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 13:51, 20 March 2023 editSPECIFICO (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users35,511 edits →Statement by Cambial Yellowing← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:34, 9 January 2025 edit undoSeraphimblade (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,240 edits →PerspicazHistorian: Closing 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude> {{pp-move-indef}} <noinclude> {{pp-move-indef}}
{{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 6:
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K |archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 316 |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==
==Springee==
{{hat|{{u|PerspicazHistorian}} is blocked indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC) }}
{{hat|No action, but Courcelles' wise words are a good reminder to everyone. Don't flood a talk page with comments and regulate your tone. ] (]) 00:43, 18 March 2023 (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 Springee=== ===Request concerning PerspicazHistorian===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|FormalDude}} 14:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC) ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Springee}}<p>{{ds/log|Springee}}</p> ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|PerspicazHistorian}}<p>{{ds/log|PerspicazHistorian}}</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: ]
<!--- 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.-->
# Springee removes a contradictory and significant portion of a sentence, misrepresenting what says in a flagrant ] violation. # - removed "discrimination" sidebar from the page of ] (fascist ideology) even though the sidebar was inserted inside a section, not even the lead.
# Immediately challenges my revert of their edit on the talk page by claiming that "police found no damage to the door" does not mean the same thing as "police did not observe any visible damage to the front door". # - tag bombed the highly vetted ] article without any discussion or reason
# Continues to make objections with no substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines, or conventions. # - attributing castes to people withhout any sources
# Tries ] by using the dispute they created as a reason to support their version. # - edit warring to impose the above edits after getting
# Finally comes up with a policy based justification: half a sentence is apparently ]. # - just like above, but this time he also added unreliable sources
# "We ] all the time." # - still edit warring and using edit summaries instead of talk page for conversation
# To back up their undue weight claim, they make a list of sources that don't mention the portion of the sentence they want removed because they only listed sources that were published before the relevant information was made public. # - 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.}}"
# Continues to imply that their list of sources from the first initial days when the story broke, before the disputed content was made public, is a reason to not include said content. Also casts doubt on a greenlit RS with no reasoning.

;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. -->
*Placed a {{t|Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.


; 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 -->
I realize some may see this as primarily a content dispute, but the diffs I provide show Springee's editing is textbook disruptive POV pushing. I can't see how it is possible for an editor as experienced as Springee to make these edits in ].


I propose Springee be, at a minimum, indefinitely blocked from editing ] and its talk page. ––] ] 14:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC) 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)
:To those saying it was too early for me to start this request, I would have waited in most other scenarios, but this is a hotbed article with a longtime experienced editor who should clearly know better than to make the arguments they did. I wanted to draw attention to what the experience is like when one tries to make a simple, policy-based edit supported by reliable sources at ]. This is not the only time Springee has used less than impartial tactics, as Dlthewave pointed out below. Springee has over 500 combined edits to ] and its talk page over the past 3 years–nobody else involved in the discussion has anywhere near that amount in the same timespan. ––] ] 01:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
::With their statement below, Springee is still arguing that the first page of reliable sources that appear in a Google search result is sufficient for establishing due weight. Not only should any editor who has spent as much time here as Springee know that there are various reasons why using the first results from a Google search is misleading, but they still refuse to acknowledge that the sources they provided from that search are all irrelevant because they were published before the content under dispute (police announcement of finding no damage to Carlson's door and a journalist corroboration of that) ''had even taken place''. Does Springee think we are naive enough to believe he doesn't understand that there will not be news coverage about something that hasn't yet occurred?
::They also implied ''Ad Fontes'' is more important than Misplaced Pages's own long established RS consensus forming process at ].
::Attempting to water down language, arguing that reliable sources are biased while their own preferred sources are neutral, prolonging frivolous arguments that aren't backed by any policy–these are all behaviors explicitly spelled out at ]. I don't see any explanation of how these actions are compatible with editing in this topic area. ––] ] 15:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
:::{{Re|ScottishFinnishRadish}} I'm not sure how any of those comments of mine that you listed can be considered impolite, aside from maybe my sarcastic "Crazy how that works". Statements are not automatically impolite simply because they discuss negative information. ––] ] 17:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
; 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. --->


: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)
===Discussion concerning Springee===
<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 Springee====
FormalDude, this is a content dispute that should have been handled via BLPN, NPOVN etc rather than here. There are no claims of edit warring and the diffs just show that we don't agree. I was planning on taking the question to BLPN when I had access to a computer but this was launched first.


*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)
As a general note about the Carlson page, I, along with others feels it suffers from being excessively long with too many details and not enough summary hence why I'm frequently concerned about how content is added. Much of the content in the article is outrange of the week content rather than an IMPARTIAL/encyclopedic tone summaries. Talk page suggestions to trim frequently get pushback with a view that much as been written about Carlson thus we are obligated to include it. Uninvolved editors at BLPN noted the same issues. Sometimes a group of good intentioned but like minded editors can fail to see the forest for the trees. That doesn't mean the person who disagrees is disruptive. Having different, civil perspectives (without edit warring) is a good thing for the overall quality of articles.


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
As a note, I think IMPARTIAL and encyclopedic tone are important and I will argue the same way when the shoe is on the other foot , , , .
<!-- 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. --->
FormalDude's argument boils down to I'm ignoring due content. In making that claim they present 4 sources. To establish if the content is due I did a broad search for the topic and presented the first page of results. The idea being if this content is due I would expect reasonable coverage in that first page of RSs. When this search result didn't support inclusion FormalDude argued it was some sort of deliberate misrepresentation on my part to not filter for only later articles (they didn't indicate they did that filtering when posting their own sources). FormalDude certainly is welcome to argue my list isn't representative but it seems quite a stretch to claim my posting of sources (NBC, CBS, The Hill, Business Insider, CNN, Politico, AP News) was somehow disruptive.


===Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian ===
Dlthewave and Aquillion are both are trying to turn old content disputes into evidence of a problem. While CONSENSUS clearly is policy, I was unaware that we were not allowed to CIVILLY disagree on talk pages. Both argue the proposal to use ''Reason'' at various times is evidence of a problem. They cite RSP as proof Reason shouldn't be used. That ignores that RSP is only a guide, and per RS sources are reliable on a case by case basis. While not a Misplaced Pages RS, Adfonts media bias chart shows that Reason's bias and reliability scores (7.81, 36.73) are on average less biased than sources like the Washington Post (-8.96, 38.16), The Atlantic (-9.42, 38.42), MSNBC (-14.15, 35.14), Vanity (-14.45, 32.35) and DB (-12.70, 35.65). But more to the point, in the cited cases Reason is doing a deeper dive into the claims about the BLP subject in question and comparing those to the facts available. These sort of detail dive articles are often very good sources to use when evaluating claims against a BLP. Note the Reason article was not sympathetic to Carlson. The arguments against use are not based on the merits/content of the Reason articles. Rather they are based on an appeal to authority to dismiss the source outright. Dlthewave argued Reason a poor source yet they added it ("Add RS") to the section in question.
<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 PerspicazHistorian ====
"POV pushing" is often a way to say, "I don't agree so they must be wrong". This is trying to solve content disputes via ARE rather than the proper dispute resolution forums. ] (]) 14:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
*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.
I didn't know about the three-revert-rule before ] told me about this: ].
Please grant me one more chance, I will make sure not to edit war.<br>
*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>
*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.
:@], 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)
::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>
: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.
<S>{{u|Isabelle Belato}}, I would suggest diving into the details before assuming the selective edits highlighted why Dlthewave and Aquillion are examples of trying to replace sources with a highly biased source. I'm not proposing we replace one set of sources with another. Instead, I'm suggesting we add a source that, in those particular cases, looked at the specific claims and evidence at hand and offered an assessment. In particular I think this is important when dealing with BLP articles where assessments in the media are often subjective. Consider these recent BLPN comments related to splitting vs reducing the Carlson article (not my comments) , . I think they get to some of my concerns that ultimately boil down to trying to stick to IMPARTIAL even when covering controversial people. ] (]) 14:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)</s> ] (]) 18:12, 13 March 2023 (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)
:::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
Dlthewave is misrepresenting my comments. For example, the 19:48 11 March 2023 edit describes the bias/not IMPARTIAL in the wiki article, not the cited sources. ] (]) 18:15, 13 March 2023 (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 ] 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 ] 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 (slatersteven)==== ====Statement by LukeEmily====
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.] (])
I could argue (and will do so) that both parties can be argued to be at fault.
"did not observe" doesn't quite mean the same as "did not find", as one can be seen as a classic plausible deniability as it implies there might have been some, just not seen. ] (]) 14:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


====Statement by (Bookku)==== ====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 ]'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)
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
* Uninvolved opinion. (Sorry for totally unaware of topic area)
* Brief check of difs and talk page seem to indicate above complaint largely seems to be content dispute brought here before completing protocol mentioned @ ]
* IMO content disputes are best resolved through regular ] IMO people need to have more patience and ] about fruitfulness of ]. Always think over giving best chance to ] and] before coming to ARE.
:] (]) 14:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


:::I won't be involved in the decision. No more treatments for me, just coast until... ] ] 12:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Peter Gulutzan====
I noticed an earlier case where FormalDude reverted Springee in order to re-insert contentious material in the Tucker Carlson BLP article, on , despite two other editors having that they were not in favour of the contentious material (later it was removed). FormalDude joined the talk page discussion 3 minutes after the edit, and I had previously -- in an -- asked FormalDude to look at ] so there shouldn't be doubt here about awareness. ] (]) 15:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


====Statement by Thebiguglyalien==== ====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.
Involved. I believe that Springee and FormalDude have both been engaging inappropriately in this discussion. I'm sure that they both believe their position would improve the article, but neither seems willing to engage in dispute resolution or to assume good faith (evidenced in one case by the fact that we escalated straight to AE), and the end result is that they're both disrupting any meaningful collaboration on this article. They're not the only ones to do so in recent days, but they're the ones we're talking about here. We haven't reached the point where I'd recommend restrictions against one or both editors, but I wouldn't object to it either. ] <small>(])</small> 15:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
:I'm challenging some of {{u|Dlthewave}}'s statement. Dlthewave has been engaging tendentiously by attempting to enforce a negative POV on the article:
:* They insisted that it was required by policy to call Carlson racist in wikivoice and implied I had ulterior motives for disagreeing (]), saying that we had to use the exact word choice of a source even after ] and ] were explained to them (]).
:* They deleted a talk page discussion (]) against the poster's wishes (]).
:* They twice restored ] content that had been removed (] and ]) and refused to meaningfully address concerns about the sourcing when asked (])
:There are more before this, these are the ones since I became involved a few days ago. Dlthewave's statement, particularly points 3 and 4, is trying to litigate talk page arguments where they were out of step with policy. ] <small>(])</small> 18:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


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.
====Statement by Dlthewave====
Involved. Like most disputes, this does involve content, however I would encourage folks to look at the bigger picture as this is part of a larger ongoing pattern of tendentious editing by Springee at the Tucker Carlson article. This editor continually invokes made-up rules and unusual interpretations of policy and I think that editors are getting tired of humoring these fallacious arguments. Here are a few recent ones:
# - Arguing that content shouldn't be added because the article is already too long and editors don't trim material when making additions (why on earth would they be expected to do that?)
# - Proposing that we ] the subject's significance in "50 or 100 years" (this is absurb, we usually use the 5-year test) and invoking a bizarre standard that compares the subject's significance and article length to a random historical figure.
# - Referring to "racist" and "anti-Islamic" as "subjective claims" and violations of IMPARTIAL, despite being used verbatim by multiple reliable sources.
# - Proposing that ''Reason'' (a biased source whose opinions ]) be used to provide a more "balanced" and "impartial" POV than the existing MSNBC source.
# - Same thread as above, again saying that reliable sources go "too far" and the biased source (''Reason'') should be used as a middle ground between Carlson's version of the events and what RS reported.
Although Springee's arguments apppear superficially polite and policy-based, they all too often misrepresent sources, P&G and common practices. Editors shouldn't be expected to "resolve disputes" with an experienced editor who behaves this way. –] ] 17:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
:I need to address a few of the points made by {{u|Thebiguglyalien}}. I'm open to feedback about my editing, however some of this seems like an attempt to discredit me in order to obviate my concerns about Springee:
**I did not "delete" a talk page discussion against anyone's wishes, I it to the relevant user's talk page. I pinged the two participants with a "I hope this is okay" note; this is the first objection that anyone's raised.
**The editor who challenged the content refused to elaborate when I asked them to explain the SYNTH concern. The best answers I got were "I suggest using your eyes" and the nonensical "adding additional sources to support specific parts of the content violates WP:SYNTH" . I gave my rationale for inclusion (after I once again asked for clarification and editors insisted that I first make a case for inclusion . Please either provide diffs where a viable SYNTH concern was expressed (I generally disregard content challenges that do not have a valid explanation) or strike the accusation. I do apologise for not seeing the SYNTH issue when I looked with my eyes, I will now go flagellate myself with the CIR stick. –] ] 20:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


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 .
====Comment by GoodDay====
Content disputes should be worked out at the talkpage of where the dispute is occuring. If a stalemate of sorts occurs, then one should begin an RFC there or go to the Dispute Resolution board. ] (]) 15:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


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.
====Statement by Spy-cicle====
I have not been involved in this specific discussion on the talk page, but I have previously edited the Carlson talk page 6 times over a year ago. After reading this discussion, I do not see this as "textbook POV pushing" to me it just appears to be a content dispute in already contentious topic area. ] is worth considering as well. If so clear consensus can be found it can be resolved via an RfC or DR. ] ] 18:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


