his following comment:

Ah throwing bait and saying that you are going to be accused of racism. And again(?) But Iran does not have freedom of press either. Considering, a lot of Iranian sources are used here. Do you have anything where it states you can not use state sources? Plus the source only states that Khankendi means City of Khan, do you really oppose that? Or didn't you like it?

--HistoryofIran (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The "source", published by a country without freedom of press, cites Wikipedia and Tourism. Az amongst others. Before I get accused of racism (again) by someone, people might wanna google what freedom of press means. --HistoryofIran

First of all, don't play the victim. And you do not have any proof that source is not reliable and the info being wrong. I did not further edit to avoid any dispute. Since it's usual people reporting eachother from such small things. Beshogur (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I rest my case. HistoryofIran (talk)

Statement by (Mr.User200)

(Beshogur) editing behaviour adjoins disruptive editing in many issues (All regarding Turkey). He likes edit warring 1 2 3 4 5 6Especially those regarding modern historical events related to Turkey. Most editors that have experienced editing disputes with him cannot asumme good faith because of their particular POV editing and peculiar way of expressing.

He also reverts other users edits calling them jokes and making non civil edit summaries that turn WP into a Battleground.1 2 3 4 56 7 8 9

Most of his edits are reverts on other users edits, by the way.

He uses minor errors on edits to revert the whole content, only because "He dont like" 1.

He have a very particular POV when editing Armenian related articles and Armenian Genocide (I.E "Nothing to do with Turkey") 1 2

Calls Amnesty International reports on Right abuses by Turkish forces "Propaganda". 1

He canvasses Admins when there is no need to 1.

When his wrongdoing is discovered or faced with diff, he just use the "racism card". Something he have done times before. August 2016 October 2020.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Beshogur

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


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 SPECIFICO

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Darouet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 14:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 15:20, 27 October 2020 Removes longstanding text whose removal days earlier was contested.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 23:58, 12 May 2020: "sanctioned for violation of the 1RR and enforced BRD sanctions at Joe Biden."
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Jack Upland has been engaged in a longstanding and understandable effort to trim page length at Julian Assange. I restored one removed sentence [41], a NYT paraphrase of the Obama Administration's views on the constitutional implications of indicting Assange; the text had been in the article for over a year [42]. SPECIFICO reverted my restoration of the sentence [43], and I informed SPECIFICO their action violated DS (see discussion here [44]). While SPECIFICO has continued to edit at Talk:Julian Assange and elsewhere, they have not self-reverted, nor participated in the ongoing talk page discussion that appears to favor keeping the sentence.

At Talk:Julian Assange, SPECIFICO has previously acknowledged that removing longstanding text, if the removal is contested, is a violation of discretionary sanctions on the page: [45], [46].

Awilley recently confirmed at Talk:Julian Assange that re-removing longstanding content is a violation of the DS on the page [47]. Guy, who originally placed the sanctions on the page [48], has responded [49], "that might apply in another article, but this one has been WP:OWNed by a small cabal of fans and Mueller denialists for a long time." Needless to say, this is offensive, untrue, suggests a battleground mentality, and also creates a situation where DS has opposite meanings depending on Guy's views. Guy has expressed very strong opinions on Assange previously [50][51][52], and I'm unsure if someone with such charged attitudes regarding Assange should be acting as an admin on Assange's BLP. -Darouet (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Guy
I strongly dispute Guy's description of conflicts on the page, and ask that any characterization of my or others' edits there be supported by diffs and sources.
  • In this edit [53], Guy refers to Assange as an established "Kremlin asset"; I don't recall that I have made any similar comment on Assange, and I don't think anyone should, either for or against him.
  • In this edit [54] Guy opposes the inclusion of even one sentence in the body of the article that would report a German political appeal on Assange's behalf, a letter covered by every large newspaper in Germany. Guy writes, For all the fervour with which this is promoted off-wiki by Assange cultists, it was one letter that was not, as far as I can tell, covered after its original release. Cult leaders are very good at exploiting what Lenin termed "useful idiots". Do the phrases "Assange cultists" and "useful idiots" refer to to journalists for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Welt, or the Süddeutsche Zeitung? Or is this a reference to signers of the letter including journalist Günter Wallraff or the former Vice-Chancellor of Germany, Sigmar Gabriel? I'm not sure, but this is not about the "consensus view of independent sources": Guy is frequently arguing against them.
I think Guy is a great editor and agree with them about plenty of things, but this attitude towards the topic is not neutral, and is contributing to rather than resolving disputes. -Darouet (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Guy, anybody can check to see if I've ever suggested you can't disagree. Otherwise, your repeated suggestion that all editors at Julian Assange be topic banned after SPECIFICO is alleged to have violated DS [55][56] comes across a clever way of punishing other editors for SPECIFICO's editing, and reversing both the letter and the spirit of the sanctions you added to this page. -Darouet (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I have notified SPECIFICO here [57], and also left a comment at Guy's talk page. -Darouet (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion concerning SPECIFICO

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 SPECIFICO

Statement by JzG (SPECIFICO eleventy)

I applied the DS in November 2019, but since then I have become involved with discussions on the Talk page so as noted a previous time someone dragged SPECIFICO here I consider myself involved on that article and don't take any administrative role in this endless ongoing dispute. My opinion as an editor expressed on Talk has no more or less weight than anyone else's and I would hope would not be interpreted any other way.

