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 04:45, 7 December 2023 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive325) (bot← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:34, 9 January 2025 edit undoSeraphimblade (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,243 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|the English language varieties in Misplaced Pages|Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#National varieties of English{{!}}Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style § National varieties of English}}
__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 = 325 |counter =347
|minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(5d) |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==
==Bloodofox==
{{hat|{{u|PerspicazHistorian}} is blocked indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:34, 9 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 Bloodofox=== ===Request concerning PerspicazHistorian===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|HollerithPunchCard}} 02:55, 21 November 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|Bloodofox}}<p>{{ds/log|Bloodofox}}</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. ---> <!--- 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 --->
A topic ban of indefinite or sufficient duration against Bloodofox pursuant to


; ] 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.-->

# - removed "discrimination" sidebar from the page of ] (fascist ideology) even though the sidebar was inserted inside a section, not even the lead.
Since September 27, 2023, @Bloodofox made dozens of radical changes to ], a protected topic ], against community feedback and without consensus.
# - tag bombed the highly vetted ] article without any discussion or reason

# - attributing castes to people withhout any sources
All attempts for civil, rational, content-focused discussions have failed and are met with aspersions and personal attacks. Attempts to salvage deleted content are quickly reverted (sometimes with the help of another editor, @MrOllie), despite reasoned objections on the talk page. Constructive editing on this topic is currently impossible.
# - edit warring to impose the above edits after getting

# - just like above, but this time he also added unreliable sources
Respectfully, this editor has breached numerous ] and including ], ], WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:FORUM, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP: BATTLEGROUND, WP: RECENT, WP: LEDE, WP: SOURCETYPE. AE sanctions are necessary to restore normal order and function to this contentious topic.
# - still edit warring and using edit summaries instead of talk page for conversation

# - 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.}}"
'''Removals of stable, well sourced content without discussion'''

*'''09/27/2023''' - . Deleted almost two full paragraphs, containing 11 academic sources, on the organizational structure of Falun Gong. This material had been stable and largely uncontested for years. Edit summary claims the information is “obviously incorrect” and outdated, but provides no evidence to support this contention.

*On the talk page, other editors point out that the deleted material was well supported by academic experts on Falun Gong, including by a major 2019 scholarly work. Moreover, even if FLG’s organizational structure had changed over time, the encyclopedia should describe that evolution, rather than erasing historical findings.

* Bloodofox offers no evidence on the talk page to support his position, but edit wars to enforce it.

*'''11/08/2023 to 11/15/2023''' - Removes three full paragraphs of the Lede, along with more than 10 academic sources, human rights NGO reports and media reports that introduced Falun Gong’s history, basic theological beliefs, and the persecution by the Chinese government. The deleted material had been stable for years, if not a decade.

*Other editors argued that deletion of important aspects of this topic, to give greater and exclusive focus to recent media articles and controversies, fails , , , , and , , , , , .

* - Bloodofox edit wars to prevent other editors from partially restoring deleted content.

'''Activism, Personal Attacks and Uncivil Conduct'''

*, Pushed a POV (e.g. by declaring Falun Gong-related pages as a ]); did not assume good faith; refused to engage in reaching consensus or making compromise, tries to canvas other editors to join his cause.

* Conducts advocacy and activism against the subject matter, , calling of removal of all information and sources uncritical about Falun Gong from Misplaced Pages.
*, , , Cast aspersions and attacks editors who disagree with him as an “adherent” - Continues despite warning and objections - , . Personal attacks on the basis of perceived religious belief.

More explanations and examples are available if the Administrator deems necessary or helpful to determine this request. If so, I would kindly request leave to exceed the word limit to provide these further examples and explanations.


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> <!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
*Already 2 blocks in last 4 months for edit warring.

;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
* Bloodofox was believed to be subject to a 0RR ban in February 2021 for editing on this subject, under Discretionary Sanctions. Ban appears to be lifted shortly.

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

*Previously 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).
*Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on .
*Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here --> <!-- Add any further comment here -->
Over the past two weeks, Bloodofox has made approximately 32 edits to this article, radically changing this article from its last version that stood in September 2023, which version has been substantially stable for months, if not years. Virtually all attempts to restore deleted content, or to revert his/her edits, were reverted within hours. I believe that AE sanctions against Bloodofox are warranted. This article should be rolled back to the version that stood prior to Bloodofox’s first recent edit on September 27, 2023, so that any contested edit can be discussed individually based on the usual ] cycle.


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)
'''Response to allegations'''


: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)
*Re canvassing - I notified Bloodofox, Warrenmck and Sennala of this AE request and no one else. I notified these 3 because they are the parties directly involved in the ] incident cited above, on both sides, and in my view, ought to have standing to participate in this proceeding. I did not realize this is improper canvasing and if it is, I apologize.


*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)
*Bloodoox's canvassing/campaigning: Kindly note that, during and after this AE request, Bloodofox has also posted notifications of discussion about the Falun Gong topic on FTN and RSN in a highly biased and non-neutral manner, to solicit partisan support and to campaign against the subject matter, which is also canvasing and campaigning.


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
*Re Tamzin - Thank you for looking at this request. You wrote, {{tq|"all I can think is how quickly someone would be blocked if they showed up to Talk:Mi Shebeirach and tried to cite my religion as part of an objection to the article's content."}}, and I couldn't agree more. That's what's happening , and I would appreciate an explanation as to why the editor that does this gets a way with a warning, while the editor that opposed this ] is being recommended for an indefinite topic ban. ] (]) 19:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->

*Reply to Admins' Recommendations: For everyone’s convenience, I’m quoting what Bloodofox said below when attacking other editors. If I must be sanctioned, I invite the admins to at least consider if the language of the attacks below is any better than that of my response to some of these attacks, for which I’m being recommended for topic-ban. I just wish the admins can hold editors from both sides against the same standard, when meting out sanctions:

"Reality check: Thomas Meng is an adherent who haunts these articles and pushes the group's preferred narrative."
“But maybe you should contact all the major media outlets in the US and tell them to stop bullying the Falun Gong with all their nasty coverage that doesn't parrot Li Hongzhi's talking points as well. “

“You are wasting your time attempting to whitewash this page. Dig up all the old books that paint a flattering portrait of Li Hongzhi all you want, that ship has sailed.“

“If you think those sources are too tough on the Falun Gong's misinformation efforts, then perhaps you should write them.”

"I believe you gave your angle away" "lol. This ist typical of the Falun Gong-aligned embedded accounts over at Falun Gong."

"Trust me, if I suspected you of being an adherent, I'd have no bones about telling you. '''I've called them out plenty of times before.''' And I was right."

"there's no denying that you're actively and aggressively lobbying here to attempt to censor and forbid any mention of Falun Gong on this page."

“Your frequent attempts at framing these extensions as independent of Falun Gong are disruptive.”

“you're barking up the wrong tree.”

“Your regular attempts at downplaying anything that isn't a persecution narrative on this page have not gone unnoticed here”

"Gee, what a coincidence that you decided to again edit Misplaced Pages again on that day.”

“I suggest you message the academic directly with your theories or go ahead and message Cambridge University Press”

“we need an immediate crack down on accounts pushing Falun Gong talking points.” “It's time to block the Falun Gong PR accounts”

“This particular editor parrots these talking points has been pushing hard to scrub the article“

"What you've done is simply parrot Falun Gong positions and talking points, as usual, as is evident to anyone watching this page."

*{{re|Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>|Galobtter}} I'm writing to respectfully request to exceed the word limit, which is necessary for me to respond to the various requests and recommendations for boomerang sanctions against me. In addition, this is a highly contentious topic, with intractable editor, and concerning patterns of behaviour that have continued for some time. It is important for both sides of this dispute be adequately fleshed out, which will require exceeding the word limit, for a proper adjudication of this case. I do not expect further back and forth, but only to admit the content that has already been provided above, to the extent that it exceeds the word limit. Thank you for considering this request. ] (]) 18:26, 30 November 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. ---> <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


===Discussion concerning Bloodofox=== ===Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian ===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Bloodofox====
First, it's worth highlighting that if there's a ] on the article from the past several years, chances are I added it. This also includes building articles like Falun Gong headquarters and compound ], which the ] article somehow didn't mention at all, and adding lots of material to '']'', the very visible and now quite notorious media branch (or as "propaganda newsletter") of the ]-centered new religious movement, and others. I first encountered all this when tracing bogus claims of folk traditions around Falun Gong's ] a few years ago.


====Statement by PerspicazHistorian ====
Note that the crux of this editor's desire here is that "this article should be rolled back to the version that stood prior to Bloodofox’s first recent edit on September 27, 2023". In other words, they want all the many sources I've introduced from the past several years removed and the editor's preferred, much more 'positive' sources restored, many of them from decades old. In short, this is a content dispute with the openly expressed goal of getting all that less-than-flattering mainstream media coverage, , removed from the article in one fell swoop. And they also want me gone so I can't add anymore ("a topic ban of indefinite or sufficient duration"). {{ping|HollerithPunchCard}} (and most of those echoing his point here) , where they outright attempt to remove the NBC News piece and media reporting like it, reacting with outrage when we've dared to report on these matters. Revealingly, in an attempt to remove the NBC News reports and those like it, you'll often find some of the accounts below referring to the NBC News and similar entities as "competing media" with the ''Epoch Times''.
*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.
That is not normal editing.
: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
As you can probably picture from that read, our Falun Gong and related articles are rough corners of Misplaced Pages. But this is not because we lack RS. This is solely because Falun Gong and related articles are actively lobbied and edited by groups of adherents.
: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 LukeEmily====
Some of whom have identified themselves on the relevant talk page over the years and some of them have not.
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.] (])


====Statement by Doug Weller====
We know this because (1) what would otherwise be totally normal edits and even praised additions of new and quality WP:RS instead typically provoke intense backlash, taunts, and insults, and (2) because scholars have outright written about the Falun Gong's and its leader's Li Hongzhi's attempts to control Misplaced Pages coverage (see for example discussion about this in ). This is exactly the behavior described by scholars like Lewis and it's a reality anyone who attempts to edit any Falun Gong-related article faces.
I'm involved so just commenting. I don't think this editor is competent. I had to give them a community sanction caste warning as they were making a mess of castes. See this earlier version of their talk page.]https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:PerspicazHistorian&oldid=1262289249] and ]'s comment that "It was very unwise of you to keep moving ] to article space when it has not passed review. As a direct result of your actions, a deletion discussion is taking place, and when this is complete and the article is deleted, you will be prevented from recreating it. ] (]) 14:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)" There have also been copyright issues. I strongly support a topic ban. ] ] 11:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


:::I won't be involved in the decision. No more treatments for me, just coast until... ] ] 12:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
While I usually ignore personal attacks, I've been on Misplaced Pages a long time and I have never experienced anything like what comes my way from editing these articles. The sheer venom aimed at me for even the most pedestrian and rote article change is remarkable. I can't tell you how many names I've been called there from any number of accounts. Any proposed addition or change from an RS is met with total hostility.


