| Revision as of 20:38, 23 October 2010 editLooie496 (talk | contribs)25,746 edits →Result concerning Jo0doe: blocked 1 year← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:34, 9 January 2025 edit undoSeraphimblade (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,240 edits →PerspicazHistorian: Closing | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude> {{pp-move-indef}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:AE|the automated editing program|Misplaced Pages:AutoEd}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude> | |||
| {{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}} | |||
| <includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}Requests for enforcement=</includeonly> | |||
| __NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!-- | |||
| <noinclude>{{editabuselinks|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/ |
--><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly> | ||
| <noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!-- | |||
| <noinclude>{{TOC limit}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | -->{{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}} | |archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K | ||
| |counter =347 | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| |counter = 70 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(2d) | |||
| |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== | |||
| == Jo0doe == | |||
| {{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 Jo0doe=== | |||
| ; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 15:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks| |
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|PerspicazHistorian}}<p>{{ds/log|PerspicazHistorian}}</p> | ||
| <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
| ;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : Scrolling down you will see: *{{user|Jo0doe}} banned permanently from all pages relating to ], broadly construed. This is due to persistent vios of ] and ]. ] (]) 10:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *{{user|Jo0doe}} blocked for a year. See . ] (]) 21:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
| *Per his , he was blocked again for 6 months not long after his one year ban expired: "14:05, 28 February 2010 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | |||
| <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
| ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ||
| <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | |||
| # See for the full discussion. In this case he wrote ""At early days of it appearance People's Militia involved in the extermination of the soviet civil specialists which originated from East regions of the USSR." Jo0doe (talk) claimed that this info was on page 229 in the source. This is completely false. There is nothng about this on page 229. However, on page 232 in the same source, at the top ""first of all the duty was to defend the local population from attacks by the shattered and undisciplined remnants of the Red Army, they also killed organizers of Communist uprisings or Soviet parachutists caught behind the German lines, maintained order by confiscating weapons, registering former Communist officials and specialists that had been sent from the eastern regions of Ukraine, returned things that had been stolen from state warehouses and stores, defended important points, destroyed symbols of Soviet power and were involved in solving criminal cases. In line with brutal wartime policies, members of the People's Militia shot on site people caught looting, theft of personal or state property, hiding unregistered firearms or Soviet sevants, officers or diversionaries. Not rarely, there were also cases where the militamen took part in German anti-Jewish actions. It's known that militiamen took part in obligatory registration of the Jewish population, making sure that Jews wore identification with the star of David and that they worked without getting paid at community jobs." He changed the words "registered former Communist officials and specialists that had been sent from the eastern regions of Ukraine" (on page 232) into "At early days of it appearance People's Militia involved in the extermination of the soviet civil specialists which originated from East regions of the USSR." Please see the link to the talk page for the link to the original source (which is online) and feel free to verify translation with googltranslate. | |||
| # - removed "discrimination" sidebar from the page of ] (fascist ideology) even though the sidebar was inserted inside a section, not even the lead. | |||
| # Same passage was misused. JD used the origianl source's statement "Not rarely, there were also cases where the militamen took part in German anti-Jewish actions. It's known that militiamen took part in obligatory registration of the Jewish population, making sure that Jews wore identification with the star of David and that they worked without getting paid at community jobs." to support the phrase: "Members of the Ukrainian People's Militia took part in round-ups of Jews for mass executions and participate in it, escorted Jews to their forced labour sites and create an early ghettos." As a source he used this: "Full discussion, including links to the original article that had been misued, and translations, are here: . | |||
| # - tag bombed the highly vetted ] article without any discussion or reason | |||
