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 14:01, 10 December 2008 editJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,281 edits →RFAR=: remove extraneous =← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:31, 7 January 2025 edit undoSeraphimblade (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,225 edits →Result concerning PerspicazHistorian: Comment and proposed closure 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude> {{pp-move-indef}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Header}}
{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!--
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}
--><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly>
|maxarchivesize = 200K
<noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!--
|counter = 32
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(3d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive%(counter)d |archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter =346
}}
|minthreadsleft = 0
]
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}


==Ethiopian Epic==
={{anchor|toptoc}}Edit this section for new requests=
{{hat|Topic banned from ] --] <sup>]</sup> 19:53, 1 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 Ethiopian Epic===
== ] ==
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Tinynanorobots}} 11:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
And another disruptive editor on Armenia - Azerbaijan related articles. {{User|AcademicSharp}} contributes both as a registered and anonymous user {{IPuser|75.28.100.179}}. He makes massive rewrites of the highly controversial article ], citing no sources whatsoever, and yesterday came close to violating 3RR. Since he was a newbie, I warned him , but today he resumed edit warring: Note that this user provides no edit summaries and ignores the talk page, where he was repeatedly invited to discuss his edits: Urgent admin intervention is required. ] (]) 07:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Ethiopian Epic}}<p>{{ds/log|Ethiopian Epic}}</p>
== ] ==


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
{{User|Capasitor}} has been edit warring and making POV edits in Armenia - Azerbaijan related articles for quite some time now. He often undid edits of other people without any explanation or called their edits "vandalism": Eventually he was blocked for 1 week for racist comment about other editors: However I have a reason to believe that it is unlikely that this user will change his approach to AA related topics, when he is back from his block. Amended Remedies and and enforcement provisions of the arbitration case ] hold that "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". I would like to ask the admins to consider placing this editor on supervised editing, which involves revert and civility paroles. ] (]) 18:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
:I will watch his contribs when the block expires. --] ] 05:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
==Breach of AE Sanctions==
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
] ] as a man.)]]
I’d like to report a breech of the which clearly state “All articles related to ''The Troubles'', defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland '''falls under 1RR'''. When in doubt, assume it is related.” The reverts and . The are four editors who disagree with this edit including myself, , , and . This is they have breeched the AE sanction, however I did not report them on that occasion hoping they would see sense. However, on two occasions on the talk page now I’ve provided them with the opportunity to support their edit, despite the two reverts, they refuse to do so. Rather than apply any blocks under the AE sanctions, I would much prefer they self revert and use the talk page. I know I don’t have much say over that, therefore its just my opinion. Thanks, --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
:Sorry but I just noticed this is another on a different article, were there is an . Could someone have a word please? This is their third revert. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
<!-- 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.-->
# created during the Yasuke case and went active when it ended. First 11 edits were to Government of Japan. In one case three edits were used to write one sentence.
# Manually reverted the lead back to how it was in September.
# Falsely Claimed cited material was OR. (G
# Falsely Claimed cited material was unsourced
# It took an ANI report to get him to use the article talk page. His defense was accusations and denial.
# He reverted to a version that went against consensus established on the talk page and contained a falsely sourced quote.
# Engages in sealioning
# Removes a well sourced line from Yasuke as well as reverted an edit that was the result of BRD. He has now started disputes with me on all three Yasuke related articles.
# starts disputing a new section of
# Brought again to ANI, he claims that I didn't get consensus for changes, even though I had discussed them on talk prior to making them.
# He keeps mentioning ONUS, and asking me to discuss it, in response to me discussing.
# Used a non-controversial revert to hide his edit warring.
# did the same thing on List of foreign-born samurai in Japan.
# He also repeatedly complains that he doesn't like the definition because it is vague and claims that his preferred version is "status quo"


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
::I left a final warning, and a suggestion to self revert on his talk page. If he violates it again, he will be blocked. ] (]) 19:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
# Explanation
# Explanation


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):[
Thanks for that ], that was a good call. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above).


:::Further breaches since final warning by Fozz and . <strong>]</strong>] 19:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
:::: Ideally we want Mooretwin in play as his proposal is opening up the possibility of an agreement on the long standing Ireland(state) Republic of Ireland issue. His edit wars can be annoying, but if there is any sanction can it exclude the main discussion on Ireland? --] <small>]</small> 19:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
I have decided that Misplaced Pages is not worth my time. I want to write about history, not get caught up in wikipolitics and intrigue. There are systematic problems with wikipedia, where it is difficult to come to a conclusion to a discussion and openness is discouraged. Seeking help or advice with an issue opens one to the accusation of forum shopping or canavassing. One is expected to be perfect, but it is unclear what perfect is. Admins complain that a recall petition that lasts more than seven days is cruel, but drag out ArbCom processes and ignore AE threads for days. This whole process has been miserable. ] (]) 16:35, 31 December 2024 (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. --->
::::I've blocked 12 hours for the further violations. If he promises to stop ALL reverting in the mean time.. I'll look to unblock, but he's violated 1RR on about 5 seperate articles, at least one right after getting a final warning. ] (]) 19:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


===Discussion concerning Ethiopian Epic===
Thread title has been pulled over by the spelling police. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
<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 Ethiopian Epic====
:Thanks for that ]. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 21:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
This is clear retaliatory filing because I recently didn't agree with Tinynanorobot's , and because I made talk page sections on some recent edits.
::Sure thing. :) <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


@] That's not true and you are a very obvious alt account with only 26 edits. No one gave you a notification of this discussion and it's not on the Yasuke talk page. This suggests you are the sock puppet of someone here. Your post is also misleading and incorrect it wasn't an insertion. The line you are talking about in Samurai has been there for over 10 years and is normal. I know because I've read it before. Here is a version from 2017 . I don't understand why you are misrepresenting edits and using an alt account.
== Personal attacks require a warning ==


@] I think he is just fishing. That's why he removed his IP claims. Even his other diffs are just mislabeled regular behavior. It's amusing because Eronymous is the likely alt of Tinynanorobots or someone posting here. I think the way Tinynanorobots edits against clear consensus, skips discussion, and then files frivolous ANI/AE reports with misleading narrative like above is disruptive. Discussion is an easy solution and benefits everyone. I hope he will respect RFC consensus.
In light of ], I have asked ] to avoid personal attacks: ] (like ""). He has replied with what amounts to another personal attack: . Since my warning had no effect, I'd like for a neutral admin to review this case and consider another warning and putting that user on ]. Thank you, --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 23:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


{{ping|Barkeep49}} Tinynanorobot's recent "do-over" comment above is likely an attempt by him to hide the negative admin response to his own conduct and his fishing here. He shouldn't be able to remove the admin response to his report, so that he can do more fishing, before the admins even make their decision. It seems like gaming AE. He also recently disrupted the samurai talk page by hiding the comments of other users with a misleading edit summary.
:I've notified Paul of the ArbCom restrictions. ] (]) 12:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


@] I wasn't sure if it was drive-by vandalism by ] (I don't have deep context but he is mentioned by name) so I made sure to respect 1RR. I made a talk section I'll let other editors handle it. ] (]) 22:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] continuing to game the system ==


====Statement by Relm====
] closed at 08:20 on October 29th. It was agreed that ] by deliberately editing articles that are in my editing interests (but not his own), there by precluding me from editing them. In the closing, it was stated that he would stop these actions. He violated these restrictions on the same day of closing, which was reported, and he was blocked for a week.. He has again violated this restriction, on the very same article, making a minor edit to keep his name in the list of contributers and continue randomly popping up on my watchlist and leaving me feeling unable to ever edit the article to avoid having to deal with him. I've finally just removed the article from my watchlist all together, but I still felt this should be reported. -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 18:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I am largely unfamiliar with the account in question, but I do frequently check ]. I believe that EthiopianEpic has displayed a clear slant and battleground mindset in their editing in regards to the topic of Yasuke, but that their conduct on the Yasuke page itself so far has generally been in the ballpark of good faith edits. The revert on December 9th was justified, and their topic on November 29th is well within bounds (though I acknowledge that the background of their prior disputes on other pages with Tinynanorobots shows it may be edit warring) given that the two things being reverted was a change that seemed to skirt the prior RFC with agreement being given in a very non-direct way, and the other portion being an addition which had not been discussed on the talk page prior to its implementation (though previous discussions ered on the side of not including it). I am ''not'' accusing Tinynanorobots of any misconduct in any part of that either.
:Looks pretty straightforward to me. Abtract is trying to pressure and goad you into technical violations of the ArbCom. What's the usual escalating block period in cases like this? Abtract was blocked for a week for this behavior, so should it now go on to two weeks? --<font color="green">]</font>] 19:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
::Apologies; I had forgotten that this was a problem article; it was on my watch list (removed now) so, when I saw a minor correction was needed, I simply made it. Coll is not restricted therefore cannot be goaded into any sort of violation. I wonder, since she raised the subject, whether she might be accused of stalking and goading ? ] (]) 21:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
:::No, she can't. You, on the other hand, have recently ''admitted'' on ] that you deliberately sought to annoy Collectonian over a period of several months (it would have been more timely if you had admitted this before I had to spend several hours reading through evidence and writing up an arbitration decision about you). It is true that Collectonian is no longer under any enforceable restrictions, but that does not affect the enforceability of your own restrictions. If this recent edit is an isolated incident to which the administrator who reviews this thread decides to apply AGF, then fine, but please be aware that serious concerns about your editing remain. ] (]) 22:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Abtract, just so there are not any more incidents, now would be a good time for you to meticulously go through your watch list and remove any and all such articles or pages. --] (]) 22:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


What I will note is that in addition to the sockpuppet IP allegations made by Tinynanorobots, I wanted to lodge that the posting style of EthiopianEpic, as well as their knowledge of much of the previous discussions on the page deep in the archive, led me to suspect that they were an alt of ]. I never found anything conclusive. ] (]) 14:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Abtract has now started at me unprovoked, and also not factually as my indicates. After my reply, he starting to take an undesirable interest in my new articles, promptly breaking the syntax in one of them. Also, ] was not helpful on an article that needs delicate handling. fyi, uninvolved clerks should keep in mind that there is another motion in play at ]. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 02:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
:I welcome other admins opinions here, but "started snipping" would imply a series of edits, and I only see one, and a fairly minor one at that. Abstract should remember, however, that his restriction includes an instruction not to be uncivil to any user. I don't see the break in syntax in the diff you cite; indeed, in my opinion his edits improved the article. (You should not, by the way, have reverted them wholesale, or without explanation: see ].) In any case, I don't see much actionable in his interactions with you. As far as the other edits go, I'm inclined to agree with Tznkai and NYBrad (if I understand them correctly) that he must from this point onwards steer very carefully clear of Collectonian. He must take the same care with Alistair Haynes should ArbComm decide it. ] 06:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
::I would call it very uncivil to come to my talk page, in a thread initiated by a relatively new user, and mischaracterise my contributions to the project. He has never been to my talk page before, and had no reason to turn up there then.
::I did explain the revert, and the edit did break the page significantly causing the Wikisource template (the main reference) to not display. Also, the section reordering by Abtract is against the standard order in the final bullet point of ].
::I am not requesting relief from Abtract; I am just pointing out that due to my RFAR motion, he is now initiating undesirable interaction with me. This is a disturbing pattern. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 06:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Actually I have been to your talk page before which is why it is on my watchlist. At the last visit you directed me to look at pages you had created ... surprise, surprise I then edited one which you reverted completely (see comment above from an uninvolved user). I seem to be surrounded by people who have no idea how a civilised society works. ] (]) 07:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
::::My mistake; you did comment on my talk page once before, but that still gives you no right to add snide remarks when I am having a friendly discussion with someone else. Your edit was not worth repairing. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 07:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
:(outdent) Since you're not seeking relief, we should probably bring this to a close, then. ] 13:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


====Statement by Simonm223====
== Inappropriate editing by ] on Scientology pages ==
These two editors have been tangling at WP:AN/I repeatedly. Last time they came there I said that this would likely continue until a third party intervened. And then the thread got archived with no action () so I'm not surprised that the two of them are still tangling. There is evidence that both editors have engaged in a slow-motion edit war.
{{archive top|}}
:''This matter has been accepted for arbitration. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)''
In just the last few days editing in the Scientology-series alongside ] I have seen a disturbing amount of POV-motivated editing on his part. As you may know, Cirt has quite a history here with seven (7) prior blocks for edit-warring and other POV issues. That history was whitewashed with a name change and Cirt managed to become an admin in his somewhat disputed ]. Although I had hopes that adminship would help Cirt reform, I fear now that that is not the case. Here is just a few issues that I have noticed recently that indicate that Cirt is not able to control his POV:
Both have claimed the other is editing against consensus. Here I will say that it appears TinyNanoRobots is more correct than Ethiopian Epic. Furthermore, while neither editors' comportment has been stellar, as other editors have pointed out, it appears more that EE is following TNR about and giving them a hard time than the alternate. . In the linked AN/I case (above) you'll note EE attempted a boomerang on TNR and was not well-received for the effort.


Frankly my view is that both editors are not editing to the best standards of Misplaced Pages but there is definitely a ''more'' disruptive member of this duo and that is Ethiopian Epic. I think it would probably cut down on the noise considerably if they were encouraged to find somewhere to edit which was not a CTOP subject and if they were encouraged to leave TNR alone. ] (]) 18:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
===Misrepresenting tabloid material (of all things)===
The below was my first clue that Cirt was still editing from his anti-Scientology POV and was not to be trusted unsupervised. He added this material . This material is an utterly ] misrepresentation of tabloid material that was, in itself, questionable to start with:<blockquote>In 2007, '']'' reported that Scientology has "sex lessons" which can be given to couples looking to educate themselves to have "better sex". This guide studies their sex life and suggests ways for the couple to improve upon their activities. The article, titled: "Scientology Sex Scandal", which discussed the relationship of ] and ], was one of the more notable headlines in Australian celebrity gossip weeklies in 2007.</blockquote>Let's count the POV-driven errors:
#The source article is MAGWATCH, which appears to be a column about gossip mags. This article is entitled "A ring of truth, but only about the '''lies''' (emphasis added)" which should give any editor pause before quoting from it.
#Here is what it says:<blockquote>New Idea announces Tom and Katie's "scientology sex scandal". For some bizarre reason, the couple are reportedly taking "sex lessons" so they can learn to have "better sex". "Tom and Katie will have to share every detail of their sex life with an adviser, 'an intimate relationship guide', who will analyse their lovemaking and suggest improvements."</blockquote>So this is clearly about Tom and Kate, not about Scientology in general. Yet the editor here engaged in ] generalization to invent that "Scientology has "sex lessons" which can be given to couples".
#Now seeing as we now do that the bit is about Tom and Kate, a responsible editor might want to consider ] and think carefully about the quality of the sourcing.
#Finally, a responsible editor might want to see if there is any other reliable source that mentions Scientologists taking "sex lessons". There is not and there are no such in Scientology. So an editor here just used terrible sourcing and outright original opinion to create a fiction about Scientology.
#Oh, and calling it "one of the more notable headlines" is a definite reach. The article simply calls it one of "a slew of blaring headlines" about Katie that indicate that she is popular fodder for the gossip mags. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
;Response
See discussion from ]. {{user|Jayen466}} supported {{user|Justallofthem}}'s position. The next proper step in dispute resolution would be to either: 1) Question the sources at ], or 2) Start a content-based ] on that particular content disputed. I chose to disengage from this particular material and take a break from editing this article entirely. ''']''' (]) 22:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


====Statement by Eronymous====
===One-sided approach to the validity of sources===
Similar to Relm I check on the ] page every so often, and it seems very likely given the evidence that ] is an alt of ] created to evade his recent ArbCom sanctions, having started editing the day prior to the case closure. Of note to this is the of Symphony_Regalia on ] was him attempting to insert the line "who served as retainers to lords (including '']'')" - curiously enough, Ethiopian Epic's on ] (and , having just prior made 11 minor ones in a short timeframe to reach autoconfirmed status) is him attempting to insert the same controversial line that was reverted before.
My experience with Cirt is that he, like most critics of Scientology, operates by the rule "Scientologists lie, Scientology critics tell the truth". He is welcome to believe that but realize please that is a totally POV stance. Someone from the Scientology side with an equally inflexible POV would say the exact opposite. I refer specifically to Cirt unbalanced treatment of two roughly analogous sources, a Scientologist's site and a critic's site. I brought up that issue at ]:
;Lermanet vs. Scientologymyths - Different exactly how?
The ]affidavit was previously linked to (www.freewebtown.com/luana/rondewolf-july87.pdf) here to a site that has been reported as an "attack site" as in ] of some sort. I do not believe the malware report was on the specific file(s) in question but rather on the site overall, freewebtown.com (incidentally, I just checked and it seems fine now). Cirt removed the link, , citing ''"rm sources which link to attack site, dubious site anyways"''. I agree with that on both counts. For the sake of our discussion here I performed a and found the document on the scientologymyths.info site. Cirt said of that site ''"But these particular sites being linked to are dubious, and written by certain individuals from within the Church of Scientology tasked for certain specific purposes. Not reliable sites, not even safe sites."'' When Jayen brought up the analogous Lerma site, Cirt's comment was ''"Ref 8 is not an "attack site", though it is self-published. Could be a matter for discussion at WP:RSN, however."'' I want to compare these site and Cirt's analysis of each. To me they are exactly analogous and I find Cirt's reluctance to deal with them equivalently disturbing and again indicative of an overpowering POV issue.
#Cirt alludes that the Scientologymyths site is "not even safe". This is flatly untrue. The freewebtown site was listed as unsafe yesterday but seems OK now. Scientologymyths is not an unsafe site.
#Cite says that Scientologymyths is ''"written by certain individuals from within the Church of Scientology tasked for certain specific purposes"''. What proof does he have of that claim that he presents so boldly as an accomplished fact?
#And finally my main concern. Cirt see ScientologyMyths archives of primary material deserving of summary removal as "dubious" yet thinks the same sort of material on Lerma ''"Could be a matter for discussion at WP:RSN"'' but meanwhile I guess it remains in the article. This is disturbing to me. ] is a known enemy of Scientology. My challenge to Cirt, or anyone for that matter, is to show why the Lerma site should be treated any differently than the ScientologyMyths site. --] (]) 15:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
;Response
I admit I framed this discussion incorrectly and for this I apologize. What I should have done is discuss the nature of the website itself as a source. www.scientologymyths.info purports to be someone's personal blog, and as such should not be considered a ]. If discussion could not reach a resolution on the article's talk page, I should have posted to ] to get further input on that particular source. That way, we could get more fresh eyes on the discussion. ''']''' (]) 22:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


Symphony_Regalia has a history of utilising socks to edit Yasuke/Samurai related topics and is indefinitely blocked from the .jp wiki for (plus multiple suspected IPs) for this.
===Spammed "Warning"===


Prior to being sanctioned Symphony Regalia frequently got into exactly the same arguments concerning wording/source material with ] that Ethiopian Epic is now. One could assume based on their relationship that he is aggrieved that Tinynanorobots was not sanctioned by ArbCom during the case and is now continuously feuding with him to change that through edit warring and multiple administrator incidents/arbitration requests in the past few weeks. ] (]) 22:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Cirt is making unsubstantiated claims about the Scientologymyths.info site. Cirt has made a number of unsubstantiated claims about this site so as to undermine its credibility and has spammed his "warning" across multiple talk pages. As far as I am aware, Cirt has never done anything like this with a site critical of Scientology; this is clearly POV-motivated. I ask Cirt to back his claims up or remove the "warning". He has stated the following about the Scientologymyths site:
#''written by certain individuals from within the Church of Scientology tasked for certain specific purposes'' ()
#''scientologymyths site is run by the same organization that runs the religiousfreedomwatch attack site.'' ()
#''scientologymyths.info is run by the same organization'' (diff) Organization?
Cirt has ignored my previous requests to source those sort of statements and instead has spammed this unsubstantiated "warning" on (at least) the below talk pages:
*]
*]
*]
Scientologymyths does not present itself as an official voice of the Church, please see :<blockquote>"I am a Scientologist, working, and I use my spare time to run this blog and the website scientologymyths.info. I live in Los Angeles, California/USA."</blockquote>Cirt appears to be trying to tar the site. I asked that he provide a source or remove the warnings but he did not do so, instead repeating his unsubstantiated claim. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
;Response
I was a bit too aggressive with this one with the talk page warnings. Same with the comment in the above subsection, I should have engaged in further discussion on the talk page of the reliability (or not) of the www.scientologymyths.info blog/website, and if we could not reach an amicable discussion post to ] for fresh eyes. Also, it probably would have been better for both me and {{user|Justallofthem}} to discuss one source/website at a time, and not conflate different websites/sources in the discussion at the same time. ''']''' (]) 22:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


====Statement by Nil Einne====
===Other===
I find ] of concern and will comment later as I just saw it and need to read through it more. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


I was ?one of the editors who suggested Tinynanorobots consider ARE in the future. I did this mostly because after three threads on ANI with no result, I felt a change of venue might be more productive especially since the more structured nature of ARE, as well as a likely greater concern over low level of misconduct meant that some outcome was more likely. (For clarity, when I suggested this I did feel nothing would happen from the third ANI thread but in any case my advice being taken onboard would likely mean the third thread had no result.) I did try to make clear that I wasn't saying there was definitely a problem requiring sanction and also it was possible Tinynanorobots might themselves end up sanctioned. Since a topic ban on both is being considered, I might have been right in a way. If a topic ban results, I'd like to suggest admins considered some guidance beyond broadly constructed on how any topic ban would apply. While the entirety of the Yasuke article and the list of foreign born samurai stuff seem clear enough, one concern I've had at ANI is how to handle the editing at ] and its talk page. A lot of the recent stuff involving these editors seems to relate to the definition of samurai. AFAIK, this is generally been a big part of the dispute of Yasuke (he can/can't be a samurai because it means A which was/wasn't true about him). ] (]) 12:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
;Response
I will defer to the proper process for the outcome of ]. There has been some good discussion at the case page so far, but as is appropriate I will defer to an uninvolved administrator to reach a conclusion in that case. ''']''' (]) 22:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


===Result concerning Ethiopian Epic===
====Aggressive checkuser fishing and misrepresentation====
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
See ]. No evidence is presented other than vaque supposition. Also Cirt consistently misrepresents the findings of the COFS arbitration with his conjoined "Shutterbug/Misou" and his prior (rude) to Shutterbug as ] (which I objected to and which was my entrance point on realizing that Cirt had perhaps not reformed after all). There were no findings that which gave any official status to Shutterbug or established any connection between COFS and Misou other than that they accessed the same proxy server. --] (]) 14:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
<!-- 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 never been very impressed with retaliatory filings, and the one below is no exception. I will also note that I'm never too impressed with "must be a sock" type accusations&mdash;either file at SPI or don't. In this case, though, I think ] would be better off if neither of these two were participating there. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{u|Red-tailed hawk}}, what are your thoughts after the responses to you? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I think that it would be declined if it were an ] report and the editor should be mindful not to throw sock accusations around willy-nilly going forward. But I typically don't see any sort of sanction imposed when someone makes a bad SPI report, particularly if they're newer or aren't quite ] yet. So I don't see much to do on that front other than tell them that we need more specific evidence of socking when reports are made than merely shared interest, particularly when the IPs are scattered across the world. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 02:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I'm still inclined to topic ban both these editors from ], but would be interested in hearing more thoughts on that if anyone has them. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*I also generally don't like "might-be-a-sock"-style accusations; when we are accusing someone of ] we typically need evidence to substantiate it rather than just floating the possibility in a flimsy way. Filer has provided as possible socks, but each of those IPs geolocates to a different country (Germany, Norway, and Argentina respectively) and I don't see evidence that any of those IPs are proxies.{{pb}}{{yo|Tinynanorobots}} Can you explain what led you to note the IP edits? Is it merely shared interest and viewpoint, or is there something more?{{pb}}— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 02:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
* Looking at this .... mess... first, I'm not sure what actually was against the ArbCom decision - I don't see a 1RR violation being alleged, and the rest really appears to me to be "throw stuff at the wall and see if it sticks". But, like Seraphimblade, I'm not impressed with either of these editors actual conduct here or in general. I could be brought around to supporting a topic ban for both of these editors in the interests of clearing up the whole topic area. ] (]) 14:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
** {{yo|Ealdgyth}} I'm concerned that EthiopianEpic is gaming 1RR/slow edit-warring – for the past few days, they've been waiting until just over 24 hours have passed since their last revert on ] in order to make another one that restores their preferred POV, citing the same old arguments. See reverts on December ], ], and ]. ] (] • she/her) 17:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
**:I agree that's gaming 1RR. I'm tempted to block as an individual action at this point, separate from the AE complaint. @], please before editing again explain why you are continuing to edit war ''while'' there's an AE case open? ] (]) 17:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
**:: I'm good with a topic ban from the subject area for EE - for the gaming when their conduct is being scrutinized for edit warring. I'll reply below about Tiny ... (sorry for the delay, hubby is home so I have spouse-aggro (in gaming terms)) ] (]) 16:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
* {{re|Tinynanorobots}} you are well above the 500 word limit. Please request an extension before adding anything more. ] (]) 16:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
* I enacted the rough consensus to topic ban --] <sup>]</sup> 19:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}