====Statement by Toddy1====
This includes the one who brings this request to your table, {{ping|HollerithPunchCard}}, who has referred to me as everything from a "vandal" to an "activist" (see this very page) while other editors casually toss around "bigot" (see {{ping|Zujine}} and others below), to whatever else is on hand to throw my way. It's frankly abusive. And this account is not alone. One CLEANSTART account, {{ping|Sennalen}}, that followed me around responding to every Falun Gong-related post I made with insults and taunts . Back from their block, I see this user is right back at it. Although this account has not disclosed it, it is highly likely this account has edited various Falun Gong-related articles extensively in the past.
This is another editor who appears to have pro-] (RSS) and pro-] (BJP) views. I dislike those views, but find it rather alarming that Misplaced Pages should seek to censor those views, but not the views of the political opponents. Imagine the outrage if we sought to topic-ban anyone who expressed pro-] views, but allowed ] to say whatever they liked.


A lot of pro-RSS/BJP editors turn out to be sock-puppets, so please can we do a checkuser on this account. And to be even-handed, why not checkuser NXcrypto too.
I also note that it also looks like the initial poster is engaging in naked ], including .


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 .
I highly recommend ] here. Like many embedded accounts at Falun Gong articles, this account has done little more than attempt to remove information, like the NBC News report and numerous others from the past several years, and attempted to stop other accounts from adding more while lobbing a huge amount of personal attacks every step of the way. ] (]) 09:35, 21 November 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.
:Just a note that the self-injection of {{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish}} here and, quite newly, over at ] appears to stem from things not going his way in a content dispute with me over at conspiracy theorist ]'s article, where I similarly provided a bunch of media sources that now make up much of the article.
:To his credit he opens with a mention of that dispute below (which I had in fact totally forgotten about) but this frankly isn't the place to rehash that or grind axes.
:Far more important is that we've got ] discussing Falun Gong adherents historically attempting to control the article and accounts like {{user|Thomas Meng}} have previously in fact identified themselves as Falun Gong adherents. Take a gander at this account's attempts at using sources like the '']''.
:Enduring both these accounts and drive-by editors telling us to look the other way is a fact that any editor foolish enough to thanklessly edit these ultra-fringe article and attempt to introduce ] currently simply has to deal with. (])
:Now, this post is quickly turning into a place for cheap shots and score settling aimed at me spilling over from ] spaces I've edited. I wonder how long it's going to be before the cryptozoologists and Young Earthers come in to try to get their digs in. ] (]) 19:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish}} unfortunately provides me with yet another example of ]. Again, where the account both complained about discussing editor behavior while consistently doing exactly that, ScottishFinnishRadish notably just recently popped up on Falun Gong for round two. This editor seems to have no concern for the actual content of the article, adding nothing to the article itself but filling up the talk page with lots of complaining.
::Unfortunately, it appears that myself and other editors there attempting to do more than allow for Falun Gong's narrative to supersede RS coverage just have to deal with this kind of thing as coming with the territory, but the project would really do well with added policies around protecting veteran editors who are foolish enough to put themselves through the nonsense that comes with bringing RS into ] spaces that don't echo the subject's preferred presentation of itself (and I'm referring to me as dumb here).
::This is the only corner of Misplaced Pages where I get accounts following me around, sometimes for years, almost entirely because I've crossed a line by adding a bunch of ] where there weren't before. As a reminder, on ], there was no mention whatsoever of the ''Epoch Times'', Shen Yun, or Dragon Springs before I came around. A group of accounts there ''really'' hates that. Guess who.
::Since then, I've been a huge target there. It's been the same with ], ], Satanic panic topics like ] (), and dozens of other article subjects: I'm public enemy number one to fringe proponents of all types here and situations like this make for an easy dogpile. ] (]) 19:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Note that the quote {{ping|Thomas Meng}} below claims "trivializes" Falun Gong persecution is a direct quote from a 2022 US State Dept report. Give me a break with these ]s. ] (]) 21:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
*Shocking statements like "you're barking up the wrong tree" aside, I highly recommend checking out the edit histories of the ]s I'm quoted responding to sbove. Since 2020, when I appeared on the article, they've been attempting to remove what I've introduced, including the well-sourced phrase ''new religious movement'', mention of ther Dragon Springs compound, mention of Shen Yun and the ''Epoch Times'', the centrality of Li Hongzhi, and so on. Lots of sources. They were also less than enthusiastic about my bringing on scholars discussing Falun Gong's attempts at controlling the page (for example statements like ] "Falun Gong followers and/or sympathizers de facto control the relevant pages on Misplaced Pages" (2018)). ] (]) 13:55, 30 November 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 MrOllie====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
The above is more or less just detailing a content dispute - it's a nothingburger, and I would say that this board shouldn't bother at all, but the OPs own behavior bears a serious look. Here's a collection of talk page quotations from HollerithPunchCard on this topic area:


====Statement by Capitals00====
* "the naked animosity and prejudice he declared against the subject of this article and other editors who disagreed with him."
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 ].
* "I think you should take a break from editing this topic."
* "half the time you were ]ing, and the other half, you were launching blatant ] against other editors"
* "But it does show how Bloodofox tilts at windmills, in his unconcealed activism on this topic."
* "If this pattern of disruption continues, external assistance will be inevitable."
* "In my respective view, we are witnessing a vandalization and clear POV-pushing on this page, committed by ] and ], and a few others."
* "I think you need to stop peddling your personal views and speculations to dictate what source is reliable and what is not. There is on ] which you should refer to when trying to exclude a source, than to rely on your own thinly veiled prejudice on this matter."
* "Binksternet is blatantly peddling his undisguised personal views to support his reverts."
* "Your personal experience on wikipedia simply doesn't matter. "


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 submit that this level of repeated incivility and personal attacks is a case where a ], perhaps in the form of a topic ban, would be the best thing for the encyclopedia. - ] (]) 03:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


====Statement by Vanamonde93====
PS: I'll also note that the OP is presently engaged in canvassing support for this report: ,
{{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.
====Statement by Rjjiii====
Is this not a content dispute? I mostly see {{u|Bloodofox}} removing content that cites primary sources and adding content from secondary sources.


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)
For example:
- {{tq|calling of removal of all information and sources uncritical about Falun Gong from Misplaced Pages.}}


: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)
But Bloodofox's actual words are, "{{tq|It's no secret that the Chinese government persecutes religious groups of all stripes. Yet we don't consider the Falun Gong to be a reliable source for anything around these parts, and any source that takes the group's word uncritically and at face value needs to go from this site and arguably Misplaced Pages as a whole. That's a clear violation of ].}}".


====Statement by UtherSRG====
The above comment is from a description of why Bloodofox removed large chunks of content cited to Freedom House. He explained in a lengthy message on the Falun Gong talk page why Freedom House articles citing and quoting Falun Gong, should be considered a primary source and not reliable secondary coverage. {{u|HollerithPunchCard}} commented in that discussion, "{{tq|I'm beyond uncomfortable with the sweeping extirpation of stable content on this article by Blood}}".
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)


:Based on , I'm more strongly leaning towards indef. - ] ] 12:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The open thread at ] seems the more appropriate place to resolve the dispute, ] (]) 07:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Update: I made the post above before I saw that the filer has canvassed support from others who had disagreed with Bloodofox.] (]) 03:51, 22 November 2023 (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 ] 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 ===
====Statement by Warrenmck====
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


{{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)
I'm one of the users who was pinged by HollerithPunchCard on my talk page. I'm somewhat in agreement that it feels a little inappropriately editorialized and targeted at people with a certain perspective, but I do think it wouldn't have been as bad if it'd been made clearer I was involved as the target of some of the uncivil behaviour in the diffs above. I considered an ANI myself but was frankly too exhausted from the whole thing.
<!-- 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}}
I'm inclined to wholly agree with HollerithPunchCard, and I do think it's erroneous to call this a content dispute. I think Bloodofox was incredibly out of line. When I raised FTN mission creep and concerns that we shouldn't treat a religion as a fringe theory, but rather practices which are themselves fringe, I got met with
{{hab}}


==LaylaCares==
:{{tq|"I'm sure the Falun Gong and its many misinformation arms like the Epoch Times would be more than happy to hear that you think discussing them should be forbidden. And why not let this poor multi-billion dollar org spread anti-vaccine, anti-evolution, anti-climate change, and so on in peace to millions in the US, Canada, and Europe without troubling them with reporting on it?"}}
{{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>


===Request concerning LaylaCares===
And it never really improved from there. Beyond implying repeatedly that I was an "adherent" for disagreeing with them, I think MrOllie warrants a look here for their behaviour as well.
; 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>
It is utterly impossible to have a civil discussion on a complex, nuanced topic when users are browbeating any other perspective and both strawmanning and casting aspersions at editors trying to engage in good faith. . Both MrOllie and Bloodofox were essentially refusing to let discussion take place which didn't align with their preferred outcome, and assuming everyone who didn't immediately align with them was out to censor criticism of Falun Gong, rather than methodological or meta concerns.


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
I expressed concern with trying to monitor an entire religion via FTN as an inappropriate use of it, while at no point saying that addressing fringe topics which may exist within that religion do not belong there. I'm trying to act in good faith, but I was definitely concerned with FTN being used for a religion writ whole, and there was more than a small amount of religious intolerance being thrown around in that thread.


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
My only request is that any admins looking at this please look at the chain of conversations that took place there and ask how well-meaning editors with contrary perspectives were meant to engage civilly without getting completely misrepresented for having the gall to disagree with the two posters who had decided this topic was theirs to dictate the outcome of. If my own behaviour was out of line in that thread, by all means ] me, I want my behaviour to be in line with Misplaced Pages's expectations as well, but that thread was absurdly hostile and sanctions feel appropriate. ] 07:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
====Statement by Robert McClenon====
This was bound to end up either at ] or here, and it can be better managed by the admins here. ] filed a request for dispute resolution at ] on 15 November. ] opened a thread at ] several hours earlier on 15 November. I declined the DRN request because it was pending in another forum. The discussion, if it can be called discussion, at FTN is now more than 9200 words. See ]. I haven't tried counting how many words have been provided by each participant. (If the DRN filing had preceded the FTN filing, I would hope that I would have collapsed most of the 9200 words. I am sort of glad that the FTN filing came first, so that I didn't have to moderate and clerk that interchange.) I think that either somebody needs to be ], or an ] is needed, or both, but I haven't studied the FTN verbal dumps. Too much is too much. ] (]) 02:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Binksternet====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
Boomerang is appropriate here, as described by MrOllie. Generally, at the Falun Gong–related articles, we have three types of editors: Falun Gong adherents, Falun Gong haters, and neutral folk trying to build and protect the encyclopedia. HollerithPunchCard is type 1, as established by the first few registered edits. Bloodofox is solidly in the third category, with 18 years of editing in widely ranging topics. The adherents spend a lot of energy questioning the validity of sources and contributors, trying to prove that the neutrals are haters and thereby diminish them. The neutral Wikipedians spend energy trying to show the adherents have been spinning the topic in their favor. This latest round is more empty air from HollerithPunchCard—another attempt to prove bias against someone who is neutral. ] (]) 15:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Bloodofox’s edits and this this conversation are more than a content dispute, and the Freedom House reporting is a side issue.