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)
====Statement by Atsme====
I will state upfront that I do not watch Tucker Carlson because I find his laugh extremely irritating, but that's my opinion. Our job is to include the facts and far less opinion. We are obligated to dredge objectively through the material so that we are publishing all relative points of view in a neutral dispassionate tone. What I'm seeing here now is another episode of "let's get Springee" which crops up every now and then because Springee dares to maintain an objective and neutral POV. Neutrality is quickly becoming a thing of the past because of mainstream media's bias – not to mention the omission of important events. The Columbia Journalism Review brought some serious issues to our attention which included a quote by Matt Taibbi about how the more neutral approach to reporting has gone completely out the window. We are seeing it here now because we are nothing more than a mirror of mainstream media. Springee simply removed suggestive language that leaves readers with the wrong impression because information that belongs in the article was omitted. He's a good editor doing his job as a good editor. So the OP brings us all these innocuous diffs under the pretense Springee is being disruptive. The only disruption I'm seeing is the OP wasting our time here now. Another issue that we're seeing in recent years is omissions which have become the norm in mainstream media. Is it a new style of writing that our editors have picked up on? Some journalists are actually demanding that their personal truths be published and to hell with NPOV. The mere fact that Springee's appropriate responses and edits have raised such a stir speaks volumes to the OP's approach, not to Springee's, especially after you examine the innocuous diffs used as evidence. Smells alot like a ] to me. For as long as I can remember, Springee has been the most composed, polite, neutral and objective editor we have in this highly volatile topic area. We need more like him, not fewer, and we also need to put an end to these vexatious filings. ] ] ] 19:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


====Statement by Objectiive3000==== ====Statement by Capitals00====
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 ].
Just a few side comments:


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)
I don’t think ] is an effective solution for highly contentious articles. I’ve not seen it work. Most of the editors involved are experienced, the issues are complex, the number of involved editors is generally larger, the contentious topics procedure is helpful on the TP, and the less formal TP discussion format is far quicker.


====Statement by Vanamonde93====
I believe FormalDude did abide by the relevant parts of ] and don’t think the need for a time consuming RfC was reached. Having said that, it was likely premature to come here.
{{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.
I do believe some of Springee’s discussion was tendentious. When FormalDude presented four sources, Springee responded “If we have to stoop to Vanity or Daily Beast perhaps it's not due.“ Three of the four sources are green-lit at ]. Yet, Springee continued to point to the sources they presented, all of which were dated before the claim under debate, and therefore completely irrelevant. Sorry, for not including diffs, but the thread must be read in toto to understand – and I’m not suggesting sanctions anyhow.


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)
Atsme stepped in again to make yet another general complaint about mainstream media (and editors), and then ironically states: “The Columbia Journalism Review brought some serious issues to our attention in their 4 part report, which included a quote by Matt Taibbi about how the more neutral approach to reporting has gone completely out the window.“ Ironically because that CJR article was widely panned as being heavily biased and Mike Taibbi, IMO, has defenestrated all manner of objectivity. In any case, none of this is relevant to this filing. ] (]) 20:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


: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)
:OK, supporters keep saying that Springee is polite. FormalDude provided four diffs. Springee responded: {{tq|If we have to stoop to Vanity or Daily Beast perhaps it's not due}} leaving out two greenlit RS. When I responded that this was cherry picking, Springee's response started with BS. I don't know about other folk, but "bullshit" is not considered a polite response in my household. This is not in itself a reason for sanctions. Just tired of the repetition. ] (]) 17:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
::{{reply to|ScottishFinnishRadish}} thank you for saying no one is covered in glory in the discussion. My point was only that there have been repeated statements here that Springee is polite, as if he is an exception. Besides, his blanket dismissal of greenlit RS and insistence on using RS to show no mention of the doubt about damage to Tucker's door when those sources predate the claim that the door was damaged (the subject of the thread) is less polite than language use. ] (]) 17:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


====Statement by Adoring nanny==== ====Statement by UtherSRG====
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)
(Not involved in the dispute, but involved in the underlying politics). In Springee's explanation of his edit, Springee mentions that the CNN source says "It's still possible the door was cracked." This hedging by CNN was missing from the version of the article prior to Springee's edit. To me, this looks like Springee made a good explanation of his edit. Springee has further shown restraint by not re-reverting. ] (]) 03:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


:Based on , I'm more strongly leaning towards indef. - ] ] 12:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Aquillion====
::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)
::: is a mirror of the Misplaced Pages article. - ] ] 16:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


===Result concerning PerspicazHistorian ===
Currently, of the roughly 200 comments on ], nearly a third of them (about 60) are by Springee. This is not a new problem; it goes back months, if not further. This is clearly suggestive of ] / ] behavior.
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''


{{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)
And while Atsme is correct to call these comments {{tq|composed}} and {{tq|polite}}, I don't think they can be called {{tq|neutral}} or {{tq|objective}}; Springee's comments and edits ''overwhelmingly'' take positions functionally supportive or defensive of Carlson. Obviously, he's hardly unique in that regard - most editors in the AP2 topic area have strong priors that inevitably affect their interpretation and weighting of the sources - but Springee's perspectives are unusually stark. For instance, he has been repeatedly skeptical of green-quality ]es whose opinions he disagrees with (such as Mother Jones and MSNBC) been perhaps one of the most consistent and vocal advocates for using ] as a source on Misplaced Pages, describing its coverage as eg. balanced and impartial. and generally advocating for framing that straightforwardly reflects Reason's coverage. See also discussion and the one below it on ], where Springee argues for using Reason as a central source (also where he hammers that one piece repeatedly as something that should define our entire coverage) while arguing, in the section below, that ] should be excluded based on his own disagreement with its conclusions. While it is true that Reason is (like most of the listed sources Springee objected to) a green-quality source on ], it is also a source whose ''entire stated purpose'' is advocacy for a particular perspective; Springee's insistence on hewing to it and trying to push it as a neutral source that we should use to inform vital facts, while aggressively pushing to minimize and exclude sources from comparably high-quality sources with potential biases that he ''disagrees'' with, shows, at best, inability to separate his biases from his interpretation of sources, and ] / ] behavior at worst.
<!-- 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?
:<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)
::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}}
These two issues individually might not cause such severe problems; it's not uncommon for editors to have strong feelings about the topics they edit. But the combination of a consistently tendentious interpretation of the reliability of sources ''coupled'' with ] / ] tendencies towards this article shows ] behavior; editors with strong views about these things should recognize their biases and know when to back down, rather than hammering an article this thoroughly. --] (]) 08:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by North8000====

I've watched Springee edit and discuss and IMO they are one of the most polite, reasoning, cautious, policy-compliant editors that is involved in contentious articles. This is the kind of editor that we need more of on those types of articles. I've not taken the deep dive on this particular one, but in the past multiple times I've seen folks improperly using / weaponizing Misplaced Pages mechanisms to try to get rid of or deprecate Springee, including spinning up issues. I consider that to be harmful to Misplaced Pages.

As an aside, if an article is non-neutral in a certain direction, then neutral-oriented behavior in that particular article will tend to be in one (the other) direction. A few folks here are saying that such is per se a problem; that is not correct. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 14:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Responding to one post, the pretty rare and mild "BS" was referring to an accusation just made against the editor. And milder than converting to the spelled out version as the post did. Just like the term "SNAFU" is. :-) <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 17:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Loki's statement about what I posted at that article is flatly wrong and a careful read at the link will bear that out. It was nothing about the existence of the the strategy, denying it's existence would be absurd. It was about claiming that PragerU denied its existence. PragerU did not deny it's existence, and so the statement that said that it did was wrong and not reliably sourced. What PragerU did dissect and dispute was that it was the cause for the shift in voters that occurred. I'm only mentioning it here because something flatly wrong was said about me here. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Levivich (Springee)====
100% agree with N8k's comment above. As I read ], I see FD being hostile throughout, from the very first post ("Are you trolling me?"). Note also that in that discussion, FD is bringing forward four sources: The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, Vanity Fair, and Snopes. Two of those are pretty poor choices. Springee, on the other hand, brings NBC, CBS, The Hill, Business Insider, CNN, Politico, AP, and USA Today. Springee's bringing good sources, albeit I think they might all have been stale for the content at issue. Either way, it's a content dispute.