==Tinynanorobots==
===Conclusion and recommendation===
{{hat|Topic banned from ] --] <sup>]</sup> 19:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}}
While all of these indicate a POV, none of them alone is worthy of much in the way of sanction. Taken together however and indicative of a pattern of editing, especially as they cover just a few days editing, I believe they are cause for concern. Cirt should minimally be strongly cautioned about maintaining ] in the Scientology articles. Personally, I am sorry to say that I do not believe he can, especially given his previous editing history under prior accounts. --] (]) 22:20, 6 December 2008 (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>
;Response
I have responded to the individual issues above in separate responses. I admit and apologize for making a mistake about the nature in which I discussed the site www.scientologymyths.info, and in the future will continue to utilize the ] and ] processes where appropriate in order to bring in some input from previously uninvolved editors. ''']''' (]) 00:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
===Request concerning Tinynanorobots===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : ] (]) 19:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Tinynanorobots}}<p>{{ds/log|Tinynanorobots}}</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: ]
===Comment by mentioned-in-small-type Durova===
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
Hi, I don't follow the Scientology articles very much (bored to tears by the subject), but Cirt does ask me about WP policy and process from time to time. He happened to be asking me about the post he had made on some talk pages while Justa started this thread. I really wish he'd touched bases before the fact, but sometimes that's how it goes.
; ] 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.-->


#. Tinynanorobots removes {{tq|As a samurai}} from the lead text and replaces it with {{tq|signifying bushi status}} against ] ({{tq|There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification}}).
Now what happened is this: Cirt noticed several articles on that topic had links to a site that carried malware. Cirt posted to an admin noticeboard about that, citing several reports that the site had a malware problem. Meta then blacklisted the domain. So far, so good.
#. Tinynanorobots removes {{tq|who served as a samurai}} from the lead text and adds {{tq|who became a bushi or samurai}} against ] ({{tq|There exists a consensus against presenting Yasuke's samurai status as the object of debate}}).
#. On List of Foreign-born Samurai, Tinynanorobots removes the longstanding definition and adds {{tq|This list includes persons who ... may not have been considered a samurai}} against ] ({{tq|There exists a consensus against presenting Yasuke's samurai status as the object of debate}}).
#. Tinynanorobots reverts to remove {{tq|As a samurai}} in the Yasuke article after Gitz6666 opposes at , again ignoring ].
#. I restore and start a so that consensus can be formed.
#. Tinynanorobots, when consensus fails to form for his position, becomes uncivil and engages in a sarcastic personal attack {{tq|What you are saying doesn't make sense. Perhaps there is a language issue here. Maybe your native language handles the future differently than English?}}
#. Tinynanorobots removes "As a samurai" again, ignoring ] and BRD even though no consensus has formed for his position, and no consensus has formed to change existing consensus.
#. Tinynanorobots explains their reasons, {{tq|I don't know if samurai is the right term}} which is against consensus.
#. POV-pushing - With no edit summary Tinynanorobots tag bombs by adding {{tq|Slavery in Japan}}.
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


# Explanation
Then Cirt made a good faith mistake, noting that domain properly plus another one at a few talk pages. He saw objections to both, and from the little I've been able to glean so far those objections are unrelated. The second domain is a blog and I'm unaware whether that blog is an official one or an amateur one. If the blog is official then per ] it would be acceptable in limited ways as a self-published source. If not, then it probably wouldn't satisfy the reliable sources guideline.
# Explanation
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on .
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


Tinynanorobots frequently edits against consensus, restores his edits when others revert, doesn't wait for consensus, and engages in feuding behavior. He seems to think ] or ] don't apply to him which is disruptive, and I don't know why.
I was advising Cirt to extend apologies for the confusion and offer to discuss the blog with Justa when this thread opened. It looks like possibly a matter for the reliable sources noticeboard, not for arbitration enforcement. A tense subject, and probably one in which all disputing parties could use a nice cup of tea. I only regret I didn't learn about what was developing a little sooner; was reviewing GA nominees while this was brewing. Best wishes all, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
:Small type mention has since been removed. Thank you, Justa. Let's get things on track with a discussion of the blog? I don't think this thread is needed and would gladly close it amicably with your agreement. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 22:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


- Warning from other editor about repeated removal of content when multiple users are objecting.
===Comment by GoodDamon===
I'm genuinely sorry to see this. I can summarize the majority of sourcing problems with the Scientology series with a single Wikilink: ]. This series of articles is rife with primary sources, and Cirt has been making some good headway in getting rid of them, along with other editors. Of course he's not a perfect editor, but contrary to Justanother's cherry-picked -- and frankly inaccurately described -- edits, Cirt has been pushing for better sources. This ArbCom report sadly strikes me as an attempt to distract from the other one and say something along the lines of "See? Both sides are bad," which is why I'm sad to see it.


- Warning from yet another editor about not assuming good faith and making personal attacks.
I propose that this report should be placed on hold until the other one concerning Scientology is dealt with. The two are not equal. One is a report of massive ], ], and likely ] accounts from the primary organization supporting Scientology itself, and the other is an issue of ] and sourcing. The latter could be resolved by explaining to Cirt why Tom Cruise's sex life is not of sufficient weight for inclusion in an article. The former... well obviously, that's a substantially bigger deal. --<font color="green">]</font>] 22:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


It seems to be chronic which suggests behavior problems. Tinynanorobots frequently fails to assume good faith in others. I don't know why as I don't have any issues with him.
:It appears there is consensus at the administrative level for closing this report. Perhaps a closure template should be applied? --<font color="green">]</font>] 16:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
::No hurry. There is hardly any comment here from uninvolved administrators, Jehochman hardly being "uninvolved" as he has involved himself in this issue for quite some time. Nothing wrong with that but I would like some new eyeballs on this. Also, I just stumbled across another disturbing series of actions of Cirt's part including an issue involving his use of the admin bits. I plan on adding it tonight. --] (]) 17:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Their preferred edit for Yasuke against the RFC consensus is lead section.
:::Are you absolutely sure you want to continue pursuing this right now, instead of waiting until the other report is settled? I'll say it again: This one just looks like an attempt to distract from the other one. I'm not saying it is, but that is what it looks like. There's nothing wrong with labeling the discussion archived for the time being, and then coming back to it when the other one is dealt with. --<font color="green">]</font>] 17:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
::::The two cases are unrelated. This is a result of my recent attempts to edit in good-faith alongside Cirt and reflect what I have observed. It has nothing to do with the issue you raised below and I do not even get into any of Cirt's activity in reference to that. These calls to table this are unmerited and seem to me to be little more than efforts to protect Cirt from valid criticism; unmerited especially given Cirt's terrible history here and professed "reformation". --] (]) 17:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::I can understand how you feel, but after statements such as Jehochman's, I don't see a need to involve myself further in this one, and suspect an admin will eventually close it with an admonition to pursue content dispute resolution first from now on. --<font color="green">]</font>] 17:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


@] Sorry for the confusion. I think we talking about different edits, so I'll adjust that part. I am referring to Tinynanorobot's repeated removal of {{tq|As a samurai}} against RFC consensus, which states {{tq|There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification}}.
===Comment by NE2===
Google's probably-overbroad labeling of the site - a free webhosting service - as malware, and even the reliability of the scan - are red herrings. The only issue there is whether the affidavit itself is a valid source; the scan was a convenience link. I have no idea whether or not it is, so I will refrain from commenting on that, but the supposed malware is not relevant. --] 00:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


===Comment by Jayen466===
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
The other day, I began to prepare an AE report on Cirt myself. At the time, I decided not to post it. Since the matter has come here now anyway, I shall add what I compiled. In part, it may duplicate what Justallofthem posted above. This is what I had drafted:


===Discussion concerning Tinynanorobots===
---------------------
As the unrelated discussion further below shows, Scientology articles often appear like a POV-driven battlefield. Strong feelings about Scientology are commonplace, especially on the Internet, and I believe this is reflected to some extent in all work on Scientology articles within Misplaced Pages.
<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 Tinynanorobots====
The accusations made by EE are so misleading as to be evidence against him. Most of what he is discussing is in reference to a successful BRD. I actually discussed the bold edit first on the talk, but didn't get much of a response. I decided a bold edit would get more feedback. The edits were reverted and then discussed. Gitz's main problem was OR, not a RfC violation. This was because he didn't read the cited source. {{tq|Anyway, since Atkin says "signifying bushi status", I have no objection to restoring this text.}}


I never used any sarcasm, I know that some languages handle how they talk about time differently. It seems reasonable that a translation error could be the reason for EE asking me not to change the article, althoug my edit had already been restored by someone else and at the same time asking me to discuss that I had already discussed and was already discussing. I am disappointed that EE didn't point out that he felt attacked, so that I could apologize.
A situation has arisen in one of the minor Scientology articles, {{article|Scientology and sex}}, which seems somehow symptomatic. Until recently, when it was nominated for deletion, the article was based mostly on primary sources: Over the course of the AfD, a number of secondary sources were added, resulting in this version: , which was kept.


This was written in response to another user, and the whole thought is {{tq|I don't know if samurai is the right term. It is the term a fair amount of sources use, and the one that the RfC says should be used. It is also consistent with common usage in reference to other historical figures.}} In fact earlier in that post I said this: {{tq|I am not qualified to say whither or not Yasuke having a house meant that he was a samurai}} This is blatantly taking a quote out of context in order to prejudice the Admins against me.
All Scientology articles are ], meaning that editors are required to pay particular heed to content policies such as ], ] etc. Several of the added sources appeared , but there are two edits I would like uninvolved admins to look at specifically from the viewpoint of whether these edits reflect the ] of NPOV and other policies invoked by article probation.


:@] I filed here, because the last time I filed at ANI it was suggested that I bring things here if things continue by an Admin. I try to follow advice, although I keep getting conflicting signals from Admins. I am most concerned that you find my work on ] and ] not adding anything helpful. My suggestion to rewrite the way samurai was defined on the List in order to reduce OR and bring it in line with WP:LSC was meant with unanimous approval by those who responded. Samurai is a high importance article that has tags on it from years back, is unorganized and contains outdated information. I am not the best writer, but I have gotten some books, and am pretty much the only one working on it.
==== Use of "Scientology Sex Scandal", an article in a celebrity weekly, as a source on the position of sex in the Scientology religion ====
This concerns a paragraph that was added around the time of the AfD. As it turned out, our wording misrepresented the source. Our article that it was "reported that Scientology has 'sex lessons' which can be given to couples", while the did not make a statement about the Scientology religion, but merely quoted a report that two prominent Scientologists had used the services of an "intimate relationship guide".


::I just thought that the Admins here should know about the ongoing SPI
Given this discrepancy, the content of the para was removed from the article (twice, with one intervening revert) and transferred to the talk page by {{user|Justallofthem}}, where it is currently the subject of ].


@theleekycauldron Thank you for giving a reason, I think there is a misunderstanding though.
Diffs: /
/
/
(rmv by Justallofthem) /
(rvt by Cirt) /
(rmv again by Jayen466) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
;Response
To reiterate what I had said above, there was a disagreement between myself and {{user|Justallofthem}} about this material used in the article ]. {{user|Jayen466}} shares the opinion of Justallofthem on this issue. It was discussed a bit on the talk page. The next step would either have been to have a content-based ] on the issue on the article's talk page in order to solicit input from uninvolved editors on the matter, or to have a discussion at ] about the article content, in order to solicit input from uninvolved editors about the particular sources used and their reliability in general. The matter has not proceeded to either of those stages yet, and I have chosen to disengage myself from this particular discussion and take a break from it for a while. ''']''' (]) 01:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


:On Nov 14th I removed {{tq|as a samurai}} and ''added'' {{tq|signifying bushi status}} which better matched the sources. Also, not every samurai received a house or sword. Especially receieving a house is an important indicator of Yasuke's rank.
==== Insertion of a quote box ====
:On Nov 15th it was removed by Blockhaj On the same day Gitz posted on the talk {{tq|However, I agree with this revert of Tinynanorobots's edit: sources say that the gift signifies samurai status (e.g., Lockley: "bestowing of warrior or “samurai” rank"); "bushi status" is an original research.}}
{{quote box|width=30%|align=right|quote="In Scientology the focus is on sex. Sex, sex, sex."|source=]'s son ]<ref name="morton" />}}
:On Nov 16th it was restored by Gitz
:On Nov 17th I explained that "bushi status was in the source, and therefore not OR. Gitz agreed writing {{tq|Anyway, since Atkin says "signifying bushi status", I have no objection to restoring this text, although I suggest that "indicating warrior status" or "marking membership in the warrior class" would be easier to understand.}}
:On Nov 20th I changed it to "signifying samurai status"
:On Nov 29th EE reverted with the edit summary {{tq|Corrections and fixes}}
:On Nov 30th I revert EE with the edit summary {{tq|Reverts aren't explained and includes cited material and material that was discussed on the talk page. Please discuss on Talk page}} On the same day EE did a partial revert citing ONUS
:On Dec 1st ] reverted EE saying {{tq|when ee somehow avoided a well-earned block last time, it was *extremely*, *incredibly* obvious that sooner or later, they'd edit up attacking this exact article in this exact way, i.e., contentiously reverting an editor they're following around and badgering that editor to discuss while not doing so themself. they're really not getting the point}}
:On Dec 2nd EE started a new discussion on the topic EE begins by saying {{1. was done without consensus. It looks like it was reverted by @] , but it was silently restored without any discussion.}} but also says {{tq|can you follow ] and seek consensus for these edits before re-adding them? Thank you.}} The second part is confusing, because at the time this was written, both of those edits were current. He was asking me not to re-add something that was re added by someone else and not yet removed. He has given the section the same title as the section where Gitz and I had our discussion. On the same day, I replied linking to my discussion with Gitz, pointing out that he had withdrawn his objection. EE responded saying {{tq|I see thank you, however I checked the archives and the previous discussions says ""There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification"", and ""There exists a consensus against presenting Yasuke's samurai status as the object of debate"". So I think using "signifying samurai status" or "indicating status status" would be less in line with that consensus compared to the status quo text of "as a samurai". In light of that I would suggest getting consensus before adding this change.}} This confused me. He redirects my mention of my discussion with Gitz, into a discussion of the RfC, which he pretends he just discovered in the archive, and asks me again not to add something which is currently in the article to the article without discussing it, after I told him I did discuss it, and am trying to discuss it with him.


:This is when I wrote {{tq|I am troubled that you keep implying that I haven't discussed these things on the talk before. I also believe you do not understand how consensus works. When someone makes a change, that is the consensus until someone challenges it. You are wanting to change the status quo.}} In this case I am using status quo to mean "the existing state of affairs" It was the current state of the article. It seemed that EE was both chatising me for making a change without discussion (the past) and asking me not to make that change (the future), but overlooking that I didn't need to make the change, and that I was trying to discuss with him(the present). It was all very confusing.
I would like to ask uninvolved admins to examine the appropriateness of the of the quote box shown to the right here. This insertion occurred immediately after the removal of the abovementioned para from the Australian gossip weekly. For background, the statement cited was
#made by Hubbard's estranged son;
#originally published in ;
#later ;
#cited to a ], as it risks falling foul of their libel laws
#unrepresentative of prominent viewpoints on what Scientology focuses on, as published in the most reliable sources.


:On Dec 9th a few users made some edits that really went against consensus. EE reverted these edits, but also removed the edits that City of Silver had restored.
There has been subsequent ] of this material.
--------------------
The question is, are these edits evidence of '']'' to uphold best practice in relation to content policies such as NPOV, RS, etc. I may add further evidence tomorrow or Monday; there are one or two other recent incidents I recall. If any of the diff links above don't point where they should, please point it out; I haven't had time to double-check all of them. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 01:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
;Response
I added a quote box to a subsection of an article. It was removed and a discussion ensued on the article's talk page. Again, I have chosen to disengage from this and take a break from it for a while. There is no ongoing dispute here, and so far the matter has not proceeded to RFC either. The quote box was after being in the article a total of 13 minutes, and was not added back in since, by myself or anyone else. ''']''' (]) 01:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


:After that I never restored "signifying samurai status". Unless I missed something, I only restored it once.
;Comment
This dispute about a quote box was entirely unknown to me. It's more than a bit disappointing to discover new points of contention in dribs and drabs this way. Normally I'd suggest a content RFC for a quote box dispute. With so many other unresolved issues already on noticeboards, though, a general suggestion to both sides: in dispute resolution generally (on wiki or off), an effective way to escalate tension and halt progress is to introduce new low priority quarrels while multiple higher priority ones remain unresolved. This is approaching a level where it threatens to overwhelm our site dispute resolution mechanisms (if it hasn't reached that point already unbeknownst to me). So to editors on both sides of the fence, whatever your disagreements may be, I hope we can all stand together in ''not'' wanting a second arbitration case. The last one on this subject lasted three months.


:The full line is {{tq|He was granted a sword, a house and a stipend, indicating samurai status}} and I don't see how it can be against the RfC, the RfC says explicitly {{tq|There exists no consensus on the inclusion of the following sentence, or similar, in the lead section of the article. "Historians believe this was the equivalent to "the bestowing of warrior or 'samurai' rank" during this period."}} The quote is from one of the sources, and my version should be less controversial considering the objections to including the quote. The quote is not only in the body, but also in a footnote in the lead.
So here's a proposal: please table the discussions on the quote box and the blog for 30 days. Wherever things are now, just walk away until the new year. Let the other issues with the prior AE thread etc. get wrapped up first, please. Then address this lower priority material. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


:EE is the only person who beleives that it goes against the RfC, except for an IP It has been added by other users, and others have explictly said it doesn't go against RfC on both ] and here.
====Inappropriate warning of an IP contributor====
] (]) 15:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
IP makes a , with a lucid edit summary drawing attention to a valid concern. The edit is reverted by another user, and the IP receives from Cirt. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 21:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


====Statement by Relm====
====Opposition to the inclusion of scholarly sources in articles related to Scientology====
I am the editor alluded to and quoted as 'protesting' Tinynanorobots edit. When I originally made that topic, I was fixing a different edit which left the first sentence as a grammatically incomplete sentence. When I looked at it in the editing view, one of the quotes in the citation beforehand was quoting Atkins Vera, and I mistook this for the opening quote having been changed. When I closed the editing menu I saw 'signifying samurai status' in the second paragraph and confused the two for each other as I had not noticed the addition of the latter phrase a little under a month ago. I realized my mistake almost immediately after I posted the new topic, and made this () edit to clarify my mistake while also attempting to instead direct the topic towards making sure that the edit recieved sufficient assent from Gitz (it did) and to talk about improvements that could be made to the opening sentence. I further clarified and made clear that I was not accusing Tinynanorobots of having done anything wrong in a later response ().


Though many of their earlier edits on the page may show some issues, as they grew more familiar with the past discussions I believe that Tinynanorobots has made valuable contributions to the page in good faith. ] (]) 03:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
added a paragraph sourced to a book by ], a highly acclaimed academic author published by leading university presses, to the article on the ] (CAN). Going against the grain of the rest of the article as it was then (mainly authored by Cirt), it states that the New CAN, which is run with Scientology backing, operates as a “genuine information and networking center on non-traditional religions”.


====Statement by Barkeep49====
with the edit summary: “(removed added text from Lewis book - it is basically a copyright violation - minor words are changed but whole sections are quoted without quotations!!!)”
*:@] I think this misinterprets the ArbCom decision. So Yakuse is a contentious topic ''and'' it has a 1RR restriction, in the same way as say PIA. As in PIA administrators can sanction behavior that violates the ] besides 1RR. Beyond that, editing ] is a finding of fact from the case. ] (]) 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


For editors wanting to assess the validity of Cirt's copyvio claim – which I would take issue with, since the author and work were named, and my summary reformulated the source text – the relevant page of Lewis is available in google books: If Cirt had had a genuine copyright concern, I suggest that the appropriate response showing ''especial mindfulness'' of NPOV would have been to reword the text, ensuring that this significant scholarly voice offering an alternative viewpoint be included. Instead, Cirt deleted it. It is also noteworthy that the version of the article at the time, which Cirt submitted for GA (it failed), cited ''no criticism whatsoever'' of the Old CAN, prior to its Scientology take-over, even though there have been a great many voices critical of the Old CAN in both the academic literature and mainstream media.


====Statement by Gitz6666 ====
Cirt has several times tried to exclude ] as a reliable source from WP articles related to Scientology, describing him as a “collaborator”. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
I don't see anything wrong either with Tinynanorobots's recent edits to Yasuke and related articles or those of Ethiopian Epic. The only troubling aspect is their difficulty in finding an agreement on relatively irrelevant issues or minutiae such as "As a samurai" vs "Signifying samurai status", which are not covered by the RfC consensus and are also difficult to understand. They shouldn't bring this stuff to AE and they'd better come to an agreement otherwise they risk being tbanned, which in my opinion would be a pity. Disengage disengage disengage, and move to more productive editing! ] (]) (]) 22:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
;Response
I did indeed alert in an edit summary about copyvio concerns from text inserted by {{user|Jayen466}}, and this was a valid concern. The cited by Jayen466 is from almost 6 months ago. I believe Jayen466 ended up rewording the text later himself, and a version of it remains in the article. The fact that I nominated something to ] which failed is simply a testament to my dedication to relying on the GA Review process itself. Actually I later utilized many points from the GA Review to copyedit and improve on the article based on the GA Reviewer's suggestions. And yes, I do question ]'s collaboration with ] attorney ], and you will note that the Diffs cited by Jayen466 are each: on talk pages, not article-space, where I brought the concern up for discussion, and: over two months old, and have not been brought up again by myself for some time. ''']''' (]) 18:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


====Skewed assessment of sources based on POV, rather than reliability, in articles related to Scientology====


As GoodDamon has pointed out, Cirt has argued that Scientology’s primary sources (websites, Hubbard’s books) should not be used in Scientology-related articles. I agree with Cirt on this point, and have said so before: . Our descriptions of Scientology beliefs should be based on scholarly descriptions, or other sources that can be considered reliable sources on religious matters.


====Statement by (username)====
However, Cirt’s actual approach is selective, depending on whether Scientology sources are likely to paint the religion in a good or a bad light. There are also contradictions between Cirt's statements in public and her or his actual editing actions. For example, in the AfD for Scientology and Sex, Cirt said that content sourced to primary sources should be “pruned”. When some time later I brought the matter up on the article’s talk page, Cirt was extremely reluctant to remove any of the primary-source material at all:
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning Tinynanorobots===
Cirt not only defended the use of primary sources likely to cast a negative light on the religion, he also defended the use of a self-published piece on an anti-Scientology website, saying the site was “not an attack site”: The site’s title is “Exposing the con”: Scholarly opinion of such sites is that they are a propaganda effort presenting a caricature of Scientology, rather than reliable information.
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''


* As above, I'm failing to see what exactly is against the ArbCom case rulings - I don't see a 1RR violation. But also as above, I'm coming to the view that neither of these editors are adding anything helpful to the topic area and am leaning towards a topic ban for both. ] (]) 14:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
To summarize:
*:I tend to agree. The edits EE highlights are troubling, especially TNR's view that they can repeatedly make edits an RfC has already ruled out (], ], ]) because {{tq|When someone makes a change, that is the consensus until someone challenges it. You are wanting to change the status quo.}} ] (] • she/her) 00:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*Cirt seeks to ''exclude'' Scientology primary sources where they might serve to portray Scientology in a ''favourable'' light.
*::That's been my position, and I've thus far seen no reason to change it. I would support topic banning both EE and Tinynanorobots from the Yasuke subject. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*Cirt seeks to ''include'' Scientology primary sources where they might serve to portray Scientology in an ''unfavourable'' light.
*::: I concur. Topic banning both would hopefully help them learn to collaborate by editing somewhere where they are not so invested so that they can learn how to collaborately edit. ] (]) 16:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*Cirt defends the use as ] of self-published attack sites and poor sources (such as men's magazines, celebrity gossip weeklies and publications with known libel issues), where they can serve to portray Scientology in an unfavourable light.
*Unless an uninvolved admin objects within the next seven days or so, I will close as above (TBAN on Tinynanorobots and EthiopianEpic from Yasuke). ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*Cirt seeks to exclude scholarly sources, usually considered the most reliable in Misplaced Pages, where they have written favourably about Scientology, or have demonstrated a descriptive and non-judgmental attitude towards this religion.
* I enacted the rough consensus --] <sup>]</sup> 19:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*Cirt uses a variety of argumentative approaches to accomplish these aims, and Cirt's statements in public often do not match his or her actual behaviour.
<!-- 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. -->
*<!--
-->
{{hab}}


==Rasteem==
I do not see ''especial mindfulness'' of NPOV here. I do not even see a good-faith effort towards NPOV. I see an extremely dedicated effort to subvert NPOV that is unparalleled by anything else I have observed in Misplaced Pages. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 13:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
{{hat|There does not seem to be an appetite to act here. Any admin can chat with Rasteem about any competence concerns in their personal capacity --] <sup>]</sup> 20:00, 1 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 Rasteem===
: ] is not a replacement for ordinary ] surrounding content disputes. Is there any evidence that ordinary DR has been attempted and frustrated by behavioral problems. To my eye this entire thread looks like it was started as axe grinding by an editor against a content opponent. Jayen466, to what extent are you familiar with the history of this dispute, one which stretches back to May 2007 and before? ] <sup>]</sup> 18:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 03:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Rasteem}}<p>{{ds/log|Rasteem}}</p>
::I came across the arbcom case a good few months ago and read up on it. Around the same time I left a message on ] that we should not be citing primary sources. A few weeks ago, {{User|Spidern}} notified me on my talk page that he had reworked the Scientology article, removing a lot of this inappropriately sourced material. On reviewing the article then, I noticed that after x years of work by many capable editors, still almost none of the relevant scholarly publications in the field were cited (I gave a partial list of suitable references ]). When I saw Cirt, who has made tens of thousands of edits on Scientology-related topics, inserting a quote box that read like a tabloid headline, citing Penthouse and a reference to an article in some Australian celebrity gossip mag, I felt concerned enough to draft an AE report, even though in the end I did not post it. But when I saw Justallofthem post almost exactly the same concerns here, I felt compelled to back him up. In my perception, what Justallofthem drew attention to is not a made-up thing posted out of personal spite, but a valid concern about an, in my eyes, glaringly obvious failure to stick to NPOV editing – which I have recently concluded Cirt is simply incapable of, given his or her evidently very strong feelings on the matter.
::Scientology has been a recognized religion in the United States for 15 years. The U.S. State Department regularly criticises the few remaining major countries who have so far failed to recognise it as such. In my opinion, it is time that we too treated Scientology like a religion, giving it the same respect we accord any other faith. Editors who cannot do that, but instead appear to edit from an overpowering POV that prevents them from including at least some opposing viewpoints, should not work on these articles. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 19:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
:::Before bringing a report to AE, I recommend discussing concerns with the editor in question to see whether they are willing to voluntarily change their behavior. Have you discussed your concerns with Cirt? ] <sup>]</sup> 20:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
::::Please review the evidence provided. Cirt and I discussed these matters, and from the exchanges we had, including this one: I concluded that any further assumption of good faith in this particular topic area was misplaced. Cirt and I have collaborated and had perfectly amicable discussions elsewhere before, and hopefully will do so again. Cirt is a truly talented writer, and a tremendous researcher. But exactly ''because'' Cirt is such a great researcher: Why is it that I have never seen Cirt cite a source that is sympathetic to the Church of Scientology, or critical of the ] surrounding it? They are Instead, we have had literally tens of thousands of edits contributing negative material about Scientology and individual Scientologists, mostly from press sources, and some distinctly at the lower end of the spectrum, as demonstrated by the diffs here.
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
::::But coming back to the matter of discussion between Cirt and myself, if someone they are in favour of pruning primary-source content, and a week later, nothing of the sort having happened, you if they would like to do it, or if it were alright if you did what they had advocated, and you get in response, then the assumption of good faith becomes moot, and you conclude that your interlocutor simply says whatever they think will serve their purpose at the moment, without necessarily having any intention of doing what they said. Cheers, <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 01:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
;Response
<!-- 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.-->
In conjunction with secondary sources supplementing primary source material, I have no objection to using primary sources in a limited capacity. Note that the above Diffs cited by {{user|Jayen466}} are all to talk-page discussions about article content, where constructive discussions were had. We had been (unfortunately) conflating multiple discussions about different websites together. If we had discussed each website one-at-a-time (or even later brought the matter to ]) the discussion would have had a more clear and beneficial resolution for all. So it is partly my fault for not keeping the discussion on track to one website/source at a time, and also for not opening the matter up to a noticeboard like ] to get some fresh eyes and input from uninvolved editors on the matter. ''']''' (]) 18:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
# - removed wikilink of an Indian railway station thus violating his topic ban from India and Pakistan.