| # On an article's talk page. An author writes about how Ukrainian nationalist extremists had motivation to murder Polish profesors and describes these motivations. The author then states tht the Germans had better motivations to commit this crime and after that devotes pages to describing how the German Nazis, rather than Ukrainian nationalists, most likely did it. Yet in the talk page JD just translates the first part and proposes putting it into the article. He states about that source: "He conclude that the personnel of the ] (the Ukrainian nationalists - Faustian comment) have all reason to murder them - becouse they are 1) Poles 2) Intelligentsia and as a last - they interract with regime. That's the full scholar text." No, it wasn't the full scholar text because the scholar, '''in the next sentence''', wrote: "But even more reason for their elimination had the German spetshrupy that followed the orders of the chief Nazi security police and security services, SS Obergruppenfuhrer R. Heydrich on June 2 and July 1, 1941 which stressed the need to destroy the communist functionaries, the commissioners of Jewish officials, propagandists, and Polish intelihentsiyu7" see the talk page for details that include translations and a link to the article that was misused: . Basically, JD tried to use the source to support claims '''that were the very opposite of what the source was actually describing.''' | |||
| # - attributing castes to people withhout any sources | |||
| # Here he removed the information in an article about the ] about units of that division massacring hundreds of people. According to the source, at the time of those crimes the units were removed from the Division and placed under police command. This information is removed by JD. See the talk page for translations, links, etc. In this case he seems to be pushing the idea that the division as a whole was responsible for war crimes and altering inconvenient information. | |||
| # - edit warring to impose the above edits after getting | |||
| # Thi example is a bit different fromthe pattern outliend above. Here we see him removing info which he doesn't like. This was removed: "John Paul Himka, a specialist in Ukrainian history during World War II, notes that although units such as the 201 Battalion were routinely used to fight partisans and kill Jews, no one has studied the specific activities of the 201st battalion from this perspective and this ought to be a subject for further study." It was referenced to : Op-Ed by John Paul Himka. Ironically he accused another editor of blanking in that case: . | |||
| # - 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 : | |||
| The above exmples are merely a sample of the pattern he engages in on article edits and talk pages. Essentially JD's M.O. is to find obscure foreign language sources and then falsely describe what they say in order to push his POV. It's quite time-consuming to check his "facts" which is very disruptive to the project but also shields him from sanctions because not many people want to wade through everything. | |||
| <!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
| *Already 2 blocks in last 4 months for edit warring. | |||
| ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
| ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
| <!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
| I do not see any positive signs that this editor will ever improve. So far he has only regressed. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): | |||
| *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) | |||
| ;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : At least, a topic ban from areas involving 20th century conflicts and Ukraine to be added to his ban from articles involving the ]. A full ban from wikipedia might not be necesaary, he seems to have been relatively harmless here: (although who knows, I haven't tried to verify what he put in). | |||
| ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
| ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Basically, he seems to be pushing a pro-Soviet POV with respect to Ukraine, by his history not only on topics related to World War II but earlier related to ] (he has a lifetime ban on that topic for just the sort of behavior he is enagaging in now). And he used dishonest means when pushing his POV, creating a battleground rather than a collaborative environment. Here he is trying to lure a previously topic-banned editor into his fight: . This is a pattern he has engaged in persistently since coming to wikipedia and has been blocked for in the past. He is also prmananetly banned from Russian-language wikipedia for that sort of behvior: . It doesn't seem that previous blocks here have worked, except to make him a little more subtle or careful to use sources not as easily accessible. | |||
| <!-- 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. ---> | |||
| I note that in his response JD argues against his previous blocks. His refusal to acknowledge doing anything wrong in the past probably explains his ongoing problematic behavior now. | |||
| ===Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian === | |||
| All of his attempted defences of the various points I made can be easily addressed, although doing so may make this request unwieldy. This is, incidentally, what happens on the article talk pages - a lengthy spiral of false, poorly written claims by JD whose debunking merely leads to more games and so on. Should I address his points or just leave them alone? | |||
| <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 ==== | |||
| ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : Here is the diff: .] (]) 15:06, 20 October 2010 (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. | |||
| ===Discussion concerning Jo0doe=== | |||
| :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 | |||
| ====Statement by Jo0doe==== | |||
| :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. | |||
| So It’s really sad to spend time on addressing the ] accusations. | |||
| :2) My main interest in editing is ] and ] topics. | |||
| First of all – I admit in full the difficulties with plain English – but actually it’s not a big deal for prolific editors which are interested in precise quality of facts at the WP articles – see | |||