First, Freedom House is only one of the many sources Bloodofox removed from the lede. On 11/15/2023, Bloodofox reverted another editor’s restoration of the 3 paragraphs removed from the lede. In this version that Bloodofox reverted , every reference of the Freedom House report was accompanied by additional academic sources. Second, Freedom House is a widely respected NGO, and the attempts to discredit them by editors in this dispute is quite telling. This aspect is a minor dispute and can be handled in other fora.

This arbitration is about an editor deciding the truth of a contentious topic for him/her/theirself and then forcing that view onto the page and attacking editors who disagree.
Bloodofox made his intention of removing the content from the lede clear on the talk page here : - {{tq|We're not here to produce Falun Gong-approved versions of this article. And that's why we're not sweeping everything aside to smokescreen the group's operations by emphasizing at every corner how evil the Chinese government is and how very persecuted Falun Gong is.}}

I'm not trying to produce a Falun Gong-approved version. And as far as I can tell HollerithPunchCard and others have not sought to remove critical content of Falun Gong, the arguments on content seem to be about and . Those are legitimate arguments that have taken place on the talk page. Bloodofox ignored all those comments, did not engage constructively, and escalated this into a battleground. I find the language used by a number of editors in discussing this religious minority group to be unsettling and bigoted, but those views don't violate the policies of the encyclopedia and I do not wish to regulate the tone and vocabulary of others. The aggressive editing and smearing of other editors does however violate a number of policies, which I think are outlined fairly well in this action. This is the kind of thing that has made me walk away from Misplaced Pages in the past. I've created a lot of pages on the encyclopedia and dedicated years of my life to working on topics that I think are valuable. Dealing with this open aggression towards a vulnerable group that suffers well documented persecution just takes the wind out of my sails.—'''<font color="darkred">Zujine</font>|]''' 17:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Sennalen====
As always there are disagreements about content, but this is primarily about Bloodofox's unwillingness to acknowledge that good-faith objections to their edits are even possible in principle.
* Bloodofox apparently began editing the Falun Gong page in 2020. For all of that time, they have been edit warring to make the political affiliations of the ''Epoch Times'' the focus of the article and to remove claims about persecution of Falun Gong in China (for example, ) Recent behavior is not some deviation from an otherwise productive history. It's just this.
* The relationship of Falun Gong with the ''Epoch Times'' is a legitimate matter for the article to address, but Bloodofox pursues it a non-neutral manner that is not appropriate to an encyclopedia. For example, their very first attempt was to insert multiparagraph direct quotes of ridicule from opinion columnists.
* Bloodofox's advances the theory that sources are unreliable solely on the basis that they don't disagree with Falun Gong. That is not a content dispute, but a flat out rejection of the fundamental definitions of ] and ].
* Bloodofox reverted to restore text challenged on BLP grounds. To date, they have not acknowledged they understand the problem.
* Bloodofox routinely paints other editors' pleas to respect NPOV or norms of civility as Falun Gong adherents trying to censor him.
* Bloodofox has been of some minor service to the encyclopedia by resisting efforts to scrub the phrase "new religious movement", but there are plenty of other editors ready to maintain that front without Bloodofox's constant provocations. I'm watching the article now, so I'll do it myself. ] (]) 23:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
::edit: Within this very proceeding, they continue to try to insinuate that I am some kind of sleeper agent for Tai Chi.
:::Notifications were ]. I am at a loss for why anyone would think there is something here to boomerang. On the one hand, an editor has been on a months-long bender of battleground editing and incivility. On the other hand some editors have said this behavior is a problem and would like it to stop. That's the real problem? Describing disruptive behavior is not a personal attack. Should editors not try to work out these issues at all on talk pages - just go zero to AE for any conflict? I would genuinely like to understand the thought process. How is Misplaced Pages supposed to function if this is the new norm?
::::It was a 31 '''hour''' block for saying {{tq|Bloodofox wants the article to use only sources that are hostile to Falun Gong, regardless of publisher.}} I took it as an isolated error by a careless admin, and I wouldn't raise a fuss about taking a break for a day — but if arbitrators agree that talking about Bloodofox's approach to reliable sourcing policy constitutes personal attacks, I am genuinely asking for clarification, because nothing makes sense anymore. ] (]) 14:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|Tamzin}} Thank you for due diligence in examining Bloodfox's behavior and for warning about specific practices to avoid. Topic ban or not, I would appreciate a warning in the same level of detail. That way finally one person in this thread will have said what I did wrong. ] (]) 19:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
::{{re|Tamzin}} Right off the bat, I entirely reject any relationship between race and intelligence.
::The Covid case is expressly not about removing anyone, but about getting them to slow down and discuss edits.
::The diff at Falun Gong touched on other content and issues in addition to BLP. I apologize for not being more precise.
::The mere fact that I have participated in a lot of CTOPs is used to cast aspersions that I have dangerous points of view on those CTOPs. No one knows my views, because I observe ] sincerely. If administrators would like me to write an essay on why nazis are bad before I continue participating, I can do that.
::In all of these areas I have edited with total dedication to reliable sourcing, neutral point of view, and the purpose of an encyclopedia. That has caused conflicts, yes, but I have been criticized (amazingly) for being too civil.
::People have had some cogent objections to edits on Western Marxism. I listened to those objections and already tabled my proposal before being at AE. Maybe some people would prefer I just go away instead of working on a better edit, but what I am doing is a normal Misplaced Pages editing process.
::Some of the complaints against me deserve full hearing, but their framing is skewed. If something as extreme as a site ban is on the table, I request that it be deliberated in a process that is about me specifically. I can't possibly answer insinuations about two years of edits in multiple areas just in sidebars of other AE requests. ] (]) 21:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
:::{{re|Galobtter}} When I said ] I meant nothing else. Increasing the use and weight of journal articles is a constent through-line of my editing. That's especially visible in my edits on Covid. I have never endorsed or supported a fringe theory on Misplaced Pages, only had them repeatedly projected on me.
:::Per the encouragement of {{u|Viriditas}} I invite anyone concerned that I have a view that conflicts with proper editing to just ask me what my view is on my talk page. That's not exactly how Misplaced Pages should work, but I think since I have become such an object of scrutiny anyway, there can't be any harm. ] (]) 00:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
:So no one has to speculate about what I might do next, my main project for 2024 was going to be fleshing out ] from a listicle to a proper article, starting with ] and ]'s works on proto-fascism in revolutionary France, from ] through ] and ]. ] (]) 16:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Thomas Meng====
I objected to Bloodofox's to the FG lead. It fails ], as the lead should "summarize the most important points covered in an article", not just one section of it. It fails ], as most academic research on Falun Gong is centered around its main body of adherents—those in China (7-20 million, according to ] ), the persecution they experience there, or overseas adherents' activism to end the persecution in China. It fails ], as the current lead has no mention of the history of the movement and focuses only on recent controversies. It fails ], as scholarly work should outweigh a few passages from media articles, which are not even mainly about FG's teachings and beliefs per se.

I understand politics may affect an editor's personal views on FG. But the main body of FG adherents are in China. They have nothing to do with U.S. politics, and are still experiencing ].

Despite raising ] citing several academic sources' description of FG , all I received from Bloodofox is personal attacks such as accusing that I'm an adherent who {{tq|haunts}} the FG page , or taunts such as {{tq|You are wasting your time attempting to whitewash this page. Dig up all the old books that paint a flattering portrait of Li Hongzhi all you want, that ship has sailed.}}

Bloodofox has yet to provide any evidence that FG's core teachings and beliefs changed, or that major academic books published in 2008 (''Falun Gong and the Future of China'', Oxford Univ. Press) and 2012 (''The Religion of Falun Gong'', Univ of Chicago Press) have been outdated. In fact, old or new has never been the true issue. As I brought up scholarly works published in 2018 and 2020, he dismissed them by saying that they {{tq|echo Falun Gong's self-descriptions"}} . If a scholarly work doesn't describe what is the main text of that religion, is the work still about that religion?

I haven't seen the lead of any other religion that doesn't talk about its history and basic theology, or the lead of any persecuted minority (religious or ethnic) that doesn't talk about the human rights abuses that they experienced.

The current lead not only misrepresents Falun Gong, it reflects poorly on the encyclopedia itself. ] (]) 15:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
:Contrary to what Bloodofox , I never identified myself as an FG adherent. ] (]) 14:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|User:JoelleJay}} In my edit summary, I only referred to restoring the three paragraphs Bloodofox removed in the lead. That is what I intended to do; I didn't touch anything Bloodofox added in other parts of the lead. But I now realize that I might've inadvertently restored the lead paragraphs while editing on an earlier version of the page. That might've resulted in unintended changes to the body sections. ] (]) 06:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by fiveby====
In response to some of the above, bloodofox is clearly wrong on the content side of things, but so what. There's now a few noticeboard discussions with long unproductive comment threads, a worsening atmosphere, all fighting of a few lines of introductory text. The solutions seems simple, take away everyone's toys by deleting the lead section. ](]) 17:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

==== Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish ====
I've been in an editing dispute with bloodofox in the past, so I'll pop in here as this report is titled after them. I think that along with whatever sanctions are decided a firm reminder to all of those involved to ''stop commenting on each other all the damn time'' is necessary. Calling people you disagree with "adherents" is no good, same as the examples provided by MrOllie are no good. If everyone avoided personalizing the disputes and followed ] this whole thing would be much less adversarial. Canvassing, including non-neutral noticeboard posts, is no good. All of that needs to stop too.{{pb}} When I take a look at an unfolding dispute like this, stepping in to address it is much more difficult when there is bad behavior from all sides. It's a contentious topic, so all editors should be following best practices. ] (]) 18:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