It mainly just frustrates me, for exactly the reason noted above: in my view (and in my admittedly limited experience there) the article is WP:OWNed by a small group of people whose view of Assange appears to be almost Messianic, and at odds with the consensus view of independent sources. My view of Assange is ambivalent. I think that's also a fair summary of the RS, but not the current state of the article. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, the idea that Assange was a Kremlin asset is taken directly from the exceptionally conservative findings of Robert S Mueller III. And yes, I think that letters full of special pleading are of no encyclopaedic merit, but, on point here, your rather obvious failure to get over the fact that I disagreed with you on that is a point against you, not for you. People are allowed to disagree. If you want to raise the issue of bludgeoning and stonewalling on that article's talk page, I will chip in with a resounding "hell yeah!" and encourage any uninvolved admin to TBAN every editor who has engaged in this, including me if they think it's justified. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000

Frankly, I think the characterizations of SPECIFICO not engaging in discussion and the talk page discussion appearing to favor keeping the sentence are premature since you filed this 18 hours after starting the discussion. I also think perhaps it may have made sense for you to go to the TP before restoring text that appears redundant in an overly long article, particularly in a consensus required article; no matter the letter of the law. Just my humble opinions about collaboration. O3000 (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Guy's description of conflicts on the page; but think it's irrelevant to this discussion and should not have been brought up by the filer in the first place. O3000 (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the edit summary was incorrect -- it was not synth. Not a reason to file at AE. I suggest that this kind of content dispute is not why AE was created and could easily have been handled elsewhere (ATP or UTP) instead of jumping to a board of near, last resort with less than a day of discussion. O3000 (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

It's really simple, do all editors need to abide by DS? And if so, was this violated, "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit."? Sir Joseph (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

The text that Specifico removed: The Obama administration had debated charging Assange under the Espionage Act, but decided against it out of fear that it would have a negative effect on investigative journalism and could be unconstitutional.

Specifico's edit summary for the removal: SYNTH insinuation Assange is on par with journalists.

What the source (NYTimes) wrote: The Obama administration had also weighed charging Mr. Assange, but rejected that step out of fears that it would chill investigative journalism and could be struck down as unconstitutional.

It is not WP:SYNTH, it is directly stated by the source. Lev!vich 18:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Jack Upland

The text is a paraphrase of NYT and not "SYNTH". By the way, I am not a fan of Assange, still less a cultist, and I have made extensive edits to the page, so I reject the claim of "ownership" by a cabal. Yes, there is a small group of editors who are clearly pro-Assange, just as there is a small group who are anti-Assange...--Jack Upland (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

This is another example of why blanket "consensus required" DSes are a terrible idea. This one should not be enforced and should be removed from the article.

Consider: There is no indication that the text under dispute has ever had any discussion. Yes, it has a degree of implicit consensus due to its age; that would be worth considering in any discussions, and would matter if an RFC failed to reach consensus otherwise. But that is not a strong consensus, certainly not enough to try and shut down editing or to substitute discussions with a pointless digression in an effort to win a content dispute, followed by a near-immediate leap to AE in an effort to remove the other editor. Is that the sort of "discussion" and consensus-building we want to encourage on controversial articles? Is that supposed to represent the first step in our consensus-building process on the articles that most sorely need it?

Consensus is an important part of how Wikipedia operates, but it is always required - and reaching it, in any sort of constructive long-term sense, requires discussion of the actual issue under dispute; when editors are sharply at odds, that discussion only happens because both sides feel a pressure that brings them to the table to hammer things out. It's clear (and has been for a long, long time) that so-called consensus required DSes are actively harmful to such discussion; putting too much force behind one default outcome encourages people who prefer that outcome in any particular dispute to stonewall and contribute minimally to discussions outside of insisting that policy backs their version. A situation where any editor can, at any time, via a single revert, demand that any change to an article go through a full consensus-building process before any changes at all can be made to the relevant text is simply not viable, especially when so much of our process depends on lightweight "implicit" consensus and a willingness to compromise or back down without going to such lengths every time.

Even Donald Trump, the article which (if I recall correctly) was the genesis of the Consensus Required restriction, is now under the much more reasonable If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit one, which slows things down enough to encourage discussion and avert revert wars without allowing endless, easy stonewalling and red tape. I would argue that the fact that any articles exist which have not been updated to that restriction yet is merely an error stemming from way DSes are mostly under the discretion of the applying administrator (which makes it difficult to update them all at once); while Julian Assange is a controversial topic, it makes no sense to argue that it is more controversial than Donald Trump at the height of an election. Why on earth does it still have a vastly more draconian restriction? --Aquillion (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SPECIFICO

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Responding to the "Consensus required" portion of this report: I did a little analysis of my own and I find a technical violation of the rule.
    • 26 September 2019 The sentence beginning The Obama administration had debated charging Assange under the Espionage Act... is first added to the article. It sits there for a year, enough to be considered "longstanding".
    • 21 October 2020 The sentence is WP:BOLDly removed by Jack Upland (no edit summary)
    • 27 October 2020 The sentence is restored by Darouet (edit summary: Restoring this one sentence, as the Obama administration's view (according to the NYT) is relevant to this section)
    • 27 October 2020 SPECIFICO reverts without having obtained consensus for the re-removal. (Edit summary: SYNTH insinuation Assange is on par with journalists)
A couple other points:
  • This is almost exactly the same thing that happened last month at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive272#SPECIFICO. Same article, same user, same sanction. We didn't find a consensus there to enforce the sanction then.
  • I personally oppose enforcing this sanction because I think it's a stupid rule. The above scenario illustrates some of its problems. I shouldn't have to use Wikiblame to figure out if the rule was broken. And this is SPECIFICO's first edit to the article in nearly a month. Do we want to be blocking users for making 1 revert per month?
  • The admin who placed the sanction is now involved in the article and it's debatable whether he should be able to modify or remove it even if he wanted to.
Bottom line: I think we should either enforce the rule or get rid of it. My vote is to get rid of it. ~Awilley (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)