Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:33, 22 November 2009 editSirFozzie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,150 edits Restoring previous close by Tznkai. I have spoken with a member of ArbCom, and this person will be commenting.← 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}}
={{anchor|toptoc}}Requests for enforcement=
{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!--
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}} --><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly>
<noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!--
|maxarchivesize = 200K
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|counter = 51
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
|algo = old(2d)
|counter =347
|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==
== Lapsed Pacifist ==
{{hat|{{u|PerspicazHistorian}} is blocked indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC) }}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning PerspicazHistorian===
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
===Request concerning Lapsed Pacifist===


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|PerspicazHistorian}}<p>{{ds/log|PerspicazHistorian}}</p>
'''User requesting enforcement:'''<br>
<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 12:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
'''User against whom enforcement is requested:'''<br>
{{userlinks|Lapsed Pacifist}}


'''Sanction or remedy that this user violated:'''<br> ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
]


'''] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it:'''<br> ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# First revert on ], made without discussion on the talk page which is required
# Second revert (see below for extended commentary as to why this is a revert in my opinion), made in less than a week which is a breach of the remedy, and again made without discussion on the talk page which is required # - 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
# Revert without discussion on the talk page. Although a was made, it would require extreme amounts of wikilawyering to argue that "I agree, we need an Indochina section" is actually discussing the revert being made and the merits or otherwise of it
# - attributing castes to people withhout any sources
# Revert to , made without discussion on the talk page which is required
# Another revert made without discussion on the talk page which is required # - edit warring to impose the above edits after getting
# Another revert made without discussion on the talk page which is required # - 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 :
'''Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):'''<br>
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
Not applicable
*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)
'''Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]):'''<br>
Admin discretion


: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)
'''Additional comments by <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font>:'''<br>
Brief explanation of why I believe the second revert on John Adams Project qualifies. The edit is an attempt to claim that the people being held at Guantanamo Bay are ''internees''. This is basically the same as the first edit and first revert, regardless of the fact it's being added to a different sentence. Adding that they were internees is still a revert in my opinion, especially as claiming they are resulted in the first two edits being reverted.


*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)
There are more diffs which show Lapsed Pacifist is ignoring his editing restrictions, but I believe the above should be sufficient. Lapsed Pacifist has a long history of ignoring such restrictions, as evidenced by the four blocks he received for violating his topic ban from the first arbitration case. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 12:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


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


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning Lapsed Pacifist===
====Statement by Lapsed Pacifist====
====Comments by other editors====
I have already left LP a gentle reminder about their conduct as part of . This went unanswered. From the last RfAR LP was restricted to a 1RR which they have been technically keeping to but may not been honoring the spirit of the sanction. shows a second revert just barely outside the 7 day restriction period. The RfAR also required a discussion of reversions which as can be seen from hasn't happened with the exception of where they reintroduced a picture back into the lead of article, that was designed to show an anti-US POV and had no context (ie pic is of ] and there was no section on Vietnam in article). Coming from RfAR:-
* LP was encouraged to use edit summaries, there has been no change of behaviour in this area. LP used confrontational edit summaries in the past and since this being raised as an issue.
* Personal attacks were also raised and LP was reminded to comment on content and not the contributor but has breached that .
* LP was topic banned from for introduction of POV material, ], and ] in support of a campaign group they are involved with. They have been petitioning on talk pages of related articles for introduction of material , . In they have named a ] Superintendent as being subject of a disciplinary procedure on a talk page, despite them not being named in the supplied. This was advocating a breach of ] and was OR. I also considered the comment to be a BLP breach and renamed the thread.
* LP was subject of ] which had an outcome of a topic ban on articles relating to the conflict in Northern Ireland. The Irish section of contains edits which I believe is again pushing the bounds of what is acceptable under the previous RfAR. LP admits on their userpage that at least one of the articles which is linked would be an article that Admins could interpret them being topic banned on. Their last block was related this sort of behaviour and was the fourth for violation of sanctions.


===Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian ===
It should be noted that during their last RfAR, LP didn't make much input. Despite editing actively throughout the time it was open LP neglected to enter a statement or to contribute in any meaningful way apart from rebuttal of one set of evidence. LP made no response at all to the last RfE. LPs behaviour has shown they have scant regard for wikipedias process. One Night in Hackney has asked for enforcement to be at admins discretion which I agree with. I would also ask that LP be required to make much better use of edit summaries and for clarification of what is or isn't acceptable on talk pages of topic banned articles. ] ] <sub> ]</sub> 20:09, 10 November 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 ====
::My first thoughts (and it may not be supported by the AE stuff, since that is 1 week, up to the 5th, which can be 1 year, but I consider it discretionary, since he has a history of violating topic restriction, having violated the OTHER topic restriction he is under four times so far), that Lapsed Pacifist is a strong net negative to this project, not interested in collaborative encyclopedia building. Two ArbCom cases against him (with repeated findings that he was an edit warrior, etcetera). No participation in his most recent ArbCom, indeed edit warring his way into a two week block during it. If I had the decision here, it would to block him for a month or so as a result of the AE report, and possibly open an AN/ANI report into an indefinite block and/or community ban. I will not take action due to appearances of bias (being the person who handled the LAST AE report for him), but will support any such items per above. ] (]) 20:42, 10 November 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.
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.
:::While I share Fozzie's sense of frustration with LP, I'm leaning towards a 1-week block, partially because of the ArbCom ruling, and partially because the is borderline. ] (]) 11:57, 11 November 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)
::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
::::Note that LP was required by ArbCom to discuss any content reversions on the talk page. I'm not seeing that from him either. 19:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC) {{unsigned|SirFozzie}}
:1)Yes I usually edit on RSS related topics, but to ensure a democratic view is maintained as many socks try to disrupt such articles. Even on ] page, I just edited on request of talk page and added a graph. I don't think its a POV push.
:2) My main interest in editing is ] and ] topics.
:3)There have been certain cases in past where I was blocked but if studied carefully they were result of me edit warring with socks(although, through guidance of various experienced editors and admins I learnt a SPI should be filed first). I have learnt a lot in my journey and there have been nearly zero case of me of edit warring this month.
:Please do not block me. ] (]) 14:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*@] I beg apologies for the inconvenience caused, thanks for correcting me. I will now reply in my own statement section. @] I am a quick learner and professionally competent to edit in this encyclopedic space. Please consider reviewing this enforcement if its an counter-attack on me as mentioned in my previous replies. You all are experienced editors and I have good faith in your decision-making capability.] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*@]@] I have edited content marked as "original research" and "mess" by you, I am ready to help removing any content that might be considered "poorly sourced" by the community. Please don't block me.] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*@] This enforcement started for edit-warring and now I feel its more concerned to my edited content(which I agree to cooperate and change wherever needed). After learning about edit wars, there has been no instance of me edit-warring, Please consider my request.--] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@] I am not a slow learner, I understand the concerns of all admins here. I will try my best to add only reliable sources, and discuss content in all talk pages, as I already mentioned ]. ] (]) 12:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@]@] I think admins should focus more on encouraging editors when they do good and correct when mistaken. I have made many edits, added many citations and created much articles which use fine citations. The enforcement started out of retaliation by nxcrypto, now moving towards banning me anyways. I started editing out of passion, and doing it here on wiki unlike those who come here just for pov pushes and disrupt article space(talking about socks and vandalizers on contentious Indian topics).
*::The article ] doesn't only has issue on citations, but the whole article is copypasted from the citations I added. I just wanted to point that out. Remaining about ], I am currently pursuing Btech in cs from IIT delhi, idt I am a slow learner by any means. Still, happy new year to all ! ] (]) 14:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::@] You mean to say, "<sub>The ''prasada'' is to be consumed by attendees as a holy offering. The offerings may include cooked food, ] and confectionery sweets. Vegetarian food is usually offered and later distributed to the devotees who are present in the ]. Sometimes this vegetarian offering will exclude prohibited items such as garlic, onion, mushroom, etc. "</sub> is not copy pasted by website? Is this also a wiki mirror website? How would you feel if I doubt your competence now? ] (]) 14:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::@ ] I just asked others to share their opinion in the enforcement. With all due respect, I don't think its wrong in any sense. ] (]) 15:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::To all the admins involved here,
*:::::* I agree to keep learning and apologize if my previous edits/replies have annoyed the admins.
*:::::* I have not edit warred since a month and please see it as my willingness to keep learning and getting better.
*:::::*Please give me a chance, I understand concern of you all and respect your opinion in the matter. But please don't block me from editing from main article space. I promise that I will abide by all the rules and will learn from other editors.
*:::::] (]) 15:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by LukeEmily====
:::::Indeed. Although I acknowledge myself the 1RR breach is somewhat borderline, the lack of discussion of reverts isn't. The restriction says "Should Lapsed Pacifist exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below", so that seems pretty clear cut to me. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 15:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
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====
:::::::Please note, this was auto-archived. Can someone take care of this, please? Sad to see it fall off the table. ] (]) 18:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
(unindent) It seems this may be left because of the time lapse but before this is closed could we have clarification as what is acceptable on the talk pages of topic banned articles? LP is continuing to try and on talk pages. Also made today is another example of pushing the limits of what may or may not acceptable from the at their first RfAR. I would really appreciate input an the talk page matter. Thanks ] ] <sub> ]</sub> 17:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
::After reviewing the edits GainLine has pointed out, as well as his unxplained revert , I think that these are new violations of his restrictions (not just the revert one, but the requirement that he fully discuss all content reversions before doing them. Tznkai, would you take a hard look at these? (My thoughts is until such time as he responds to the community's concerns, that he be indefblocked) ] (]) 00:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC) ] (]) 00:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


====Statement by Toddy1====
Looking at the situation, I would urge some consideration of past behaviour, and not just behaviour at this point in time. Simply stopping editing for a short period of time and expecting to avoid consequences doesn't and shouldn't work. It's not that easy, and it doesn't work that way in the real world. Lapsed Pacifist has repeatedly tried to game the system, and is pushing the boundaries as far as he can. This situation needs to be looked at and appropriate sanctions may need to be looked at, though perhaps ANI might be a better option? <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 06:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
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.
: I'd like to echo Steve and SirFozzies sentiments. Its not like the current behaviour is something new here and its not even a gradual slip back into old ways. LP has resumed from where they have left off from before their last RfAR. Despite remedies designed to help them steer clear of trouble, they have pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable and indeed past it in not discussing reversions as well as continuing to seek the razors edge of acceptability from their first RfAR. If anything behaviour has deteriorated even further in failing to engage in any meaningful with communication attempts. ] ] <sub> ]</sub> 13:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


A lot of pro-RSS/BJP editors turn out to be sock-puppets, so please can we do a checkuser on this account. And to be even-handed, why not checkuser NXcrypto too.
:Follow up - Lapsed Pacifist has , right after his block expired, and has clearly a) Edited an article related to Corrib gas, which he is . He also made this revert without discussing issues on the talk page. There have been other incidents which will be elaborated on by another editor. Perhaps further measures need to be taken? <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 02:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
:: There's no ambiguity about this, the article in question is part of the . There's no way at all this could be construed as ''taking "broadly defined" to its limits''. The edit itself is a prime example of problems LP created during the height of the dispute on Corrib gas articles. I.E, a straight revert citing POV as the reason.


