Rough consensus for a topic ban for Southasianhistorian8 from India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. This explicitly covers India's foreign relations and Sikhism. This topic ban will expire when six months from today have passed and the editor has made 500 edits outside of the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2024 (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.
02:11, November 14 Repeats the same WP:COATRACK behaviour at another article, just over 24hrs after Nyttend (a longstanding administrator) warned them about WP:COATRACK on their talk page.
08:49 November 14Personal attack towards me on their userpage in response to sharing my concern about diff2 and agreeing with Nyttend, claims I'm "piling on my t/p over a topic that does not concern you as a form of petty bullying/harassment and revenge." (bolding mine; Nyttend was the only other user with a message on their talk page)
10:05 November 14 Leaves a retaliatory message on my talk page, spurned by my reverting of their edit in diff2.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 16:31, 2021 November 27 (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
SAH continues to push their anti-Sikh POV into articles. Diff1 shows them adding repetitive content which was already covered in the article, not to mention that it has its own article. Repeating in such detail can only be interpreted as an attempt to draw a equivalency between Khalistan movement and the Canada-India row that is not supported by sources.
Diff2 shows them doing them same at Hardeep Singh Nijjar, using that article as a COATRACK to add content about a tangentially relevant person, content which belong in an article about that person, and attempting to further their POV that Nijjar was a "militant".
Diffs 3 and 4 showcase an unwillingness to self-reflect when conduct concerns are brought up, getting defensive with personal attacks, retaliatory warnings, and digging up of past dirt (which they already mentioned in the last AE thread about them). At no point do they acknowledge WP:COATRACK either in response to Nyttend or myself.
Contribution history shows they nearly-exclusively edit about Sikh topics, suppressing positive information and restoring negative information. Talk page history shows numerous NPOV warnings. At this point, we either have a LISTENing issue or a WP:NOTHERE issue. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)17:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: While BLPCRIME is a reason why I reverted diff 2, it was not the only reason, with the other reason being that I felt SAH was pushing a POV using WP:COATRACK edits, something they had been warned about 24 hours previously for the edit in diff 1. My issue with the edit to Hardeep Singh Nijjar re: Arsh Dalla is beyond the BLPCRIME issue. It goes into the aspect of using another person's arrest to further a POV that Nijjar was a militant extremist.
The fact that SAH filed a report about Simonm223 to AN today[2] for simply trying to engage with SAH at SAH's talk page[3], then WP:BADGERed voorts at voort's talk page after voorts closed the thread[4] shows that SAH's conduct is the primary issue, not the content of any article. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)23:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Okay, seriously, this is getting out of hand now. SAH's response to being asked to state concisely what they want to change that another editor wants to leave the same at DRN is to post a wall of text outlining their entire rationale to insert what they call "a brief few sentences or paragraphs" (huh?). Is this not WP:BLUDGEONING of a discussion?[8] ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)02:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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.
(Note, below is SAH's original statement, the one people have commented on. The altered statement, where he removed/changed the things others had criticised, so that their criticism no longer made sense, can be found here. See my comment down in the admin section (in a moment from now) for why I've put their original statement back. Bishonen | tålk09:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC).)[reply]
Talk about desperation. Any outsider can take a look at my handling on Khalistan movement and see that I handled myself very responsibly as opposed to GhostofDanGurney who keeps lobbing personal attacks at editors he dislikes. I only made one revert, and when Nyttend posted on my t/p, I told him I would not revert further,and initiated a discussion on the t/p. The content I added was literally a direct result of the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Khalistan activist, and the RCMP's allegations of India's operations against Khalistan activists, so clearly the event is relevant to the page at least to some degree and I'm extremely confident that editors at 3O or DRN will agree. The content there wasn't even authored by me, I copied it (with attribution) from the Canada-India diplomatic row. If I was so biased, wouldn't I be trying to suppress this information? I figured that precluding such a consequential event would be irresponsible and make it appear as though the page was skewed towards a pro-India narrative. What more do you want from me?
@GhostofDanGurney- Is one revert on the Khalistan movement page, in which I believed the removal from Nyttend to be a simple misunderstanding and subsequently went on the t/p, and zero reverts on the Hardeep Singh Nijjar page - for a grand total of one revert considered "edit warring". If so, you've edit warred hundreds of times as well Ghost.