:And that's the immediate personalization of disputes I'm talking about. I've had Falun Gong on my watchlist for over two years, since the first edit request I declined there, and my editing history at shows I've had my eyes on this topic for some time. My recent activity was brought about by the FTN thread, and I'm not seeking any sanctions against bloodofox, just a general reminder about ''exactly that type of editing''. That they immediately made an accusation about a content dispute 18 months ago, when I also didn't support any sanctions when it escalated to ANI, is baffling.
:Any time there's a focus on editors over content it leads to reams of text that makes no headway on consensus, and makes sure the editors involved are hardened against any compromise with each other. That should be addressed. ] (]) 19:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
:¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ] (]) 19:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by JoelleJay====
I've had Falun Gong-adjacent pages on my watchlist for two years, although I rarely edit in the area anymore. After looking over the diffss, I have to agree that Bloodofox's personalized criticism of other users should be discouraged, as should attacking the reliability of every source remotely favorable to the group. But from a content and POV-pushing perspective I think their edits are far more justified than those of their opponents. In particular I'd like to challenge Zujine's statement {{tq2|On 11/15/2023, Bloodofox reverted another editor’s restoration of the 3 paragraphs removed from the lede. In this version that Bloodofox reverted Diff, every reference of the Freedom House report was accompanied by additional academic sources.}} The {{diff2|1185181036|edit}} being reverted had substantial changes beyond the lead. It deleted {{tq|According to the Falun Gong}} from the start of a paragraph in the "Beliefs and practices" section describing the principles of FG, effectively putting its definition of itself into wikivoice. Note that the source used for this description itself employs "According to Falun Gong..." rather than stating the principles authoritatively, so removing that framing also misrepresents the source. The edit also deleted the entire preceding paragraph describing its origin, including an (attributed and sourced) unfavorable characterization of its teachings. It removed a rewrite template from this section as well. While I don't think it was bad faith to add so much positive/neutral content to the lead, supported by many apparently unnecessary refs to Freedom House, when combined with the other, rather disguised, changes in this diff, it's not unreasonable to interpret it as yet another tendentious edit from a rotating cast of advocates. And from this perspective I'm a bit more sympathetic Bloodofox's jaded, accusatory edit summary in their revert (in this instance and in others). ] (]) 01:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

===Result concerning Bloodofox===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
* I'm looking at only two possible results here, which are "this is a content dispute" or a ] for the filer. I am particularly looking at the comments by MrOllie and Binksternet, and looking through the diffs. The OP says "sanctions are in order". I agree, although not in the way they may be seeking. ] 19:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*What Black Kite said, and I am leaning towards the latter. ] (]) 02:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
*What Drmies (and Black Kite) said. Some of the users whom the OP canvassed may require sanctions, as well, or at the very least logged warnings. ] 03:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
:*{{u|Sennalen}}, one would think that after a <s>3-month</s> <u>31 hours</u> block for personal attacks against Bloodofox, you'd tread more carefully. A ] seems increasingly due for you, too. RE: {{tq|new norm}}, which this isn't — Bloodfox is the subject of this complaint, they're ''not'' the filer. Also, please ensure you sign + timestamp all your comments here. ] 07:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
::*{{u|Sennalen}}, indeed it was 31 hours not 3 months. Looks like I conflated you with another user. Sorry about that. Struck and amended. ] 01:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
* Don't have time to look at this but I think this is close to being archived but should get a proper closure. ] (]) 05:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
*I'm on board with an indef TBAN for Hollerith, mostly per MrOllie. I lean toward the same for Sennalen, but that might benefit from a bit more discussion. (A 1-way IBAN is also a viable option.) That said, not all of the concerns voiced are entirely invalid: I think there should be a general warning to editors in the topic area, and in particular Bloodofox, to not speculate as to the religious affiliation of editors, nor to disqualify editors' views based on actual or perceived religious affiliation. All I can think is how quickly someone would be blocked if they showed up to ] and tried to cite my religion as part of an objection to the article's content. Bloodofox needs to remember to focus on content, not contributor, and to come to administrators in cases where conduct issues prevent focusing on content. But to be clear, most of the issue here is coming from the other side. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]&#93;</sup> <small>(they&#124;xe&#124;she)</small> 18:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
*:Forgot to mention here one of my reasons for tending toward a sanction for Sennalen, which is I really hate misrepresentation at AE, and calling ] a restoration of a BLP revert is a pretty serious stretch. The last paragraph is a BLPCRIME issue, but Sennalen had removed considerably more than that under that policy, so I don't see ] by any means, more like baiting.{{pb}}Anyways, I did take a look at ] Bloodofox filed, and while I wasn't convinced of socking, it did give me a greater sense of Sennalen's edits, not in a good way. We have her pushing racist pseudoscience at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive351#Eyferth_study_-_Inappropriate_RFC_Closure}} and {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1124#Block_review_-_AndewNguyen}}. A lot of people look bad in {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1120#Sennalen_trying_to_OWN_a_topic_area_to_have_their_way_with_multiple_overlapping_articles.}} but Sennalen is definitely one of them. Now a potential ] in this thread and a potential boomerang in {{slink||ජපස and Bon courage}} below. And there's the added issue of "CLEAN"START status; I'll note that disclosing an alt to an admin is not in fact a substitute for CLEANSTART's expectation that a user will keep their nose clean, and sullying a CLEANSTART just turns it into regular socking. That policy creates a limited path back to editing for people who've chosen to abandon an old account without disclosing it, not ''carte blanche'' to start drama. (Another way to look at this is, if people are talking about the fact that you're a CLEANSTART, it's not a CLEANSTART.){{pb}}With an eye to ] and ]'s comments down there, I'll just put out there that I think this is the exact kind of situation that the AE siteban option was added for. This user is causing disruption across at least five CTOP areas (FRINGE, COVID, FLG, R&I, and AMPOL). They're now trying to use AE to silence topic-area opponents. Basically their entire set of contributions to Misplaced Pages is disruptive in one way or another. I think enough is enough. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]&#93;</sup> <small>(they&#124;xe&#124;she)</small> 20:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
*::I'd agree with an AE indef (probably under FRINGE since the common theme is pushing fringe/conspiracy theories). She isn't here to build an encyclopedia; by her own admission at the Eyferth thread:
*::"Not coincedentally, these are all areas where there is a Americentric politically-motivated local consensus to disregard or undermine WP:BESTSOURCES. I go where I'm needed." Reading between the lines, her goal is to go wherever she can push fringe theories in various topics.
*::(My understanding though is that even with a consensus of admins at AE an AE block reverts to being a normal one after a year.) ] (]) 23:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::Yes, procedurally after one year an AE indefblock or siteban becomes a regular admin action under the auspices of the enforcing admin. AFAICT it's semantics whether we call such an action a block or ban, since AE blocks already can't be overturned unilaterally, which is the main ]. Both terms have been used in the past; to me, "ban" seems more accurate to describe the result of AE consensus, but I don't really care what term we use. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]&#93;</sup> <small>(they&#124;xe&#124;she)</small> 00:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
*:: I completely agree. My immediate reaction to editors who are trying to silence opponents with terrible rationales is to TBAN the OP. ] 18:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
* {{re|HollerithPunchCard|Bloodofox|Sennalen}} You're all past the word limit. Please request permission from an admin if you need to say anything further. A number of other editors are just shy of the limit. Please check your word counts before adding further replies. Remember that AE is a venue at which to present evidence for the admins, not a back-and-forth. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]&#93;</sup> <small>(they&#124;xe&#124;she)</small> 18:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

==ජපස and Bon courage==
<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 ජපස and Bon courage===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Sennalen}} 22:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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

;Sanction or remedy 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.-->
User ජපස has used many names, frequently random alphanumerics (see ]). He typically signs messages "jps", which is how I will generally refer to him.
# EC gaming
*jps removed claims, citations, and footnotes of peer-reviewed journal articles that differ from his point of view, with an edit summary accusing me of PoV pushing
*jps unilaterally moved a page while the choice of name was under discussion
*jps made edits that misrepresented sources and created SYNTH, and he reverted to retain it. His edit message did not acknowledge any concern I had raised about verifiability, only calling it "egregious anti-science WP:POVPUSH".
*When I raised concerns about jps' conduct on his talk page, he responded only with aspersions and a threat to have me topic banned.
*In reply to my discussion of text in sources, jps reiterated the threat and said I should "offer higher-quality sources or work with what we've got", a non-sequitur ] response given that I am the only one who has presented any source or acknowledged any text contained in a source whatsoever.
Taken together, these demonstrate that jps has acutely engaged in tendentious editing and treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground.


Simultaenously on the same page, Bon courage has engaged in related behavior.
*Bon courage deleted paragraphs of peer-reviewed claims about zoonotic origins as supposedly "off topic".
*Bon courage deleted conclusions he disagreed with solely on the dubious grounds it was primary research and edited to assert in wikivoice the conclusions of a primary source that agreed with his views.
These demonstrate that Bon courage has acutely engaged in unjustified removal of sourced material and editing to push a point of view.

This is consistent with a pattern of behavior Bon courage has shown over the past two years:
*deleting a swath of text and sources in February
*deleting mention of a peer reviewed article saying that investigations should be based on evidence. (This was alleged to be fringe.)
*deleting the conclusions of the DOE as reported in NYT and WSJ (as "pov push, fringe editorial")

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
Reconstructing ජපස's history is complicated by frequent name changes, but highlights include:
*caution from ArbCom in the 2006 pseudoscience case
*three month site ban by ArbCom in 2009 fringe science case
*one year topic ban from fringe science in 2011
*indef block in 2011 (overturned obviously)
*advised at ANI in 2017
*an article ban in 2018
*reminded about civility in the Covid-19 area at AE July 2023


;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 ]):
*ජපස participated in process about the area of conflict .
*Bon courage gave a contentious topic alert in the area .


; 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)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
After undertaking a literature review over the course of a few months, I published this week a new article that is currently at ]. I carefully matched the strength of wikivoice statements to the language of sources - ("likely", "putative", "plausible" and so on when the source used that word). This has drawn ire from two users with a strong point of view that the origin of Covid-19 is conclusively known.


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
The provided diffs demonstrate tendentious editing, especially ] and ]. They will contend that they are defending science and reliable sources against fringe views, but that is manifestly in bad faith. They have made isolated demands for rigor, while their overall project is mass deletion of peer-reviewed journals that they disagree with. Meanwhile, the lede of ] yet contains claims from such sources as Reuters, FactCheck.org, and the Chinese Foreign Ministry. Bon courage especially defends the use of David Gorski's self-published blog in an article lede.