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 .
::LP returned from their block to create this article: ]. On the face of it, not a problem but a quick reveals they are involved in campaigning against the Corrib gas project. Its even on the front page of to which a link is provided. IMO it was created in the hope another editor will come along in the future to add details on the Corrib gas controversy and is in effect ] by proxy. Next up LP in . while not in breach of any remedies, is pushing the boundaries again and considering they have been topic banned for conducting a campaign against a gas pipeline, its certainly against the spirit of the remedy. Its incredible that all this has come on the day they have returned from a block.


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.
::The actions of this user aren't those of someone trying to reform their behaviour and it seems the the remedies of the last RfAR are not working in modifying LPs approach. Instead LP is gaming the injunction and continuing to push the limits of what they can get away with. The frustration that comes from being involved with LP is making itself apparent. I'd ask Tznkai to have a closer look at LPs history here. 2 blocks in 3 days and a number of other edits that push the limits of acceptability show a continued pattern of disruptive behaviour that as both Steve and SirFozzie have alluded to, needs something more to address. ] ] <sub> ]</sub> 12:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


I can see a good case for restricting PerspicazHistorian to draft articles and talk pages for a month, and suggesting that he/she seeks advice from more experienced editors. Another solution would be a one-revert rule to last six months.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 13:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
===Result concerning Lapsed Pacifist===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
::Going to lean towards declining as stale, LP doesn't seem to be editing all that much, and I had been under the impression that someone had handled this several days ago. I'll act immediately next time, presuming I'm online.--] (]) 19:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
:::I am not a huge fan of the sanction structure here, but LP has ignored a point blank request to follow the very reasonable requests of his remedy, and has been blocked for 24 hours. I will note for the record that while ignoring communications and reports will delay my actions, it will also encourage me to do them in the end. Will log tomorrow.--] (]) 06:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
::::Blocked for 72 hrs following unambiguous topic ban violation. This is getting irritating.--] (]) 02:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


====Statement by Capitals00====
== Barcelona.women ==
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)
<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:|''A summary of the conclusions reached follows.''
::{{{1}}}
----
}} <!-- from Template:discussion top-->


====Statement by Vanamonde93====
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
{{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.
===Request concerning Barcelona.women===
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 17:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


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.
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Barcelona.women}}


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)
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ]


: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)
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : # BW claims to have explained actions in Talk, however no edits were made in Talk.
# BW inaccurately accuses another editor of vandalism
# BW replaces sourced text with unsourced and/or poorly/incorrectly sourced text, e.g. Muhammad Idrees Ahmad is claimed to have criticised UN Watch, without sources.
# Edit warring
# Edit warring
# Edit warring
# Edit warring
# Edit warring
# Edit warring, accusing other user of sockpuppeting


====Statement by UtherSRG====
; Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy) : # Warning by ]
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)
# Warning by 71.156.89.167 (3RR)


:Based on , I'm more strongly leaning towards indef. - ] ] 12:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Block concerning ] page
::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 ===
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : User BW has appeared on Misplaced Pages at the beginning of this month and edited the UN Watch page exclusively. His/her edits consist of repetitively reverting text critical of the organization and replacing it with material that appears to have been designed to portray the UN Watch organization in an unrealistically positive light. BW has not genuinely responded to repeated requests to discuss content issues on the talk page. In detail, BW has not responded to questions raised on the talk page where the verifiability of her edits have been questioned. It is not clear if a genuinely new user would be aware of sockpuppeting.
:''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)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- 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}}
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ABarcelona.women&action=historysubmit&diff=326373378&oldid=326343373
{{hab}}


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


===Request concerning LaylaCares===
====Statement by Barcelona.women====
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Vice regent}} 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|LaylaCares}}<p>{{ds/log|LaylaCares}}</p>
====Comments by others about the request concerning Barcelona.women ====


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Result concerning Barcelona.women===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
*I am inclined to give this user an additional chance to edit constructively rather than block them. Therefore, I am placing them on an indefinite ] in regards to the ] article and a ] on all Israel-Palestine articles, broadly construed. If they fail to heed this, any sysop may block them appropriately. <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 21:44, 17 November 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>


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
== Human Rights Believer ==
<!--- 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 :
{{discussion top}}
<!-- 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.-->
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
# EC gaming
===Request concerning Human Rights Believer===
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 09:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Human Rights Believer}}


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ]


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : # ]
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)
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ] ( "fascist Serbs")
# ] (


; Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy) : # Warning by {{user|No such user}} ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
# Warning by {{user|Phantomsteve}}
# Warning by {{user|Phantomsteve}} Warning by {{user|Chrisrus}}
# Warning by {{user|Rodhullandemu}}


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Block or topic ban. As I browse through his talk page and contribution history, an indefinite block seems in order. Zsero posits that he's a sockpuppet of {{user|Lover Of Democracy}}. Indeed, it's fairly obvious .


===Discussion concerning LaylaCares===
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : {{user|Human Rights Believer}} is engaged in a pro-Albanian soapboxing campaign in articles related with Kosovo, Serbia and Republic of Macedonia. I turned his attention to ] here, , but he continued in the same vein on ] , ] , ] , and here . Earlier the same day, the spree included ] (), ] ( "fascist Serbs"), and ] () His talk page history is full of warnings related either with Balkans-related articles, or edit-warring on articles related with popular culture ] (]) 09:11, 18 November 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 LaylaCares====
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


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


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


====Statement by starship.paint====
====Comments by others about the request concerning Human Rights Believer ====
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)
I firmly support an indefinite block. This user is here solely to disrupt. --] 19:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)====
I agree. I've seen no evidence that this user intends to follow Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 23:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
===Result concerning Human Rights Believer===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
*Topic banned indefinitely. <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 21:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
{{discussion bottom}}


===Result concerning LaylaCares===
== Hudavendigar ==
:''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==
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
{{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) }}
===Request concerning Hudavendigar===
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 20:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


===Request concerning AstroGuy0===
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Hudavendigar}}
; 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>
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ], violation of 1RR


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : First revert, ; Second revert, , of this edit


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
; Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy) : Warning by {{admin|Khoikhoi}}
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
(Even though this isn't the usual R&I fare, I consider the intersection of "Race/ethnicity and sex offending", to come under "the intersection of '''race/ethnicity''' and human abilities '''and behaviour'''")


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


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : The edits I have highlighted here are just the tip of the iceberg. Hudavendigar is not only engaged in edit-warring but also ]. On the ] article, he not only presents sources which fail verification but synthesizes them to provide a narrative which is completely independent of the argument of any actual historian. After editor Kansas Bear correctly identified this problem and removed the problematic text, he was reverted by Hudavendigar, who promised that he would introduce the correct page numbers/sources. Once more, the sources failed to back up the claims in the text and Kansas Bear removed it once more, only to be reverted by Hudavendigar again, violating 1RR.


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
:But the issue itself transcends just ordinary edit-warring. Hudavendigar approaches these articles with the notion that anything related to ] is inherently false or biased and that a cabal of certain editors are concertedly working to ruin the image of the ]. For some reason, he goes to extreme pains to disprove the evidence of Armenians living in the lands of what is now Turkey during the ancient and medieval periods. Even after highly reliable sources are provided, he still ventures onto the talk page of certain articles (see, e.g. ) to make inflammatory statements such as "It is a mystery how people even come with these so-called historic names...It was an Ottoman, Selcuk, Roman and Greek city all through history. These forced namings seem to be driven solely by nationlaistic agendas and emotions." On the article on historian ], a notorious denier of the Armenian Genocide, he attempts to whitewash his statements and disingenuously adds that "Armenian nationalists" have criticized the historian, a statement which is completely at odds with the cited sources.


: Made aware of contentious topics criterion:
:He already has been blocked 4-5 times now (the most lengthy one being the most recent one, for one month ; see his ), but the warnings are simply . I believe that he has been give enough chances for to improve his editing habits but his arguments have not changed one bit since he began editing on Misplaced Pages. He sees everything as white and black, and believes that a conspiracy exists to besmirch the reputation of Turkey. The arguments of neutral editors are spurned and disregarded without so much as a blink of an eye. An indefinite topic ban on all articles relating to Armenia and Turkey seems to be in order.--] (])
<!-- Add any further comment here -->


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


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


Additional comments by editor filing complaint:
====Statement by Hudavendigar====


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)
The subject of this specific complaint is the ] Article. This very modest article has drawn ther ire of a number of well known Armenian nationalist edit warriors for some reason.


===Discussion concerning AstroGuy0===
*Another well known editor, Kansas Bear, who has engaged in edit warring often, had removed a referenced paragraph wholesale on 18th. He did not bother to bring it up on the discussion page first. He had complained that the reference did not support the paragraph.
<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====
*He was partly right. There were confusing page numbers and reference actually contained two seperate book references. So I cleaned it up, kept one book that is most commonly referenced by Armenians, included page numbers, and placed in the article again.


====Statement by Iskandar323====
*Kansas Bear again deleted the whole paragraph within minutes and left derisive remarks in the discussion page. He again claimed the reference was insufficient. Apparently this individual is able to freely engage in edit warring.
This rather dated "Asian/Muslim grooming gangs" malarkey from the UK has recently been pushed on social media by a certain US tech billionaire and is now recirculating in right-wing social media and the blogosphere, partly in connection with UK politics, so this trend could flare before it dims. ] (]) 03:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)====
*This time I dug out a second reference, easily available on line and verifiable, included specific section and page numbers, and added another explanatory note and wrote in the paragraph in its new and improved version. As of this writing, it was still there. I have complained about this individual numerous times but his destructive activities continue.
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning AstroGuy0===
Note that during this process neither Kansas Bear nor the individual launching the complaint presented any arguments concerning the content of the paragraph itself. Only the reference quality was questioned.
:''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==
As the record clearly shows, I did not blindly revert any edits in this article. In fact, I did not remove any material. Each time a section was removed by Kansas Bear who also indicated why he was deleting them, I tried to address the complaints. In each edit I made, I included more and detailed references as Kansas Bear had demanded.
<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 fail to see how this contradicts any of the Misplaced Pages rules or any restrictions put on me.
; 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>
I will not even comment on the other rather long list of grievences and complaints which all seem to be unrelated to the specifics here but betray the real reason for this action.


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
There seems to be no basis for this complaint in fact.


