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 05:39, 19 June 2009 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,544 edits →Gragg: closed← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:34, 9 January 2025 edit undoSeraphimblade (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,240 edits →PerspicazHistorian: Closing 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude> {{pp-move-indef}}
{{Shortcut|WP:AE}}
{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}}
={{anchor|toptoc}}Requests for enforcement=
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!--
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}
--><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly>
{{User:MiszaBot/config
<noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!--
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 41
|counter =347
|algo = old(2d)
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}
}}
<!--PLEASE PLACE NEW REQUESTS BELOW THIS NOTICE -->


==PerspicazHistorian==
==Gragg==
{{hat|{{u|PerspicazHistorian}} is blocked indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC) }}
{{discussion top}}
<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 Gragg===
;User requesting enforcement: ]] 05:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
;User against whom enforcement is requested: {{userlinks|Gragg}}
;Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: ]
;Sanction or remedy that has been violated:]
;] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: Just one example of edit warring on one article:
;Explanation ''how'' these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: The contribs of {{User|Gragg}} almost exclusively consist of page move wars on AA articles. Please check his contribs:
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]): revert restriction, page move ban.
;Additional comments: Gragg was repeatedly warned of edit warring (check his talk page), including a warning with a link to arbitration case ] a year ago: No signs of stopping.
;Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:


===Discussion concerning Gragg=== ===Request concerning PerspicazHistorian===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*Yes, Gragg has been move warring. I'm inclined to grant this request unless persuaded otherwise by Gragg's reply. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
*Agree, that's move warring;a ban against page move and revert restriction seems completely appropriate. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|PerspicazHistorian}}<p>{{ds/log|PerspicazHistorian}}</p>
I am completing Grandmaster's report by presenting you the other . Note that there was a CU request in the past on Baki66 which was unanswered as well as a report here. Either users should discuss on the appropriate name usages for articles or refrain from this senseless move war. Thanks. - ] (]) 03:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
:Thanks, Fedayee. I've warned him about the arbitration case. We can't sanction him now because he does not seem to have been warned previously. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
(''Copied from ]:'') About ], complain on me, Gragg. I badly know English, and mostly edit Russian Misplaced Pages. I do not know where discuss rename the article in enwiki.
<!--- 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 far as I know, articles about the geographical object in Nagorno-Karabakh should be named, as they named in 1988, until war. I watched several of these articles (in ruWiki) and saw that the name of the some English articles do not satisfy this rule. So, I have to rename them. But my change was removed Baku66, аnd other members warned him for breach of ]: .
<!-- 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 :
Please do not deprive me the possibility to rename the article. I am ready to discuss the names of those articles. ] (]) 13:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
<!-- 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)
===Result concerning Gragg===
A sanction is appropriate here because Grag continued move-warring in spite of warnings. If one does not speak English enough to participate in discussions, one should not edit the English Misplaced Pages at all. For advice on how articles should be named, see ].


: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)
Gragg is sanctioned as follows for six months each with respect to pages relating to Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly defined:
* He is banned from moving such pages, but may propose or discuss moves on discussion pages.
* He is banned from making more than one revert per page per seven-day period. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}


*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)
==Shotlandiya==
{{discussion top}}
===Request concerning Shotlandiya===
;User requesting enforcement: -- ] 06:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
;User against whom enforcement is requested: {{userlinks|Shotlandiya}}
;Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: ]
;Sanction or remedy that has been violated:]
;] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy:
#
#
# "ethnic Russians who face discrimination and persecution from the pro-Nazi regime in Estonia.", "anything from the Estonian media should come with a caution that it comes from a country with a record of discrimination, persecution and human rights abuses against ethnic minorities."
# Re-creation of , a previously deleted attack page.
# Edit warring on ] (high profile BLP, member of the government) to exclude highly relevant and well-sourced comments about the alleged incident from Jaak Aaviksoo himself. Refuses to discuss on the talk page. Reverts: , , , ,
# Edit warring on ] (BLP) to include highly personal information (health issues) sourced in a personal (third-party) website (]). Refused to discuss on the talk page until this morning, but that edit is already linked above. Reverts/inserts: , , , , , , , , , ,
# Edit warring on ] (BLP) to include allegations of Russophobia, based on a link in the subject's personal blog. Reverted by numerous editors as coat-track. Inserts/reverts: , ,
# (on the Misplaced Pages user talk page of Edward Lucas)
# BLP of Russian politician Mikhail_Kasyanov:
# Edit warring to insert defamatory statements in BLP of world chess champion Kasparov
;Explanation ''how'' these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Constant edit warring, disregarding basic Misplaced Pages rules about biographies of the living persons, disregarding Misplaced Pages rules about sources, not adhering to a neutral position in edits, failing to assume a good faith, racist comments in talk pages and edit summaries, personal attacks directed at individuals and whole groups.
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]): Block, followed by a topic ban from Baltic and BLP articles.
;Additional comments:
;Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
===Discussion concerning Shotlandiya===
<!-- 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. -->
<small>(Note: diffs above converted to numbered list for better reference. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC))</small>


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
*'''Endorse'''. --] (]) 07:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


===Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian ===
*I don't think the evidence of edit-warring is particularly bad in the context (the area has little 1RR restriction), and don't think a 1rr restriction would be helpful. His references to Estonians are not very pleasant, and so I do think that a 3 to 6 month topic-ban from Estonian and Latvian articles and talk pages would be justified; if he comes back after that and can't restrain himself, it can be changed to indefinite. His use of sources isn't very inspiring in relation to BLPs. His veiled attacks on journalists like Edward Lucas, who would be outside the Estonian-Latvian topic ban, are clearly motivated by political sentiment, and I think it will be in wikipedia's and his interest to keep him away from them ... indefinitely. Does he do any significant good BLP work on people who are more politically neutral? An immediate block on top of these sanctions would be superfluous unless this behavior resumes during this process. These are my initial thoughts at least. His response should of course be awaited, and I would be interested to know how common kind of thing is. ] (<small>]</small>) 07:32, 12 June 2009 (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 PerspicazHistorian ====
*I think an Estonian-Latvian topic ban is a good place to start and I would suggest 3 months, but the BLP problems are also a serious concern. There seems to be a crusade for "truth" here and I'm very concerned that it led to harassing an editor who's the subject of an article. Even the BLP issues seem to be centered around certain nationalist feelings, so perhaps if the ban was widened to include any edits loosely related to the topic? This should be a short leash though since unfortunately, I don't see any good-faith contributions that would off-set the ongoing problems. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
*By far I am also concerned how my edits were forcefully reverted without a proper reason despite providing enough references. Please check how I am getting attacked by them on ] Page.
*Deacon of Pndapetzim has several good points. Edit-warring is a minor problem in this case, certainly dwarfed by mishandling of sources and especially the BLP violations. Another Estonian minister has already had to raise the issue of BLP violations (injected by the now-banned ]) in article about him; let's not make a habit of it. All in all, '''endorse'''. ]<sub>]</sub> 09:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
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.
*Sander Säde, please provide diffs indicating that Shotlandiya was previously warned against the objectionable conduct, as required by ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:2) Many of other sources are not raj era. Moreover I myself have deleted the content way before you pointing this out. Thank You ! ] (]) 06:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:, . Also, I should point out that many users who have faced discretionary sanctions according to WP:DIGWUREN never received formal notice before the block - does it mean these blocks are invalid? -- ] 10:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:*He was warned previously about BLP issues in regard to Edward Lucas, so he cannot have been unaware of the problem of BLP when it was raised on ] and ] --] (]) 11:02, 12 June 2009 (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
*This seems be part of a larger dispute between two groups of users. For context, one should study the evidence presented and . No action against Digwuren or anyone else was taken, although the evidence was (imho) even stronger than what is presented here against Shotlandiya. Taking action against Shotlandiya would thus seem unfair. It is perhaps telling that when similar evidence of personal attacks and uncivil comments by Digwuren was presented, Martintg (who here supports the blocking of Shotlandiya for similar crimes) made the following comment: ''it is clear that Digwuren's comment was a light hearted expression of his frustration that more isn't done to protect Russian articles from blatant vandalism rather than squabbling over the article Internet operations by Russian secret police. The fact that Offliner should choose to affect offense over this comment says more about his WP:BATTLEGROUND and vexatious approach rather than anything about Digwuren's behavior. --Martintg (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC) ''. Perhaps all these allegations of misconduct should be judged in a single ArbCom case, instead of launcing individual threads, so that we won't lose the context? ] (]) 11:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:1)Yes I usually edit on RSS related topics, but to ensure a democratic view is maintained as many socks try to disrupt such articles. Even on ] page, I just edited on request of talk page and added a graph. I don't think its a POV push.
:*No, we've already had the ArbCom case - the ''Digwuren case'' - and now we're enforcing it. It is preferable to examine and if need be sanction each user's alleged misconduct individually based on clear reports. I'll review the evidence this evening, unless another administrator has already closed the case by then. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:2) My main interest in editing is ] and ] topics.
:3)There have been certain cases in past where I was blocked but if studied carefully they were result of me edit warring with socks(although, through guidance of various experienced editors and admins I learnt a SPI should be filed first). I have learnt a lot in my journey and there have been nearly zero case of me of edit warring this month.
:Please do not block me. ] (]) 14:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*@] I beg apologies for the inconvenience caused, thanks for correcting me. I will now reply in my own statement section. @] I am a quick learner and professionally competent to edit in this encyclopedic space. Please consider reviewing this enforcement if its an counter-attack on me as mentioned in my previous replies. You all are experienced editors and I have good faith in your decision-making capability.] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*@]@] I have edited content marked as "original research" and "mess" by you, I am ready to help removing any content that might be considered "poorly sourced" by the community. Please don't block me.] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*@] This enforcement started for edit-warring and now I feel its more concerned to my edited content(which I agree to cooperate and change wherever needed). After learning about edit wars, there has been no instance of me edit-warring, Please consider my request.--] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@] I am not a slow learner, I understand the concerns of all admins here. I will try my best to add only reliable sources, and discuss content in all talk pages, as I already mentioned ]. ] (]) 12:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@]@] I think admins should focus more on encouraging editors when they do good and correct when mistaken. I have made many edits, added many citations and created much articles which use fine citations. The enforcement started out of retaliation by nxcrypto, now moving towards banning me anyways. I started editing out of passion, and doing it here on wiki unlike those who come here just for pov pushes and disrupt article space(talking about socks and vandalizers on contentious Indian topics).
*::The article ] doesn't only has issue on citations, but the whole article is copypasted from the citations I added. I just wanted to point that out. Remaining about ], I am currently pursuing Btech in cs from IIT delhi, idt I am a slow learner by any means. Still, happy new year to all ! ] (]) 14:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::@] You mean to say, "<sub>The ''prasada'' is to be consumed by attendees as a holy offering. The offerings may include cooked food, ] and confectionery sweets. Vegetarian food is usually offered and later distributed to the devotees who are present in the ]. Sometimes this vegetarian offering will exclude prohibited items such as garlic, onion, mushroom, etc. "</sub> is not copy pasted by website? Is this also a wiki mirror website? How would you feel if I doubt your competence now? ] (]) 14:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::@ ] I just asked others to share their opinion in the enforcement. With all due respect, I don't think its wrong in any sense. ] (]) 15:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::To all the admins involved here,
*:::::* I agree to keep learning and apologize if my previous edits/replies have annoyed the admins.
*:::::* I have not edit warred since a month and please see it as my willingness to keep learning and getting better.
*:::::*Please give me a chance, I understand concern of you all and respect your opinion in the matter. But please don't block me from editing from main article space. I promise that I will abide by all the rules and will learn from other editors.
*:::::] (]) 15:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by LukeEmily====
I am the user being discussed here, and I would like to say a few words in my defence. I entirely accept that my editing of Misplaced Pages has been somewhat aggressive, and I should not have used the language I did about Estonia. It was wrong and I will accept any sanction as a result as it was a clear error of judgement on my part.
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====
However, I agree with Offliner that this argument is part of a wider dispute between two sides of a political debate on Misplaced Pages - those who are generally favourable to letting the Russian side have a fair hearing on articles about Russian history and politics, and those who are more hostile towards Russia and the former Soviet Union. This thread is just personalising that disagreement even further and taking it to another level.
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)
If I have been excessive in my editing it is only in response to Digwuren who is very aggressive in his editing and seems to do little else on Misplaced Pages but edit articles and delete referenced material to make Russia look bad and Estonia look good. Digwuren constantly deletes information on spurious grounds and engages in edit-warring. We can look at his contributions to] and ] to see some examples of this. If a user like Digwuren deletes referenced material, or makes biased or POV additions to articles, then it is only fair to change it back. However, if he keeps reverting, and I keep reverting back, then we get into a situation where we are pulled up for edit-warring. How do you solve an impasse like that? My aggressive attitude was borne out of frustration at Digwuren consistently reverting sensible edits by myself.


