Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 16:58, 30 July 2013 (→Result concerning Neo.: The ban includes talk pages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Neo.

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 Neo.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Qwyrxian (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Neo. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:ARBIP

Diffs and explanations of problem

User:Darkness Shines completely transformed the article 2002 Gujarat violence from one violating multiple policies (particularly, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:BLP) into one that, while not perfect, was at least minimally compliant (see this sequence of edits). User:Neo. reverted, failing to even recognize DS's concerns, making an unfounded analogy. From that point forward (July 6), Neo and a few others began a series of "defenses" on the talk page, most of which failed to address policies, and in Neo.'s case, crossed over into tendentiousness.

The problem begins in Talk:2002 Gujarat violence#POV pushing by User:Darkness Shines, where Neo attempted to argue that WP:PRIMARY (including WP:BLPPRIMARY) don't apply here, despite the fact that they apply everywhere in Misplaced Pages (see . He goes further and says that academic sources are "academic crap" and "conspiracy theories" "written to make money". He continues to hold this position in Talk:2002 Gujarat violence#Edit request on 6 July 2013, in which he asserts that such violations are "minor problems" that Darkness Shines is using to divert admins. Later, Neo erroneously states that verified information may not be removed from an article.

On July 8, Neo added what he claimed was an RfC...but the phrasing was so extremely biased that I removed the tag and indicated that such a leading question was unacceptable.

On July 9, Neo stated that my and User:The Rahul Jain's only reason for being involved in the article was because of "prior disputes on Jainism articles"; actually, TRJ had a dispute with Neo., which I stepped into because, as with this article, Neo was attempting to keep an older version of articles that violated policies in spite of TRJ's improvements. My reason for involvement in this article was originally as an uninvolved admin responding to an edit request that I became aware of because it was discussed on a user talk page I watch. I've since explicitly stated that I consider myself WP:INVOLVED and am not taking admin actions on the article. Neo. repeated this claim on July 15.

On July 10, Neo. insinuated that RegentsPark, the previous protected admin who had protected a version resembling DS's preferred version to stop an edit war, and chose the current version as the WP:WRONGVERSION, would come back to the article again to intentionally choose DS's version to favor him.

On July 11, Neo. proposed a new change to the article, which quite obviously violated WP:NPOV, later, User:Maunus noticed (and I confirmed) that Neo was misrepresenting the sources, either through lack of comprehension or deliberate POV pushing (see Talk:2002 Gujarat violence#comments and Talk:2002 Gujarat violence#31 convicted, we know already).

During this whole shebang, Neo. filed two WP:ANI complaints. Both were dismissed as being at best a misrepresented content dispute and at worst "baseless" and WP:IDHT/WP:STICK. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive803#Admin Qwyrxian and WP:ANI#GANG on 2002 Gujarat violence. He also made similar accusations at the Noticeboard for India-related topics (see WT:INB#Wikiproject India and GANG), which included an accusation of tag-teaming, and was closed as not appropriate for the noticeboard.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on July 9 by Qwyrxian (talk · contribs)
2. User Talk:Neo.#Warning contains a series of edits by several admins about edit warring
3. Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) left the formal, templated warning on July 15

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Sandstein: The warning on July 9, left on the article's talk page, is sufficient to meet the warning requirements of sanctions; all that is requires is that editors be aware that sanctions are in place on an article, not that a personal, templated warning be left for that person specifically. There are certainly actionable diffs after the July 9 date; most notably the tendentiousness displayed in proposing and making editors waste time in arguing about a blatantly POV recommended change to the article. While article space problems are more "obvious" than talk page one's, WP:IDHT and WP:TE problems on talk pages can drive away good faith editors and be equally destructive to the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I was going to accept Sandstein's argument wrt the the warnings, as I have no problem with requiring strict adherence to rules. However, I'm worried that Neo's second statement itself is evidence that the problem has not gone away--rather, that the disruptive behavior is merely on hold while this discussion is open. To me, that statement still clearly shows errors in understanding of preferred editing behaviors, as well as still attributes unwarranted motives to myself and regentspark. So...perhaps a stern warning will do (along with some administrative watching of the talk page to ensure future behavior is acceptable)...but my experience with this type of POV pushing--so strong that the POV-pusher doesn't even realize that they're warping everything, including our policies, to try to make things conform to "the truth"--doesn't get better with time, or even with warnings. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification

Discussion concerning Neo.