You've also told people to "fuck themselves", called them "thots" and "hypocrites" and more; I've never come close to saying something like that. Again, I strongly urge admins to issue a block for these juvenile insults. Literally every disagreement on his t/p is met with a nasty response-[10], [11].
This ill-researched statement is like the last time when you falsely accused me of plagiarizing your work.
@Black Kite, I saw a thread on the article's t/p in which two editors expressed a desire to move the paragraph about the diplomatic row in the lead of the article. I removed the paragraph from the lead, and intended to move it and expand on it in the body of the article, but was unexpectedly called away before I could. By the time I returned, you had reverted me. In hindsight, I should have made my 2nd intended edit immediately afterwards and linked the t/p discussion, so my apologies for that. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for this edit-[15], I explicitly stated that it shouldn't have been in the lead-Please gain WP:CONSENSUS to add this to the article's lead, in accordance with the t/p discussion. I already apologized for the poor communication on my part here (I should have stated my intention to move and expand the para and linked the t/p discussion) and admit that I should take care to not add WIP edits, but I feel like AGF should apply here, especially when I already apologized and it involves my private life. I'm willing to own up to when I make a mistake.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In all, I think that a good solution to this conflict(s) would be a 2 way IBAN between Ghost and myself, after the DRN or any other consensus building forum has concluded. Our editing seems to primarily intersect at two pages-Hardeep Singh Nijjar and Canada-India diplomatic row out of the many hundreds of pages we've edited, the C-I row is not a page I'm particularly interested in anymore. There may be more developments on those two pages surrounding the ongoing criminal investigation, but that's not something I'm too interested in and will likely not make edits towards. I'm committed to resolving the Nijjar content dispute peacefully through consensus, and I hope Ghost will too, and I'll also commit to avoiding GoDG as much as possible from hereon. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, I agree, but a lot of my earlier thoughts/responses were unorganized as this a pretty complicated, high stress dispute. Would me linking my earlier responses be a good solution? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would also like to point that Bishonen is not an uninvolved administrator and is posting in the wrong section. We've had disagreements in the past regarding a blocked user's sock/meat status-[17]. That was a case in which I and another administrator believed the blocked account to be a sock, while Bishonen believed them to be a m/p.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've had 2 disagreements in the past over users alleged to be HaughtonBrit socks barely a few months ago. In the other case, a user who was initially deemed to be "unrelated" to HaughtonBrit, was later deemed a "possible indicator of sockpuppetry" after my report highlighted significant developments in their editing patterns. I believed the user to be a sock, Bishonen stated that she believed that they weren't. Given the contested nature of the latter disagreement, I dont think Bishonen counts as uninvolved administrator. This is what WP:UNINVOLVED states:Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.
@ScottishFinnishRadish:, I feel like a topic ban is unnecessary. It shouldn't be ignored that this A/E request is primarily based of a content dispute which is currently underway at DRN-[19]. It should also be highlighted that I provided detailed and policy backed reasons for my proposed changes there, whereas G and Simonm gave curt one sentence responses. Is that not telling? I sincerely request that I be allowed to participate in the consensus building. It should also be noted that I did not edit war anywhere, and am making sincere efforts to gain consensus for my changes.
I also do a lot of work in cleaning up articles in this topic area, which is inundated with POV pushing, poor sourcing and lackluster content. Could you please consider allowing the DRN to conclude and a later IBAN between me and Ghost? I strongly believe that would cease any further conflicts. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel like my inexperience and mistakes at A/E shouldn't dictate the fate of my editing in the Wikipedia mainspace, which are vastly different from each other. The vast majority of my editing in the main space and on talk pages is productive, and I've worked to arrive consensuses consistently over the past 2 years. The dispute between Ghost and myself became so acrimonious and litigious, that it's impossible to handle both discussing on the article t/p, DRN, and handling numerous dogpiles on A/E. Again @ScottishFinnishRadish, please consider an alternative. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish, could you please let me know if something else other than a topic ban is on the table? Again, I find it punitive when I'm contributing substantially to the DRN and trying to seek a consensus there. Can we at least not see the assessment of other editors in that content dispute and what they make of Ghost and Simon's BLP/coatrack claims? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that. Honestly, after seeing the immense toxicity on this site, where numerous editors dog-pile on you, lob false accusations against you, gaslight you and arm-twist you into believing their falsehoods, and just in general playing favourites with those in their own clique, all to get one over someone else in a content dispute, I've realized that Wikipedia is no longer a suitable place for me.