| :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. | |||
| . Even a case party ] . While – actually I’ve applied for help in that area – but, unfortunately there no response. | |||
| :Please do not block me. ] (]) 14:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| A Second – about my 1 years long block – As you can see from this diff – I’ve accused by proof by verbosity in using the source, which I , actually, never used for reference at any WP article it’s also related to site www.ukrstor.com labeled as “Russian Nationalist Web-sites” (actually simply online book repository about history of the Ukrainian Politic Movements). | |||
| *@] 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 prefer to use real library - http://www.nbuv.gov.ua. Moreover I’ve a target of the ] – and as far as I’ve heard – I’ve at their “black list” – while actually it’s a not a big deal right now. | |||
| *@]@] 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) | |||
| Now I address the ] accusations | |||
| *@] 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) | |||
| *Re 1. Based on the mistranslation and misrepresentation of the source text – specifically text “numerous” given as “not rare” and “] “At least known” given as “”It’s”. As it can bee seen from the suggested diff – I‘ve cite several more sources which directly support source information about UPM activity against public servant – which by the war definition is not “military personnel” – but a civilians. Story about UPM activities against military personnel given in separate section (supported by primary source image). I can also add several more secondary scholar sources which suggest such activities of the UPM – like THE DESTRUCTION OF THE JEWS OF LWÓW, 1941-1944 at Roads to Extinction: Essays on the Holocaust. Contributors: Philip Friedman - author, Ada June Friedman - editor. Publisher: Jewish Publication Society of America. Place of Publication: New York. Publication Year: 1980. or at chapter “Terror tactics at the OUN and UPA activities” appeared at book named “Political Terror and Terrorism in Ukraine XIX - XX centuries”: Historical Essays published Institute of History of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in 2002 ISBN 777-02-3348-9 – as also by primary sources – actual UPM reports – like | |||
| *:@] 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) | |||
| *re 2 Examples of mistranslations already noted above. In result cited source accused in claim which actually not suggested by it – e.i. limitation of activity only to “obligatory registration of the Jewish population, making sure that Jews wore identification with the star of David and that they worked without getting paid at community jobs”. As it can be seen from the initial version of the article – sentence has a 5 sources cited – not only one as suggested at point 2. Also It can be added a dozens more – like for instance p.37 - and even added by case party . Also such activities proved by numerous primary sources - like this late examples copied by me for WP (texts from them widely used before at the Institute of History of Ukraine ] | |||
| *::@]@] 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). | |||
| *re 3. Another source mistranslation /misrepresentation – author write not about miracle “Ukrainian nationalist extremists” but about specific ]’s ] instruction which ordered extermination of the Poles, Jews and Russians and their intelligentsia – pages 321-324. At page 363 Author again conclude (p.1.) that personnel of the ] have all reason to murder Polish professors and Jewish Population of the Ukraine. (p.2) However due the unclear and self contradictory reports of the witnesses it’s can be conclude that the in shooting of the Polish professors and Jewish Population of the Ukraine take parts Ukrainians and Ukrianian- spoken Volksduetschers which serve at the Germans punishment authorities and, plausible, ] members. (P. 3) … some individual members of the ] can participate in murders – as an their own will or by the orders of the Germans or Bnadera’s OUN leadership “ . – So it’s clear there no evidence about “very opposite of what the source was actually describing’ - and almost precisely inline with text given | |||
| *::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) | |||
| *re 4 – I’ve already address same and other allegations before – But for convenience of the readers I’ll repeat it again – source text . does not contains words “alleged eyewitnesses” and “regiments had been separated from the Division” – instead 3rd at page 284 paragraph clearly identify witnesses as real and page 283 clearly indicate about units of the SS Galicia (Kampfgruppe Beyersdorff and 4 and 5 regiments of the Division – clarification by Andriy Bolyanovs`kyi , The Division "Galicia". It's History Lviv 2000. ISBN 966-02-1635-1) – and not call them as “separated” – as far as whole division itself was at the disposal of the ] - Höhere SS und Polizei Führer in the General Government = German Police in ordinary understanding words – So texts which does not appeared at the sources cited above was clarified. | |||
| *:::@] 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) | |||
| *re.5 – underline the ] accusations – it’s clear that the text which was allegedly claimed “as removed” – namely “John Paul Himka, a specialist in Ukrainian history during World War II, notes that although units such as the 201 Battalion were routinely used to fight partisans and kill Jews, no one has studied the specific activities of the 201st battalion from this perspective and this ought to be a subject for further study." – moved to be a first sentence of the “Belarus” section - | |||
| *::::@ ] 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==== | |||