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 Neo.

This whole ArbCom concept is new to me. I use mobile. Please give at least 24 hours to study this concept and write my side. Until decision is made, I will not edit any article related to Gujarat, politics or religion. Thanks. neo (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC) It would take very long and very long post if I try to analyse every edit of all users. I may left out something but let me use Occam's razor and try to be short. I will talk about things happened before yesterday's edit by User:Utcursch.

The whole argument is about whether this 'Godhra train burning' section is presenting NPOV. And I don't see it. The section begins with "was reported to have been attacked and set alight by a crowd of Muslims". Then section goes on citing Banerjee report, Hazard center report, Citizen's tribunal report, independent observers and Ainslie Embree to tell reader that the fire was an accident and muslims got nothing to do with it. Shah-Nanavati report use 'conspiracy by locals' wording, not Muslims. But as it indicate Muslim involvement, DS has done WP:SYNTHESIS in next sentence to tell reader that Shah-Nanavati commission was partial and corrupt, attempt to destroy credibility of Shah-Nanavati report. So if a school child or new reader read this section, he/she would believe that the fire on train was an accident.

To present other side of the story, i.e 'direct or alleged involvement of Muslim mob', I proposed this edit. I am dealing with 4 users single handendly. DS says out of 6 sources, 3 are primary and 1 blog but refuses to tell which. Then he goes on to say that the "locals" word cover 'muslim mob' theory. So my edit is unnecessary. I pointed out to Maunus that 2002 HRW report is already used by DS in the article and 2012 HRW article still quote 2002 report. Now Maunus is giving strange argument that as HRW report is critical of post-Godhra violence, hence I can't use that report for Godhra incident and he accuse me of "misrepresentation". Qwyrxian was silent. I forced him to comment in this section. I am attrbuting to sources with direct quotes, but he also accused me of "misrepresentation". The Rahul Jain just occasionaly drops in to 'vote' in favor of DS and goes away without any comment on my proposed edit.

The team shows extreme disliking for news or any web sources and insist on 'academic' sources. But in 'Godhra train burning' section, out of 10 sources DS has used 4 news sources to support Banerjee report, Shah-Nanavati report, Citizen's tribunal report. When it comes to supporting their POV, they do use news and web sources, but oppose by others. They discard pre-2010 sources as old and outdated, but goes on using 2002 HRW report and 2003 USCIRF report to support their POV in the article.

Initially I assumed good faith in DS and believed that the 'attack by a muslim mob' theory don't exist in his 'academic book' sources. Hence I called those books as 'crap' because I believed that those books are not telling whole story about Godhra. But now I strongly suspect that DS, Maunus and Qwyrxian are cherry picking POV contents from academic sources and as most users don't have access to his academic sources, he is getting away with it. Yesterday User:Utcursch got hold of two books and said here that DS has clearly misrepresented Ainslie Embree. I strongly suspect that 'attack by a muslim mob' theory is also discussed in his academic sources but he is making readers believe that it doesn't exist in his book sources or all books talk about only 'accident' theory as real cause.

Such tendentious behaviour, gaming the system frustrate users and severely harm quality of wikipedia. I request ArbCom to take appropriate decision to stop their disruptive behaviour. Thank you. neo (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional comment by Neo.