This violation comes after he was already warned for his first violation of the topic ban.
===Doubts===
I participated in ] and have interacted with both Cirt and Justanother for a great length of time. I am dubious of any reports files by historical content adversaries against each other. I recommend that this lengthy report be archived and that independent editors review the content disputes and provide feedback to all parties. If that fails to resolve the problem, an editor not involved in the content dispute should come here with a succinct report requesting whatever actions may be necessary to prevent further disruption to the editing process or damage to the articles. I think recourse to our normal dispute resolution channels and noticeboards, including ], ] and ] might be helpful. I have not yet seen evidence that there was a community consensus at one of those places which was then tendentiously subverted by one of the parties. ] (]) 16:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
: Jayen makes good points, Jehochman2. And Jayen is one of these ''very nice editors'' and an example of sobriety and measured comments. He even got a Barnstar from .... Cirt in this regard. So, rather than dismiss this with a wave of the hand, please take a look at the evidence. ] <small>]</small> 16:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
::{{user|Jehochman}} makes a good point here. ''']''' (]) 18:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


Upon a closer look into his recent contribution, I found that he is simply ] the system by creating articles like ] which is overall only 5,400 bytes but he made nearly 50 edits here. This is clearly being done by Rasteem for passing the 500 edits mark to get his topic ban overturned.
:: I am not opposed to reviewing Jayden's evidence. I recommend that this lengthy thread be closed, because it had gotten so long that nobody is going to read it all. We need to encourage participation, not scare people off with huge walls of text. If Jayden wants to post a new report, that's fine. However, I'd recommend seeing if a discussion between Jayden and Cirt might resolve concerns, since they appear to have a friendly relationship. Has that been attempted yet? ] <sup>]</sup> 19:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
:::One reason the thread is lengthy is because it presents a lot of evidence for the uninvolved to take a look at. You know, JH, if the thread's length bothers you then you can just ignore it. Your and Durova's attempts to sweep Cirt's overpowering POV issues away serves nothing. Let the thread stand and let's see what comments are made. --] (]) 19:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


I recommend increasing the topic ban to indefinite duration. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 03:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Justallofthem, allow me to begin by assuring you that Jehochman and I are by no means teaming up here. I had no idea Jehochman intended to post to this thread until I read that he had, and given my scathing oppose to his recent ArbCom candidacy--well--it's gracious of him to acknowledge some merit to the position I've articulated at this discussion. Regarding Cirt's 'overpowering POV issues', I admit to being unfamiliar with many sides of the subject. So what's useful in that regard is to look at what other editors have thought of his work. Cirt has contributed a large number of good articles and featured articles on this subject. Please accept this feedback at face value: I have no intention of sweeping anything under a rug. This dispute is progressing in a manner where uninvolved administrator intervention is unlikely to occur: Jehochman saw the COFS case through arbitration and Jossi has a declared conflict of interest regarding new religious movements generally. It would be a sad thing to see a second arbitration case on the subject because if both sides simply slowed down then normal site processes ought to be able to handle this matter. But if matters continue on their present course I can and will initiate a second RFAR. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 20:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : "topic banned from the subject of India and Pakistan, broadly construed, until both six months have elapsed and they have made 500 edits after being notified of this sanction."
==== Comment ====
This seems to be an ongoing '']'' of Cirt. He/she gets involved in behavior as documented above, only to regret it later and "disengage" or " take a break". While removing oneself from a dispute is commendable, a more a appropriate behavior would be not to engage in that silly behavior ''in the firt place'', in particular given Cirt past multiple blocks for edit warring, and the much spoken about "turnaround". I would argue, that it is because this "new Cirt" that we are supposed to accept as an example of how bad-behaving editors can come around and become useful contributors to this project, that the burden is on Cirt to simply avoid ''a priori'' to get involved in such behavior. ] <small>]</small> 16:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
;Response
I believe I have done so. I admit that it is always best to seek out fresh eyes from uninvolved contributors to a discussion or article-improvement drive as much as possible, in such forums (as noted above) including ] and article-content ] when appropriate. It is also quite important to (try one's best) to focus article talk page discussion on the matter at hand, and on one issue at a time, to avoid muddying the waters and confusing multiple talk page discussion/threads. In some instances where I was involved in these discussions I was not quick enough to focus discussion on one issue at a time, and also to seek out advice from both experienced editors and administrators, and also to seek out input from uninvolved contributors by posting a neutral request for input on appropriate noticeboards. These are all good ideas which I always try to implement and will continue to work on in the future. ''']''' (]) 18:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
: I am not convinced by Jossi's arguments given his known editorial position with respect to cults. Of course he is welcome to participate just as much as anybody else, but I think that ] is hardly the correct tool for resolving what appears to be a content dispute. Editors should not seek ArbCom sanctions as an extension of their content disagreements. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
:: With all due respect, Jehochman: Look at the evidence rather than providing nothing more than an ad hominem. (For the record I have never edited articles related to the CoS, besides an article about the actor Tom Cruise, and do no intend to either). ] <small>]</small> 18:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
:::I have looked at the evidence, but the editing histories of the editors are also relevant. What I see here is almost pure ] with the sides lining up along their traditional editorial positions. I'd really like to have editors with no irons in the fire look at this situation and provide thoughts. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
<!-- Add any further comment here -->


*I agree that there are genuine CIR issues with Rasteem, for example while this ARE report is in progress they created ], which has promotional statements like: "The lake's stunning caluts, majestic desert topographies, and serene lakes produce a shifting destination. Its unique charm attracts a wide range of guests, from adventure contenders to nature suckers and beyond". ] <small><small>]</small></small> 03:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::::This is not about cults, or the fact that Scientologists are a much-despised minority. It is about a set of articles that have been under arbcom-imposed probation for more than a year, requiring editors to uphold the highest standards with respect to content policies. I believe the above examples – more could be added – illustrating how sources have been used, and on what basis sources have been used or rejected, fall short of these standards. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 18:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
*{{ping|Theleekycauldron}} I hope you will review the complaint again. As Femke and Cullen328 puts, the issue is not only with the topic ban violations (for which he was already warned by Seraphimblade) but also the basic competence issues that include his grasp of English language. Rasteem's own response to this complaint that "{{tq| a coordinated attack to abandon me from Misplaced Pages indefinitely}}" itself showcases his ]. I believe that the existing six-month topic ban should be increased to an indefinite period. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 03:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
; 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. -->
:::::Yes, but what to do about it? If an editor's contributions are generally moving an article forward, it is counter-productive to ban them. Additionally, ] is a very blunt tool for resolving disagreements. I think that some of our more subtle tools, such as ], ], and ] might be better suited to resolving the problems you've identified. Editors are not expected to be perfect. We are not going to ban somebody for occasional mistakes when the bulk of their work in a particular area is good, at least not without giving them feedback and seeing if they adjust their editing to take a better form. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
::::::''Yes, but what to do about it?'' Given the problems identified, don't you think a '''''warning''''' about NPOV editing and sourcing would be in order? That way, if there are similar problems six months down the line, there will be a record that we have been here before. Cheers, <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 12:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::You are heavily involved in editing a series of controversial topics where Cirt is also involved. To me your request for sanctions appears to represent the escalation of a content dispute. Given the intense spins that have been put on these articles by single purpose accounts, I think Cirt has overall done a good job trying to restore neutrality. It is unfair to hold them to a standard of perfection. I recommend you use ] to resolve matters. Further lobbying here for arbitration sanctions is not going to be successful. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


===Discussion concerning Rasteem===
*I concur with ]'s assessment of this matter. This is basically a content dispute and ] is not the best forum for solving it. Some of the main contributors to this thread have longstanding disputes with ] regarding other New Religious Movements, which makes this appear to an effort to settle scores. I don't think that anyone can honestly say that the Scientology articles would be more NPOV if Cirt were not involved, so topic banning him while allowing pro-Scientology single-purpose accounts to keep editing would be harmful to the project. I suggest that mediation would be the process most likely to achieve a resolution. ]] ] 22:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
<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>
**The current arbcom remedies include article probation. NPOV is an integral part of this. Ignoring or actively resisting the inclusion of mainstream scholarly sources such as ], ], ], ] or ], who form a staple of university syllabi in this field, while going to Penthouse and celebrity gossip weeklies for poorly sourced and salacious material is not compatible with that. I think a warning is appropriate, so that if we are here again in a few months' time, with similar diffs, we will know that we have been here before. Cheers, <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 12:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
**By the way, Will, I think the problem of single-purpose Scientologist accounts editing Scientology articles in Misplaced Pages is somewhat overstated. As far as I can see, there are far more dedicated anti-Scientology accounts editing here than there have ever been Scientologists. The current total of active Scientologist editors is 4 or 5, I believe. None of them is a prolific editor. And if Scientologists start misbehaving, they will in turn have to answer their critics (of which there are many) here. Btw, did you go through the evidence above? <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 12:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
**I'd open a mediation request if the parties are willing? <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 22:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Without any intention of preventing non-sanction resolution of this situation, WJBScribe (current chair of Medcom) recently reminded us on this page that mediation is an entirely voluntary process and that should not be used as either a carrot or a stick in relation to user behaviour. Results of mediation are not normally available for public viewing, in order to support the mediation process. Please use caution in recommending mediation as an adjunct or alternative to action on this noticeboard. ] (]) 22:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for the reminder. It's rather difficult to know what to do about a situation that had been relatively stable for over a year and then undergoes an unexpected escalation. Will bear your advice in mind. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


===Comment by Cirt=== ====Statement by Rasteem====
This approach seems to be a coordinated attack to abandon me from Misplaced Pages indefinitely. Indeed, after my ban for 6 months. I was banned on 6 December, and in just 7 days, this report is literally an attempt to make me leave Misplaced Pages.
I apologize for any inadvertent confusion that has been caused by my recent actions, and I accept the wise advice given above to table these new issues until the old ones are resolved. Thank you, ''']''' (]) 02:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


1. I rolled back my own edit; it was last time made unintentionally. I was about to revert it, but my internet connection was lost, so when I logged in again, I regressed it.
===RFAR===
I have requested a new arbitration case. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


The internet is constantly slow and sometimes goes down. I live in a hilly location and I had formerly mentioned it.
: It's like ''de ja vu'' all over again. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


My edits on Arjan Lake isn't any ] factual number of edits I made; it is 45, not 50. Indeed, I made similar edits before in September and December months on the same articles within a single day or 2-3 days.
== Domer48 and Ulster Defence Regiment ==


2. ] on this article, I've added 5680 bytes & made 43 edits.
'''''Arbcom case:''''' ''''' ].


3. ] on this article I've added 4000 bytes & made 49 edits.
{{Userlinks|Domer48}}


====Statement by (username)====
During a messy ] including a now recinded indefinite block, Domer48 was placed under the following restriction:
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning Rasteem===
* Domer48 will join mediation, but under a strict indefinite topic ban on Ulster Defence Regiment and subpages thereof, and a strict *1RR on all other Troubles related articles in addition to voluntary terms with the mediator.
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
* If in the opinion of a 3 editors referee panel, in consultation with the mediator, Domer48 has successfully participated in mediation, Domer48's topic ban is rescinded.
<!-- 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. -->
* The aforementioned referee panel will consist of {{user|Avruch}}, {{admin|Tiptoety}}, {{admin|Nishkid64}}
* While I don't see a change in editing pattern that indicates gaming, the edits to ] indicate issues with competence, as the article is weirdly promotional and contains phrases such as "beast species", "emotional 263 proved species". ] (]) 20:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC) <!--
-->
*Adding to {{u|Femke}}'s point, {{tpq|magnific 70- cadence-high waterfalls in this area}} is not prose that inspires confidence in the editor's competence to edit the English Misplaced Pages. So, we have violations of a topic ban and questions about the editor's linguistic competence and performance. Perhaps an indefinite block appealable in six months with a recommendation to build English competency by editing the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and to build general Misplaced Pages skills by editing in the version of Misplaced Pages in the language they speak best during that minimum six month period. As for ], although the prose is poor, the references in the article make it clear to me that the topic is notable, so the editor deserves some credit for starting this article that did not exist for two decades plus. ] (]) 08:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
*Brief comment to avoid the archive bot. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*I don't see any appetite to do anything about the CTOP violations here. Someone should probably write up an individual admin's warning about the two articles and the prose/sourcing problems, but I don't see anything here AE can action. ] (] • she/her) 22:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|NXcrypto}} Yeah, I read your statement. They were doing gnome edits and they made one to a dab page, removing a redlink to a place that happened to be in India and related in no other way to the conduct that got them sanctioned. I'm not obligated as an administrator to ]. I '''oppose''' lengthening the topic ban. Both Cullen and Femke expressed competence concerns that I share, but those are outside the scope of AE as they don't involve any contentious topics or other ArbCom rulings. If one of them indeffed, I wouldn't object, but maybe someone wants to try explaining to them how their articles could be better first before we hit the indef button? ] (] • she/her) 05:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}


==KronosAlight==
That mediation has not been entirely successful, but I think lengthy enough do determine if Domer48 has learned the editing behaviors desired.
{{hat|KronosAlight is ] from the ], broadly construed. ] (]) 17:56, 1 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 KronosAlight===
With that in mind I'd like ] and ] to share their impressions to Avruch, Tiptoety and Nishkid64 - following which the referee panel will discuss and ideally come to a consensus on the question of lifting Domer48's topic ban based on his participation in mediation. The mediators and panelists should use whatever form of on or off wiki communication that would be most effective, but the panel should report their final findings here.
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Butterscotch Beluga}} 03:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|KronosAlight}}<p>{{ds/log|KronosAlight}}</p>
The very purpose of instituting the referee panel was to keep administrators and editors who have been previous engaged in Troubles related issues out of it - so I would ask that we allow the mediators and referee panel work in peace. Thank you.--] (]) 18:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
:While it is clear that Domer48 did join mediation, and abided the terms of his editing restrictions I am not sure that much was accomplished, or that we saw a very large change. While I am aware that Domer84 has technically completed his restrictions; before it is lifted I am very interested to hear from the mediators as comment interests me. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
Thank you Tiptoety for your comments above. I was not sure what to expect after this edit , but it all turned out alright in the end. I would just like to say that there was a lot accomplished, but I felt there was a lot more to do. Unfortunately we were prevented from completing the mediation, I was definitely willing and attempted to keep it going despite the set backs. I would be very interested to see examples were my editing would be considered less then acceptable, either during or following the mediation. These examples would no doubt be very beneficial to both my self and possibly other editors who experience the same difficulties. As per my agreement, I have completed the mediation, weather it was successful being only comparative with my editing prior to mediation, I would have to say yes. I would therefore like to get back to editing the UDR article, as I consider I have a lot to contribute. I would caution though, that any lifting of AE imposed sanctions be conditional on editor’s conduct, and agreement to adhere to our editing policies. Lifting of sanctions on articles, should be coupled with the application of sanctions on individual editors should their editing become disruptive. That is just my opinion, but I’d like it to be considered, thanks --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 21:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
* As a reminder, ] communications, including the case page, talk page and any associated subpages, are ]. As such, they have been deleted and replaced with a summary. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 03:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
<!-- 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.-->
*Without going into messy bureaucratic details and to try to avoid any undue conflict, I'm going to ask that that the referees look ''only'' at Domer48's edits outside of the mediation communications, keeping in line with the privileged nature of communications as noted above. Furthermore, the mediators are explicitly encouraged to share only as much as they are comfortable with, within established mediation policies.--] (]) 04:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
#
:*Adds "depiste being an ex-Muslim" to dismiss accusations of Islamophobia ].
:*Adds ] around ‘promoted Islamophobia’ & ‘Islamophobia’ while removing the supporting context.
:*Changed "interpreted that statement as a threat and incitement to violence" to "claimed was a threat and incitement to violence, though no threats or violence in fact occurred" ] & ]
# - ]
:*Changes "Israeli settlers" to "Israeli soldiers" despite
# - ]
# - ]
:* Unnecessarily specific additions that may constitute ] such as adding "against civilians" & changing "prevent the assassinations of many Israelis" to "prevent the assassinations of many Israeli civilians and soldiers"
# - ]


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
:If the question is whether Domer48 has successfully completed mediation or not, how is that determination to be made without reference to the mediation? I have no problem reviewing his work outside of mediation, and planned on it anyway, but it seems like it will be hard to come to a conclusion on whether he has met the conditions of the topic ban using that alone. ]] 04:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
::Agreed. But, I think that can happen while ensuring that any and all privileged communication remain private. I think what I was asking to hear, was the mediators opinions. I am interested to hear if they feel the mediation was successful and if it was not was that due to Domer48. Also, I am interested to hear if they felt Domer was constructive during the mediation. In response to Tznkai I can agree to look outside of mediation but feel that the most important aspect of the editing restrictions were in reference to the mediation. A review of his actions during the mediation can be done without violating anyone's privacy or privileged communication. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
# Warned to abide by the one-revert rule when making edits within the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.
:::Yes, that makes sense, what I was trying to say is don't go rummaging in the privileged information while doing so, but you obviously know that. I'll just get out of your way now.--] (]) 05:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
# Blocked from editing for 1 week for violating consensus required on the page ]


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
One of the cornerstones by which Misplaced Pages's Mediation Committee operates is that parties' agreement to mediation is voluntary, based on the knowledge that what happens in the mediation is privileged and therefore cannot be used against them in later proceedings. This is designed to ensure that parties participate fully and frankly without concern as to how their comments might be interpreted later. Another important principle in that the mediator is neutral and does not form a view as to the content on discussion or the parties involved. Were a mediator later to rule as to the conduct of one of the parties, it would undermine that neutrality. Similarly, the mediation process would be hampered if the parties felt that the mediator was in fact sitting in judgment on them and might make a later report about his or her impressions of their conduct. Whilst the Mediation Committee is sympathetic to the need to develop new approaches to resolving issues in problematic topic areas, it is our opinion that the second element of this proposal violates both the privileged nature of mediation and the neutrality of the mediators.


*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|ScottishFinnishRadish}}.
The Mediation Committee regrets that it was not consulted before this proposal was made.
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on .


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
''On behalf of the Mediation Committee'',<br />
All edits were made at ]. After I with an explanation, I , asking for their rationale.
<strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 23:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
They replied that they were & asked if I "perhaps have a deeper bias that’s influencing decisions in this respect?"


They then
This is apparently the result of serious miscommunication, the responsibility for which lies with me. I regret that I did not more thoroughly examine the issue, and that I did not double and triple check everything was in order. It was foolish for me to believe that in the various threads and communications on this issue that all applicable parties were fully aware - I took the lack of objections to indicate that I had covered all the bases. I think it is clear now that I instituted this proposal in October, it was not proper then, and I apologize for it. I apologize specifically to Domer48. In order to avoid any possible damage to the Mediation system, I do no think this proposal should complete its implementation, which means that Domer is left hanging. In order to avoid that, I am lifting his topic ban on my own discretion, and ask that the community endorse this action.--] (]) 00:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
:*'''Endorse''' - Seeing as Domer48 has completed mediation, along with the fact that any further review of said mediation would result in a violation of the Mediation Committee's common practices. I have reviewed Domer's recent contributions and find nothing that stands out as a red flag. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
:*'''Endorse''' - I think it's best if Domer returns to editing on articles, hopefully the mediation and the discussion will help him avoid the sticky situations he was in before (sometimes through no fault of his own) :) ] (]) 17:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


: ] - While I can't find any comments where they were explicitly ''"warned for casting aspersions"'', they were to ] in the topic area.
In addition to what the mediation committee has said, I wish to make one additional comment. '''The mediation was unsuccessful'''. To say more about it would, almost inevitably, give rise to inappropriate conclusions. ] (]) 00:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


:Also, apologies for my ''"diffs of edits that violate this sanction"'' section, this is the first time I've filed a request here & I thought it'd be best to explain the ''preamble'' to my revert, but I understand now that I misunderstood the purpose of that section & will remember such for the future. - ] (]) 15:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'd like to thank you all for your comments above, and ] I really think you are selling yourself shot. For me it was successful, and I took a lot from it, and I put that down to putting a lot into it. I'm glad to be back editing the UDR article, but will probably stick to the talk page for awhile. Thanks again, --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 08:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


:@] I was able to find a copy of the opinion article being cited . ] (]) 20:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] and related articles ==
{{archive top|}}
:''This matter has been accepted for arbitration. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)''
===Introduction===
I have been informed that this is the proper area for this, so I am moving it from ] to here. Please bear with me, as I have copied the current discussion there verbatim, to provide full context. --<font color="green">]</font>] 18:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
-----
{{userlinks|Shutterbug}} is a long-term ] that edits solely at articles concerning Scientology, previously under the name ], which is an acronym for '''C'''hurch '''of''' '''S'''cientology. Shutterbug openly admits to one conflict-of-interest, to his/her benefit, as a Scientologist.


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
However, after a long period of inactivity, Shutterbug has begun editing in the ] article again, as well as several sub-articles. In the discussions that have followed, an old ArbCom case involving Shutterbug has been brought up. The ] ended with some minor temporary topic bans and blocks, but little else. Part of the reasoning that lead to this result was that Shutterbug (or COFS, at the time) claimed a particular Church of Scientology-owned IP address he/she had edited from, ], including , was a proxy used by various hotels and such. Shutterbug recently reiterated the claim . During the ArbCom, this claim was apparently given the benefit of the doubt, as a ] revealed that several similar ] had all edited from the same address and other Church-related address ranges. The users in question were:


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
* COFS
* {{userlinks|CSI LA}}
* {{userlinks|Misou}}
* {{userlinks|Grrrilla}}
* {{userlinks|Makoshack}}


===Discussion concerning KronosAlight===
I haven't been able to figure out why this proxy claim was given credence, as I can't see any particular evidence one way or the other in the ArbCom, and the single-purpose editing definitely lends itself to an appearance of conflicts-of-interest, if not sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry. But until recently, I was happy to let the decision stand; I wasn't even involved in the ArbCom, and was inclined to defer to the administrators in that case.
<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 KronosAlight====
I now think the decision was a mistake. This user, these accounts, and every IP address previously confirmed by checkuser as being associated with these accounts has been used overwhelmingly in Scientology-related edits and minimally in anything else. Were these IP addresses those of hotel proxies and the like, one would expect a host of non-Scientology related edits, but per , there are few if any to be found.