| As a summary – as I can prove above – all allegations “reliable” as “fact about like "I’ve removed Himka’s text” – as you can see from my edits before – I’v use real library (- http://www.nbuv.gov.ua) and real(paper) publications of the Institute of History of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and other prominent Western scholar - which I can support by primary sources - historical documents - which I’ve uploaded to WP for educational proposes. Also I’ve obtain a permission to use scholar text for WP educational proposes – I’ll sent proof of it to any requested admins. It’s really sad to note – that the specific editor prefer to produce a huge ] accusations and remove historical documents instead of explain how it possible for organization appeared it 1929 use a logo which adopted in 1941 – or suggest a requested page(s) . | |||
| 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.] (]) | |||
| So – It’s would be nice to see a an administrators decision about what actually “net positive for Misplaced Pages” – scholar texts and images of the historical documents – or hoaxes and misusing/mistranslation of the scholar texts (examples given above) - to clarify what actually “disruption” mean in the context of the WP editing. | |||
| Thank you] (]) 09:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==== |
====Statement by Doug Weller==== | ||
| I'm involved so just commenting. I don't think this editor is competent. I had to give them a community sanction caste warning as they were making a mess of castes. See this earlier version of their talk page.]https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:PerspicazHistorian&oldid=1262289249] and ]'s comment that "It was very unwise of you to keep moving ] to article space when it has not passed review. As a direct result of your actions, a deletion discussion is taking place, and when this is complete and the article is deleted, you will be prevented from recreating it. ] (]) 14:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)" There have also been copyright issues. I strongly support a topic ban. ] ] 11:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I just want to throw my hat in the ring in support of the measures Faustian is proposing. I've also had to deal with Jo0doe and his falsifying of information. Ultimately, you can go through his history and find that in every article he edits, he follows the same pattern of inserting false information with obscure, non-English sources that can't be tracked down (or if they can be, we usually verify hat he falsely used the information to push his POV) / he then tries to put us on a wild goose chase to prove him wrong. He just loves wasting other people's time. Here's an example , it just turns into a headache trying to read what he's saying. He tries to throw around PROVEIT and RS and will delete content unless you appease him, but his questions are so generic and reek of copy/paste that it seems he just wants to stir up as much trouble as possible and isn't genuinely interested in editing to make articles better - just push his POV and piss off anyone else involved.--''']''' <small>(])</small> 16:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: I second the opinion that Jo0doe habitually falsifies his references, but I disagree that he simply "loves to waste our time". I have seen some expressions of his sentiments on ru-Wiki and outside Misplaced Pages, and these examples show extreme anti-Ukrainian bias.--] (]) 17:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I won't be involved in the decision. No more treatments for me, just coast until... ] ] 12:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by MyMoloboaccount==== | |||
| *I believe that Jo0doe is well meaning and provides much needed info on Nazi collaboration in Ukraine. His problem is relative poor use of English. Some of the claims against him don't seem to hold up under closer scrutiny. I am against the block. Also I have to mention that people accusing Jo0doe of presenting false information on sources themselves have inserted info that was not found in source claimed to support such claims. | |||
| --] (]) 19:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === |
====Statement by Toddy1==== | ||
| This is another editor who appears to have pro-] (RSS) and pro-] (BJP) views. I dislike those views, but find it rather alarming that Misplaced Pages should seek to censor those views, but not the views of the political opponents. Imagine the outrage if we sought to topic-ban anyone who expressed pro-] views, but allowed ] to say whatever they liked. | |||
| :''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.--> | |||
| <!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> | |||
| I am inclined to impose a 1 year block, which is the maximum that the discretionary sanctions permit. This editor has already been blocked for most of the past two years, with little improvement to show for it. Given the weak English skills and difficulty getting facts straight, this editor cannot be seen as a net positive for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I cannot read the source claimed to have been misrepresented, and therefore I cannot evaluate the factual basis for this request (the claimed misrepresentations are sufficiently subtle that I do not consider it appropriate to make a determination based on Google translate). However, assuming '']'' that the claims of misrepresenting sources are true, I am of the view that the user should be blocked indefinitely under administrators' general power to prevent disruption. Few things are more disruptive to encyclopedia building than abusing the good faith of other editors by misrepresenting sources, and the history of lengthy blocks here strongly suggests that anything short of an indef will not address the problem. The first year of the block can be taken as imposed under the authority of the