I am giving Human Rights Watch, United States Department of State , European Parliament, Amnesty International , Social Science Research Council, United Nations Human Rights Council , TIME magazine , Wall Street Journal as sources. I am attributing quotes to sources. I am ready to bring more hundreds of sources. But the arguments like this by Maunus that "Sources talk about attacks against muslims after Godhra, hence I can not use those sources for Godhra incident to show attack by muslims on train" and on this argument attempt to reject all thousands of sources is outragious. Making a team, inserting non-neutral contents and then forbidding any user to include other side of the story, pulling down Rfc to gag my mouth, such things are very serious matter for the wikipedia. If Admins disagree, then better to block me. I can't stand this nonsense. neo (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Was I supposed to comment on the statement of Qwyrxian or was I supposed to make statement on the issue? neo (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Neo. on Qwyrxian's statement

Much before User:Darkness Shines started replacing article, I had told him to propose his changes on article talkpage. But DS ignored it and started replacing article. I objected and told him on article talkpage to self-revert. Div999 supported DS, while me, Solomon7968, Shii raised questions. But as DS went on replacing article, I reverted all his edits except this one concerning BLPPRIMARY. It is never restored till date but Qwyrxian keep talking about it again and again. On that false assumption he reverted my edit. Qw had no idea what DS is doing, when I pointed out he did second mass revert. If there was ever BLPPRIMARY in my revert removed by DS, Qw should give diff, otherwise he should stop raising this issue again and again which potentially misguide users.

• I stand by my argument that verified contents can not be removed without explaination.

• Qw should have pointed out which sources and contents in prev version of article violate WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Qw never did, he left that job for DS and DS also never did. In fact in his second comment on talkpage Qw suggested to DS to discuss changes section by section or take Rfc. I agreed. DS disagreed. Then Qw did U turn, declared himself editor and started asking me to show what is wrong in the draft article of DS I had no access to book sources of DS and was unable to comment on whole draft article of DS in short time. Qw had suggested Rfc to DS, but instead I went for Rfc. Qw removed Rfc tag accusing me of bad behaviour citing WP:AC/DS and saying that standards are extra high for this article. But he didn't know existence of this article until a "week ago". If he have no idea about subject of the article, why he allowed replacement of whole article? He claims standards are extra high but as he had no idea about existence of the article, he never checked whether contents of DS really exists in academic books. Qw says that he might have argued to block DS before. Why suddenly blind faith in DS to allow him to replace whole article which is under WP:AC/DS? * Qw has himself said that he was not aware of existence of article. He has also said on my talkpage that he came on this article after seeing my edit request on RegentsPark talkpage. Also it can be seen from article edit history that The Rahul Jain jumped in on this article only because of me and Qw.

• My doubt about RegentsPark-DS was not unfounded. Even after ANI discussion, he protected article which had disputed contents of DS. I have no reason to believe that RegentsPark won't do it again.

• Maunus has commented only about HRW and UN source. I asked in RSN whether HRW is reliable source and am I misrepresenting. I am not misrepresenting anything.

• It can be clearly established that Qw and Rahul Jain were not on '2002 Gujarat violence' and I had prior dispute with both related to Jainism articles. There are 4.4 million articles. Now how they suddenly jumped on '2002 Gujarat violence' to support another disputing pair of DS and Maunus is mystery. If this does not fit into definition of tag team, then I retract my accusation and apologize to all concerned. neo (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark

I concur largely with Qwyrxian's analysis above so I'm not going to repeat all the diffs here but do wish to make a couple of points. Neo needs to be aware that the way Misplaced Pages works we collaborate on content. What that means is that sometimes editors may agree with each other while at other times they may disagree. However, in each instance of agreement or disagreement, the way forward is always through specific content suggestions and specific sources to back up those suggestions. Wholesale reverts with broad accusations of POV violations and/or tag teaming are not only not helpful but are also disruptive (cf. , ). Neo needs to realize that pointy RfCs, assumptions of bad faith, and large scale reverts are not the way toward becoming a useful editor on Misplaced Pages. --regentspark (comment) 15:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