====Statement by Toddy1====
In response to the specific charges against me:
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.
1) I accept that I should not have used the language I did about Estonia and I confirm I will refrain from doing so again. It was a clear violation of the rules and if that deserves punishment so be it.


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 .
2) I do not think my comments about there being a record of discrimination in Estonia are relevant to the debate as such claims can indeed be made (although they are debatable), as shown in ]. This should not be part of the argument here.


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.
3) I think allegations of failing to assume good faith could also be made against other users in this debate.


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)
4) I have no idea what you mean by BLP violations but I have always tried to be careful in the sources I use. I was not aware there was any problem with ]. I made a sourced contribution a year and a half ago that was removed without comment on the talk page, but I was never inclined to do anything about it. I do not know why it is being brought up now. The same is true for ]. I edit warred - almost two years ago? - and was warned about it. I ceased when asked to do. I don't think what I wrote was "defamatory" as it was referenced and the end consensus was to keep my contributions. The fact these are being brought up now shows this complaint is more about the material I am putting in and my obvious stance on these subjects, rather than my behaviour.


====Statement by Capitals00====
5) Again, I have not edited ] for over 7 months and indeed when I was involved in a dispute on that article it was dealt with on the talk page. Some of my contributions to the Lucas article were favourable to him after receiving his feedback on the talk page. My comment about MI6 was deleted immediately upon reflection and the subject in question thanked me for removing this. I believe there has been a consensus on that article for some time now.
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)
6) Yes, I re-created "Neo-nazism in Estonia". But I did not know the page had previously been created and then deleted. It was not an "attack" page. Several other editors dived right in and added more information and citations. But when it was deleted I did not attempt to re-create it again. Hardly the sign of someone deliberately being disruptive.


====Statement by Vanamonde93====
So I propose a compromise. I am perfectly happy to step back from the debate, take a deep breath and stop editing Estonia related articles for a while until we have all calmed down. I suggest Digwuren do the same. Any contentious topics can then be re-examined with a clearer head. I do think, however, that if I am to have sanctions placed against me then we also need to look at the behaviour of Digwuren, as I do not think I have behaved any worse than he has. In fact, I understand that since this notice was placed on me he has again removed my sourced material about the ] from ]. Presumably if I were to reinstate the information this would be another black mark against me?
{{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.
Regardless of what action, if any, is taken against me, I accept that these edit wars are disruptive, and I regret getting carried away in the way I have done, but I am not the only one who has been involved in these disputes and I think it is unfair to single me out on the basis of Sander Säde's complaint.] (]) 13:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


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)
In terms of making edits in good faith and being constructive I would also point administrators to my work on BLP articles like ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], etc, as articles where I have made what I believe to be helpful and uncontroversial contributions. ] (]) 13:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
*Please note that Shotlandiya made . He is obviously not a newcomer. This account should be checked for potential SPI problems. No, he did do any good to articles of Russian politicians (I provided a couple of BLP diffs above). He should be topic banned from all EE subjects rather than only the Estonian ones. ] (]) 14:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


Why? All the articles I listed on Russian BLPs that I contributed to were quite thorough and generally didn't warrant any debate or controversy? ] (]) 14:50, 12 June 2009 (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====
* Regarding Shotlandiya's "''However, I agree with Offliner that this argument is part of a wider dispute between two sides of a political debate on Misplaced Pages - those who are generally favourable to letting the Russian side have a fair hearing on articles about Russian history and politics, and those who are more hostile towards Russia and the former Soviet Union. This thread is just personalising that disagreement even further and taking it to another level.''" Offliner is also of the former class of editors. It is disingenuous to agree with Offliner as if they were an uninvolved party.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; The counter to this POV charaterization would be "''However, I agree with XYZ that this argument is part of a wider dispute between two sides of a political debate on Misplaced Pages - those who promote the (official government position) Russian side regardless of factual support (regarding versions of Baltic occupation, insisting the Waffen SS were convicted at Nuremberg, the resurrection of Nazism, et al.), and those who take issue with the Soviet representation of history (from a regime which stated "history serves politics") and what is now widely interpreted as Soviet gloridfication, witness the restoration of the bust of Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Cheka, to its place of honor in the courtyard of the Moscow police. The former category of editors seek to <u>make this appear to be a personal vendetta</u> on the part of the latter community of (Russophobic) Baltic and Eastern European editors against Russia, and trample on the memory of those that died in the Great Patriotic War helping save the world from Nazism.''"<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; There is nothing "personal" here. If we all stuck to reputable secondary sources fairly and accurately represented, <u>there would be no issues</u>. ] <SMALL><SMALL><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#ffffff;">&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></SMALL> ]</SMALL> 15:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
::"If we all stuck to reputable secondary sources fairly and accurately represented, there would be no issues." Indeed. For example, was quite disruptive. ] (]) 15:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
::: Amnesty International's contentions regarding Estonia have been disputed in other reputable sources. As inserted, AI's contentions were represented as statements of fact with no counterpoint. AI's contentions have been represented fairly and accurately as opinion{{mdash}}and counterbalanced appropriately{{mdash}}elsewhere. From my perspective, the edit and your contention demonstrate (a) attempts to represent anti-Baltic allegations as statements of fact and (b) characterization of deletion of such attempts as "removing reputable sources" (as the ubiquitous WP:IDONTLIKEIT) when the reason for removal is (a). If you have other diffs you would like to discuss, my talk page is open to all so we don't take space here. Thanks. ] <SMALL><SMALL><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#ffffff;">&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></SMALL> ]</SMALL> 16:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:::: You see, this is part of the problem. Whenever any reputable source is given that is criticial about Estonia, there is always some reason to delete it! The ] article is a fine example. The ] is a reputable source. I added their cited opinion on the subject, but it was deleted by Digwuren on the basis that they are allied to radical Russian naionalists in Latvia and so their views do not count - no referneces given. When he did this, I just reverted it. This ends up as an edit war, with the consequence that I'm hauled up on this disciplinary panel despite being far from the worst offender. ] (]) 16:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
::::: Perhaps I've been unclear. The <u>immediate</u> appropriate action (Offliner's example) was to remove AI's characterization as a statement of fact. You or Offliner, for example, could come back with an edit representing that as AI's opinion and add balancing positions{{mdash}}which anyone who follows the Baltic-Russian political relationship would be aware of. The editor deleting is not under an obligation to do that work for you. I've personally interceded in several of such edit wars (where I personally had leanings to one side) to completely rewrite article sections to present a balanced perspective. There's nothing to prevent you or another editor from doing the same. ] <SMALL><SMALL><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#ffffff;">&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></SMALL> ]</SMALL> 16:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
::::: P.S. I have not been following ] and I see a lot of back and forth in article content among multiple editors. If you'd like to discuss a specific diff here or on my talk page, you're welcome. ] <SMALL><SMALL><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#ffffff;">&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></SMALL> ]</SMALL> 16:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


:Based on , I'm more strongly leaning towards indef. - ] ] 12:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Offliners' views I hope will be considered as he was party to many of the disputes in question. Your way of characterising the disagreement between a group of editors is rather drawn out. I don't think that's the issue being discussed here. We're not here to talk about the SS, Nazism, etc. The issue is my "alleged" bad behaviour. ] (]) 15:43, 12 June 2009 (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 ===
: Offliner's views of course should and will be considered, as will yours. I am only pointing out that your comment suggests there are personal conflicts here based on hostile editors against you et al. who are only seeking a "fair hearing" for the Russian side--that is your POV, which I acknowledge and recognize--but at the same time I must point out that "fair" and "hostile" are tainted terms in terms of description of the opposing "sides." You agreed with the characerization of "personalization" of the conflict and "hostility" of editors. I responded that I don't agree with Offliner's position, nor your stated agreement with his position. ] <SMALL><SMALL><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#ffffff;">&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></SMALL> ]</SMALL> 15:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:''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)
Fair enough... Why don't we just say one side is generally "pro-Russian" and the other side generally "pro-Estonian", with all the caveats necessary. ] (]) 16:03, 12 June 2009 (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)
*:Given PH's recent slew of requests on multiple admin talk pages, yes, please do. - ] ] 12:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*<!--
-->