===Discussion concerning LaylaCares===
I would be very willing to collaborate in resolving objections to particular sentences and sources, but these two are gish-galloping mass deletions at a rate that would be impossible to discuss, even if they were willing to discuss. Together, their efforts are an obstacle to building articles that reflect scientific consensus.
<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>
:Before anything else I would like to clear up procedural concerns that a few editors have mentioned. I am not entirely sure the nature of the problem or what steps would resolve it, so I welcome advice. ] (]) 23:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:Regarding notifications, I posted neutral mentions on the talk pages of the three articles involved in evidence. That's squarely in the remit of ].
:I appreciate SandyGeorgia's perspective on primary sourcing. There are nuances impossible to unpack at AE, but the crux is that Bon courage deployed the rationale selectively in pursuit of his point of view. Pekar ''et al.'' is in fact primary for the claim that spillover occurred twice. ] (]) 04:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
:jps provides three diffs, which show only that:
:#I said we should follow the MOS and follow sources about the origin of Covid.
:#I said we should ] when sources use qualifiers like "likely".
:#I quoted sources.
:All the ''Sturm und Drang'' about "conspiracy theories" is because I, like ], think Covid-19 ''likely'' originated in animals.
:Several have commented that I have edited in other CTOPs, which is true. This is non-evidence and not appropriate to make insinuations about.
:I strongly reject the notion that the root cause problem is that I created an article in article space. There is nothing more ]. I'm wary about enabling a heckler's veto, but if temporary draftification actually would help jps and Bon courage feel ] to delete what they don't like, it could be a pragmatic mitigation.
:There are very important unresolved content disputes about the zoonosis article, including whether primary sources have been used incorrectly and how the scope of the article relates to the parent ]. Content issues are not for AE to solve.
:Above all we're here instead of some other forum because of failures to discuss and outright ''refusals to discuss'' rationale for edits. I would love to work towards some compromise on the talk page. The obstacle to that is that jps and Bon courage must recognize me as an editor, peer, researcher, and worthy interlocutor. That would be a successful outcome for this process. ] (]) 04:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|Galobtter}} I edited under a different account from 2014 through 2019. I can easily promise I did not make any edits about Covid-19 in that period. I was aware of jps at the time as the nonsense-name account, but we had no sigificant interactions that I recall. I abandoned the account because it could be connected to my real name. I would privately divulge the former account on a legitimate request from a CheckUser or Arbitrator, but not otherwise. ] (]) 05:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
:If people think there's something I'm doing wrong across multiple CTOPs, perhaps they could say what it is that I'm doing wrong. Besides just listing CTOPs that it might be happening in. ] (]) 06:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|Bon courage}} ''The Spectator'' is not a source used in the article. Temmam (2023) was in ]. Pekar (2022) was in ''Science'', not ''Cell''. Maybe you are thinking of Holmes (2021) in ''Cell'' which was part of what you deleted. ] (]) 07:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
: I'm happy to discuss Marxism, but a different process or venue would be appropriate. AE said in 2021 that it's not under DS.]
: The only involvement I have ever had with Falun Gong is responding to Bloodofox's FTN thread and then getting called a cultist and sock. That they do this to everyone is the cause of the complaint against Bloodofox higher on the page, and they continue the behavior here. ] (]) 15:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
: I'm happy to report though that some collaborative discussion has finally started to emerge on the zoonosis talk page. ] (]) 15:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
: I can see now why Bloodofox would have these suspicions about an account whose interests and timeline intersect so much with mine, but I am not Cleopatra Apocalypse. I see some good contributions from her, so I hope she resumes eventually. ] (]) 18:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
: Per the encouragement from Viriditas I invite anyone concerned that I have a view that conflicts with proper editing to just ask me what my view is on my talk page. That's not exactly how Misplaced Pages should work, but I think since I have become such an object of scrutiny anyway, there can't be any harm. ] (]) 00:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
: {{re|Black Kite}}, This is something that would be valuable to clarify. I read that portion of the policy as a caution to people who were seeking a clean start in order to escape connection with some kind of past sanction, which was not my situation. It also seems more like advice than a rule. Do you read it as saying that once a person has done a clean start, they must never edit a CTOP again, to the end of time? I had not edited at all for two years by that point. ] (]) 15:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
: It's worth pausing to consider why anyone even knows I followed CLEANSTART.
: It's because in an earlier round of false socking allegations someone noticed I seemed to be too experienced for my account age and asked if I followed CLEANSTART. Of course, I answered honestly, apparently to my detriment. ] (]) 15:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
: {{re|tgeorgescu}} The policy says, {{tq|If you are not under Arbitration Committee sanctions, you are not required to notify anyone of your clean start.}}
: jps has raised a new issue concerning COVID-19. This regards a study finding the most recent common ancestor of COVID-19 and RaTG13 was in bats 40-50 years ago. No one has identified an ancestor strain from then until 2019. I'm not sure why jps objects to this. When I asked him to clarify, he immediately returned to personalizing the question, which is the sort of thing I originally sought relief for. ] (]) 16:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
: jps clarified below that he is concerned that I want to use this paper to claim that 50 years ago is the very last time a bat was infected. It would be completely invalid for me to do that, since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is the kind of problem that arises from assuming bad faith. Anything else on this tangent should be on the article talk page instead of AE. ] (]) 17:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


====Statement by LaylaCares====
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
ජපස Bon courage

===Discussion concerning ජපස and Bon courage===
<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 ජපස====
] seems like something that should occur here. I do not think this user account should be editing articles related to COVID-19 as it seems that their primary activity may be ] ] (I will not speculate on the intention of the account, only the upshot of their activities). The following diffs, to me, indicate some big problems:

# -- A declaration of principles that the origin of COVID-19 is unknown.
# ] that there is no "proof" for the origins of COVID-19.
# An attempt to produce a ] of sources ]d to present an argument that the origin of COVID-19 is contested vis-a-vis the content in question: Zoonotic origin.

Inasmuch anything is a fact, it is a fact that COVID-19 has a zoonotic origin. If we have an account who is actively fighting against this fact, that is disconfirming enough to mean that they should not be editing in this topic area.

If you have specific questions about any of the supposed evidence provided by Sennalen, I am happy to answer, but I think the remedy that is required is removing this account from the topic.

I'd also note that they are essentially a ] when it comes to taking pro-conspiracy theory POVs on this subject, ], and certain other antisemitic conspiracy theories. I'll let their contribution history speak for itself in that regard.

] (]) 22:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

'''Note on review''' I see that the user has but did not notify the ] thread. I think this might be construed as a violation of ]. I am not sure why that talkpage deserves notification of this discussion unless the goal is to rally sympathetic users to her cause. If there is another explanation, happy to hear it. ] (]) 22:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

=====Discussion of editorial concerns=====
{{collapsetop|Hidden for ease of reading for those who don't want to get into detailed specifics.}}
I continue to have reservations about Sennalen in topics that require ] and ] care. , in particular, makes an editorial argument that 40 to 50 years ago is "the latest date that we know (rather than reasonably surmise) a bat was infected with a direct progenitor of SARS-CoV-2". They based this on a last common ancestor analysis appearing in . The "know (rather than reasonably surmise)" premise posits an interpretation that misinterprets this analysis in service of casting doubt on zoonotic origins more broadly (whether intentionally or not). This would be similar to a creationist editor trying to enshrine a principle of "but the dates are not ''known'' -- only surmised" as a starting point for geological history or a climate change denier arguing that "uncertainty on the models mean we cannot know what the future will hold". This rhetoric shifts the talkpage from a focus on content improvement to combatting misinterpretations. ] (]) 12:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
:: {{tq|No one has identified an ancestor strain from then until 2019.}} There is no "ancestor strain" identified in the paper at issue. There is an identification of a timescale for when the most recent common ancestor of two genomes existed. Claiming that this implies that it is the ''latest'' date a bat was infected with a direct progenitor is just plain incorrect. This means the intention is to introduce an incorrect interpretation into the text, and it looks like it is an interpretation Sennalen still holds to. I see no other possible interpretation for this advocacy even if I am being the most charitable I can be. ] (]) 17:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
::{{tq|absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.}} The unstated assumption here is that the audience should accept that there is an "absence of evidence" for any later date. But that's absurd. There are plenty of estimates for when spillover happened and none of them are even close to 40 to 50 years ago. ''Any'' of those estimates would be just as legitimate for providing dates for when bats were infected with a "direct progenitor" as the analysis being touted as "latest date that we know (rather than reasonably surmise)". I reject the claim that I am making this argument in bad faith. I am following the words, logic, and rhetoric being posted at the talkpage and here. I judge them to be corrupted either by too much time under the influence of concern trolls and ne'er-do-well'ers or indicative of a profound misapprehension for how linear models in science are properly described when writing exposition. Either way, very concerning and disconfirming for what is necessarily a delicate task in science communication and summary of secondary reviews. ] (]) 17:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
{{collapsebottom}}

====Statement by Firefangledfeathers====
Procedural notes: Bon Courage's name should be added in many parts of the filing. The request is already over the 500 word limit, even without the replies that are sure to come. ] (] / ]) 22:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Tryptofish====
As it happens, I have the talk pages of both jps and Bon courage on my watchlist, so I saw this. As it happens, I also am the editor who created ], cited in the filing, so I feel able to comment about that. As a purely procedural matter, this filing seems to really be about two editors, but is trying to get a two-fer in a single section, so I'd suggest that admins remove the parts about Bon courage. Anyway, what I'm seeing in the diffs above is that the filing editor is (in effect) complaining that "two editors disagree with me" on a content matter, which raises the question of who is or isn't on the side of consensus. Covid origins are a CT, and they are also a matter of ]. --] (]) 22:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:Relevant discussion is also at ]. --] (]) 22:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:On spending some more time looking at this dispute, it looks to me like there are significantly more editors agreeing with jps and Bon courage, than agreeing with Sennalen. This is particularly so at the FTN discussion, but also at the article talk pages (although jps and Bon courage do tend to dominate those discussions). Also, when I look at the summary of current consensus ], it looks like jps and Bon courage are editing in conformance with that consensus, rather than editing for personal POVs. Taking that along with what MrOllie points out in his statement, makes me think that we are in deep boomerang territory. --] (]) 00:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

==== Statement by SandyGeorgia ====
On just a quick glance: "Bon courage deleted conclusions he disagreed with solely on the dubious grounds it was primary research" appears incorrect. The edit summary says ). It's one thing to cautiously use a primary source correctly to cite biomedical content; it's quite another when the primary source disagrees with/contradicts/undercuts secondary sources. And per Tryptofish. ] (]) 22:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Viriditas====
I'm concerned this premature filing obscures and misdirects the source of the problem, namely the creation of the new article ] by ], which is perceived, in the context of this dispute, as a poorly formed split or fork of ], which is the locus of the dispute. I would encourage everyone to take a step back and for the filing party to move this contentious article to either their sandbox or draft space until major concerns have been addressed. ] (]) 22:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