@YK. Neo. reverts wholesale without discussion stuff he doesn't like (see my My two diffs above and also in Qw's statement); sees tag teaming and gangs working against him (see the edit summaries in his contributions. All signs of an editor who would rather see his or her version and nothing else. --regentspark (comment) 13:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Yogesh Khandke

(1) I agree with user:Sandstein that a content dispute has been brought to this venue, as evident from the arguments put forward by the nominator and the counter-arguments presented by Neo. (2) The revision history statistics of 2002 Gujarat violence indicate that there have been 3857 edits made by 1073 users, made over a period of almost 10 years. What kind of evidence does the nominator have in support of his claim that DS has completely transformed the article from one that had multiple issues to one that is compliant? (3) In a subject so subjective and controversial, the article would reflect the views of the consensus. Do DS's 128 edits made in 45 days, the third highest to the article, reflect respect to wp:CONSENSUS, where is the evidence that Neo's edits overturn that consensus? (4) So the nominator's claim that "There are certainly actionable diffs after the July 9 date; most notably the tendentiousness displayed in proposing and making editors waste time in arguing about a blatantly POV recommended change to the article." does not apply in Neo's case. Neo is prepared to discuss and act according to the rules as declared in his edit on "11:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)" in which he informs that he would refer the matter to DRN or RFC/U. (5) Neo is trying to discuss, he has less than 12 edits to 2002 Gujarat violence, DS has 128. RegentsParks needs to provide evidence why he considers Neo unwilling to collaborate. (6) I suggest to Neo that he ought not to use words/phrases like "nonsense" or "block me", he may consider looking at the path user:Mrt3366 had to take, he has to trust the system, there isn't anything personal against him. (7) I suggest that Neo shouldn't comment on the motivation of other editors in making edits, and not make personal comments about them. (8) There have been allegations by the nominator that edits made by Neo are actionable, evidence for the same simply indicates a content dispute, Neo has expressed willingness to set right any behavioural issues the community may find in his edits, he has demonstrated sound understanding of the principles of good editing by his statement that he would stay away from "sanction areas" pending his appeal. Administrative action on Misplaced Pages is "coercive and not punitive", I therefore do not see any reason to ban or block Neo, if any advice is necessary to be given to Neo, it may be given, Neo has demonstrated that he would take it to heart. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with user:Sitush's observations generally. However my linking to wp:CONSENSUS implies that the consensus is amongst compliant editors and not vandals or the like. Also if there is allusion to a systemic bias on his part, he has to present evidence to prove his claim. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• DS: What is the particular misrepresentation? Would you pl be specific? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• DS: There are 11 sources, you need to specify the one or two specific bad cases. Also these are content disputes? Is this the right venue? Don't we do this at DRN? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• DS: The Hindu story dt. 2005-01-23 mentions various controversies, those controversies have not been mentioned in the section, matters such as molesting a Muslim girl on the platform, accident and not sabotage. Perhaps we can have that in the section based on the Hindu story. However those speculations seem to have been overruled by the subsequent 31 convictions, 11 death sentences and 20 life terms, 63 acquittals. However this IBN source doesn't tell us that all were Muslims, we just have 4 Muslim (sounding) names. So the IBN source cannot be used for the "all Muslims" remarks. Was this IBN source related lacunae discussed on the talk page, did Neo justify this mis-representation? Please supply diff of discussion. I've checked four sources, two are used fine, there is no misrepresentation in the third, the fourth (IBN the one you didn't share) doesn't inform all were Muslims. Please supply diffs as above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• DS: Why did you remove my edit which informs that Dargah that was a syncretic place of worship? Your edit summary didn't provide any explanation. The statement I added was "The shrine was a site of syncretic worship having Hindu and Muslim followers" The source which incidentally has been used by you six times in the same articleBunsha 2006 informs us "The Rashiduddin Chisti dargah was a place of worship not only for Muslims, but also for Hindus." Why did you not use it to inform readers that the Dargah (typically of Dargahs in India, notable examples are the Khwaja Garib Nawaz dargah or the Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti darga or the Haji Ali Dargah) was a syncretic place of worship? I requested you to discuss the same on the article's talk page, why didn't you discuss? I opine that your aforementioned deletion is gross misrepresentation of the source. Is Neo dealing with such mis-representation? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• DS: I've answered your question above, as best as I could in my edit: 10:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC). Now why was the well sourced syncretic edit reverted by you without explanation? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• user:cailil: Neo is asking questions, he should be given an opportunity to understand where he was wrong and if he is prepared to improve, IMO a ban isn't necessary. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