{{reflist talk}}
Wouldn't dispute resolution have been a better idea rather than using this method? ] (]) 16:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
{{hab}}


==LaylaCares==
: Pro-Russian, pro-Estonian, anti-Russian, anti-Estonian do not apply here. Those terms all characterize the conflict as based on personal opinion on both sides. What is at issue is editorial behavior, tactics, and editorial treatment of sources. These have nothing to do with personal background or biases. ] <SMALL><SMALL><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#ffffff;">&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></SMALL> ]</SMALL> 16:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
{{hat|There is consensus to remove LaylaCares's EC flag. ] (]) 17:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Result concerning Shotlandiya=== ===Request concerning LaylaCares===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Vice regent}} 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I assess the diffs provided as evidence as follows:
# {{tick}} Clear violation of ], but Shotlandiya has apologized for it above.
# {{cross}} Not a valid diff.
# {{cross}} Not a valid diff.
# {{cross}} Not an attack page.
# {{tick}} Diffs about ]: Edit warring, no excuse.
# {{tick}} Diffs about ]: Intensive edit warring over BLP to include content of questionable verifiability, also mischaracterizing content dispute as vandalism at .
# {{tick}} Diffs about ]: Edit warring to include content that violates ].
# {{cross}}/{{tick}} Impolite and silly, but not a grave violation of our norms of conduct.
# {{cross}}/{{tick}} Well-referenced from , but a copyvio thereof, and the position in the lead gives the issue undue weight.
# {{tick}} Multiple violations of ] with respect to Kasparov and others who are called "neo-fascists" in this edit without any reference.


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|LaylaCares}}<p>{{ds/log|LaylaCares}}</p>
Much like Deacon of Pndapetzim and Shell above, this leads me to identify two areas of concern: edit-warring and ], issues about which Shotlandiya was previously properly warned. His reply is unpersuasive - any misconduct by others does not excuse or mitigate Shotlandiya's conduct in any way (but is possibly grounds for later sanctions against those others). Constructive edits are also not a mitigating factor, because all editors are expected to make constructive edits only.


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
For these reasons, acting under ], I sanction Shotlandiya as follows:
* For six months, he is restricted from making more than one revert per page per seven-day period with respect to any page related to Russia or Estonia, or nationals of these countries, broadly defined. Reverts of ''obvious'' vandalism are exempt.
* For three months, to run concurrently with the preceding sanction, he is topic-banned from editing ] with respect to any page (including but not limited to biographical articles) related to Russia or Estonia, or nationals of these countries, broadly defined. Reverts of ''obvious'' vandalism are exempt.


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
Any wikilawyering about or violation of these restrictions may result in lengthy blocks. These sanctions are not to be construed as endorsing or excusing misconduct (if any) by other editors mentioned in the discussion, but it is not their conduct which is under review here. Shotlandiya or others are free to make well-founded enforcement requests with respect to them. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
{{discussion bottom}}


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
==Vintagekits==
<!-- 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.-->
{{discussion top}}
# EC gaming
===Request concerning Vintagekits===
;User requesting enforcement: ]<sup>]</sup> 11:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
;User against whom enforcement is requested: {{userlinks|Vintagekits}}
;Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced:
;Sanction or remedy that has been violated:
;] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: , ,
;Explanation ''how'' these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Part of the reads in part ''" ...are both restricted from nominating articles created by the other for deletion and more generally warned from unnecessarily interacting with each other, especially where it is likely to be perceived as baiting, trolling, or another form of harassment."''


] has recently been asking about his topic ban from baronets and knights on his ].


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
I posit that Vk posting on this issue on Kb's talk page is a clear and direct violation of the Arbcom restriction quoted above. There were two posts in three days, the second after Kb had (correctly) pointed out that Vk was banned from the page.
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]): Block or ban.
;Additional comments:
;Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: .


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
===Discussion concerning Vintagekits===
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)
It states ''"unnecessarily interacting with each other, especially where it is likely to be perceived as baiting, trolling, or another form of harassment"''. I did none of these.
*A. I did not interact directly with Kb and specifically replied to others and avoided direct interaction with Kb.
*B. I deemed it necessary as he had been discussing me. What did you want me to do?
*C. There was no attempt to bait, troll or harass. It was a perfectly civil post.
*D. No where there does it state that I am banned from being on the same page as him. Now if it was a case that he was on a page discussing for instance ] and I showed up after him and was having a go at him there then you would have a point, but the discussion involved me and my name was mentioned before I even turned up.
*E. ] is the full discussion. Mangojuice and Rockpocket have been heavily involved in the whole process and have been backing Kb strongly. If they thought that it was something I shouldnt have been doing then I am sure they would have let me know.
Just another case of Bastun trying to have a go at me - its getting pretty boring.--] (]) 12:06, 12 June 2009 (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. --->
:A. How is posting on someone's talk page ''not'' directly interacting with them?
:B. You could have i) ignored him, or ii) posted directly to ]'s talk page. Or ]'s.
:C. You wrote "If you are sidelining the restrictions that have been put on Kitty then I will assume that '''all''' restrictions are null and void...", presumably referring to your own restrictions. That certainly strikes me as baiting. Posting a second time on the page, after Kb had posted ''"Why is Vintagekits posting on this page? He is banned from it."'' is certainly baiting.
:D. The restriction on both of you states you are to avoid unnecessary interaction. Posting on the other's talk page is a clear violation of that.
:And no, not having "another go at you". When you've behaved, I've , on occasion. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I have said my piece so I will let others have their say. I am sure they can tell you to "shut up and get on with editing" instead of trying to ].--] (]) 13:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


===Discussion concerning LaylaCares===
::::VK, that sounds wise. I don't think enforcement is necessary here. I don't believe VK is banned from KB's talk page. KB and I and some others were discussing how the ArbCom motion is to be interpreted, which applies to VK as much as it applies to KB. In other words, the conversation did pertain to him, and I did not feel that he was there to harass or bait KB. Because the two of you are mentioned jointly in the ArbCom motion, it is natural that the conversation would deal with you. That said, there are some instances where you made your own comments on KB's past behavior, which I think maybe you should avoid in the future. But as long as it doesn't escalate from here I don't think a block is necessary. ]]<sup>]</sup> 13:57, 12 June 2009 (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>


===Result concerning Vintagekits=== ====Statement by LaylaCares====
'''No action taken.''' The relevant part of the motion reads "warned from unnecessarily interacting with each other". This is a mere warning and not a binding restriction not to do something, otherwise it would have been phrased as "instructed not to unnecessarily interact with each other" or similar. (But I assume that disregard for ArbCom warnings may make the Committee more inclined to consider actual sanctions in the future.)


====Statement by Aquillion====
Accordingly, whether or not the edits at issue are "unnecessary", they do not appear to violate any binding part of the arbitral decision referred to, which means that the arbitration enforcement noticeboard is not the place to discuss them. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
{{discussion bottom}}


===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)
{{discussion top}}
===Request concerning ]===
;User requesting enforcement: ] (]) 15:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
;User against whom enforcement is requested: {{userlinks|Dilip rajeev}}
;Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: ], ]
;Sanction or remedy that has been violated:]
;] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy:
* Repeatedly readded material banned by second arbitration from banned attack website back into the sub-article under Sathya Sai Baba here ,,.
*Inspite of his warning during the <b> earlier arbitration enforcement case in February 2009 </b> warning him against adding unreliable sources Dilip added back bcskeptics another unreliable source into the article several times. ,
,
.


====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)====
::The edits you point out above are '''a month old''' - dated 12th May, 2009. Many editors were then of the opinion ( am sure they are still) that Professor Dale Bayerstein's is one of the best studies available on the topic. How is that edit relevant here/now? After it was removed by apparent consensus, I never attempted to add them back in. In Feb 2009, I dont think there wsa nything said about not using BC Skeptics as a source.
::] (]) 18:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
:::I would also like to point out that The Arbcom had not mentioned anything on, let alone ban, Dale Bayerstein. There were mixed comments on WP:RS noticeboard . Kindly See: . Anyway, I did not attempt to restore the info after details of the second WP:RS discussion was pointed out to me around May 12th. At the same time, there was no consensus among other editors as well on whether the source were reliable or not: - with at least two other users opining in May 2009 that the source is reliable. In discussions as late as 27th May 2009, it may be seen users arguing that Bayerstein is reliable. For instance, please see where a user comments: "if you are really aware of the content of the Beyerstein study and still see it as irrelevant to a description of Sathya Sai Baba (unlike the POV works of his hagiographers and devotees), your grasp of the topic and your independence are bound to be doubted by anyone with a minimal familiarity with the vast literature on SSB. "
:::] (]) 08:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


===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==
:::The user's claim that I added material; from "attack websites" to the sub-page "]" is factually wrong as may be evidenced from my entire history of recent my edits on the page:. I merely restored information that had been blanked out and after restoration, immediately pared out the poorly sourced stuff that was present. What he presents as "evidence" are intermedediary states of the article while I was editing it. My entire set of recent changes to the namespace is summarized in this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1993_Murders_in_Prashanthi_Nilayam&diff=295947306&oldid=291539909
{{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) }}
:::] (]) 17:09, 12 June 2009 (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===
* He also added gruesom picture and material from Basava Preamanada source declared as unreliable in the earlier BostonMA mediation discussion - .
; 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>
::::The set of images, can be sourced to The Week, Premananda's book,etc. Many of them appear in the BBC documentary "Secret Swami" as well. Basava Preamanad '''is not''' the original source of these images. I make this clear in the image description:. It is not from any "attack website." Many of these images are shown in the ] documentary "Secret Swami":
::::] (]) 17:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