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
====Comments by others about the request concerning Hudavendigar ====
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
:I have also worked on the Niles and Sutherland Report article. Hudavendigar doesn't seem capable of editing in an appropriate way: he ignores what others have written, and does not seem to understand the concept of no original research. The "referenced paragraph" that he has just accused Kansas Bear of removing "wholesale" and of not bringing "it up on the discussion page first" '''has''' been discussed in the article's talk page, and not just by Kansas Bear in the "More attempts at giving opinion" section. <s>I had fact tagged</s> Kansas Bear had fact tagged the sentence '' "This was in great contrast to the reports received by the American public during the War by the Armenians and the missionaries in the area friendly to them"'' in October , after Hudavendigar had added it to the article. On the 5th November Hudavendigar removed the fact tag and added a spurious reference. . The reference was spurious because it is a book published in '''1917''' and it was being cited as a source to characterise a report published in '''1919'''. I explained on the talk page why that particular reference could not be valid, and that I would be justified in removing the sentence unless a source for its claim could be produced. I removed the invalid citation and reinserted the fact tag. However, a few days later, rather than removing the whole sentence, I tried to rewrite it to make it less POV. In response, Hudavenger simply restored the old sentence, moved it down a paragraph, and reinserted the invalid citation: .


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
:The same editing attitude is seen on many articles he has worked on: Here, for example, he is adding additional words, ''his own words'', to a quote: . Here he has removed a photograph that had been extensively discussed in the article's talk page . He simply refuses to take note of what other editors have written on that talk page. And in his very next edit he agressively inserts an uncited photograph from an unknown source and with an OR caption. . ] 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing.
# - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist.


====Comments about Tznkai's conclusion ====
'''In what way have I been "edit warring" on the Niles and Sutherland Report article?''' Give me some diffs, Tznkai. But you will not, because you cannot. You claim you "glanced at the article history". If that is true, it should have shown that I made one edit on the 9th August to insert a POV tag, and justified its insertion in the article's talk page. Then I made a series of tidying-up edits on the 3rd November that were all uncontroversial and which were not objected to by anyone, or reverted by Hudavendigar in his 5th November edits. Finally, on the 15th November, I made an edit that attempted to rewrite a sentence that had been citation required tagged since the 11th October. That is the extent of my edits to this article, and I have not made any reverts. '''Is that edit warring?''' I wonder if the real reason behind my name being mentioned is revenge, revenge for a comment I made relating to another of Tznkai's arbitrary decisions: . And just like that earlier decision, this decision of Tznkai is made showing an indifference to what other editors have taken the time to carefully write - an indifference reflected by his inconsiderate "I don't care who is right" comment. ] 16:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
:Tznkai, you have, below, weasily accused me of not following the ''"most basic Misplaced Pages conduct and content policies"'' and have also accused me of being part of a group that ''"repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion"''. Yet you still '''refuse to give any specific examples related to me'''. Show me even one example in that article where I have overrid anyone's contribution? I have not made A SINGLE REVERT. On the contrary, I've made numerous contributions to the talk page that were aimed at resolving things. For example, sentences that are fact tagged (especially if tagged for 5 weeks) can be removed (or are you denying that is in Misplaced Pages content policies?) However, rather than just remove the offending sentence, I repeatedly tried to explain to Hudavendigar that a source from 1917 could not be used as a citation for a description of a report from 1919, and suggesting to him that he rewrite it. You make empty complaints that you are ''"no way impressed with the end product"'', but have done FA yourself to make the article better, and have made completely unjustified attacks on an editor who has been doing his best to improve the article (see here for example - edits that were uncontested by everyone). ] 17:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
::I never said a thing about reverting, merely edit warring, like when you change huge swaths of text with a snarky edit summary like . I said a fair amount about conduct that does not help collaboration. Things like . It certainly does appear you have improved the article some. It does not appear you've improved it any way that is fairly called "collaborative." The aggressiveness and hostile attitude has a lot to do with why the there is a POV tag slapped on the top of the article.
::Now, don't get me wrong. It is entirely possible, even likley, that I've misread the contribution you've had on the unpleasantness of the editing environment. Thats why we're still talking about this. A bit of free advice though, either find the gumption to discuss this with me levelly and cordially, or find someone else who can speak on your behalf who can, 'cause your stone casting isn't going to get us anywhere.--] (]) 18:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

:::I did not take the time to file this ArbCom report all so that an administrator can take a cursory glance at the article and hand out an arbitrary ruling by banning all three users from editing it. Meowy and Kansas Bear have taken extreme pains to fix the quality of the article and to ban them, the two editors who actually sought to improve the quality of the article by way of the talk page, is an astonishing lapse in reasoning. What is wrong here is not the lack of a "collaborative approach" but Hudavendigar's approach to these articles. To anyone who even has a rudimentary understanding of the Armenian-Turkish issues, his sole purpose is to muddy the waters and distort reality. Does it not concern you that he has been inserting his own unsupported research into the article? Banning him from this page will simply mean that he will focus his energies elsewhere. Despite '''5''' previous blocks and calls for rectifying his behavior and editing habits, he still continues as if some conspiracy exists to ruin the good name of all Turks. It's this mindset which is proving so difficult for all editors to deal with. If after all these blocks and after all this time an editor refuses to change his habits, I cannot see any other viable course to elect but a permanent topic ban.--] (]) 18:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
::::Welcome to the ] and the law of admins-don't-follow-directions-blindly. At least I don't. Whack-a-mole has not been working, and if I was inclined to topic ban anyone who appeared to have been motivated by partisan loyalties of any particular stripe, I probably would start with ]. There are over 3 ''million articles'' on Misplaced Pages, and I have found without exception that all the disagreements follow the same patterns, with the same excuses and same posturing. Again, though, I do a fair amount of this stuff. Inevitably, I will get it wrong from time to time. So ''find someone else''. Say, ] who does a lot of work in the area, or some of ]. Not ] though. I hear he's busy.--] (]) 18:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
:::Tznkai, you are wrong to claim ''"I never said a thing about reverting".'' You used these words to me: ''"An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion"''. Override means revert. But if you prefer to use the word "override", where in the article did I "repeatedly override" another editor's contributions?
:::Tznkai, you snipe at my use of a phrase like ""This article is full of unencyclopaedic, POV, and weasel-worded phrases", yet you have already described the article as something that you are ''"in no way impressed with".'' Tell me Tznkai, if you think the article '''is''' encyclopaedic, '''is''' free from POV bias, and '''is''' free from weasel words, why are are you still ''"in no way impressed with"'' it?
:::There is "''a POV tag slapped on the top of the article"'' because '''I put it there''', and in the '''required''' talk-page explanation about why I put it there I used the words "is full of unencyclopaedic, POV, and weasel-worded phrases" and then gave examples illustrating why the article''' is''' full of unencyclopaedic, POV, and weasel-worded phrases. So, '''WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR OBJECTION TO THE PHRASE''' "the article is full of unencyclopaedic, POV, and weasel-worded phrases"? Why do you claim that pointing out examples of unencyclopaedic or POV or weasel-worded phrases "''does not help collaboration''"?
:::Tznkai, you describe as ''"snarky"'' my "Rewriting the cited information, removing the bias" edit summary. Did you bother reading the actual edit? Are you claiming that I did not rewrite the problematic sentence that had a 1917 source being cited for a description of a 1919 report? Are you claiming that I did not remove some bias? If not, I assume that you are accepting that my edit summary was correct. If you are accepting that, then '''WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR OBJECTION TO THE PHRASE''' "Rewriting the cited information, removing the bias"? Or do you think there is no bias in claiming as a fact that "Van's Armenians who were approximately a quarter of the city population were gone" (in spite of the fact that that population claim contradicting the population figures in the article about Van) and are saying I was wrong in my changing it to the '''factually correct''' "''In their report'' they wrote that Van's Armenians (which they stated was approximately a quarter of the city's pre-war population) were all gone". Is that what you call changing ''"huge swaths of text"?'' I think you should be more accurate in your own huge swaths of text. ] 19:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

===Result concerning Hudavendigar===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''

I've glanced at the article history, and then I dug around a bit, and I have come to the following conclusion: 3 way edit war.

So you are all topic banned from the ] article page indefinitely, but not its associated talk page (this is a hint), and by "you" I mean Kansas Bear, Hudavendigar and Meowy, since none of you seem to be able to work together yet.

This thread will remain open for appeal and the opinions of other administrators. I am particularly interested in what Kansas Bear has to say.

And seriously - I don't care who is right, I only care if you're edit warring.--] (]) 04:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
:You are free to speculate as to my motivations and how vile they are, but its better done away from here, and by here, I mean Misplaced Pages in general. We really don't have time for that. I think now is a good time to explain what the basic thinking that underlies my action, even before approaching the specific incident. Discretionary sanctions are applied in areas where editors have a lot of trouble following even the most basic Misplaced Pages conduct and content policies, all supposedly in pursuit of "neutral, accurate" content. All this talk about who is "right" is really partisan bickering, which would be fine, if the end product was any good. This would be unpleasant enough in the abstract, but I actually really care when it is getting in the way of content. As we can see in the short of ], we have plenty of bickering, and I am in no way impressed with the end product. The talk page doesn't give much hope either. I have no reason at this point to believe the end product will get any better.
:Edit warring is easiest to see when there are direct reversions - the tug of war over a particular phrase or paragraph. That however, is not the definition. ] Misplaced Pages isn't a game, it isn't a sport, and it isn't a battlefield. Its a collaborative encyclopedia project, and its high time you all show that you can work together reasonably well.--] (]) 16:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
::Hmph. Having dug into this, Murat does seem to have been engaging in original research, and that's assuming good faith. Being more cynical, he is quite possibly falsifying sources, as the page numbers he originally cited weren't at all relevant, and even now his use of sources seems to be skating on rather thin ice (see the talkpage for more detailed discussion of this). I am inclined to revoke the sanctions and let discussion run its course and put the page on 1RR, with a stern warning to Murat not to fiddle around with sources and to Meowy for going OTT with the rhetoric (not the first time). Indeed, per Tznkai, some work on improving the end product might be nice. At the same time, however, I am deeply unsympathetic to attempts to downplay the magnitude of the ]. This may not, of course, be what Murat is doing (I assume good faith, again), but as general rule that's rather the counterpart in crankiness of Ararat arev's antiquity frenzy. ] (]) 00:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
:::Go for it.--] (]) 00:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

== Jack Merridew ==
{{discussion top}}
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
===Request concerning Jack Merridew===
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 05:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Jack Merridew}}

;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ]

; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
!Stalking
|-
|
Three editors who have accused Jack Merridew of stalking since Jack Merridew's unban (banned because of numerous sock puppets).

Jack's behavior below is '''identical''', and in the case of Mr. Coleman and A Nobody '''worse''' than the stalking evidence that Cool Cat presented, in which arbitration unanimously found:

# "Davenbelle...monitored Cool Cat with the view to bringing problems he caused to the attention of the community. However, this has tipped over into effectively "wikistalking" or "hounding" Cool Cat, and so disrupting Misplaced Pages and discouraging his positive contributions." Passed 6-0.
# "Moby Dick has engaged in stalking or harassing behavior towards Cool Cat and Megaman Zero. See ] and ]. Passed 8 to 0.