I would concur that both editors should probably both get some space from each other for a few days. A short-duration 2-way iBan might be a reasonable remedy here. Most of the edits in contention from both editors don't seem disruptive although both could be a bit more careful with sourcing to avoid primary sources and to ensure that secondary sources are included in major edits. The only point of contention I'd take with either's position (as I don't think either is actually entirely wrong so much as operating at cross-purposes) surrounds the interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME. Arsh Dalla is not a public figure per the definition laid out by WP:PUBLICFIGURE because his notoriety is entirely from the circumstances of him having been accused of a crime. As such the guidance, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime very much applies here. Simonm223 (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Southasianhistorian8 there is a key difference between Bishnoi and Dalla. Bishnoi stood trial and was convicted. My understanding is that Canada has declined to arrest and extradite Dalla. As such, since he is a free person and considered innocent both under Canadian law and by Wikipedia's standards, and since all the media coverage around him is about whether he did any criminal acts, we should not be commenting on him on Wikipedia. I hope this clarifies WP:BLPCRIME for you. Simonm223 (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly my attempt to provide some friendly help regarding the BLPCRIME issue has left me a bit more concerned about WP:IDHT than I was at the outset. Especially since WP:OSE statements do not override BLP policy. Simonm223 (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully my last comment here I just want to apologize to @GhostOfDanGurney for originally interpreting this as a two-way interaction problem. I saw this and tried to sincerely help Southasianhistorian8 and the result was an ANI complaint, a DRN page and several repetitive textwalls. This is much more of a WP:BATTLEGROUND situation than I initially assumed with Southasianhistorian8 specifically and, what's worse, they appear to assume any attempt to assist them is an attack. I have struck my initial comments about a 2-way i-ban as I no longer believe that would be an effective remedy. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of which side is correct on the merits of the arguments, it does *not* help SAH's case that they've presented their opposition to Ghost of Dan Gurney in an uncivil and excessively inflammatory manner. "he clearly has an extreme vendetta against and is desperate to hound me off this page" fails to assume good faith. So does accusing them of having "a long history of suppressing any critical information on the page... saw this opportunity and rushed to try to hound me further." Vaguely handwaving at a previous report does not suffice to make that anything less than an aspersion. Saying "I find it reprehensible that this bullying behaviour has carte-blanche on Wikipedia" is both uncivil, inflammatory, and presumes that the behavior is 1) bullying, and 2) has "carte-blanche" despite this AE request existing and there having been discussion about it in multiple talk page forums already. Regardless of how this AE gets decided, I'd admonish SAH to find a more constructive, less inflammatory way of expressing their positions. I think all involved would do well to be reminded that in a contentious topic area you need to be on your best behavior. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!21:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had several of the articles that SAH has been editing come up on various boards that I monitor. Unfortunately, I've been unable to positively contribute for a lack of time to read through the wall of text that SAH generates through their apparent POV-pushing style, and then sometimes Wikilawyering to support their POV. While I think that the situation is primarily one-sided, and GDG is doing a fair job of handling it well, just a reminder that the integrity of WP is not solely upon him to keep other editors in line, and perhaps not taking it too personally. I think a formal TBAN with 500 edits is a good place to start for SAH, and perhaps, if anything, an IBAN for GDG. TiggerJay(talk)21:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I opened a mediation case at DRN involving User:Southasianhistorian8 and User:GhostOfDanGurney on 20 November that had been requested by SAH on 16 November. I made a mistake in opening the case, because this dispute was already pending here at Arbitration Enforcement, and DRN does not handle any dispute that is also pending in another content forum or conduct forum, and this is a conduct forum. I have closed the DRN case as failed. The instructions that I gave to the editors to prepare draft sections of material that they wanted to add or to shorten are still good advice as part of discussion and normal editing. I have no opinion on the conduct of the editors, because I try to avoid conduct issues when I am trying to mediate a content dispute (including when I am trying to mediate a content dispute by mistake). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've looked into this a bit more, but even based on their behavior at this report, the bludgeoning and walls of text, the incivility, and the retaliatory filing below I'm thinking at least a 3-6 month and 500 edit topic ban for tendentious editing with the hope that it will be enough of a sanction that their behavior will be better when they return. I'm also open to an indef topic ban if other admins believe that they should have to offer some proof of constructive editing to return to the topic area.