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


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
;Explanation ''how'' these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: ] who had used another account earlier ] was warned in the <b> earlier arbitration enforcement case </b> not to add material banned by second arbitration and other unrelible sources and that if he repeats sanctions will be imposed on him on February 26th 2009. Here - . He has violated this warning repeatedly several times after that case.
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
::Where have I violated this "repeatedly" in my recent edits? Every single source I used to add to the Sathya Sai Baba page has been of the highest quality. The Times, anthropologist Lawrence Babb, etc.
(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'''")
::] (]) 18:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
*Inspite of this warning he created the sub-article under the main Sathya Sai baba adding exactly the same banned material from attack website such as this and several other unreliable sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1993_Murders_in_Prashanthi_Nilayam&diff=295947306&oldid=282645973. You will see that it says it was added by Inactive_user_account_001. That's because he removed that account after his socket puppet case.
<!-- 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.-->
::Yes it is true that I created the namespace/"sub-article". It was found that the topic clearly statisfies WP:N ( it had captured Headlines in Indian media). The "sockpuppuet" you talk about was found a legitimate user account and was renamed( deletion could not be done due to GDFL concerns) under an admin's '''recommendation to protect my identity.''' I clarify this further below. Please see the SPI case as well. In the case it was pointed out that my use of the account was legitimate and that I " was unblocked because there was no abusive socking going on. ". . The case was made up by a newly registered user who wanted to ascertain my real-life identity. and through using an alternate account I was attempting to protect my identity. But my clumsy handling of the alternate account, left clues to which my original account was. And people related to the ssb organization levered it to raise an SPI and find out my true identity. Upon doing so, they had a large scale propaganda and slander unleashed against me on their websites and blogs.
# 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 :
::] (]) 18:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


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


: Made aware of contentious topics criterion:
:::See the entire history of recent my edits on the sub-page:. I had restored information that had been blanked and after restoration I pared out poorly sourced stuff that was present.
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
:::] (]) 17:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
* Then it did not stop there he edit warred several times to add another source declared clearly as unreliable by ] in the Sathya Sai Baba article. ,
,
<!-- 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. --->
::The edits you point out above are '''a month old''' - dated to 12th May, 2009. Many editors were then of the opinion ( am sure they are still) that Professor Dale Bayerstein's is one of the best studies available on the topic. How is that edit relevant here/now?
::] (]) 18:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


Additional comments by editor filing complaint:
* Then even recently he undid the improvement efforts by other editors to add positive material to the article reliably sourced to well published sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=295960924&oldid=295960521.


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)
::My recent changes are summarized by this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=295961496&oldid=295927061 . I expand further on the set of edits( which involved addition of very well sourced info and moving of a section( recently added - after June 4th if am not mistaken) written like an ad to the "sathya sai movement" article) below .
::] (]) 18:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


===Discussion concerning AstroGuy0===
* Its come to point where the other editors are unable to keep up with his POV pushing and undoing the damage he is causing to the article. Please see all his edits I mentioned above where he edit-warred to add several sources declared as unreliable in and even banned material in the sub-article several times. He has clearly violated second arbitration rulings as well his earlier arbitration enforcement 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 AstroGuy0====
::Again, I request my contributions be reviewed and me be judged on the basis of my contributions and not these baseless allegations and intentional distortions.
::] (]) 18:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


====Statement by Iskandar323====
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]): I request you to please ban ] from causing more damage to this article and the related sub-article.
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)
;Additional comments: This is the second arbitration enforcement case on ] after his <b><i> first arbitration enforcement case on February 2009 </i></b> on his other account here . He seemed to continue the same edit-warring and POV pushing inserting repeatedly unreliable and banned sources. I request that for the good of the article he should be banned from further editing this article.


====Statement by (username)====
::First "case", If I remember right was raised by the same user, trying to get me out of the namespace - probably because he has a conflict of interest with my contributions. 99% of my contribution to the namespace has been through reputable sources such as The BBC, The Times, The DTV, The Guardian, The Vancouver Sun, Lawrence Babb. etc. When I used a document ( that first created the international controversy - by the name 'The Findings') as a primary source for identification of its perspective, the user had set of concocted and distorted allegations made against me.
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning AstroGuy0===
::] (]) 19:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:''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==
<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===
::I again emphasize that all my recent additions to the article has been highly sourced, and any removal of content was accompanied by pointing out why it fails WP:RS and why it is unencyclopaedic.
; 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>
::] (]) 18:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


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


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
::Again, I emphasize the claims made here are baseless distortions cherry picking on edits - some several months old. I have always attempted to ensure the quality of content being added and had been repeatedly calling upon other editor to do the same. And I request that I may please be judged on the basis of my contributions and not on baseless and random allegations made against me - with the purpose of getting me removed from the namespace.
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
::] (]) 17:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
;Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: I have notified ] in his talk page here. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Dilip_rajeev&diff=295995534&oldid=295956258
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing.
# - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist.


===Discussion concerning ]===


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
I have made the details of all my changes clear. And I have only attempted to the article encyclopaedic, maintain quality of sources and and keep objective info from being repeatedly blanked out. '''I request my edits be reviewed edit by edit and that me please be judged based on the merits (/ de-merits) of my contributions and not on the baseless allegations made above. '''
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
] (]) 17:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
*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===
I had attempted to contact Admins regarding the issue:. Some users ended up raising a set of
<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>
] (]) 17:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


====Statement by Lemabeta====
Then, several baseless allegations of sockpupptery etc were raised against me by these users attempting to get rid of me from the namespace. The sockputtery case can be read here and it was dismissed as completely baseless:
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)
] (]) 17:03, 12 June 2009 (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.
The sources I have used are mainly The BBC, The Times, The DTV, The Guardian etc. I have not repeatedly used "banned sources" as claimed by the above editor. And I am willing to have my edit history scrutinized and if there be any misconception, I'll be glad to clarify
] (]) 17:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC) :So i don't believe ethnographic group should be considered as either history of the Caucasus or cultural heritage. ] (]) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::In my opinion, cultural heritage (both tangible and intangible) '''emerges from''' ethnographic groups but '''does not define the group itself'''. ] (]) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think ethnographic groups fall under the category of Ethnography, or even socio-cultural antropology but for sure not cultural heritage. ] (]) 21:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I understand, i already apologized on my talk page for this accident. I will not repeat this mistake again. ] (]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)====
All my recent changes to the article is summarized in this diff:. In edit summaries I explain each change I have made. A major change involved moving a section, (on the highly controversial topic of charity by Sathya Sai orgnization), to the page Sathya Sai Movement( with an 'advert' tag added). The entire section had been written like an advertisement for the organization. The charity work is highly controversial - and cases including of organ theft has been filed against these organizations. Australian National Television had an hour long documentary in which many disturbing finds were revealed. Other, reiable 3rd party sources tell us the same. None of this was ever touched upon and the entire section had been written up like an advertisement.
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
] (]) 17:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


===Result concerning Lemabeta===
I am also pasting here, after minor editing, the concerns I raised on Admin noticeboard recently to clarify my concerns:
:''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. -->
Sathya Sai Baba is a very controversial topic in India. All coverage of the individual in reputable western media has been strongly critical. In Sai Baba related pages on wikipedia we are facing some major issues, which I attempt to outline below.
*<!--

-->
* Continual blanking of critical and well sourced information by IPs, newly registered editors and people who apparently consider sai baba their god ( which can be evidenced by several comments to the effect on the article's talk). This blanking happens completely in violation of wikipedia policies. Some of the recent edit comments include: ''"I know that the changes I made where right"'', ''"I add \ed thta because I know what to do"'', ''"I changed it because this is offensive to a lot of people, and it isn't even true"'', ''"My dad was in Puttaparthi his whole life and this never happened"''- just to point out a few. It is quite difficult, if not completely impossible, to engage in rational arguments with people making changes with "rationale" like these. These edits were reverted but there are many more - which involve blanking of information, addition of advertisement like content etc. which are hard to handle.
* 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)
*Section blanking, deletion of clips revealing cheating in purported miracles( which can be seen in this version: )- the article is continually subject to such attacks. And the way the people who want the info out work make it impossible to fix these without getting quickly reverted and attacked.
*{{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)
*"Info", self-advertisement by any standard, sourced directly to the controversial sai baba organization and newspapers cover entire sections now. All this material is completely in violation of WP:RS.
*: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)
*Slander and attack against neutral editors. Almost 100% of info from respectable sources on this person is critical in nature - be it The BBC, The Guardian, The Times or The DTV. Editors adding well sourced material are targeted by and slandered by the Sai Baba group on their websites and blogs. Which makes many editors scared to contribute to the article and just stay away from it.. Even people like ] have had their character assassinated by the group's lies and propaganda. I had personally used an alternate account, of which I had informed the arbcom, to edit the article. Mainly because it is an extremely controversial topic in India and there have been attempts at life on many critics including elderly people. People related to the sai baba organization had an SPI slyly raised against me to ascertain my identity. The admin, initially confused my alternate account for a sock and ended up revealing my details. Later investigations revealed that my alternate account was just a legitimate alternate account and was never used in an abusive manner - and thus my account was unblocked. I was further attacked by editors who wanted me not contributing to the namespace - which led to me deciding to stop contributing to the article. Recently I was taken aback by how all well sourced information was being removed and replaced with self-sourced praise and attempted to point out the issue on talk and fix it - with little effect. Even if I try to re-add the well sourced info - it would just be quickly blanked again.
*:@]: 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)
] (]) 17:28, 12 June 2009 (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)
I would also like to point out that well sourced information is deleted often with sneaky/dishonest edit comments: The video teh person refers to has been in the article for over six months and were taken out with specious reasoning and no consensus on June 4th.
* {{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.
A couple of other very recent instances of major changes to my edits being made with sneaky/misleading edit summaries, I point out below:
: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).
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=296012746&oldid=296011786
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=296010822&oldid=296009522
] (]) 18:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

<s>:Dilip removed information that shed SSB in a good light, while re-adding videos that were added initially without discussion. There was an ongoing discussion about having the videos, but Dilip chose to ignore WP protocol and add the videos without reaching a consensus. He initiated an edit war, where he made at least 8 reverts on the page, while refusing to take his concerns to the talk page. There has already been a discussion about cutting down the criticism in the article to a size fitting a BLP, but he does not like that. He would rather have the article stand as a BLP nightmare, with more criticism than is fitting of any article on Misplaced Pages. It is my personal believe that he has a ] with this page. Thanks, ] <sup>(]/])</sup> 18:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)</s> I withdraw my reply. Dilip rajeev has just as much of a right to edit the SSB page as anyone else, and his edits were, if nothing else, well sourced. Best regards, ] <sup>(]/])</sup> 03:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

:Ono, The above, you may call edits that were part of an edit war, at best. These are not reverts to any particular version.
:] (]) 19:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

:The version after my edits is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&oldid=296014411. '''All''' info on the person, from reputable 3rd party publicationis critical. We cannot shove it all under the carpet. See the ] article - the allegations are touched upon objectively, including in the lead. What I removed was self sourced stuff and a recently created section on purported charity ( the reason for moving it to another, more appropriate article, I point out in my comments above as well as in the talk of the article).