@Yogesh, you say that In a subject so subjective and controversial, the article would reflect the views of the consensus, referring to the number of people who have edited. Not so: there is a world of difference between people who contribute to articles and people who do so in a policy-compliant manner. I suspect that there are far more Indian contributors to Misplaced Pages than there are Pakistani contributors but, regardless of that, WP:CONSENSUS favours those who comply with policy and it is the formal definition of "consensus" here. If your argument or contribution does not comply with policy then it should have no bearing on the outcome.

Articles such as the one referred to in this instance are prone to often-extreme Hindu-Islam, India-Pakistan POV-pushing and friction. That POV issue is in large part why the sanctions whose enforcement is being requested here were introduced. I have no opinion on the request itself, having deliberately tried to keep a low profile and having no desire to get sucked into yet another aspect of the increasingly disruptive "Indo-Pak", Hindu-Muslim palaver that has been getting a higher and higher profile in all the wrong places over the last few months. From my own experience of Neo. elsewhere, it does not surprise me that the behaviour has ended up here, but beyond that I really do not want to get involved. - Sitush (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into it right now but there may be some past history here. Neo has made a request at WP:BN that concerns another user account. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Darkness Shines

I have asked this question of Neo. and another editor on the talk page of the article this pertains to, as Yogesh Khandke is so sure of Neo. being neutral, tall me YK, is this within our NPOV policies? Are the sources used in that section, used correctly? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

@Yogesh Khandke: It is a simple question YK, is that section neutral? And is it an accurate reflection of the sources used in it? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

@Yogesh Khandke: You have said in your first statement "What kind of evidence does the nominator have in support of his claim that DS has completely transformed the article from one that had multiple issues to one that is compliant?" Other than the BLPPRIMARY issues and PRIMARY issues I had fixed that section is an example of what the article looked like before I rewrote the most of it. You say "Neo is trying to discuss" But he was not, his first post about my changes were an accusation of POV pushing and a demand I self revert, even though he claimed above in his initial statement that he was "AGF" of myself. His second post on my changes were to call the sources "academic crap which make up stories long after the incident." and that these academics are " conspiracy theorists tends to screw straight forward cases and publish books to earn money", even though he says above he has no access to them, and not once did he ask for quotes or clarification on the sources. Does that sound like as you say, "Neo is trying to discuss"? So onto the section, and the question nobody seems willing to respond to. Is that section written in a neutral manner? A simple yes or no will suffice for that one. And as you seem unwilling to look at the sources here are a few from that section, are these sources used correctly and in line with out NPOV policy. This is the first source used in the section The second The third Darkness Shines (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

@Yogesh Khandke: I told you in my edit summary why I reverted you, I do not want you following my edits, if you would like me to explain why this is so I will be more than happy to. You never responded to my question, was that section written in a neutral manner? And when compared to the edits I had done to bring it in line with policy then was Neo. correct to revert that work and call the sources used "academic crap"? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry YK, do you in fact wish for me to expand upon why I do not want you to follow my edits? And still no, you have not responded to the question, you have in fact skirted around it. Let me put it in very plain language, was neo with the full stop correct in his assertion that the sources used were "academic crap" and was he correct to edit war over the changes? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Neo.