This is a complete waste of the Arbitration Committee’s time.
Lacking any evidence to the contrary aside from Shutterbug's word, the bulk of the user's edits come from official Church of Scientology-owned machines, and the of an IP proxy used by "hundreds if not thousands" is implausible. Had these accounts and these IP addresses not edited so single-mindedly in Scientology-related articles, it would perhaps be more plausible, but as is, the evidence is pretty compelling that Shutterbug -- as well as the other accounts -- have conflicts-of interest affecting their abilities to edit neutrally, or at the very least the appearance thereof.


1. That Yousef was born and raised a Muslim is important and neutral context for readers to be aware of when the article refers to claims of ‘Islamophobia’.
There is also an issue of incivility. In , I decried the sudden ] over the article after months of calm, and accurately described a particular performed by a different user. In response, Shutterbug said As I had not made one, and I didn't appreciate the accusation, I asked Shutterbug to it, and asked on the user's talk page. The speaks for itself.


2. The scarequotes indicate that the claim comes from the sources provided, rather than being an objective ‘fact’ determined by a few Misplaced Pages Editors with an axe to grind.
====Introductory discussion====
My thoughts at this point, unless I've missed something that completely negates my COI concerns, is that Church of Scientology IP addresses simply shouldn't be used to edit Scientology-related articles, and accounts associated with those IP addresses should be topic-banned as probable ] accounts. --<font color="green">]</font>] 09:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
:I think a short-term topicban would illustrate whether or not this is an SPA. Ask the user to stay away from any content related to COS for a month, and see what they do. If they do it and contribute elsewhere, excellent. If not, obviously we are dealing with someone inserting biased info, and should be dealt with accordingly. Thoughts? //]&nbsp;] <small>09:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)</small>
::My only problem with that is that if the user reads what you have just said, they have a clear way to 'prove' their innocence and continue however after. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash; ]</b><sup><i>]</i></sup></font> 10:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


3. This was already addressed on the Talk page and I updated the sentence to say settlers/soldiers with a further label that it needed further clarification because the source does not in fact unambiguously say what Butterscotch Beluga claims.
:::Good point.. so... how about an indef topicban from COS articles until a couple of admins (to be named) agree that this isn't an SPA, topic ban to be at least a month? //]&nbsp;] <small>14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)</small>


A few lines above what Butterscotch Beluga quotes is the following lines: “AMANPOUR: How did you take part in that? Were you one of the small children who threw rocks at Israeli soldiers?
::::See the ArbCom results I mentioned. This has already been tried. Shutterbug was topic-banned for one month. During that month, Shutterbug did not contribute to a single article. Shutterbug did, however, contribute to a few incident reports and checkusers associated with other users who edit in the same area of interest. So he/she was actively involved in the encyclopedia for that month, but not in any content capacity. --<font color="green">]</font>] 15:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


YOUSEF: The model for every Palestinian child is a mujahid (ph) or a fidahi (ph) or a fighter. So, of course, I wanted to be one at that point of my life. It wasn't -- it's not my only dream. It's every child's dream in that territory.”
====New developments====
This section is intended for providing new information to administrators above and beyond the initial introduction and related discussions. Anyone can add new developments here. I welcome comments, but for organizational purposes I ask that anyone commenting on new developments do so in a section dedicated to their own comments. Several, including myself, already have such sections.


The updated Wiki page noted both settlers/soldiers and included a note that this requires further clarification, perhaps based on other sources, because it isn’t clear (contra Butterscotch Beluga) whether he is referring to soldiers or settlers.
;Returning account ]
As of December 5, 2008, {{userlinks|Misou}} has returned to editing in Scientology articles. Misou has not edited since January 5th, and is listed in the original ArbCom as a confirmed sockpuppet, based on the supposed proxy address. This is not intended to comment on the quality of Misou's edits -- I actually agree with several of his/her deletions, as the sources in question were probably not ] -- but simply to inform administrators that another possible sock who has long been dormant has come back. --<font color="green">]</font>] 00:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


4. It is not controversial to accurately describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation. It is simply a fact. To suggest otherwise is POV-pushing.
;New ArbCom report filed by ] against ]
Report filed . --<font color="green">]</font>] 16:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


5. This is not POVPUSH; ‘assassinations’ against civilians during peacetime are usually called ‘murders’.
===Comments by previously involved parties===
====Comment by Justanother (Justallofthem)====
<s>As a party to the original ], I think that is is appropriate that I comment here. As much as I respect GoodDamon, he seems to be trying to reopen an arbitration in the improper forum for such an effort. The arbitrators were well aware of Shutterbug's POV and history of editing from a CofS-owned proxy server and made no remedy that restricted her editing. If GoodDamon thinks that they did not make the correct decision then he should present his evidence to the arbitrators and ask that they reopen the case, not make his case here. The other point GoodDamon brings up in incivility. Incivility is a much-disputed issue but if Shutterbug was uncivil then perhaps she deserves a warning though I see little in the way of objectionable incivility in the diffs provided. However, I cannot stress enough that GoodDamon should move his doubts about the arb outcome to the arb page. --] (]) 15:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)</s> This is not relevant here as the main thrust of my comment was that GoodDamon bring his issue to this forum. --] (]) 19:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
:I do not believe the ArbCom is actually the correct forum anymore. When there is ample evidence of a serious ], and the only credible counter-argument -- upon which the ArbCom result was largely based -- turns out to be rather ''in''credible, it ceases to be a content dispute, and content dispute resolution mechanisms are no longer the appropriate venue for dealing with it. Believe me, I thought long and hard about this, and coming to the decision to file this as an incident report was not easy. But this is the proper venue for it. Shutterbug and several older accounts edit from Church-owned IP addresses, and those addresses produce, almost without exception, content in Church-related articles. The proxy argument does not hold up, so we can only conclude that what we see with our eyes is in fact what's there, a conflict of interest.
:Note I do not propose banning the accounts in question outright. But I seriously doubt they will choose to edit in other areas. They are well-established as ]. A single-purpose account editing with a conflict of interest is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. --<font color="green">]</font>] 16:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
As a party to the original ], I think that is is appropriate that I comment here. I see little activity on the part of Shutterbug that is deserving of the attention of AE. I like and respect GoodDamon but the entire thrust of this thread is his IDONTLIKEIT evaluation of the findings and recommendations of the arbitration. He is not asking for enforcement, he is asking that the arbitration be redone. --] (]) 19:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
:If you like. However, part of the original ArbCom was statement of principle: ''"Editors who have duties, allegiances, or beliefs that prevent them from making a genuine, good-faith effort to edit from a neutral point of view in certain subject areas are expected to refrain from editing in those subject areas. Instead, they may make suggestions or propose content on the talk pages of affected articles."''
:I think it is now firmly established that the proxy argument is implausible and unlikely. I do not say this lightly: It is probably a lie. If the editor or editors behind the accounts and IP addresses in question are in fact "working" on behalf of the Church of Scientology, then it is a violation of this principle. And considering the ratio of edits to Scientology-related articles versus non-Scientology-related articles, this appears to be the case. Look... I understand how you feel, I really do. But once it came out how unlikely the proxy argument was to be true, this stopped being a content issue and started being an issue of Misplaced Pages abuse. --<font color="green">]</font>] 20:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
::There is no flaw in the "proxy argument" and nothing new has been "discovered". The consensus of the arb was, IMO, that those editors that had access to the proxy likely were connected in some way to the church and because of this the lot of them may be treated as one editor for the purpose of consensus building or 3RR issues, see ] and ]. The solution of the arbitrators was to place the Scientology articles under article probation, not to impose sanctions against Shutterbug (COFS) or any of the others. You have not uncovered any new news GoodDamon, you simply seem to disagree with the findings and recommendations of the arb. That is your right but it is not an ''enforcement'' issue. --] (]) 20:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
:::I stand by what I said concerning the proxy argument. The IP addresses in question simply have too few edits in areas unrelated to Scientology to plausibly be proxies associated with hundreds or thousands of users. The many-editors-one-voice decision does not preclude someone later taking a look and realizing the proxy argument is bogus. --<font color="green">]</font>] 20:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
::::I don't get your point. The "proxy argument" was simply in support of the claim that these editors were not sockpuppets or even meatpuppets; that they were simply different Scientologists in, often, different parts of the world that likely only knew one another through Misplaced Pages and were not part of some organized cabal of Scientologists. Obviously that cannot be proven one way or the other but the edit history and behavior is certainly consistent. Scientology critics do a much better job of coordinating editing here than Scientologists do, probably because only the critics are trying. --] (]) 21:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


I in fact didn’t even remove the word ‘assassinations’, I merely broadened the description from ‘Israelis’ to ‘Israeli civilians and soldiers’ (as Butterscotch accepted) to indicate the breadth of the individuals in question included both civilians and combatants. This is not POVPUSH, it is simply additional information and context verified in the source itself.
:Justanother, please define who the "critics" you allude to are. Please show us facts that demonstrate there is coordination of their efforts on Misplaced Pages. If you cannot, then you are, at best, speculating. --] (]) 01:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


All in all, a vexatious claim and a waste of the Arbitration Committee’s time.
====Comment by GoodDamon====
At this point, I would like to take a step back and ask that previously uninvolved administrators look at the ArbCom and determine if continued involvement by these editors constitutes violation of the ArbCom ruling in light of what I perceive as the likelihood of Church of Scientology involvement. I would characterize the editor or editors as:
* Confirmed single-purpose accounts
* Confirmed biased accounts that edit from a particular POV
* Confirmed sockpuppets, based on the checkuser results during the ArbCom
* Most likely ] accounts inappropriately working on behalf of the Church of Scientology
If these characterizations do not bear out, or if this is not the proper venue for this discussion, I will gladly accept that. --<font color="green">]</font>] 20:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


====Comment by Jayen466==== ====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
Regarding "I was correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors", it would be helpful if KronosAlight would explicitly identify the antisemitic editors and the edits they corrected so that they can be blocked for being antisemitic editors. ] (]) 08:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
As per the arbcom decision, the Scientology article is on probation.


The editor has been here since 2012. It is reasonable to assume that they know the rules regarding aspersions. It is reasonable to assume they are intentionally violating them, presumably because they genuinely believe they are dealing with antisemitic editors. So, this report is somehow simultaneously a vexatious complete waste of time and the result of the someone interfering with their valiant efforts to correct errors made by antisemitic editors. Why do they have this belief? , a comment they had the good sense to revert. For me, this is an example of someone attempting to use propaganda that resembles antisemitic conspiracy theories about media control to undermine Misplaced Pages's processes and then changing their mind. But the very fact that they thought of it is disturbing. Their revert suggests that they are probably aware that there are things you can say about an editor and things you cannot say about an editor. From my perspective, what we have here is part of an emerging pattern in the topic area, a growing number of attacks on Misplaced Pages and editors with accusations of antisemitism, cabals etc. stemming in part from external partisan sources/influence operations. ] (]) 17:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the edit war that led to article being protected I count the following reverts:
====Statement by Zero0000====
Aspersions:
*
*
*
*
]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


====Statement by Vice regent====
*Reverts by GoodDamon: 4RR
{{u|KronosAlight}}, you on 14 Dec 2024: "{{tq|An open letter signed by Christian and Muslim religious leaders interpreted that statement as a threat and incitement to violence}}" to "{{tq|An open letter signed by Christian and Muslim religious leaders claimed was a threat and incitement to violence, though no threats or violence in fact occurred}}".


Can you show where either of the sources state "though no threats or violence in fact occurred"? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*Reverts by Shutterbug: 4RR


====Statement by Smallangryplanet====
*Spidern and Cirt had two reverts each.
Wanted to add some pertinent evidence:


'''Talk:Zionism''':
I believe GoodDamon and Shutterbug should be trout-slapped and told not to do it again. Since Shutterbug has done this sort of thing before, s/he should perhaps be restricted to just posting to the talk page for a week or so.


*
IMO, the whole edit war was a very silly and entirely unnecessary episode, largely caused by Shutterbug making sweeping changes without prior discussion on the talk page. All the more regrettable since at least ''some'' of the changes – chronological fixes etc. – would seem to have made sense and might well have gotten support on the talk page. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 22:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
*
*
*


'''Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon''':
:In each of those cases, well-sourced material was removed or altered without prior discussion. If you feel restoring those edits violated the ArbCom ruling, I encourage you to open a case here for that as well. But I stand by those reverts; for some context, in I restored citations to Time Magazine and a Salon news article that had been removed in with an edit summary of "rm non-notable/opinion". If it is a violation of the ArbCom case to undo egregiously poor edits such as that, I will be very much surprised and will seek changes to the case itself, as frankly... that's just plain silly. --<font color="green">]</font>] 22:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


*
::Clear and obvious vandalism is exempt from 3RR; ]. It's usually better to wait and let someone else revert it – which will demonstrate consensus – or raise it on the talk page and/or AN/I than revert someone 4 times in a row yourself. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 03:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Talk:Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world''':
:::On closer inspection, I don't think those edits qualify as 4RR.
:::*The first edit occurred at the beginning of the brief edit war. I reverted the re-addition of several primary sources. To Shutterbug's credit, he/she didn't choose to reinsert the primary sources, and instead went with just a secondary source. I did not contest it.
:::*The second and third edits were unrelated to the first and involved a section of the lead. I did reach 2RR here, and perhaps should have waited for someone else to revert, but felt it would be a good point to remind Shutterbug of ].
:::*The fourth edit was unrelated to any of the others, and you already know about that one.
:::In any event, I've voluntarily extracted myself from the article until all this is resolved. --<font color="green">]</font>] 05:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
:::: <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 11:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::I stand corrected. I had forgotten about that particular clause. I'll be more mindful of it in the future, and appreciate you pointing it out to me. --<font color="green">]</font>] 15:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


*
====Comment by Shutterbug====


'''Talk:2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks''':
Why did I not just get rid of my user name and started editing with another one, if it am such a red flag? That's rather stupid, isn't it? I did not because the truth is that the 205.227.165.244 IP is/was a proxy used by hundreds if not thousands of people. As I said before and there is no evidence saying otherwise: I occasionally used it when being in a Church of Scientology facility, waiting for someone etc. Further, the diversity of the subjects being edited from that IP between 2004 and 2006 underlines that there have been more than one editors on this IP (wikiscanner). I was not prepared for the amount of hostility I am being subjected with now and I wasn't a year ago when I got surprised with an avalanche of accusations that had nothing to do with real life. Ok, the Arbcom determined there have been several other people editing under the same IP. I think that was a true finding with no significance especially as I even volunteered this information as much as I could.
As an additional note: Cirt is a known and longterm anti-scientology editor who went by the user names of Smeelgova, Smee and WilhelmvonSavage. Per her edit history she works 8-11 hours per day on Wikiprojects, almost exclusively working on anti-religious subjects and its peripheral subjects (like the names of Scientology members, anti-religious books and the like). Though I welcome the work and information she provides I don't think she should be included in this "neutral" discussion. Lastly it is an old trick on Misplaced Pages to attack the editor with administrative rules instead of concentrating on making better articles. I have been subject to this abuse of Misplaced Pages policy before and seems to happen again. Result: dozens of text pages filled with discussions, zero articles improved. Maybe there is some kind of protection against "using Misplaced Pages policy to shut up opposing editors"? ] (]) 22:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


*
:There is some truth to what Shutterbug is saying. No one complained about the edit war, which was the work of several editors, the complaint was about ''who Shutterbug is''. I'd be just as happy packing this up and getting back to doing something useful, like discussing how we can improve the article. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 22:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
::Even if it turns out I'm a complete goober for opening this, and I get that trout-slapping you mentioned, I would rather see this come to its natural conclusion than close it prematurely. If I'm wrong, I want to ''know'' I'm wrong. At the moment, I am voluntarily recusing myself from editing or commenting in any Scientology-related article until administrators have finished reviewing this and make some sort of pronouncement. I really don't think much in the way of article improvement will happen until then. --<font color="green">]</font>] 23:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
:Just checking into the edit history of the celebrity centre, I would like to ask Cirt to consider that edit summaries like and may come across as dehumanising or baiting, and at any rate may not be conducive towards establishing a more collaborative atmosphere. Shutterbug's in ] had some justification under ]; at the very least, it is an issue that editors could in good faith disagree on, and it would have been kinder to reflect that in the edit summary. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 23:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
::Please explain how you believe that ] was relevant to that deletion. ] (]) 01:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Just because something was in the news does not mean it is encyclopedically relevant to the article topic. Imagine a printed encyclopedia: Would they be likely to mention this? Would a scholar in a book? I think WP often goes too far in the tabloid direction. We're citing celebrity gossip mags ... WP is not supposed to be a tabloid newspaper. I guess I am a more stuffy person. Must be the age. Cheers, <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 02:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
::::I don't think that it is undue weight to mention this. The difference between a printed encyclopedia and WP is the amount of detail on EVERY subject. I do think that if a book was to be published on the topic of the celebrity center, within the next few years, that yes it would mention this. I still don't see how you feel WP:NOT#NEWS applies, as it is really talking about whether something is suitable for an article topic, not the amount of weight to apply to material sourced from news reports. I don't feel it is appropriate to misrepresent ] as a justification for completely deleting sourced content. ] (]) 04:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
:(edit conflict)Sadly, this is basically what I expected. There is no evidence that this IP address is or was a proxy shared by "hundreds if not thousands of people." That's more or less what this report is about. Due to the nature of its edits, and the edits of logged in users on that address, the chances that "hundreds if not thousands of people" would edit Misplaced Pages solely to add pro-Scientology material to it is vanishingly small. --<font color="green">]</font>] 23:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
::GoodDamon, I think you have a misunderstanding. The IP address belongs to the proxy server that a large number of Scientology organizations worldwide use to access the internet. The ""hundreds if not thousands of people" are using that proxy server to do the myriad of things that people do on the internet. Only a few are editing Misplaced Pages. I have a totally analogous situation in my life. Occasionally I edit from work. There are prolly well over 9,000 people that access the internet through my work proxy. Yet only a few edit Misplaced Pages at all as far as I can tell from the edits coming from that IP address. So if I say that thousands of people use the IP address does the fact that only a few edit here prove me a liar? Does that clear things up? You should really AGF a bit more and lighten up on Shutterbug. She does not deny having a POV. Let me tell you, these articles are pretty galling to anyone that has any knowledge of Scientology beyond spoon-fed criticism. Galling in that they are just plain wrong in many instances. All the bad is blown out of proportion, all the good is minimized and distorted. Critics race to include the latest bit of negative material but don't bother to include the positive. How many are racing to include recent statements by Germany's minister of security that he found no evidence that any of the objectionable material in Hubbard's writing is practiced in Scientology? Yet our critics love to fill articles with their original research based on primary materials. They scream when the primary material explains Scientology as a philosophy in manner that can be understood yet support out-of-context primary materials that cast Scientology in a bad light. You can see that disparity in these two articles that I just put up for AFD, ] and ]. Shutterbug's perspective is welcome here. Feel free to haul her back if she crosses a line. --] (]) 00:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Talk:Anti-Zionism''':
A few words here. Justallofthem's assertions about proxies are unsupported by the Committee's findings. Several parts of the decision reject his claims:


*
*]
*
*]
*]
*]


'''Talk:Gaza genocide''':
For months I counseled Justanother in good faith that the 'proxy' argument he was attempting to advance did not serve the best interests of his faith. No evidence was forthcoming from the organization's IT staff to bolster the claim. Then while the arbitration case was underway the Wikiscanner came out and the weakness of the 'proxy' argument got demonstrated empirically in the form of real world news coverage about Scientology-based IP edits to Misplaced Pages. That news reflected more poorly for that religion than whatever PR problem they were trying to correct. And also, people who actively disliked that religion made the most of the negative press.
*
*


'''Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre''':
It was my hope when that case concluded that Justanother, Shutterbug, and other editors would learn from their mistakes and turn over a new leaf. Only one really did: he now edits as Cirt. Cirt has contributed 11 featured articles, 13 featured portals, 31 good articles, and 47 DYK entries. He has become an administrator on three WMF projects including this one, has become an OTRS volunteer, and was elected a member of the Arbitration Committee on Wikinews. It is my earnest wish that editors from both sides of the dispute would make a similar turnaround. (Heck, I'd love to see that turnaround in any dispute). If any Scientologist adjusts to WMF standards that well it would give me pride to nominate them for adminship.


*
So in the holiday spirit (since it's reasonable to guess most of the editors associated with this thread are American?) let's give thanks for the progress that's happened so far and put this discussion on hold through the holiday weekend. Requesting as a courtesy: please suspend discussion. I'll be around off and on (working on a ragtime composer biography--something much more to my taste than this subject). Best wishes all and happy Thanksgiving. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Talk:Al-Sardi school attack''':
:Durova, I think you are confused. I am not one of the editors affected by the IP issue. I would be interested to know exactly what you find unconvincing in the explanation and personal analogy I give above of why Shutterbug's "proxy argument" makes sense because you are being kinda vague. --] (]) 00:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
::Not at all confused; I knew from the start that you weren't covered directly by that particular IP issue. Yet you advanced the proxy rationale then and you continue to now. That you do so is more than a little surprising since it generates such a substantial PR exposure to your religion. This site has many uninvolved volunteers who would be glad to address POV attacks against any religion. Perhaps because yours comes under attack more than most, it may have been hard to accept that feedback. Neither Misplaced Pages nor Scientology benefitted from the press that the Wikiscanner brought, yet you have to agree that my cautions were absolutely on target a year and a half ago. Now I'm counseling you that you're running a similar risk again. We were lucky the COFS arbitration case didn't get noticed then. The case is old news, but your actions and Shutterbug's could make it relevant again. Suppose for a moment that this advice is clueful and sincere: it's been right before, and it's been right in ways that would have helped you if you had listened. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Actually, I do not think I am advancing the argument you believe I am. Please reread my explanations and comments to GoodDamon. I personally have no exposure here, I just don't want to see Shutterbug railroaded by out-of-process actions or misreadings of the results of the previous action. If the arbitrators want to reopen the COFS case that is fine with me but I see little need to. Enjoy your turkey-day, Durova.--] (]) 02:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
::::If you still suppose I'm addressing any personal exposure on your part in relation to the IP server issue, then you've missed the point. Best wishes and happy holidays. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::No, I take it that you are warning that abuse by Church-connected editors will reflect badly on the Church. First off, that is no concern of mine. Meaning that it not my business what the Church does or does not do and how it reflects on them. I hope and expect that the Church acts honorably and if not then that is on them. I just do the best I can for my part and as an individual Scientologist. Secondly and more germane, Shutterbug has stated that she has no official PR capacity in the Church and that her edits are her own. She edits from her POV but so what. So does just about everyone else that edits in the Scientology articles. Anyway, there is little point in going back and forth further on this. Take care. --] (]) 03:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
::Another note, Durova: Did the Arbcom try to find out from the Church of Scientology what this IP address is? Did you or anyone involved that time care to ask this question to anyone? I can't remember that. Instead assumptions and outright lies are being repeated over and over again. This is really frustrating. ] (]) 00:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


*
Very glad I took the holiday off before returning. It's quite simple, really. A year and a half ago I was trying to protect both you and Misplaced Pages from negative press. You didn't take the advice and a lot of bad press really happened. Now you're repeating most of the same mistakes that created that problem in the first place. It certainly won't be my doing if this makes news again. I hope you take the advice on board and reform. If you don't, I hope this board saves you from yourselves.


'''Talk:Eden Golan''':
It's more than a little bit comical: there are better solutions to the meritorious part of your concerns, but you reject feedback and fail to adjust. It's as if you treat all dispute resolution with extreme myopia, regard anyone whose response amounts to 'no' as an opponent, and try to win as many short-term interactions as possible regardless of the ultimate consequences. ArbCom didn't accept your 'proxy' rationale but in the larger picture that's irrelevant: neither the press nor the public accepted it. You say you're worried about hostile critics as you set yourselves up again for the very same fall.