:{{tq|No one knows my views, because I observe ] sincerely.}}
::], a little self-awareness is needed. Are you aware that this claim is often (but not always) made by people who are engaged in disingenuous behavior? Think about it for a moment. If someone is fully open about their views, there is no wiggle room. Give it some thought. ] (]) 23:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
::], see ]. ] (]) 02:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by MrOllie====
Sennalen has been disruptive on Falun Gong articles, as is mentioned in the Bloodofox request above, where an admin response floats a topic ban for them. They've long been a disruptive presence at ] and related articles. I can pull diffs if needed, but a read through of ] and/or ] should illustrate the problem. I mention this because any ] sanction needs to be wider than just COVID-19. American politics and/or all fringe topics would be a decent start. - ] (]) 22:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Horse Eye's Back====
Bon courage should be formally added to the request or the section about them should be struck. I don't love what I see from JPS in the diffs provided but I also don't like what I see from Sennalen on those pages... A boomerang is definitely on the table even if I think the best course of action is for editors to voluntarily reduce their participation in this perennially divisive topic areas, it won't fall apart without them and its hard to get in a word edgewise sometimes. ] (]) 23:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:First off thank you for adding Bon courage formally, as with JPS I'm not sure that there's anything actionable there although some of it comes close to stonewalling and civility could be improved. I am concerned with the pattern of edits brought up by {{Ping|PatrickJWelsh}}, I second their suggestion that Sennalen is almost unfailingly polite. I concede that their politeness may cause me to see their edits with something like rose-colored glasses. A topic ban from politics broadly construed may be in order. ] (]) 18:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish (jps and BonCourage)====
Obviously I'm INVOLVED with these two editors, so I'll stay up here. This looks like the standard type of content dispute in this area. As usual, I think that less commenting on editors, e.g. jps' edit summary would be good, but even that isn't particularly bad. This seems like an excellent candidate for regular dispute resolution. Also, bringing an editing dispute to AE with fairly weak evidence of misbehavior is getting pretty close to weaponizing CTOP procedures. ] (]) 00:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by XMcan====
{{Tq|It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand.}} ]] - If the diffs show that users JPS and BonCourage are repeatedly engaging in this and other ] misbehaviors, then they should be subject to appropriate sanctions, including topic bans. Sennalen would bolster her case by providing more diffs that establish a pattern of alleged misbehavior.
] (]) 01:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

:I’m concerned about the statements that focus on other content disputes rather than the specific issue of ] allegations against the two users. The fact that there are so many statements that principally deal with other allegations could be interpreted as diversionary tactics or possibly an indication of ]. While these other allegations deserve a serious look, now is not the time and place to adjudicate those claims, considering that the OP cannot both prosecute one set of allegations and properly defend herself against the other. ] (]) 10:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
::], please stop. You are already in ] and you are digging yourself ]. ] (]) 19:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Scorpions1325====
I am not going to go through all of the diffs again, but from what I remember, the "Scientific Background" section appears to be a lousy attempt at ] on the part of the OP. Furthermore, the OP insists on including ] sources to disprove an existing narrative. In my opinion, that is unacceptble. I have been looking at the talk page history there for the past few months, and the OP is determined to defend a lost cause. A ] is probably needed. A ] report does not override scientific consensus ] (]) 02:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by KoA====
Not involved in the subject, but I saw the earlier while trying to dig into the underlying dispute, and Sennalen's behavior has not impressed me. This request really is bringing a content dispute here because Sennalen could not get traction with their POV, but underlying behavior related to ] seems to be core issue here. It's not unexpected for other editors to get short with what I'm seeing. The general sense I'm getting here is that Sennalen is not taking the advice at FTN at all, but more relevant for AE, they seem to be antagonizing the topic with ]. That and it looks like jps and Bon Courage have been having to work hard to deal with the content issues Sennalen is introducing, only to be met with ] by Sennalen. Given the past disruption () at another fringe subject, there does seem to be ] advocacy issues with this editor to the point that a broader type of fringe topics ban may be needed.

Key things that stand out are Sennalen creating a ] detailed at FTN, misrepresenting medical content as SandyGeorgia pointed out, and basically filing a retaliatory case here after jps to knock it off as an AE request was imminent. The last one really strikes me as trying to beat jps to the punch and battleground behavior from Sennalen. Fringe subjects like this can often be a source of editor burnout when editors like this are allowed to persist, so I think it would be a burden to the community to let them still continue editing in the COVID subject. I'd at least suggest a ban there, but also would be wary kicking the can to another fringe topic like already happened here after their Falun Gong-related block. ] (]) 03:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
:I thought this looked like a relatively new account, but based on ], it looks like there may be a much longer editing history in controversial topics here than appears. ] (]) 04:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
:], I was looking at past admin board posts, and I think you summed it up well, but with Newimpartial seems to indicate Race and intelligence, GENSEX, and Gamergate may also be on their radar, though not sure to what degree. ] (]) 06:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Bon courage====
Not much to say here. Bluntly, the OP (who apparently is a returning user but has not revealed their former account to allow ]), created a problematic article with improper synthesis and poor sourcing allied in a ] direction, seemingly to promote COVID Lab Leak theories by kicking up as much dust as possible around the published science. I have started cleaning the article up with a view to possibly merging any salvageable content elsewhere.

In this, I have tried to turn my propriety and civility dials to a high setting, and believe all my edits are in line with the ]s (and no, Misplaced Pages does not use pieces in <del>''The Spectator''</del> <ins>''The Nation''</ins> to undercut peer-reviewed secondary knowledge published in ], possibly the most presigious journal on the Planet). I would welcome any community feedback on this.

In all, cleaning up after stunts like this article's creation is a huge time sink. And the reward for doing it? A trip to AE. Sheesh.

Boomerang and site ban for the OP please; the Project doesn't need this. ] (]) 06:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC); amended 07:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

* Just in case there's any doubt about the Filer's position about COVID lab leaks, what the sources say, and how these beliefs are prosecuted on Misplaced Pages, I offer this diff from earlier in the year. A little later this 'model for Misplaced Pages' comment looks suspiciously like trolling. ] (]) 13:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


====Statement by Aquillion==== ====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)
Sennalen's problems aren't confined to COVID topics. On ], she to material describing Western Marxism as a synonym for "Cultural Marxism" in the article voice, eventually dropping eight citations on it - most of which, as I specifically pointed out to her, not only failed to support her desired addition but used the term in ways that clearly contradicted it; the contradiction is clear enough to strain good faith (as I say in that discussion, a simple glance at some of the sources make it clear they're not using the term in any way that could plausibly be read as supporting her, which makes it hard to credit that she actually read them before presenting them.) Not only did she try to edit-war this into the lead of "Western Marxism"; when it was rejected there (and shortly after coming off her block for incivility in COVID), she in a multi-user edit-war over a similar connection on ], an article that had just come off full-protection, where there was again already a clear consensus on talk against this addition. I think that this shows that a topic-area block is insufficient and that she'll just move on to other ] issues if blocked from one area.


===Statement by Dan Murphy===
Another note regarding the ] aspect (since it belatedly occurs to me that this might not be obvious to everyone): She says that she hadn't edited articles related to Cultural Marxism in "over five years." If true, this would place her involvement there at or shortly after the height of ], which she expressed interest in ; the two topics are connected as described ], and discussions over it saw heavy ] issues as a result, with many editors getting sanctioned in various ways. Regardless of whether Sennalen was sanctioned specifically, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that she wanted to avoid scrutiny. --] (]) 08:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
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 JoJo Anthrax==== ====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)
At the heart of this time-wasting filing is, as described above by Tryptofish, MrOllie, and several others, a content dispute(s) in which Sennalen is on the short-end of the consensus stick. Accusing jps and Bon Courage here of POV-pushing is a bad-faith aspersion. And writing of aspersions, Sennalen was recently, and appropriately,
, which Sennalen brushed off as {{tq|an isolated error by a careless admin}}. I also note discussion, in which Sennalen's evasive responses raise legitimate questions about their previous (and ongoing?) WP incarnations. These behaviors indicate that to prevent further disruption, Sennalen requires a much stronger sanction than a brief block. ] (]) 11:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)====
: Noting here that comment by Tamzin in the cements my belief that, in order to prevent further disruption in multiple topic areas, Sennalen (and their associated usernames, if any) merits a significant sanction. ] (]) 10:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


====Statement by Bloodofox====
I hadn't been following this, but reviewing some of the content above, it's relevant to note that Sennalen's former account very likely has a long history of editing our ''Epoch Times'' and Falun Gong-related articles, often in a manner very favorable to these subjects. I can provide the likely user name used there if needed.

Sennalen's account is one of a group of ] there that takes a ''very'' non-neutral, very-pro Falun Gong/''Epoch Times'' position there.

Note that the ''Epoch Times'' regularly publishes pro-lab leak material alongside various conspiracy theories as a component of the Falun Gong's anti-Chinese government stance. ] (]) 14:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

:{{ping|bradv}}, can you conform this editor does not have a history of editing ] under that other name?

:And are we restricted from providing the user name from ] in question? Now that Sennalen is claiming to have never edited Falun Gong before appearing there suddenly echoing the usual talking points, a CheckUser may be appropriate, because this user is behaving in an almost identical manner. ] (]) 17:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

:I note also that the user account in question has some interesting things to say about ] on the account's page but the first edit associated with that particular account was from 2019 and its most recent edit is January 2023. Many of its edits were at ] and topics related to China, like ] and ].

:Selannen, have you been editing under several accounts? ] (]) 18:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

::Following up on {{ping|bradv}}, it may well be that Sennalen account has been editing with more than two accounts in these spaces. Compare the edit history of {{user|Cleopatran Apocalypse}}. Note Cleopatran Apocalypse's profile page comment about ] and the ], stating an intent to edit there ("I want to fill out the overall topic area in the critical studies sub-fields, and then think about how the main page on critical theory can be improved and made more sensible to people who keep hearing about "]" from conservatives but do not understand how the Frankfurters came about, what they were responding to, and how inevitable it all was."). Curiously, despite that stated intent, it does not appear this account ended up editing there.

::The account Cleopatran Apocalypse seems to have gone all but dormant starting August 2021. The account {{user|Sennalen}} . (Cleopatran Apocalypse's most recent edit was January 2023, the account's only edit in 2023, with a few edits in 2022). ] (]) 18:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Palpable====
I too have found these guys to be impossible to collaborate with. But this case is a mess in several ways so I don't think it's useful to go into it here.