:I fail to see how addition of Scholarly analysis as from The Times or anthropologist Lawrence Babb could make the article a "BLP nightmare." Please compare my version with the one before my edits.

:The videos were there for 6 months and many users have said they contribute a lot to the article. A person removed it a few days back saying "moderator" Onopearls agreed to it being removed. Now, apparently, according to the above editor, it is completely my fault that I added the material "without consensus" back in January.

:] (]) 19:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

::I think that the videos belong in the article. They were very well sourced - BBC documentary for one of them. They were removed without discussion. They are extremely informative, in my opinion. The editors who are unhappy with negative information in this article seem to be of the belief that a BLP policy compliant article must not be too negative, *regardless* of how well sourced the negative information is. I have not looked at every single diff; I can't say that everything Dilip Rajeev put in the article belonged. However, what I can say is that numerous editors of this article have very, very strange and inaccurate ideas of Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 02:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I agree with Bhimaji about the videos and the confusion between neutrality and NPOV. I agree with Radiantenergy that Dilip Rajeev has repeatedly used unreliable sources. I was a wiki-saint compared with Dilip but I was topic-banned by the arbcom anyway (mainly because of allegations of COI). ] (]) 16:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Could you kindly point out specifically where I "repeatedly" added "unreliable sources"? And which ones these unreliable sources were? In my early edits I was new to the topic and was not aware of some sources being considered unreliable - but once they were pointed out, I believe I had refrained from using them. And the very majority of my contributions, you may verify, can be sourced to The BBC, The Times, The Guardian, The Vancouver Sun, anthropologist Lawrence Babb, etc. Not to cast any personal accusations - but the sources I have used, considered in their entirety, are manifolds more reliable than those Radiantenergy ( the user who cherry picked diffs, some months old, to make these allegations ) has been sourcing things to. In my recent edits, every single source I used has been of the highest quality.
::::] (]) 21:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

* I am inclined to decline this request on formal grounds because it is not made in proper form: the section "Sanction or remedy that has been violated" contains malformed links that do not appear to point to any specific sanction or remedy, and the section "Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue" does not seem to address any specific sanction or remedy either. This means I can't properly evaluate this as a request for arbitration enforcement. – Dilip rajeev, please comment only in this section, not in the "request" section. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::Sir, I just now read your comment asking me to restrict my response to this section. I apologize for making use of the "request section" for responding. Comments, I make in response, from here on, I will make sure, are restricted to this section. Sincerely,] (]) 08:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::* Agree with Sandstein. I don't think it fair to expect an administrator to review such a poorly presented complaint. ] 16:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

* I don't see anything specifically actionable here - the cases in question don't appear to have any remedies that would apply. While the cases state that poorly sourced negative information can be removed repeatedly without penalty, there is no provision given for repeatedly inserting such information. If there is edit warring or BLP problems, then those issues need to be dealt with through regular channels. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

===Result concerning ]===
'''Not actionable.''' Malformed request; there seems to be nothing enforceable here. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}

==Brandmeister==
{{discussion top}}
===Request concerning Brandmeister===
;User requesting enforcement: ] (]) 19:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
;User against whom enforcement is requested: {{userlinks|Brandmeister}}
;Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: ]
;Sanction or remedy that has been violated:]
;] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: In all of the following reverts, he replaces "Persian ruled ]" with "an independent ]" and removes 3-4 sources.
#
#
#
#
#
#
;Explanation ''how'' these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Six reverts in three days is clearly abusive.
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]): Brandmeister placed on 1RR, khanate-related articles placed on 1RR and all other revert warriors warned.
;Additional comments: It is not the first time Brandmeister is caught with this behaviour and there has yet to be any action taken against this. He has been involved in several complaints on this board and is well aware of the AA sanctions.
;Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

===Discussion concerning Brandmeister===
Actually I am surprised at this. Fedayee, as shown in his contribs, has not made a single edit in khanates but suddenly pops out with report. It is a bit suspicious to me, but I am not sure whether there is a coordinated Armenian-Iranian activity over there. The account of St. Hubert, which I specifically reverted, is currently under sock investigation. I can't figure out "other revert warriors" apart from famous Babakexorramdin. The issue of Baku Khanate in particular is pretty well clarified at talk, where I opened the relevant section. ]<i>]</i> 22:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

*Brandmeister, should you in fact have edit-warred, accusing others of covert coordination or whatever will not help you here. Fedayee, your request does not contain the diffs of the conduct that you ask us to review; it is thus not yet actionable as far as I am concerned. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware of this: ]. This gives an idea whom Brand was reverting. Note the number of rvs St. Hubert made, apparently in violation of his editing restriction. ]] 06:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

:Hi Sandstein, the requested diffs have been added. Brandmeister, please, quit this battleground mentality and assume good faith. This is what I wrote: ''Brandmeister placed on 1RR, khanate-related articles placed on 1RR '''and all other revert warriors warned. ''''' Which includes '''anyone''' who is edit warring. Since no one seems to do anything about the recent disruptions, I will be trying to report '''anyone''' who is edit warring or engaged in other types of disruptive editing. Grandmaster already reported two users but failed to report you for which I finished the job for him. I personally think that the level of disruption would require certain articles to also be placed on 1RR, Moreschi did it on the article on the ] and that's what he would probably do witnessing the recent edit warrings. And it's also time to require prior discussion justifying the reverts, this was ignored blatantly by the administrators even though it was part of the initial restrictions. - ] (]) 06:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

===Result concerning Brandmeister===
The diffs provided are evidence of ], against which there are warnings on Brandmeister's talk page. Accordingly, pursuant to ], I sanction Brandmeister as follows: For six months, he is restricted to one revert per page per seven-day period with respect to any article related to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran, and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area. Reverts of ''obvious'' vandalism are exempt.

This sanction is not to be construed as excusing or endorsing the conduct of any other editor, notably {{user|St. Hubert}}. Should the ongoing sockpuppet investigation with respect to him not result in a block, any user is free to make a well-founded arbitration enforcement request against him or other involved editors.

The requests for other enforcement actions are declined: The remedy does not provide for restrictions aimed at articles or groups of articles, only for restrictions aimed at individual editors. Warnings can be issued by anybody and do not require administrator action. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}

===Appeal===
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is archived. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' {{#if:There are no grounds for this appeal. Sandstein's actions stand. ] 12:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)|''A summary of the conclusions reached follows.''
::There are no grounds for this appeal. Sandstein's actions stand. ] 12:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
----
}} <!-- from Template:discussion top-->

I think there's a mistake here. According to the remedy:

''Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, <u>despite being warned</u>, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.''

''Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.''

There's no evidence that Brandmeister had previous warnings, which he ignored. Therefore he cannot be placed on editing restriction. He must be officially warned first, and if he repeatedly fails to adhere to the remedy requirements, only then he can be placed on parole. Note that a similar report on ] resulted only in a warning: ]] 12:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

:(Section header "Appeal" added.) I did verify that Brandmeister received edit-warring warnings at . As to reverting banned users, it is not currently established that either of the two users Brandmeister edit-warred with is or was banned. Even if that were so, there is no indication (such as in the edit summaries) that he meant to make the reverts in order to undo a banned user's edits. Instead, it appears that he made them to force through his opinion in a content dispute, which means that the sanction remains needed whether or not the other account(s) eventually turn out to be socks of banned users.
:For these reasons, I am not at this time willing to undo or modify the sanctions. They accordingly remain in force unless overturned by consensus among administrators on this board or by the Arbitration Committee (as specified in ], subsection "Appeal of discretionary sanctions"). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

::But please note that the warnings by other users do not count. The editor must be warned by an admin about the possibility of application of the remedy, with a link to the arbitration case, and an advise how to improve his editing. This has not been done, therefore the remedy cannot be applied at this time. He must be officially warned first. You can see that in a similar situation Shahin Giray received an official warning yesterday. The remedy says: ''Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision''. I do not see that this has been done. ]] 13:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

:::No, the remedy specifies that " if, despite being warned, that editor ...". It does not say that the warning must be made by an administrator. That requirement would also make little sense, because the point of a warning is just to make sure that the user is aware of the relevant policies.
:::With respect to the ], that case was processed by another administrator. Because I am unfamiliar with it, I cannot comment on whether and how it compares to this case. In any event, because the sanctions provided for by the remedy are ''discretionary'', they are bound to vary substantially depending on the judgment of the enforcing administrator. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:::You are correct, though, that the warning did not include a link to the arbitration case. I consider this to be a irrelevant technicality, however, because the point of such a link is to make the user aware of the possibility of sanctions. Brandmeister's prior contributions to this board, such as the enforcement request at , show that he was perfectly aware of the case and its ramifications. I am open to suggestions by other admins, though, if they believe that the sanction should be reconsidered on account of this technicality. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::::I think the established procedure must be followed. First the editor receives an official warning that his behavior is problematic, and if he fails to correct his behavior, he is placed on a restriction. This is how it is usually done. Also, I think the outcome of sockpuppetry investigation must be also taken into account. Note that every time St. Hubert reverted the article in dispute, he removed a number of reliable sources, replacing them with others. This can hardly be called a constructive approach to editing of the article. Since this user most probably evaded arbcom sanctions by reverting, the rvs of this user's edits should not be counted as reverts. Another revert warrior, {{User|Kurdo777}} was also caught with using multiple accounts to edit war, , and I find the behavior of {{User|Babakexorramdin}} in the same article to be problematic too: I think all editors who made more than 1 rv there must be warned. ]] 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::I have already expressed my opinion with respect to procedure above. As to the other editors you mention, their conduct is not relevant to this case, but you are of course free to issue any appropriate warnings. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::I would like to point out that I refrained from reverting on Jun 11, editing elsewhere. I believe it is just a content dispute, but Fedayee's report gives the impression of blind edit-warring. ]<i>]</i> 15:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
* Comment from an uninvolved sysop: Brandmeister was issued a quite detailed warning against edit warring . That warning satisfies the caution provision of the discretionary sanctions remedy. On that basis, I do not think this appeal to have merit. ] 16:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::That warning came from a person, who himself was involved in edit warring across multiple articles and placed on editing restrictions as result. I don't think a warning from this user should count. Plus, it said nothing of editing restrictions, and did not link to the arbitration case, as the remedy requires. ]] 18:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Your argument does not make sense in any way, the warning was meant to inform users of that restriction, assuming that they were not aware of it. Brandmeister was very well aware of that restriction, he himself has reported users several times to place them on restriction or reported them for the violation of that restriction. Requiring such a warning now (particularly for a user who made 6 reverts in 3 days) would amount to gaming the system since it does not consider the purpose of the warning itself. And I wonder what's the problem here, don't you want revert warring to stop? - ] (]) 21:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Of course I do, but the main reason for edit warring was the suspected sock account St. Hubert. Reverting socks does not count as rv. Back when AA restrictions were imposed, I inquired with arbitration clerks about this, and this is what they told me: Let's wait for ] request to proceed, then we will be better informed to form an opinion on this issue. --]] 05:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::Are you reading what you are writing? A suspected sock is a suspected sock... not a proven sock. What is Brandmeister losing? His right to revert more than once? Assuming Hubert is a sock, from what you say someone who is placed on restriction can have it reversed if it is discovered weeks after that one of the editors he has reverted was a sock. It's not as if Brandmeister is reverting vandalism and it is not as if Hubert was the only one opposing. Brandmeister should have been officially restricted when Meowy was blocked for having added the reverted tag or even prior to that when Vartan was blocked because of Brandmeister warring for the renaming the article. That's all I'm going to add. - ] (]) 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
*Thankfully for Misplaced Pages, it is not a court of law. Therefore, minor defects in procedure do not result in a case, sanction, or decision being void. While Brandmeister did not receive a specific warning with a specific link to the case, he has reported users for the violation of the sanction in the past. The requirement for a specific link to the case is, presumably, to avoid users facing sanctions for violating an edict they do not know exists. This peril is not in question here. The suggestion that the wrong user gave a warning, or that certain warnings should not count, borders on Wikilawyering. I also endorse Sandstein's actions. ] (]) 11:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:discussion bottom --></div>