FD appears to have started this case because Springee is disagreeing. Disagreeing is not sanctionable. Also, it bears emphasizing again what N8k said in his last line: when an article is POV-pushed to one direction, bringing it back to NPOV inevitably means moving it in the other direction. That is not, in and of itself, a problem.

You can't sanction somebody for politely arguing content with quality sources. ] (]) 15:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
====Statement by Eruditess====
Springee's editing appears polite and reasonable to me. Sourcing is good. I think his interpretation of some of the other sources is right on to be honest. I have to agree with North8000's point, this kind of action seems harmful to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Loki====
I'm not involved in the current dispute about Tucker Carlson specifically, but after interacting with him several times on multiple articles I've concluded strongly that Springee is a ] in the area of American politics. The discussion I would point to is not the ones Aquillion linked to but instead where Springee edit wars against content sourced to Bellingcat, a green RSP source, over the objections of everyone on the page, all while arguing at length on the talk page over months, using exclusively ] arguments like {{tq|the Bellingcat article is misrepresenting some of Ngo's earlier tweets}}. (Edit: Springee even took this to RSP, . ] (]) 19:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC))

You can see something similar, though admittedly less extreme, in on Prager U's page. (There's several similar ones, I picked this one because it was the first one I could find.) In it, Springee (and North8000) argue strenuously that we shouldn't say Prager U was wrong to state that the Southern Strategy happened, despite sourcing that directly says that and the wealth of sourcing over at our ] page that it did indeed happen, based on again entirely ]-based arguments.

I agree with people who say that Springee is polite. They're one of the editors I've met who's least likely to resort to personal attacks, in fact. However, ] is not the only policy on Misplaced Pages, and being "polite" is in fact one of the defining qualities of a ]. Springee is not good about ], ] or ] when it doesn't suit their personal preferences and those are all arguably more important policies than ]. ] (]) 19:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Sideswipe9th====
I disagree completely that this is a content dispute. Loki, Aquillion, and FormalDude have all correctly identified that it's a ] problem. My current interactions with Springee are on a different article, ] where I'm also seeing examples of this same problem. For brevity's sake, I'm going to focus on two discussions.

Dawn Ennis' September 2022 LA Blade article
* {{diff2|1144049925}} Advocates for removal of a reliable source, based on a banner in an archived copy of the Twitter profile of the source author (Ennis), taken 5 days after publication
* {{diff2|1144115049}} Interprets the archived banner as Ennis "suggesting violence against Cole"
* {{diff|diff=1144171851|oldid=1144166522}} I clarify that the banner in question is Ennis quoting from Cole, from where Cole misspoke in an interview with Ennis
* {{diff2|1144207111}} Casts doubt on Ennis' statement that she was quoting Cole. And that we should retroactively treat Ennis' article with "great suspicion"
* For more context on the timeline of the article and Twitter banner, see {{diff2|1144273952|this reply}} by me to Slywriter.

Discussion on sourcing
* {{diff2|1142566749}} Makes that sources instead of engaging in Cole's arguments, reliable sources are {{tq|often attack her via ad hominem, guilt by association etc}}
* {{diff2|1142568115}} TheTranarchist asks for examples of sources that have done this, adding that it's Cole's actions and not arguments that are causing hurt hurt to trans people
* {{diff2|1142568519}} Instead of listing any sources, Springee tries to dismiss TT's request and point as a ]
* {{diff2|1142569807}} I reiterate the question, asking Springee to prove his assertion that sources are not engaging with Cole's points and are attacking her
* {{diff2|1142570578}} Springee answers with a non-answer saying {{tq|we have a range of sources}}. He does provide one, the LA Times column on Cole's lawsuit we were discussing.
* {{diff2|1142574658}} I again ask Springee to clarify which specific sources he is objecting to, by giving a link to the source and why he was objecting to it
* {{diff2|1142576758}} Springee again answers with a non-answer, focusing on the LA Times column about Cole's lawsuit.
* At this point, I decided not to continue that discussion as it felt unproductive and that Springee was unlikely to support his assertion that sources often attacked Cole

What I can't tell, from my interactions with Springee, and from the other diffs provided above is if the problems at Cole's BLP are because of a CPUSH involving GENSEX, or CPUSH involving AP2, or CPUSH involving both, because Cole is at an intersection between GENSEX and AP2. ] (]) 23:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Filiforme1312====
I want to echo sideswipe9th's concerns and say I also see similar issues in the Cole article, as they have outlined. I'm new to this process and have a lot of IRL work to get to so I'll leave it there.
For disclosure, I've been involved in the conversations referenced in the Cole article. ] (]) 02:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Maddy from Celeste====
I agree that there is a GENSEX problem here. In addition to Sideswipe9th's diffs, I wish to present a few more here, just off the top of my head.

On the matter of Chloe Cole, Springee misapplies policy in unlikely ways:
* ] &ndash; here they argue that ] does not apply to a topic because no source uses the word "fringe" about the topic.
* ], ] &ndash; Springee argues that an author who allegedly has a negative opinion of Cole should be discounted per ] and ], both of which are plainly inapplicable here. INDY explicitly states that strong opinions about a topic are not the same thing as nonindependence.

Here they do a weird goalpost-shift, which I have a hard time reading as anything but a bizarre attempt to score a win against their interlocutor in some way:
* ] &ndash; {{tq|You are making a bunch of claims but not supporting them. Your opinion is fine but this is why we have NPOV policies.}}
* ] &ndash; {{tq|I asked for the research papers (in particular review papers).}}

In the wake of TheTranarchist's topic ban, they made a series of accusations on the closer's talk page, which I feel serve more to hurt the affected editor than to actually address problematic editing:
* ]

While compiling these, I found this AP2-related user-talk-post, which I feel is highly relevant here:
* ] &ndash; they're overtly encouraging a blocked editor to a ] mentality, accusing unnamed editors of being "out to get" Tucker Carlson.
■&nbsp;∃&nbsp;]&nbsp;⇔&nbsp;∃&nbsp;]&nbsp;''';''' 17:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
:My point is not that any of these diffs is in itself a {{tq|disruptive argument so beyond the pale it entails sanctions}}, but these and Sidesqipe9th's diffs are examples of how Springee's contributions in total are unhelpful and disruptive. Such is ]. I don't understand Crossroads's argument about my fourth and fifth diffs. In my view, it is mainly behaviour that is sanctionable on Misplaced Pages, and viewpoints usually not. That comments cannot be examples of disruption because they are aimed at someone who agrees with another editor who later was topic-banned, is a completely absurd argument.{{pb}}{{tq|All in all, this seems to be an attempt to remove Springee from certain topic areas.}} &ndash; that is indeed what topic bans are for. Disagreement is disruption when you disagree disruptively. ■&nbsp;∃&nbsp;]&nbsp;⇔&nbsp;∃&nbsp;]&nbsp;''';''' 07:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Crossroads====
I read the OP's diffs, and it's clear this is a content dispute. If anything OP should be ]ed for wasting so much time over excessive detail like Tucker Carlson's front door (seriously...), the exact kind of cruft nobody will care about even a month from now that articles on some people tend to get bloated with. It's also obvious the point in including this cruft was to imply that Carlson lied, even though the very source used acknowledges it's still possible the door was cracked. diff was also misquoted as "We cherrypick all the time" and out of context; there Springee's point is that we don't "include every fact/claim in our sources", which is indisputably true - see ].