I would describe Sennalen's new article as an '''NPOVFORK'''. I don't see it having much of a future, but in NPOV terms it is better than the existing origins articles. Yes, there is a large and vocal faction here that thinks this topic justifies a strong polemic stance. But this is a genuinely controversial topic: American polls show that most people believe in a lab leak, based on evidence which is edited out of the articles. JPS removed cited sources merely for stating that the the origin was still unknown. He didn't even feel that justification was necessary.

The fact that consensus in this area is maintained through topic bans rather than NPOV should be disturbing.

I don't think this case is well stated but the problem is real. A boomerang for raising this is a terrible idea. It's worth noticing that so many of the statements here ignore the complaint and go straight for ad hominem attacks against the plaintiff.
- ] (]) 17:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by PatrickJWelsh====

I cannot speak to the declared topic of this conversation. Should it be relevant, however, I can support items introduced by MrOllie, KoA, and Aquillion.

In addition to Sennalen's contentious and disruptive editing of ], she has also edited related pages in a way that appears calculated to give credibility to this conspiracy theory. In particular:

1) On ], she has ] against consensus for inclusion of the false claim that the term is, at least in some cases, considered synonymous with the term "cultural Marxism". Although she cites to high-quality sources, they sometimes directly contradict the claim they have been adduced to support. As I wrote in that discussion, "If the accuracy of your contributions depends upon other editors happening to own the volumes you cite, ''and also'' being at the ready to check your work, there is an objective problem with your editorial practices".

2) She is active on the article devoted to the ], i.e., the group of Western Marxists specifically targeted by the conspiracy theory. In particular, she has added an ]ly long ] devoted to linking these academics to violent civil unrest. In point of fact, however, the relation between theory and practice remained for them an overwhelmingly theoretical question, for which they have been widely criticized by the more activist members of the political left. She is, again here, citing high-quality sources selectively to give the reader an impression of the Frankfurt School consonant with the conspiracy theory.

If necessary, I am willing to go through article diffs and check more citations against the actual theses of the works. Just tag me—and please be as specific as you can about what requires clarification or further evidential support. Because this exercise would be extremely tedious, and I'm only willing to do it if it actually matters.

For these reasons I submit that, if the arbitration process results in a topic ban, it should extend to all articles related to Marxism, not just those flagged as fringe.

Finally, although I was not previously familiar with ], it provides an entirely apt description of my engagement with Sennalen. She has been unfailingly polite–even on two occasions on which I lost my own cool. I cannot help but be suspicious of bad-faith editing, but I do tip my hat to her for the civility with which she meets disagreement.

] (]) 17:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by tgeorgescu====

{{re|Sennalen}} Cleanstart always has to be made known. You are not allowed to being a cleanstart without notifying at least the admins. So, of course, you have been honest in stating that you have began a cleanstart. But you would not have been allowed to begin it without the admins knowing it. Sometimes some users can dodge that requirement, e.g. when they relocate to another city or another country. But don't count on dodging it. ] (]) 16:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by SmolBrane====

I can't comment on Sennalen's behavior since I haven't interacted with them much or at all. And I don't have much time to investigate. Same with jps. But I do observe that Bon courage has been recently advised by colleagues and administrators ScottishFinnishRadish (twice) and recently JPxG for questionable behavior. If Bon courage is going to average 10 edits per day(xtools) then the situation might warrant a consequential reminder of some kind. There are other transgressions by Bon courage I'm prepared to discuss here if editors find these lacking sufficient substance. ] (]) 16:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Newimpartial====
I was intending to stay away from this filing, but in the context of the possible BOOMERANG for disruption in multiple areas, it occurred to me that I haven't seen a link provided for Sennalen's somewhere esoteric philosophical essay, ] (diff of longest version ). It has seemed to me that Sennalen's oddly inclusionist take on FRINGE content is related to the position articulated in the essay, which (if true) would presumably make it more difficult to contain the disruption caused by the intersections of Sennalen's unusual takes and frequent ]. ] (]) 17:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Rjjiii====

The whole article is a POV fork created by Sennalen to heighten uncertainty about the scientific consensus.

Sennalen frames the first diff this way, "{{tq|jps removed claims, citations, and footnotes of peer-reviewed journal articles that differ from his point of view, with an edit summary accusing me of PoV pushing}}", but let's look. Over on ], Sennalen wrote, "{{tq|The scientific consensus is that the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is '''''unknown'''''. Neither zoonotic or artificial origins are proven, and neither are they disproven. There are gut feelings about likelihood, but there is no evidence-based framework for assigning liklihood.}}" This position that Sennalen is taking (comparative levels of uncertainty for lab leak and zoonosis) is ''not'' the scientific consensus, and did not fly at existing articles.

Sennalen originally created their new article at "COVID-19 zoonosis theories", a mirror to ]. In the lead, the original text read, "{{tq|It is unknown where SARS-CoV-2 originated or how it first infected humans.}}" This is the POV (mainstream consensus and fringe theory as equally uncertain) that Sennalen was pushing at the main COVID-19 articles. The very first edit from ] removed that line from the lead. So no it's not "his point of view". This is a deep misrepresentation of the conflict. ] (]) 02:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by JPxG====
My experience editing in this area is that, while Sennalen definitely seems to be editing with an agenda, it's not really clear that they are the only one doing so, or even that they're the only one tendentiously stonewalling conversations to do so. My experience editing with Bon courage in the COVID-19 topic area has been one of being aggressively reverted, argued with endlessly over minor details, then bludgeoned and insulted on the talk page for weeks. It was, frankly, one of the most frustrating experiences I've had editing in months if not years. I've got nothing to say about Sennalen, and from what I've seen their participation in political topics does seem like it may be a net negative — I'm not a Sennalen scholar — but I would sincerely appreciate if something could be done about the civility and bludgeoning in this topic area, regardless of whether it's being done by "the good guys". <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 06:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by fiveby====
{{tq|I'm thinking it's time for ].}} from ]. Blatant POV fork per {{u|Rjjiii}}. Didn't think it was a serious comment at the time, but the surrounding discussion probably illustrates the motive for creating the article and starting this mess. ](]) 02:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by FeydHuxtable====
Im not seeing stonewalling from Sennalen when I review her contribs, more like the opposite. Seems very open to discussion; in some respects her attempts to seek consensus in this contentious topic has been exemplary. Only yesterday editor Bon Courage recognised the resulting from Sennalen's work, and has been appreciative of her . That said, it's valid to see creating the Zoonotic origins article as a POV fork attempt, even if Sennalen probably sincerely saw it as a useful details article. So perhaps closing with a warning or even a 3 month tban from Covid origins is in order. But I'd beg admins not to throw a much harsher boomerang, we dont have many editors like Sennalen and it would be a shame to demotivate her. ] (]) 11:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Gtoffoletto====
I haven't read all of the discussion above nor have I reviewed all of Sennalen's work. However I looked at the proposed by Sennalen and while of course it is ] it is a pretty detailed 60k characters long article that definitely required a lot of work.

I see jps and Boncourage basically entering and just deleting content with aggressive and non collaborative tones from the get go.
See jps's contributions:
See Bon courage's contributions:

The work was definitely not subpar enough to warrant such disparaging tones. The first edit summary by jps is full of accusing tones and definitely does not assume good faith: "Removing some *real problematic* POV-pushing of the uncertainty monster (that bleeds quite naturally into ] trolling)". The "real problematic" stuff that was removed by jps doesn't strike me as so egregious to warrant such tones.

Or edit summaries like "This is not a well-written article to say the least." while making minor changes to a 60k characters work that clearly took a lot of effort? It will obviously irritate and piss of an editor. What is the goal here? To get editors to stop contributing? To get them to lash out and get banned?

That's just a highly toxic environment overall to edit in and I can only imagine how frustrating it must have been for Sennalen after quite a lot of work. We should be better than this. <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>&#123;{u&#124;</nowiki></small>]<small><nowiki>&#125;}</nowiki></small></span>  <sup>]</sup> 02:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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


===Result concerning ජපස and Bon courage=== ===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)
* Not gonna clean up this filing, since the only thing I'm looking at here is a boomerang. Initial thoughts are a COVID+FRINGE topic ban, but very concerned about the clean start issue here as mentioned by KoA - per ], {{tq|Certain articles and topics are particularly contentious, and have attracted additional community scrutiny in the form of requests for comment, community sanctions, or arbitration cases. ''These areas should be completely avoided'' by the editor attempting a clean start.}} - I think either Sennalen needs to disclose their previous accounts or commit to avoiding contentious areas (or be blocked). ] (]) 05:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
*:I looked through Sennalen's editing history and it is basically 2/3rds cultural marxism and 1/3rds covid origins. Being essentially a SPA for those two highly contentious topics is not what a clean start is for. ] (]) 05:36, 29 November 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 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)
::* Agreed - also their comment "'' I edited under a different account from 2014 through 2019. I can easily promise I did not make any edits about Covid-19 in that period."'' Well, no shit Sherlock, but without their previous username we can't even check whether they were previous sanctioned or even blocked. It might be assuming bad faith, but someone who has been a SPA on two different CTOPs since a cleanstart is ... shall we say, somewhat suspicious. ] 10:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
*@]: I agree that the draft should be G5'd, but will wait for consensus to develop here. ] (]/]) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::Noting an indef has been discussed at ] above. Regardless of the clean start issue I don't see any other option here. Per my comments there, it's clear that even multiple topic bans will just push the problem elsewhere. ] (]) 23:56, 29 November 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)
* {{a note}} {{u|Sennalen}} has given the name of their previous account to me by email, and I can confirm that it is not subject to any blocks, bans, or sanctions. They have also provided the reason they want to keep the previous account secret, and it is a legitimate privacy issue not related to their editing. – ] 16:51, 29 November 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 can confirm their statement that they have not edited the Falun Gong article. I'm reticent to answer further questions about this, though. I've seen enough to determine that this report should be adjudicated on its own merits. – ] 18:06, 29 November 2023 (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)
:* Fair enough. Now we just need to consider that a CLEANSTART editor is not following the policy at ] - "''Certain articles and topics are particularly contentious, and have attracted additional community scrutiny in the form of requests for comment, community sanctions, or arbitration cases. These areas should be completely avoided by the editor attempting a clean start''". So I'd say a TBAN in both the contentious areas is the minimum we should be looking at. ] 14:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
{{hab}}
:*:That section is clearly talking about resuming editing in contentious areas. If the user is not evading any blocks, bans or sanctions and has had no prior involvement with the topic area, then I see no reason to prohibit them from editing any contentious areas at all with the new account. Obviously they need to uphold the same standards of behaviour as every other editor is expected to, but I don't see CLEANSTART as relevant here. ] (]) 16:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
:::* Well, we don't know that they previously haven't edited FRINGE topics, even if we know that they haven't edited COVID topics because their previous account pre-dated it. But actually I don't think it matters here, their post-CLEANSTART behaviour is enough for a TBAN for me. ] 18:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
*{{re|Sennalen}} You're at word limit. Please request permission from an admin if you need to say anything further. A number of other editors are just shy of the limit. Please check your word counts before adding further replies. Remember that AE is a venue at which to present evidence for the admins, not a back-and-forth. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]&#93;</sup> <small>(they&#124;xe&#124;she)</small> 18:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


==Carterand== ==AstroGuy0==
{{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|Nothing for AE to do here. ] (]) 23:23, 5 December 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 Carterand=== ===Request concerning AstroGuy0===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Tgeorgescu}} 21:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC) ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}} 03:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Carterand}}<p>{{ds/log|Carterand}}</p> ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|AstroGuy0}}<p>{{ds/log|AstroGuy0}}</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.-->
# 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.
#{{diff2|1188177955}} 3 December 2023&mdash;Violates ] through making medical claims based upon very inadequate sources.
# 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 : ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): ;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 {{diff2|1187588025}} 30 November 2023 (see the system log linked to above).