==Offliner==
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
===Request concerning Offliner===
;User requesting enforcement: ] (]) 14:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
;User against whom enforcement is requested: {{userlinks|Offliner}}
;Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: ]
;Sanction or remedy that has been violated:]
;] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: *
*1. and , , and , and
*2.
*3.
*4. and
*5., , and
*6.
*7., ,
*8.,
*9.
*10.
*11.
*
*Endless block shopping and personal attacks by Offliner . , , ,but he still believes

;Explanation ''how'' these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Sustained edit warring, unilateral deletions of whole articles and materials this user does not like, no matter how well the materials are sourced. The materials are on Russian/EE subjects.
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]): topic ban, RR restriction
;Additional comments: He was warned many times by users with different political views and by an uninvolved administrator:
*12.
*14.
*15., and
*16.
;Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

===Discussion concerning Offliner===
*1: This article was created by Biophys by cutpasting material from an old version of ] (a version he had reverted many times to; many people had edited and improved the article after that version.) I don't think such behaviour is acceptable and to me it was a clear POV fork.
*2-3: Same story. Biophys created the articles by cutpasting material from an earlier version of ]. Also clearly a POV fork.
*That I said, I think doing edits 1-3 was clearly a mistake on my part. I should have been more patient and used speedy deletion or AfD instead. 1-3 are months-old now, and I won't be doing similar things in the future, now that I have more experience and more knowledge of the Misplaced Pages policies.
*4: the first one is a deletion of a link farm per ], I don't see anything wrong about that. The second one is a content issue, as explained on the edit summary.
*5: is again a content issue, discussed on the talk page and edit warred over by all sides. Both me and Biophys were blocked for this later.
*6-7: are link farm cleanup. According to ], "long lists of links are not acceptable." If they are useful at all, the links should be used as sources instead. About the last one with the "offensive edit summary": as stated in the edit summary, I had already explained my argumentation on the talk page, yet Biophys kept insisting that I had not.
*8-10: are again link farm cleanup. I really don't know what this has to do with ] sanctions. I know that there are many other users who agree with me that EL sections should be kept at minimum, links that are useful should be used as sources instead and not as ELs; the selection of links should be balanced and justification for every link should be given if requested (this was not done by Biophys.)
*11: is a content issue, discussed thoroughly on the talk page.
*13: this "warning" is cherry-picked. Please also read the follow-up by Connolley (he agreed with my report and blocked Martintg for edit warring after made it more clear why 3RR was broken.)

I admit that 1-3 were impatient solutions and that they were wrong. 5 was also stupid (although many other users agreed with me that the section does not belong in the article) and I was already punished for it by ]. The others are simple content issues and link farm cleanups, and I don't see anything wrong with them. ] (]) 15:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

With heavy heart, I must '''endorse''' this arbitration request, and add another incident. In , Offliner is clearly assuming bad faith. Polling is a normal part of Misplaced Pages's editorial process; disrupting polls based on who initiates them can't be constructive. ]<sub>]</sub> 15:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

*'''Response'''. Here is the problem. Offliner does not want to follow WP policies.
#It was explained to him that he should nominate an article for deletion or to mark it for merging ''discussion'' if he thinks the article is a content fork. But he countinued unilateral deletions of articles when his suggestions to move or rename the articles were not supported like and
#He simply does not want to seriously discuss merging/deletion at article talk pages, for example , , and and continue his unilateral deletions. On other issues, I asked if he needs direct citation; he did not reply and simply continued his removal of links and reverts.
#The instruction about WP links tells which links should be ''included'' and which links should be avoided . However, he simply removed everything. That was explained to Offliner by Alex_Bakahrev and me many times but Offliner ignored explanations and continued doing the same, without replying at the talk pages: , , , .

Offliner is fully aware of Digwuren case sanctions, as he reported Digwuren to ANI
] (]) 16:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

*'''Comment''': I find it strange that all the diffs in the evidence section are more than a month old, this for an editor who made 500 edits only between . The actions taken by the community shouldn't be punitive, but preventive... what's to prevent when all Offliner's supposed breaches of the arbitration decision date before May 10 (save one from May 28, which look likes a simple content dispute), considering that Offliner is a heavy contributor to Misplaced Pages. Also, some of the articles concerned are mind-blowing, and their editorial content seems strongly against Misplaced Pages policies ( ] ??? , what's next ]? ; in ] a comment from a secret service report was transformed in a full-fledged article, even with the of topic in the scholar (and non-scholar) media; ], while a reasonable topic, includes such ludicrous sections as details about a contact phone number placed on the website of a Russian intelligence agency). As for the supposed assumption of bad faith, it seems merely a statement about a state of fact. The ArbCom recently acknowledged that ], and the AfD of two of the concerned articles ( ] and ]) suggest that there are two blocs of editors in this topic (one which favors articles with allegations about supposed negative actions by Russia, and one which disfavours them), with minimal external involvement. Considering these, a topic ban at the current time could only show disapproval of Offliner's editorial opinions, without making Misplaced Pages better, just making it more prone to systemic bias. ] (]) 17:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' In accord with what Anonimu said earlier, in order to have an unbiased review of this case, you have to discard with prejudice all the '''endorse''' votes from the bloc of editors (Biophys, Digwuren, Colchicum, Elysander, to name a few) who have systemically harassed Offliner for quite a while. You can also safely discard all the votes from the opposite bloc (Russavia, HistoricWarrior to name a few). The case may have wide implications in the future (see also the AE report against Biophys below) and it is actually a part of the bigger picture, a battle on Misplaced Pages raged over the Eastern Europe's pre and post- Soviet history. (] (]) 17:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

*'''Comment''' - I agree with Anonimu and Igny. Having closely observed Offliner's conduct over the past month, it's obvious that he has not engaged in any "unilateral deletions" (which were supported as removals POV forks by other users, anyway) since at least the date given by Anonimu. Hence, one has no ground to bring this here at all regarding remedying things through preventive sanctions. Otherwise, venues such as WP:AE descend into methods of blocking legitimate content opponents without due cause, as from all indications appears to be the rationale here. This is backwards justice. At the same time, ] seems to have recently arrived at a spurt of interest . What this smacks of is an instance of such blockshopping (every one of his opponents has even been accused of being a sockpuppet at some point) against an editor after a prolonged attempt to bait an opposing party with numerous content forks. ] (]) 19:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

* Between the fact that many of these diffs are aged (some even more than a month) and the case is ''greatly'' over stated (i.e. "unilaterally deleted" when the edit was actually turning a fork into a redirect) I don't see anything here in need of sanction. Offliner has already indicated that s/he recognizes that some decisions were made too quickly and served a block for the edit warring. As a side note, if I were to hand out sanctions here, I'd be very tempted to restrict the reporting party for combative behavior/edit warring as well. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

===Result concerning Offliner===
''This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use <nowiki>{{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}}</nowiki> to mark it as closed.''

==Biophys==
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
===Request concerning Biophys===
;User requesting enforcement: ] (]) 17:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
;User against whom enforcement is requested: {{userlinks|Biophys}}
;Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: ]
;Sanction or remedy that has been violated:]
;] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: *1. Edit warring and article ownership at ]. Observe the repeated reinserting the section "poland", etc.
*2. More edit warring at ]. Massive reverts to an old version. Observe the persistent restoring the section on poland ("Russian "Internet brigades" reportedly appeared..."), etc.
*3. Creation of POV-fork ]
**comparison: old version of Web brigades: . Internet operations by Russian secret police:.
*4. Edit warring and article ownership at ]
*5. More edit warring at ]. Obverse reinsertion of "attempted bombings", etc.
*6. Edit warring and article ownership at ], observe removing "alleged career at MI6",etc.
*7. More edit warring at ], including massive reverts to an old version. Observe, for example, removal of chapter "allegations" and material from it, e.g."zyberk".
;Explanation ''how'' these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: It should be easy to see from the diffs that Biophys has been persistently edit warring, and that this is a bad case of ]. Biophys is often reverting to a months-old version, undoing a large number of edits done by different editors in the process.
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]): Block for edit warring and a topic ban on Russia-related subjects.
;Additional comments:
;Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