*
Best wishes; by cautioning you again my conscience is clear. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 22:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Other sanctions''':
:I am always cautious if someone talks about "press and the public". I could not find any press or documentation of "public opinion" about Shutterbug. Could you elaborate, please? ] (]) 00:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


* March 2024: for ], ], etc
===Initial topic ban proposal and arguments===
* June 2024: to abide by 1RR
*<s>'''Support.'''</s> '''Comment:''' The topic ban proposal as by {{user|Roux}}. ''']''' (]) 16:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
* October 2024: for a week
:*Cirt, as an anti-Scientologist with a long history of highly POV edits under your current and previous accounts, don't you think that you would be doing yourself as an admin and the project a service by recusing yourself here instead of leading the charge? (see ] for material relevant to my point)--] (]) 17:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
::Please define "anti-scientologist" and provide us with evidence that Cirt conforms to that definition. Justanother, are you edits ever POV?--] (]) 01:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
*<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Comment''' - Assuming it is an indef, and applies to the other similar accounts. This is basically the standard response when evidence of an unresolvable COI exists. --<font color="green">]</font>] 16:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC) ('''Edit''' - Striking my !vote per Cirt's recommendations below. I brought up this whole issue, but will gladly defer to uninvolved administrator intervention, whatsoever that intervention may be.) --<font color="green">]</font>] 21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - this has already been addressed at a higher forum than this one. If GoodDamon does not like the arbitrators' work then he needs to take that up with them, not here. --] (]) 17:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
::As ye wish, so shall ye receive. I've moved this here, per Durova's statement on the matter. --<font color="green">]</font>] 19:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' – I don't see any evidence of incivility on the talk page and in principle support this user's right to edit Scientology topics, just as Jewish Wikipedians are entitled to edit the article on Israel, muslims are entitled to edit the article on 9/11, etc. However, I would support a warning that the user should refrain from edit wars and seek consensus through the talk page. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 17:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
::Don't misunderstand, I fully agree with you in principle. Denying Christians the right to edit at articles like ] would be absurd. But those aren't good analogies. A better analogy would be if computers owned by the Vatican were used solely to produce edits favorable to Catholicism in Misplaced Pages. That would be inappropriate. --<font color="green">]</font>] 19:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
:::But her edits feel like the actions of an individual to me. I would have no problem with someone in the Vatican administration making an occasional Misplaced Pages edit from their desk in Rome. The that on ] showed 122 edits from that IP, made across 15 wiki projects during the period 2004–2007. Even if all of those were attributable to {{user|Shutterbug}}, that is less than one edit per week, and on the face of it, a storm in a teacup. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Please see the ArbCom ruling. Those were by no means the only edits from that IP address that Shutterbug performed. They were simply the ones he/she performed while logged out. And you'll note that the logged out edits almost all pertain to Scientology. --<font color="green">]</font>] 20:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::Adding the logged-in edits, Shutterbug has made around 1750 edits to various Scientology-related articles over a period of about 2 years then, . That's really not frenetic activity since the arbcom, comparatively speaking. are the remedies from the arbcom case. Apart from ], which you were guilty of as well, which one has Shutterbug violated? <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 22:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
'''Support -''' I personaly have no problem with Scientologists I however am upset with Shutterbug's Deletion of my material under ], The suggestion that my material was "not Notable" as in Shutterbug's words is absurd (on the google search of Scientology it came up on top). I also dislike him of her deleting things regaurding Scientology's ] story which is backed up by many sources including the freezone. I doubt this ban will keep the Proxyer of Shutterbug from editing however I suggest Shutterbug edit his or her other interests, I harbour no ill will to Scientologists but I will not stand Idle as the "truth" is rewritten. --] (]) 22:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
:I moved it to the talk page because at the time it was a news item still in progress (it still is and clearly not covered by ]. You are taking revenge here - thanks for being open about it - while Cirt is reverting edits solely on the grounds of "COI" (which is not even a Misplaced Pages policy), not on the grounds of content. Interesting. ] (]) 23:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
::Actually, ] is a behavioral guideline. --<font color="green">]</font>] 23:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
:::As opposed to Misplaced Pages policy ]. ] (]) 23:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
::::: I would not call it revenge you have just done some deleting on Scientology topics in general, You are probably a good person I just don't like your deletions I just like a whole Misplaced Pages not a half one. Although your edits are in good nature, I think. --] (]) 00:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::Glad you came here not to act in revenge for an edit dispute. So you think my edits are in good faith but you support to kick me out of Misplaced Pages? I don't get it, please explain. ] (]) 00:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::For the record: No one has proposed you "kick out of Misplaced Pages." What has been proposed is a topic ban for editors who appear to edit on behalf of the Church of Scientology. If that equates to being kicked out of Misplaced Pages for you, then that is frankly rather indicative of the problem. --<font color="green">]</font>] 15:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
*I'll '''support''' a topic ban. This person's editing shows a clear and persistent failure to strive for neutrality. It is quite obviously focused on systematically minimizing information embarrassing to their organisation. This, the tendentiousness, and not any incivility or edit-warring, is the primary act of disruption here. Tendentiousness is always the root cause of these kinds of problems; incivility and edit-warring are only the symptoms. The causes are what needs to be sanctioned. ] ] 15:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - The fact that the Scientology page is lock from editing until disputes have been resolved demostrates that there are serious discrepancies. During this month large chunks of data have been deleted from the page. Something that is alarming to some editors like myself. The issue of edit-warring is being addressed right now on the page. It takes two to have a fight or edit-warring, I don't see the other party being questioned here when those edits are equaly or far more alarming. Being Scientology a crontroversial issue some edit-warring is expected. I don't see Shutterbug edits being done in bad faith, is just another point of view. Removing this point of view will reflect negatively on the page. ] (]) 23:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
::I understand where you're coming from, Bravehartbear, but this report really isn't about the edit war. I saw evidence that I personally was never a witness to before that indicated Shutterbug and several other accounts are editing on behalf of the Church of Scientology. This is unethical, antithetical to Misplaced Pages's own policies and guidelines, and completely inappropriate. ] accounts are not allowed. No editor in good standing should be expected to edit in such an environment. Imagine for a moment that computers belonging to the Vatican were allowed to continuously edit on behalf of Catholicism, and remove all unflattering material from the encyclopedia about that particular belief system; no editors would stand for that.
::On the matter of the edit war, I believe it started largely from misunderstandings. The article needs to formally become a ] article, because the topic of Scientology is simply too big to fit in one article. The natural first choice for trimming in preparation for doing that is the removal of ] sources, which if you'll consult the editing history, were exactly what was being removed. Eventually, I'm sure good secondary sources for a lot of that content could go into the beliefs and practices article, but there are simply too many sub-topics to make the beliefs and practices of the belief system more than one subsection of the main article. You've got organizational history, controversies, hidden doctrines, notable members, and so on. There isn't room to do any one of them complete justice on the main article, so each should be summarized. This was an ongoing process when Shutterbug and Su-Jada returned to the article. --<font color="green">]</font>] 00:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
:::GoodDamon, this is not about ] and never has been. Please do not exaggerate the situation so as to worsen it. Again, all you are saying is that you have become aware of the facts and issues of the arbitration and do not agree with the findings and recommendations. ] (]) 01:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
::::No what I think GoodDamon is trying to say is that a single purpose account is a great insult to neutrality and sadly I have seen only about ten edits from Shutterbug that are not related to Scientology, Single Purpose accounts greatly compromise the neutrality of an article. --] (]) 04:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::Not quite. There's nothing inherently wrong with a ] as long as it can keep its biases in check. On some articles, such as those involving esoteric sciences, most of the accounts editing there are technically single-purpose accounts, in that they're editing in a narrow range of articles that reflect their interests. The problems arise when you combine SPAs with bias, and evidence that they're editing on behalf of a particular entity or organization.
:::::Now in answer to Justanother... This really is about ]. The proxy argument, which seemed to have some traction in the ArbCom, and was likely at least partially responsible for those findings and recommendations, has fallen apart -- no, don't try to defend it again, it doesn't even pass the sniff test anymore. So what we're left with is pretty straightforward: A series of accounts editing from the Church of Scientology's network on behalf of the Church of Scientology. It's so cut and dry it astonishes me that there's even any further argument on this. It's against Misplaced Pages's policies, and it's just plain unethical. --<font color="green">]</font>] 05:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::The current state of the proxy account debate is . It seems to me the assertions about why the IP could not be an address used by a greater number of people were simply based on fantasy and wishful thinking – I am not convinced by what I have read so far. And where do you see a "series of accounts editing from the Church of Scientology's network on behalf of the Church of Scientology"? Which accounts are these? Have any of them edited recently? Shutterbug was advised in the arbcom not to recruit RL friends to help her edit the WP article in line with her POV. Where is the evidence that there has been a recurrence of such behaviour now? And while we are talking about SPAs, I am hard-pushed to find any edit by {{user|AndroidCat}}, for example, that does not relate to Scientology. Yet I do not see anyone raising that as a problem. To be clear, while my opinions may be different from AndroidCat's, I have no problem with his contributions: but there is a double standard at work here if Shutterbug gets clobbered for being an SPA, and SPAs on the opposite side of the debate do not receive any such criticism. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 10:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Since user Jayen has seen fit to drag me into this, '''please''' study my editing record over the last few years. Study my history of reprimands for edit-warring, and any proof that I am editing as a sock-puppet or meat-puppet for an organization with COI problems. Check the number of time that I have been caught editing with a block of other identities from the same IP address with a lame excuse about a mythical proxy network. There, that didn't take very long, did it? Unlike some other editors, I don't have unlimited time to spend editing Misplaced Pages, and so I do concentrate in areas where I can provide hard cited facts. And I would like an apology. ] (]) 08:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Apology gladly given. No offence was intended. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 11:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::In this regard, note that seems to be a known and ongoing problem on the Scientology ''opponents''' side. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 11:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I'm afraid I just don't buy that argument. You have demonstrated that it's theoretically possible for the Church of Scientology's proxy used in hundreds of hotels to resemble AOL's old proxy system, and for seemingly thousands of users to have restricted their Misplaced Pages edits through that proxy to nearly 100% pro-Scientology behavior. There is no evidence for this, but it has the distinct advantage of being difficult to outright disprove. But the same logic could be applied to any sockpuppet discovered by checkuser; "Hey, we can't block Spammer663 as a sockpuppet of Spammer662 because he ''might'' be using a poorly designed proxy similar to the way AOL used to connect users to the Internet!" Sorry, no. --<font color="green">]</font>] 19:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::::But where is the alleged "series of accounts" editing these articles, now, after the arbcom decision? <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 00:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Shutterbug, who used to be COFS, is currently editing. Do you accept at this point that the proxy argument is almost certainly proven to be untrue now? If so, then any account that edited from the known Church of Scientology IP addresses -- and edited strictly in favor of Scientology, instead of in other areas of interest such as ] -- is or was doing so from Church of Scientology property, and thus almost certainly was doing so on behalf of the Church. That is improper behavior. Accounts that exist solely to cast a favorable light on Scientology on behalf of the belief system's largest organized membership are not permitted, per ], any more than accounts run by paid ] employees would be permissible in that article. And please bear in mind that even so, I am not proposing a ban from Misplaced Pages. I am proposing, very specifically, a topic ban. --<font color="green">]</font>] 02:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Shutterbug is not a "series of accounts", and no one appears to be asserting that s/he has violated ] related to the inappropriate behaviour that arbcom found occurred at the time. All the Checkuser evidence posted by Spidern below ''was available to arbcom then''. They came to their findings and remedies. I agree that Shutterbug should not have engaged in an edit-war (remedy 7), but as far as I am concerned, that is all s/he has to answer for. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 17:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)====
*'''Comment''' Let the records show that it was found that there overlapping belonging to a specific group of editors appearing to have a , who acted towards pushing a . Since those findings were announced, the pov-pushing (, , , , , , , , , ), assumption of bad faith, (, , ), and removal of reliable sources (, , ) has continued. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 07:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning KronosAlight===
:#The 1st of your examples is POV pushing, fine.
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
:#The 2nd edit I might have agreed with.
* Much of the "diffs of edits that violate this sanction" fail to explain "how these edits violate" the sanction - to me, much of these diffs look like a content dispute. However, the "additional comments" section DOES have a diff that is concerning and violates the CT by casting an aspersion that is not backed up by a diff - the "antisemitic editors" diff. Has KA been previously warned for casting aspersions? If they have, I'm inclined to issue a topic ban, but many other editors get a warning for this if they lack a previous warning. The diffs brought up by Zero (not all of which I necessarily see as aspersions, but the "Jew-hatred" one is definitely over the line - but it's from September so a bit late to sanction for just that) - did anyone point out that aspersions/incivility in this topic area is sanctionable? I see the warnings for 1RR and consensus required... ] (]) 13:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:#The third is POV, but debatable.
** {{ping|KronosAlight}} - can you address the fact that saying "correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors" and "Is there no limits you will not cross in order to seek to justify your Jew-hatred"? Neither of these are statements that should ever be made - and the fact that you seem to not to understand this is making me lean towards a topic ban. ] (]) 14:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:#The fourth I would have agreed with: I would consider it POV pushing to include the information concerned in such a short lede. (Note that the information was ''moved'' to the main part of the article, not deleted.)
*KronosAlight, can you please provide quotes from the references you cited for - for instance - "for his terrorist activities" in , showing that the sources explicitly supported the content you added? Calling a person or an organization is perfectly acceptable if you support that with reliable sources; if it is original research, or source misrepresentation, it isn't acceptable. I cannot access some of the sources in question. You may provide quotes inside a collapsed section if you wish to save space. ] (]) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:#The fifth edit seems to have been a change in the order of paragraphs. How is it POV-pushing?
*:I missed Zero's comments earlier. A lot of those comments, while concerning, are generic, not directed at a specific editor. , however, is beyond the pale. I would need some convincing that this user is able to edit this area constructively. ] (]) 20:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:#The sixth edit is sourced. It leans towards POV pushing, but is also a reaction to the other side's insistence on including this specific material in the lede.
*::@], can you please respond to this? I too am concerned...the quote you're objecting to wasn't from DrSmarty. It was a ''direct quote'', scare quotes and all, from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. You seem to have reacted to it as if it were DrSmarty. ] (]) 16:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:#The seventh edit kind of makes sense, given that this is the article on Scientology, i.e. a religion or ideology, and not an organizaton.
*I don't like to sanction ''in absentia'', and I'm not yet suggesting we do so, but I want to note that not choosing not to respond here, or going inactive to avoid responding, will not improve the outcome as far as I am concerned. ] (]) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:#The eigth edit, while not ideal, tries to correct an existing imbalance. (''Many'' courts and governments have taken a different view than the one described.)
*:They're a pretty sporadic editor...many edits over a period of a few days, then nothing for two weeks. Maybe we pin this until they edit again? ] (]) 17:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:#The ninth edit, again, while not ideal, tries to correct an existing imbalance.
*::I agree with Valereee that this editors contribution history shows a pattern of editing for a day or two at a time followed by several weeks of inactivity. So I don't think it's fair to say they went inactive here but also holding this open for multiple weeks waiting for a response places some burden on the other other interested editors. ] (]) 17:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:#The tenth edit claims portfolio.com is a blog. While it looks like one, it isn't: ]. The edit was inappropriate.
*:Welp, it's been nearly ten days since they first posted here, calling this a waste of time and vexatious. They're fully aware it's happening, and it's not even like they haven't been to AE before.
*:I've gone through the diffs here, and it seems to me the basis of KA's problematic editing is that they're on a mission to ], specifically w/re what they see as antisemitic bias on WP. The exchange at ] a few weeks ago makes that pretty clear: they come into Algeria and open a section to post a content complaint about the article not covering changing Jewish demographics in the country, saying "Many people have edited it, but apparently not one has seen fit to explain" this. Another editor suggests KA fix whatever problem they're seeing, and KA responds: {{xt|I made that comment to highlight the obvious problem of antisemitism among Misplaced Pages editors. The question was rhetorical.}} And many of their other talk contributions are focussed on these accusations of systemic bias.
*:And @], in case you're paying attention: ''of course'' WP has systemic bias. It's usually unintentional, but in most CTOPs there ''are'' editors who consciously try to push a POV. The solution for that isn't to go 'round making accusations. It's to go 'round fixing the problem either by adding missing content or by discussing biased content in nonproblematic ways. It's the "nonproblematic ways" part you're missing, here. And if you are paying attention: You cannot make an AE case go away by ignoring it. I very strongly recommend you come in here and respond to the questions. ] (]) 13:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*I propose closing this with an indefinite topic ban in a day or two, unless KA decides to respond. I think KA needs to be aware that they have fallen short of the required standards of behavior no matter the topic, and similar incivility elsewhere will quite likely result in an indefinite block. ] (]) 17:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Support. ] (]) 18:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Been watching this thread from afar, but it looks like a civil POV-pushing case to me and I support as well. ] (] • she/her) 18:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I don't know about that. I haven't determined if their edits were supported by sources or not - so I don't know if this is POV-pushing - but it looks pretty uncivil to me. ] (]) 17:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Oh, that's fair on the civility :) I was mostly looking at the mainspace edits. ] (] • she/her) 17:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- 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. -->
*<!--
-->
{{hab}}


==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nicoljaus==
:As for the assumption of good or bad faith, I think both sides could profitably make efforts in this respect. I have also looked at your examples where you say reliably sourced information was removed:
{{hat|Appeal declined --] <sup>]</sup> 19:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}}
<small>''Procedural notes: Per the ], a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>


<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections{{space}}but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see ]).''</small>
:#Concerning the first example of "removal of reliable sources", first off, part of the material was unsourced. As for the part that was sourced, I am reminded of your comment the other day at RS/N: This was concerning a publication by the U.S. Army Chaplain's Office, which I believe would be far better qualified to pronounce on theological issues than a couple of LA Times staff writers. Yet while you want to disallow the US Army Manual, here you argue that the LA Times is a reliable source for theological questions and should not have been removed. Scholarly sources discussing space opera are available, I posted one of them on the talk page the other day. Not one of them is used at the moment, none ever has been used in the article as far as I know.
:#As for your second example, I agree with the edit, or at least I agree that there was and is a situation that needs addressing. I made a related proposal on the talk page the other day.
:#Your third example represents a clear improvement of the article. It does not remove any reliably sourced information at all, it simply brings things into their appropriate chronological sequence.


; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Nicoljaus}} – ] (]) 13:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:I wish editors would learn to work with each other in these articles, and concentrate on finding and reflecting the best and most reliable sources. Scholarly sources are woefully underrepresented, with the most hostile scholar, Kent, vastly overrepresented in comparison to his real-life standing. The article has languished at C-class for ages. It is not our task to reflect the coverage of Scientology as given in ], we are supposed to reflect the most high-quality sources out there. So far, there has been too little effort invested in that direction. And I doubt that getting rid of Scientologist editors will make things better. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 18:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
::First of all, this was never about "getting rid of Scientologist editors". There is demonstrated evidence that the parties listed above cooperated in some fashion in order to push a certain POV, which is favorable of their organization. I will argue that moving content around on the page is indeed quite indicative of a POV, '''if the information moved could be interpreted to be detrimental to the public image of the organization''' (i.e. well-sourced, but ]). I have absolutely no quarrel with a Scientologist (or anyone, for that matter) who makes well-sourced contributions to any page. In fact, before this fiasco erupted we were ] of good Scholarly sources to be added to the article (you'll notice that I a source which was lost in the edit war). The problem is that material which was sourced was removed in certain cases.
::It's difficult to assume good faith when editors oppose the consensus of a page without prior discussion in order to push a POV. The evidence presented above () is indicative of orchestrated COI, and a great cause for concern. The religious choice of the editors in question have no bearing on the discussion for a topic ban here. This is no different than calling into question edits made by employees of ] making contributions to ]. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 20:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Even though some editors have only now discovered the arbcom case, it is old history. Arbcom dealt with it last year, and allowed Shutterbug to continue editing. Remedies are in place and on the whole adhered to. What happened then has little to do with the present situation at the article. I appreciate it is difficult to assume good faith, but try it nonetheless. Criticise Shutterbug for her edits, and not for who s/he is or what s/he is alleged to have done last year. (Btw, I had noted and appreciated that you restored the ref. Thanx.) <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 23:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


; Sanction being appealed : To enforce an ],&nbsp;and for edit warring, and , you have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing Misplaced Pages.
*'''Support''' topic ban. Several users have already reviewed the evidence and made good cases for this block. I agree with points made by Fut.Perf., GoodDamon, Cirt, Zaharous, and Durova. There is no problem with single-topic editors, but SPAs that cannot edit with the neutral point of view have caused problems time and again. This is a typical case. If this were a newer user then more guidance might get results but this is a longtime user who's already been through dispute resolution. Even with all of the Scientology and related article off limits there are still 2 million other pages to edit, so this is a mild prohibition. ]] ] 07:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Inappropriate activity is evident. ] (]) 11:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Evidently the public burning of a minority editor w/o any reflection of the NPOV-problems and purposes of other prolific editors like ] who had no edits not related to Scientology, or ] who is only a little bit better. I am not advocating to topic ban all of them. But I see that this turns into a witch hunt and that is what Misplaced Pages is NOT. ] (]) 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
::This is not a "public burning" of anyone. Shutterbug and several other accounts appear to have edited on behalf of the Church of Scientology, from Church of Scientology-controlled IP addresses. This is inappropriate behavior, and merits a topic-ban. --<font color="green">]</font>] 20:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
:::This was more than a year ago and subject of a closed ArbCom decision. Also, do we know if Shutterbug is still a member? If he had left the Church his edits would be ok, right? ] (]) 23:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm not seeing how membership in the Church is in any way an issue. Catholics, for instance, are perfectly welcome to edit the page on ]. Personally, I wish Shutterbug the best in whatever his/her beliefs are. The problem lies not with those beliefs, but with editing from Church-owned IP addresses that it turns out are unlikely to be proxies. That would be a ], and evidence of ] accounts. Why would Shutterbug's beliefs have any bearing? --<font color="green">]</font>] 23:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::That seems to be what you are saying. Shutterbug is not allowed to edit scientology articles because he is suspected to be a scientologist with an inherent conflict of interest that is impossible to heal. ] (]) 00:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::No, that is distinctly and vehemently '''not''' what I am saying. You are arguing against a ], and attributing to me a position I do not hold. I ask that you retract your comment. Shutterbug's beliefs are his/her own, and are not the topic of discussion here. Let me make myself abundantly clear: This is about the likelihood that Shutterbug and other editors have edited on behalf of an organization as ] accounts. I take strong umbrage with your mis-characterization of my arguments and again ask that you retract your comment. --<font color="green">]</font>] 00:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|ScottishFinnishRadish}}
::Once again, this is not merely about the persecution or hunting down of anyone. What we have here is corroborated effort to specifically push a POV which paints the ] in a favorable light, coming in two cases (ws.churchofscientology.org and ns1.scientology.org) from IPs which belong to the organization in question. Had the original arbitration decision actually dealt with the issue, we would not be here discussing it. I will admit that many (not all) of my edits have been Scientology-related recently, but please point out an edit of mine that did not strive for an NPOV representation of the subject matter. I once again remind you that we are dealing here with not a discriminatory ban, nor is it a ban from Misplaced Pages altogether (as Will Beback pointed out). ]<font color="green">]</font>] 21:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Looking at your edit history I am not surprised that you say that. Without Shutterbug you had more time editing and less challenge of you own point of view. So let's get rid of him. ] (]) 00:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


; Notification of that administrator : I'm aware. ] (]) 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
;Comment - striking my vote, and a suggestion to previously involved editors
Due to the Arbitration Committee decision in ], "All Scientology-related articles are placed on article probation." According to ]: '''''Article probation :''' Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be ''especially'' mindful of content policies, such as ], and interaction policies, such as ], ], ], and ].''