This seems like a plain dispute over interpretation of BLPCRIME with respect to an edit that was made yesterday, but instead of a discussion at WP:BLPN, there are three enforcement threads visible on this page and another at WP:AN. Perhaps the editors involved should try BLPN first, or other forms of dispute resolution, instead of running here to get each other banned? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I encouraged these editors to take their dispute to DRN. I think everyone needs to de-escalate, step away from the article, and let the process at DRN play out. If that fails and this acrimony continues, IBANs, TBANs, or page restrictions might be needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also haven't had time to research this properly, but I've noticed without difficulty that SAH's behaviour on this very page is poor. SAH, you point out that GhostOfDanGurney told someone to go fuck themselves in 2018, (near the beginning of their Wikipedia career) called somebody else a thot in the same year, and you "strongly urge admins to issue a block for these juvenile insults". A block? Six years after the fact? Please don't air ancient history at AE, especially when it has nothing to do with the matter in hand. I see you offer the same diffs and others from your historical collection in the retaliatory report below, too. I'm also interested to see your explanation of Black Kite's point that during this AE, you removed sourced and DUE information at Hardeep Singh Nijjar, 'almost like [you] want to be sanctioned'. You explain that two editors on Talk wanted to "move" the information, and therefore you re-moved it, intending to move it to the body and even, virtuously, expand on it there, but were interrupted at this very point. This statement of yours flies in the face of a) your edit summary for the removal,[21] and b) what you yourself said about it on Talk.[22] In view of that, the drama where you are "unexpectedly called away" is unfortunately not credible. Bishonen | tålk04:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Just noting that I think Southasianhistorian8 has rewritten much of their statement here today. Many comments others have referred to are now absent from their statement. I know that the length of their content was a concern but I don't think a participant should basically rewrite their original statement in response to other editors' complaints. It's confusing when one tries to understand the flow of the discussion. LizRead!Talk!06:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed they have, and that's not acceptable. Before I commented, I counted SAH's words to see if they had complied with shortening their statement. Yes, they had, it was 554 words. Then, after I had complained about poor behaviour, specifically asking admins to block G over ancient diffs, and trying to explain away Black Kite's complaint of disruption during this case, they "substantially altered it for length and because a lot of the responses were spur of the moment/unorganized". That's one way of putting it. Another would be that after my criticism and Simon223's, they removed the things we criticized. That's unacceptable on talkpages, and just as unacceptable here. Linking to the old version doesn't help much. You simply shouldn't have done it. I have restored the version I commented on, with a link to your new, massaged, less "spur of the moment" version. The time to think is before you post here, not after people have told you what's wrong with it. Note, if you decide to no longer offer an argument that's been criticized, you may of course disown it. But that's done by crossing it out, like this. Not by removing it. Bishonen | tålk09:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
SAH now suggests I'm not an uninvolved admin. I think I am, and I hope one or more admin/user here will please follow SAH's link to evaluate this putative involvement. Bishonen | tålk11:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
The need to both wait 3 or 6 months and make 500 edits outside of the topic area. This way they have to demonstrate constructive editing elsewhere rather than waiting out the tban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am good with SFR's suggested 3 or 6 months (I lean 6) topic ban AND making 500 substantial edits outside the topic area (by "substantial" I mean not just adding commas or moving around stuff, but engaging with content and showing that they understand how to use reliable sources and how to edit collaboratively) Ealdgyth (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Southasianhistorian8, you don't need to quit editing or be indefinitely blocked. You just have to continue to be a productive editor without getting yourself into disputes. I don't see any favoritism here in this discussion. But when I look over your most recent 200 edits in your contribution history, almost all have to do with arguments with other editors. Can you coexist with editors you don't agree with? That's what the rest of us do. And, believe me, there are longtime editors here who have had disagreements with each other that are deeper and longer-lasting than your dispute with GhostOfDanGurney...we just keep a distance between us and do not provoke each other. Remember, this is not just an editing project but a collaborative one so you have to be able to collaborate even when not agreeing. Can you do that? LizRead!Talk!04:33, 22 November 2024 (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.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
23 October - Whitewashing with misleading edit summary. Trying to show that allegiance with Nazism and Imperial Japan is considered bad only in the western world.