Maddy from Celeste cited diff as supposedly problematic, but - though some good faith editors may disagree - it is in no way a disruptive argument so beyond the pale it entails sanctions to say that a BLP should not be labeled as fringe unless sources ''specifically'' say so. Maddy's fourth and fifth diffs are Springee arguing against an editor who wanted to label that BLP as "anti-trans", a position which did not get into the article, and was also being argued by a different editor (as seen on that talk page) who was recently topic banned for their behavior on BLPs of this nature. It's thus clear which side of that matter the community actually considers disruptive and POV pushing.

All in all, this seems to be an attempt to remove Springee from certain topic areas. I echo Levivich's comments as well. '''Disagreement is not disruption.''' <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 23:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

===Result concerning Springee===
:''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. -->
*Just noting that at least this admin has seen this request. No substantive comment as yet. ] &#124; ] 18:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
*I'll write more later, but so far, after reading the report and the relevant discussion at the talk page, I have to agree with {{u|Thebiguglyalien}}'s take, in that neither users come out looking good from that dispute. {{ping|Dlthewave}} I think you meant to link to ] in your diff #5. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
:*Looking at the diffs provided by {{u|Dlthewave}} and {{u|Aquillion}} (some of which overlap) it seems to me that {{u|Springee}} has a clear point of view they want to push into the articles. That, by itself, is not entirely wrong, as sometimes an article might not be adhering to our ] policies and be in need of differing views that are reported by reliable sources (cf. ]). The problems arise when an editor continuously pushes for a highly biased source in lieu of better ones, raising false balance issues; or when every other editor in the discussion has agreed that the events are undue and would be better for the quality of the article for its mentions to be removed, but this one editor refuses to budge. I'm still not sure about a sanction, but would like to hear from other administrators. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
:*{{ping|Dlthewave|Springee}} you two are above the word limits for this noticeboard. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
:**{{ping|Springee}} In response to your post at my talk page, I'm extending your limit to 700 words for now, which means you will need to slightly trim your current text. Since it was already replied to, please strike or hat wherever necessary. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
:**{{ping|Dlthewave}} 100 extra words should be sufficient if you reduce the usage of quotes from your initial response. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
*I'm not seeing anything terribly damning in the evidence presented here. I do see content disputes, and disagreements on how biased sources in both directions should be handled in contentious articles. ] (]) 15:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
*:{{u|Objective3000}}, in that same discussion where Springee said BS, there was also {{tq|Are you trolling me?}}, {{tq|You don't get to pick and choose which parts of a reliable source to include based on your personal preference.}}, {{tq|Note that an objection to an edit that gives no substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines, or conventions is not a valid objection.}}, multiple accusations of cherry picking, {{tq|Crazy how that works.}}. No one is covered in glory in that discussion. Picking out a use of {{tq|BS}} as the example of lack of politeness isn't convincing. ] (]) 17:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
*I'm not seeing anything sanctionable here. I see two editors in a content dispute. Springee would do well to make their comments more concise and perhaps comment less frequently (it's not necessary for any one editor to reply to every comment). FormalDude would do equally well not to assign motives to other editors and not let their frustrations show through in their comments. But fundamentally, if it wasn't these two editors in this topic area, we wouldn't be here. ] &#124; ] 19:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
*My opinion is that both Springee and the filer deserve a gentle reminder to respectively not flood a talk page with comments and to regulate their tone and that otherwise this is a no action close. ] (]) 18:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
{{hab}} {{hab}}


==BleedingKansas== ==LaylaCares==
{{hat|Indef blocked as a normal admin action. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 09:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)}} {{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 BleedingKansas=== ===Request concerning LaylaCares===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|MrOllie}} 01:57, 13 March 2023 (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|BleedingKansas}}<p>{{ds/log|BleedingKansas}}</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.-->
# BLP / Point violation on Jay Bhattacharya 1 # EC gaming
# BLP / Point violation on Jay Bhattacharya 2
# BLP / Point violation on Jay Bhattacharya 3




;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. -->
*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 :
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 -->
BleedingKansas has been editing the articles about the ] and its authors, generally in a way that is supportive of the declaration. Since that is largely against the mainstream medical position, their editing attempts have not met with a great deal of success. Today, in an apparent effort to make some kind of ], they have switched to adding straight up attacks on one of the declaration's authors to their biography. I think something needs to be done about this. ] (]) 02:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ; 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 BleedingKansas===
<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 BleedingKansas====


===Discussion concerning LaylaCares===
====Statement by Firefangledfeathers====
<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>
BleedingKansas responded on their user talk page. A partial quote (I'm leaving out their self-outing and some personal info):
:{{tqd|"those of you managing Misplaced Pages have allowed it to become a joke, a mouthpiece for the "socially approved" among us. It is a shame that I must say this - you have let down the potential of Misplaced Pages by allowing it to become captured by the intellectual forces of our "new aristocracy", who lord over the rest of us, declaring things acceptable or unacceptable, true or false. Know this - a backlash is brewing up against you. Those of you who secretly sympathetic to my complaint - now is the time to take the unpopular actions to restore true collaboration to this platform. If not, it will die a death of irrelevance."}}
I don't know if there's a part of the project they'd be a good fit in, but I highly recommend a COVID TBAN at the least. ] (] / ]) 02:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


====Statement by Levivich==== ====Statement by LaylaCares====
] led to the ]. Not surprising that someone who chooses this as a username would have a pattern of ] editing and say things like "now is the time to take the unpopular actions". ] (]) 05:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


====Statement by WaltCip==== ====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)
It can be argued that this user with insurrectionist invective does not possess much interest in participating in a collaborative fashion. --''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 16:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

===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)

====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)


====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 BleedingKansas=== ===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)
*Based on the pattern of ] editing I see, a COVID topic ban is definitely warranted. ] (]) 02:43, 13 March 2023 (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. ] (]) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*I've indef'd as ] as a normal admin action. A COVID topic ban is the bare minimum necessary. ] (]) 14:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
*I concur with the tban on COVID-19, which appears to be this user's main focus of editing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:54, 13 March 2023 (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)
*@]: I agree that the draft should be G5'd, but will wait for consensus to develop here. ] (]/]) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*Good indef. ] &#124; ] 17:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC).
*: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)
*Concur with the indef. Short of a ''dramatic'' change of attitude, there doesn't seem any likelihood they'll be unblocked so I think this can be safely closed. ] &#124; ] 19:47, 13 March 2023 (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)
*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)
{{hab}} {{hab}}


==AstroGuy0==
== Michael Pocalyko ==
{{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) }}
{{hat|Both extended confirmed protected for between 2 and 4 weeks as normal admin actions. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 09:11, 15 March 2023 (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>
''In advance, I apologise for the very nonstandard request. Can we please get a template for requests that are seeking page-level sanctions instead of sanctions against specific users?''