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

Neo., to clarify, this is not a hearing by the Arbitration Committee, but a request to administrators like me to take action under the Committee's delegated authority, see WP:AC/DS.

I don't readily see anything actionable in this submission, or to convince me that this is not mainly a content dispute. The warning allowing us to impose discretionary sanctions was issued on 15 July. Anything earlier is not actionable in the context of this forum in my view. And there is no later dated diff in the evidence submission. Additionally, writing poor-quality content (not that I say that this has necessarily happened here) or making mistaken arguments in discussions is not a violation of Misplaced Pages's conduct policies, and therefore not in and of itself sanctionable.

But writing non-neutral and unverifiable content is, as is engaging in personal attacks. Neo. should take care in the future to adhere to all important policies as outlined at WP:5P, and not make sweeping accusations of misconduct without adequate evidence. The countercomplaint by Neo. is too confused and insufficiently supported by evidence (in the form of explained diffs!) to be actionable at first glance.  Sandstein  21:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, the July 9 warning is not sufficient, because WP:AC/DS#Warnings requires that the warning include "a link to the decision authorizing sanctions", which that warning did not.  Sandstein  23:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Sandstein, but this objection is really an extreme form of rules-lawyering formalism. The warning contained a link to WP:Discretionary sanctions, which in itself documents an arbcom decision "authorizing sanctions", describing the nature of discretionary sanctions and listing, with links, all the individual arb cases. That is at least as authoritative and as informative (if not more) than a direct link to the original case page, and is more than enough to fulfill both the letter and – more importantly – the spirit of the formal rule. I haven't yet looked at all the evidence presented above, but I'm certainly not going to look at it with an artifical cutoff date of 15 July in mind, unless there is positive evidence that he has significantly improved his conduct after that date (as opposed to just accidentally not producing new egregious cases of misconduct). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you may do as you wish, but I prefer to err on the side of caution when determining whether enforcement authority exists. The problem is that WP:DS is not a decision authorizing sanctions; the individual case decisions do that.  Sandstein  18:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned that July 9th warning IS sufficient, so I agree with Future Perfect. Such a warning has been good enough historically. If there had been a talk page template that would have been enough (for me now and again has been historically). Given that the message on the talk page was directly to Neo, I see it serving the same purpose as a formalized warning.
  On a first look at the evidence there is either a WP:COMPETENCE or tendentiousness issue here with Neo. There have been enough administrative warnings here from multiple uninvolved sysops. And Neo has been casting aspersions wildly. Some sort of restriction is in order here, at least to point Neo in the right direction or to let him learn elsewhere (in other topics) how to behave on WP. I'd be considering a 1 month page ban. But I'm open to suggestion either to be more or less harsh--Cailil 22:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've looked over this again and remain of the opinion that Neo should at least be page banned. The warnings were clear - the reaction was wildly inappropriate. I've asked Future Perfect to review his comment above as I would another opinion before acting--Cailil 17:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• In a comment at Future Perfect's talk page, Neo. said that he would refrain from editing anything about religion or politics in Gujarat until a decision was reached here. That wording sounds like a good description of the area of trouble. I recommend that Neo. be placed under a three-month topic ban from religion and politics in Gujarat due to his apparent misunderstanding of how Misplaced Pages policy applies to controversial articles. The worst diff (among those listed above) is probably the one about 'academic crap.' The fact that Neo. seems to not fully understand what's going on here doesn't work in his favor. I notice that another admin (above) proposed a one-month page ban instead, but I doubt the value of such a short ban. If you feel that three months isn't justified, consider closing this complaint with just a warning. EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Ed the wider scope will help reduce spill over from this conflict elsewhere. Support 3 month ban from "anything about religion or politics in Gujarat" broadly construed--Cailil 23:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Closing: User:Neo. is banned for three months from anything about religion or politics in Gujarat, broadly construed. The ban covers all pages of Misplaced Pages including talk. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Second arbitration enforcement action appeal by TheShadowCrow