{|border=1 style="background:#FFFFFF
|
# ]
# ]
# ]
|}
{{anchor|Stalking of Emmette Hernandez Coleman}}

;Stalking of Emmette Hernandez Coleman

Origin of stalking:

Mr. Merridew's twelve page, 3 month stalking, began because of ]'s minor edit on Jimbo Wales talk page, adding <nowiki><span class="plainlinks"> </span></nowiki> around another editors link.
:Jack's response on ]: "...I've undone some dubious edits you've made..." 14:38, 26 May 2009.

]:
:] "Removing unnecessary invisible text, per WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN. This makes reading the edit page easier." 12:27, 28 May 2009.
:], first edit to page: "Undid revision 292866724 by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) bypass redirect" 15:40, 28 May 2009.
::] makes a total of four edits on ], last one, 15:52, 28 May 2009 and has not returned.
]:
:]: "Removing unnecessary invisible text, per WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN. This makes reading the edit page easier." 21:10, 29 May 2009.
:]: "bypass redirectes, tidy". 06:17, 30 May 2009.
::] makes only one edit to ], and has not returned.
]
:]: "Removing unnecessary invisible text, per WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN. This makes reading the edit page easier." 06:25, 9 June 2009.
:]: "tidy" 06:25, 9 June 2009.
::] makes only one edit to the page. Mr. Merridew has not yet returned.
]
:]: Adds "see also: ]" to the ]'s section "Should the title be "Sun" of "Earth's Sun". 06:33, 30 May 2009.
::Only one edit ever done on ].
] '''STALKING AND HARASSMENT'''
:]: First edit to ], mocking ]: "<joke><del>Well there's the possibility of ]</del></joke> 06:30, 30 May 2009"
:]: Second edit to ], "They must have a ’pedia, too; there are ] involved! Please note that I've noticed a fair number of such AGF-testing fun-seeking debates initiated by Emmette. You might want to visit his talk page. 11:43, 30 May 2009.
:]: Last edit on ], directed to ]: "]", (Assume Good Faith - as far as is reasonable) 14:09, 30 May 2009.
]
:] "Reverted good faith edits by Emmette Hernandez Coleman; Direct link is best ;. (TW)" 06:21, 30 May 2009.
::] makes only one edits to ] to revert ], and has not yet returned.
]
:]: "Adding source. I am new at adding sources. I apologise if I did if incorrectly." 15:41, 30 May 2009
:]: "Added <nowiki>{{nofootnotes}}</nowiki> tag to article. using Friendly"13:24, 31 May 2009.
:] makes only one edit to the page, and has not returned.
:] writes on ]: Thanks again for your improvement to ]. I have added sources for 3 previously un-sourced articles...but probably not that good of a job. They could probably use a template similar to the one you put on ] so someone will turn my not that good of a job into a good job... 11:02, 17 June 2009.
::] response: "please don't be so obvious." 11:36, 17 June 2009
]
:] "Redirected page to Misplaced Pages:Namespace#File" 20:50, 10 June 2009.
:] "better to match Misplaced Pages:Image namespace, methinks". 05:50, 15 June 2009.
::] makes only one edits to ] to revert ], and has not yet returned.
]
:] first edit, reverting ] changes 22:09, 9 June 2009 , 20:58, 10 June 2009 : "restore linking via 'namespace' targets as bypassing them is not helpful here (encapsulation); tidy table, too" 05:22, 15 June 2009.
::] makes only two edits to the page, and has not returned.
]: '''STALKING AND HARASSMENT'''
:]: First edit, 09:21, 20 Jun 2009, section: "Should we add "For technical reasons, # redirects here see number sign".
:]: First edit, 11:11, 21 Jun 2009, section: "Should we add "For technical reasons, # redirects here see number sign".
:Mr. Meriddew's first edit on this page directly addresses Mr. Coleman, bringing up an argument with Mr. Coleman on Mr. Coleman's talk page that has nothing to do with the Main space page:
::"See here: , Emmette. <nowiki>]</nowiki>? 11:11, 21 June 2009.
:Mr. Merriddew's second edit mocks Mr. Coleman, mentioning another page which Mr. Merriddew stalked Mr. Coleman too.
::You're missing that Emmette *likes* parodies of debates. Think we should move ] to ]. 13:37, 21 June 2009.
:]: Jack, can you please back off ]? Do you regularly edit this talk page, or are you following the editor about? 20:06, 21 June 2009.
:]: I have taken an interest in main pages of projects recently that has nothing to do with Emmette...It seems to me that Emmette *wants* my attention; he keeps that thread on his talk page rolling and has repeatedly pinged me on mine. 05:00, 22 June 2009.
;Stalking after ]'s warning.
]
:] "Redirected page to Misplaced Pages:Don't be a dick" 10:56, 31 July 2009.
:] 04:47, '''4 August 2009''' "traditional; change this and you'll be referred to it ;"
::] makes only one edits to ] to revert ], and has not yet returned.
]
:] "Updateing shortcut box, removeing WP:PENIS, adding M:DICK and M:DBAD" 11:00, 31 July 2009.
:] reverts ] "tidy" 04:41, 4 August 2009.
::] makes only one edits to ] to revert ], and has not yet returned.


{{anchor|Stalking of A Nobody}}

; Stalking of A Nobody

Origin of stalking of A Nobody:
:A Nobody was an avid supporter of the ban of Jack Merridew and his several sock puppets in 2008.
#] A Nobody votes to oppose. 13:43, 17 November 2009.
#: Mr. Merridew votes to support. 01:03, 18 November 2009.
#: Last Requests for adminship Jack Merridew partipated in, 03:43, 17 October 2009.
#] A Nobody comments at 15:06, 19 November 2009.
#: 3 minutes later, Jack Merridew votes delete. 15:09, 19 November 2009.
#: Last AFD comment Jack made was on 13 November 2009.
# ] A Nobody comments. 00:16, 16 November 2009.
#: ] "cut Count Chocula as pure trolling; no, I didn't look to see who put it in" 03:38, 16 November 2009.
# A Nobody writes on ] the section "Some ideas for reform" 17 September 2009.
#: Mr. Merridew writes this in A Nobody's section:
#:: "How about if an extremely disruptive editor who has involved himself in a great many AfDs for the last three years with the intent of precluding as many delete outcomes as he possibly can and who is the editor primarily responsible for creating the polarized I/D schism currently gridlocking the entire process were to permanently recuse from commenting in deletion discussions and from editing articles being discussed there by others? ''This'' would be a great improvement." 18 September 2009.
#:] deletes comments by Jack, stating: "some disagreement between users has nothing to do with AfD. Removing off topic discussion, revert and talk to me on my talk page if you disagree" 18 September 2009.
#:Final warning to Jack Merridew by Fram:
#::"How about you don't ever comment on A Nobody again or get indefinitely blocked again? With your past, you have absolutely zero authority to suggest that someone else is "extremely disruptive" and "primarily responsible for creating the polarized I/D schism". You have been warned before to stay away from A Nobody. Consider this a last warning." 18 September 2009.
#: '''AfD | A Nobody | Jack Merridew
#: ] | |
#: ] |
#: ] | |
#:In each case, Merridew is '''specifically''' responding to A Nobody's comment directly below A Nobody:
#::*"]" is not a compelling reason for deletion on a paperless encyclopedia.
#:By writing:
#::* '''Non-Notable''' — ''delete.
# A Nobody argues that a series of articles should be kept in ]. 17:59, 7 July 2009.
#: Jack Merridew puts ], one of the Hugo Austin articles up for deletion. 12:09, 9 July 2009.
#: Jack Merridew modifies one of the Hugo Austin series templates, "fix shitty template" 14:13, 12 July 2009.
#: Jack Merridew modifies one of the Hugo Austin articles, ] in the summary he states "Articles for Ridicule" Unknown time.
#: Jack Merridew modifies one of the Hugo Austin series templates, in the summary he states: "be nice if editors knew how to edit" 15:02, 12 July 2009.
#: Jack Merridew writes on A Nobody's page, the first posting Merridew had made on A Nobody's page since 10:33, 27 April 2009, on 04:26, 13 July 2009.:
#:: == attention-seeking ==
#::You should not make such <span class="plainlinks"></span> posts — you'll get it. Personally, I think your username is appropriate.
#::: Mr. Merridew was refering to what A Nobody added to his user page:
#::: ''For example, anyone who has ever referred to me as something other than my username or by some insulting play on my username is not welcome here, barring they apologized and made good faith amends''
#] A nobody comments in AFD.
#: Jack Merridew responds: "U can haz Badger-ring…" 07:35, 27 April 2009
#:'''Note:''' As A Nobody wrote in the ] which was going on at the same time:
#::The last two RfAs (Foxy_Loxy_3 and Kww) comments in and the only two for the past 8 or so days are in ones after and about .
# ] A nobody opposes, 02:54, 11 April 2009.
#: Jack Merridew's first post on RFA: "re ]; ] and ]. Jeers" 09:41, 11 April 2009.
# ] A nobody opposes. 01:49, 6 April 2009.
#: Jack Merridew supports three hours later:"I note the usual argument from A Nobody, below; this is pure ]...Advancing hypothetical concerns as cause for opposition, is ]." 04:47, 6 April 2009.
# A Nobody makes 9 edits to ]. 03:31, 9 April 2009 to 03:57, 9 April 2009.
#:Jack Merridew !votes delete in AFD, "Delete — An indiscriminate list of trivia; besides, her tits didn't make teh list" 06:10, 12 April 2009.
#A Nobody makes 4 edits to ]. 07:45, 5 March 2009.
# A Nobody !votes delete ]. 02:36, 2 April 2009.
#:Jack Merridew !votes keep, 40 minutes later. 03:16, 2 April 2009.
# Jack_Merridew writes a review of A Nobody on ]
#:'''This is the only editor review which Jack Merridew ever responded to in all of 2009, possibly ever''':
#:"Disruptive user. Previously (Sept '08) got into trouble for disruptive and badgering behaviour at AfDs, was facing an imminent User RfC, and invoked a right to vanish and promptly resumed editing with another account and as an anon. Blocked. A month later, returned under a new name (this one). User continues disruptive participation in AfD and policy discussion ever-seeking to lower inclusion standards and demonize those who do not share his extreme views. Long history of bad faith at RFA." 09:04, 8 March 2009. A Nobody reverts the edits and an edit war ensues.
#:Jack Merridew writes on Casliber's page to A Nobody:
#::"I am open to working with you in the future, but for the moment, I (and others) believe disengaging is best." 06:30, 10 March 2009.
#:Arbcom Casliber writes to Jack Merridew, refering to A Nobody:
#::''Please leave you know who alone, and leave off allusions to you know what. WP is a big place.'' 20:11, 24 March 2009.
#:Seven minutes after A Nobody's fourth edit, Jack Merridew !votes delete in the AFD. 07:52, 5 March 2009.
#A Nobody makes 3 edits to ]. 07:46, 5 March 2009.
#:Seven minutes after A Nobody's third edit, Jack Merridew !votes delete in the AFD. 07:53, 5 March 2009.
#A nobody makes an edit to ]. 22:03, 3 March 2009.
#:Jack Merridew !votes delete in the AFD. 07:52, 5 March 2009.
#A nobody makes an edit to ]. 22:03, 3 March 2009.
#:Jack Merridew !votes delete in the AFD. 07:54, 5 March 2009.
#A nobody makes an edit to ]. 22:01, 3 March 2009.
#:Jack Merridew !votes delete in the AFD. "Delete Cruft..." 07:54, 5 March 2009.
#A Nobody !votes in ]. 21:15, 6 February 2009.
#:Jack Merridew !votes delete in the AFD, "loved the 'In-story information' section of the infobox; amounts to breadcrumbs to follow to find more cruft." 08:34, 7 February 2009.