===Request concerning AstroGuy0===
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ], ]
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}} 03:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
<!--- 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 :
:I cannot provide diffs as ] that they are being ] on discovery.

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
:''N/A; seeking page-level sanctions''

;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
:''N/A; seeking page-level sanctions''


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
I am seeking extended-confirmed protection under the provisions of ] and ] on ] and ]. Yesterday an explosive Twitter post was made by a transgender woman which essentially accused him of provoking their suicide by forcing her into a position where she would need to de-transition; since then the article has been targeted by angry users calling him a murderer as a result. As far as I can determine the only sources for this accusation aside from her twitter post are extremely sketchy websites which seem to have no editorial oversight. Once the BLP was protected, the edits moved to the article on the novel, hence why I am adding it to this request.

The articles were semi'd yesterday and, at the time of this post, Pocalyko is under an hour-long XCP. As I am fairly certain this is going to be a major issue ] even when and if reliable outlets start to corroborate the claim, I am seeking XCP as an enforcement measure for at least two weeks on ''The Navigator'' and one month on Pocalyko. —] <small>(No further replies will be forthcoming.)</small> 21:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

'''EDIT''': Per the IPv4 below, and looking at that page's history, I'm thinking they're right and that ] should also get an XCP of at least a month. —] <small>(No further replies will be forthcoming.)</small> 21:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
:''N/A, seeking page-level sanctions''

===Discussion concerning Michael Pocalyko===

====Statement by LilianaUwU====
It's a touchy situation to say the least. I agree that both the novel and BLP pages should be ECP'd for the mentioned lengths of time, or at least until actual reliable sources start to be published. ] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 21:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by 199.208.172.35====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
It would be helpful to add ] to the list of articles being considered for upped protection in this case. ] (]) 21:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

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

===Result concerning Michael Pocalyko===
*] had already been extended-confirmed protected and I've increased the protection of ] to ECP based on the editing at Michael Pocalyko. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 09:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
{{hab}}

==CozyandDozy==
<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>


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|AstroGuy0}}<p>{{ds/log|AstroGuy0}}</p>
===Request concerning CozyandDozy===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Burrobert}} 13:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|CozyandDozy}}<p>{{ds/log|CozyandDozy}}</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: ] and ] ;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.-->
# Repeated insertion of unreferenced and challenged content in Aaron Maté's bio. This is the first insertion. # 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.
# My reverting of the first insertion. # 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"

# Cozyand Dozy reinserted the text.
# I started a talk page discussion in which CozyandDozy did not participate.
# Insertion of the same disputed text into the body of the article.
# The disputed text is removed by another editor because the "strong allegations not found in the given citation".
# Cozyand Dozy reinserts the disputed text which they say was "apparently deleted by Mate meat puppets".
# and Two reverts within 24 hours in a page with 1RR restrictions.
; 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.-->
# CozyandDozy retired two years ago but recently returned to editing. Prior to their retirement, Arbitration decided that "If they return to editing, broad AP2 and BLP restrictions should be immediately imposed, referencing this report". The reason for the previous decision relates to inserting unreferenced material in a BLP and edit warring.


;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. -->
*Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above).
*There is a ] notice on ]'s talk page:
*Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on .


: Made aware of contentious topics criterion:
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here --> <!-- Add any further comment here -->


; 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. -->


<!--- 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 CozyandDozy===
<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 CozyandDozy====
Hey.


Additional comments by editor filing complaint:
The stuff I was sanctioned for (or about to be sanctioned for) a couple years ago was a real violation of policy: I kept adding accurate information that, while supported by a source, was not supported by an RS, to a BLP. I am not going to defend myself there.


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)
Given that this was so long ago, I did not even remember the details of it until just now, when I read the original complaint by Gorillawarfare and refreshed my recollection.


===Discussion concerning AstroGuy0===
I will say that two years later, I have grown up and would not so glibly violate WP policy as I had before. Whether this sanction should still be imposed two years later (after a two-year "exile" from the encyclopedia) is up to the administrators, I imagine.
<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 AstroGuy0====
This newest complaint is completely erroneous. All my edits on Mate are supported by reliable sources and various other editors at the page, two of which have reverted my edits back in since this report was made. The reporting editor is apparently biased in favor of Mate, and is using my two-year old policy violation as an excuse to try to get his way on the Mate page. ] (]) 16:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


====Statement by Doubletiberius==== ====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. ] (]) 03:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Judging by the user's edit history on the Mate page, a reasonable person would doubt that their previous violations are not still indicative of their behavior, e.g, the edit summary of "re-adding well sourced material that was apparently deleted by Mate meat puppets" on the 16th, which is just one of 41 edits to the page from the same user within the last 23 days, with the first page edit from them happening on the 23rd of Feb. At initial glance none of their edits meet consensus, and they haven't used the talk page from what I can see. ] (]) 21:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


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


===Result concerning AstroGuy0===
====Statement by Cambial Yellowing====
The phrase {{tq|you do appear to have engaged in discussions in good faith on the talk page}} is an interesting response, given the facts: , , . Pinging {{u|Tamzin}} as the initiating admin for the page sanctions. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 19:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
====Statement by SPECIFICO====
This appears to be a weaponized content dispute. The non-Admin comments here are from two deeply involved Russia-related BLP editors whose history speaks for itself and from a third editor that's a brand new SPA. The "unsourced BLP content" allegation does, of course need Admin review. But looking at the talk page, I see experienced editors in good standing who dispute this characterization of the defendant's edits and who take issue with Cambial's aggressive presence on this page. Perhaps Admin Mitchell, whose view seems reasonable and appropriate, will volunteer to keep a close eye on this matter after a logged warning is issued.]] 13:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

===Result concerning CozyandDozy===
:''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. -->
*<!--
*{{ping|CozyandDozy}} Had it not been for your response here, I could very easily have formed the opinion that you are a disruptive editor and that Misplaced Pages would be better off without you. Your acknowledgement of the concerns that got you blocked previously suggests that perhaps that's not the case. Nonetheless, reinstating challenged edits is disruptive, especially when the topic is controversial and the material concerns a living person. ] about how we write about living people because of Misplaced Pages's visibility in search results and the impact that can have on people. However, you do appear to have engaged in discussions in good faith on the talk page. I'm inclined to close this request as premature but if you get into another edit war, it's very likely that you will face sanctions. ] &#124; ] 17:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
-->
*I don't often disagree with {{u|HJ Mitchell}}, but in this instance I do. I believe that the prior warnings to CozyandDozy in the previous AE request served as sufficient notice that adding contentious material to a BLP without citing a reliable source is unacceptable, yet that behavior has continued upon their return to editing. So, I think that at the very least, a topic ban from biographies of living persons related to the American Politics 2 topic area is called for, and I would strongly consider a topic ban from AP2 altogether. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
*:I concur with your analysis, Seraphimblade, but not the scope. Quite frankly, I don't think Cozy should be left alone in any BLP at all until this lesson to follow ] is learned. ] (]) 12:25, 20 March 2023 (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)
*::{{u|Courcelles}}, would you then suggest a topic ban from BLPs in general? My scope was "at least", so I'm not set against that. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:04, 20 March 2023 (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 think I would. Maybe the overall BLP restriction being time-limited to 6 months combined with an indefinite requirement to stay away from ] in particular could work. ] (]) 13:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
{{hab}}
*::::Mate wasn't the only problem, and I ''really'' don't like time-limited sanctions. If we're going to do one here regardless, I would restrict at least AP2 indefinitely, and BLPs generally for six months. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
*:::::Good with me. And make it very clear that further unsourced edits to BLP's is likely to result in a sanction of a permanent nature. ] (]) 13:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
*::::::Just piping in to add a +1 to this, to speed up the whole process. ] (]) 13:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


