Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:11, 28 April 2021 editYmblanter (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators269,259 edits →Result concerning Race and Intelligence← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:14, 12 January 2025 edit undoVanamonde93 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators80,499 edits →Statement by Vanamonde: re DQ, not meant as a criticismTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}} <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}}
{{Redirect|WP:AE|the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae|MOS:LIGATURE|the automated editing program|WP:AutoEd}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!-- __NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!--
--><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly> --><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly>
Line 6: Line 5:
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K |archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 284 |counter =347
|minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(14d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}} }}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}


==PerspicazHistorian==
==Pkeets==
{{hat|{{u|PerspicazHistorian}} is blocked indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC) }}
{{hat|While AE isn't a consensus board, sometimes consensus is helpful. I see this as a '''"no consensus"''' case, and after a long enough delay, I'm closing as such. {{u|Pkeets}}, I will give two informal (unlogged) warnings. 1. This case proves that good, experienced admin can disagree on what the outcome of a case should be, all in good faith. In this case, some want an indefinite topic ban, others want no sanction. Most of the time, policy is very clear, but less so here. Admin are authorized to act without conensus at AE, we are given that authority, but generally work well with each other. The next time you are in a similar situation, you may be subject to a single admin who may see things differently, which could have a very different outcome. Warning 2. You need to be careful in how you question sources. Really, the proper place is generally WP:RSN, but they aren't going to kick out CNN, you have to be realistic. You would do good to pick your battles, and then make sure you don't actually battle when you raise the issue, but continue to be respectful and provide solid reasoning, with links. Questioning sources that are generally considered reliable, can be irritating to people; it seems a waste of their time. That isn't a policy violation by itself if done from time to time. If you do so continuously, in a way that inteferes with normal article editing, then that is a violation of ], and you WILL be sanctioned, without question. Some feel you already crossed that line, others do not. That should tell you that you need to tread carefully. This doesn't mean you are blameless, it only means there are legitimate disagreements about your conduct. ] - ] 00:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning Pkeets=== ===Request concerning PerspicazHistorian===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|RandomCanadian}} 01:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC) ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Pkeets}}<p>{{ds/log|Pkeets}}</p> ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|PerspicazHistorian}}<p>{{ds/log|PerspicazHistorian}}</p>
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
# Questioning the reliability of well established sources,...
#] and ] ...seemingly based on one "source" known for spreading disinformation
#
#
# ...and making vexatious RSN filings.
*All seem to indicate that this user has not heeded the concerns expressed previously about their behaviour in this topic area and that they are still intent on ] their own views on the topic and engaging in trolling and posts of a purely disruptive nature.

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
# by {{u|Drmies}} pursuant ]

;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
#,
# by {{u|Drmies}} pursuant ] and ].

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
The most appropriate course of action, given that the memo apparently hasn't gotten through after three months and that their recent edits are even more egregious, would be an indefinite topic ban from the subject area. ] (] / ]) 01:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
*{{ping|Atsme}} The problem isn't Pkeets opinion. The problem is their disruptive tendency to promote such opinion without regard, rather, yea, blatant disdain, for reliable sources (going so far as to make vexatious RSN filings). Prior topic bans are entirely relevant, as they show the editor was informed by the community of an issue with their editing, and, apparently, they have decided to disregard such community input and instead persist in their ways: a behaviour clearly incompatible with the project of a collaborative encyclopedia. ] (] / ]) 00:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
**@Atsme: the issue is that the editor is using an unreliable, biased, known for fabricating disinformation source (] - known for publishing misleading videos, getting caught red-handed ''by the WaPo'' trying to fabricate a story, etc... - in short, entirely unacceptable for any and all kinds of factual information: ] seems to contain far more than enough for this) and using that to question the reliability of well established sources (seemingly because they are biased? - ignoring the wolf in the room that PV is solidly far-right...). The reports at RSN were vexatious and meritless (based on the same creation by PV), and this is clearly part of an existing pattern of behaviour about american politics for which they've already been sanctioned and are not stopping. ] (] / ]) 03:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
***@Dennis: Disagree that this is just "annoying" and a matter for ANI. There's a difference between legitimate concerns about reliability of sources and making an overblown case based on an entirely unreliable, poor, partisan source (they're not even subtle about it - the headers of the RSN section are clear enough on this one) and personal opinion (stuff like ; see also the analysis of Peeks wild speculation based on "fantasy" ). The first is a regular and totally acceptable practice. The second shows not even a lack of comprehension of our policies, but a blatant disdain for them. ] (] / ]) 01:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<span class="nowrap">]&nbsp;'''Done'''</span><!--template:done--> ] (] / ]) 01:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

===Discussion concerning Pkeets===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Pkeets====
Since suspension lapsed, I have made only good faith posts about issues I feel are important and supported these appropriately. I have made no changes to actual articles, but only made polite recommendations on various talk pages. Besides this Request, I notice that some editors have been changing my posts and then making raucous comments. I'm wondering when this kind of harassment became acceptable at Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 02:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by GorillaWarfare (Pkeets)====
(Posting here and not below as my editing interests overlap with Pkeets' somewhat substantially).

I have seen Pkeets cross my watchlist a few times recently and thought "aren't they topic banned from AP?" only to remember that their previous topic-ban was time-limited. I almost filed this myself last night after seeing their comments at ] (which, as I mentioned above, is a bit of a nightmare right now), but didn't have the energy for it. It's pretty clear that they treated their topic ban as a timeout after which they could return to their previous behavior, and didn't actually learn or change their approach. Their goals here seem to be pushing the things they read in unreliable, hyper-partisan sources, and attempting to reject the sources that are generally considered reliable on Misplaced Pages in talk page comments <s>without actually beginning any discussions at RSN</s>. Edit: Oh dear, I see they've actually begun to start discussions at RSN. While this is generally the advice that I give for people who object to RSP consensus, they're arguing from the basis of Project Veritas' "exposés". That's... arguably worse than not beginning the discussions at all. The AP topic ban should be indefinite.

I would also like to echo my above about the difficulties at the PV talk page, if any uninvolved admin has ideas for how to improve things there. ]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 01:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
:{{re|Pkeets}} Is this accusation of harassment referring to ]'s of your two sections at RSN? What is the "raucous" comment? Their edit summary was "merging sections by same OP" and they left no further comment in their edit, so I assume it wasn't that. ]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 02:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

:{{ping|Atsme}} Just wanted to double check: is it possible you misread Thryduulf's comment? The rest of your comment makes me think you probably do not agree with his inclination: "I'm not seeing any reason '''not''' ​to impose an indefinite AP2 topic ban" (emphasis added). It goes without saying, I think, that I disagree with your characterization of my and other commenters' attitude toward "the opposition". I regularly collaborate with people on this project who hold opposing views from my own; I am here advocating for a topic ban not because of Pkeets' political views, but because of their persistent attempts to flout the project's policies and guidelines for ] purposes, which a three-month-long topic ban did not address. It's not bad faith to bring up a previous, recent topic ban in this exact topic area for this exact type of behavior. ]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 00:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by Drmies====
I was alerted by {{U|Orangemike}}, who on Pkeets' claim that CNN was claimed to be unreliable based on some Veritas video. The "raucous comment" is probably (they're conflating me and RandomCanadian, I think)--I didn't merge the sections, but "Recommend reducing reliability rating of the NY Times and Washington Post over repeated failure to verify reports" is indeed presumptuous since "repeated failure etc." is hardly a fact, yet it is stated as one; I assume Orangemike's cn tag pointed at the same thing. In my edit summary I indicated why I thought their comment (another indictment of the NYT) was a forum post--and that is precisely why I think we should go for a longer topic ban.<p>I didn't impose one myself, since I couldn't find the energy to do it, and log it, etc., and I figured that since the last one came from an ANI discussion it would not be a bad idea to have this one not be imposed by one administrator, especially since I think this one should be longer. And I asked RandomCanadian to file this since they need the practice. ] (]) 02:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by Orangemike ====
Pkeets persists in disingenuous insistence that they are just raising questions of reliability, when what they are doing is trying to argue that two of the most reliable sources in North America have been "exposed" by a fraudulent operation run by a notorious conman specializing in deceptive editing of recorded images. Obviously, they understand nothing of why they were topic-banned before. How long do we have to tolerate this nonsense? --] &#124; ] 03:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by Hemiauchenia====
Pkeets seems to have not learned their lesson from their prior temporary topic ban, and has subsequently engaged in similar behaviour to what got {{u|Yurivict}} indefinitely topic banned ]. ] (]) 11:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by Atsme====
I reviewed the evidence, and did not find anything that Pkeets did that could be considered non-compliant with WP:PAG. I'm also of the mind that bringing up a prior t-ban is being misused by <sup>some editors who represent</sup> the opposition to gain advantage and amplify the obvious lack of a smoking gun; it has a chilling effect. Yes, mud sticks and ] is real, but each t-ban case is different; therefore, using a wide-sweeping net as a catch-all to rid a topic area of opposition is not what I would consider to be the original intent of DS/AE. Having an opposing view is not automatically considered disruption, I hope. <s>I agree with Thryduulf, and commend his ability to review this discussion without prejudice.</s> <sup>Sincerest apologies, I misread Thryduulf's comment. Thank you for pointing that out, GW.</sup> The AP topic area has become quite foreboding, and that is not how it should be in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. What I've witnessed, and have inadvertently become the target of, is that any editor who dares express an opposing view is targeted, threatened, chastised and typically ends up here. For whatever reason, there appears to be an imbalance that negatively affects editors whose views doesn't align with the ]; the latter has even been pointed out in mainstream media. If we keep up this pace of opposition elimination, who among us will be left to represent the other significant views in order to achieve NPOV in our articles? As I've mentioned in some of the discussions at ], something needs to change, and what we're seeing in this particular case certainly supports that view. ] ] ] 23:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC) <sup>Correction added 00:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)</sup><br/>

*{{u|GorillaWarfare}}, thank you for pointing out my mistake, and accept my apologies because I did not intend to imply that all editors misuse prior t-bans to gain advantage. I am guilty of letting a recent incident color my POV but I am now in a much better frame of mind. (Oh, and I had my first COVID vaccine 8 days ago, and have experienced some strange side effects but I'm working through it). Following are my views on the diffs synced numerically:
#Innocuous - I don't see anything noncompliant about questioning the NYTimes, especially in today's online clickbait environment. I think it's commendable to be cautious because there are instances where a news source is considered a primary source, which means we should find better 2ndary sources, problem with that is the 2ndary sources tend to use the primary as their source (like a wire service), so we have to reach outside the echo chamber. Our pool of resources is shrinking.
#Innocuous discussions on article TPs: Project Veritas - CNN issue - rather brief and nothing that I would consider disruption or tendentious editing. Was the Project Veritas video proven to be fake - is that the issue - that he's POV pushing a fake video? That diff didn't tell me much.
#Innocuous - (March WP:RSN - WaPo & CNN) he made a suggestion - & not the first editor to make such a suggestion. I subscribe to WaPo and I'm very concerned about some of their reporting, but that's what RSN is for - to get input and discuss whether a source is reliable for citing material we want to include - context matters.
#Innocuous - WaPo and NYTimes (April WP:RSN) - another suggestion by the editor. I am aware of some pretty big errors by both publications, some of which have come to light rather recently. Our first red flag is to be cautious about the use of anonymous sources, and if my memory serves that was part of the issues that came to light recently.
#Innocuous - CNN - Proj Veritas - (April WP:RSN) - RSN is a noticeboard and that's where we go to discuss sources, express our concerns, ask questions, seek input, and present arguments - why on earth would we want to t-ban an editor for doing that? I am judging the provided diffs only - I don't know this editor so I want make that clear. Perhaps different diffs would have told a different story. ] ] ] 02:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
*Qualifying my statement about not knowing this editor: I meant that the editor is not someone I collaborate with, or remember collaborating with; however, I just now discovered that I supported . {{u|RandomCanadian}}, I just now saw your ping, and I certainly understand your concerns. You need diffs that clearly support your allegation, but the diffs you provided don't support it. You said he's made vexatious filings at RSN - there's currently a serious discussion about WaPo on RSN right now, so how can we say his suggestion was vexatious? We tend to be annoyed by things that don't align with our POV, but that's not a reason to t-ban someone. That's more like an excuse. Provide more substantive diffs and let's go from there. I supported his last t-ban because there was strong reason to, but I'm not seeing it now. ] ] ] 04:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
*My final comment, so please don't ping me: I can certainly understand an admin action for edit-warring, beligerence, cursing, vandalism, relentlessly adding WP:OR, but that's not what I'm seeing here. Why are we silencing editors with t-bans for simply expressing a perspective or POV that doesn't align with the prevailing view in a discussion? Are we now considering disagreement to be disruption? Are we silencing editors for criticizing our favorite news sources - the ones that align with our POV? Doesn't that conflict with NPOV? Can someone point me to the ArbCom ruling, or policy that justifies such an action along the line of ''An editor cannot criticize a RS'' - does such a ruling or policy exist? I'm not saying it's being done in this case, but it has happened so I don't doubt that any one of us can assemble a large group of innocuous diffs against our opposition, present them out of context, prepend them with our own opinions that align with the prevailing view, and give the appearance that the editor is disruptive and actually make it stick. Throw them some rope, and dare them to express their POV again. But I thought AE is supposed to be where ArbCom decisions are enforced. My pragmatic style of thinking needs something concrete that actually demonstrates disruptive behavior, not just an opposing POV or a suggestion to open a discussion about a RS. I never imagined that to be an actionable offense. I realize it's probably suicide to criticize the home team when you're sitting in their bleachers{{stretch}}, and isn't that kinda what's happening here? I'm certainly willing to change my position with some hard evidence of disruption that supports the allegations presented by the OP. I also hope someone can help me understand why our NPA policy states very clearly: {{xt|Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions.}} We don't have to agree with Pkeets, or his views, much less like them, but we are obligated to leave our biases at login and at least consider them, are we not? News sources are not subject to WP:MEDRS, and we're not using them to write medical articles; this is all politically based. We cannot deny the fact that news articles, most of which are available online, are provided to us courtesy of capitalism; thus the new clickbait media environment. Many news sources, including WaPo, are now either owned by big conglomerates, or the very wealthy, like ] who News sources should remain open to criticism and scrutiny by WP editors whose job it is to exercise sound editorial judgment when citing RS. ] ] ] 12:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

==== Statement by MastCell ====
I kind of get the people who are saying we shouldn't punish Pkeets for just asking questions about sources. But I have to tell you that it is ''exhausting'' to deal with people who constantly raise frivolous objections to and try to undermine clearly reliable sources on these political articles. These people are poison to any attempt to cover a contentious, nuanced topic. It's like trying to write about linear algebra and constantly having to deal with people arguing that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.{{pb}}The ''New York Times'', ''Washington Post'', CNN, etc have been discussed to death at ], and they are clearly and unarguably considered reliable by the community. Of course anyone can question that consensus, but a serious good-faith effort to reassess their reliability doesn't look anything like .{{pb}}Regardless of personal political views, as Wikipedians we need to accept the community's judgment on source reliability or try to change it. Pkeets clearly isn't willing to accept it. As to whether his efforts to ''change'' consensus are serious and thoughtful, or partisan and disruptive, well... I guess that's the question. And yes, continually trying to undermine reliable sources without any sort of compelling argument is, ultimately, disruptive.{{pb}}(For that matter, it's also disruptive to routinely and reflexively attack the motives of people filing complaints, and to claim without ''any'' evidence that they're trying to "silence the opposition" etc. Noticeboard misuse is a real thing, but these are unsupported accusations and assumptions of bad faith which violate our behavioral standards and degrade discourse.) ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 17:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

===Result concerning Pkeets===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*Looking at what is presented here and having seen the discussions at RSN, I'm not seeing any reason not to impose an indefinite AP2 topic ban. ] (]) 14:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
**DGG: We absolutely should not remove minority opinions from discussions for being in a minority, however we should remove users who are disrupting discussions regardless of what opinions they are expressing. I see this a being a very clear case of the latter. ] (]) 11:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
*I'm not in favor of imposing an indefinite ban from AP for such relative mild disruption as this which is mostly on WP and WT pages. . Arguing over a source is engaged in by everyone in the area, and I think it essential to NPOV that we do not remove minority opinions from our discussions. ''']''' (]) 04:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
**I watch discussions there, tho I rarely participate in those that involve politics, just those involving academics. I have seen a considerable amount of repeated argument from each side iat RSN, or politics and other topics too, because otherwise most cases would not get there. I do not think any of it amounts to disruption, but if it did, I have seen it from each side. I do not think pkeets hs been more disruptive than others. If anything, in order to maintain balance, we should have ''more'' tolerance for those who express minority opinions. As Dennis says below, the material does annoy those on the other side. I don't see that as disruptive, but as a n inevitable part of the procedure there. The desire here for drastic penalties for minor offenses tends to confirm my opinion about selective enforcement. ''']''' (]) 23:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
*I think a long-term (at least a year) is warranted. While the talkpage comments could be viewed as only mild disruption, they are not a first offence and the fact that they were done after a topic ban had already been served suggests that GW's comments about the previous ban being a timeout after which they could return to previous behaviour is accurate. ] ]] 11:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
* If we are going to do a year t-ban, it should be indef. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
*I began reviewing the evidence when I commented on the discussion below, but was called away. I concur with my colleagues who have commented since that a TBAN is required. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, nor is it a debate forum. Opinions, whether majority or minority, need to be based in policy, or they are detrimental to our project. Pkeets seems to believe that basing their opinions in policy is optional. If there was a way to implement a TBAN from a narrow set of topics (US media, perhaps?) I would slightly prefer that, but would not strongly oppose an AP2 TBAN. I don't think this TBAN should be time-limited; as I've said elsewhere, time-limited TBANS are rarely useful. I would make it indefinite, appealable in 3 or 6 months. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 17:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
*Indef topic ban seems overkill here. What he's doing is certainly annoying <s>and to a degree, disruptive,</s> but not something we would normally take such drastic measures for. This seems more of an ANI issue than AE. ] - ] 19:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
::The more I look at this, the more I'm against sanctions. I struck a bit of my comment above as well. It may be inconvenient for someone to distrust certain media outlets, and I don't agree with all his conclusions, but it isn't stopping work from getting done, it isn't warring over content, nor anything that is really disruptive. In short, it doesn't really belong here. I didn't just close it because it would end up here again. I think the solution is for people to be a little more tolerant of different opinions so long as those opinions aren't really getting in the way of consensus building. ] - ] 04:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
*I don't help out much at ARE but I do read over cases and just wanted to comment that it is an unfortunate situation that any editor would be labeled "the opposition" based on their political point-of-view. I think this must be an attitude is held by some editors working in the field of American politics but rarely stated so bluntly. While disruption is unacceptable, hashing out disagreements is what noticeboards and talk pages are for. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
*I'm also not seeing it here, and would not sanction at this point. This editor is not edit warring, and is bringing up suggestions in regards to consideration of reliable sources and inclusion or exclusion of material in an article. Certainly, we should not hesitate to periodically reevaluate whether sources we have found to be reliable in the past still are; that can change and in some cases has. I am not seeing evidence of deliberate disruption, and just putting forth a position or proposal that doesn't ultimately gain consensus is not in and of itself disruption. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
{{hab}}