{{anchor|Stalking of Daedalus969}}

;Stalking Daedalus969
# '''First edit''' on ] and Jack Merridew reverts the edit of ]. 8:13, 25 May 2009, restoring the edit of an indefinetly blocked sock. Blocked at 04:25, 25 May 2009.
#: Messages ]: See <span class="plainlinks">, by me, and </span>, by someone else. Which is more important, whacking the naughty, or valid edits? 08:13, 25 May 2009.
# Daedalus969 withdraws ]. 01:58, 27 June 2009.
#:Jack Merridew closes AFD. Edit: <nowiki>{{afd top}} '''nomination withdrawn'''</nowiki> 27 June 2009
# Jack Merridew closes ] AFD, after User:Daedalus969 closes it withdrawn. 05:54, 19 June 2009.
# ]: Jack Merridew joins conversation about what is wrong with User:Daedalus969's talk page: "Not surprising; there are <span class="plainlinks"></span> of issues in there." <small>Relevant page:</small>
# ] at ]: "Stop stalking me. You've been following me around , and now you're just trying to get me in trouble by drawing lines where none exist. I like hummingbirds, and no one knows this because I usually don't share the things I like. The humming bird is there because I like it. If you have a problem with my behavior, then quit the accusations, and open up some thread somewhere, not here. Either ANI or RFC, otherwise, stay the hell away from me." 5 July 2009. <small>Relevant sections: </small>
# ] at ]: "Seriously, what the hell? It's a ''hummingbird''. Get over it. Get over this that little thing you have about me, and leave me alone. This is harassment, there is absolutely nothing wrong with placing that bird on my page. I like birds, I'm a bird lover. Would you like to see pictures of my four cockatiels? What the hell is it going to take to get you to leave me alone? An ANI thread, a block?" 08:41, 5 July 2009.
# ] which Daedalus969 created, Jack Merridew wrote: "WP:DEADHORSE, anyone? Mebbe you need to let this go? 23 May 2009.
|}

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
!Personal attacks, ], harassment, bad faith
|-
|

{|border=1 style="background:#FFFFFF
|
# ]
#: ]
#: ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
|}

{{anchor|Against A Nobody}}

; Against A Nobody
# At ]: "You should not make such — you'll get it. '''Personally, I think your username is appropriate'''." 13 July 2009 ''(Empahsis my own)''
# ]: "troll elsewhere" erasing A Nobody's comment. 5 March 2009
# ]: wasted a day of my life yesterday. 14 April 2009.
# Regarding A Nobody at ]: "I just looked up ] and found that it is another shortcut to there, which I had not noticed before. He has gone well beyond the pale here." 12 April 2009.
# At A Nobody at ]: ] 3 August 2009.
# To A Nobody at ]: "This isn't about 'fiction', it's about inappropriate articles and my new <nowiki>]</nowiki>".
# To A Nobody at ]: "U can haz ]… I'll go find it sometime." 27 April 2009.
# About A Nobody at ]: "I'll have to find the Badger-ring image/award Will made." 27 April 2009.
# ]: "Waa! John, he's . '''@; grow up'''. You've failed to agree to any of the proposals John has put forward. You also made lame comments in those "discussions" — '''you troll AfD discussions''' and this is why you need to be removed from the AfD realm (including the editing of articles ''at'' AfD)...." 02:26, 14 August 2009.
# To A Nobody at ]: "Seems that he's only interested in kicking-up more drama, which needs to stop. At this point I'd be on solid ground making a harassment case against him."
# ] "comment on bad faith and battleground-mode re A Nobody"; re A Nobody: "Bad Faith and Battleground. Jeers" 11 April 2009.
# ]: "I note the usual argument from A Nobody, below; this is pure WP:BATTLEGROUND." 6 April 2009.
#] ...the barriers to editing here are quite low. If Pixelface, and others such as yourself, don't want to be the subjects of my comments, ''be better editors''... 14 January 2009.

{{anchor|Jack Merridew's repeated use of A Nobody's previous user names}}

;Jack Merridew's repeated use of A Nobody's previous user names:
#], Using A Nobody's alleged old user name: "reply to Liz" 14 January 2009.
# ] Regarding A Nobody: "I will refrain from refering to his prior username as much as is possible." 13 April 2009.
# ]: So, I commented on ] ]'s actions at ] and suggested he should be blocked and that * ] was due. 12 April 2009.
# Le Grand Nobody is way overdue for a User RFC, methinks. 10:13, 23 March 2009.
# "Pumpkin, I am focused on editing in a wider range of areas; see?"04:59, 10 December 2008. Refering to ]

{{anchor|Jack Merridew's bad faith and abusive tone against A Nobody}}

;Jack Merridew's bad faith and abusive tone against A Nobody
# ]: A Nobody starts the article ] after Jack's recommendation to create it to Calisber. on ], A Nobody writes: "As seen by the blue links above, I have started the article."
#: Jack responds: "Seems A Someone is monitoring my posts and ."
#::Link is to User:A Nobody: "Serious editors never say to delete something because it is "cruft."… "A good way to determine who is here for the good of the project and who is trying to adhere to a biased agenda is to see who still wants to delete something when sources are presented to them." 6 March 2009.
# A Nobody, welcoming back Jack at ]: "...Also, as Eleanor Roosevelt said, "Learn from the mistakes of others, life's too short to make them all yourself," i.e. I have found that editing in new areas that I did not previously edit in seems to get positive feedback, whereas old whatever you want to call them have a tendency to be well you know in the areas I used to focus on. 16:54, 9 December 2008.
#: Jack's response to A Nobody:
#::"Pumpkin, I am focused on editing in a wider range of areas; ]? I have not been 'gone', I have better than 10,000 edits while on holiday from en:wp; ]?" 04:59, 10 December 2008.
#:::]: "Jack, please do not use any variation or allusion to my old username (please see the note on the top of my talk page why). Anyway, yes, I see that you have been doing some other good stuff and I believe that is why you are back. I am hoping to help Durova bring some rock articles out of stub status and maybe even get some good article contributions as well as my usual welcoming and rescue efforts. All the best! 00:51, 11 December 2008"
#::"I've not missed your history of late; let me offer a bit of advice: read ] and ]. You really need to accept that your approach to AfDs and RfAs is problematic. The wiki ''does'' discriminate against ] all the time. Judging an admin candidate solely on your perception of their views on inclusion criteria is a colossal assumption of bad faith." 11 December 2008.
#'''Bad faith accusation:''' ], Jack Merridew suggests that A Nobody should be blocked for opposing Admin candidates:
#: "Note that he has basically admitted that much of his reason for opposing is his interactions with third parties, his "opponents". Kevin is not being judged here, an entire block of "editors" is being cast as demons. Time to block for cause." 06:29, 12 April 2009.

{{anchor|Against Emmette Hernandez Coleman}}

; Against Emmette Hernandez Coleman
# ]: "rm trlng." 29 May 2009.
# ]: "You’ve touched the root issue here; taken too far, that is trolling. See: Misplaced Pages:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass."
# ]:
#: ] writes: I am not a troll, what makes you think I am? 15:51, 27 May 2009
#: ]'s response: Oh, gosh; threads like this? 16:05, 27 May 2009.
# ]: minnow "Like t0tal fa1L." 28 May 2009
# Removed comments from User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman "rm noise" 30 May 2009.
]:
#:"The larger issue here is what ] is up to. I noticed him a few days ago having an inappropriate interest in Jimbo’s userpage, followed by this plainlinks nonsense — which he may have picked-up from me, as I do use it in some of my posts. Looking over his talk page and past contribs, I see a long pattern of mildly disruptive editing, and the regular admonishment of those who raise concerns with him as being “too harsh”. So, Emmette seem to be <nowiki>]</nowiki> here and folks might want to step back and review the bigger picture, including our chat on his talk page. Emmette, <nowiki>]"</nowiki> 04:36, 27 May 2009.
#::] regarding ] mistakenly asking another editor to sign his comments: "and cutting-in like that is disruptive and just plain rude" 03:47, 28 May 2009.
#::]: "When debating, it it usually best to attack the argument, not the arguer." 17:28, 27 May 2009.
#:::]: Think of it as a holistic approach. 03:47, 28 May 2009.

{{anchor|Against Daedalus969}}

;Against Daedalus969
# On ]: "little shite like <nowiki></nowiki>." 27 May 2009.
# To ] on ]: "rm trolling; take a hint, I already achived that to history" 31 May 2009.
# On ] asking editors to click and watch ]: "Another subtle form of baiting: see , by ''']'''...Anyone seriously believe “A humming bird on my back porch, balancing perfectly on a hook” isn’t baiting? “I ]'''] don't bait people”? As Lar says, it's often subjective, and I'll add that it's all about ''context''. It stretches credulity to assume that you added a hummingbird to your user page shortly after your dispute with the two others in good faith; the caption ices it. For future reference, see ." 5 July 2009.
#:] at ]: Some might interpret making an example of Daedalus969, here, as "baiting" him. The problem with "baiting" vs. discussion is that it involves a serious lack of good faith. Even if Daedalus969 was "baiting" with his hummingbird picture, so what? What harm is he doing in adding a picture to his own user page? If you or Bishonen or Giano infer some grievous insult in this, then just ignore it and no harm has been done... 18:16, 5 July 2009.
# ]: "'''''Bad Idea''''' — others, and now I are attempting to sort the mess out. Have a minnow." 31 May 2009. Re: what Daedalus969 did: "I have reformatted the oppose and support sections to display numbers instead of bullets, so that the number of opposes and supports can be easily viewed." Daedalus969 wrote: "attempt at formatting so one can see how many opposes there are, feel free to revert, I won't argue" Mr. Merridew himself characteristically reformatted several editors comments in the WP:ANI several times himself during this edit and before this edit:
#: ] RE: ]: "if you *want* the big fish, you have to impress me more...You want the full-sized fish? You started this mess by refatoring in a inappropriate manner. ''You'' don't get to tromp all over ]. Sneers" 31 May 2009.
#: ] referring to ]: "Ya, you refactored the formatting: bad idea, disruptive; all the rest follows from that. Please don't get the idea that I consider you much of a problem; you only warranted a minnow, after all. I already offered you a link about all the shrill cries for ''Good Faith'' — which seems to be the core argument for keeping Doug underfoot. AGF has limits. There's another essay you need to grok; it concerns patches of ground that contain traces of equine DNA and fragments of sticks. There's surely a handy shortcut for it. Try typing a few of the obvious ones into the search box. Jeers" 31 May 2009.
#'''Bad faith accusation:''': "Anyone seriously believe “A humming bird on my back porch, balancing perfectly on a hook” isn’t baiting? “I ] don't bait people”? As Lar says, it's often subjective, and I'll add that it's all about ''context''. It stretches credulity to assume that you added a hummingbird to your user page shortly after your dispute with the two others in good faith; the caption ices it. For future reference, see " 5 July 2009.