==Marcelus== ==Lemabeta==
<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 Marcelus=== ===Request concerning Lemabeta===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Pofka}} 00:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC) ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|EF5}} 20:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Marcelus}}<p>{{ds/log|Marcelus}}</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: ] (administrator explanation regarding the most recent sanctioning (in Poland-related topic): It "''applies in the mainspace and relates to all articles related to Eastern Europe. (...) This restriction is indefinite, but I will be willing to reconsider after three months with no violations and no edit warring in other topic areas.''" ().
<!--- 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.-->
# - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing.
#. A proposal discussion was started by user Amakuru regarding my request to change article name of a Lithuanian noble ] (member of ] ] noble family) from a Polish language version (''Paweł Holszański'') to a Lithuanian language version (''Povilas Alšėniškis'') because per Google search it is ] (see: ) and he was a Lithuanian noble.
# - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist.
#. Soon the proposal was opposed by user Marcelus who provided links to the Google searches by purposefully selecting "Search pages in English only" and this way excluding all Lithuanian language sources (which use ''Povilas Alšėniškis''). This, of course, dramatically affected numbers and Lithuanian version was presented as allegedly not the most common version (this is clearly very important for other voters and movers). Since Google Scholar (and Google books) have too few sources about this Lithuanian noble, I think such action was not ].
#. He clarified: "''Strong'' oppose", so likely unwilling to ].
#. Following my why the renaming is necessary, Marcelus replied and inserted statement that "{{tq|Paweł Holszański was a Polish-speaking Lithuanian noble}}". This is very strong argument how his name should be written, right? Nevertheless, I found no such information in ] (that he was a Polish, not Lithuanian language speaker) and Marcelus to provide ] ] supporting his claims to prove that it is not his own ] or to cross that out.
#. Marcelus replied, but ignored my request about ], so it began looking like ], non-] ] ] (one of its examples: "Famous person is or is not a member of group").
#: again ignored my .
#: again ignored my .
# : again ignored my .
# : again ignored my .


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


;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. -->
*Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to 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. *Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|Username}}.
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above).
*Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on
*Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on .
*Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on .
*Placed a {{t|Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

; 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)
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
: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)
There also was a report two months ago regarding Marcelus's editing of content in Lithuania, Poland topics (see: ]). Multiple users agreed that Marcelus violated ], ], ], ], ], ] by trying to insert claims to the article that ] (personally described by Marcelus as "{{tq|chauvinistic pig}}": , ) is described as "anti-Polish", but Marcelus did not provide ] describing him exactly as such. The report was flooded with text and eventually archived without a clear decision. For understanding what happened back then, I recommend reading statements by ] (reporter) and ] (initially uninvolved editor).
:(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)

:: <small>Response to Bishonen. Moved from results section. ] (]/]) 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
Since limited scope, time sanctions don't stop Marcelus, I think indefinite ] should be applied in Poland, Lithuania, Eastern Europe topics.
::(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)

:{{small|(moved; reply to Volunteer Marek)}} Hello, I lately discussed about the situation with an administrator at his talk page () and I was suggested to file WP:AE. I think that persistently not providing WP:RS is not ''disagreement''. Similar situation occurred to Cukrakalnis and Turaids as well (described above). -- ] (]) 01:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

::{{replyto|Isabelle Belato}} Hello, being ] and ], I think it is unacceptable to use personal interpretations to prove POV/insert content and it raises concern about ].
::As described in Cukrakalnis and Turaids situation recently, this is not the first time Marcelus act without providing WP:RS to support his actions in Lithuania, Poland, Eastern Europe topics. I did not participate in Cukrakalnis-Turaids-Marcelus dispute and only saw evidence provided about it at WP:AN, so I cannot describe these users statements here as well by having only 500 words. I pinged them with wiki links, so I think they could explain what happened back then themselves if it is necessary, but I think evidence provided at WP:AN also describe it well. ] for which Marcelus was sanctioned was in the same topics as these concerns about his content-related actions are being made.
::Usage of WP:EV, personal interpretations and ignoring good faith requests to ] them in the same topics seems like ] to me and ] is related with this. Or are we going to freely allow Marcelus to describe any Lithuanians as Polish-speakers, "{{tq|chauvinistic pig}}" and anti-Polish without WP:RS/WP:VERIFY? -- ] (]) 09:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
:::{{replyto|Marcelus}} Your expansion of the article do not prove that Povilas Alšėniškis was a Polish-speaking Lithuanian noble as you claimed (and by the way it was performed with offline sources when at talk page you persistently refused to WP:VERIFY your claim). Your sanction related with Zigmas Zinkevičius was applied after a later report when you continued your actions in the same article (see: ]), so the initial report was really left without a clear decision. It is easy to check. Request to evaluate activity is not negative commenting. -- ] (]) 09:44, 19 March 2023 (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. -->

<!--- 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 Marcelus===
<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 Marcelus====
Pofka created ] () regarding the Paweł Holszański page, undoubtedly knowing that this is a controversial move that needs to be discussed, as it is not the first discussion about what name should be used in article about historical figure of similar background. I protested againt RMT by checking the results from Google Search and Scholar in English (per ], in short: we use English sources) which were radically different (, ). When this was moved to ] I reiterated this argument (), I also gave a brief historical context as to why I think the Polish-sounding version of PH's name is so popular, then a bit later I also added results from Google Books (). In the meantime, I expanded the article on the basis of the sources available to me () and told Pofka that he would find the answer to his question about the sources there ().