==Plebian-scribe==
{{hat|] is indefinitely topic-banned from American politics, ] is indelinitely extended confirmed protected. I do not see any consensus to protect the talk page--] (]) 18:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>

===Request concerning Plebian-scribe===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Newslinger}} 13:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Plebian-scribe}}<p>{{ds/log|Plebian-scribe}}</p>
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# - removed "discrimination" sidebar from the page of ] (fascist ideology) even though the sidebar was inserted inside a section, not even the lead.
# ]; ]
# - tag bombed the highly vetted ] article without any discussion or reason
#: ] to add {{xt|"]"}} to the ] article, without citing a source or providing an edit summary.
# - attributing castes to people withhout any sources
# ]; ]; ]
# - edit warring to impose the above edits after getting
#: Edit warring to delete {{!xt|"(a ] hate group founded by McInnes)"}} or {{!xt|"(a ], ], ], ] organization founded by McInnes)"}}, along with cited reliable source, from the ] article against talk page consensus without an edit summary. Deleted text refers to the ].
# - just like above, but this time he also added unreliable sources
# ]; ]
# - still edit warring and using edit summaries instead of talk page for conversation
#: Edit warring to delete {{!xt|"]"}} and {{!xt|"]"}} from the ] article. At the time of editing, these edits contravened the RfC result on the talk page at {{slink|Special:Permalink/1016536874#Questioning the sourcing on "white nationalist"}}.
# - filed an outrageous report on WP:ANI without notifying any editors. This report was closed by Bbb23 as "{{tq|This is nothing but a malplaced, frivolous personal attack by the OP.}}"
# ]; ]; ]; ]; ]
#: Edit warring to add {{xt|"Minnesota Attorney General ] drew criticism after posing with the book in a now deleted twitter post in January 2018. Ellison’s post said the book should 'strike fear into the heart' of President Donald Trump."}} in the '']'' article. Only the ], edit used an edit summary, and it contained a ]: {{xt|"added Keith Ellisons endorsement of the book which keeps getting taken down by trolls."}}
# ]
#: Deletion of {{!xt|"]"}} and {{!xt|"]"}} from the ] article against talk page consensus in <s>ongoing RfC at {{slink|Talk:Enrique Tarrio#Lead sentence}}</s> {{slink|Talk:Enrique Tarrio/Archive 1#Verified references support description in lead of Proud Boys as neo-fascist organization}}. {{small|Fixed link —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 06:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)}}
# ]
#: Deletion of {{!xt|"]"}}, along with 14 cited reliable sources, from the ] article against talk page consensus without an edit summary.

;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
*Already 2 blocks in last 4 months for edit warring.
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
: Among ], 17 of them (47%) have been reverted as unconstructive.


I do not see any positive signs that this editor will ever improve. So far he has only regressed. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
* ]


:While going through this report, PerspicazHistorian has made another highly problematic edit by edit warring and misrepresenting the sources to label the organisation as "terrorist". This primary source only provides a list of organisations termed by the Indian government as "terrorist" contrary to ]. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 03:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


*PerspicazHistorian is still using sources (see ]) and wishing to move ] to ] which is a blatant POV. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 04:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
===Discussion concerning Plebian-scribe===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Plebian-scribe====


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
====Statement by GorillaWarfare (Plebian-scribe)====
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
It's worth pointing out that all three requests on this page at the moment (Vojtaruzek, Pkeets, and Plebian-scribe) involve disruption at ] and its talk page. Please consider some kind of page-level restrictions for the talk page, which has been the location of most of it. See my . ]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 16:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
:{{re|Vanamonde93}} EC2 protection for the article might make sense, which I assume is what you mean (rather than EC2 for the talk page). But the real issue, in my view, is the talk page. I'm not certain what the best remedy would be, but it feels like something needs to be done—I am generally very hesitant to semiprotect talk pages personally, but maybe that would help? ]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 13:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
::{{re|Vanamonde93}} Fair enough, I'll give that a shot. I've often found NOTFORUM reverting ends in obnoxious edit wars, particularly on these kind of pages where the editors are prone to feeling that they are being "censored by leftists", but it's worth a try I suppose. ]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 16:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Four requests now, with the addition of the Airpeka request below... Also worth noting here for posterity that ] ] for two weeks, I think as an unrelated action from any specific request here. ]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 17:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
====Statement by RandomCanadian====
:Totally uninterested in the rest of this, but just to clarify {{ping|GorillaWarfare}}: it was per (my) request at RFPP. ] (] / ]) 18:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


===Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian ===
====Statement by PaleoNeonate====
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
There indeed appears to be an ongoing campaign there and I also think temporary talk page protection would be a good idea. As for Plebian-scribe their edit history is not very encouraging but their ] followed by a pause seems to somewhat offset it. It may be a little early for an American Politics topic ban but I predict it'll soon be necessary if they're not careful... —]] – 02:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


====Statement by PerspicazHistorian ====
===Result concerning Plebian-scribe===
*By far I am also concerned how my edits were forcefully reverted without a proper reason despite providing enough references. Please check how I am getting attacked by them on ] Page.
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
I didn't know about the three-revert-rule before ] told me about this: ].
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
Please grant me one more chance, I will make sure not to edit war.<br>
*On the face of it an AP2 topic-ban seems necessary. However, this is a new user, who has so far refused to communicate in a reasonable way; so I'm wondering whether a mainspace partial-block, as a normal admin action, may be more useful. {{U|GorillaWarfare}} I'm seeing disruption from newish accounts, and would consider EC-protection justified; but were you asking for something more? <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 02:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
*In the below statement by LukeEmily, As a reply I just want to say that I was just making obvious edit on ] by adding a list of notable people with proper references. And according to ] it is clearly said: "Edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism." It was a good faith edit but others reverted it. I accept my mistake of not raising it on talk page as a part of ].<br>
*:{{re|GorillaWarfare}} I'm not sure protecting the talk page is the way to go. Several posts there are vexatious, certainly, but over the last 100 edits I'm only seeing a handful that would have been addressed by semi-protection. Several of those posts fall afoul of NOTFORUM, and could be be removed with no response beyond stating that fact. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 14:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
*As a clarification to my edit on ], it can be clearly seen that I provided enough reference to prove its a terrorist organisation as seen in this . I don't know why is there a discussion to this obvious edit? Admins please correct me if I am wrong.
*::{{re|GorillaWarfare}} That's a reasonable concern, but I think a talk page protection could be justified far more easily if that sort of thing happens. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 16:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
:@], Yes I read about 1RR and 0RR revert rules in ]. I now understand the importance of raising the topic on talk page whenever a consensus is needed. Thank You ! ] (]) 07:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*Since Vanamonde's comment, Plebian-scribe asked Newslinger where they could raise concerns and was told to participate here. I was hoping to see a response from Plebian-scribe before commenting here, but it seems unlikely to happen at this point. If nothing changes in the next 24 hours I think this should be closed as an AP2 topic ban. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 05:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
::Yes, I will commit to that. ] (]) 13:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) <small>Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC) </small>
{{hab}}
:At that time I was new to how AFD discussions worked. Later on when ] was marked for deletion, I respected the consensus by not interfering in it. The article was later deleted. ] (]) 11:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*Hi @] , I just checked your user page. You have 16 years (I am 19) of experience on wiki, you must be right about me. I agree that my start on Misplaced Pages has been horrible, but I am learning a lot from you all. I promise that I will do better, get more neutral here and contribute to the platform to my best. Please don't block me.
::''<small>P.S.- I don't know If I will be blocked or what , according to this enforcement rules, I just want to personally wish good luck to you for your ongoing cancer treatments, You will surely win this battle of Life. Regards.</small>'' ] (]) 12:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)<small>Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section.] (]) 15:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small>


*1) I just asked an user @] if the page move is possible. What's wrong with it? I still have not considered putting a move request on talk page of article.
{{ping|Ymblanter}} Just a quick clarifying question on your close: the talk page is currently semiprotected until May 5, as the result of an RfPP request. Do you just mean there's no consensus to change or extend that existing protection? ]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 19:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
: {{ping|GorillaWarfare}} This is indeed what I mean. After May 5, if disruption continues, a new RFPP request can be filed.--] (]) 19:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC) :2) Many of other sources are not raj era. Moreover I myself have deleted the content way before you pointing this out. Thank You ! ] (]) 06:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::even @] is seen engaged in edit wars before on contentious Indian topics. ] (]) 06:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks! ]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 19:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
:::as mentioned by @] before, <sub>Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here</sub>. You can discuss content related topics on talk pages of articles rather than personally targeting a user here in enforcement. ] (]) 06:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@] I once filed a to find it @] is a sock (out of a misunderstanding, as all were teamed up similarly on various pages). I think he felt it as a personal attack by me and filed this request for enforcement. Please interfere. ] (]) 06:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC) <small>moving to correct section ] (]) 13:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</small>


*Hi @] @], In my defense I just want to say that
==François Robere==
:1)Yes I usually edit on RSS related topics, but to ensure a democratic view is maintained as many socks try to disrupt such articles. Even on ] page, I just edited on request of talk page and added a graph. I don't think its a POV push.
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
:2) My main interest in editing is ] and ] topics.
:3)There have been certain cases in past where I was blocked but if studied carefully they were result of me edit warring with socks(although, through guidance of various experienced editors and admins I learnt a SPI should be filed first). I have learnt a lot in my journey and there have been nearly zero case of me of edit warring this month.
:Please do not block me. ] (]) 14:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*@] I beg apologies for the inconvenience caused, thanks for correcting me. I will now reply in my own statement section. @] I am a quick learner and professionally competent to edit in this encyclopedic space. Please consider reviewing this enforcement if its an counter-attack on me as mentioned in my previous replies. You all are experienced editors and I have good faith in your decision-making capability.] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*@]@] I have edited content marked as "original research" and "mess" by you, I am ready to help removing any content that might be considered "poorly sourced" by the community. Please don't block me.] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*@] This enforcement started for edit-warring and now I feel its more concerned to my edited content(which I agree to cooperate and change wherever needed). After learning about edit wars, there has been no instance of me edit-warring, Please consider my request.--] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@] I am not a slow learner, I understand the concerns of all admins here. I will try my best to add only reliable sources, and discuss content in all talk pages, as I already mentioned ]. ] (]) 12:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@]@] I think admins should focus more on encouraging editors when they do good and correct when mistaken. I have made many edits, added many citations and created much articles which use fine citations. The enforcement started out of retaliation by nxcrypto, now moving towards banning me anyways. I started editing out of passion, and doing it here on wiki unlike those who come here just for pov pushes and disrupt article space(talking about socks and vandalizers on contentious Indian topics).
*::The article ] doesn't only has issue on citations, but the whole article is copypasted from the citations I added. I just wanted to point that out. Remaining about ], I am currently pursuing Btech in cs from IIT delhi, idt I am a slow learner by any means. Still, happy new year to all ! ] (]) 14:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::@] You mean to say, "<sub>The ''prasada'' is to be consumed by attendees as a holy offering. The offerings may include cooked food, ] and confectionery sweets. Vegetarian food is usually offered and later distributed to the devotees who are present in the ]. Sometimes this vegetarian offering will exclude prohibited items such as garlic, onion, mushroom, etc. "</sub> is not copy pasted by website? Is this also a wiki mirror website? How would you feel if I doubt your competence now? ] (]) 14:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::@ ] I just asked others to share their opinion in the enforcement. With all due respect, I don't think its wrong in any sense. ] (]) 15:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::To all the admins involved here,
*:::::* I agree to keep learning and apologize if my previous edits/replies have annoyed the admins.
*:::::* I have not edit warred since a month and please see it as my willingness to keep learning and getting better.
*:::::*Please give me a chance, I understand concern of you all and respect your opinion in the matter. But please don't block me from editing from main article space. I promise that I will abide by all the rules and will learn from other editors.
*:::::] (]) 15:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by LukeEmily====
===Request concerning François Robere===
PerspicazHistorian also violated ] by engaging in an edit war with {{u|Ratnahastin}} who reverted his edits and restored an article to a stable version by admin. Also, I want to assume good faith but it is surprising that PerspicazHistorian claims that he did not know the three revert rule given that he has more than 800 edits.] (])
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|GizzyCatBella}} 00:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


====Statement by Doug Weller====
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|François Robere}}<p>{{ds/log|François Robere}}</p>
I'm involved so just commenting. I don't think this editor is competent. I had to give them a community sanction caste warning as they were making a mess of castes. See this earlier version of their talk page.]https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:PerspicazHistorian&oldid=1262289249] and ]'s comment that "It was very unwise of you to keep moving ] to article space when it has not passed review. As a direct result of your actions, a deletion discussion is taking place, and when this is complete and the article is deleted, you will be prevented from recreating it. ] (]) 14:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)" There have also been copyright issues. I strongly support a topic ban. ] ] 11:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


:::I won't be involved in the decision. No more treatments for me, just coast until... ] ] 12:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced:
Sanction under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision - interaction ban with GizzyCatBella


====Statement by Toddy1====
This is another editor who appears to have pro-] (RSS) and pro-] (BJP) views. I dislike those views, but find it rather alarming that Misplaced Pages should seek to censor those views, but not the views of the political opponents. Imagine the outrage if we sought to topic-ban anyone who expressed pro-] views, but allowed ] to say whatever they liked.


A lot of pro-RSS/BJP editors turn out to be sock-puppets, so please can we do a checkuser on this account. And to be even-handed, why not checkuser NXcrypto too.
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it:


1- Referred to me in their post on the Arbitration page --> (''{{tq|...in June another one was blocked (the imposing admin, who was knee-deep in the TA, has since been desysopped... in August an I-ban was imposed between three editors...}}'') diff - If we want to talk about ] when editors make mistakes, look at the diff given by NXcrypto for "Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested" - it is the wrong diff. He/she did notify PerspicazHistorian - but the correct diff is .


A topic ban from Indian topics would be unhelpful, unless given to both parties. Misplaced Pages is meant to be a mainstream encyclopaedia, and BJP and RSS are mainstream in India. Loading the dice against BJP and RSS editors will turn Misplaced Pages into a fringe encyclopaedia on Indian topics.
2 - Furnished within a new text and restored my prior removal - - please notice {{tq|Szarek is affiliated with PiS..}} - notice {{tq|young historians}} changed to {{tq|young missionaries}}, restoring the exact citations (''see Behr Valentin 2017-01-02 Historical policy-making in post-1989 Poland''), etc.


I can see a good case for restricting PerspicazHistorian to draft articles and talk pages for a month, and suggesting that he/she seeks advice from more experienced editors. Another solution would be a one-revert rule to last six months.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 13:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
'''Explanation and additional information:'''


====Statement by Capitals00====
On August 9, 2020, a two-way interaction ban was imposed on François Robere and me. ('''important''' - please note that the two-way ban is of <u>no fault of myself but François Robere and another participant</u>; the reason for imposing two-way interaction ban was the fact that one of the assessing administrator's didn't like one-way interaction bans One-way interaction ban have initially been proposed,,,)
I find the comment from {{U|Toddy1}} to be entirely outrageous. What are you trying to tell by saying "{{tq|Misplaced Pages is meant to be a mainstream encyclopaedia, and BJP and RSS are mainstream in India}}"? If you want us to entertain those who are in power, then we could never have an article like ].


You cannot ask topic ban for both editors without having any evidence of misconduct. Same way, you cannot ask CU on either user ]. It is a high time that you should strike your comment, since you are falsely accusing others that they "{{tq|seek to censor}}" this editor due to his "{{tq| pro-Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and pro-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) views}}". You should strike your comment. If you cannot do that, then I am sure ] is coming for you. ] (]) 15:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
On April 18, 2021, François Robere referred to me in their post on the Arbitration page and included link to my talk page despite the fact that interaction ban forbids to {{tq|make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages, directly or indirectly}}.


====Statement by Vanamonde93====
This latest development prompted me to bring this to the administrative attention; however, I was also surprised to see that François Robere (after modifications) also commenced restoring my removals on one of the articles despite the precise instructions per ] that editors under interaction ban can not - {{tq|undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means}}.
{{U|Toddy1}}: I, too, am baffled by your comment. We don't ban editors based on their POV; but we do ban editors who fail to follow our PAGs, and we certainly don't make excuses for editors who fail to follow our guidelines based on their POV. You seem to be suggesting we cut PH some slack because of their political position, and I find that deeply inappropriate. Among other things, I don't believe they have publicly stated anywhere that they support the BJP or the RSS, and we cannot make assumptions about them.


That said, the fact that this was still open prompted me to spot-check PH's contributions, and I find a lot to be concerned about. is from 29 December, and appears to be entirely original research; I cannot access all of the sources, but snippet search does not bear out the content added, and the Raj era source for the first sentence certainly does not support the content it was used for. ], entirely authored by PH, is full of puffery ({{tq|"first to sacrifice his life for the cause of Swarajya"}}, and poor sources (like , and , whose blurb I leave you to judge), from which most of the article appears to be drawn. ], also entirely authored by PH, has original research in its very first sentence; the sources that I can access give passing mention to people whose names include the suffix "appa", and thus could perhaps be examples of usage, but the sources most certainly do not bear out the claim.
François Robere restoration of my prior removal furnished within a new text -


I will note in fairness that I cannot access all the sources for the content I checked. But after spotchecking a dozen examples I have yet to find content PH wrote that was borne out by a reliable source, so I believe skepticism is justified. We are in territory where other editors may need to spend days cleaning up some of this writing. {{U|Bishonen}} If we're in CIR territory, just a normal indefinite block seems cleanest, surely? Or were you hoping that PH would help clean up their mess, perhaps by providing quotes from sources? That could be a pathway to contributing productively, but I'm not holding my breath. ] (]) 18:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
My prior removals - - please notice {{tq|Szarek is affiliated with PiS..}} - notice {{tq|young historians}} changed to {{tq|young missionaries}}, restoring the exact citations (''see Behr Valentin 2017-01-02 Historical policy-making in post-1989 Poland''), etc.