===Statement by Nicoljaus===
After thinking this over and looking at these above pages I think it is best if this Topic Ban poll relating to ] and ] takes place among NPOV, previously uninvolved administrators. '''Specifically:''' From ] -- ] I could be seen myself as being previously involved on Scientology articles, and so I am striking my vote in the Topic Ban proposal. I suggest other editors previously involved on Scientology-related articles do the same, including ] , ] , ] , ] , ] , ] , and ] . ''']''' (]) 21:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
:I never voted here to begin with due to of my heavy involvement with Scientology-related articles as of late. I suggest that the initiator of the topic ban proposal would withdraw it here and reopen it with the intention of receiving feedback from non-involved users, with a link to our archived discussion here for evaluation purposes. I would also suggest that we initiate a ] to bring about the consensus of non-involved users. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 21:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
:Cirt, I completely concur. As stated above, I am happy to defer to outside administrative perspective. Considering this is a discussion that may result in a significant topic-ban, it's appropriate for those of us who have otherwise been involved to let others hash it out. I will continue to argue my position, but I would prefer my arguments be reviewed for their merits, rather than my "vote". --<font color="green">]</font>] 21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
::On a side note, purely for organizational purposes, if previous editors at the Scientology pages will all agree to strike their !votes here, I suggest archiving the above discussions and continuing with the refined proposals below. --<font color="green">]</font>] 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Disagree, the section contains some relevant diffs and arguments. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 22:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Forgive my poor choice of words. I don't propose to template-close it, I mean merely to get things better organized for !voting and review by outside administrators. --<font color="green">]</font>] 22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
:If you also remove those !voters who, while not direct participants in this conflict, have a long prior history with one or more editors here, then I believe there is at the most one "uninvolved" editor left. :-) <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 22:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
::I do not disagree, but I could find no recent diffs in the last few months on Scientology-related articles for the others that commented above. ''']''' (]) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


The circumstances of my blocking were:
===Current topic ban proposal (previously uninvolved admins only)===
*I was looking for a Misplaced Pages account for ] to add it to Wikidata. I couldn't find it, so I did a little research. The in the article indicated that she participated in some '''WikiWrites'''(?) project. I didn’t find such a project, but I found the '''WikiRights''' project: https://ar.wikipedia.org/ويكيبيديا:ويكي_رايتس. It was organized by a certain Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. I read the ] article and didn't see any outside perspective, "controversy" or anything like that, just self-representation. I surfed the Internet and instantly found information that must be in the article to comply with the NPOV. I started adding {{diff2|1220241573}}, everything went well for two days. Then:
Hi. As the person who originally proposed the topic ban, I stand behind my proposal. The basic concern is that someone is an SPA who is pushing a POV. They're probably trying their best to contribute, but may be falling afoul. So I suggest a slight modification:
*12:53, 23 April 2024 - Zero0000 made a complete cancellation of all additions {{diff2|1220380219}}</br>
*Indefinite topic ban from any Scientology-related articles, including Scientology-related sections in other articles, to be construed broadly
*13:14, 23 April 2024 - (20 minutes later!) Selfstudier wrote on my TP {{diff2|1220382377}}</br>
*After three months, contribs to be reviewed by some completely uninvolved admins. If the user has shown strong contributions in other areas, topic ban to be lifted. Otherwise revisit three months after that. At that point, it'll be obvious whether or not they are contributing to the project or furthering an agenda.
*14:20 - 14:22, 23 April 2024 -‎ With two edits ({{diff2|1220390536|first}}, {{diff2|1220390820|second}}) I partially took into account the comment of Zero0000 about "ethnic marking", but returned the last {{Diff||1220390820|1220380219}}.</br>
Thoughts? //]&nbsp;] <small>] 22:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)</small>
*14:27, 23 April 2024 (7 minutes later!!) Selfstudier makes a second complete cancellation of all my edits, blaming POV editing {{diff2|1220391708}}</br>
*14:45, 23 April 2024‎ - I’m returning the version where I partially took into account Zero0000’s comments (removed "ethnic marking"){{diff2|1220394447}}</br>
*15:10, 23 April 2024 - Selfstudier accuses me of 1RR breach. In the dialogue, I explained that the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination. My first undo was part of a counter edit ]</br>
*15:41, 23 April 2024 Selfstudier writes on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement {{diff2|1220403117}}</br>
*16:10, 23 April 2024 (30 minutes later!) ScottishFinnishRadish issues an indefinite block {{diff2|1220407252}}. No opportunity to write my “statement”, as well as an extremely bad faith interpretation of my remark as "an intent to game 1rr".</br>
Given that the both Selfstudier and Zero0000 are currently being discussed in Arbcom (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence), I humbly ask you to take a fresh look at my indefinite block and soften the restrictions in some way". ] (]) 19:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{yo|ScottishFinnishRadish}} - You {{diff2|1263932187||mean}}, I need to discuss my previous edit war blocks? Well, the last one was almost four years ago and that time I simply forgot that I was under 1RR (there was a big break in editing) and tried to get sources for a newly added map, and the opponent refused to do so {{diff2|983337359}}. As it turned out later, the true source was a book by a fringe author, which the RSN called "Usual nationalistic bullshit, no sign of reliability". Yes, it was a stupid forgetfulness on my part. ] (]) 16:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{yo|Aquillion}} {{tq| Even if you were correct that Selfstudier & Zero0000 were WP:TAGTEAMing (always a tricky accusation, because it's hard to separate that from just your edits being so obviously problematic that two people independently reverted them)}} -- That's why I wrote that my "so problematic edits" attracted attention only after two days, but two users appeared within 20 minutes. However, after months, a lot of data about the cooperation of these users appeared (and this is not my imagination): "While a single editor, Shane (a newbie), advocated for its inclusion, a trio of veterans including Zero0000, Nishidani and Selfstudier fought back. After Selfstudier accused Shane of being a troll for arguing for the photo’s inclusion, Zero0000, days later, “objected” to its inclusion, citing issues of provenance. Nishidani stepped in to back up Zero0000, prompting a response by Shane. The following day, Zero0000 pushed back against Shane, who responded. The day after, Nishidani returned with his own pushback. The tag-team effort proved too much for Shane, who simply gave up, and the effort succeeded: the photo remains absent" . I'll add that after Selfstudier accused Shane of trolling, Zero0000 appeared on Shane's page and said: "Kindly keep your insults to yourself I won't hesitate to propose you for blocking if you keep it up" {{diff2|1017316378}}. According to the table at the link , these two users cooperated like this 720 times. Probably hundreds of people were embittered, forced out of the project, or led to blocking like me.--] (]) 13:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish}} Hello, thank you very much for transferring my remarks, now I understand how it works. I would like to clarify the issue of meatpuppetry. You directly accused me of such intentions in justifying the block, and now this accusation has been repeated {{diff2|1264013557}}. Let's figure out whether that Selfstudier and Zero0000 are working too closely was so absurd? Was it really and remains so absurd that it could not be perceived as anything other than my self-exposure? I don't think so.</br>
As for the "edit war" - I understand that edit wars are evil. In the spirit of cooperation, I tried to meet my opponents halfway, as in this case, taking into account their claim, which I could understand, in the counter edit. If such an action is also considered an edit war and a violation of the 1RR/3RR rule - I will of course avoid it in the future.--] (]) 16:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


@Valereee: Hello, I understand your point that edit wars can be disruptive, particularly in a CTOP context. However, I believe it is essential to recognize that not all reverts carry the same implications. While it is true that a revert is a revert, the context and intent behind the action should also be taken into account. In this instance, I made efforts to address the concerns of the other party involved, which reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue rather than simply reverting.
:Unwarranted in my view. Some of Shutterbug's edits were good, others not more POV than those of other editors with an opposite bias. A stern, and FINAL warning not to violate 3RR suffices, perhaps plus restriction to the talk page of any Scientology-related articles for a limited period. Plus the aforementioned trout slapping for GoodDamon for his part in the edit war. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 22:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, I acknowledge your reference to the 1RR/3RR rule and my history of blocks for edit-warring. However, given the amount of time that has passed, I believe I have gained valuable insights and learned a great deal. Moreover, given this topic, I think I actually learned something unlike the other side, whose history of blocks for edit-warring remains clean.--Nicoljaus (talk) 4:24 am, Today (UTC−5)


::I called for some help ]. We will see what happens. ] (]) 00:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC) {{re|Valereee}} In response to {{diff2|1264999031||this}}, I can say that I already know very well how carelessly admins impose blocks. If any further statements are needed from me, just ping me. With best regards.--] (]) 09:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


===Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish===
'''Comment:''' Per ], let's please keep further comments in this subsection relating to the Topic Ban Proposal to previously uninvolved administrators. Others may comment in the above subsections. Thanks. ''']''' (]) 22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Absent from the appeal is discussion of the five prior edit warring blocks and any indication that they will not resume edit warring. ] (]) 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:I said {{tq|They have a long history of edit warring, so I'd like to see that addressed rather than blaming others}} above, twelve days ago. ] (]) 16:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|Nicoljaus}}, you should be focusing on convincing people that you won't edit war in the future rather than more ]. ] (]) 13:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
===Statement by (involved editor 1)===


===Hold on a minute=== ===Statement by (involved editor 2)===
{{hat|This was the section explaining I had originally brought this up in the wrong place. Leaving it for posterity, but closing it to avoid distraction.}}
You're in the wrong forum, guys. The topic of Scientology is on ]. From ]:
:''Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. See ].''


===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nicoljaus ===
So I'm marking this thread resolved and referring it to ]. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
<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>
:For the record, I opened this as an incident report, because the evidence indicates a very large ] issue with probable ] and ] problems as well, not because of a content dispute. However, I will abide by your wishes in this matter and move this report there. May I have your permission to copy it verbatim, including responses, to avoid extra work for all parties involved? --<font color="green">]</font>] 18:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

:You appear to misunderstand the quoted definition. Nowhere does it restrict itself to content policies only. Nor do you need my permission to quote what I post. See ]. Best wishes, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
====Statement by Simonm223====
::Guhh... Sorry, I apparently overdosed on stupid this morning. Proceeding... --<font color="green">]</font>] 18:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
looks like a bright-line ] violation via ] and ] - and removing BLP violations are generally somewhere where there is some latitude on ] which makes the actions of Zero0000 and Selfstudier more justified, not less. ] (]) 13:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by Aquillion====

{{tq|Selfstudier accuses me of 1RR breach. In the dialogue, I explained that the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination. My first undo was part of a counter edit}} - I feel like this is obvious enough that I probably don't have to point it out, but "counter edit" is not a ] / ] exception. Even if you were correct that Selfstudier & Zero0000 were ]ing (always a tricky accusation, because it's hard to separate that from just your edits being so obviously problematic that two people independently reverted them), it ''still'' would not justify your revert. The fact that they're parties to an ArbCom case (which hasn't even yet found any fault with them!) doesn't change any of this. You should probably read ]. --] (]) 14:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
"the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination"...yet another conspiracy-minded evidence-free accusation against editors in the PIA topic area, the third one at AE in just a few days. ] (]) 14:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)====

===Result of the appeal by Nicoljaus===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
*I do not see any indication that Nicoljaus actually realizes the problem. The edit warring blocks were indeed some time ago, but one might think they would remember it after being blocked for it repeatedly, not to mention that being issued a CTOP notice might call a CTOP restriction to mind. And the remark in question sure looks to me like a threat to game 1RR via ], too. Given all that, I would decline this appeal. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* I see nothing in this appeal that makes me think they've taken on board the changes that they'd need to do to be a productive editor. It reads to me like "my block was bad, here's why", and that's not working as a reason for me to support unblocking. ] (]) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* Nicoljaus, what we need to see is you demonstrating you understand edit-warring at a CTOP, which is what you were blocked for, and convincing us you won't do it again. Arguing the block should be lifted because other editors did something you thought looked suspicious isn't going to convince us. <small>Just FWIW, Nicoljaus, the source doesn't actually say {{xt|these two users cooperated like this 720 times}}. It says they edited the same articles 720 times, and that's not unusual. Most editors see the same other editors over and over again in articles about their primary interest. And edit by editor 1>2 days>revert by editor 2>revert by editor 1>20 minutes>revert by editor 3 is also not at all unusual anywhere on the encyclopedia and isn't evidence of tag-teaming. People read their watch lists. Any editor with that article on their watchlist, which is nearly fifty editors, might have investigated the large revert of an edit by an experienced editor at a contentious topic.</small> ] (]) 15:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@], it's not that edit wars are evil. It's that they're disruptive, and particularly in a CTOP we really really don't need additional disruption and drama. A revert is a revert, even if you {{xt|tried to meet my opponents halfway, as in this case, taking into account their claim, which I could understand, in the counter edit}}. Re: {{xt|If such an action is also considered an edit war and a violation of the 1RR/3RR rule}}: a revert is a revert and is covered in the policy around reversions. And you have a history of blocks for edit-warring, including at other CTOPs.
*:It's been seven months since the block. I'm trying to come around to a way to at least allow this editor a ''chance'' to show us they've taken this stuff on board...maybe a 0RR at all CTOPs? ] (]) 17:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@], re {{xt|I believe it is essential to recognize that not all reverts carry the same implications. While it is true that a revert is a revert, the context and intent behind the action should also be taken into account. In this instance, I made efforts to address the concerns of the other party involved, which reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue rather than simply reverting}}. Some editors at talk pages will take your apparent intentions into account. Some will just take you to ANEW. Some admins at ANEW will take your apparent intentions into account. Some will just reblock you.
*::''No one anywhere is promising that your intentions will be taken into account'' -- or even that they'll try to figure out what your intentions are -- and therefore it's ''completely your responsibility'' to read the situation you're in correctly. If you read it wrong, you're likely to be blocked again, and honestly another block for edit-warring at a CTOP is likely to be another indef, and it would absolutely not surprise me for the blocking admin to require 12 months to appeal. ] (]) 15:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::No need to reply, but I'll tell you plainly I've been trying to give you opportunities to convince other admins here, and you keep wanting to dig the hole deeper. I'd support an unblock with an editing restriction of 0RR at any article with a CTOPs designation on the talk page. ] (]) 13:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
* I would also decline this per Seraphimblade, even if there were to be an unblock I would expect a PIA topic-ban (at the least) to be included. ] 18:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
* I see a rough consensus, so I am closing the thread --] <sup>]</sup> 19:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
{{hab}} {{hab}}
===RFAR===
I have requested a new arbitration case. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


==PerspicazHistorian==
== Need a formal warning for an IP editor ==
<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 PerspicazHistorian===
Note: ] is under ] because it's a pathological science or fringe science that has been given as an example of pseudoscience, (although it was rejected to label it as pseudoscience on ].)
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|PerspicazHistorian}}<p>{{ds/log|PerspicazHistorian}}</p>
This should be quite uncontroversial. An editor with a big ] comes to the talk page of an article, claims that there is a skeptic conspiracy to make up nonsense and put it in the article to replace real sources, engages into lenghthy OR discussions, claims that all papers showing negative results are faked by their authors, that sources can be falsified by examining ''leaked raw data'', shows his self-published papers that he co-authored as proof against prestigious journals, forces other editors to engage into more OR to disproof his misrepresentations, promotes his own website as the alpha an omega of cold fusion sourcing, uses the page as a ], claims that " is mainly a display of ignorance, not bias.", clutters the talk page history (42 of last 100 edits as of 01:52, 10 December 2008 , counting also Sinebot because he refuses to sign), when menaced with arbitration discrectionary sanctions he replies "Go ahead! Do your worst!" and claims that he is "not planning to edit this or any other article. I wouldn't touch a Misplaced Pages article with the fag end of a barge poll, nor would any scientist I know" and has continued his behaviour since then (6 days ago).


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
Pvkeller explains the problem perfectly:
{{quote|1=:Putting Wiki policy to one side, it is not so much citing sources of dubious probity that seems a problem to me. It is more a combination of tactics:
:1) Insisting that anyone who has not read '''all''' your source must accept that your sources demonstrate whatever you say they do;
:2) Claiming your sources say or prove more than they do. On several occassion I have spent hours investigating your citations only to find they proved far less than you claimed;
:3) Dismissing all sources that do not support your POV, and attacking those who cite those sources;
:4) Arguing that every instance of treating your sources seriously is an avowal of those source or an agreement with their conclusions, even if the instance does not result in publication or funding; and
:5) Arguing that every instance of not treating your sources seriously is a display of unfair bias.


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
:I would like to see you try harder to be pursuasive without browbeating.}}
<!--- 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 :
Since wikipedia is not he place for massive COI'd OR, I would thank an uninvolved admin to give him a formal warning ({{tl|Pseudoscience_enforcement}} will do) so he can be sanctioned if he keeps on with his behaviour.
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# - removed "discrimination" sidebar from the page of ] (fascist ideology) even though the sidebar was inserted inside a section, not even the lead.
# - tag bombed the highly vetted ] article without any discussion or reason
# - attributing castes to people withhout any sources
# - edit warring to impose the above edits after getting
# - just like above, but this time he also added unreliable sources
# - 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.}}"


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


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)
{{Collapsed top|1=warning about arbitration, his replies}}
On 4 December 2008 I warned Jed about using unreliable sources to falsify reliable sources, and engagin on OR the talk page, finishing with this: "Jed, either you stop filling the page with WP:OR or I'll start asking admins to bring ] down on you."


: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)

*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)

; 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 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>

====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 ] 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.
: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
: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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Capitals00====
I find the comment from {{U|Toddy1}} to be entirely outrageous. What are you trying to tell by saying "{{tq|Misplaced Pages is meant to be a mainstream encyclopaedia, and BJP and RSS are mainstream in India}}"? If you want us to entertain those who are in power, then we could never have an article like ].

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)

====Statement by Vanamonde93====
{{U|Toddy1}}: I, too, am baffled by your comment. We don't ban editors based on their POV; but we do ban editors who fail to follow our PAGs, and we certainly don't make excuses for editors who fail to follow our guidelines based on their POV. You seem to be suggesting we cut PH some slack because of their political position, and I find that deeply inappropriate. Among other things, I don't believe they have publicly stated anywhere that they support the BJP or the RSS, and we cannot make assumptions about them.

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

I 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)

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

====Statement by UtherSRG====
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)
::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 ===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''

{{u|PerspicazHistorian}}, can you explain your understanding of ] and the ] rule? I'd like you to read thoroughly enough to also explain wny someone may be edit warring ''even if they aren't breaking 3RR''. ] (]) 21:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- 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)
*<!--
-->

{{reflist talk}}

==Walter Tau==
{{hat|Consensus to indefinitely block Walter Tau. ] (] • she/her) 22:11, 31 December 2024 (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 Walter Tau===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Bobby Cohn}} 20:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Walter Tau}}<p>{{ds/log|Walter Tau}}</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: ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->

; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# Creation (and subsequent editing and AfC submission) of ]. See it's page history, there's no need to supply the entirety of the diffs here.
#* For context on how this subject falls under the purview, see the context given by the news article as shared on the talk page: Russia using adoption of Ukranian children during the Russo-Ukranian war.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Bruce |first1=Camdyn |title=Ukrainian official rips Russia for 'kidnapping' more than 13,000 children |url=https://thehill.com/policy/international/3775681-ukrainian-official-rips-russia-for-kidnapping-more-than-13000-children/ |work=The Hill |date=14 December 2022}}</ref> Then note how this state program directly discusses adoption support, which was adapted by Putin following the start of the war. A citation given in the draft article.<ref>{{cite news |title=Путин подписал закон, уточняющий условия выплаты материнского капитала |url=https://www.interfax.ru/russia/937864 |work=interfax.ru|trans-title=Putin signs law clarifying conditions for payment of maternity capital}}</ref> The version specifically notes the changes "At the same time, residents of the '''''new regions''''' will receive maternity capital '''''regardless of the basis and timing of their acquisition of Russian citizenship'''''" (emphasis mine).
#:This draft, as it is written, is extremely promotional in areas and could basically be hosted on a state-sponsored website. Given the context, I believe this falls under the topic ban.
{{reflist-talk}}

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
# Notice given by {{admin|Rosguill}} that they were now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
# Blocked by {{admin|Swatjester}} for violating the sanction based on the edits to a project page.

;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. -->
*Has been made aware, see the diffs in the above section.
*Alerted about contentious topics as it applies to this specific draft, on by {{admin|Asilvering}}, given a warning about this specific draft and how it falls under the above purview.

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
It has been repeatedly pointed out to Walter Tau that they are skirting the line of the their topic ban by specifically not mentioning the "elephant in the room", see the diff by Asilvering above. They have also repeatedly chosen to ignore advice that they stop editing in the subject area and have repeatedly claimed to fail to see how their editing is problematic. As such, I have opened this discussion here so as to get an answer for Walter Tau on their editing, see They claim to continuously be unaware of the ban, see also their talk page discussions.

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
Notified .

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

===Discussion concerning Walter Tau===
<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 Walter Tau====
I feel, that the decision by ] regarding my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Maternity_capital, is "arbitrary and capriciuos" to use US legal terms : ], for the following reasons:

1) nowhere my draft mentions the words "Ukraine" or "Ukrainian".

2) this draft ] is a translation of the original Russian wiki- article : https://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB . I have heard the argument, that different languages in Misplaced Pages use different standards for articles' notability etc. Can someone please provide a web-link to Misplaced Pages rules, that actually confirms, that different standards for different languages is the currently accepted policy. I have been unable to find such statement.

3) In fact, my draft focuses mostly on the policies before 24 February 2022, i.e. before full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine.

4) Please correct me, if I am wrong, by it seems that ]'s only argument of my ban violation is the following statement in my draft of ].
"Residents of new regions are paid maternity capital regardless of the time and basis for obtaining Russian citizenship." In my defense: I did not write that statement- it is a Google translation from the Russian wiki, actually a small part of the translated text. And with all honesty, when I was reading the translated text, it did not cross my mind, that someone may interpret so broadly. Also, this sentence-in-question does not really add much to the main subject to the article, and I do not object to its deletion.

5) Considering, that
a) I did not write, but only translated the text-in-question;
b) the relevance to the text-in-question to my topic ban is not apparent, particularly in the larger context of the whole article;
c) I do not object deleting the text-in-question from the draft;
may I suggest changing the draft to fix this controversy?

6) If there are other controversial sections/sentences in my translated draft, it may be better if someone re-writes them. Most wiki-readers, can agree with a statement, that this draft ] may not reach an "Article of the Day" status, but it has a value as a stand-alone article as well as a source of references (more-to-be-added).
] (]) 13:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I can see now, why some editors consider the translated addition, that I made, a violation of my ban on editing Russia-Ukraine topic. It was not my intention. I fact, I agree with the deletion of the questionable sentence "Residents of new regions are paid maternity capital regardless of the time and basis for obtaining Russian citizenship.". At the same time, I would like to keep the rest of draft, so that myself and other keep working on getting it published. Do I understand correctly, that the notability of this topic is not being questioned?

====Statement by TylerBurden====
Walter Tau doesn't seem to think they have done anything wrong on Misplaced Pages, so it's honestly not surprising to see them continuing to push the limit despite the sanctions they have received. At some point you have to wonder if there is a foundational ] or trolling (or a combination of both) issue. Either way, yes they are clearly violating their topic ban by writing about the Russian kidnapping of Ukrainian children from the war, because that is what this whole ″adoption″ thing is. --] (]) 17:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

===Result concerning Walter Tau===
:''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. -->
*Sidestepping for now the question of whether simply not mentioning anything conflict-related would have been enough to avoid a TBAN violation, the references to "new regions" make this a violation much more straightforwardly. Justice is blind but not stupid. Walter, I think we're going to need to see recognition from you that this was a TBAN violation, if we're going to find a good path forward here. I'd also like to know who you are referring to when you reference other editors working on the draft? ] has made some gnomish edits but you appear to be the only substantive editor. And why are you implying, on Bobby's talk, that y'all have been corresponding by email, when he denies that? <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 22:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*I'll be direct: I think Walter knows what he is doing and has no intention of abiding by his TBAN, , and I don't think we should be wasting further time here when we're almost certainly going to be right back here again within a few weeks. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 05:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*Back off a one week block for violating the topic ban, and already violating it again? (The "new regions" material is unquestionably a violation.) It seems that Walter Tau is either unwilling or unable to abide by the restriction, and does not, even after explanation, understand any of the issues here (or even understand something so simple as that different language Wikipedias are independent from one another and each have their own policies and practices). Given that, I don't see anything to be done here except to indef. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
* I am 48 hours early to the party, but I would support an indef here --] <sup>]</sup> 16:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Tamzin|Swatjester}} Planning to close this one, since it's been a week – any closing thoughts on the remedy? ] (] • she/her) 16:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Seems like everyone responding so far is aligned w/ an indef, which I'd support. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}

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

===Request concerning LaylaCares===
; 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>

<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

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

; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# EC gaming


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

; 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 :

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

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

====Statement by LaylaCares====

====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)

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

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

====Statement by (username)====

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

===Result concerning LaylaCares===
:''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 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)
*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)
*@]: I agree that the draft should be G5'd, but will wait for consensus to develop here. ] (]/]) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (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)
*I would just pull EC and require the editor to apply via AE appeal for its restoration. They should be very clearly aware that receiving such restoration will require both substantial time and making ''real'', substantive edits outside the area, as well as an understanding of what is expected of editors working in a CTOP area. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*I see a clear consensus here to remove the EC flag. For clarity, when I proposed a TBAN above it was because removing this flag ''is'' an ARBPIA TBAN as long as the ECR remedy remains in place; it's simply a question of whether the editor get the other privileges of EC or not. I don't see a consensus on what to do with the draft, but given that other editors have now made substantive contributions to it, I don't believe it's a good use of AE time to discuss the hypothetical further. ] (]) 17:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}

==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) }}
<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 AstroGuy0===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}} 03:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
(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 :
<!-- 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.
# 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 ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):

: Made aware of contentious topics criterion:
<!-- Add any further comment here -->

; 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. --->

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. ] (]) 03:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

===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>

====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. ] (]) 03:50, 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 AstroGuy0===
:''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. -->
*<!--
-->
: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}}


==Lemabeta==
His answer was: "Go ahead! Do your worst. You skeptics have done that to me before. I couldn't care less. I am not planning to edit this or any other article. I wouldn't touch a Misplaced Pages article with the fag end of a barge poll, nor would any scientist I know." .
<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 Lemabeta===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|EF5}} 20:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Lemabeta}}<p>{{ds/log|Lemabeta}}</p>
] explains perfectly the problem, so I'll copy/paste it here:
:Putting Wiki policy to one side, it is not so much citing sources of dubious probity that seems a problem to me. It is more a combination of tactics:
:1) Insisting that anyone who has not read '''all''' your source must accept that your sources demonstrate whatever you say they do;
:2) Claiming your sources say or prove more than they do. On several occassion I have spent hours investigating your citations only to find they proved far less than you claimed;
:3) Dismissing all sources that do not support your POV, and attacking those who cite those sources;
:4) Arguing that every instance of treating your sources seriously is an avowal of those source or an agreement with their conclusions, even if the instance does not result in publication or funding; and
:5) Arguing that every instance of not treating your sources seriously is a display of unfair bias.


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
:I would like to see you try harder to be pursuasive without browbeating.


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
Jed's answer was yet more OR and promotion of his own site " I have 3,500 papers. These papers and books constitute 99% of everything published on the subject, in English", insisting that NPOV is imposible because science is based on facts ""POV" means point of view, or opinion. Science is based on facts and laws, not points of view.", and insisting that he has the ] "There are no other sources. (...) is mainly a display of ignorance, not bias."
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
{{Collapsed bottom}}


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
{{Collapsed top|1=Examples of OR}}
<!-- 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.-->
using a list of 200 papers (primary sources) as proof that fusion happened, and saying that a laboratory is not prestigious or journal is not high-profile are "judgement calls" . This simply denies the capability of editors to reject fringe sources.
# - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing.
# - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist.