discretionary sanctions, and subject to the usual restrictions on overturning. ] (]) 20:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::In my view we should be strict in following procedures here. Actions that go beyond ArbCom sanctions should be decided elsewhere, such as ANI. ] (]) 21:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Since when do we require an ANI discussion before indeffing disruptive users? It is one thing to say that we should not take up matters that are not related to an arbitration decision to start with (which I think no one disputes). But given that the subject matter here is related to an arbitration decision, I think it's best, by analogy to ], to deal with the whole matter in the same place for the sake of efficiency and consistency. ] (]) 00:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I support the indefinite block proposed by T. Canens (one year under Arbcom discretionary sanctions, the rest of the block as a community sanction). Jo0doe seems to have some knowledge, but he is not diplomatic enough or articulate enough to make edits that others can understand or accept. Since the expiry of his last block on August 28 he's been going downhill, and making edits that others describe as falsifying the sources. He gives long and confusing defences of his edits. At this rate, the negative far exceeds the positive. His participation in what is already a difficult topic area just makes life harder for everyone else. SInce he has had a number of chances already, giving him yet another chance doesn't seem reasonable. ] (]) 16:58, 23 October 2010 (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. | |||
| I have blocked Jo0doe for 1 year, which is the maximum that the discretionary sanctions allow. Administrators who feel that a longer block is necessary may alter the block parameters outside of this process, but should not describe the result as arbitration enforcement. ] (]) 20:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| If we want to talk about ] when editors make mistakes, look at the diff given by NXcrypto for "Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested" - it is the wrong diff. He/she did notify PerspicazHistorian - but the correct diff is . | |||
| == Vodomar == | |||
| 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. | |||
| ''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' | |||
| ===Request concerning Vodomar=== | |||
| ; User requesting enforcement : — ] (]) 02:06, 21 October 2010 (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) | |||
| ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Vodomar}} | |||
| ====Statement by Capitals00==== | |||
| ;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] (1RR in place) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
| # Revert to a version that has been reverted multiple times and is against the consensus of all non-Croat and several Croat editors | |||
| # Weasel wording to the same effect, and not supported by the ref that it's now tagged with. | |||
| ; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): | |||
| # ] <s>Warning by {{user|Kubura}}</s> (correction by Kubura: ] posted that warning, impersonating user Kubura ) | |||
| ;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Revert of his latest edit, and warning/discipline as ARB feels appropriate | |||
| ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : (notification of this request and suggestion that he revert himself, which he has not done) | |||
| ===Discussion concerning Vodomar=== | |||
| ====Statement by Vodomar==== | |||
| ====Comments by others about the request concerning Vodomar ==== | |||
| I concur with Kwami's assessment of the situation. Vodomar's second edit today was a ]ly way to insert the same unscientific POV into the text and does not match the clear statement of the sources that are provided as footnotes. Before I saw Kwami's report here, I warned Vodomar myself that I considered him to be in violation of 1RR for that edit. Vodomar has stopped being a constructive participant in the discussion, has hitched his wagon to a single source that is not scientifically specialized, and has provided no references to the article. He is simply pushing his POV along with a tag team of others who provide no references and accept no references that don't agree with their POV. --] (]) 03:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Perhaps off-topic, but since the article's been protected, I thought I should mention it. A map which appears in the article was moved after the article was protected, and I updated the link in the article. This has nothing to do with the current dispute, but was done to stop a new edit war that had erupted over the map; the article now appears as it did when it was protected. | |||
| If you prefer, I can simply redirect from the original file name, and revert my minor edit to the Croatian language article, but that would require one of you to either protect the file or warn the other editor if you want the article to be stable. — ] (]) 18:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| 1) Kwamikagami, heavily ] on that topic, requires certain enforcement actions: <u>sanctioning the opponent</u> on the article. Is this a conflict of interest? <br> | |||
| 2) EdJohnston, you need to correct your message: in this moment, Misplaced Pages in Croatian language has 88,599 articles, Misplaced Pages in Serbian language has 134,823 articles, Misplaced Pages in "Serbo-Croatian" has 34,338 articles (many of them were copy-pasted from hr.wiki or from sr.wiki). Hr.wiki is vivid, it doesn't keep itself alive by copy-pasteing from other wikis. ] (]) 23:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===Result concerning Vodomar=== | |||
| :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' | |||