===Discussion concerning Lemabeta===
On March 11, 2022, Pofka received a total ban for Lithuania and Poland for attacks on me (), but also for previous offenses (similar situation as now, I explain why the "Polish" name is popular Pofka attacks me for Polish nationalism, etc.) Pofka since October 12, 2022 is also blocked completely on lt.wiki for personal attacks (). The ban on en.wiki was lifted on January 5, 2023, which I supported (), Pofka declared: {{tq|I learned from it, and I'll not negatively comment about other fellow editors}}.
<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 Lemabeta====
Contrary to what Pofka says the Zinkevičius case did not end "without a clear decision." - <s>I and ] were blocked for EW</s> ], nonetheless I wasn't sanctioned]. And it was flooded mainly by ] by the other side (mainly the issue of the 'chauvinist pig', an epithet I used on the talk page and admitted I shouldn't have; in no version of the article was ZZ referred to as anti-Polish which I clarified: {{tq|yes and he isn't called that in the article, only his policies are described as "nationalist" and "anti-Polish"}}). This the reason for my 0RR after the last AE. Pofka wants me to be penalized 3 times for the same thing.
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)


: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.
Pofka also used my 0RR to get the upper hand in content discussions (, ,.
: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)
When I to stop doing this, he simply from his talk page). There were also some occassional ] accusations (), but these are thigns I used to when interacting with Pofka.
::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)====
] to ] without asking for any sanctions on Pofka, because I think there is no problem for both of us to edit on Misplaced Pages, even more so in a topic where there are not many active users. I still hope so.
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

:] was an active participant in the discussion, which is ], moreover he ] (possible ])] (]) 09:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Volunteer Marek====
Is there a revert here? The restriction on Marcelus is 0RR. But all the diffs provided by Pofka are ... talk page comments. This is just a complaint that Marcelus dares to disagree with Pofka (on talk pages, civilly). Pofka also, when referencing the restriction, quotes only irrelevant portions (that it's indefinite etc) but manages to omit what the restriction actually is. Maybe a ] is in order.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The exact comment from the admin on their talk page , made on March 14, was: ''" Your two posts between them are over a thousand words. If you want me to take any action, please make your point concisely. Preferably a tenth of that length. Otherwise you can file at ] but note that walls of text are not accepted there either."''.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by TB====
There is nothing to see here. ] (]) 09:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
:That section is not really evidence of "battleground mentality", a word thrown around too carelessly these days. Editors are humans — not androids — and tempers flare; ''as long as'' things resolve, all's fair and fine. ] (]) 15:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Shadow of the Starlit Sky====

Hello, I am an editor who in uninvolved with these interactions between Marcelus and Pofka. However, I have collaborated with Pofka once before while ]-ing ].

I would like to say that I have looked through Pofka's edit history, block log and global account log. It seems as if Pofka has been indef banned in other wikis in the past including Lithuanian Misplaced Pages for incivility and ad hominem attacks ().

And, Marcelus isn't immune to blame, either. This interaction (https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Marcelus#Your_evidence) seems like an indication of a ] mentality to me. Not to mention his past conflicts regarding Polonization of Lithuanian names somewhat suggests a ] mentality regarding this user too.

I think that an interaction ban between Pofka and Marcelus may be necessary at this point.

] ] 03:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

:Now that I look at the other Admins' responses, I think that maybe a one-way IBAN from preventing Pofka from interacting with Marcelus may be necessary. <span style="background-color: blue">] ]</span> 16:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
::I just read what Pofka posted on @]'s talk page. I kinda agree with his claim about Pofka having a ] mentality now. I will have to look closer into what Pofka said to be 100% sure, though. I just skimmed over his post on HJ Mitchell's talk page for now. <span style="background-color: blue">] ]</span> 16:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
:::But then, the thing I'm concerned about is that Pofka's made tons of constructive edits to Lithuania-related articles in the past, so banning him might greatly affect WikiProject Lithuania and all Lithuania-related articles (he's gotten a Precious nomination in the past). I mean, there are other editors such as Cukrakalnis and Mindaur who have made many constructive edits to Lithuania-related articles, but I believe that Pofka's probably one of the major editors regarding that subject.
:::I still want Pofka to stop some of his ] editing at times, though, judging from the other admins' responses.
:::--<span style="background-color: blue">] ]</span> 17:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Ppt91====
This case has little if any merit. In addition to what others have already said about Pofka misinterpreting the extent of/nature of the original sanction, I am also troubled by Pofka's overall framing of these spelling disputes which to me exhibits a degree of ] mentality. From the diffs presented, the most inappropriate and inflamed comment by Marcelus I see is the one including the term {{tq|chauvinistic pig}} to describe a Lithuanian historian. Pofka's reasoning behind the RM thread, on the other hand, appeared combative from the outset, declaring that {{tq|Polonization of a Lithuanian noble name here is absolutely unjustified}} followed by a flurry of charged responses to Marcellus and several other opposing authors which all felt like ] to prove a point. That said, I think that Pofka's contributions to Lithuanian subjects writ large are valuable, so I am not supportive of a boomerang that would restrict their work in an en-wiki area with few specialists. They might need to be reminded to be civil and ] before escalating an exchange with other editors it into an unnecessary dispute. ]] 01:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

:THIS. This person said EXACTLY what I wanted to say. Banning Pofka would greatly affect WikiProject Lithuania in a negative way, but Pofka seems to need to be reminded to ]. <span style="background-color: blue">] ]</span> 02:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


===Result concerning Marcelus=== ===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. -->
*<!--
*This report is, quite frankly, hard to follow and rather a mess at the moment. We need diffs that show actual problems, and right now I’m not seeing it in this filing. Also, ever as the filer, please comment only in your own section. ] (]) 01:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
-->
*:After a longer, rested look, I think this needs a boomerang, either a logged warning or a little stronger response to Pofka for ] issues in their editing and conduct in this RM and this AE filing. No actual evidence of current wrongdoing has been issued agains Marcelus. ] (]) 15:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
* 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)
*::Final analysis, my opinion is to log a warning to Pofka for ] editing and close this with no other action. ] (]) 13:14, 20 March 2023 (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)
*The provided diffs appear to show a content dispute over a single page move nothing more. In addition, as {{u|Volunteer Marek}} pointed our, the sanction {{u|Pofka}} is seeking to enforce is one of ], and not of a specific contentius topic violation. Pofka, I'd recommend you take {{u|HJ Mitchell}}'s advice, {{diff2|1144443365|here}}, to heart. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:32, 19 March 2023 (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)
:*{{ping|Pofka}} The only problematic thing I see in your report of Marcelus is their refusal to provide the sources you asked for. I see {{u|Marcelus}} has now clarified why he didn't do so, but I'd like to remind them that, if you do have the source, and it's easy to post it (apparently it was one of the sources they added to the article), then you should present them when requested, especially in a MR. On the other hand, it worries me that Pofka continuously use past sanctions against Marcelus as arguments to push during content discussion, the same battleground behaviour they were topic-banned for. Those supporting the removal of your topic ban were very clear that, if this behaviour repeated, sanctions would likely be imposed again. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:41, 19 March 2023 (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)
:*{{ping|Marcelus}} you are slightly over the word limit count. Please trim your response, and a reminder you'll need to request an extension for further replies. Thanks. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:47, 19 March 2023 (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)
*I'm concerned that Pofka's reaction to my clarification of Marcelus's restriction, and my request to stop bringing it up where it wasn't relevant, was to dump 1,000 words of accusations on my talk page relating to a content dispute on one article, and then to file this request, where no uninvolved admin has seen any sanctionable misconduct by Marcelus. This is, in my opinion, suggestive of a battleground mentality. I would support a boomerang. I'm tempted by the idea of an interaction ban but I don't want to impede constructive discussion on article talk pages. ] &#124; ] 16:11, 19 March 2023 (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)
* I see nothing sanctionable in Marcellus' behavior here. I'm not quite to a boomerang on Pofka, although at the very least they need to stop this battleground behavior. Good contributions in one area should not shield an editor and allow them to perpetuate battleground behavior. ] (]) 13:13, 20 March 2023 (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).

Latest revision as of 03:34, 9 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).