Lots of OR about how a certain experiment demonstrated something or not, and suggesting that a paper on a low-impact journal and a video of a working motor are a reliable source


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
In reply to " unreliable sources reliable sources should not be taken into account or had fake data" he cites a paper on a fringe journal to say "You can see at glance that the data is fake! Part of the graph is replaced with crudely fabricated, hand-drawn data." and continues "You can tell even more clearly because one of the researchers accidentally leaked the original data, which shows excess heat in the part that was replaced with hand-drawn dots" and suggests to read the "official MIT hearing" (again, reliance on primary sources)
<!-- 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 :
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)
: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 :
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


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


====Statement by Lemabeta====
{{Collapsed top|1=skeptic conspiracy to put nonsense on the cold fusion article}}
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.
On the other hand, the article is full of irrelevant and unimportant stuff, not to mention imaginary nonsense cooked up by "skeptics." Replacing some of that garbage with Arata might not be a bad idea. But anyway, Misplaced Pages belongs to the "skeptics" and know-nothings. They should do whatever they please with the article. No legitimate scientist will contribute.
: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)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


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

Latest revision as of 06:31, 7 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
    341342343344345346

    Ethiopian Epic

    Topic banned from Yasuke --Guerillero 19:53, 1 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 Ethiopian Epic

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Tinynanorobots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Ethiopian Epic (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/Yasuke
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. November 14th created during the Yasuke case and went active when it ended. First 11 edits were to Government of Japan. In one case three edits were used to write one sentence.
    2. November 12 Manually reverted the lead back to how it was in September.
    3. November 16 Falsely Claimed cited material was OR. (G
    4. November 24 Falsely Claimed cited material was unsourced
    5. November 24 It took an ANI report to get him to use the article talk page. His defense was accusations and denial.
    6. November 23 He reverted to a version that went against consensus established on the talk page and contained a falsely sourced quote.
    7. November 25 Engages in sealioning
    8. November 29 Removes a well sourced line from Yasuke as well as reverted an edit that was the result of BRD. He has now started disputes with me on all three Yasuke related articles.
    9. November 30 starts disputing a new section of
    10. December 2 Brought again to ANI, he claims that I didn't get consensus for changes, even though I had discussed them on talk prior to making them.
    11. December 4 He keeps mentioning ONUS, and asking me to discuss it, in response to me discussing.
    12. December 9 Used a non-controversial revert to hide his edit warring.
    13. December 11 did the same thing on List of foreign-born samurai in Japan.
    14. December 11 He also repeatedly complains that he doesn't like the definition because it is vague and claims that his preferred version is "status quo"
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Date Explanation
    2. Date Explanation
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    [
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on December 1 (see the system log linked to above).


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I have decided that Misplaced Pages is not worth my time. I want to write about history, not get caught up in wikipolitics and intrigue. There are systematic problems with wikipedia, where it is difficult to come to a conclusion to a discussion and openness is discouraged. Seeking help or advice with an issue opens one to the accusation of forum shopping or canavassing. One is expected to be perfect, but it is unclear what perfect is. Admins complain that a recall petition that lasts more than seven days is cruel, but drag out ArbCom processes and ignore AE threads for days. This whole process has been miserable. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Ethiopian Epic

    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 Ethiopian Epic

    This is clear retaliatory filing because I recently didn't agree with Tinynanorobot's edits against RFC consensus, and because I made talk page sections on some recent edits.

    @Eronymous That's not true and you are a very obvious alt account with only 26 edits. No one gave you a notification of this discussion and it's not on the Yasuke talk page. This suggests you are the sock puppet of someone here. Your post is also misleading and incorrect it wasn't an insertion. The line you are talking about in Samurai has been there for over 10 years and is normal. I know because I've read it before. Here is a version from 2017 that still has it. I don't understand why you are misrepresenting edits and using an alt account.

    @Red-tailed hawk I think he is just fishing. That's why he removed his IP claims. Even his other diffs are just mislabeled regular behavior. It's amusing because Eronymous is the likely alt of Tinynanorobots or someone posting here. I think the way Tinynanorobots edits against clear consensus, skips discussion, and then files frivolous ANI/AE reports with misleading narrative like above is disruptive. Discussion is an easy solution and benefits everyone. I hope he will respect RFC consensus.

    @Barkeep49: Tinynanorobot's recent "do-over" comment above is likely an attempt by him to hide the negative admin response to his own conduct and his fishing here. He shouldn't be able to remove the admin response to his report, so that he can do more fishing, before the admins even make their decision. It seems like gaming AE. He also recently disrupted the samurai talk page by hiding the comments of other users with a misleading edit summary.

    @Valereee I wasn't sure if it was drive-by vandalism by Tofflenheim (I don't have deep context but he is mentioned here by name) so I made sure to respect 1RR. I made a talk section I'll let other editors handle it. EEpic (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Statement by Relm

    I am largely unfamiliar with the account in question, but I do frequently check Yasuke. I believe that EthiopianEpic has displayed a clear slant and battleground mindset in their editing in regards to the topic of Yasuke, but that their conduct on the Yasuke page itself so far has generally been in the ballpark of good faith edits. The revert on December 9th was justified, and their topic on November 29th is well within bounds (though I acknowledge that the background of their prior disputes on other pages with Tinynanorobots shows it may be edit warring) given that the two things being reverted was a change that seemed to skirt the prior RFC with agreement being given in a very non-direct way, and the other portion being an addition which had not been discussed on the talk page prior to its implementation (though previous discussions ered on the side of not including it). I am not accusing Tinynanorobots of any misconduct in any part of that either.

    What I will note is that in addition to the sockpuppet IP allegations made by Tinynanorobots, I wanted to lodge that the posting style of EthiopianEpic, as well as their knowledge of much of the previous discussions on the page deep in the archive, led me to suspect that they were an alt of User:Symphony_Regalia. I never found anything conclusive. Relm (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

    Statement by Simonm223

    These two editors have been tangling at WP:AN/I repeatedly. Last time they came there I said that this would likely continue until a third party intervened. And then the thread got archived with no action (see AN/I thread here) so I'm not surprised that the two of them are still tangling. There is evidence that both editors have engaged in a slow-motion edit war. Both have claimed the other is editing against consensus. Here I will say that it appears TinyNanoRobots is more correct than Ethiopian Epic. Furthermore, while neither editors' comportment has been stellar, as other editors have pointed out, it appears more that EE is following TNR about and giving them a hard time than the alternate. . In the linked AN/I case (above) you'll note EE attempted a boomerang on TNR and was not well-received for the effort.

    Frankly my view is that both editors are not editing to the best standards of Misplaced Pages but there is definitely a more disruptive member of this duo and that is Ethiopian Epic. I think it would probably cut down on the noise considerably if they were encouraged to find somewhere to edit which was not a CTOP subject and if they were encouraged to leave TNR alone. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

    Statement by Eronymous

    Similar to Relm I check on the Yasuke page every so often, and it seems very likely given the evidence that User:Ethiopian Epic is an alt of User:Symphony_Regalia created to evade his recent ArbCom sanctions, having started editing the day prior to the Yasuke case closure. Of note to this is the last edit of Symphony_Regalia on Samurai was him attempting to insert the line "who served as retainers to lords (including daimyo)" - curiously enough, Ethiopian Epic's first edit on Samurai (and first large edit, having just prior made 11 minor ones in a short timeframe to reach autoconfirmed status) is him attempting to insert the same controversial line that was reverted before.

    Symphony_Regalia has a history of utilising socks to edit Yasuke/Samurai related topics and is indefinitely blocked from the .jp wiki for extensive sockpuppetry (plus multiple suspected IPs) for this.

    Prior to being sanctioned Symphony Regalia frequently got into exactly the same arguments concerning wording/source material with User:Tinynanorobots that Ethiopian Epic is now. One could assume based on their relationship that he is aggrieved that Tinynanorobots was not sanctioned by ArbCom during the case and is now continuously feuding with him to change that through edit warring and multiple administrator incidents/arbitration requests in the past few weeks. Eronymous (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

    Statement by Nil Einne

    I was ?one of the editors who suggested Tinynanorobots consider ARE in the future. I did this mostly because after three threads on ANI with no result, I felt a change of venue might be more productive especially since the more structured nature of ARE, as well as a likely greater concern over low level of misconduct meant that some outcome was more likely. (For clarity, when I suggested this I did feel nothing would happen from the third ANI thread but in any case my advice being taken onboard would likely mean the third thread had no result.) I did try to make clear that I wasn't saying there was definitely a problem requiring sanction and also it was possible Tinynanorobots might themselves end up sanctioned. Since a topic ban on both is being considered, I might have been right in a way. If a topic ban results, I'd like to suggest admins considered some guidance beyond broadly constructed on how any topic ban would apply. While the entirety of the Yasuke article and the list of foreign born samurai stuff seem clear enough, one concern I've had at ANI is how to handle the editing at Samurai and its talk page. A lot of the recent stuff involving these editors seems to relate to the definition of samurai. AFAIK, this is generally been a big part of the dispute of Yasuke (he can/can't be a samurai because it means A which was/wasn't true about him). Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

    Result concerning Ethiopian Epic

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I've never been very impressed with retaliatory filings, and the one below is no exception. I will also note that I'm never too impressed with "must be a sock" type accusations—either file at SPI or don't. In this case, though, I think Yasuke would be better off if neither of these two were participating there. Seraphimblade 19:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
      Red-tailed hawk, what are your thoughts after the responses to you? Seraphimblade 16:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
      I think that it would be declined if it were an WP:SPI report and the editor should be mindful not to throw sock accusations around willy-nilly going forward. But I typically don't see any sort of sanction imposed when someone makes a bad SPI report, particularly if they're newer or aren't quite clueful yet. So I don't see much to do on that front other than tell them that we need more specific evidence of socking when reports are made than merely shared interest, particularly when the IPs are scattered across the world. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
      I'm still inclined to topic ban both these editors from Yasuke, but would be interested in hearing more thoughts on that if anyone has them. Seraphimblade 07:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I also generally don't like "might-be-a-sock"-style accusations; when we are accusing someone of sockpuppetry by logged out editing we typically need evidence to substantiate it rather than just floating the possibility in a flimsy way. Filer has provided several diffs above as possible socks, but each of those IPs geolocates to a different country (Germany, Norway, and Argentina respectively) and I don't see evidence that any of those IPs are proxies.@Tinynanorobots: Can you explain what led you to note the IP edits? Is it merely shared interest and viewpoint, or is there something more?— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Looking at this .... mess... first, I'm not sure what actually was against the ArbCom decision - I don't see a 1RR violation being alleged, and the rest really appears to me to be "throw stuff at the wall and see if it sticks". But, like Seraphimblade, I'm not impressed with either of these editors actual conduct here or in general. I could be brought around to supporting a topic ban for both of these editors in the interests of clearing up the whole topic area. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
      • @Ealdgyth: I'm concerned that EthiopianEpic is gaming 1RR/slow edit-warring – for the past few days, they've been waiting until just over 24 hours have passed since their last revert on Yasuke in order to make another one that restores their preferred POV, citing the same old arguments. See reverts on December 26, 27, and 28. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        I agree that's gaming 1RR. I'm tempted to block as an individual action at this point, separate from the AE complaint. @Ethiopian Epic, please before editing again explain why you are continuing to edit war while there's an AE case open? Valereee (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
        I'm good with a topic ban from the subject area for EE - for the gaming when their conduct is being scrutinized for edit warring. I'll reply below about Tiny ... (sorry for the delay, hubby is home so I have spouse-aggro (in gaming terms)) Ealdgyth (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    • @Tinynanorobots: you are well above the 500 word limit. Please request an extension before adding anything more. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I enacted the rough consensus to topic ban --Guerillero 19:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Tinynanorobots

    Topic banned from Yasuke --Guerillero 19:53, 1 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 Tinynanorobots

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    EEpic (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Tinynanorobots (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/Yasuke
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 09:21, 14 November 2024. Tinynanorobots removes As a samurai from the lead text and replaces it with signifying bushi status against RFC consensus (There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification).
    2. 17:12, 15 November 2024. Tinynanorobots removes who served as a samurai from the lead text and adds who became a bushi or samurai against RFC consensus (There exists a consensus against presenting Yasuke's samurai status as the object of debate).
    3. 12:43, 20 November 2024. On List of Foreign-born Samurai, Tinynanorobots removes the longstanding definition and adds This list includes persons who ... may not have been considered a samurai against RFC consensus (There exists a consensus against presenting Yasuke's samurai status as the object of debate).
    4. 07:48, 23 November 2024. Tinynanorobots reverts to remove As a samurai in the Yasuke article after Gitz6666 opposes at , again ignoring WP:ONUS.
    5. 03:13, 4 December 2024. I restore and start a talk page discussion so that consensus can be formed.
    6. 14:10, 6 December 2024 . Tinynanorobots, when consensus fails to form for his position, becomes uncivil and engages in a sarcastic personal attack What you are saying doesn't make sense. Perhaps there is a language issue here. Maybe your native language handles the future differently than English?
    7. 14:22, 11 December 2024. Tinynanorobots removes "As a samurai" again, ignoring WP:ONUS and BRD even though no consensus has formed for his position, and no consensus has formed to change existing consensus.
    8. 08:37, 6 December 2024. Tinynanorobots explains their reasons, I don't know if samurai is the right term which is against consensus.
    9. 07:27, 28 November 2024. POV-pushing - With no edit summary Tinynanorobots tag bombs by adding Slavery in Japan.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Date Explanation
    2. Date Explanation
    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

    Tinynanorobots frequently edits against consensus, restores his edits when others revert, doesn't wait for consensus, and engages in feuding behavior. He seems to think WP:BRD or WP:ONUS don't apply to him which is disruptive, and I don't know why.

    Unaccounted removals of sources 23:44, 14 September 2024 - Warning from other editor about repeated removal of content when multiple users are objecting.

    AGF 12:21, 15 September 2024 - Warning from yet another editor about not assuming good faith and making personal attacks.

    It seems to be chronic which suggests behavior problems. Tinynanorobots frequently fails to assume good faith in others. I don't know why as I don't have any issues with him.

    Their preferred edit for Yasuke against the RFC consensus is now still in the lead section.

    @Relm Sorry for the confusion. I think we talking about different edits, so I'll adjust that part. I am referring to Tinynanorobot's repeated removal of As a samurai against RFC consensus, which states There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    18:40, 12 December 2024

    Discussion concerning Tinynanorobots

    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 Tinynanorobots

    The accusations made by EE are so misleading as to be evidence against him. Most of what he is discussing is in reference to a successful BRD. I actually discussed the bold edit first on the talk, but didn't get much of a response. I decided a bold edit would get more feedback. The edits were reverted and then discussed. Gitz's main problem was OR, not a RfC violation. This was because he didn't read the cited source. Anyway, since Atkin says "signifying bushi status", I have no objection to restoring this text.

    I never used any sarcasm, I know that some languages handle how they talk about time differently. It seems reasonable that a translation error could be the reason for EE asking me not to change the article, althoug my edit had already been restored by someone else and at the same time asking me to discuss that I had already discussed and was already discussing. I am disappointed that EE didn't point out that he felt attacked, so that I could apologize.

    This was written in response to another user, and the whole thought is I don't know if samurai is the right term. It is the term a fair amount of sources use, and the one that the RfC says should be used. It is also consistent with common usage in reference to other historical figures. In fact earlier in that post I said this: I am not qualified to say whither or not Yasuke having a house meant that he was a samurai This is blatantly taking a quote out of context in order to prejudice the Admins against me.

    @User:Ealdgyth I filed here, because the last time I filed at ANI it was suggested that I bring things here if things continue by an Admin. I try to follow advice, although I keep getting conflicting signals from Admins. I am most concerned that you find my work on Samurai and List of Foreign-born Samurai in Japan not adding anything helpful. My suggestion to rewrite the way samurai was defined on the List in order to reduce OR and bring it in line with WP:LSC was meant with unanimous approval by those who responded. Samurai is a high importance article that has tags on it from years back, is unorganized and contains outdated information. I am not the best writer, but I have gotten some books, and am pretty much the only one working on it.
    I just thought that the Admins here should know about the ongoing SPI

    @theleekycauldron Thank you for giving a reason, I think there is a misunderstanding though.

    On Nov 14th I removed as a samurai and added signifying bushi status which better matched the sources. Also, not every samurai received a house or sword. Especially receieving a house is an important indicator of Yasuke's rank.
    On Nov 15th it was removed by Blockhaj On the same day Gitz posted on the talk However, I agree with this revert of Tinynanorobots's edit: sources say that the gift signifies samurai status (e.g., Lockley: "bestowing of warrior or “samurai” rank"); "bushi status" is an original research.
    On Nov 16th it was restored by Gitz
    On Nov 17th I explained that "bushi status was in the source, and therefore not OR. Gitz agreed writing Anyway, since Atkin says "signifying bushi status", I have no objection to restoring this text, although I suggest that "indicating warrior status" or "marking membership in the warrior class" would be easier to understand.
    On Nov 20th I changed it to "signifying samurai status"
    On Nov 29th EE reverted with the edit summary Corrections and fixes
    On Nov 30th I revert EE with the edit summary Reverts aren't explained and includes cited material and material that was discussed on the talk page. Please discuss on Talk page On the same day EE did a partial revert citing ONUS
    On Dec 1st User:City of Silver reverted EE saying when ee somehow avoided a well-earned block last time, it was *extremely*, *incredibly* obvious that sooner or later, they'd edit up attacking this exact article in this exact way, i.e., contentiously reverting an editor they're following around and badgering that editor to discuss while not doing so themself. they're really not getting the point
    On Dec 2nd EE started a new discussion on the topic EE begins by saying {{1. This edit was done without consensus. It looks like it was reverted by @Gitz6666 here, but it was silently restored here without any discussion.}} but also says can you follow WP:ONUS and seek consensus for these edits before re-adding them? Thank you. The second part is confusing, because at the time this was written, both of those edits were current. He was asking me not to re-add something that was re added by someone else and not yet removed. He has given the section the same title as the section where Gitz and I had our discussion. On the same day, I replied linking to my discussion with Gitz, pointing out that he had withdrawn his objection. EE responded saying I see thank you, however I checked the archives and the previous discussions says ""There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification"", and ""There exists a consensus against presenting Yasuke's samurai status as the object of debate"". So I think using "signifying samurai status" or "indicating status status" would be less in line with that consensus compared to the status quo text of "as a samurai". In light of that I would suggest getting consensus before adding this change. This confused me. He redirects my mention of my discussion with Gitz, into a discussion of the RfC, which he pretends he just discovered in the archive, and asks me again not to add something which is currently in the article to the article without discussing it, after I told him I did discuss it, and am trying to discuss it with him.
    This is when I wrote I am troubled that you keep implying that I haven't discussed these things on the talk before. I also believe you do not understand how consensus works. When someone makes a change, that is the consensus until someone challenges it. You are wanting to change the status quo. In this case I am using status quo to mean "the existing state of affairs" It was the current state of the article. It seemed that EE was both chatising me for making a change without discussion (the past) and asking me not to make that change (the future), but overlooking that I didn't need to make the change, and that I was trying to discuss with him(the present). It was all very confusing.
    On Dec 9th a few users made some edits that really went against consensus. EE reverted these edits, but also removed the edits that City of Silver had restored.
    After that I never restored "signifying samurai status". Unless I missed something, I only restored it once.
    The full line is He was granted a sword, a house and a stipend, indicating samurai status and I don't see how it can be against the RfC, the RfC says explicitly There exists no consensus on the inclusion of the following sentence, or similar, in the lead section of the article. "Historians believe this was the equivalent to "the bestowing of warrior or 'samurai' rank" during this period." The quote is from one of the sources, and my version should be less controversial considering the objections to including the quote. The quote is not only in the body, but also in a footnote in the lead.
    EE is the only person who beleives that it goes against the RfC, except for an IP It has been added by other users, and others have explictly said it doesn't go against RfC on both Talk:Yasuke and here.

    Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Statement by Relm

    I am the editor alluded to and quoted as 'protesting' Tinynanorobots edit. When I originally made that topic, I was fixing a different edit which left the first sentence as a grammatically incomplete sentence. When I looked at it in the editing view, one of the quotes in the citation beforehand was quoting Atkins Vera, and I mistook this for the opening quote having been changed. When I closed the editing menu I saw 'signifying samurai status' in the second paragraph and confused the two for each other as I had not noticed the addition of the latter phrase a little under a month ago. I realized my mistake almost immediately after I posted the new topic, and made this (1) edit to clarify my mistake while also attempting to instead direct the topic towards making sure that the edit recieved sufficient assent from Gitz (it did) and to talk about improvements that could be made to the opening sentence. I further clarified and made clear that I was not accusing Tinynanorobots of having done anything wrong in a later response (2).

    Though many of their earlier edits on the page may show some issues, as they grew more familiar with the past discussions I believe that Tinynanorobots has made valuable contributions to the page in good faith. Relm (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    Statement by Barkeep49


    Statement by Gitz6666

    I don't see anything wrong either with Tinynanorobots's recent edits to Yasuke and related articles or those of Ethiopian Epic. The only troubling aspect is their difficulty in finding an agreement on relatively irrelevant issues or minutiae such as "As a samurai" vs "Signifying samurai status", which are not covered by the RfC consensus and are also difficult to understand. They shouldn't bring this stuff to AE and they'd better come to an agreement otherwise they risk being tbanned, which in my opinion would be a pity. Disengage disengage disengage, and move to more productive editing! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Tinynanorobots

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • As above, I'm failing to see what exactly is against the ArbCom case rulings - I don't see a 1RR violation. But also as above, I'm coming to the view that neither of these editors are adding anything helpful to the topic area and am leaning towards a topic ban for both. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
      I tend to agree. The edits EE highlights are troubling, especially TNR's view that they can repeatedly make edits an RfC has already ruled out (1, revert, 2) because When someone makes a change, that is the consensus until someone challenges it. You are wanting to change the status quo. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      That's been my position, and I've thus far seen no reason to change it. I would support topic banning both EE and Tinynanorobots from the Yasuke subject. Seraphimblade 00:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      I concur. Topic banning both would hopefully help them learn to collaborate by editing somewhere where they are not so invested so that they can learn how to collaborately edit. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Unless an uninvolved admin objects within the next seven days or so, I will close as above (TBAN on Tinynanorobots and EthiopianEpic from Yasuke). Seraphimblade 20:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I enacted the rough consensus --Guerillero 19:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Rasteem

    There does not seem to be an appetite to act here. Any admin can chat with Rasteem about any competence concerns in their personal capacity --Guerillero 20:00, 1 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 Rasteem

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    NXcrypto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Rasteem (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. 23:21 12 December 2024 - removed wikilink of an Indian railway station thus violating his topic ban from India and Pakistan.

    This violation comes after he was already warned for his first violation of the topic ban.

    Upon a closer look into his recent contribution, I found that he is simply WP:GAMING the system by creating articles like Arjan Lake which is overall only 5,400 bytes but he made nearly 50 edits here. This is clearly being done by Rasteem for passing the 500 edits mark to get his topic ban overturned.

    I recommend increasing the topic ban to indefinite duration. Nxcrypto Message 03:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    "topic banned from the subject of India and Pakistan, broadly construed, until both six months have elapsed and they have made 500 edits after being notified of this sanction."
    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 agree that there are genuine CIR issues with Rasteem, for example while this ARE report is in progress they created Javan Lake, which has promotional statements like: "The lake's stunning caluts, majestic desert topographies, and serene lakes produce a shifting destination. Its unique charm attracts a wide range of guests, from adventure contenders to nature suckers and beyond". Nxcrypto Message 03:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    • @Theleekycauldron: I hope you will review the complaint again. As Femke and Cullen328 puts, the issue is not only with the topic ban violations (for which he was already warned by Seraphimblade) but also the basic competence issues that include his grasp of English language. Rasteem's own response to this complaint that "a coordinated attack to abandon me from Misplaced Pages indefinitely" itself showcases his battleground mentality. I believe that the existing six-month topic ban should be increased to an indefinite period. Nxcrypto Message 03:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Rasteem

    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 Rasteem

    This approach seems to be a coordinated attack to abandon me from Misplaced Pages indefinitely. Indeed, after my ban for 6 months. I was banned on 6 December, and in just 7 days, this report is literally an attempt to make me leave Misplaced Pages.

    1. I rolled back my own edit; it was last time made unintentionally. I was about to revert it, but my internet connection was lost, so when I logged in again, I regressed it.

    The internet is constantly slow and sometimes goes down. I live in a hilly location and I had formerly mentioned it.

    My edits on Arjan Lake isn't any WP:GAMING factual number of edits I made; it is 45, not 50. Indeed, I made similar edits before in September and December months on the same articles within a single day or 2-3 days.

    2. List of villages in Khoda Afarin on this article, I've added 5680 bytes & made 43 edits.

    3. List of villages in Tabriz on this article I've added 4000 bytes & made 49 edits.

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Rasteem

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • While I don't see a change in editing pattern that indicates gaming, the edits to Arjan Lake indicate issues with competence, as the article is weirdly promotional and contains phrases such as "beast species", "emotional 263 proved species". —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Adding to Femke's point, magnific 70- cadence-high waterfalls in this area is not prose that inspires confidence in the editor's competence to edit the English Misplaced Pages. So, we have violations of a topic ban and questions about the editor's linguistic competence and performance. Perhaps an indefinite block appealable in six months with a recommendation to build English competency by editing the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and to build general Misplaced Pages skills by editing in the version of Misplaced Pages in the language they speak best during that minimum six month period. As for Arjan Lake, although the prose is poor, the references in the article make it clear to me that the topic is notable, so the editor deserves some credit for starting this article that did not exist for two decades plus. Cullen328 (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Brief comment to avoid the archive bot. Seraphimblade 17:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I don't see any appetite to do anything about the CTOP violations here. Someone should probably write up an individual admin's warning about the two articles and the prose/sourcing problems, but I don't see anything here AE can action. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      @NXcrypto: Yeah, I read your statement. They were doing gnome edits and they made one to a dab page, removing a redlink to a place that happened to be in India and related in no other way to the conduct that got them sanctioned. I'm not obligated as an administrator to enforce the rules strictly. I oppose lengthening the topic ban. Both Cullen and Femke expressed competence concerns that I share, but those are outside the scope of AE as they don't involve any contentious topics or other ArbCom rulings. If one of them indeffed, I wouldn't object, but maybe someone wants to try explaining to them how their articles could be better first before we hit the indef button? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    KronosAlight

    KronosAlight is topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:56, 1 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 KronosAlight

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Butterscotch Beluga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    KronosAlight (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/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 14 December 2024
    • Adds "depiste being an ex-Muslim" to dismiss accusations of Islamophobia MOS:EDITORIAL.
    • Adds MOS:SCAREQUOTES around ‘promoted Islamophobia’ & ‘Islamophobia’ while removing the supporting context.
    • Changed "interpreted that statement as a threat and incitement to violence" to "claimed was a threat and incitement to violence, though no threats or violence in fact occurred" MOS:CLAIM & MOS:EDITORIAL
    1. 14 December 2024 - MOS:TERRORIST
    1. 14 December 2024 - MOS:TERRORIST
    2. 14 December 2024 - MOS:TERRORIST
    • Unnecessarily specific additions that may constitute WP:POVPUSH such as adding "against civilians" & changing "prevent the assassinations of many Israelis" to "prevent the assassinations of many Israeli civilians and soldiers"
    1. 14 December 2024 - MOS:TERRORIST
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. 24 June 2024 Warned to abide by the one-revert rule when making edits within the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.
    2. 22 October 2024 Blocked from editing for 1 week for violating consensus required on the page Zionism
    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

    All edits were made at Mosab Hassan Yousef. After I partially reverted their edits with an explanation, I brought the issue to their attention on the talk page, asking for their rationale. They replied that they were "correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors" & asked if I "perhaps have a deeper bias that’s influencing decisions in this respect?"