:Thanks Bish: I agree, as my exchanges with PH today, in response to my first post here, have not inspired confidence. . ] (]) 20:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


====Statement by UtherSRG====
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
I've mostly dealt with PH around ]. They do not seem to have the ability to read and understand our policies and processes. As such, a t-ban is too weak. The minimum I would support is a p-block as suggested below, though a full indef is also acceptable. They could then ask for the ] when they can demonstrate they no longer have ] issues. - ] ] 20:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
# edit war block
# personal attack block
'''Warnings:'''
# warning
# warning
# warning
# warning
# warning


:Based on , I'm more strongly leaning towards indef. - ] ] 12:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I’m going to add BANEX rules for everyone to see easily with related <u>underlined</u>.
::They now indicate they believe the article they edited was copied from one of the websites they used as a reference, when in reality the website is a mirror/scrape of the Misplaced Pages article. I believe we are firmly in ] territory here. - ] ] 14:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
===Exceptions to limited bans===
::: is a mirror of the Misplaced Pages article. - ] ] 16:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
{{shortcut|WP:BANEX}}
{{Quote frame|Unless stated otherwise, article, page, topic, or interaction bans do not apply to the following:


===Result concerning PerspicazHistorian ===
#Reverting '''obvious''' ] (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or '''obvious''' violations of the ]. The key word is "obvious" {{endash}} that is, cases in which no reasonable person could disagree.
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
#Engaging in <u>legitimate and necessary</u> dispute resolution, e.g. addressing a legitimate concern ''about the ban itself'' in an <u>appropriate forum</u>. Examples include:
#*asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another user (but normally not more than once, and only by mentioning the fact of the violation)
#*asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban
#*appealing the ban


{{u|PerspicazHistorian}}, can you explain your understanding of ] and the ] rule? I'd like you to read thoroughly enough to also explain wny someone may be edit warring ''even if they aren't breaking 3RR''. ] (]) 21:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
As a banned user, <u>if you think your editing is excepted from the ban</u> according to these rules, <u>you should explain why that is so</u> at <u>the time of the edit</u>, for example in the ]. When in doubt, do not make the edit. Instead, engage in ] or ask whoever imposed the ban to clarify.|}}

'''An important note to all administrators for future actions'''

<u>Failure to note in closing</u> that results in two-way interaction bans and not mentioning the fact that one side is of no fault may result in denial of the guilty party of responsibility (<u>as we can see in the statement of user against whom this enforcement is requested</u>) or confusion. Just as I was worried about during my closing.,

Quote of one of the involved administrators involved in my case --> (they allowed me to quote them on that) - {{Quote frame|..Indeed, my recommendation for a one-way IBAN was unfortunately not accepted. But all that remains at the discretion of the closer. I certainly will oppose any attempts to use that sanction against you when your appeal is submitted, since this was a bogus report whose <u>closure should have made clear you were not at fault</u>. I think the fact that the closing failed to note this is not to the credit of the AE process. Feel free to quote me on that.|}}


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<s>Please note - François Robere has not been notified about this complaint since it's not clear to me if that's allowed - see ] - {{tq|Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to edit each other's user and user talk pages}}. Please advise if I can notify or let the user know. Thank you.</s>
I believe I can do that under the circumstances --->

===Discussion concerning François Robere===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by François Robere====
; Background:
# The ban between the OP and myself was imposed as part of an AE request filed by a third editor.
# It wasn't clear that I should be party to an I-ban, but one was enacted anyway; along with another between the OP and the filer. ''Both'' were "no fault" bans.
# During the discussion I've shown that the OP was following my activities on Misplaced Pages, including my "sandbox", mainspace edits, and correspondence with at least one admin.
# Soon after the ban was imposed I stated that it makes me uneasy, since it can be "weaponized" against me.

; The diffs:
# complies with ], as well as the imposing admin's instruction that the ban isn't retroactive.
# is unrelated to the OP.
## I've edited ] (IPN) before, including on Szarek and the ref to Goddeeris.
## On March 3rd I mentioned the IPN in a comment.
## On March 4th I mentioned Szarek.
## On March 5th the OP made her first edit to ] since January the previous year. Later that day she removed a statement regarding Szarek.
## On the same day I posted a long analysis of the changes made to the article by other editors. I did ''not'' mention the OP nor her edits.
## Point #22 in the analysis refers to the IPN's budget. An hour and a half after it was posted the OP removed a mention of the IPN's budget.
## The discussion evolved throughtout March. On March 29th I collected quotes from several sources and posted them to Talk. This is ''my'' work, it has several new sources and perhaps 80-90% new content.
## On April 14th, seeing as no substantial objections have been raised, I added the content to the article.
## The edit was soon reverted, and we went back to Talk.
## After I replied to the reverting editor, another editor voiced their support for my edit.
## The OP then made an off-topic comment about an edit that editor made three weeks earlier. She then inserted an opinion that pertains to ''both our edits'', potentially complicating the discussion for me.

; Another incident:
# On February 3rd I commented on ].
## 2.5 hours later the OP made a large removal of content added by Buidhe.
## On February 4th I posted a question on Musiał, Israel and religion.
## Three minutes later the OP deleted the content on Musiał, Israel and religion.
## Prior to this the OP had last edited the page on June 2018.

] (]) 12:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by (uninvolved) RandomCanadian====
"interaction ban forbids to make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages, directly or indirectly." - making a long-winded AE request about it seems about as clear cut of an infringement as I could imagine. Making an AE request is also very much against the purpose of an IBAN, which is to avoid confrontations between two editors - ] also seems to suggest you'd have better done to ask an uninvolved editor about it before making a report here. ] (] / ]) 00:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
*As to the evidence presented, referring to the interaction ban itself (one amongst a chronicle of other sanctions imposed in the area) within an ArbCom request for clarification () does seem to be a perfectly allowable course of action. ] (] / ]) 00:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
**The history of ] seems more complicated; though I note that the removal of dead link source by GCB (apparently reverted by FR, along with a much larger change - not sure if this was just lack of attention and forgetfulness) appears to be incorrect per ]. Other changes seem much more minor; though they might be violations as understood under the guidelines. Of course, two editors under a mutual IBAN editing the same page is obviously recipe for disaster and the wiser recommendation to everyone would be to avoid it if possible. ] (] / ]) 00:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
***{{ping|Volunteer Marek}} Linking to the discussion announcing the IBAN (as part of a reply which does appear to contribute to the discussion, by arguing the case that there is still disruption and need for enforcement actions) can hardly be construed as violating said IBAN, unless we're in lawyering territory. Of course entirely ignoring this has gone to and been amended by ArbCom so many times the whole area seems to be irreparably prone to ]. ] (] / ]) 02:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
****{{ping|Volunteer Marek}} I do not see such a link in the evidence presented by GCB here. If there's something I'm missing point it out, but the supposed link to their talk page is a diff of an edit (block notice) by Rexxs, not by FR. ] (] / ]) 04:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
*On further look, agree with JzG and Paleo that this appears to be ] over what are, in essence, very minor details (a few words here and there, an incorrectly removed source, on an article FR edited first). As to VM's comment, the ArbCom discussion is clearly BANEX, I've also had a further look; so that's end of argument as far as I am concerned. ] (] / ]) 16:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
**@VM: You seem to be arguing over technicalities. ArbCom IS, by default, an appropriate forum to talk about sanctions related to ArbCom cases and ArbCom enforcement actions. Everyone in this tense topic area could use more ] and less technicalities, me thinks (otherwise, the IBANs and other sanctions would not have needed to be imposed, ...). ] (] / ]) 13:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
***The more I read into this issue; the more I look at prior parts of ArbCom case; the more I look at all the ] (including the absurd quibbling over BANEX), the less inclined am I to think that there's any solution to this but a permanent topic ban for many of the involved participants - Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, and if editors can't agree to collaborate on a topic and are instead perpetuating a long, entrenched, dispute, the solution would be to remove the problem (the editors) and hope that new faces bring new looks. ] (] / ]) 01:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by PaleoNeonate====
Since both users are involved in that amendment discussion, wouldn't this be somewhat unevitable? It also appears that Robere first participated before GizzyCatBella joined the discussion. One could argue that Bella should have avoided that thread to avoid involvement, but this is ARB related. Why not try to endure eachother, at least on that page (encouragement to both to avoid trying to trap the other)? —]] – 02:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by Volunteer Marek====
In , aside from making personal attacks and false accusations against other users and administrators, FR gratuitiously referred to GCB (''"in June another one was blocked"'') and <u>linked to one of GCB edits</u>. The comment in general adds nothing to discussion and is not even on topic - it does not address the use of sources in the topic area. It's just an unnecessary griping about other users, including one that he is interaction banned with - GCB. There was a hundred different ways that FR could've said the same thing without violating the IBAN, or, just not make the comment altogher. Yet, they chose to do that anyway. As such, that one is a clear cut IBAN violation. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 02:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

] - GCB made a comment on a request for clarification and amendment concerning an area they're active in. In that comment GCB made no reference, direct or indirect, to FR. GCB was one of ... 29 (?) editors to comment at the request. It was a general discussion. This is completely, 100%, different from FR's comment, which specifically refers to GCB and links to one of their edits. It should also be noted that the IBAN was put in place due to FR following GCB around, not vice versa. Only reason it was made mutual is because admins believe that "one way interaction bans don't work" so they said "might as well make it mutual" even though it was FR who was at fault.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 02:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian - FR didn't just "link to a discussion announcing an IBAN" (there's two links related to GCB in their comment). He also linked to GCB's . FR's comment is basically the standard griping and attacking of GCB, precisely what and why he was IBAN'd for.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
:@RC, there’s nothing “supposed” about FR linking to GCB’s talk page. It’s right there in FR’s comment at ARCA: it’s FR’s 18th line here in this diff . And yes it’s to a comment by Rexx (and that part of FR’s post is also problematic, especially since Rexx isn’t around anymore to defend himself against FR’s false accusation) but the point is that FR is clearly breaking his IBAN by <u>commenting on GCB and making it clear their comment refers to GCB by linking to their talk page</u><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

“Bob not Snob” account, the least you can do is remove the absurd “uninvolved” from your comment heading.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 04:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

] Item #1 is most certainly NOT covered by ]. FR was NOT "reverting vandalism". FR was NOT "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum". There was nothing "legitimate" or "necessary" about FR's comment. If he hadn't made it, nothing would've happened. If he had made it but left GCB out of it, nothing would've happened. He could've also made it without all the personal attacks against several users. FR's comment has nothing to do with the I-Ban and it's in a forum where the subject of discussion is sourcing restrictions and NOT any I-BANS. To claim this qualifies under BANEX is frankly absurd (otoh, this request by GCB clearly DOES qualify under BANEX, contrary to Random Canadian's assertion, since it involves ''"asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another user"'').

As far as the IPN article goes, FR might have edited it before GCB, but the difference is that GCB's edits were to <u>different</u> parts of the article and did not revert or edit anything FR put in. However, FR DID revert (with some rewording) GCB's edits. Editors under an I-Ban are in fact allowed to edit and comment on the same article as long as they don't <u>revert or edit each other's text</u>. FR violated that.

And frankly Bob not snob's "evidence", which is stuff they already posted to the ARCA page where it was rightfully ignored, is just an attempt to deflect the discussion from Francois Robere's very obvious violation at ARCA to "other stuff".<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

There was absolutely no reason for FR to mention GCB or link to GCB's edits or talk page on the ARCA discussion. NONE. It had nothing to do with the discussion. It had nothing to do with the proposal. It was just gratuitous sniping at an editor FR doesn't like. That he's under an IBAN with, for a good reason. BANEX simply does not apply. Not even remotely.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@] - these are not technicalities. This is a user under an IBAN bringing up (even attacking) the user he's not supposed to mention or interact with on a Misplaced Pages page. ] explicitly says: <u>Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to make reference to or comment on each other '''anywhere on Misplaced Pages, directly or indirectly'''</u> It's a pretty straight up violation honestly. The only Wikilawyering here is by the editors who want to pretend that it isn't by invoking ] without bothering to explain why FR's comment was "necessary" or how it "referenced the IBAN itself" (because it wasn't, and it wasn't). IBANs are made for a reason. In this case it was imposed after a long history of warnings to FR to stop bothering GCB. Since FR hasn't bothered to heed these warnings, the part of the notification about IBANS that they received, the part that says ''"If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions."'' should be put into force.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

] - you say: ''"Diff 1 complies with WP:BANEX, as well as the imposing admin's instruction that the ban isn't retroactive''"
*Can you explain how your comment at ARCA (Diff 1) was "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum"? Because that's what it takes for BANEX to apply. Did your comment even refer to the IBAN itself? Was it made in an "appropriate forum"?
*Can you also explain what you mean by "retroactive"? Usually "retroactive" means you cannot get sanctioned for edits you've made <u>before the ban was imposed</u>. Are you saying your comment was actually made before August 10, 2020, even though the date says "April 18th 2021"? This is a strange claim to say the least.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
:] - in addition to explaining how your comment concerning GCB at ARCA supposedly falls under "BANEX", can you explain why you are claiming that GCB removing text inserted by a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT editor (indef banned Icewhiz) is supposed to be an iban violation with YOU? I know there's lots of Icewhiz socks around, but I'm pretty sure you are NOT one. So why are you claiming that a revert of Icewhiz, is an IBAN vio with you? You also didn't mention Szarek on the IPN article page until AFTER GCB's March 5 edit (your first mention of Szarek was March 23 ). It seems you're trying to flip or confuse the timeline here so let's get this one clear - Icewhiz adds stuff on Szarek before he was banned in 2019. In early March 2021 GCB removes it. In late March 2021 you bring up Szarek on talk. If there's an IBAN vio here (and personally I'd give this one a pass) it's you violating the ban not the other way around.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

] and ] - I don't know why you're bringing up a completely irrelevant AfD here, but it seems quite ridiculous to argue that someone should be sanctioned for disagreeing with you on an AfD. I voted to delete that article as well. Why? <u>Because the subject is not notable!!!</u> The article was started by indef banned Icewhiz, it's on a topic that was reported in the news briefly at the time but then hardly ever again and one which simply does not meet notability criteria. Trying to drag an AfD disagreement into this AE is... I'm not sure how to put this politely, but "bad faithed" and "disruptive" come to mind. Especially since this ], as unbecoming as it is, is also combined with this bending over backwards to pretend that Francois' very clear and straight forward topic ban violation at ARCA qualifies under "BANEX". Neither of you, nor FR< has actually bothered to address how BANEX would apply here - what portion of FR's comment "addressed the IBAN itself"? What portion was "necessary"? You're just slinging Misplaced Pages acronyms around in a fairly transparently biased manner (you like one editor so they get a pass for harassing another). It's kind of depressing to see actual Misplaced Pages policies get thrown out the window so quickly under flimsiest pretexts.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

{{ping|Piotrus}}, I think that removing the IBAN is a bad idea. It was put in place after years of ] bothering and following around GCB as noted in the AE request which led to it. At one point FR even stated that he was "policing" GCB's edits for which he got, rightfully, reprimanded by admins (this was before the IBAN). Furthermore, removing the IBAN would also reward FR for violating it, just creating the wrong incentives (it would encourage the bothering to resume). Note that FR hasn't even managed to acknowledge that they violated the ban, but rather has tried to ] it by claiming absurdly that their edits are okay under "BANEX" (they're not). That kind of shows that they haven't learned anything from this experience or from the fact the ban was imposed in the first place.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by (uninvolved) Bob not snob====
<s>The indirect reference at ARCA falls under ], legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.

The second part of GCB's report is disingenuous, as '''GCB is the one who is in clear violation''' of the IBAN on ]:
* On FR made a long post on the talk page, challenging an edit by VM. GCB then jumped into the article '''''' (disingenuous edit summary, the IPN's budget has everything to do with the IPN) making large changes ( (another disingenuous edit summary, the IPN director's election campaign to directorship has everything to do with the IPN), , , , ). GCB generally removed scholarly sources on the IPN, replacing them with sources from the IPN itself. GCB did all this in parallel to the talk page discussion (and ) on the same type of edits and sources.
* The IPN itself is an institution that "has spearheaded efforts to keep history on a narrow, patriotic path" () and has a "history of ignoring or explaining away Polish complicity with the Nazis" and is known for employing a neo-Nazi historian in a major position (, ]). VM and GCB using IPN itself and removing reliable sources is not legit, this is a disgraced institution known for publishing garbage.
* On GCB jumps into the discussion between VM and FR.
* After the long winded discussion above, initiated by FR challenging VM's edits, and after support by other editors FR made an edit on . This edit was . .
* On 15 April GCB , replying to ]. This post as in '''direct violation to the IBAN''' as Mhorg was discussing FR's edits ("The part added by François Robere was acceptable, written in a neutral, disinterested manner. It was clearly due"), and GCB was directly referencing those edits.

Further back, GCB also made (right under FR's ANEW notification, linking to the IBAN case, and responding to . GGB went even further and .

I recommend admins read by ] to understand how the IPN is viewed in the historical community and compare this to what GCB and VM are doing on the IPN's page.

GCB's complaint on ] is disingenuous, besides breaking the IBAN herself, she initially jumped into the article in March right after FR made a large a post challenging VM's edits, and has done the same now in April. She is complaining about Behr, but 2 hours before GCB jumped into the article.] (]) 03:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)</s>

====Statement by Piotrus====
Whether there is a technical violation here or not, I don't have a strong opinion (as I don't feel like reviewing the diffs in detail). In general, I find such remedies to be producing more harm / noise than good, not to mention they can encourage battleground mentality (more diffs to save/report, sigh); vacating it may be a simple solution but I really don't have a strong feeling here. It would be interesting to hear from both parties (GCB and FR) whether they think the remedy was necessary and whether they think it still is. The main reason I am posting here, however, is to just comment than in one of the recent comment submitted as a diff here , FR incorrectly claimed I was blocked. I was not. Please ] this. TIA. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 05:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC) PS. The above error has now been fixed. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 06:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
:I had the time to look at the diffs and read the comments here and I certainly think the i-ban should be removed. It does nothing but encourages battleground mentality on both sides. As for any new restrictions, there is no evidence that any party here is disruptive; their edits seem fine (not particularly controversial or edit warred by others) - the only problem is that they both share similar interests and occasionally overlap. It's really hard to judge whether it's intentional or not, reverting stuff from years ago, or making an edit in an article another one commented on not that long ago or whatever. I say unmuzzle both of them and see what happens, if they start edit warring and fighting, then we will have evidence to consider more restrictions. For now let's AGF and hope they can behave themselves, after the lesson of how annoying it is to operate under various half-way bans. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 06:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Volunteer Marek}}, I certainly agree that if the i-ban were to be removed, François Robere should confirm they no longer are planning to "police GCB". My point is that this entire report seems to be making mountains out of molehills. Yes, he skirted the i-ban, maybe violated it once or twice (no, I don't think BANEX applies to his recent edit, there was no need to mention GCB, it's as simple as that) but I'd rather see a warning than any block. I never liked the use of excessive force to drive some point, American-police-style, although I do know that I am in a minority when it comes to this. That said, this would be helped if François acknowledged they got a bit zealous recently and apologized, instead of trying to ''counterattack''. Blocks should not be needed if one acknowledges their mistake and promises to be better (yes, I know, another notion that is not very popular here). Call me naive, but I still believe that ], and building bridges, rather than blowing them up, would be a better mindset, given we want to reduce any ].