{{anchor|Jack Merridew's other personal attacks}}

;Jack Merridew's other personal attacks
* Jack Merridew warned about calling other editors trolls by Ikip 21:10, 15 August 2009.
* Jack Merridew warned about signing with "Sneers" by Lar 16:45, 31 May 2009.
# ] "cut Count Chocula as pure trolling; no, I didn't look to see who put it in" 03:38, 16 November 2009.
# ] "rm, again; it's still trolling for lulz -- *unencyclopaedic*, like the rest of this 'article' -- Sneers" 05:04, 16 November 2009.
# RE: User:JarlaxleArtemis "I will vigorously oppose D&D's ] ], if necessary..." 10 December 2008.
# ...Those who seek to disrupt by simply being vandals are straightforward to deal with. Even dick-less wonders like Grawp are easy enough to deal with and serve to force wiki to mature in order to deal with them...
#To ]: "] and ]." 14:33, 7 August 2009. Resulting in: ]
# ] "tidy; the anons doing the 'it' cat thang are really here to mess with such tidying; likely related to Treecats and List of Treecats being deleted. i.e. the troll with the very small, penis"
# "''Too many DougsTechs currently''".
# To ]: "troll somewhere else" 8 January 2009.
# On ] to ]: "I really have no idea why someone would spend two years of their life on such an endeavor; that is beyond the fanaticism at the root of the word 'fan' and I expect there's a large dollop of hyperbole included. This is a great project, but it is discriminating. My suggestion is to redirect your efforts into areas that have long term value. 4 April 2009.
#RE: Now desoyped ]'s arbcom which mentioned the "]." attack page.
#:Mr. Merridew writes on User:A Man in Black's page: "Got stamps? I had these from last year" Referring to the "Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch" stamps. 24 May 2009
#:Previous edit mentions the "mail Ikip to the moon" edit. 24 May 2009
#:Previous edit, adds: "Stamps, lots of stamps" to user page. 24 May 2009
# ] "Jeers". 27 May 2009 ]: "rv absurdity"
# To Debresser: "Get over yourself" 20 April 2009. "please do something useful" 20 April 2009.
# Refering to ] at ]: "The needs to get laid. If he thinks he's annoyed me, he's way off; he's kinda fun to beat-up on ;)...The D&D crowd needs to quite clearly disown their patron vandal. ("Giving him ]] the Grawp treatment seems to be the only way to get anything done") amount to an endorsement of such disruptive behavior. As the meme goes, ''he's got over 9,000 cockpuppets;''" 11 December 2008.
# ]: "Possible Featured Article issue. WP run out of FAs? Seriously, pick something else. The m:dicks are going to run amok; so can this per WP:DENY. Ruin their fun.<br />OK, I know this will go ahead, so I'll watch the shit hit the fan tomorrow. Someone keep count of the sleepers flushed out; bonus points for any admin sleepers found." 13 January 2009.
# User:Dream Focus: "This, however, is an encyclopedia, not a porn site or fan site. Misplaced Pages discriminates against content all the time per Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information; deal with it." 21 March 2009.
# ] : "Alas, poor ]… now needs watching for the ]y-minded. ] certainly seem well covered in that list, so I see no issue with that redirect. ] is an excellant example of <span class="plainlinks"></span> — an EILF, it would seem." 12 January 2009.
# On indefinitely banned ]'s page: This unblock request has been reviewed by a sockpuppet who found it hilarious. ...Jack Merridew, sockpuppet First Class. 10 July 2009
# To ] at ] "Speak in a less obscure voice or I'll simply ignore you." 7 January 2009.
# ] RE: Fiction survey 2009: "lulz" Move to User:Pixelface/Fiction Survey 2009 draft and ignore. 12 January 2009.
# "Well, Pixelface's byzantine survey is being ignored, which is what I suggested. He's trucked that beast before and gotten the same result. I really don't see where I've commented on his character; I certainly have commented on his behavior and ideas (both poor)." 14 January 2009.
# ]: "trout" template. 21 February 2009

{{anchor|Jack Merridew's other disruptive behavior}}

;Jack Merridew's other disruptive behavior
* Giving suspected sock ] a barnstar, "for great justice and epic lulz" "For this amazing feat." referring to what Connolley wrote: "JM is to be congratulated. On only his 8th edit, he makes a near perfectly formed AN3 report (something, alas, that many more experienced editors fail to do)."
|}
; Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy) :
{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
!Warnings
|-
|
{|border=1 style="background:#FFFFFF
|
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
|}

{{anchor|ANI and Wikiquette alerts}}

;ANI and Wikiquette alerts
#A Nobody
#:]
#Daedalus969
#:] created by User:Daedalus969. 5 July 2009. <small>Diffs history:</small>
#::Mr. Merridew's unapologetic response: "Daedalus is a rather central figure in the whole Giano/Bishonen/Civility issue of the last — what? — six-weeks? He should not be surprised that he is getting some attention and given the circumstances that much of it is negative." 5 July 2009.
#Other editors
#:]

{{anchor|Warnings regarding A Nobody}}

;Warnings regarding A Nobody
# ] after Jack called Fram a stalker and hounder:
#: "Jack, your last few comments and edit summaries on this page are not helpful; you should avoid commenting on other users, especially people who you don't like." 10:17, 20 November 2009.
# User:Fram at ]:
#: "So anyone still believes that is not following A Nobody around, when the only AfD comments in is one A Nobody is heavily editing, the only RfA edits is one A Nobody opposes, and one of the five last articles edited is one where A Nobody had commented on the talk page only 3 hours before? That's three out of Jack Merridew's last eight visited pages where he commented very shortly after A Nobody had edited them..." 15:36, 19 November 2009.
# Final warning to Jack Merridew by admin Fram:
#:"How about you don't ever comment on A Nobody again or get indefinitely blocked again? With your past, you have absolutely zero authority to suggest that someone else is "extremely disruptive" and "primarily responsible for creating the polarized I/D schism". You have been warned before to stay away from A Nobody. Consider this a last warning." 18 September 2009
#"Jack Merridew, stop commenting on A Nobody, just leave him completely and utterly alone. There are more than enough editors around who will comment on him or his actions when he goes too far. But you are definitely not the one to be doing this. Drop the comments, drop the attitude, or risk a lengthy block for disruption. A Nobody needs a thicker skin, but there's no need for you to put needles in it anyway." 27 April 2009
# ] in ] ''Wikistalking and harassment by User:Jack Merridew'' subsection:
#:"Jack has now placed an AfD vote on two separate articles which A Nobody had previously placed a rescue template." then , and then I see he's right when he said he had no intention of abiding by editing restrictions suggested here. Given the context and timing, he seems to be ignoring Kww's very sensible advice." 09:26, 14 April 2009.
# ]:
#: "I think the best way to go is for the two of you to just try to avoid each other for a while without making a big statement about how you want to avoid each other." 15 April 2009.
# "You know the best course of action is to stay away from , even if that means only avoiding him in face to face (as it were) encounters. ...Another thing that you have to realize is that you really are operating on a short leash. An unbanning w/ conditions kind up puts you in a very specific set of restrictions that most editors don't have to deal with. You know that, so I won't belabor the point. Just steer clear of trouble, don't try to make jokes with or about him and things will come out ok." 14 April 2009.
# ] in ] ''Wikistalking and harassment by User:Jack Merridew'' subsection:
#: Referring to Jack Merridew ] tagging ] with the rescue tag and adding a message to A Nobody's talk page, which mediator Casliber removed,, then warned Jack Merridew, "Please leave you know who alone, and leave off allusions to you know what."
#:]:
#::"I agree that is clearly an intentional misuse of a template with the intent of causing trouble. I'd have no objection to reinstating Jack's ban on that basis." 02:39, 13 April 2009.
# ]:
#:"...one thing that is obvious from the last three comments alone, is that A Nobody doesn't like you referring to him by his old username. And you still seem to be doing it. There's no reason to; he's perfectly accountable, with redirects and rename logs etc. - and if it upsets him, please ]." 15:55, 12 April 2009.
# "JM isn't blameless here, I've contemplating blocking or waring him for goading PF a few times, but this needs to stop." 22:39, 30 March 2009.
#]:
#:"Please leave you know who alone, and leave off allusions to you know what. WP is a big place." 24 March 2009
# ] at ]:
#:(L)et us recognise that <nowiki>], and ignore hyperbole which at worst can be seen as disruptive, against which certain users are ]. </nowiki> 10 February 2009.
#::Response from Mr. Merridew: "Ya, right; defending the project against a flood of worthless articles is not disruptive." 10 February 2009.
# ] at ]:
#:]. Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable or improper, repeatedly disregarding other editors' explanations for their edits, campaigning to drive away productive contributors and generally creating an atmosphere of hostility are considered disruptive. Please tone your language down and respect other people and their opinions even if you disagree with them. 10 February 2009.
#::Response from Mr. Merridew: "Balderdash. My tone is just fine. I respect reasonable people and reasonable arguments. 12:31, 11 February 2009.
# ], Mr. Merridew wrote:
#:"A lack of response amounts to contempt for the community." 10 January 2009
#:: At ] warning by ] in response to contempt comment:
#:::"It's bad to bring criticisms of an editor into discussions about content or guidelines, because it turns Misplaced Pages into a ]. What's done is done. Moving forward, just try to avoid making talk page discussion into an ] criticism or mockery. If somebody has a bad idea, criticize the idea itself. ] -- even if the community has sanctioned them for their behavior." 14 January 2009.
#:: ]:
#:::"Contempt for one editor is only slightly better than contempt for the community. If you think Pixelface has bad ideas, then just say so as a matter of fact. And in general, if you can't remain ] with those you disagree with, then don't respond at all. The RFC/U with Pixelface is in progress, so let's not turn other discussions into a ] by making snippy remarks towards him." 14 January 2009.
#:: ]:
#:::"Two wrongs don't make a right. Pixelface is being dealt with, and hopefully he'll learn his lesson. If he doesn't learn his lesson, sniping back at him isn't the appropriate response, even if he started it. If he should start up again, everything you need to know is at Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution#For_incivility. Otherwise, try to focus on content rather than editors." 14 January 2009.
#::: At ] warning by ]: "Jack, this is Misplaced Pages, a volunteer project, not a court of law. Volunteers are not required to comment anywhere. Neither Randomran nor I excuse incivility by anyone...If you dislike someone and think they are "ignorable" than you can do that without actually saying something, which is what ignoring actually is. Commenting in a mocking fashion just raises tensions and it distracts from the hard work efforts several editors are undertaking on that WP:FICTION talk page to try to come to a compromise after litterally years of disputes."
#:: ]:
#:::"Jack, such comments and edit summaries as what you have are rather unhelpful if not mocking of another user. It is unseemly to allege someone has "" and to then go ahead and dismiss that editor when he makes what looks like a good faith and constructive suggestion. Look at how say Masem and Drilnoth replied, i.e. there are ways to acknowledge a good faith effort to contribute and say you don't think it's a good idea without resorting to a more mocking tone that only escalates disputes and that again is out of place if at the same time you are trying to criticize that particular editor for his own behavior." 14 January 2009.
#::Mr. Merridew's response ]: "Pixelface certainly does have '''Bad Ideas<sup>®</sup>''' — that's a ''fact''. If I ever see good faith from him, I'll acknowledge it. He is largely ignorable and definitely risible." 14 January 2009.
# ]: "While it is abundantly clear that repeatedly reverting policy pages against consensus is disruptive and constitutes edit warring, it is NOT VANDALISM. Please, please, please do not revert his changes w/ no edit summary or with a summary like "rvv" or "vandalism" or anything like that. See WP:VAND#NOT for more information. No matter how pernicious he is, so long as he is an editor in relatively good standing with a good faith belief that the policy doesn't read the way it should, his edits aren't vandalism. That doesn't mean don't revert them. It means revert them with an informative edit summary that doesn't mischaracterize the edit. Thanks. 05:32, 31 December 2008.
#:]'s response: ]: "Yes, I should have used a better edit summary." Maaf. 31 December 2008.
# ]: "Hi... I strongly suggest you leave to others...at least for now anyway. Your best course of action (after coming off a recent indef block) is to stay away from all drama as much as possible. Being involved with Giano is a high drama activity regardless of what "side" you are on... it's ] in there if you ask me." 16:29, 14 December 2008.
#: ]: "Yep, I can vouch for that". 14 December 2008.
# ] about ]: This sort of fun and games doesn't look so good so soon after an unban. 31 December 2008.
#: Mr. Merridew's response: " Basically they popped up on my watchlist and it seemed my duty to undo the disruption. This isn't 'fun and games' — he's disruptive." 31 December 2008.