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.
<moved from Capitals00's section> I am not such kind of user. I adds contents with reliable sources. Sorry if anyone gets such vibes.. Sorry to.l Wikipedia communities. Love for Wikipedia always. Loveforwiki (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I appreciate it can be frustrating to edit in a topic area where your views are often in the minority. If you find yourself in such a position, you'll need to come to talk pages with high-quality reliable sources (in high-profile contentious topics, scholarly sources may be needed to convince others). Using misleading edit summaries, attacking other editors (rather than focusing on content) and edit warring are incompatable with editing in a contentious area. Here, and with a previous warning [25], they do not seem interested in acknowledging fault and learning from mistakes. They continue to tag edits as minor [26] that aren't, after being asked to stop in September. Further edits outside of the field ([27]) indicate there may be a broader competence issue here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:loveforwiki: could you please answer my request to explain when you need to provide attribution in your edit summary? And explain what edit warring is (you denied you were engaged in an edit war on India before). . —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the most AGF reading of this is that there is a CIR/language issue that is making it difficult to communicate effectively instead of deliberate POV pushing. Either way, I don't think they're a positive in the topic area. For me, the question is if there is a narrow topic ban that would be effective rather than the standard IPA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're thinking about a carve-out of cinema and sport? Are they neatly separated from politics in India, or do conflicts flow over to these topics a lot? I'm open to a narrower topic ban, but I do wonder if the CIR/language issue isn't going to lead to problems elsewhere. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen there can be quite a significant amount of crossover, e.g. The Kashmir Files. This, along with few admins being very familiar with the topic, is why the topic bans in ARBIPA so often end up covering the whole kit and kaboodle. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, though in the latter case we preserve the ability for the editor to potentially edit some other area of interest instead of just revoking that possibility. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)07:15, 28 November 2024 (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.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Context: Following a content dispute whether the "Gaza genocide" should be included on the Israel article, an RfC on the topic was started on 22 November.
On 27 November, despite the ongoing RfC, User:Selfstudier added content related to the "Gaza genocide" to the article anyway. [28]
Another editor reverted the addition and requested that Selfstudier refrain from adding the disputed content while the RfC is still ongoing. [29]
A few minutes later, Selfstudier restored it anyway [30]
Selfstudier says the RfC is about the lead, not the body, but the RfC is clearly about the body too (check the text here [31]).
I contacted Selfstudier on their talk page asking them to self-revert [32] but they said this wasn't edit warring [33], asking me to re-read the RfC (which I read, and is clearly on the body too) and threatened to report me for making a 'false accusation'. Then they went on to remove our discussion from the page [34].
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.
When that suggestion was not taken up, I prepared a suitable paragraph and posted it at the RFC with the intention of adding it to the article body and which I subsequently did. Any editor could have done this at any time nor was this edit warring, as reporting editor complained of at my talk, because the material that Huldra had previously added to the article was completely different and was added to the lead not to the article body.
When my addition was reverted, I reverted on the basis that the RFC was about adding a link to the lead and not about adding relevant material to the body. Thus, I made precisely one revert, which is not edit warring. In my subsequent !vote, I then indicated option 2 and specified where in the lead the link should be placed. I didn't go ahead and add that link because from my perspective, that is what the RFC is actually about and what RFC opener had actually tried to do initially.
I have no idea what the POV pushing allegation is about, seems reporting editor is simply padding their report. If they think those accusations have any merit, then I would suggest they include them with proper evidence at the current ARBCOM case, where I am a named party. Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only going to comment on the examples given concerning previous possible POV pushing
Genocide of indigenous peoples - The first RFC results were "no consensus" with the closing words: "Our policy on WP:NOCONSENSUS provides further guidance on what to do in situations like this."WP:NOCONSENSUS says "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.", so Selfstudier was correct to revert to the status quo, which was inclusion.
I apologise for having no time right now for an indepth analysis, but when I first saw this I assumed it was Selfstudier bringing this here. So far as I know the 0revert imposed upon ABHammad by User:Barkeep49 still remains in place. Doug Wellertalk17:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree that, if ABHammad believes that this is evidence of misconduct, it should be entered as evidence at the current ArbCom case. I do not see anything of such urgency that we would need to consider stepping in rather than letting that process run its course. SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