::Thinking about this a bit more, if there is no support for removing the i-ban (I don't think anyone else here besides me expressed support for this), how about this: perhaps a better remedy would be to change the full i-ban into a simple ban for both from reporting one another to AE/AN(I)? My point is that they should not be prevented from regular interaction with one another in the mainspace, particularly as when they edit the same articles, sometimes months apart, and perhaps innocently change content that another one added before, this creates a very technical i-ban violation that is really not a violation of the spirit (being arguably accidental, not intentional, but that's hard to verify). On the other hand, the existence of the i-ban encourages both to collects diffs on the other, and encourages borderline violations such as reports here, or worse, the usage of meatpuppets or worse (see Bob's section, now indef blocked). Also the "first mover" advantage, which i-bans encouage, is ridcolous. One edits an article, the other one is banned from it for life? And they are supposed to check edit history to make sure that sections they edit were not, by any chance, added by the other one? That's a nightmare. The fewer bear traps, aka "remedies", we have, the better for everyone. If our main concern is that those editors were making too much noise at AE/ANI about one another few years back, just prevent this from happening, no need to also prevent them from commenting in the same discussion or make them look for "gotcha's" in obsure edit history ("I edited this first 5 years ago, he violated the i-ban fixing a typo there now"). Love and peace, guys.

====Statement by JzG (GCB/FR)====
Item 1 is clearly covered by ].

Item 2 invites us to look at {{la|Institute of National Remembrance}} in the context of an IBAN enacted on 9 August 2020. FR edited that article before GCB did, FR was also the first of the two to edit the article after the IBAN. GCB's first edit to the Talk page was both after the IBAN and after prior comments by FR. If an IBAN violation exists here, it is GCB. This looks like an attempt to abuse of Misplaced Pages process to remove an opponent, and is, at the very least, a vexatious filing.

As to the content matter, GCB's edits seem to me to be tendentious, adding ] statements and uncritical discussion of figures identified by RS as controversial. Taken along with this vexatious filing I would argue that a TBAN may be indicated. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 12:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
* This is reinforced by the prior TBAN, thanks {{u|Nsk92}}, whic I had forgotten. This is textbook recidivism. The ban should be reinstated. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 18:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by Nsk92====
Regarding JzG's TBAN comment, GCB was under a Poland-related TBAN in the past, but it was lifted here at AE in December 2020, see the relevant thread at ]. The closing statement for that appeal request reads: "The appeal has been accepted, with the understanding that if the user resumes problematic editing, more severe sanctions will be swiftly imposed." ] (]) 12:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
:This AfD, ] (which somebody should really close by now, as it has been resisted three times already and has been open since March 7) may also be tangentially relevant here. The AfD, where CGB is the nominator, concerns a page about a Holocaust conference in France in 2019 that was disrupted by an anti-semitic attack by a group of Polish nationalists. Apart from !voting twice (as the nominator, and then again as a participant), there is nothing overtly disruptive about GCB's participation in this AfD but the choice of the topic is indicative and it does overlap with the topic of GCB's prior TBAN . The ] was one of the bodies that criticized the conference. The page ] and its talk page had been actively edited by François Robere; the first edit by GCB appears to be the AfD nomination itself. ] (]) 18:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
:Err, sorry, Guerillero, but I don't think it's an acceptable approach for the AE admins to declare that they have "no appetite" for enforcing ] in an entire area for which discretionary sanctions have been authorized. And I don't think I've seen AE wash its hands off from dealing with an entire area of discretionary sanctions before, no matter how unpleasant. Develop some appetite. If necessary make a post at WP:AN and ask for extra admin participation. But do something. ] (]) 02:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by BMK====
How very exciting to see all the same names once again! ] (]) 04:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by My very best wishes====
The comment by FR on ARCA (diff #1) seems to be an obvious IBAN violation ''by the letter''. The comment was made when FR was already under the editing restriction, and this is not "a legitimate concern ''about the ban itself''". However, I do not think his comments were such a big deal to deserve filing this AE request. I would suggest a closing without action or a warning. No need in Arbcom or anything else. ] (]) 14:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

===Result concerning François Robere===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
:@], that explanation of edit warring is a bit wanting. An edit war is when two or more editors revert content additions/removals repeatedly. Even a second reversion by the same editor can be considered edit warring. Best practice -- and what I highly recommend, especially for any inexperienced editor -- is ''the first time'' someone reverts an edit of yours, go to the talk page, open a section, ping the editor who reverted you, and discuss. Do you think you can commit to that?
* I suggest that the people involved here take this to arbcom, because I don't see that there is much appetite among AE admins to get involved in this area --] <sup>]</sup> 17:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
:<small>Re: your question on why your "obvious edit" was reverted: we don't deal with content issues here, only with behavior issues, but from a very quick look, the source is 50 years old, and using a list headed "TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS LISTED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967" that includes a certain organization as a source that the organization should be described as a terrorist organization is ]; in their ] NXcrypto provided an edit summary of "Not a reliable source for such a contentious label. See WP:LABEL." Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here.</small> ] (]) 11:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
**{{re|Nsk92}} Admins are volunteers and work on what they want. This has been open for more than a week and no other AE admins have commented on this issue despite a number of other threads getting a wide variety of comments. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
::I'm seeing this as a CIR issue. I'd like input from other admins, if possible. I'm a little concerned that setting a tban from IPA is just setting a trap. Maybe a p-block from article space would be a kinder way to allow them to gain some experience? ] (]) 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@], have you seen how many times I or others have had to move your comments to your own section? This is an example of not having enough experience to edit productively. Please do not post in anyone else's section again. ] (]) 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I do agree we're in CIR territory, and the concerns expressed are completely valid. I don't think this editor is ill-intentioned. They just don't seem very motivated to learn quickly. Well-intentioned-but-a-slow-learner is something that can only be fixed by actually practicing what you're bad at. I'd prefer an indef from article space which gives them one more chance to learn here before we send them off to mr.wiki or Simple English to try to learn. Not a hill I'm going to die on, though. ] (]) 11:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::@], like Uther I have major concerns about the edit you made yesterday, which included replacing a citation needed tag with these sources.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Significance of Different Type of Prasad in Hinduism For God |url=https://www.ganeshaspeaks.com/predictions/astrology/prasad-food-for-god/ |access-date=2024-12-30 |website=GaneshaSpeaks |language=en-GB}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=What Is Prashad |url=https://www.swaminarayan.faith/articles/what-is-prashad |access-date=2024-12-30 |website=Shree Swaminarayan Mandir Bhuj |language=en}}</ref> The first is a company that markets astrology services. The second is the site for a religious sect. Neither is a reliable source for explaining the concept of prasada in Wikivoice. You made this edit ''yesterday'', after you'd confirmed here and on my talk that you understood sourcing policy.
:::::The reason for an indef from article space is to allow you to learn this policy: You would go into article talk and suggest sources to fix citation needed tags. Another editor would have to agree with you that the sources are reliable before they'd add them. ] (]) 12:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*A tban from IPA for PerspicazHistorian would be a relief to many editors trying to keep this difficult area in reasonable shape. However, Valereee makes a good point about 'setting a trap': it's doubtful that PH would be able to keep to a tban even if they tried in good faith. I would therefore support a p-block from article space. ] &#124; ] 16:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC).
*:{{u|Vanamonde93}}, no, I don't really think PH can usefully help clean up their mess; I was following Valereee, who has been going into this in some depth, in attempting to keep some way of editing Misplaced Pages open for PH. It's a bit of a counsel of desperation, though; there is very little daylight between an indef and a p-block from article space. Yes, we ''are'' in CIR territory; just look at PH's ] for NXcrypto being "engaged in edit wars before on contentious Indian topics": one diff of an opponent complaining on NXcrypto's page, and one diff of somebody reverting NXcrypto. What do those actually prove? That NXcrypto has opponents (big surprise). So, yes, as you suggest, I'll support an indef as well. ] &#124; ] 20:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC).
*Is there a length of time proposed for the p-ban or would it be indefinite? ] (]) 17:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I would say indefinite; not infinite, but I'd be wary about letting them back into articlespace without some kind of preclearance. ] (] • she/her) 18:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*It looks to me like there is a consensus for an indefinite partial block for PerspicazHistorian from article space. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within a day or so, I will close as such. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Given PH's recent slew of requests on multiple admin talk pages, yes, please do. - ] ] 12:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*<!--
-->


{{reflist talk}}
==Airpeka==
{{hat|Blocked indefinitely by {{noping|Ymblanter}} as a standard administrative sanction. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC) }}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>

===Request concerning Airpeka===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|PaleoNeonate}} 11:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Airpeka}}<p>{{ds/log|Airpeka}}</p>
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]

; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
#] after DS/Alert as well as clear warnings (], ]).
#] after DS/Alert and first recent warning.
#] ditto.
; These were before DS/alert or clear warnings but included for context
#] Start of the new campaigning thread (already repetitive on that page).
#] Continuation of the same thread.
#] Random exerpt of typical ] creationist spamming among others in their edit history.

;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on ]

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
I recently noticed this editor then evaluated their edit history as ] but they admitedly were not always properly warned on their talk page when their previous ] or spam were replied to or reverted at article talk pages, except once on February 2021. I made sure to issue a very clear warning but it seems to have been ignored. ] pointed at evidence of previous problematic behavior, notably that since the start they were apparently only on Misplaced Pages to campaign and complain about ] (]). I propose either a fringe topics and American politics ban or a non-AE NOTHERE block. Also noting that this user is autoconfirmed and can edit the recently protected Project Veritas talk page. Thanks, —]] – 11:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
* ]

===Discussion concerning Airpeka===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Airpeka====

====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

===Result concerning Airpeka===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
* I blocked the user indef per ] as an ordinary admin action. All their contribution, 33 edits in total, is in talk space, where they either attack other users, or spam wixra.org, a website hosting materials which are typically not good enough for arxiv.org. I do not see how this user is helping to build encyclopedia, quite the opposite. Leaving this open a bit longer for possible other opinions. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span>
*Well done, Ymblanter. ] &#124; ] 22:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC).
{{hab}} {{hab}}


==Maudslay II== ==LaylaCares==
{{hat|There is consensus to remove LaylaCares's EC flag. ] (]) 17:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning Maudslay II=== ===Request concerning LaylaCares===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Shrike}} 07:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC) ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Vice regent}} 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|LaylaCares}}<p>{{ds/log|LaylaCares}}</p>


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Maudslay II}}<p>{{ds/log|Maudslay II}}</p>
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# First revert of this # EC gaming
# Second revert of this in 24 hours
# Revert of this calling other ] edit a vandalism
# 2nd revert in 24 hours
# Putting a fake photo of Dier yassin masscare
# ] user that voted to keep the article that he created to ] discussion
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
# Explanation
# Explanation


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
*Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
Pretty obvious case of EC gaming. Account created on Nov 17, 2024, then about 500 mostly minor edits followed by the first substantial edit ever was the creation of on Dec 17 (subsequently moved to draftspace).''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
The user was asked to self revert,, but refused and calling other user edits as vandalism.


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
Judging from the user contributions he seems here to ] and so its not suitable to edit such a topic --] (]) 18:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


{{re|Maudslay II}} Why do you call ] edits as vandalism? You were already warned about this? --] (]) 18:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

{{re|Maudslay II}} Why after you self revert you continued to edit war ? --] (]) 07:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning Maudslay II===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>


====Statement by (username)==== ===Discussion concerning LaylaCares===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


====Statement by Huldra==== ====Statement by LaylaCares====
Re diff 5: A lot of (fake) photos of the ] are circulating on the net. Off course, all "oldtimers" (I have been editing the ]-article since 2006) knows this. But I think it is unfair to punish a newbie for thinking any of these pictures actually are from the Deir Yassin massacre. (Just an example of how Maudslay II is a newbie: they refer to me as "Him", heh. Maudslay II: I'm female!), Ms. ] (]) 21:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
:] I have already asked for these pictures to be deleted on commons (). And I do not know if it is correct to sanction anyone on en.wp., for what they have done on commons.wp? Anyway, as Maudslay II stated themselves: they did ''not'' edit-war with me when I removed the wrong picture from the ]-article. And these pictures are (unfortunately) all over the internet, illustrating the ]. If anything: this should teach Maudslay II not to trust the internet... ] (]) 22:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


====Statement by Maudslay II==== ====Statement by Aquillion====
Question: Assuming it's determined that they gamed the extended-confirmed restriction, would the page they created be ]-able? I've asked the relevant question in more detail ], since it is likely to come up again as long as we have such a broad restriction on effect, but I figured it was worth mentioning the issue here as well. --] (]) 14:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I actually reverted myself, ]. I'm not looking for edit wars or anything else. -- ] (]) 13:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
: Now Shrike is basically fishing. I added the Deir Yassin massacre photos, but another editor said that they are not related to the massacre and removed them. I did not revert <s>his</s> her edit. How is this being used against me? -- ] (]) 18:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


====Statement by Sir Joseph==== ===Statement by Dan Murphy===
Please look at ], written by the account under discussion. It's a hit job, originally placed in mainspace by this account. Anyone who wrote that shouldn't be allowed with 1 million miles of the topic.] (]) 23:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
More importantly he plays very loose and fast with RS to further an agenda. In one RS that said "Shiite Muslim bombed..." He created the article and wrote it as "Israel bombed...." ] <sup>]</sup> 13:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
====Statement by Selfstudier====
Somewhat enthusiastic editing by a newish editor might be forgiven this once. With a reminder to exercise caution in future in this difficult area.] (]) 14:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


====Statement by Geshem Bracha==== ====Statement by starship.paint====
I've edited Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations, so Dan Murphy's link is inaccurate for the purposes of this discussion. For the version of Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations with content only written by LaylaCares, . '''] (] / ])''' 10:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
This isn't "enthusiastic editing", it is fabrication and prevarication:
# In ], he , But the used as a source says this is a claim by Shiite leaders, while Israel denies this and cites an internal Shiite rivalry.
# In ], he responsibility on Israel as a fact. But and do not say this. This also describes this as ], which is inappropriate and sources do not say. Maudslay makes this out as an attack on a mosque, however a source he cites, ], says: "A bomb exploded on the roof of Jerardi's office on 4 March 1985. It killed almost all the resistance leaders: Jerardi, Sa'ad and ten other guerrillas were blown apart.", which paints a different picture than the article.
# he supposedly self-reverts, but he messes up the formatting so a . Despite surely noticing this he does not correct this. He then while this discussion is open.


====Statement by (username)====
The talk page discussion with him is full with problems. He pushes unreliable sources. The good sources he presents, do not support what he is trying to say. He keeps on saying it "is obvious" it is Israel, but it isn't obvious enough for the sources he cites.


<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
What is going on in ] is much worse. He placed a on Misplaced Pages, and uploaded five other fakes:
# , , and are from Lebanon in the 1980s.
# is from a famous massacre in '''Korea''' ().
# is from '''Nazi Germany''' (.