{{anchor|Warnings regarding Pixelface}}

; Warnings regarding Pixelface
# Jack Merridew writes:
#:" lack of response amounts to contempt for the community." 14:37, 10 January 2009.
#:A Nobody:
#::"It is unseemly to allege someone has "contempt for the community" and to then go ahead and dismiss that editor when he makes what looks like a good faith and constructive suggestion...there are ways to acknowledge a good faith effort to contribute and say you don't think it's a good idea without resorting to a more mocking tone that only escalates disputes and that again is out of place if at the same time you are trying to criticize that particular editor for his own behavior." 19:06, 13 January 2009.
#: Randomran:
#::"Contempt for one editor is only slightly better than contempt for the community. If you think Pixelface has bad ideas, then just say so as a matter of fact. And in general, if you can't remain ] with those you disagree with, then don't respond at all. The RFC/U with Pixelface is in progress, so let's not turn other discussions into a ] by making snippy remarks towards him." 22:40, 13 January 2009.
#:Jack Merridew's response in edit summary:
#::"O RLY?" <small>
#::From ]: "The phrase "O RLY?" ("Oh, really?") is typically used in a sarcastic or sardonic manner, often in response to a statement that the speaker feels is obvious, or blatantly false and/or self-contradictory."</small>
#:Randomran:
#::"...try to avoid making talk page discussion into an ] criticism or mockery. If somebody has a bad idea, criticize the idea itself. ] -- even if the community has sanctioned them for their behavior." 07:34, 14 January 2009.

{{anchor|Warnings regarding Emmette Hernandez Coleman}}

; Warning regarding Emmette Hernandez Coleman
# ]: "Jack, can you please back off ]? Do you regularly edit this talk page, or are you following the editor about?" 20:06, 21 June 2009.
# ]: "Hi Jack, can you please back off this user for a while? I've noted that of the last 5000 edits to ], you have precisely two. Combine that with your statement/threat to that they would "go on your watchlist", the fact that your comments appeared in response to a thread EHC started, and the unproductive tenor of your comments - well, I'm sure there's no need for me to start using any alphagettis I can pick out of the soup...Please don't continue in a course which appears to be application of "one man justice" 20:22, 21 June 2009.

{{anchor|Warnings regarding Daedalus969 }}
; Warnings regarding Daedalus969
# ]: "The upshot here in my view is that everyone ought to try to get along better. Jack, stop trying to get a rise out of Dae. Dae, continue to work on being more collegial, more mellow, and not overreacting to input emember what I told you to say: "Thanks for the input, I will carefully consider it..." 15:59, 5 July 2009.
#: On ] Lar says to Jack: "I see you offering to give Jay pointers. Is that wise? I think you need to not interact with Daedalus969 at all... best to steer clear of situations that are high drama." 16:36, 3 June 2009
# ]: Jack... Just some advice. While you may well be within policy to remove things from your talk page, it's not really a very friendly way to handle messages... you may find it better to neutrally say "thanks for the input, I will consider it carefully" and leave the message, instead of sparring with others with snarky removal summaries as you've been doing with Dae. Try not to let people get your goat. In some cases that is exactly what they want. Don't give them the satisfaction (or the ammo to use later). I've suggested to Dae that their approach isn't likely to be effective. Hope that helps. 16:20, 31 May 2009.
# ]: Ok, digging around to try to find the backstory, I got a chance to read some of the posts to ] around (before and after) . You both leave the impression that you need to grow up. "Sneers", "Jeers", "What the hell is your problem" ???? Completely inappropriate. You both know better. Knock it off. 16:45, 31 May 2009.


|}

;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) :
:One year block per "User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing...Should Jack Merridew violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for one year by any uninvolved administrator."

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
:Currently working on a section showing how Jack Merridew's attacks against editors who question his disruptive editing, stalking, and harassment since his unblock, are identical in tone to the comments of his socks, Moby Dick, etc. before Jack Merridew's indefinite block.
:A more minor issue, is how Jack Merridew has repeatedly ].
:RE:''']''', see talk page link.


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
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 : ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
:Contacted Jack Merridew.
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

===Discussion concerning Jack Merridew===

====Statement by Jack Merridew====

====Comments by others about the request concerning Jack Merridew ====
*I believe this request is superseded by ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
:*Seeing that the heading of that page says that the mentor's comments will lead to a motion by the Committee where all editors may contribute, it seems this request would throw a fork into that process. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 07:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
*Oh how cute, the "inclusionists" have gone back to trying to get the "deletionists" banned. Can we all sing ] ] (]) 11:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
*:Assume good faith. I just read through some of the closed bits. He has been warned on many occasions, and does seem to be doing harassing and stalking behavior. If that many administrators have warned him in the past, but he keeps on acting up time and again, doing the things he was specifically warned against, then I don't really see the point of continuing to just warn him. Ban him already. ]''' 01:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
:And please, please... let's not make this an inclusionist/delitionist wikidrama, as what is being questioned is whether or not Jack has violated any of the provisional conditions that were placed upon him as part of his ban being lifted... not almost-violated or violated-only-a-little... but whether the very real concerns and caveats set by arbcom have been breached in any way. If they have been, the call would be for enforcement of the arbcom decision. If they have not been breached in any way, then there will be no need to proceed further. ''']''' '']'' 02:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

===Result concerning Jack Merridew===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
:I believe ArbCom is taking this one head on.--] (]) 07:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
::I have spoken with a member of ArbCom, who will comment shortly. With their permission, I am re-archiving this request. ] (]) 04:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}

== appeal against the restriction by Future Perfect ==

A couple of days ago I was put on restrictions by admin Future Perfect who in my humble opinion acted in controversial fashion.
The story is as follows: I made a good faith edit in which I reverted some edit made by admin Future Perfect:
The revert was a minor one but I honestly didn't know you can't change name of city inside some quotes. It was a completely good faith mistake. But Future Perfect reacted by writing this long intimidatory rant on my talk page:
I was shocked by his tone and even more by the assumption of bad faith. Nevetheless I went to his talk and explained all those other edits he mentioned on my talk page and self-reverted the error I made. To my dismay the next day I arrived on wikipedia I see that apparently he followed me around and he put me on restrictions because of this, in my opinion perfectly valid, edit:
Apparently the big problem according to Future Perfect is I don't use edit summaries, well most editors in the area I edit don't use them too much either and singling me out seems weird to me.. but ok.

The problem is the restrictions itself: <br />"'''1. a 1R/24h on any page, with the following additional restrictions''': <br />'''2. You must accompany every edit in content namespaces, no matter if it's a revert or not, with an informative edit summary.''' <br />'''3. You may make any revert only after providing an explanation for it on the talk page, and then waiting a minimum of 3 hours between the talk explanation and the actual revert to allow time for discussion.'''"

I find this problematic because: <br />1) I don't understand at all why I have to be put on 1R/24H since both times I have made only one single edit one of which I even self-reverted. This is like as if a policeman would give a guy a speeding ticket for going over 50mph and then say well you haven't crossed the 50mph but I give a ticket anyway so you won't speed in the future. <br />2) I admit I did not use edit summaries enough and I have to improve there. However imposing me that I have to always use edit summaries seems really harsh because I make tons of edits and many are totally self-explanatory <br />3) That one is completely problematic. I almost never edit for 3 hours in row, so basically he's condemning me to have to make a comment on talk page and wait for the next day to revert. In the mean time the page might have 3 or 4 others edits so doing the revert I wanted to do is really complicated for me. I have also examined some of the sanctions Future Perfect issues to other editors and I have not seen this 3 hours thing applied even to most crazy edit warriors and I completely don't get why I have to be treated worse than them. (in comparison with them my block log is clean). ] (]) 14:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

=== Discussion concerning Loosmark ===

: Please use the correct format to make your request in the future, the instructions are in the bright red box at the top of this page.

: These restrictions are relatively mild, they are formalization of good editing practices every editor should follow, especially in contentious areas. From looking into your history, this is not coming totally out of the blue, you've been given ample warning that some sort of editing restriction would follow unless you changed behavior. I would suggest you abide by them for a reasonable amount of time, then ask Fut.Perf to remove them on the grounds of being unnecessary.