===Discussion concerning Biophys===
*'''Response'''.
Some of the diffs (web brigades) are dated 2008. All others are two months old.
*1. and 2. (web brigades). I inserted sourced text deleted by Russavia and Offliner. My edits are fully explained at article talk page.
*3.(Internet operations). This is a different and a wider scope article. Please compare '''current''' versions of these articles. They are completely different.
*4 and 5. (the Bombings) This is a content dispute (see talk page of the article). I can explain all details if asked. One of key points: Offliner inserts a conspiracy theory about non-existing "Liberation army of Dagestan". It is true that Offliner and me were blocked for editing this article. Since then I did not edit it.
*6. I removed some consipracy theories about Litvinenko. That was a content fork to article ]. I created latter article to remove dubious materials from main article. They were reinserted back by certain POV-pushers.
*7. I created a compromise version of article ] as explained at this article talk page. Everything was reverted back by Russavia and Offliner. They reverted me right in the process of editing. I tried to use "Inuse" template but it did not help:
] (]) 19:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
** ('''''In response to now deleted comments about coordination by Biophys''''') The coordination ] seems to involve ]. Continuously recoursing to use of the victim card on this note is getting very old, I really think. ] (]) 19:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
***Where did I play a victim? There is no any "Party". I do not like Parties after living under the Communist Party. I also do not work for Berezovsky as Offliner suggested (see last of my diffs in request about him).] (]) 20:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
****"Party" is just another way of saying "group." That's where the political sense of the word comes from - OK? ] (]) 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow. That was ''fast''. Weren't black books found problematic in an earlier ArbCom ? ]<sub>]</sub> 17:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::Aren't you assuming bad faith? If you have any evidence of such "black book" you should present it. As for the evidence presented, it has the some problem as Biophys' above: if the last occurrence of problematic behaviour is weeks old, why was the behaviour brought to administrator scrutiny only now? I understand bringing old evidence when problematic behaviour escalate. But why do it when there's no recent disruption of Misplaced Pages? Content disputed are not solved by trying to get rid of the other side.] (]) 17:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::The last diff is from 8 June. The behaviour described in the diffs has been going on for a long time; there is no indication that he stopped for good 10 days ago. There have been other breaks, but afterwards the edit warring has presumed. I only want the admins to examine the diffs and take whatever action they think is best. ] (]) 17:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

by ] is of possible interest. ]<sub>]</sub> 18:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:Please also read the follow-up by Connolley: . He accepted the report and blocked ] after I provided more evidence. ] (]) 18:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

*] has a strong POV and he relentlessly removes sourced material from articles that does not conform to it, as always, substitutitng frivolous edit summaries, hijacking Misplaced Pages to be used as a ] for his own views. The inanity of his edit summaries whenever Biophys removes sourced data is such that it can serve no purpose other than to exhaust the patience of Biophys' content opponents:
* - Biophys deletes sourced content by historian ].
* - Biophys deletes sourced content by Mayer without providing any reason again, asking to "discuss" on talk page. He does not justify this on Talk page himself.
* Biophys twice reinserts inaccurate information which is dismissed at talk as not connected to the content of the article{{ndash}}without even bothering to look at the ]. When ] reverts asking him to see talk, Biophys tries to at ]. Administrator ] Biophys to stop antics like that, as he did not even bother to consult the talk page.
* - Biophys removes sourced material about the politics of controversial Russian opposition leader ], claiming "undue weight for biography of a world chess champion."
* - Biophys reverts "per talk" without adding anything to the talk page after three others engage in a heated discussion.
* Biophys insists on retaining one sentence of nonsense removed in good faith by an IP.
* - Biophys is warned by ] to stop inserting nonsense into the ] article while ignoring the changes that take place on the ] page.

] (]) 18:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

'''Comment''', WP:AE shouldn't be used as a means for getting the upper hand in content disputes, as appears to be the case here. Biophys attempts to provide a neutral viewpoint (via published sources) that contradicts the particular viewpoint (which could be described by some as pro-Kremlin) promoted by those calling for his sanction here, and thus he is a valuable and honest contributor who attempts to balance the efforts of Team Offliner in injecting their POV into Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 02:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' fixed: You are right, ''WP:AE shouldn't be used as a means for getting the upper hand in content disputes, as appears to be the case here. Offliner attempts to provide a neutral viewpoint (via published sources) that contradicts the particular viewpoint (which could be described by some as anti-Kremlin) promoted by those calling for his sanction here, and thus he is a valuable and honest contributor who attempts to balance the efforts of Team Biophys in injecting their POV into Misplaced Pages.''
::That is precisely why I am asking to strike out opinions of the anti-Offliner bloc here. (] (]) 03:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC))
:::But not strike the opinions of the anti-Biophys bloc, evidently. --] (]) 03:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::See my comment above, but I will repeat again just to make myself clear. Nothing of value, and certainly not impartiality, would be lost if opinions of both of the blocs are discarded in the review of these cases. (] (]) 04:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC))
::'''Comment''' This constitutes continued accusations of bad faith by PasswordUsername using accusations they themselves lodged as some sort of "evidence." For example:
::* ('''''In response to now deleted comments about coordination by Biophys''''') The coordination ] seems to involve ]. Continuously recoursing to use of the victim card on this note is getting very old, I really think. ] (]) 19:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:: The entire section on of which the above is part, was a massive demonstration of bad faith by PasswordUsername attempting to enlist an unsuspecting admin in support of their attack against a number of editors they count as their editorial opposition. If you can't attack the content, attack the editor. This in fact succeeded, as at one point Hiberniantears even accused me outright of being a '''single purpose account''', a contention they later '''retracted''' based on the facts. This behavior is little more than well-orchestrated back-stabbing. ] <SMALL><SMALL><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#ffffff;">&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></SMALL> ]</SMALL> 03:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::: ], I'm not now accusing you of any coordinated editing, although as pointed out above, even ArbCom recognizes that blocs of editors exist. My response here was only to Biophys' original accusations (which he removed, as opposed to stricken out as customary). These were the very confused (alleging that I filed Offliner's report for him - whereas I only added more diffs) and this next one (also deleted - there, Biophys is alleging a "high degree of coordination" among a number of users, including myself). Now, I am not pressing any charges on this, but it was only fair to note that I am relatively new here as a registered user. Biophys and a number of others (including yourself) have been "collaboratively editing" years before I first managed to even step here. (In fact, my first encounter with the bunch occured on May 10, following which both Biophys and Digwuren came to accuse me of being a sockpuppet of ]...) This isn't a bad faith edit{{ndash}}this is ] on hypocrisy-of-victimhood. Incidentally, Biophys should probably not pretend that he if he cherry-picks the incidents (he's ommitted a number of recent things he appears to find unhelpful.)] (]) 03:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
*It is a fact that Offliner has been involved in endless block shopping:
:#Offliner filed three false 3RR reports (one of them was about Russian editor Colchicum) - see .
:#He made
:#He asked for a block from , and yes, .
:#He asked for a block at the
:#He made a similar .
:#And he still believes that and complains here.
Can somebody put an end to this. --] (]) 03:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

*Ugh. Clearly I should have looked down before commenting on the report above. Perhaps both Biophys and Offliner should be placed under a topic ban- this looks a lot like battleground mentality. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
**Perhaps we should examine both edits one by one, and distinguish violations clearly? After all, there is a precedent in the extremely recent ] case, where this was done, leading to a topic ban against Shotlandiya despite opposition from multiple editors to the effect that the opposite warring party had been just as bad. Moreover, from the way I see it, preventive sanctions would help editors who have been warring days ago would help more than sanctions against Offliner - whose breaches are months old (Biophys' "unilateral deletions" actually all date back to April)? ] (]) 03:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
***The thing is, I'm seeing the same thing in this request - some of these diffs are from 2008 - there appears to be less than a handful that I'd consider remotely current. Your comments, among those of others that seem to be involved in this somehow, aren't really at helpful to sorting out the situation. I'm of the opinion that both reports are trumped up and being bolstered by opposing sides in a content dispute. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
****There are a number of particular edit diffs in my list (which I posted in the discussion section) that seem to be pretty current. (It took just two articles where policy had been breached recently to issue a block to Shotlandiya.) With Biophys' editing, this has been a recurring pattern with Biophys since he first arrived here years ago, as has been recorded in multiple cases like this: Biophys seems to perennially wade into conflict over tendentious editing, back then years ago and in the most recent diffs provided now. I don't know if these are actionable, so if you don't think this is merits a sanction at WP:AE, I'll take your judgment. ] (]) 04:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:<u>To Shell</u>, both AE reports are mirror images of the other, concerning the same topics. This is clearly a content dispute and AE is not the venue to sort out such disputes. Biophys should be admonished and formally warned not to use AE in this way. This should be case for Offliner too, however he also submitted a '''second''' AE report below against Digwuren, recycling old issues that were earlier aired on other notice boards. Since Offliner was previously warned against in another forum, he should now receive some kind of further sanction to get the message through. --] (]) 05:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

With these constant accusations of block shopping thrown around, the following may be relevant. Biophys was block shopping several times at ]'s talk page. For example he raised the same non-issue of "unilateral deletion" of articles and citing the same Digwuren's case. (] (]) 05:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

===Result concerning Biophys===
''This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use <nowiki>{{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}}</nowiki> to mark it as closed.''

==Ohconfucius==
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
===Request concerning Ohconfucius===
;User requesting enforcement: ] (]) 18:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
;User against whom enforcement is requested: {{userlinks|Ohconfucius}}
;Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: ]
;Sanction or remedy that has been violated:]
;] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy:
;Explanation ''how'' these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Ohconfucius is prohibited from using automation in article space indefinitely.
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]): Delete and salt ]
;Additional comments: I have no additional reason to think that this is anything on top of his normal behaviour. The Arbcom finding just needs to be enforced, and this is a user who is unreliable about self-policing. While you're at it though, it might be a good idea to delete and salt ] and ], which were the cause of this arbitration. This script is still being used by ].
;Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

===Discussion concerning Ohconfucius===
*This is very odd: I see 13 minutes between his previous edit and this one. No wonder, since presumably the chronological items were unlinked manually as he performed the other article improvements during that edit. I note that previous and subsequent edits made yet more improvements to the article, a wider gnoming context. This complaint appears to show no evidence of the use of automation (one or two minutes for this amount of article improvement and the chronological unlinkings, yes; but not ''13''.) And as an aside, it's great to have the date ''formats'' fixed so they're Australian, as MOSNUM has requied for some time, quite separately from the ArbCom "Dates" Case. I suggest that this complaint be dismissed as soon as possible. ] ] 02:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
*Erm - one diff? I'm not clear how that's to be evidence of using automated tools? ] <sup>]</sup> 02:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
*Please see this on what constitutes "mass date delinking". Also, deleting Lightmouse's script would also remove helpful functions such as making already-delinked dates consistently formatted. ] (]) 04:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
**Not only is this a poor example, but the edit was wrongly taken out of context to try to prove the editor's guilt. See this , clearly more than just date delinking. ] (]) 04:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
***Ok, so would it be correct to say that your concern here is not whether or not his edit was automated but rather that this was an instance of mass date delinking? ] <sup>]</sup> 04:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

===Result concerning Ohconfucius===
''This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use <nowiki>{{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}}</nowiki> to mark it as closed.''