Maudslay II actually uploaded a picture of a Nazi concentration camp and said this took place in Israel. This is bad.--] (]) 06:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


===Result concerning Maudslay II=== ===Result concerning LaylaCares===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*I agree that this looks like EC-gaming. Absent evidence that the edits themselves were problematic, I would either TBAN from ARBPIA or pull the EC flag until the user has made 500 edits that aren't rapidfire possibly LLM-assisted gnomish edits. ] (]) 17:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
* Here are the six photo uploads mentioned by {{np|Geshem Bracha}}:
*I agree on the gaming piece and would suggest mainspace edits+time for restoration of EC. I will throw out 3 months + 500 (substantive) main space edits. ] (]) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*# ]
*I agree with Barkeep but I'd up it to 4 months. I don't believe that a TBAN is necessary at this point. ] (]/]) 04:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*#* Originally from in '']''
*@]: I agree that the draft should be G5'd, but will wait for consensus to develop here. ] (]/]) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*#* Caption: {{xt|"صورة أرشيفية"}}
*:I don't think the wording of ] allows for deletion of a page that was created by an EC user. <small>(ECR also seems to forget that anything other than articles and talkpages exists, but I think the most reasonable reading of provision A still allows for G5ing drafts at admins' discretion if the criteria are met.)</small> That said, a consensus at AE can delete a page as a "reasonable measure that necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project". Deleting under that provision is not something to be done lightly, but I think for a case where a page's existence violates the spirit of an ArbCom restriction but not the letter, it'd be a fair time to do it. And/or this could make for a good ARCA question, probably after PIA5 wraps. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*# ]
*I would just pull EC and require the editor to apply via AE appeal for its restoration. They should be very clearly aware that receiving such restoration will require both substantial time and making ''real'', substantive edits outside the area, as well as an understanding of what is expected of editors working in a CTOP area. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*#* Originally from in Arab48
*I see a clear consensus here to remove the EC flag. For clarity, when I proposed a TBAN above it was because removing this flag ''is'' an ARBPIA TBAN as long as the ECR remedy remains in place; it's simply a question of whether the editor get the other privileges of EC or not. I don't see a consensus on what to do with the draft, but given that other editors have now made substantive contributions to it, I don't believe it's a good use of AE time to discuss the hypothetical further. ] (]) 17:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*#* Caption: {{xt|"لم يُفرّق القتلة بين امرأة وشيخ وطفل (نشطاء -تويتر)"}}
{{hab}}
*# ]
*#* Originally from in Sama News
*#* No caption
*# ]
*#* Originally from in '']''
*#* Caption: {{xt|"سقطت في المجزة ما لا يقل عن 110 فلسطينيين(Getty)"}}
*# ]
*#* Originally from in ]
*#* Caption: {{xt|"لمجزرة الدوايمة خصوصية كونها أكثر المجازر التي وُظفت فيها كل الأساليب الوحشية البربرية"}}
*# ]
*#* Originally from in ''Rai al-Youm''
*#* No caption
{{bi|em=1.6|The "Summary" sections of these pages indicate that all six images were taken from the same ] search (for ''Deir Yassin massacre'' – {{xt|"مجزرة دير ياسين"}}), as the source URLs of these images are identical. The uploads did not attribute the actual websites that hosted the images. While I don't think the uploads were made in bad faith (considering the content of the news outlets that published them), the images were not uploaded with the care that is expected in this contentious topic area: for example, the fifth image was claimed by Al Mayadeen to be of the ], rather than the ]. These images should be removed from Misplaced Pages and deleted from Commons if they are ] or ], as Geshem Bracha's source links appear to indicate. I have not yet had a chance to examine the other behavioral aspects of this report. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 12:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)}}


==Buidhe== ==AstroGuy0==
{{hat|There was substantial and reasonable confusion over whether 1RR did or did not apply to the article at the time of the reverts. Due to this, no individual sanctions will be levied against any editor, though for clarity, 1RR will be in effect on the article from this point forward and editors breaching it will be subject to sanctions. All editors involved are warned that edit warring and ] are disruptive and undesirable even if an ''n''RR restriction is not technically breached, and can be subject to sanction. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC) }} {{hat|{{u|AstroGuy0}} has been issued a warning for source misrepresentation by {{u|Voorts}}. No other reviewers have expressed any wish for further action. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) }}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning Buidhe=== ===Request concerning AstroGuy0===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Visnelma}} 21:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC) ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}} 03:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|AstroGuy0}}<p>{{ds/log|AstroGuy0}}</p>


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Buidhe}}<p>{{ds/log|Buidhe}}</p>
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
(Even though this isn't the usual R&I fare, I consider the intersection of "Race/ethnicity and sex offending", to come under "the intersection of '''race/ethnicity''' and human abilities '''and behaviour'''")


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# Asserts that "A majority of the perpetrators were Pakistani men" despite the cited source (freely accessible at ) does not mention the word "Pakistani" or any variant once.
# Manually reverted edits by Gators bayou
# Reverted edits by me # Describes the sex offender ring as "Pakistani" in the opening sentence when the cited source in the body says that they were only "mainly Pakistani"
# Reverted edits by Betoota44


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
# Restored revision 1019665605 by Jeppiz
# Undid revision 1019665605 by Jeppiz
# Reverted edits by A455bcd9


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Warned twice


: Made aware of contentious topics criterion:
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here --> <!-- Add any further comment here -->
*The article Armenian Genocide has 1RR restriction, and the user repeatedly violates this rule.
*I want to note that Barkeep49 clearly stated that the conclusion about 1RR sanction being no longer in effect was ''his'' assumption and that he was not certain about that: "''(...) it is '''unclear''' whether the 1RR is still in effect. It appears to me that the 1RR sanction is no longer in effect because that element of the decision was amended away. I have not removed it because it's not clear to me that it isn't because the area still has ] imposed.''"--] (]) 22:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
*Also Dear {{ping|RandomCanadian}}, you accuse me of violation ] and ]. I didn't add sources to the statement I made in the article because exchange of the populations is a commonly known fact, and as far as I can remember well-known facts doesn't need to be sourced, apart from the fact that I added about just 6 words. You said I reverted the other edit without discussion, but I put a note about my earlier edit on my edit summary which I thought to be a part of the discussion process. When my edit was reverted by another user, I understood there was a serious opposion to that statement, and discussed the edit with Buidhe in discussion page. She stated 200.000 people emmigrated after the war which she doesn't want to specify since she considers it to be a small number which I think to be a wrong assumption.--] (]) 08:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> <!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->

<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


Additional comments by editor filing complaint:
===Discussion concerning Buidhe===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Buidhe====
*I was told yesterday at ] that the 1RR restriction of this page is no longer in effect. (] &#183; ]) ''']''' 21:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


This new user seems intent on POVPUSHING regarding "Asian/Muslim grooming gangs" and making contentious claims that are not backed up by sources. ] (]) 03:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
====Statement by Jeppiz====
Buidhe does a tremendous amount of good work at Misplaced Pages and is an asset for the project. Whatever problems there may be, Buidhe's net contribution is overwhelmingly positive. I hope that this positive net contribution is taken into account in any decision. Unfortunately there is a recent problem, coming close to ] as Buidhe has taken to decide for themself how the article should look. Numerous reverts within 24h on a 1RR article is always a problem. Buidhe overruling governments of countries is downright bizarre. I don't dispute good faith, but still odd. We currently have a situation where the Swedish government emphatically explains that Sweden does not recognise the Armenian genocide (and numerous good reliable sources for that) yet Misplaced Pages claims the exact opposite because Buidhe (who, I believe, does not speak any Swedish) is so sure of their own interpretation they happily revert me when trying to add the official Swedish position. The situation is problematic. Once again, I very much appreciate Buidhe's net contribution. At the same time, I'm concerned about their recent behaviour in this ArbCom-protected area. We cannot have individual WP users overriding national governments on those governments' positions. In the best case, Buidhe takes this on board and no further action is needed. Anyone can have a bad day and Buidhe is a great editor here. ] (]) 22:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


===Discussion concerning AstroGuy0===
====Statement by RandomCanadian====
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
So Buidhe was operating under the assumption that this was not under 1RR. Whether that was a misunderstanding or a correct understanding, ] and ] would lead me to say that if that was the case, and I see no reason not to AGF here, then we shouldn't punish for a supposed 1RR violation (and OP here is funny, because they inserted their material in the article, got it reverted, and then re-inserted () into that article after it was clear there was opposition to it; and supposedly being well aware of the presumed 1RR requirement they seek to enforce here - in addition to the fact their edit violated ] and got correctly reverted by somebody else). I have always understood 3RR to be about edits which are substantially similar or which affect the same material (because 3RR is supposed to prevent edit warring, and edits which affect different parts or which are substantially different are not edit warring). I don't think there's a reason to go with any heavy-handed enforcement here; except maybe clarifying whether the page is under 3RR or 1RR, and warning the OP about ] - if their edits get reverted, they must follow ] and start discussing it, not revert again... ] (] / ]) 23:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
*{{ping|Seraphimblade}} There's much reverting, but most if not all of it seems to be regular enforcement of our content policies (]; ], ...). As to this particular report, there's no violation of 3RR involved (even under a broader interpretation of what constitutes a revert than what i say above), and sanctions for the 1RR which was understandably thought not to be in effect wouldn't be logical. Agree, of course, with clarifying the status of these sanctions as regards the article. ] (] / ]) 02:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


====Statement by Nsk92==== ====Statement by AstroGuy0====


====Statement by Iskandar323====
As it happens ] was incorrect and gave Buidhe really bad advice here. In fact the 1RR restriction for the ] article remains in effect, even though the original arbitration remedy authorizing 1RR has been amended away. The reason is that the amending motions explicitly specified that all earlier imposed DS sanctions for this arbitration case remain in effect. The 1RR restriction was placed on the article by Moreschi on January 27, 2008. That was done under the early version of Discretionary Sanctions, authorized by the January 19, 2008 motion in ] case. The next was passed on October 27, 2011. The motion placed AA2 articles under the first version of standard Discretionary Sanctions but also said that "Any extant sanctions or warnings made according to the older wording found in those decisions (as applicable) remain unaffected." The next modifying motion It similarly said: "Previous or existing sanctions, warnings, and enforcement actions are not affected by this motion." Thus the original 1RR restriction placed by Moreschi on January 27, 2008 still stands. Having said that, the history of all of these superseding motions is pretty complicated and even a sitting arbitrator was confused and arrived at an incorrect conclusion. I think that Buidhe's actions here should be AGF-ed, and Buidhe should not be sanctioned for following incorrect advice from basically the highest authority. However, the closing statement should indicate that the DS sanctions imposed under the January 19, 2008 motion in the AA2 case remain in effect unless they have been formally withdrawn. ] (]) 00:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
This rather dated "Asian/Muslim grooming gangs" malarkey from the UK has recently been pushed on social media by a certain US tech billionaire and is now recirculating in right-wing social media and the blogosphere, partly in connection with UK politics, so this trend could flare before it dims. ] (]) 03:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by (user)==== ====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning Buidhe=== ===Result concerning AstroGuy0===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
*If nothing else, there is way too much reverting going on at this article, so I think we need to impose 1RR on this article under DS to make it abundantly clear that it is still in effect. For the rest, I'm still looking over the report and circumstances. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
-->
*:After reviewing this, there is enough legitimate cause for confusion that I would not be comfortable issuing any direct sanctions against editors. Absent anyone objecting very shortly, I would suggest closing this request with a clarification that 1RR is still in effect for this article (and if needed, that would mean I'm reinstating it, if indeed it was ever removed), and a warning to everyone involved to cut down on how much reverting is being done. Whether 1RR or 3RR, that is a limit, not an entitlement or allotment, and disruptive edit warring can and will be addressed even if it doesn't reach those "bright line" limits. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
:The second diff was before AG0 received a CTOP alert. I've alerted AG0 to other CTOPs that they've edited in, and I am going to warn them for their conduct in diff #1 without prejudice to other admins determining that further action is warranted. ] (]/]) 04:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Also, I believe that the point {{u|RandomCanadian}} brought forth should be clarified: Revert limits are cumulative. If you revert one thing, and then revert something totally different and unrelated, you have made two reverts. Were 1RR in effect, this would be a breach of it. ] is quite clear on this: {{tq|An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—'''whether involving the same or different material'''—within a 24-hour period.}} (emphasis added) So to avoid any further confusion, I hope that clears that question up. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
*This seems like an honest misunderstanding on buidhe's part, and clearly the article does continue to need to be 1RR. I don't think there's need for any action other than clarifying that 1RR is in effect. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 05:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC) :I also looked at the source, and it indeed does not in any way support the claim made; it does not mention "Pakistani" even once. This is a fairly new editor, but I think we need to make it very clear to them that misrepresentation of sources is not something we will tolerate. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::Given that AstroGuy0 has already been issued a warning, I don't think anything further is necessary, and will close as such unless any uninvolved admin shortly objects. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*I can't see anything other than a misunderstanding here - looks like the article does need to have a big sticker on it to remind about 1RR, but clearly nothing malicious here. Perhaps a quiet reminder that edit warring and ownership aren't things we are looking for on-wiki. Best Wishes, '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 12:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
*{{u|Buidhe}} you were also told that if you wanted clarity to come here and that I was making an explicit decision not to remove the tag. Poor form pushing things rather than getting clarity. ] (]) 13:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
{{hab}} {{hab}}


==CutePeach== ==Lemabeta==
{{hat|I hate to shut this down, but it isn't a simple case that a drive by admin can clear up, and it isn't an AE issue, it is a General Sanctions case. AE is a rather fenced off area for a reason, but this is a case the entire community should be able to participate in. WP:AN is ok, but really it is an WP:ANI issue. ] - ] 18:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning CutePeach=== ===Request concerning Lemabeta===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|RandomCanadian}} 01:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC) ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|EF5}} 20:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|CutePeach}}<p>{{ds/log|CutePeach}}</p> ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Lemabeta}}<p>{{ds/log|Lemabeta}}</p>


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
;] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
*]
# - arguing based on "circumstantial evidence" (from a MEDPOP source about a Twitter group of, unsurprisingly, non-experts...)
# - making a very prominent "Note to closer" (well after the discussion was stalled) based on unreliable and MEDPOP sources.
#
# - proposing two long UNDUE sections to bring FALSEBALANCE about a FRINGE position, despite being told in the immediately preceding that even one sentence might be too much (on what is the main topic article); despite being suggested alternatives, and supposedly ignoring such objections.
#; - favouring MEDPOP sources (newspapers) over MEDRS (what is cited in ]) - see also the about this, including the clarification from {{noping|Guy Macon}}


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
*] and ]
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# - attempting ] based on interpretations of twitter posts and MEDPOP sources (the other examples, particularly in the MEDRS section, also show plenty such SYNTH.
# - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing.
# - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist.


*] and ]
# - making one long report, based entirely on the popular press, arguing mostly based on WP:SYNTH and even misinterpreting some statements which are in the sources they cite.
# - after being warned about MEDRS, they repeat a comment based on substantially the same sources, which again argues pretty much the same things, and is based on ]. Here, in addition, we see a clear attempt at ] by selectively pinging a few editors sympathetic to their viewpoints.
#] - re-arguing points raised in the previous RfC, despite being told that theirs was a misinterpretation and despite being repeatedly asked for MEDRS and providing none.
# - claiming, despite the multiple MEDRS presented, that the WHO report is not scientific consensus (...
# - ...they repeated a very similar comment just one hour later.
# - This (with the two previous diffs) shows that, after being repeatedly warned about their misuse and misinterpretation of a specific statement, sticking to the same point (which they had already expressed a month prior, ; here.

;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
*


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
I likely filed this improperly, but to sum it up they continue to make pages in a scope they were banned from. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 20:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
So, CutePeach has been here for about 1 month, supposedly here after they saw a post on Twitter, saying saw: " conversation on Twitter and I am not impressed with your brinkmanship on this topic". . Per their own admission, this kind of thing is still being off-wiki canvassed(; {{tq|It would be better understood in the context of this ANI , which was all over Twitter.}}). Edits such as one of their very first ones () also already show a knowledge of prior events (along with further accusations of brinkmanship, obfuscation and censorship) very suspicious for a new account, which shows again the extant of the off-wiki canvassing.
:On the bullet point, I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:(Not sure if I’m allowed to reply here) I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Due to the fact the articles are ECP'ed (after previous socking and disruptive editing in the area, and under the GS allowed for COVID), most of their contributions which show evidence of a problem are concentrated on two talk pages: ]; and ]. So far, about a quarter of their total edits have been to these two pages. These have been solely to ] for the plausibility of the "lab leak" hypothesis; and, apparently, attempts at discrediting the WHO and the whole of the scientific community (because they, unsurprisingly, show the same skepticism about unfounded and unsubstantiated hypotheses, despite their popularity in the popular press...) - going as far as about "disregarding the WHO" when the post below it makes exactly the point that we shouldn't disregard it and that even if we did, it would change strictly nothing about the MEDRS consensus. They have, unsurprisingly, been repeatedly appraised of our policies, including ]; ]; and, most importantly, ]. And yet, despite all of this, they have yet to cite a single such source, preferring the company of the popular press and of twitter posts...
:: <small>Response to Bishonen. Moved from results section. ] (]/]) 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>

::(RES to Bishonen) That's fair. When starting the AE, it only gave me nine options, none of which seemed to fit right. The third bullet ("Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on DIFF by _____") didn't seem to fit, as the sanction wasn't for verbal conduct. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 22:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Given the repeated, persistent requests and warnings made to them about our content policies, and their failure to abide by them, their behaviour is nothing short of ]. I'm heavily involved in this, but at some point editors which keep arguing the same FRINGE points are just disruptive time sinks, and they need to either accept the point and move on to something else (for ex., they've been repeatedly suggesting things which could go into ] or ], and yet their involvement in both of those pages is nearly non-existent), or be more formally topic banned from the area. ] (] / ]) 01:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
*{{ping|Jtbobwaysf}} Regarding MEDRS, you can see the linked GS discussion and ]. Trump's opinions might be included in relevant articles (most notably the misinformation one - where they already are), but he has peddled so many of them, that I don't think highlighting one in particular serves any useful purpose in the main topic article, and it certainly must not be presented as an equivalent to the science (which is what CP has been arguing for since forever, entirely ignoring the MEDRS, to the point it has become disruptive - disruptive editing is not just edit warring in articles, as shown at ]). ] (] / ]) 15:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
**{{ping|Jtbobwaysf}} <small>Your comments go in your section and not mine</small> The discussion on TBF's page wasn't about establishing a new consensus, it was about clarifying an existing one, as you can see, one which is also fully consistent with our other content policies, as explained on that talk page. I'll also quote ]: "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and "This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them."... ] (] / ]) 17:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
***{{ping|Jtbobwaysf}} I suppose you could ask ArbCom about it (they'll tell you it's private information); but the statement which was on my user page is true, I've indeed been here since about 4 1/2 - 5 years. ] (] / ]) 17:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
* <span class="nowrap">]&nbsp;'''Done'''</span><!--template:done-->
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


===Discussion concerning CutePeach=== ===Discussion concerning Lemabeta===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by CutePeach====


====Statement by PaleoNeonate==== ====Statement by Lemabeta====
Yeah, my bad. Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed" I recognize my mistake. --] (]) 20:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps this should have been at AN considering it's GS vs DS.{{pb}}BTW, CNET is only good to report about consumer electronics. In this case it's a bit related as being related to social media. On the other hand it clearly only echoes dubious claims and even on the misinformation article, it would be suboptimal. It mentions the Drastic group that's also been making noise on WP, but uncritically, as supposed investigators who correct misinformation, rather than itself being part of a misinformation campaign that also produces literature in dubious venues.{{pb}}I might post more but would need more time to look at the editor's edits, I have to leave until tomorrow. —]] – 06:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

====Statement/Question by Jtbobwaysf====
Does ] mean that Trump's notable claims (maybe incorrect and with proper attribution) cannot be added since he isn't a scientist? What about the opinions of other scientists/public health officials (CDC, WHO, etc), that also put forth the lab theory, are they to be excluded with the claim that they meet ]'s defintion of '''"medical aspects of the disease"'''? I dont see how the origin claims (something that is probably political, and certainly location-based) has anything related to do with medicine. Certainly, we are not discussing a cause, let's not conflate the issue here. This seems to be the subject of the editor's edits, so let's look at it more generally (take a step back).

] says:
Sources for any content related to '''medical aspects of the disease''' are expected to adhere to the standards laid down at WP:MEDRS. Since this is a rapidly evolving area with instances already documented of poor or fraudulent research, preprints and other non-peer-reviewed sources should not be used.