: I'm not finding fault with Fut.Perf's actions in this case. <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 15:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

:: Could you please explain to me why do I have to be put on 1RR if I have not reverted more than once? ] (]) 15:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

::: The problem Fut.Perf tries to solve is lack of communication, the 1RR remedy is a manner of trying to get you to discuss changes rather than doing unexplained reverts. Also, this is not the place for extended discussions. Should another admin feel that Fut.Perf has behaved unreasonably and that I am mistaken, they will post that here. <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 15:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
:::: '' the 1RR remedy is a manner of trying to get you to discuss changes rather than doing unexplained reverts.'' That doesn't make any sense. How can preventing me doing something I have not done encourage me to do anything? ] (]) 16:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

:::(ec) Perhaps if you edit within these restrictions without any problems for a couple of months, the editors here would be inclined to consider modifying or lifting them. If, as you say, you never revert more than once in 24 hours anyway, you shouldn't find that a difficult or onerous condition to continue to edit under.
:::I presume that the 3-hour restriction is meanwhile designed to discourage the slow-motion edit warring that a one-revert-per-day restriction would otherwise allow. Further, it will ecnourage you to explain your edits and wait for input before reverting &mdash; an area where the diffs provided seem to suggest you ''do'' need improvement. ](]) 15:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

:::: ''if, as you say, you never revert more than once in 24 hours anyway, you shouldn't find that a difficult or onerous condition to continue to edit under.'' If I have not reverted more than once in 24 hours I simply should be put on 1RR in first place. Going by this logic we could for example put everybody who didn't revert more than once on 1RR and then say well you won't have problem being inside 1RR. ] (]) 16:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
::I support Henrik's advice, and would also propose a fixed term, for example six months. I wonder if there was any reason for FP to restrict Loosmark on *all* articles, not just those subject to Digwuren. In my opinion, Loosmark should be able to appeal here to have the restriction lifted after three months. ] (]) 16:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
::: Hi EdJohnston, could you please explain why I have to be put on a 1RR? Because I still don't get it. ] (]) 16:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

re to Henrik bellow: Again what problems? There were no problems. You are trying to me paint me as a problematic user when clearly I am not. The only one who saw problems was Admin Future Perfect who "beat me down" with restriction awhile after I reverted him. (and that is a clear case of '''conflict of interests''', since we both edited the article he should have called another admin to warn me and deal with me). I also have not reverted more than once and yet am I put on a 1 RR. I have now repeatedly asked Future Perfect why I need to be put on 1RR and he gives me no answer. I bet because there is no answer. ] (]) 16:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

: This is the problem, to quote from Fut.Perf.: I have now repeatedly seen you making contentious reverts without even the common courtesy of a minimally informative edit summary (e.g. , , , . This, in itself, is disruptive, and I am therefore now officially warning you (again) to be more careful when making reverts, as you were already close to being sanctioned for disruptive revert-warring a few weeks ago.

: Most areas of Misplaced Pages are not very contentious, but when you chose to edit areas which has longstanding historical problems you must meet a higher standard of conduct. The things that are merely good ideas elsewhere become essential to avoid unnecessary conflicts. One important aspect of that is to always explain your actions thoroughly. Reverting without discussing essentially says to the other editor "your edit was worthless, and not only was it worthless - it was so bad I can't be bothered to explain why". This leads to tons of unnecessary strife and bad blood, and can poison the atmosphere so that collaboration becomes impossible. That is why edit summaries and restricting reverts are essential. I hope I've both explained what the problem was and why (I think) Fut.Perf. chose these remedies. (Had you simply included edit summaries explaining why you did those reverts, I doubt you'd be here today) <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 18:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

:: Henrik are you even aware that the last time I tried to interect with the editor whom I reverted he told me to "go somewhere else"?. As such don't you think that maybe I understandbly wasn't to motivated to explain him my revert? And another thing is that there are tons of German users who doesn't use edit summaries either but since they share Future Perfect's same POV he doesn't care to restric them. The reality of the matter is the following: my not using edit summaries caused no disruption and caused no other problems, nobody reported me anywhere, nobody even complained. It all of a sudden became a big problem moments after I reverted admin Future Perfect for which he accused me of "falsifying the source" no less, which is a colossal failure to asume good faith. Since somewhere bellow he mentioned his work in the Balkan area I think he forgot to mention this . Seems sort of a deja-vu. And with all due respect you still haven't explained why I need to be put on 1RR, you only explained the edit summaries part. ] (]) 19:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise ===
Just two notes: the thing about the three-hours waiting period may sound uncommon to some, but I've previously done the same thing in Balkans cases under ], and I find it works quite well in some cases. Second thing: as I already said on the ANI thread, it appears I forgot to place a fixed expiry date on this sanction. I'm quite open to have this modified: if other admins would prefer to limit this restriction to a fixed duration (like, 6 months or whatever), we can fix it here; otherwise, I intend to let it run for a few months and then lift it if Loosmark stays out of trouble. ] ] 16:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

: What trouble? There was no trouble, nobody even complained about me. I didn't reverted more than once and you put me on a 1RR, you still haven't explained that one. ] (]) 16:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on the emerging consensus here, I'll set an expiry date of 6 months and add a clarification that the limitation extends only to Eastern-Europe-related topics. My offer of lifting it earlier than that in case of good conduct stands, of course. ] ] 18:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

: Why have you put me on a 1RR if have not reverted more than once? ] (]) 18:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

===Result concerning appeal ===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''

* I find no reason to overrule Fut.Perf. in this matter. We'll leave it open for a while longer to allow others to chime in though. (side note: Setting an expiration time of, say, 6 months might not be a bad idea - it's a more definite and easier to understand restriction. If any problems reoccur at that time, it can always be reinstated. If the only reason was that is was forgotten originally, we might as well take care of it here) <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 16:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
:::I agree with setting a time limit. An indefinite 1RR is rarely justified. 6 months seems OK; so would 3. ''']''' (]) 23:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

==Xenos2008==

{{discussion top}}
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
===Request concerning Xenos2008===
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 16:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Xenos2008}}

;Sanction or remedy that this user violated :

; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : # Racist comments violate the Decorum principle.
# All caps entry, uncivil, inflamatory edit summary violates the Decorum principle.

; Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy) : # Warning by {{user|Michael IX the White}}
# Warning by {{user|Alexikoua}}

;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Topic ban on Greek and Balkan related articles.

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ARBMAC is sufficiently broad in scope to deal with this case and apply to all Balkan and Greek related topics.

; User has been notified .

===Discussion concerning Xenos2008===

] has made exactly one edit in the last month and does not appear to be active. I fail to see the need for imposing restrictions in the absence of ongoing problems. <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 17:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
:This does not preclude the possibility that the user will return to past editing habits in future, still labouring under the misapprehension that WP tolerates the kind of racism exhibited in above diffs.--] (]) 17:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

:: If and when the user does return to problematic editing, feel free to submit a new request at that time. <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 17:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

::: Fair enough, I agree to closing this. But what about the comments above? Should they be taken to ANI or is the point that one can make racist comments and face no consequences if they take a wikibreak being made? Thanks. --] (]) 17:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

:::: Generally ANI is only interested in ongoing problems. The specific diffs you pointed out were dealt with at the time, one resulted in a block, the other in a caution not to engage in the same behavior he accused his opponents of. <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 17:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

====Statement by Xenos2008====

====Comments by others about the request concerning Xenos2008 ====

===Result concerning Xenos2008===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
* User not active, no action required. <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 17:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

{{discussion bottom}}

==Sander Säde==
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
===Request concerning Sander Säde===
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 23:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Sander Säde}}

;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ]

; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : 1. - Sander Säde makes his customary personal attack of WP:CENSORED and WP:IDONTLIKEIT in a content dispute. <br/>2. - Accusing me of ethnic prejudice in a loaded edit summary.

; Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy) : 1. ]: Warning by Arbitration Committe specifically in ]. <br/>2. Subsequent warning about discretionary sanctions from ] after rebuke by the Arbs.

;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Any appropriate action suitable for eradication of battleground behavior and egregious incivility towards content opponents, which has persisted (ex.: , , , etc.) long after ArbCom expressed its concerns for this very type of behavior in ]{{ndash}}notice however, his hypocritical loaded attack here: . Despite ArbCom's statement, as early as December of 2007, he was already once again entirely back at it, and, on account of his personal attacks, was for calling a user a "liar and hate-monger." Sander Säde's battleground behavior in the is just his latest step over the line.

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Sander Säde is a noted Eastern European disputes edit warrior, having been sanctioned together with Digwuren and other hostile and aggressive Estonian editors for their conduct in 2007 (see ]). Sander Säde is presently involved in the about-to-close ] AbrCom case as a member of a closed mailing list which engaged in disrupting the project through edit warring, canvassing, and harrassing opponents of the mailing list team.


===Discussion concerning Lemabeta===
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : .
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>


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


:Ethnographic groups and cultural heritage are '''related but distinct concepts'''. An ''ethnographic group'' refers to a '''community of people''' defined by shared ancestry, language, traditions, and cultural identity. In contrast, ''cultural heritage'' refers to the *''practices, artifacts, knowledge, and traditions preserved or inherited from the past''. But cultural heritage is indeed a component of ethnographic groups.
====Statement by Sander Säde====
: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)====
====Comments by others about the request concerning Sander Säde ====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


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

Latest revision as of 03:34, 9 January 2025

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

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

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

    Standard of review
    On community review

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

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

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

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

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Important notes:

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

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

    A couple of reminders:

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

    Closing a thread:

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

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

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

    PerspicazHistorian

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

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

    Request concerning PerspicazHistorian

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

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


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

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

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


    Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian

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

    Statement by PerspicazHistorian

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

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

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

    Statement by LukeEmily

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

    Statement by Doug Weller

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

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

    Statement by Toddy1

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

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

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

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

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

    Statement by Capitals00

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

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

    Statement by Vanamonde93

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

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

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

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

    Statement by UtherSRG

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

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

    Result concerning PerspicazHistorian

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

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

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

    References

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

    LaylaCares

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

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

    Request concerning LaylaCares

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

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


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


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

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

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning LaylaCares

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

    Statement by LaylaCares

    Statement by Aquillion

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

    Statement by Dan Murphy

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

    Statement by starship.paint

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning LaylaCares

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

    AstroGuy0

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

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

    Request concerning AstroGuy0

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

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


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

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

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


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint:

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

    Discussion concerning AstroGuy0

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

    Statement by AstroGuy0

    Statement by Iskandar323

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning AstroGuy0

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

    Lemabeta

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

    Request concerning Lemabeta

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

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


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


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

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

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

    Here

    Discussion concerning Lemabeta

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

    Statement by Lemabeta

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

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Lemabeta

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