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

See also {{diff2|1187572974}} 30 November 2023 and {{diff2|1187017398}} 26 November 2023. Since my past AE thread I have learned my lesson and I have been very polite with Carterand. I have attempted to teach them at ]. Note that "quackery" is not referring to their own person. ] (]) 23:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

{{re|ScottishFinnishRadish}} Okay, since I'm afraid to saying too much, maybe you will explain them what the problem is. ] (]) 23:48, 3 December 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. --> <!-- 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. -->


* {{diff2|1188187649}} 3 December 2023
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


Additional comments by editor filing complaint:
===Discussion concerning Carterand===
<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 Carterand====


This new user seems intent on POVPUSHING regarding "Asian/Muslim grooming gangs" and making contentious claims that are not backed up by sources. ] (]) 03:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning Carterand=== ===Discussion concerning AstroGuy0===
<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>
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*I don't see the edits as falling under either pseudoscience or CAM. What I do see is a student editor that what they're doing wrong. I don't think AE is the right venue, and I also don't think they're editing in bad faith. ] (]) 23:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
*:{{u|tgeorgescu}}, I've taken a swing at it . I appreciate that you did reach out to them and started a talk page discussion, but I'm concerned they may be a bit overwhelmed with the CTOP alerts and such. Hopefully this helps. ] (]) 00:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
{{hab}}


====Statement by AstroGuy0====
==A.H.T Videomapping==
<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>


====Statement by Iskandar323====
===Request concerning A.H.T Videomapping===
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)
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Significa liberdade}} 16:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|A.H.T Videomapping}}<p>{{ds/log|A.H.T Videomapping}}</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:
]

; ] 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.-->

As of approximately 16:15 on 5 December 2013, AHT has made 63 edits, though their account was created 14 February 2021. As such, they are not an extended confirmed user and should not be editing pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, including article talk pages.

#: AHT created the page ], which discusses an attack by Israel Defense Forces on 30 October 2023.
# Most recent addition to the discussion at ]. AHT has contributed to the talk page three times.
# Most recent addition to the discussion on ]
# Added article talk page section to discuss Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
# Added to discussion on ], which has a notice regarding contentious topics.
# Added to the discussion on ]
# Added to the ] talk page. AHT has made at least three contributions to the page.
# Added to the ], specifically providing a Twitter "source" to say the conflict is ongoing.
# Added to the discussion on ].
# Added to the discussion on ]. AHT has made
# Added to the discussion on ].
# Edit to ] to set motive to "war crimes" and "genocide".
# Added to the discussion on ].

;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 by Thebiguglyalien.
*Multiple ages AHT has edited have had templates regarding the sanctions:
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*

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

<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning A.H.T Videomapping===
<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 A.H.T Videomapping====


====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 A.H.T Videomapping=== ===Result concerning AstroGuy0===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
* I've indeffed for the ECR violations and . If they had edited outside of the topic area I would have gone with a topic ban, but as they've continued to create articles after being informed of the sanctions I feel like it would end up an unnecessary step. ] (]) 23:07, 5 December 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)
: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)
{{hab}}


==KhndzorUtogh== ==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 KhndzorUtogh=== ===Request concerning Lemabeta===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Aredoros87}} 22:42, 5 December 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|KhndzorUtogh}}<p>{{ds/log|KhndzorUtogh}}</p> ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Lemabeta}}<p>{{ds/log|Lemabeta}}</p>


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- 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.-->
# - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing.
I've been interacting with KhndzorUtogh while editing several articles and find his behavior problematic. He received warnings from various users about Armenia-Azerbaijan area, but still edits recklessly (e.g. when reverting some articles while related talkpage discussions have been in progress).
# Restores disputed content despite prior talkpage and ] # - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist.

# Restores version with unsourced claim that "large portions of the village along with several historical objects were destroyed by Azerbaijani authorities"
# Removes reliably sourced information without any explanation (technically a stale diff, but I think noteworthy)


;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. -->
*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
#
#
#


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
I likely filed this improperly, but to sum it up they continue to make pages in a scope they were banned from. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 20:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
KhndzorUtogh also appears to have a puzzling edit rate, sometimes with 4-3 reverts per minute across different articles: , , . he makes a hefty +8,048 addition just 2 minutes after the previous edit. Or in the same minute of previous edit.
:On the bullet point, I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:(Not sure if I’m allowed to reply here) I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:: <small>Response to Bishonen. Moved from results section. ] (]/]) 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
::(RES to Bishonen) That's fair. When starting the AE, it only gave me nine options, none of which seemed to fit right. The third bullet ("Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on DIFF by _____") didn't seem to fit, as the sanction wasn't for verbal conduct. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 22:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
; 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. --->


===Discussion concerning Lemabeta===
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
<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>
===Discussion concerning KhndzorUtogh===
<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 KhndzorUtogh====
# The RSN discussion had no consensus, yet Aredoros claimed to be removing parts of the article "per RSN"
# That info is not unsourced, it has sources in and the ] is a summary of the article that often doesn't have citations (because they are below). And the IP has been used by longtime blocked and banned ]
# I removed a sentence that was subjective commentary of a journalist who has repeatedly been criticised for bias and false information (see ]).


====Statement by Lemabeta====
It's interesting that Aredoros is so familiar with Armenia-Azerbaijan 3, considering the user hadn't edited in those contentious topics until a month ago, immediately after reaching 500 edits and the account being a little over a month old at the time (]). And Aredoros is even aware of the warning ], a ], put on my talk page over a year ago. ] (]) 22:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
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.
====Statement by MarioGom====
Note that this request was opened shortly after I closed ] (IMHO suspicious but inconclusive), so it has the appearance of a retaliatory request by Aredoros87. ] (]) 23:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC) :So i don't believe ethnographic group should be considered as either history of the Caucasus or cultural heritage. ] (]) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::In my opinion, cultural heritage (both tangible and intangible) '''emerges from''' ethnographic groups but '''does not define the group itself'''. ] (]) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think ethnographic groups fall under the category of Ethnography, or even socio-cultural antropology but for sure not cultural heritage. ] (]) 21:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I understand, i already apologized on my talk page for this accident. I will not repeat this mistake again. ] (]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


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


===Result concerning KhndzorUtogh=== ===Result concerning Lemabeta===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
*I'm not seeing enough in those three diffs to support any sanction, although I'm not terribly impressed with adding a controversy section to an article sourced to a guest column with no byline that states {{tq|Guest contributions to the Armenian Weekly are informative articles or press releases written and submitted by members of the community.}} at the bottom.{{pb}}As for the rate of edits, that strikes me as throwing mud against the wall to see what sticks. I've often made that many reverts per minute, and when making large edits I often have a tab open where I'm working that I switch back and forth from, so I don't see an issue, and no context for why it may be a problem has been provided.{{pb}} The most I see as reasonable here is a reminder not to revert when content or sourcing is under discussion, and to adequately check sources before using them. ] (]) 23:21, 5 December 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)
*:To be fair, when you click above to add a new enforcement request, the template states:<br><nowiki>;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]</nowiki><br><nowiki><!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---></nowiki> ] (]/]) 20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{tq| Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed"}} @]: what did you think "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage" meant? I think it's pretty obvious that that an article on an ethnic group from the Caucasus and about an ethnologist who writes about that region is covered by your topic ban. ] (]/]) 20:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Note that I've deleted ] as a clear G5 violation. I think ] is a bit more of a questionable G5. ] (]/]) 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Your definition of "ethnographic group" includes the phrases "shared ancestry" (i.e., history), and "shared&nbsp;... traditions" and "shared&nbsp;... cultural identity" (i.e., cultural heritage). Your attempt to exclude "ethnographic group" from either of the two categories in your topic ban is entirely unpersuasive, particularly since your topic ban is to be "broadly construed". ] (]/]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: this doesn't seem like a mistake to me, but I'm okay with a logged warning here. ] (]/]) 21:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: This is about violating the TBAN. Per my response to leek, I think the issue is with the AE request template, which is a bit unclear. ] (]/]) 22:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: I don't think a block is needed here, but the next violation, definitely. ] (]/]) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: They were "reviously given&nbsp;... contentious topic restriction", the topic ban at issue. ] (]/]) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{re|Lemabeta}} Not every single thing you could write about an ethnic group would fall under cultural history, but that's not really relevant on the Rachvelians page, where the History section was entirely about their cultural history, even containing the words {{tqq| highlighting their ethnographic and cultural identity}}. There's a reason we use the words "]" on most TBANs, and a reason we encourage people to act like they're TBANned from a broader area than they are. (Consider: Would you feel safe driving under a bridge where clearance is exactly the same height as your vehicle? Or would you need a few inches' gap to feel safe doing it?){{pb}}This does seem like a good-faith misunderstanding, so if you will commit to not making it again in the future, I think this can be closed with a clarification/warning. But that's an important "if". If you want to argue semantics, then the message that sends to admins is that you don't intend to comply with the TBAN, in which case the next step would be a siteblock. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{u|EF5}}, I don't understand your {{tq|"Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above"}} statement, can you please explain what it refers to? ]? Lemabeta's block log is blank.
:That said, I'm unimpressed by Lemabeta's lawyerly distinctions above, and also by ]. I'll AGF that they ''were'' accidental, but OTOH, they surely ''ought'' to have taken enough care to realize they were violations; compare Voorts' examples. I suggest a block, not sure of what length. A couple of weeks? ] &#124; ] 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
::{{u|EF5}}, OK, I see. Blocks and bans are ], and the block log only logs blocks. ] &#124; ] 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC).

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).