Generally speaking: Has there been a discussion to determine if/how MEDRS applies to the ] article (the subject of these alleged ANI violations)? Is it appropriate to apply this indiscriminately to ] (a societal event article) that that describes the impact on society and not really the disease itself? We clearly would apply MEDRS to ] and ], but {{ping|DocJames}} do we also apply it to ] and ]? Would we have an RFC on such a matter, or is it solely up the DS closing editor who says broadly (often we use this term broadly)? Assuming arguendo we do apply it to the ] article, how is it applied, and how are we currently applying it? When I do a quick look at the sources of ] I see CBS News, Business Insider, Financial Times, The Guardian, etc. Clearly, these are not MEDRS, is this MEDRS policy being applied selectively? If yes, how and what is the logic? Essay ] is not a policy on how it is applied, merely an opinion of an editor that puts forth the opinion on whether or not the location of the virus origin (lab, city, market, etc) is subject to MEDRS. Note however the essay notably fails to address how the location could be considered a "medical aspect(s) of the disease." Do we use MEDRS to determine the ] originated in Spain? Clearly not, as it is now widely held that it didnt originate in Spain, rather we use the common name.

Assuming there has been a discussion & consensus that says the NOLABLEAK essay is to be enforced as a policy and requires MEDRS to introduce content on a pandemic article, specifically the location of the possible start of the pandemic (or the party responsible if that is being asserted?), then does that same policy also mean that it is prohibited to discuss the GS policy on the respective talk page? If yes, then I may have unknowingly violated this policy and I apologize for that (if I have in fact violated at policy on it). Other DS/GS I have seen in the past normally prohibit reverts or other abusive activity, but I haven't seen it prohibit a discussion on the talk page (unless the talk page activity is clearly abusive). I would think any such policy that would ban non-abusive discussion on the talk page to fundamentally violate ]. After all isnt DS/GS meant to identify a known issue and move the discussion to the talk page to prevent ] on subjects that have known issues with it. It is not the intent of DS/GS to censor, nor is it the intent to let GS/DS be a weapon to enable censorship.

I ask all these questions here as I think before we can decide if the editor has violated the policy, we need to determine if/what/how the policy applies to the article, and then to his edits. Maybe all my questions are answered by other prior discussions, if that is the case please show me (I am not a regular editor of this article or medical articles in general). Relating to the canvassing claim, I havent looked at that so I dont have a comment. Regarding the bludgeon probably a boomerang to the nominator on that. I viewed the long posts by cutepeach, as on topic and useful, often containing extensive sources and context (exactly what I was requesting when I created the talk page section) but I am only commenting on what I have seen this week in the talk page section I created as I dont follow this article regularly. ] (]) 15:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
:RandomCanadian, the ] that you say was reached on {{user|ToBeFree}}'s talk page is insufficient. {{user|JPxG}} raised the same ] question we are raising, if this leaked from a lab theory requires MEDRS. You will note ] that both the "history" and "Commercial or business information" are not defined as "biomedical information". Here we are talking about the history (when and if) the virus (was or was not) created by the institute, and the controversy surrounding it. It is obvious we are not talking about the "Attributes of a disease or condition" (aka medical cause). Rather we are talking about the history, specifically when and if an organization invented it and maybe released it on purpose or by accident. The ] certainly meets the definition of and it would by very definition have "commercial or business information". You have stated many times that the theory is subject to MEDRS requirements and others have stated it isn't. Maybe it is you who are not listening? ] states "changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions... should be done with extra care." In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view." It seems to me that this discussion right now is the very definition of "arduous negotiations" :-) Thanks! ] (]) 17:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|RandomCanadian}} sorry about editing in your section above, didn't know the rules for this board. Thanks for my response. ] (]) 17:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|JzG}} I yesterday looked at RandomCandian's edit history yesterday also wondering if this was something unusual. You will note where the user creates their user page also claims to have deep experience prior to creating an account and said "Previously edited as IP for around 4 years". The speed and quantity of the replies was what made me look. In both cases when these users get up to speed right away with all wikipedia policy it could be ]. Sure users might know how to edit a bit, but participate in these details discussions, ANI, etc that took me a decade to figure out, and we almost never see IP editors in these ARB/ANI sections, why would they bother? Then the user brought up redflag in their response to me...Quack Quack ] (]) 17:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

==== Statement by JzG (CutePeach)====
CutePeach has been here for just over a month and has 275 edits, but displays at the same time a familiarity with Misplaced Pages () and a strong preference for a content outcome that has been the subject of assiduous advocacy by consumers of conservative media for a year, and which has been repeatedly rejected. Put bluntly, I smell a rat. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 16:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by Nsk92====
As noted by PaleoNeonate, this filing concerns General Sanctions rather than ]. Therefore WP:AE is the wrong venue for this request and it needs to be re-filed at ] (unless somebody cares to take some kind of of a quick regular admin action here.) Currently WP:AE has no jurisdiction over imposing sanctions under GS. That's probably unfortunate, especially for an important topic like COVID-19, but that is the current situation. I vaguely recall seeing a discussion somewhere about creating an AE-style venue for considering GS related requests but I don't think anything resulted from it. Short of that, perhaps a more narrow proposal could be made to the community authorizing WP:AE to handle COVID-19 related GS requests. (Arbcom would probably also have to approve such an arrangement since AE is ultimately answerable to them.) ] (]) 17:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


:Ethnographic groups and cultural heritage are '''related but distinct concepts'''. An ''ethnographic group'' refers to a '''community of people''' defined by shared ancestry, language, traditions, and cultural identity. In contrast, ''cultural heritage'' refers to the *''practices, artifacts, knowledge, and traditions preserved or inherited from the past''. But cultural heritage is indeed a component of ethnographic groups.
:So i don't believe ethnographic group should be considered as either history of the Caucasus or cultural heritage. ] (]) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::In my opinion, cultural heritage (both tangible and intangible) '''emerges from''' ethnographic groups but '''does not define the group itself'''. ] (]) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think ethnographic groups fall under the category of Ethnography, or even socio-cultural antropology but for sure not cultural heritage. ] (]) 21:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I understand, i already apologized on my talk page for this accident. I will not repeat this mistake again. ] (]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)==== ====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning CutePeach=== ===Result concerning Lemabeta===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
*
-->
* I don't see Lemabeta mentioned in the case itself, but they're currently under ] from "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed". ] (] • she/her) 20:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:To be fair, when you click above to add a new enforcement request, the template states:<br><nowiki>;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]</nowiki><br><nowiki><!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---></nowiki> ] (]/]) 20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{tq| Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed"}} @]: what did you think "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage" meant? I think it's pretty obvious that that an article on an ethnic group from the Caucasus and about an ethnologist who writes about that region is covered by your topic ban. ] (]/]) 20:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Note that I've deleted ] as a clear G5 violation. I think ] is a bit more of a questionable G5. ] (]/]) 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Your definition of "ethnographic group" includes the phrases "shared ancestry" (i.e., history), and "shared&nbsp;... traditions" and "shared&nbsp;... cultural identity" (i.e., cultural heritage). Your attempt to exclude "ethnographic group" from either of the two categories in your topic ban is entirely unpersuasive, particularly since your topic ban is to be "broadly construed". ] (]/]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: this doesn't seem like a mistake to me, but I'm okay with a logged warning here. ] (]/]) 21:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: This is about violating the TBAN. Per my response to leek, I think the issue is with the AE request template, which is a bit unclear. ] (]/]) 22:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: I don't think a block is needed here, but the next violation, definitely. ] (]/]) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: They were "reviously given&nbsp;... contentious topic restriction", the topic ban at issue. ] (]/]) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{re|Lemabeta}} Not every single thing you could write about an ethnic group would fall under cultural history, but that's not really relevant on the Rachvelians page, where the History section was entirely about their cultural history, even containing the words {{tqq| highlighting their ethnographic and cultural identity}}. There's a reason we use the words "]" on most TBANs, and a reason we encourage people to act like they're TBANned from a broader area than they are. (Consider: Would you feel safe driving under a bridge where clearance is exactly the same height as your vehicle? Or would you need a few inches' gap to feel safe doing it?){{pb}}This does seem like a good-faith misunderstanding, so if you will commit to not making it again in the future, I think this can be closed with a clarification/warning. But that's an important "if". If you want to argue semantics, then the message that sends to admins is that you don't intend to comply with the TBAN, in which case the next step would be a siteblock. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{u|EF5}}, I don't understand your {{tq|"Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above"}} statement, can you please explain what it refers to? ]? Lemabeta's block log is blank.
:That said, I'm unimpressed by Lemabeta's lawyerly distinctions above, and also by ]. I'll AGF that they ''were'' accidental, but OTOH, they surely ''ought'' to have taken enough care to realize they were violations; compare Voorts' examples. I suggest a block, not sure of what length. A couple of weeks? ] &#124; ] 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
::{{u|EF5}}, OK, I see. Blocks and bans are ], and the block log only logs blocks. ] &#124; ] 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
*It seems that the general consensus here is to treat this as a final warning, and Lemabeta has acknowledged it as such. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as such. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

== GokuEltit ==
{{hat|Issues on the Spanish Misplaced Pages will need to be handled there; the English Misplaced Pages has no authority or control over what happens on the Spanish project. This noticeboard is only for requesting enforcement of English Misplaced Pages arbitration decisions. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC) }}
I was blocked from Misplaced Pages for ignoring the formatting of a table, I edited an article wrong, Bajii banned me for 2 weeks, but it didn't even take 1 and Hasley changed it to permanent, I tried to make an unban request, they deleted it and blocked my talk page. I asked for help on irc, an admin tried to help me make another unblock request, but the admin jem appeared and told me that I was playing the victim and banned me and expelled me from irc. I just want to contribute to the platform ] (]) 20:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|GokuEltit}} This is a complaint about Spanish Misplaced Pages - see ], where you have (). Your block affects Spanish-language Misplaced Pages - it does not affect English-language Misplaced Pages.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 20:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:You also had some blocks on Commons, but they have expired.<sup></sup><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 20:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}} {{hab}}


== Terjen == ==Boy shekhar==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning Terjen=== ===Request concerning Boy shekhar===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NorthBySouthBaranof}} 04:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC) ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Daniel Quinlan}} 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Boy shekhar}}<p>{{ds/log|Boy shekhar}}</p>


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Terjen}}<p>{{ds/log|Terjen}}</p>
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
*{{diff2|1268704307|This edit}} violates the topic ban because it is in the topic area. It's also based on an unreliable source and the section header includes a derogatory term.
# Places a "disputed" tag on the wording {{tq|far-right}} in the lede of ], which wording was ] determined in a formal Request for Comment in July 2020
# Again places the tag, after it was removed and the consensus was expressly explained to them
# Once again places the tag, ignoring multiple editors explaining to him that the consensus existed
# Yet again places the tag, after being that their editing was verging on tendentious


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> <!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
*{{diff2|972891251|Here}} is the topic ban for {{tpq|persistent insertion of ], use of unreliable sources or no sources at all, and ]}}.
None


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> <!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months , on 20 April *Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|Doug Weller}}.
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above).


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here --> <!-- Add any further comment here -->
*I've edited the article so I am involved. ] (]) 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
This is a case of delayed ] - in this case, {{u|Terjen}} rejects an overwhelming and formally-expressed community consensus, and refuses to understand that their options are limited to opening a new RfC, or accepting the status quo. Terjen apparently disagrees with the inclusion of {{tq|far-right}} in the lede of ], and expresses the opinion that the wording is "unreasonable." Unfortunately for Terjen, their opinion is expressly rejected by ] as concluded in a formal Request for Comment in July 2020. That they individually "dispute" this formally-concluded consensus is, at this point, irrelevant - it is axiomatic that absent exceptional circumstances, a formally-expressed community consensus may only be overturned by another formally-expressed community consensus. Thus, as has been repeatedly explained to them on the ], unilaterally tagging the section is unavailing. Whatever "dispute" there may have been about the {{tq|far-right}} wording was formally resolved with the RfC. Terjen's option, if they disagree with the label, is to open a formal RfC. Attempting to permanently tag the section until they get the outcome they want is ] and ] editing behavior. As my request on their talk page was ignored, I was left with no other option but to file this request. My hope is that no formal sanctions are necessary - that this filing is enough to get them to stop their behavior and accept that they may not use tags in this manner. Pinging {{u|Bacondrum}} and {{u|GorillaWarfare}} as relevant to this request. ] (]) 04:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|Vanamonde93}} No, I don't think you're being too harsh. I think you're right. My thinking was that if I was uninvolved, I would have blocked them under ] so I sleepily submitted it here last night instead of ANI, which is what I should have done. ] (])


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
*
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
* . ] (]) 04:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning Boy shekhar===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>


====Statement by Boy shekhar====
===Discussion concerning Terjen===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>


====Statement by Terjen==== ====Statement by Vanamonde====
This user hasn't edited for 4.5 years since they were TBANned, and none of their 31 edits show any ability to follow our PAGs. At the risk of sounding harsh, an extended AE discussion is a waste of time; a passing admin should indef them (I cannot, I am INVOLVED on most of the content they have edited). ] (]) 23:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Coming soon, please give me time to prepare a response. ] (]) 20:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by Bacondrum====
Even a cursory glance at sourcing for this claim shows it is very well cited. The far-right descriptor is not only well cited, it is used in the vast majority of sources. This has been discussed before ] on the talk page. Terjen is blatantly POV pushing and tagging well sourced claims in a pointy manner, editing against consensus, edit warring. A firm warning to stop is warranted at this point, IMO. ]] 07:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
:Actually, looking at the edit history there's a real issue of edit warring against 1RR sanctions:
:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Boogaloo_movement&type=revision&diff=1017887609&oldid=1015632229
:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Boogaloo_movement&diff=next&oldid=1017887609
:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Boogaloo_movement&diff=next&oldid=1017893124
:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Boogaloo_movement&diff=next&oldid=1018979534
:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Boogaloo_movement&diff=next&oldid=1019868082
:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Boogaloo_movement&diff=next&oldid=1019886805
:*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Boogaloo_movement&diff=next&oldid=1019887084

====Statement by GorillaWarfare (Terjen)====
This should have been resolved the first time Terjen was told that a new formal RfC would be needed to override the previous one. Terjen could have just opened a new RfC, preferably with a good explanation of what has changed since the June/July 2020 RfC to warrant revisiting the topic, and that would have been that. Refusing to do this simple thing, and continuing to edit war the tag into the article despite clear explanations that there was a formal decision to include the wording, is tendentious. Evidently these multiple explanations have not gotten through to them, maybe AE intervention will. ]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 14:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|Nweil}} The June/July RfC is not the "be-all-end-all". As has been explained ''repeatedly'' to Terjen, if the initial RfC was flawed or if sourcing has changed, a new RfC can be started to revisit the topic. It is not Terjen's opinion that "far-right" should be removed that is the issue here, it is their disruption around warring a tag into the article while also refusing to begin a new RfC like would be needed to overrule the previous one. ]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 16:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
::{{re|Nweil}} You are correct that I started the June/July RfC. I don't believe the sourcing has substantially changed, which is why I have not begun and will not begin a new RfC. ]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 19:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by NWeil====
A previous statement says the claim of "far-right" is very well cited but I would disagree. For example, CSIS, an accepted group of experts on the subject, does classify the boogaloo movement as far-right. CSIS data was most recently used as the basis for a Washington Post interactive . And holding a June/July 2020 RfC as the be-all-end-all for such a fast evolving situation seems unhelpful. It's worrying to me that the desire to keep "far-right" as a tag in the article seems to be overriding common sense. ] (]) 16:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|GorillaWarfare}} correct me if I'm wrong but you initialized that June/July 2020 RfC. This is clearly a subject you are interested in and have sunk work into and as we see from this enforcement request, is fairly controversial. Do you believe the situation has remained static since June/July 2020? Why not initialize a new RfC yourself? ] (]) 16:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by JzG (Terjen)====
I commend NBSB for a calm and patient exposition, assuming good faith. That assumption is, I venture to suggest, somewhere close to the Mary Poppins end of the scale. Terjen appears to have returned from a years-long absence to "correct" our "bias" against neo-Nazis. No thanks. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 20:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by Beyond My Ken====
NWeil's statement that because CSIS doesn't label the Boogaloo movement as "far-right", that label isn't "very well-cited" is both absurd and irrelevant. There are many other expert organizations and news sources which '''''do''''' label them as "far-right", and that was sufficient for a consensus of editors at an RfC to accept the label as appropriate. And '''''that''''' is the point here, an RfC-generated consensus exists, so Tergen's option was to start a new RfC, but they have refused to do so. ] (]) 04:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by InedibleHulk====
A lot of the slurs associated with "]" really don't seem associated individually with this group by RS, even if the "far-right" blanket as a whole is. Absurd and troubling, RfC aside. Not a fight we're likely to win, but I'd like the label removed, too. ] (]) 10:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by starship.paint====


:{{re|Daniel Quinlan}} Apologies if that sounded like a criticism of you, it wasn't intended as such: I'm just advocating for the first uninvolved admin who sees this to block and close. ] (]) 00:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
{{re|Nweil}} - "fairly controversial" content is exactly what RfCs are for. There is no '''obligation''' for the nominator to revisit RfCs in less than a year just because content is "fairly controversial". RfCs are community processes and we wouldn't want to waste the time of the community of editors. That said, any editor is free to start a new RfC at this point if they feel strongly about the subject. ''']] (])''' 10:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


===Result concerning Terjen=== ===Result concerning Boy shekhar===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
*If someone doesn't like the tag, and there is a clear prior consensus, the onus is on them to start a new RFC on the matter. Adding the tag once is forgivable but once you know, and are pointed to an existing consensus, then we have issues with ], ] and eventually ] (all still pointing to WP:DE for their authority). Are they far-right? Is there a valid reason to at least include verbiage indicating otherwise in the article? Don't know, don't care. The point is, the dispute should be handled with discussion if you disagree, not edit warring over a tag. The problem isn't content, it is behavior, and if someone can't edit in an area without exhibiting bad behavior, we should stop them from editing in that area. Or completely. Looking at unrelated edits by Terjen since they have returned, their overall behavior looks like it is edging on ]. There is definitely a pattern here. ] - ] 10:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
-->
*:Ok, I'm counting 38 edits by Terjen since this WP:AE report was filed, and not a single response from them here. For someone who considers themselves a "policy wonk", two days after this started , this seems pretty foolish. Note they are also at AN3 over a 1RR violation. At this point, I would be supportive of any strong sanction, including a 1 year (minimum) AP topic ban. ] - ] 19:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


==שלומית ליר==
==TopGun1066==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning TopGun1066=== ===Request concerning שלומית ליר===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|FDW777}} 10:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC) ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Smallangryplanet}} 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|TopGun1066}}<p>{{ds/log|TopGun1066}}</p> ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|שלומית ליר}}<p>{{ds/log|שלומית ליר}}</p>
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation of ''how'' these edits violate it :


ShlomitLir (שלומית ליר) created their account back in 2014. The breakdown of their edits is as follows:
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# Adds unattributed claim that a living person is a terrorist, in violation of ]
# Claims that {{tq|describing McMahon as a convicted terrorist is totally within Misplaced Pages's fair use policies, and also follows precedents of retroactive application of laws created by the Nuremberg trials}}. The whole discussion at ] is worth reading
# While I would agree with the majority of the edit, they obscured the fact that two members of the Scots Guards were convicted of murder for this specific incident. In particular note the changing of the reference, this is changed to one that was before the trial took place making it much more difficult for editors/readers to obtain the fuller picture.
# Unexplained removal of my talk page post
# Unexplained removal of the murder conviction information, instead thinking {{tq|Scots Guards were involved in contentious shootings, including that of Peter McBride}} tells the full story
# Adds unattributed claim that someone is a terrorist, in violation of ]. Considering two soldiers are (trial started today), I believe that's wholly inappropriate
# Repeat of previous edit (since self-reverted)


*2014 to 2016: no edits.
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
*2017 to 2019: 1 edit per year. None related to PIA.
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
*2022: 7 edits. Mostly in their userspace.
None
*2023: 21 edits. Again, mostly in their userspace. Made two edits in the talk page of ] complaining about its content and calling it .
* 2024: Started editing after a 10 month break at the end of October.
**Made 51 edits in October and 81 edits in November (copyedits, adding links, minor edits).
**In December, that number rose up to almost 400, including 116 in December 6 alone and 98 in December 7. Became ECR that day.
**Immediately switched to editing in PIA, namely in the ] article where they with an unclear image with a dubious caption, and without providing a reason why.
**They also edited the ] article, with a caption not supported by the source (replaced by yet with a contextless caption when the previous image was removed) and WP:UNDUE content .
**they also in the second AfD for ] despite never having interacted with that article or its previous AfD. They have barely surpassed 500 edits, but the gaming is obvious, highlighted by the sudden switch to editing in PIA.