==Digwuren==
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
===Request concerning Digwuren===
;User requesting enforcement: ] (]) 20:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
;User against whom enforcement is requested: {{userlinks|Digwuren}}
;Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: ]
;Sanction or remedy that has been violated:]
;] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: *1. Implying that other editors are neo-nazis:

*2. Implying that other editors are working for the Russian state to censor articles:

*3. Abusing article talk pages for ranting and to express personal political opinions:

*4. Edit warring at ]. 3 reverts in 24 hours. (Changing "partially recognized" to something else.)

*4. Edit warring at ]. Persistent removal of same material.

*5. Edit warring at ]. Persistent removal of same material.

*6. Edit warring at ]. Persistently changing "Estonian media reception" to something else.

*7. Edit warring at ]. Reinserting "Putinjugend", reinserting "The movement has evoked comparisons..." to the lead, etc.

*8. More edit warring at ]. Removal of category "anti-fascist organizations", etc.

*9. Edit warring at ]. For example, persistent removal of the category "Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia", and then of the successor category "Human rights in Estonia", removal of the text "His arrest was condemned by the ]", etc.

; ''Additional diffs provided by ]:''

*10. Edit warring at the ] article of ], including reinsertion of blog materials (after these had been previously removed by myself yesterday) and subsequent tendentious Wikilawyering giving undue weight to unproven allegations of financial interest in the Russian Federation:

*11. Deliberate POV-pushing at the article ] - summarized as "NPOV" editing:

*12. Deliberate insertion nonsense into edit summaries of deletionist edits (comments in Estonian on English Misplaced Pages):

*13. Continued abuse against other editors, despite ]'s stress on adherence to policy and "behave reasonably and calmly" rather than "insulting and intimidating other users":

*14. Content opponents are "drunks" hired to "show up on Misplaced Pages and support ]":
(edit summary)

;Explanation ''how'' these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Digwuren was blocked for a year following ] for edit warring (among other reasons). I think the above diffs clearly demonstrate that he hasn't changed his ways and is continuing to edit war. Also note that he was recently
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]): Block of a suitable length for continuing disruptive behaviour after expiration of last block.
;Additional comments: The first 3 diffs were discussed at a recent ] thread, but I decided to repost them after discussion with an admin.
;Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

===Discussion concerning Digwuren===
The AE is not for content disputes. I wish all you guys be banned from this noticeboard and others for disruption. Digwuren has not accused anybody of harboring Nazi sympathies. As I understand it, he said that the allegations Offliner and Russavia strived to include was produced by Risto Teinonen, who is a notorious neo-Nazi, as reported in numerous reliable sources, and not a reliable source. And I can certify that ''Russavia and Offliner edit-warred to keep neo-Nazi material in ]'' is an accurate factual statement, Digwuren was most probably right in his opposition to this. It wasn't Digwuren who created a battleground in that particular case. I invite everybody to examine the history of that article and the sudden attention that Russavia and Offliner started to pay to the Estonia-related topics entirely foreign to them (to provoke a confrontation in a known hotspot? Let's assume good faith for now, but it seems increasingly likely). Note: the material was neo-Nazi rather than the mentioned users, and I have little idea about their actual sympathies. As to the alleged edit-warring, you know, it takes (at least) two to tango. In most cases Digwuren merely restored the status quo version, aggressively provoked by contentious edits made by Offliner and his associates, which were bordering on policy violations and not supported on the talk page (e.g. insertion of the said neo-Nazi material, controversial categorization of ] as an "anti-fascist" organization, despite other sources claiming exactly the opposite, addition of the category ''Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia'', which was in blatant violation of NPOV and not supported by sources in the article, and so on). All this should be dealt with in a separate ArbCom and not here. ] (]) 21:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' The way I see this, Biophys, Digwuren, and you, Colchicum, as well as others have long been engaged in edit wars with Russavia, Offliner, me and others over a number of highly controversial topics, including a number of newly created POV titled articles. In the process we all tried to piss each other off, blamed each other for violation of WP policies (some justifiably so). In most cases that confrontation was qui pro quo, creation of one POV article followed by a creation of the opposite POV article. This case of Digwuren and Biophys is no more than a symmetric response by Offliner to his own case above. I think in all 3 cases, Offliner, Biophys and Digwuren the result of the arbitration should be the same or similar in harshness, otherwise the arbiter who makes the decision would be punishing one of the sides unfairly, possibly endorsing one of the sides in this conflict. (] (]) 21:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC))
**Without any diffs that counts as a personal attack. I barely remember you and I have never edit-warred. . Russavia has. . Offliner has. . . Anyway, this is not what we are discussing here. ] (]) 22:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Also you have earned this dubious distinction: . Wow. How could I miss that. ] (]) 22:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
***Yes, I just noticed that none of the users (excluding Igny and Russavia) was officially listed in the log of Digwuren case. This might be a problem as . This supports your argument of addressing the matter to ArbCom (if warranted) rather than here.] (]) 22:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
** Having no 3RR violations means nothing except for how well you know the WP rules. You, Colchicum, still engaged in a number of edit wars, as well as guilty of a number of personal attacks against me and others. You know that and I know that. I do not have to honor your diff request, but anyone interested can look the diffs up in your edit history. (] (]) 23:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC))
***On that note, it's true that Colchicum has not edit warred, although he has consistently done rather close "collaborative editing" on contentious topics with the group of editors exactly specified by Igny. I would say this certainly counts as a contribution as far as it is taking sides with one of the parties in an edit war, but I don't see how fruitful this sort of thing is at the moment. The diffs are here for the administrators to examine{{ndash}}perhaps we'd better stay back from back-and-forth at ], which only muddies the waters for those reading the comments and summaries and does not help anybody. Colchicum is very ''aggressively kidding here'' if he thinks this is some sort of specious personal attack against him{{ndash}}and playing the tendentious innocent victim card in this way is rapidly becoming old hat at the moment.] (]) 23:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
****The most recent edit war, broadly defined, occurred over categorization of ]. You can look up the participants of that edit war yourself. (] (]) 00:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC))
*****Wow, there's Colchicum - or somebody using his name. I guess it's not revert warring if you don't break 3RR... ] (]) 00:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

'''Comment'''. I have to agree with Colchicum's opinion. Note how Igny and PassportUsername attacked Colchicum after his comment. Seems to me Offliner, Igny and PassportUsername are attempting to mis-use AE to get the upper hand in content disputes over their contentious edits in articles mainly related to Estonia. Note that PasswordUsername was recently blocked for 72 hours for what was described by the blocking admin as his , which I think somewhat vindicates Digwuren's attempts to maintain balance in these articles.
Most of the issues raised against Digwuren have previously been raised in other fora and thoroughly reviewed with no action required ,
, thus this latest attempt represents ], and is bordering on harassment in my view. It is telling that rather than seek a topic ban in the AE request, Offliner is after an outright ban. I fully expect to be attacked by Offliner, Igny and PassportUsername after this comment. --] (]) 01:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::Well, I fully expected your arrival here when I talked about the bloc endorsing above, but as I said neither your nor my opinion should matter here if an unbiased review of all these cases is an ultimate goal. (] (]) 02:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC))
::Right, I got blocked. (Thank you for piling on.) Kindly let me know when that makes it OK for Digwuren to do what he's been doing since he got back from "vacationing." ] (]) 03:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

===Result concerning Digwuren===
''This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use <nowiki>{{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}}</nowiki> to mark it as closed.''

==Brandmeister==
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
===Request concerning Brandmeister===
;User requesting enforcement: ] (]) 03:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
;User against whom enforcement is requested: {{userlinks|Brandmeister}}
;Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: ]
;Sanction or remedy that has been violated:]
;] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: and
;Explanation ''how'' these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: That's 2 reverts in less than 2 days, violating his sanction of 1 revert per week.
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]): A block from editing for at least 24 hours in order to prevent escalation of edit warring.
;Additional comments: Brandmeister was very recently put under 1RR if you check and .
;Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

===Discussion concerning Brandmeister===

===Result concerning Brandmeister===
''This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use <nowiki>{{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}}</nowiki> to mark it as closed.''

Latest revision as of 03:34, 9 January 2025

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

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

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

    • request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
    • request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
    • request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
    • appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

    For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

    Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

    To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

    All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

    The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

    Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

    A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

    An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

    • The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
    • The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
      • the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
      • the restriction was an indefinite block.

    A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

    • a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
    • a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
    • a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

    Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

    Standard of review
    On community review

    Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
    On Arbitration Committee review

    Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

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

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

    Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

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

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

    Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

    Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

    Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

    Important notes:

    1. For a request to succeed, either
    (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
    (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
    is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
    2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
    3. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
    4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
    Information for administrators processing requests

    Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

    A couple of reminders:

    • Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
    • When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
    • Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
    • More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

    Closing a thread:

    • Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
    • Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
    • You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
    • Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

    Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

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

    PerspicazHistorian

    PerspicazHistorian is blocked indefinitely from mainspace. Seraphimblade 03:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning PerspicazHistorian

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

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


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

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

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


    Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian

    Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
    Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

    Statement by PerspicazHistorian

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

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

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

    Statement by LukeEmily

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

    Statement by Doug Weller

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

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

    Statement by Toddy1

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

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

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

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

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

    Statement by Capitals00

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

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

    Statement by Vanamonde93

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

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

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

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

    Statement by UtherSRG

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

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

    Result concerning PerspicazHistorian

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

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

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

    References

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

    LaylaCares

    There is consensus to remove LaylaCares's EC flag. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning LaylaCares

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

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


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


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

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

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning LaylaCares

    Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
    Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

    Statement by LaylaCares

    Statement by Aquillion

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

    Statement by Dan Murphy

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

    Statement by starship.paint

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning LaylaCares

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

    AstroGuy0

    AstroGuy0 has been issued a warning for source misrepresentation by Voorts. No other reviewers have expressed any wish for further action. Seraphimblade 06:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning AstroGuy0

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

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


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

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

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


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint:

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

    Discussion concerning AstroGuy0

    Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
    Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

    Statement by AstroGuy0

    Statement by Iskandar323

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning AstroGuy0

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

    Lemabeta

    This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning Lemabeta

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

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


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


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

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

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

    Here

    Discussion concerning Lemabeta

    Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
    Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

    Statement by Lemabeta

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

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Lemabeta

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