    They then undid my partial revert

    Ealdgyth - While I can't find any comments where they were explicitly "warned for casting aspersions", they were asked back in June to WP:AGF in the topic area.
    Also, apologies for my "diffs of edits that violate this sanction" section, this is the first time I've filed a request here & I thought it'd be best to explain the preamble to my revert, but I understand now that I misunderstood the purpose of that section & will remember such for the future. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Vanamonde93 I was able to find a copy of the opinion article being cited 'They Need to Be Liberated From Their God'. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning KronosAlight

    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 KronosAlight

    This is a complete waste of the Arbitration Committee’s time.

    1. That Yousef was born and raised a Muslim is important and neutral context for readers to be aware of when the article refers to claims of ‘Islamophobia’.

    2. The scarequotes indicate that the claim comes from the sources provided, rather than being an objective ‘fact’ determined by a few Misplaced Pages Editors with an axe to grind.

    3. This was already addressed on the Talk page and I updated the sentence to say settlers/soldiers with a further label that it needed further clarification because the source does not in fact unambiguously say what Butterscotch Beluga claims.

    A few lines above what Butterscotch Beluga quotes is the following lines: “AMANPOUR: How did you take part in that? Were you one of the small children who threw rocks at Israeli soldiers?

    YOUSEF: The model for every Palestinian child is a mujahid (ph) or a fidahi (ph) or a fighter. So, of course, I wanted to be one at that point of my life. It wasn't -- it's not my only dream. It's every child's dream in that territory.”

    The updated Wiki page noted both settlers/soldiers and included a note that this requires further clarification, perhaps based on other sources, because it isn’t clear (contra Butterscotch Beluga) whether he is referring to soldiers or settlers.

    4. It is not controversial to accurately describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation. It is simply a fact. To suggest otherwise is POV-pushing.

    5. This is not POVPUSH; ‘assassinations’ against civilians during peacetime are usually called ‘murders’.

    I in fact didn’t even remove the word ‘assassinations’, I merely broadened the description from ‘Israelis’ to ‘Israeli civilians and soldiers’ (as Butterscotch accepted) to indicate the breadth of the individuals in question included both civilians and combatants. This is not POVPUSH, it is simply additional information and context verified in the source itself.

    All in all, a vexatious claim and a waste of the Arbitration Committee’s time.

    Statement by Sean.hoyland

    Regarding "I was correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors", it would be helpful if KronosAlight would explicitly identify the antisemitic editors and the edits they corrected so that they can be blocked for being antisemitic editors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    The editor has been here since 2012. It is reasonable to assume that they know the rules regarding aspersions. It is reasonable to assume they are intentionally violating them, presumably because they genuinely believe they are dealing with antisemitic editors. So, this report is somehow simultaneously a vexatious complete waste of time and the result of the someone interfering with their valiant efforts to correct errors made by antisemitic editors. Why do they have this belief? This is probably a clue, a comment they had the good sense to revert. For me, this is an example of someone attempting to use propaganda that resembles antisemitic conspiracy theories about media control to undermine Misplaced Pages's processes and then changing their mind. But the very fact that they thought of it is disturbing. Their revert suggests that they are probably aware that there are things you can say about an editor and things you cannot say about an editor. From my perspective, what we have here is part of an emerging pattern in the topic area, a growing number of attacks on Misplaced Pages and editors with accusations of antisemitism, cabals etc. stemming in part from external partisan sources/influence operations. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    Statement by Zero0000

    Aspersions:

    Zero 10:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    Statement by Vice regent

    KronosAlight, you changed on 14 Dec 2024: "An open letter signed by Christian and Muslim religious leaders interpreted that statement as a threat and incitement to violence" to "An open letter signed by Christian and Muslim religious leaders claimed was a threat and incitement to violence, though no threats or violence in fact occurred".

    Can you show where either of the sources state "though no threats or violence in fact occurred"? VR (Please ping on reply) 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    Statement by Smallangryplanet

    Wanted to add some pertinent evidence:

    Talk:Zionism:

    Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon:

    Talk:Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world:

    Talk:2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks:

    Talk:Anti-Zionism:

    Talk:Gaza genocide:

    Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre:

    Talk:Al-Sardi school attack:

    Talk:Eden Golan:

    Other sanctions:

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning KronosAlight

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Much of the "diffs of edits that violate this sanction" fail to explain "how these edits violate" the sanction - to me, much of these diffs look like a content dispute. However, the "additional comments" section DOES have a diff that is concerning and violates the CT by casting an aspersion that is not backed up by a diff - the "antisemitic editors" diff. Has KA been previously warned for casting aspersions? If they have, I'm inclined to issue a topic ban, but many other editors get a warning for this if they lack a previous warning. The diffs brought up by Zero (not all of which I necessarily see as aspersions, but the "Jew-hatred" one is definitely over the line - but it's from September so a bit late to sanction for just that) - did anyone point out that aspersions/incivility in this topic area is sanctionable? I see the warnings for 1RR and consensus required... Ealdgyth (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      • @KronosAlight: - can you address the fact that saying "correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors" and "Is there no limits you will not cross in order to seek to justify your Jew-hatred"? Neither of these are statements that should ever be made - and the fact that you seem to not to understand this is making me lean towards a topic ban. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    • KronosAlight, can you please provide quotes from the references you cited for - for instance - "for his terrorist activities" in this addition, showing that the sources explicitly supported the content you added? Calling a person or an organization is perfectly acceptable if you support that with reliable sources; if it is original research, or source misrepresentation, it isn't acceptable. I cannot access some of the sources in question. You may provide quotes inside a collapsed section if you wish to save space. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      I missed Zero's comments earlier. A lot of those comments, while concerning, are generic, not directed at a specific editor. this, however, is beyond the pale. I would need some convincing that this user is able to edit this area constructively. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      @KronosAlight, can you please respond to this? I too am concerned...the quote you're objecting to wasn't from DrSmarty. It was a direct quote, scare quotes and all, from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. You seem to have reacted to it as if it were DrSmarty. Valereee (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I don't like to sanction in absentia, and I'm not yet suggesting we do so, but I want to note that not choosing not to respond here, or going inactive to avoid responding, will not improve the outcome as far as I am concerned. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
      They're a pretty sporadic editor...many edits over a period of a few days, then nothing for two weeks. Maybe we pin this until they edit again? Valereee (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
      I agree with Valereee that this editors contribution history shows a pattern of editing for a day or two at a time followed by several weeks of inactivity. So I don't think it's fair to say they went inactive here but also holding this open for multiple weeks waiting for a response places some burden on the other other interested editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
      Welp, it's been nearly ten days since they first posted here, calling this a waste of time and vexatious. They're fully aware it's happening, and it's not even like they haven't been to AE before.
      I've gone through the diffs here, and it seems to me the basis of KA's problematic editing is that they're on a mission to WP:right great wrongs, specifically w/re what they see as antisemitic bias on WP. The exchange at Talk:Algeria a few weeks ago makes that pretty clear: they come into Algeria and open a section to post a content complaint about the article not covering changing Jewish demographics in the country, saying "Many people have edited it, but apparently not one has seen fit to explain" this. Another editor suggests KA fix whatever problem they're seeing, and KA responds: I made that comment to highlight the obvious problem of antisemitism among Misplaced Pages editors. The question was rhetorical. And many of their other talk contributions are focussed on these accusations of systemic bias.
      And @KronosAlight, in case you're paying attention: of course WP has systemic bias. It's usually unintentional, but in most CTOPs there are editors who consciously try to push a POV. The solution for that isn't to go 'round making accusations. It's to go 'round fixing the problem either by adding missing content or by discussing biased content in nonproblematic ways. It's the "nonproblematic ways" part you're missing, here. And if you are paying attention: You cannot make an AE case go away by ignoring it. I very strongly recommend you come in here and respond to the questions. Valereee (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I propose closing this with an indefinite topic ban in a day or two, unless KA decides to respond. I think KA needs to be aware that they have fallen short of the required standards of behavior no matter the topic, and similar incivility elsewhere will quite likely result in an indefinite block. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
      Support. Valereee (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
      Been watching this thread from afar, but it looks like a civil POV-pushing case to me and I support as well. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
      I don't know about that. I haven't determined if their edits were supported by sources or not - so I don't know if this is POV-pushing - but it looks pretty uncivil to me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      Oh, that's fair on the civility :) I was mostly looking at the mainspace edits. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nicoljaus

    Appeal declined --Guerillero 19:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

    To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

    Appealing user
    Nicoljaus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed
    To enforce an arbitration decision, and for edit warring, and intent to game 1rr, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages.
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    I'm aware. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Statement by Nicoljaus

    The circumstances of my blocking were:

    • I was looking for a Misplaced Pages account for Hiba Abu Nada to add it to Wikidata. I couldn't find it, so I did a little research. The reference in the article indicated that she participated in some WikiWrites(?) project. I didn’t find such a project, but I found the WikiRights project: https://ar.wikipedia.org/ويكيبيديا:ويكي_رايتس. It was organized by a certain Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. I read the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor article and didn't see any outside perspective, "controversy" or anything like that, just self-representation. I surfed the Internet and instantly found information that must be in the article to comply with the NPOV. I started adding , everything went well for two days. Then:
    • 12:53, 23 April 2024 - Zero0000 made a complete cancellation of all additions
    • 13:14, 23 April 2024 - (20 minutes later!) Selfstudier wrote on my TP
    • 14:20 - 14:22, 23 April 2024 -‎ With two edits (first, second) I partially took into account the comment of Zero0000 about "ethnic marking", but returned the last .
    • 14:27, 23 April 2024 (7 minutes later!!) Selfstudier makes a second complete cancellation of all my edits, blaming POV editing
    • 14:45, 23 April 2024‎ - I’m returning the version where I partially took into account Zero0000’s comments (removed "ethnic marking")
    • 15:10, 23 April 2024 - Selfstudier accuses me of 1RR breach. In the dialogue, I explained that the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination. My first undo was part of a counter edit User talk:Nicoljaus#1RR_breach
    • 15:41, 23 April 2024 Selfstudier writes on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
    • 16:10, 23 April 2024 (30 minutes later!) ScottishFinnishRadish issues an indefinite block . No opportunity to write my “statement”, as well as an extremely bad faith interpretation of my remark as "an intent to game 1rr".

    Given that the both Selfstudier and Zero0000 are currently being discussed in Arbcom (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence), I humbly ask you to take a fresh look at my indefinite block and soften the restrictions in some way". Nicoljaus (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    @ScottishFinnishRadish: - You mean, I need to discuss my previous edit war blocks? Well, the last one was almost four years ago and that time I simply forgot that I was under 1RR (there was a big break in editing) and tried to get sources for a newly added map, and the opponent refused to do so . As it turned out later, the true source was a book by a fringe author, which the RSN called "Usual nationalistic bullshit, no sign of reliability". Yes, it was a stupid forgetfulness on my part. Nicoljaus (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Aquillion: Even if you were correct that Selfstudier & Zero0000 were WP:TAGTEAMing (always a tricky accusation, because it's hard to separate that from just your edits being so obviously problematic that two people independently reverted them) -- That's why I wrote that my "so problematic edits" attracted attention only after two days, but two users appeared within 20 minutes. However, after months, a lot of data about the cooperation of these users appeared (and this is not my imagination): "While a single editor, Shane (a newbie), advocated for its inclusion, a trio of veterans including Zero0000, Nishidani and Selfstudier fought back. After Selfstudier accused Shane of being a troll for arguing for the photo’s inclusion, Zero0000, days later, “objected” to its inclusion, citing issues of provenance. Nishidani stepped in to back up Zero0000, prompting a response by Shane. The following day, Zero0000 pushed back against Shane, who responded. The day after, Nishidani returned with his own pushback. The tag-team effort proved too much for Shane, who simply gave up, and the effort succeeded: the photo remains absent" . I'll add that after Selfstudier accused Shane of trolling, Zero0000 appeared on Shane's page and said: "Kindly keep your insults to yourself I won't hesitate to propose you for blocking if you keep it up" . According to the table at the link , these two users cooperated like this 720 times. Probably hundreds of people were embittered, forced out of the project, or led to blocking like me.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    @ScottishFinnishRadish: Hello, thank you very much for transferring my remarks, now I understand how it works. I would like to clarify the issue of meatpuppetry. You directly accused me of such intentions in justifying the block, and now this accusation has been repeated . Let's figure out whether my hint that Selfstudier and Zero0000 are working too closely was so absurd? Was it really and remains so absurd that it could not be perceived as anything other than my self-exposure? I don't think so.

    As for the "edit war" - I understand that edit wars are evil. In the spirit of cooperation, I tried to meet my opponents halfway, as in this case, taking into account their claim, which I could understand, in the counter edit. If such an action is also considered an edit war and a violation of the 1RR/3RR rule - I will of course avoid it in the future.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Valereee: Hello, I understand your point that edit wars can be disruptive, particularly in a CTOP context. However, I believe it is essential to recognize that not all reverts carry the same implications. While it is true that a revert is a revert, the context and intent behind the action should also be taken into account. In this instance, I made efforts to address the concerns of the other party involved, which reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue rather than simply reverting. Furthermore, I acknowledge your reference to the 1RR/3RR rule and my history of blocks for edit-warring. However, given the amount of time that has passed, I believe I have gained valuable insights and learned a great deal. Moreover, given this topic, I think I actually learned something unlike the other side, whose history of blocks for edit-warring remains clean.--Nicoljaus (talk) 4:24 am, Today (UTC−5)

    @Valereee: In response to this, I can say that I already know very well how carelessly admins impose blocks. If any further statements are needed from me, just ping me. With best regards.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

    Absent from the appeal is discussion of the five prior edit warring blocks and any indication that they will not resume edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    I said They have a long history of edit warring, so I'd like to see that addressed rather than blaming others above, twelve days ago. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Nicoljaus, you should be focusing on convincing people that you won't edit war in the future rather than more WP:NOTTHEM. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Statement by (involved editor 1)

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nicoljaus

    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 Simonm223

    This edit looks like a bright-line WP:BLP violation via WP:ATTACK and WP:WEASEL - and removing BLP violations are generally somewhere where there is some latitude on WP:1RR which makes the actions of Zero0000 and Selfstudier more justified, not less. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Statement by Aquillion

    Selfstudier accuses me of 1RR breach. In the dialogue, I explained that the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination. My first undo was part of a counter edit - I feel like this is obvious enough that I probably don't have to point it out, but "counter edit" is not a WP:3RR / WP:1RR exception. Even if you were correct that Selfstudier & Zero0000 were WP:TAGTEAMing (always a tricky accusation, because it's hard to separate that from just your edits being so obviously problematic that two people independently reverted them), it still would not justify your revert. The fact that they're parties to an ArbCom case (which hasn't even yet found any fault with them!) doesn't change any of this. You should probably read WP:NOTTHEM. --Aquillion (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Statement by Sean.hoyland

    "the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination"...yet another conspiracy-minded evidence-free accusation against editors in the PIA topic area, the third one at AE in just a few days. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

    Result of the appeal by Nicoljaus

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I do not see any indication that Nicoljaus actually realizes the problem. The edit warring blocks were indeed some time ago, but one might think they would remember it after being blocked for it repeatedly, not to mention that being issued a CTOP notice might call a CTOP restriction to mind. And the remark in question sure looks to me like a threat to game 1RR via meatpuppetry, too. Given all that, I would decline this appeal. Seraphimblade 23:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I see nothing in this appeal that makes me think they've taken on board the changes that they'd need to do to be a productive editor. It reads to me like "my block was bad, here's why", and that's not working as a reason for me to support unblocking. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Nicoljaus, what we need to see is you demonstrating you understand edit-warring at a CTOP, which is what you were blocked for, and convincing us you won't do it again. Arguing the block should be lifted because other editors did something you thought looked suspicious isn't going to convince us. Just FWIW, Nicoljaus, the source doesn't actually say these two users cooperated like this 720 times. It says they edited the same articles 720 times, and that's not unusual. Most editors see the same other editors over and over again in articles about their primary interest. And edit by editor 1>2 days>revert by editor 2>revert by editor 1>20 minutes>revert by editor 3 is also not at all unusual anywhere on the encyclopedia and isn't evidence of tag-teaming. People read their watch lists. Any editor with that article on their watchlist, which is nearly fifty editors, might have investigated the large revert of an edit by an experienced editor at a contentious topic. Valereee (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Nicoljaus, it's not that edit wars are evil. It's that they're disruptive, and particularly in a CTOP we really really don't need additional disruption and drama. A revert is a revert, even if you tried to meet my opponents halfway, as in this case, taking into account their claim, which I could understand, in the counter edit. Re: If such an action is also considered an edit war and a violation of the 1RR/3RR rule: a revert is a revert and is covered in the policy around reversions. And you have a history of blocks for edit-warring, including at other CTOPs.
      It's been seven months since the block. I'm trying to come around to a way to at least allow this editor a chance to show us they've taken this stuff on board...maybe a 0RR at all CTOPs? Valereee (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Nicoljaus, re I believe it is essential to recognize that not all reverts carry the same implications. While it is true that a revert is a revert, the context and intent behind the action should also be taken into account. In this instance, I made efforts to address the concerns of the other party involved, which reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue rather than simply reverting. Some editors at talk pages will take your apparent intentions into account. Some will just take you to ANEW. Some admins at ANEW will take your apparent intentions into account. Some will just reblock you.
      No one anywhere is promising that your intentions will be taken into account -- or even that they'll try to figure out what your intentions are -- and therefore it's completely your responsibility to read the situation you're in correctly. If you read it wrong, you're likely to be blocked again, and honestly another block for edit-warring at a CTOP is likely to be another indef, and it would absolutely not surprise me for the blocking admin to require 12 months to appeal. Valereee (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      No need to reply, but I'll tell you plainly I've been trying to give you opportunities to convince other admins here, and you keep wanting to dig the hole deeper. I'd support an unblock with an editing restriction of 0RR at any article with a CTOPs designation on the talk page. Valereee (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I would also decline this per Seraphimblade, even if there were to be an unblock I would expect a PIA topic-ban (at the least) to be included. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I see a rough consensus, so I am closing the thread --Guerillero 19:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    PerspicazHistorian

    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)

    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)

    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.

    Walter Tau

    Consensus to indefinitely block Walter Tau. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:11, 31 December 2024 (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 Walter Tau

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Bobby Cohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Walter Tau (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. 4 December 2024 Creation (and subsequent editing and AfC submission) of Draft:Maternity capital. See it's page history, there's no need to supply the entirety of the diffs here.
      • For context on how this subject falls under the purview, see the context given by the news article as shared on the talk page: Russia using adoption of Ukranian children during the Russo-Ukranian war. Then note how this state program directly discusses adoption support, which was adapted by Putin following the start of the war. A citation given in the draft article. The Google translated version specifically notes the changes "At the same time, residents of the new regions will receive maternity capital regardless of the basis and timing of their acquisition of Russian citizenship" (emphasis mine).
      This draft, as it is written, is extremely promotional in areas and could basically be hosted on a state-sponsored website. Given the context, I believe this falls under the topic ban.

    References

    1. Bruce, Camdyn (14 December 2022). "Ukrainian official rips Russia for 'kidnapping' more than 13,000 children". The Hill.
    2. "Путин подписал закон, уточняющий условия выплаты материнского капитала" . interfax.ru.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. 26 November 2024 Notice given by Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that they were now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
    2. 5 December 2024 Blocked by Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for violating the sanction based on the edits to a project page.
    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

    It has been repeatedly pointed out to Walter Tau that they are skirting the line of the their topic ban by specifically not mentioning the "elephant in the room", see the diff by Asilvering above. They have also repeatedly chosen to ignore advice that they stop editing in the subject area and have repeatedly claimed to fail to see how their editing is problematic. As such, I have opened this discussion here so as to get an answer for Walter Tau on their editing, see "Also, since you mentioned a "topic ban", I would appreciate, if you provide a reference to it, as well as explain how it relates to this article Materniy Capital." They claim to continuously be unaware of the ban, see also their talk page discussions.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notified 24 December 2024.


    Discussion concerning Walter Tau

    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 Walter Tau

    I feel, that the decision by Boby Cohn regarding my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Maternity_capital, is "arbitrary and capriciuos" to use US legal terms : ], for the following reasons:

    1) nowhere my draft mentions the words "Ukraine" or "Ukrainian".

    2) this draft ] is a translation of the original Russian wiki- article : https://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB . I have heard the argument, that different languages in Misplaced Pages use different standards for articles' notability etc. Can someone please provide a web-link to Misplaced Pages rules, that actually confirms, that different standards for different languages is the currently accepted policy. I have been unable to find such statement.

    3) In fact, my draft focuses mostly on the policies before 24 February 2022, i.e. before full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    4) Please correct me, if I am wrong, by it seems that Boby Cohn's only argument of my ban violation is the following statement in my draft of Maternity Capital. "Residents of new regions are paid maternity capital regardless of the time and basis for obtaining Russian citizenship." In my defense: I did not write that statement- it is a Google translation from the Russian wiki, actually a small part of the translated text. And with all honesty, when I was reading the translated text, it did not cross my mind, that someone may interpret so broadly. Also, this sentence-in-question does not really add much to the main subject to the article, and I do not object to its deletion.

    5) Considering, that a) I did not write, but only translated the text-in-question; b) the relevance to the text-in-question to my topic ban is not apparent, particularly in the larger context of the whole article; c) I do not object deleting the text-in-question from the draft; may I suggest changing the draft to fix this controversy?

    6) If there are other controversial sections/sentences in my translated draft, it may be better if someone re-writes them. Most wiki-readers, can agree with a statement, that this draft ] may not reach an "Article of the Day" status, but it has a value as a stand-alone article as well as a source of references (more-to-be-added). Walter Tau (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    I can see now, why some editors consider the translated addition, that I made, a violation of my ban on editing Russia-Ukraine topic. It was not my intention. I fact, I agree with the deletion of the questionable sentence "Residents of new regions are paid maternity capital regardless of the time and basis for obtaining Russian citizenship.". At the same time, I would like to keep the rest of draft, so that myself and other keep working on getting it published. Do I understand correctly, that the notability of this topic is not being questioned?

    Statement by TylerBurden

    Walter Tau doesn't seem to think they have done anything wrong on Misplaced Pages, so it's honestly not surprising to see them continuing to push the limit despite the sanctions they have received. At some point you have to wonder if there is a foundational WP:COMPETENCE or trolling (or a combination of both) issue. Either way, yes they are clearly violating their topic ban by writing about the Russian kidnapping of Ukrainian children from the war, because that is what this whole ″adoption″ thing is. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Walter Tau

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Sidestepping for now the question of whether simply not mentioning anything conflict-related would have been enough to avoid a TBAN violation, the references to "new regions" make this a violation much more straightforwardly. Justice is blind but not stupid. Walter, I think we're going to need to see recognition from you that this was a TBAN violation, if we're going to find a good path forward here. I'd also like to know who you are referring to when you reference other editors working on the draft? Auric has made some gnomish edits but you appear to be the only substantive editor. And why are you implying, on Bobby's talk, that y'all have been corresponding by email, when he denies that? -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 22:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I'll be direct: I think Walter knows what he is doing and has no intention of abiding by his TBAN, even when it was exhaustively explained to him, and I don't think we should be wasting further time here when we're almost certainly going to be right back here again within a few weeks. ⇒SWATJester 05:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Back off a one week block for violating the topic ban, and already violating it again? (The "new regions" material is unquestionably a violation.) It seems that Walter Tau is either unwilling or unable to abide by the restriction, and does not, even after explanation, understand any of the issues here (or even understand something so simple as that different language Wikipedias are independent from one another and each have their own policies and practices). Given that, I don't see anything to be done here except to indef. Seraphimblade 17:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I am 48 hours early to the party, but I would support an indef here --Guerillero 16:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Tamzin and Swatjester: Planning to close this one, since it's been a week – any closing thoughts on the remedy? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Seems like everyone responding so far is aligned w/ an indef, which I'd support. ⇒SWATJester 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    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).