More importantly, there's the issue of POV pushing. I came across authored by them on Ynet, once again complaining about what they perceive as an anti Israeli bias on Misplaced Pages. They have also authored a report for the World Jewish Congress covering the same topic. The report can be seen in full . I think that someone with this clear POV agenda shouldn't be near the topic.
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
At ] the editor admits to being a member of the British Armed Forces. The above edits are the totality of their edits in the Troubles area, there are no positive edits to mitigate the disruption.

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

===Discussion concerning TopGun1066===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by TopGun1066====
1. 09:29, 16 November 2020 FDW777 is incorrect and their bias towards showing IRA members in a positive light is blatant. Living people are described as Terrorists on Misplaced Pages: ].

2. 16:51, 24 November 2020 Desribing McMahon as a convicted terrorist is totally within Misplaced Pages's fair use policies, as per ] and ], and also follows precedents of retroactive application of laws created by the Nuremberg trials. As stated, although McMahon was not convicted under any Terrorism Laws in the Republic of Ireland, the sources cited from the Guardian refer to him as a terrorist.<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2009/nov/24/archive-thomas-mcmahon-ira-bomber</ref>

3. 08:58, 10 March 2021 The Scots Guards edit was tidying the text up. The fact that they were accused of murder was irrelevant as they were also re-admitted back into the Army.

4. 09:20, 26 April 2021 I didn’t remove this.

5. 09:33, 26 April 2021 The text describing the Scots Guards were involved in contentious shootings, including that of Peter McBride is an appropriate level of information to include. It doesn’t hide the incident.

6. 07:40, 26 April 2021 It is more inappropriate for FDW777 to slander people who have not been convicted of any crimes by describing them as ‘murderers’. ] was however, appointed commander of the Official IRA's Third Belfast Battalion. On 22 May 1971, the first British soldier to die at the hands of the Official IRA, Robert Bankier of the Royal Green Jackets was killed by a unit led by McCann. Describing McCann as a Terrorist is consistent with Misplaced Pages labelling other people (alive and dead) as terrorists.
] (]) 12:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

{{reflisttalk}}

====Statement by PaleoNeonate====
This is not about the editors or this particular instance but I would like to mention that I opened a thread at {{section link|Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Widely vs in text attribution}}. This is also the style guide, that sometimes can conflict with policies. for instance doesn't attribute it and it would be difficult to know who to attribute it to, yet it's obvious to that article's editor(s) and likely to many. —]] – 11:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

===Result concerning TopGun1066===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*

==Race and Intelligence==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>

===Request concerning Race and Intelligence===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|MrOllie}}

; Users against whom enforcement is requested :
Sockpuppets and single purpose accounts including:
* {{userlinks|Nuclear Milkman}}
* {{userlinks|Frog Tamer}}
* {{userlinks|Spork Wielder}}
* ] / ]
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->

; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# Personal attacks
# Personal attacks / trolling
# More attacks and trolling
#I could go on for quite a while, just look at the talk page history and click on the red linked username or IP of your choice.

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
#]

;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> <!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on and re-iterated on (see the system log linked to above).
*Not applicable
*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|Femke}}.


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here --> <!-- Add any further comment here -->
There has been a long history of sockpuppeting and trolling on ]. It is long since time that a page restriction was applied to deal with this. I am here asking that indefinite extended-confirmed protection be applied to both the article and the talk page. I believe the level of disruption more than warrants this, and I find it highly unlikely that we would ever want a genuine new user to be cutting their teeth on such a contentious article.


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : . Users mentioned by name , , ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning Race and Intelligence===
===Discussion concerning שלומית ליר===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>


====Statement by MjolnirPants==== ====Statement by שלומית ליר====
I wholeheartedly concur with this request, though I'm not sure this is the right place for it. This is an article that sits at the intersection of politics, pseudoscience, science, extremism and conspiracy theories. There is no legitimate reason for any new editor to even be involved in discussions on the talk page, let along permitted to actually edit the article itself. It takes a nuanced understanding of WP policy and significant experience implementing it to be able to do this article justice, and any new editor that has those is a sock, by definition (though to be fair: I've yet to meet a sock with a nuanced understanding of WP policy, for what should be obvious reasons). <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 14:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

====Statement by Generalrelative====

I agree that extended-confirmed protection for this article and talk page is long overdue, though like MPants I'm unsure if AE is the right venue. A similar idea was ] by ] and endorsed by several others (including me) before ] pointed out that ] would be the proper forum for that. In any case, I would be happy to do some of the leg work of compiling diffs if that is helpful. An exhaustive list of disruption, even over the course of the past year, would be long indeed. ] (]) 16:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning שלומית ליר===
====Comment by JzG====
It's long past time to apply ECP to the article and its talk page. The game of whack-a-racist has gone on for way too long. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 17:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

====Comment by Stonkaments====
I agree that extended-confirmed protection would be warranted due to the frequent disruptive editing on this article. That said, I think it's more complicated than that. It seems to me that a lot of the disruptive editing is coming in response to editors undertaking ] of the article with a POV in the other direction. For example, most editors strongly opposed removing or modifying the following claim: "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups", despite this being a clear misrepresentation of the cited sources, as discussed here. In recent discussions, editors have misrepresented one of the sources as an editorial, falsely equated a partial hereditarian hypothesis to pseudoscience like Bigfoot and creationism, and cast aspersions of racism. The admin who closed the noticeboard discussion failed to address any of the substantive arguments, has been uncivil, and has shown that they have a strong POV on this topic. See more recent criticism here. Thus, it seems to me that a lot of disruptive editing is coming as a backlash against POV-pushing in the article, so that needs to be addressed as well. ] (]) 20:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

===Result concerning Race and Intelligence===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*Users are allowed to have a POV - it's a rare user indeed who edits a contentious topic without having some strong opinions about it. For conduct to be actionable at AE it needs to be an actual policy violation. The misleading use of images doesn't rise to the level of AE action in my view, and judging whether an addition like is UNDUE is not within AE's purview, as long as it is supported by the source. ] (]) 23:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* Could someone please explain what exactly protection is being requested? I have difficulties understanding it.--] (]) 21:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:14, 12 January 2025

"WP:AE" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:AE (disambiguation).
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    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

    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:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
    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:

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

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

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346347

    PerspicazHistorian

    PerspicazHistorian is blocked indefinitely from mainspace. Seraphimblade 03:34, 9 January 2025 (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 PerspicazHistorian

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    NXcrypto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    PerspicazHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBIPA
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 17:57, 18 December 2024 - removed "discrimination" sidebar from the page of Hindutva (fascist ideology) even though the sidebar was inserted inside a section, not even the lead.
    2. 17:59, 18 December 2024 - tag bombed the highly vetted Hindutva article without any discussion or reason
    3. 10:15, 18 December 2024 - attributing castes to people withhout any sources
    4. 12:11, 18 December 2024 - edit warring to impose the above edits after getting reverted
    5. 17:09, 18 December 2024 - just like above, but this time he also added unreliable sources
    6. 18:29, 18 December 2024 - still edit warring and using edit summaries instead of talk page for conversation
    7. 14:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC) - filed an outrageous report on WP:ANI without notifying any editors. This report was closed by Bbb23 as "This is nothing but a malplaced, frivolous personal attack by the OP."
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    • Already 2 blocks in last 4 months for edit warring.
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I do not see any positive signs that this editor will ever improve. So far he has only regressed. Nxcrypto Message 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    While going through this report, PerspicazHistorian has made another highly problematic edit here by edit warring and misrepresenting the sources to label the organisation as "terrorist". This primary source only provides a list of organisations termed by the Indian government as "terrorist" contrary to MOS:TERRORIST. Nxcrypto Message 03:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian

    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 PerspicazHistorian

    • By far I am also concerned how my edits were forcefully reverted without a proper reason despite providing enough references. Please check how I am getting attacked by them on Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu Page.

    I didn't know about the three-revert-rule before User: Ratnahastin told me about this: User_talk:PerspicazHistorian. Please grant me one more chance, I will make sure not to edit war.

    • In the below statement by LukeEmily, As a reply I just want to say that I was just making obvious edit on Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu by adding a list of notable people with proper references. And according to Edit_warring#What_edit_warring_is it is clearly said: "Edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism." It was a good faith edit but others reverted it. I accept my mistake of not raising it on talk page as a part of Misplaced Pages:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle.
    • As a clarification to my edit on Students' Islamic Movement of India, it can be clearly seen that I provided enough reference to prove its a terrorist organisation as seen in this edit. I don't know why is there a discussion to this obvious edit? Admins please correct me if I am wrong.
    @Valereee, Yes I read about 1RR and 0RR revert rules in Misplaced Pages:Edit warring#What edit warring is#Other revert rules. I now understand the importance of raising the topic on talk page whenever a consensus is needed. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I will commit to that. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section. Seraphimblade 13:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    At that time I was new to how AFD discussions worked. Later on when Satish R. Devane was marked for deletion, I respected the consensus by not interfering in it. The article was later deleted. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Hi @Doug Weller , I just checked your user page. You have 16 years (I am 19) of experience on wiki, you must be right about me. I agree that my start on Misplaced Pages has been horrible, but I am learning a lot from you all. I promise that I will do better, get more neutral here and contribute to the platform to my best. Please don't block me.
    P.S.- I don't know If I will be blocked or what , according to this enforcement rules, I just want to personally wish good luck to you for your ongoing cancer treatments, You will surely win this battle of Life. Regards. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section.Valereee (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • 1) I just asked an user @Fylindfotberserk if the page move is possible. What's wrong with it? I still have not considered putting a move request on talk page of article.
    2) Many of other sources are not raj era. Moreover I myself have deleted the content way before you pointing this out. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    even @NXcrypto is seen engaged in edit wars before on contentious Indian topics. see1see2 PerspicazHistorian (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    as mentioned by @Valereee before, Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here. You can discuss content related topics on talk pages of articles rather than personally targeting a user here in enforcement. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Valereee I once filed a complaint to find it @NXcrypto is a sock (out of a misunderstanding, as all were teamed up similarly on various pages). I think he felt it as a personal attack by me and filed this request for enforcement. Please interfere. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC) moving to correct section Valereee (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    1)Yes I usually edit on RSS related topics, but to ensure a democratic view is maintained as many socks try to disrupt such articles. Even on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh page, I just edited on request of talk page and added a graph. I don't think its a POV push.
    2) My main interest in editing is Hinduism and Indian History topics.
    3)There have been certain cases in past where I was blocked but if studied carefully they were result of me edit warring with socks(although, through guidance of various experienced editors and admins I learnt a SPI should be filed first). I have learnt a lot in my journey and there have been nearly zero case of me of edit warring this month.
    Please do not block me. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    • @Valereee I beg apologies for the inconvenience caused, thanks for correcting me. I will now reply in my own statement section. @Bishonen I am a quick learner and professionally competent to edit in this encyclopedic space. Please consider reviewing this enforcement if its an counter-attack on me as mentioned in my previous replies. You all are experienced editors and I have good faith in your decision-making capability.PerspicazHistorian (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    • @Vanamonde93@Bishonen I have edited content marked as "original research" and "mess" by you, I am ready to help removing any content that might be considered "poorly sourced" by the community. Please don't block me.PerspicazHistorian (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    • @Valereee This enforcement started for edit-warring and now I feel its more concerned to my edited content(which I agree to cooperate and change wherever needed). After learning about edit wars, there has been no instance of me edit-warring, Please consider my request.--PerspicazHistorian (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Valereee I am not a slow learner, I understand the concerns of all admins here. I will try my best to add only reliable sources, and discuss content in all talk pages, as I already mentioned here. PPicazHist (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Valereee@UtherSRG I think admins should focus more on encouraging editors when they do good and correct when mistaken. I have made many edits, added many citations and created much articles which use fine citations. The enforcement started out of retaliation by nxcrypto, now moving towards banning me anyways. I started editing out of passion, and doing it here on wiki unlike those who come here just for pov pushes and disrupt article space(talking about socks and vandalizers on contentious Indian topics).
      The article prasada doesn't only has issue on citations, but the whole article is copypasted from the citations I added. I just wanted to point that out. Remaining about Misplaced Pages:CIR, I am currently pursuing Btech in cs from IIT delhi, idt I am a slow learner by any means. Still, happy new year to all ! PPicazHist (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
      @UtherSRG You mean to say, "The prasada is to be consumed by attendees as a holy offering. The offerings may include cooked food, fruits and confectionery sweets. Vegetarian food is usually offered and later distributed to the devotees who are present in the temple. Sometimes this vegetarian offering will exclude prohibited items such as garlic, onion, mushroom, etc. " is not copy pasted by this website? Is this also a wiki mirror website? How would you feel if I doubt your competence now? PPicazHist (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
      @ UtherSRG I just asked others to share their opinion in the enforcement. With all due respect, I don't think its wrong in any sense. PPicazHist (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      To all the admins involved here,
      • I agree to keep learning and apologize if my previous edits/replies have annoyed the admins.
      • I have not edit warred since a month and please see it as my willingness to keep learning and getting better.
      • Please give me a chance, I understand concern of you all and respect your opinion in the matter. But please don't block me from editing from main article space. I promise that I will abide by all the rules and will learn from other editors.
      PPicazHist (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by LukeEmily

    PerspicazHistorian also violated WP:BRD by engaging in an edit war with Ratnahastin who reverted his edits and restored an article to a stable version by admin. Also, I want to assume good faith but it is surprising that PerspicazHistorian claims that he did not know the three revert rule given that he has more than 800 edits.LukeEmily (talk)

    Statement by Doug Weller

    I'm involved so just commenting. I don't think this editor is competent. I had to give them a community sanction caste warning as they were making a mess of castes. See this earlier version of their talk page.]https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:PerspicazHistorian&oldid=1262289249] and User:Deb's comment that "It was very unwise of you to keep moving Draft:Satish R. Devane to article space when it has not passed review. As a direct result of your actions, a deletion discussion is taking place, and when this is complete and the article is deleted, you will be prevented from recreating it. Deb (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)" There have also been copyright issues. I strongly support a topic ban. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    I won't be involved in the decision. No more treatments for me, just coast until... Doug Weller talk 12:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Statement by Toddy1

    This is another editor who appears to have pro-Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and pro-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) views. I dislike those views, but find it rather alarming that Misplaced Pages should seek to censor those views, but not the views of the political opponents. Imagine the outrage if we sought to topic-ban anyone who expressed pro-Republican views, but allowed Democrat-activists to say whatever they liked.

    A lot of pro-RSS/BJP editors turn out to be sock-puppets, so please can we do a checkuser on this account. And to be even-handed, why not checkuser NXcrypto too.

    If we want to talk about WP:CIR when editors make mistakes, look at the diff given by NXcrypto for "Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested" - it is the wrong diff. He/she did notify PerspicazHistorian - but the correct diff is .

    A topic ban from Indian topics would be unhelpful, unless given to both parties. Misplaced Pages is meant to be a mainstream encyclopaedia, and BJP and RSS are mainstream in India. Loading the dice against BJP and RSS editors will turn Misplaced Pages into a fringe encyclopaedia on Indian topics.

    I can see a good case for restricting PerspicazHistorian to draft articles and talk pages for a month, and suggesting that he/she seeks advice from more experienced editors. Another solution would be a one-revert rule to last six months.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Statement by Capitals00

    I find the comment from Toddy1 to be entirely outrageous. What are you trying to tell by saying "Misplaced Pages is meant to be a mainstream encyclopaedia, and BJP and RSS are mainstream in India"? If you want us to entertain those who are in power, then we could never have an article like False or misleading statements by Donald Trump.

    You cannot ask topic ban for both editors without having any evidence of misconduct. Same way, you cannot ask CU on either user only for your own mental relief. It is a high time that you should strike your comment, since you are falsely accusing others that they "seek to censor" this editor due to his "pro-Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and pro-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) views". You should strike your comment. If you cannot do that, then I am sure WP:BOOMERANG is coming for you. Capitals00 (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Statement by Vanamonde93

    Toddy1: I, too, am baffled by your comment. We don't ban editors based on their POV; but we do ban editors who fail to follow our PAGs, and we certainly don't make excuses for editors who fail to follow our guidelines based on their POV. You seem to be suggesting we cut PH some slack because of their political position, and I find that deeply inappropriate. Among other things, I don't believe they have publicly stated anywhere that they support the BJP or the RSS, and we cannot make assumptions about them.

    That said, the fact that this was still open prompted me to spot-check PH's contributions, and I find a lot to be concerned about. This edit is from 29 December, and appears to be entirely original research; I cannot access all of the sources, but snippet search does not bear out the content added, and the Raj era source for the first sentence certainly does not support the content it was used for. Baji Pasalkar, entirely authored by PH, is full of puffery ("first to sacrifice his life for the cause of Swarajya", and poor sources (like this blog, and this book, whose blurb I leave you to judge), from which most of the article appears to be drawn. Appa (title), also entirely authored by PH, has original research in its very first sentence; the sources that I can access give passing mention to people whose names include the suffix "appa", and thus could perhaps be examples of usage, but the sources most certainly do not bear out the claim.

    I will note in fairness that I cannot access all the sources for the content I checked. But after spotchecking a dozen examples I have yet to find content PH wrote that was borne out by a reliable source, so I believe skepticism is justified. We are in territory where other editors may need to spend days cleaning up some of this writing. Bishonen If we're in CIR territory, just a normal indefinite block seems cleanest, surely? Or were you hoping that PH would help clean up their mess, perhaps by providing quotes from sources? That could be a pathway to contributing productively, but I'm not holding my breath. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks Bish: I agree, as my exchanges with PH today, in response to my first post here, have not inspired confidence. . Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Statement by UtherSRG

    I've mostly dealt with PH around Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ankur Warikoo (2nd nomination). They do not seem to have the ability to read and understand our policies and processes. As such, a t-ban is too weak. The minimum I would support is a p-block as suggested below, though a full indef is also acceptable. They could then ask for the standard offer when they can demonstrate they no longer have WP:CIR issues. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Based on these two edits, I'm more strongly leaning towards indef. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    They now indicate they believe the article they edited was copied from one of the websites they used as a reference, when in reality the website is a mirror/scrape of the Misplaced Pages article. I believe we are firmly in WP:CIR territory here. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is a mirror of the Misplaced Pages article. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    Result concerning PerspicazHistorian

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

    PerspicazHistorian, can you explain your understanding of WP:edit warring and the WP:3RR rule? I'd like you to read thoroughly enough to also explain wny someone may be edit warring even if they aren't breaking 3RR. Valereee (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    @PerspicazHistorian, that explanation of edit warring is a bit wanting. An edit war is when two or more editors revert content additions/removals repeatedly. Even a second reversion by the same editor can be considered edit warring. Best practice -- and what I highly recommend, especially for any inexperienced editor -- is the first time someone reverts an edit of yours, go to the talk page, open a section, ping the editor who reverted you, and discuss. Do you think you can commit to that?
    Re: your question on why your "obvious edit" was reverted: we don't deal with content issues here, only with behavior issues, but from a very quick look, the source is 50 years old, and using a list headed "TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS LISTED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967" that includes a certain organization as a source that the organization should be described as a terrorist organization is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH; in their revert NXcrypto provided an edit summary of "Not a reliable source for such a contentious label. See WP:LABEL." Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here. Valereee (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm seeing this as a CIR issue. I'd like input from other admins, if possible. I'm a little concerned that setting a tban from IPA is just setting a trap. Maybe a p-block from article space would be a kinder way to allow them to gain some experience? Valereee (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    @PerspicazHistorian, have you seen how many times I or others have had to move your comments to your own section? This is an example of not having enough experience to edit productively. Please do not post in anyone else's section again. Valereee (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    I do agree we're in CIR territory, and the concerns expressed are completely valid. I don't think this editor is ill-intentioned. They just don't seem very motivated to learn quickly. Well-intentioned-but-a-slow-learner is something that can only be fixed by actually practicing what you're bad at. I'd prefer an indef from article space which gives them one more chance to learn here before we send them off to mr.wiki or Simple English to try to learn. Not a hill I'm going to die on, though. Valereee (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    @PerspicazHistorian, like Uther I have major concerns about the edit you made yesterday, which included replacing a citation needed tag with these sources. The first is a company that markets astrology services. The second is the site for a religious sect. Neither is a reliable source for explaining the concept of prasada in Wikivoice. You made this edit yesterday, after you'd confirmed here and on my talk that you understood sourcing policy.
    The reason for an indef from article space is to allow you to learn this policy: You would go into article talk and suggest sources to fix citation needed tags. Another editor would have to agree with you that the sources are reliable before they'd add them. Valereee (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    • A tban from IPA for PerspicazHistorian would be a relief to many editors trying to keep this difficult area in reasonable shape. However, Valereee makes a good point about 'setting a trap': it's doubtful that PH would be able to keep to a tban even if they tried in good faith. I would therefore support a p-block from article space. Bishonen | tålk 16:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC).
      Vanamonde93, no, I don't really think PH can usefully help clean up their mess; I was following Valereee, who has been going into this in some depth, in attempting to keep some way of editing Misplaced Pages open for PH. It's a bit of a counsel of desperation, though; there is very little daylight between an indef and a p-block from article space. Yes, we are in CIR territory; just look at PH's recent supposed evidence on this page for NXcrypto being "engaged in edit wars before on contentious Indian topics": one diff of an opponent complaining on NXcrypto's page, and one diff of somebody reverting NXcrypto. What do those actually prove? That NXcrypto has opponents (big surprise). So, yes, as you suggest, I'll support an indef as well. Bishonen | tålk 20:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC).
    • Is there a length of time proposed for the p-ban or would it be indefinite? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
      I would say indefinite; not infinite, but I'd be wary about letting them back into articlespace without some kind of preclearance. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    • It looks to me like there is a consensus for an indefinite partial block for PerspicazHistorian from article space. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within a day or so, I will close as such. Seraphimblade 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      Given PH's recent slew of requests on multiple admin talk pages, yes, please do. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    References

    1. "Significance of Different Type of Prasad in Hinduism For God". GaneshaSpeaks. Retrieved 2024-12-30.
    2. "What Is Prashad". Shree Swaminarayan Mandir Bhuj. Retrieved 2024-12-30.

    LaylaCares

    There is consensus to remove LaylaCares's EC flag. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2025 (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 LaylaCares

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    LaylaCares (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ARBPIA
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 13:54, December 17, 2024 EC gaming


    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Pretty obvious case of EC gaming. Account created on Nov 17, 2024, then about 500 mostly minor edits followed by the first substantial edit ever was the creation of this article on Dec 17 (subsequently moved to draftspace).VR (Please ping on reply) 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning LaylaCares

    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 LaylaCares

    Statement by Aquillion

    Question: Assuming it's determined that they gamed the extended-confirmed restriction, would the page they created be WP:G5-able? I've asked the relevant question in more detail on the CSD talk page, since it is likely to come up again as long as we have such a broad restriction on effect, but I figured it was worth mentioning the issue here as well. --Aquillion (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Dan Murphy

    Please look at Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations, written by the account under discussion. It's a hit job, originally placed in mainspace by this account. Anyone who wrote that shouldn't be allowed with 1 million miles of the topic.Dan Murphy (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by starship.paint

    I've edited Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations, so Dan Murphy's link is inaccurate for the purposes of this discussion. For the version of Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations with content only written by LaylaCares, click this link. starship.paint (talk / cont) 10:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning LaylaCares

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I agree that this looks like EC-gaming. Absent evidence that the edits themselves were problematic, I would either TBAN from ARBPIA or pull the EC flag until the user has made 500 edits that aren't rapidfire possibly LLM-assisted gnomish edits. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I agree on the gaming piece and would suggest mainspace edits+time for restoration of EC. I will throw out 3 months + 500 (substantive) main space edits. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I agree with Barkeep but I'd up it to 4 months. I don't believe that a TBAN is necessary at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    • @Aquillion: I agree that the draft should be G5'd, but will wait for consensus to develop here. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      I don't think the wording of WP:ECR allows for deletion of a page that was created by an EC user. (ECR also seems to forget that anything other than articles and talkpages exists, but I think the most reasonable reading of provision A still allows for G5ing drafts at admins' discretion if the criteria are met.) That said, a consensus at AE can delete a page as a "reasonable measure that necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project". Deleting under that provision is not something to be done lightly, but I think for a case where a page's existence violates the spirit of an ArbCom restriction but not the letter, it'd be a fair time to do it. And/or this could make for a good ARCA question, probably after PIA5 wraps. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I would just pull EC and require the editor to apply via AE appeal for its restoration. They should be very clearly aware that receiving such restoration will require both substantial time and making real, substantive edits outside the area, as well as an understanding of what is expected of editors working in a CTOP area. Seraphimblade 01:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I see a clear consensus here to remove the EC flag. For clarity, when I proposed a TBAN above it was because removing this flag is an ARBPIA TBAN as long as the ECR remedy remains in place; it's simply a question of whether the editor get the other privileges of EC or not. I don't see a consensus on what to do with the draft, but given that other editors have now made substantive contributions to it, I don't believe it's a good use of AE time to discuss the hypothetical further. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    AstroGuy0

    AstroGuy0 has been issued a warning for source misrepresentation by Voorts. No other reviewers have expressed any wish for further action. Seraphimblade 06:29, 7 January 2025 (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 AstroGuy0

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    AstroGuy0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/Race and intelligence

    (Even though this isn't the usual R&I fare, I consider the intersection of "Race/ethnicity and sex offending", to come under "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour")

    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 03:19, 4 January 2025 Asserts that "A majority of the perpetrators were Pakistani men" despite the cited source (freely accessible at ) does not mention the word "Pakistani" or any variant once.
    2. 01:40, 4 January 2025 Describes the sex offender ring as "Pakistani" in the opening sentence when the cited source in the body says that they were only "mainly Pakistani"
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    Made aware of contentious topics criterion: 01:52, 4 January 2025
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint:

    This new user seems intent on POVPUSHING regarding "Asian/Muslim grooming gangs" and making contentious claims that are not backed up by sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discussion concerning AstroGuy0

    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 AstroGuy0

    Statement by Iskandar323

    This rather dated "Asian/Muslim grooming gangs" malarkey from the UK has recently been pushed on social media by a certain US tech billionaire and is now recirculating in right-wing social media and the blogosphere, partly in connection with UK politics, so this trend could flare before it dims. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning AstroGuy0

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    The second diff was before AG0 received a CTOP alert. I've alerted AG0 to other CTOPs that they've edited in, and I am going to warn them for their conduct in diff #1 without prejudice to other admins determining that further action is warranted. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I also looked at the source, and it indeed does not in any way support the claim made; it does not mention "Pakistani" even once. This is a fairly new editor, but I think we need to make it very clear to them that misrepresentation of sources is not something we will tolerate. Seraphimblade 04:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Given that AstroGuy0 has already been issued a warning, I don't think anything further is necessary, and will close as such unless any uninvolved admin shortly objects. Seraphimblade 18:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Lemabeta

    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 Lemabeta

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    EF5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Lemabeta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 5 Jan 2025 - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing.
    2. 4 Jan 2025 - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist.


    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I likely filed this improperly, but to sum it up they continue to make pages in a scope they were banned from. EF 20:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    On the bullet point, I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. EF 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    (Not sure if I’m allowed to reply here) I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. EF 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Response to Bishonen. Moved from results section. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    (RES to Bishonen) That's fair. When starting the AE, it only gave me nine options, none of which seemed to fit right. The third bullet ("Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on DIFF by _____") didn't seem to fit, as the sanction wasn't for verbal conduct. EF 22:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Here

    Discussion concerning Lemabeta

    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 Lemabeta

    Yeah, my bad. Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed" I recognize my mistake. --Lemabeta (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Ethnographic groups and cultural heritage are related but distinct concepts. An ethnographic group refers to a community of people defined by shared ancestry, language, traditions, and cultural identity. In contrast, cultural heritage refers to the *practices, artifacts, knowledge, and traditions preserved or inherited from the past. But cultural heritage is indeed a component of ethnographic groups.
    So i don't believe ethnographic group should be considered as either history of the Caucasus or cultural heritage. Lemabeta (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    In my opinion, cultural heritage (both tangible and intangible) emerges from ethnographic groups but does not define the group itself. Lemabeta (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think ethnographic groups fall under the category of Ethnography, or even socio-cultural antropology but for sure not cultural heritage. Lemabeta (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I understand, i already apologized on my talk page for this accident. I will not repeat this mistake again. Lemabeta (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Lemabeta

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I don't see Lemabeta mentioned in the case itself, but they're currently under a topic ban imposed by a consensus of AE admins from "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      To be fair, when you click above to add a new enforcement request, the template states:
      ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
      <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> voorts (talk/contributions) 20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed" @Lemabeta: what did you think "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage" meant? I think it's pretty obvious that that an article on an ethnic group from the Caucasus and about an ethnologist who writes about that region is covered by your topic ban. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      Note that I've deleted Draft:Rachvelians as a clear G5 violation. I think Mate Albutashvili is a bit more of a questionable G5. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      Your definition of "ethnographic group" includes the phrases "shared ancestry" (i.e., history), and "shared ... traditions" and "shared ... cultural identity" (i.e., cultural heritage). Your attempt to exclude "ethnographic group" from either of the two categories in your topic ban is entirely unpersuasive, particularly since your topic ban is to be "broadly construed". voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Tamzin: this doesn't seem like a mistake to me, but I'm okay with a logged warning here. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Bishonen: This is about violating the TBAN. Per my response to leek, I think the issue is with the AE request template, which is a bit unclear. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Bishonen: I don't think a block is needed here, but the next violation, definitely. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      @EF5: They were "reviously given ... contentious topic restriction", the topic ban at issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • @Lemabeta: Not every single thing you could write about an ethnic group would fall under cultural history, but that's not really relevant on the Rachvelians page, where the History section was entirely about their cultural history, even containing the words highlighting their ethnographic and cultural identity. There's a reason we use the words "broadly construed" on most TBANs, and a reason we encourage people to act like they're TBANned from a broader area than they are. (Consider: Would you feel safe driving under a bridge where clearance is exactly the same height as your vehicle? Or would you need a few inches' gap to feel safe doing it?)This does seem like a good-faith misunderstanding, so if you will commit to not making it again in the future, I think this can be closed with a clarification/warning. But that's an important "if". If you want to argue semantics, then the message that sends to admins is that you don't intend to comply with the TBAN, in which case the next step would be a siteblock. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • EF5, I don't understand your "Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above" statement, can you please explain what it refers to? This T-ban? Lemabeta's block log is blank.
    That said, I'm unimpressed by Lemabeta's lawyerly distinctions above, and also by their apology for "accidental violations". I'll AGF that they were accidental, but OTOH, they surely ought to have taken enough care to realize they were violations; compare Voorts' examples. I suggest a block, not sure of what length. A couple of weeks? Bishonen | tålk 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
    EF5, OK, I see. Blocks and bans are very different, and the block log only logs blocks. Bishonen | tålk 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
    • It seems that the general consensus here is to treat this as a final warning, and Lemabeta has acknowledged it as such. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as such. Seraphimblade 01:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    GokuEltit

    Issues on the Spanish Misplaced Pages will need to be handled there; the English Misplaced Pages has no authority or control over what happens on the Spanish project. This noticeboard is only for requesting enforcement of English Misplaced Pages arbitration decisions. Seraphimblade 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    I was blocked from Misplaced Pages for ignoring the formatting of a table, I edited an article wrong, Bajii banned me for 2 weeks, but it didn't even take 1 and Hasley changed it to permanent, I tried to make an unban request, they deleted it and blocked my talk page. I asked for help on irc, an admin tried to help me make another unblock request, but the admin jem appeared and told me that I was playing the victim and banned me and expelled me from irc. I just want to contribute to the platform GokuJuan (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    @GokuEltit: This is a complaint about Spanish Misplaced Pages - see es:Especial:Contribuciones/GokuJuan, where you have a block history from August 2023 to September 2024 (machine translation). Your block affects Spanish-language Misplaced Pages - it does not affect English-language Misplaced Pages.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    You also had some blocks on Commons, but they have expired.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Boy shekhar

    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 Boy shekhar

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Daniel Quinlan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Boy shekhar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    • This edit violates the topic ban because it is in the topic area. It's also based on an unreliable source and the section header includes a derogatory term.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    @Vanamonde93: No, I don't think you're being too harsh. I think you're right. My thinking was that if I was uninvolved, I would have blocked them under WP:CT/IPA so I sleepily submitted it here last night instead of ANI, which is what I should have done. Daniel Quinlan (talk)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Boy shekhar

    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 Boy shekhar

    Statement by Vanamonde

    This user hasn't edited for 4.5 years since they were TBANned, and none of their 31 edits show any ability to follow our PAGs. At the risk of sounding harsh, an extended AE discussion is a waste of time; a passing admin should indef them (I cannot, I am INVOLVED on most of the content they have edited). Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Daniel Quinlan: Apologies if that sounded like a criticism of you, it wasn't intended as such: I'm just advocating for the first uninvolved admin who sees this to block and close. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Result concerning Boy shekhar

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

    שלומית ליר

    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 שלומית ליר

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    שלומית ליר (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBPIA
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation of how these edits violate it

    ShlomitLir (שלומית ליר) created their account back in 2014. The breakdown of their edits is as follows:

    • 2014 to 2016: no edits.
    • 2017 to 2019: 1 edit per year. None related to PIA.
    • 2022: 7 edits. Mostly in their userspace.
    • 2023: 21 edits. Again, mostly in their userspace. Made two edits in the talk page of Palestinian genocide accusation complaining about its content and calling it “blatant pro-Hamas propaganda”.
    • 2024: Started editing after a 10 month break at the end of October.
      • Made 51 edits in October and 81 edits in November (copyedits, adding links, minor edits).
      • In December, that number rose up to almost 400, including 116 in December 6 alone and 98 in December 7. Became ECR that day.
      • Immediately switched to editing in PIA, namely in the Battle of Sderot article where they changed the infobox picture with an unclear image with a dubious caption, and removed a template without providing a reason why.
      • They also edited the Use of human shields by Hamas article, adding another image with a caption not supported by the source (replaced by yet another image with a contextless caption when the previous image was removed) and WP:UNDUE content in the lead.
      • they also voted in the second AfD for Calls for the destruction of Israel despite never having interacted with that article or its previous AfD. They have barely surpassed 500 edits, but the gaming is obvious, highlighted by the sudden switch to editing in PIA.

    More importantly, there's the issue of POV pushing. I came across this article authored by them on Ynet, once again complaining about what they perceive as an anti Israeli bias on Misplaced Pages. They have also authored a report for the World Jewish Congress covering the same topic. The report can be seen in full here. I think that someone with this clear POV agenda shouldn't be near the topic.

    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    Notification diff

    Discussion concerning שלומית ליר

    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 שלומית ליר

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning שלומית ליר

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Users are allowed to have a POV - it's a rare user indeed who edits a contentious topic without having some strong opinions about it. For conduct to be actionable at AE it needs to be an actual policy violation. The misleading use of images doesn't rise to the level of AE action in my view, and judging whether an addition like this is UNDUE is not within AE's purview, as long as it is supported by the source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)