| ::I have full protected the article for 3 days. All the editors who edited in the past few days appear to have violated the 1RR restriction on the article and edit warred. They are on first inspection now all subject to the Arbmac discretionary sanctions: | |||
| :::''The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. '' | |||
| ::I'm reviewing to ensure that they all had personal notifications under ARBMAC. ] (]) 06:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Notifications review of recent editors (NOT an about-to-sanction list, nor a verified-broke-1RR list, merely for inventory purposes of everyone with multiple edits on article in last 4 days) | |||
| :::Previously notified - Vodomar, JorisV, Hammer of Habsburg | |||
| :::Not previously formally notified - Roberta F., Taivo, Kwamikagami, PRODUCER, Ali Pasha | |||
| :::] (]) 07:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] is the subject of this complaint, as the person who may have broken the 1RR restriction. He is also an admin on the Croatian Misplaced Pages. He writes English very well, and has been participating in a sensible discussion at ]. I suggest that this enforcement request should be closed with an indefinite full protection of ], but with the hope that the editors will be able to work out a suitable compromise on the talk page. The linguistic facts don't seem to be in dispute (who can understand whom). It is a question of how the facts ought to be correctly summarized. The editors on the talk page will hopefully be able to solve this. For those who are new to this dispute, it may be interesting to know that we have a Croatian Misplaced Pages (34,309 articles), a Serbian Misplaced Pages (134,781 articles), and a Serbo-Croatian Misplaced Pages (88,575). It would be unfortunate to treat this as a war between the editors of two Wikipedias, so an attempt at negotiation is desirable. The other option is to go the way Arbcom itself went with ARBMAC2, but I don't think we've pursued the easier options yet. ] (]) 16:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
| <!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> | |||
| == Topic banned editors needling one another == | |||
| ====Statement by Vanamonde93==== | |||
| {{hat|Closed; discussion continues at ]}} | |||
| {{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. | |||
| is not the only example, but it's typical of the way in which, for the past week or so since the end of the climate change arbitration case, topic-banned editors are still needling one another. I include Lar because although he is not topic banned but requested to stop using his admin bit in the area, there is an arbitration finding in the case (Finding 12.3) that Lar "has made inappropriate comments and actions and at times shows a battleground mentality, especially for an admin." In fact he has not edited in the topic but acted in the enforcement of the recently superseded probation. ATren and William M. Connolley have a long history of animosity toward one another, as do Lar and William M. Connolley. | |||
| 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. | |||
| The cited link above shows William M. Connolley extending a needling match from the thread on the arbcom noticeboard to Lar's user talk page. Lar picks it up gladly, and ATren jumps in with his two penn'orth. | |||
| 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) | |||
| I wonder if it would be appropriate now to ask Lar and the topic banned editors ATren and William M. Connolley to observe a mutual interaction ban. They've had a week to get over it but seem not to have done so. --] 14:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks Bish: I agree, as my exchanges with PH today, in response to my first post here, have not inspired confidence. . ] (]) 20:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :WMC has animosity toward many folk. However, it assumes facts not in evidence to assert that others, even those he calls stupid and malicious, have animosity to him. I certainly have none. I merely don't appreciate his tactics, which he got multiple sanctions for. He continues baiting many folk, making snide comments, and so forth... as in the instance that TS refers to, WMC baits me about a reference that wasn't actually to him. When I clarify on the ArbCom page, TS seems to think that's a sign of.. what? Further WMC turns up to needle me further on my talk page, I again respond mildly. ATren appeared to comment on the WSJ ref... I don't see the needling here by ATren or me that TS does. What's needed here is a further interaction ban on WMC, but not necessarily on others. Restrict his needling and baiting. That cures the problem. ++]: ]/] 15:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::, directed at me at WT:ADMIN, a discussion to which I was specifically invited by Roger Davies, is similarly gratuitous and unhelpful. ] (]) 15:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Eh? That you've got a hobby horse? Did you want the diffs demonstrating it? You take swipes at me every chance you get. In fact, here you are now. QED. You strain at gnats and pass camels. As has been pointed out to you before. You're part of the problem with your enabling behavior. ++]: ]/] 15:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The entire message thread can be reviewed here. I think that this particular jibe is consequential because it is not part of a "needling match." I was commenting on administrative policy. Lar's name wasn't mentioned, and he wasn't even participating in that message thread until I commented (as suggested on my talk page by Roger Davies). Then Lar dived right in with his attacking "hobby horse" comment, which served no purpose at all but is consistent with the battleground behavior noted in the arbcom decision. I advocated that Lar be separated from CC enforcement during the PD discussion, which indeed happened, and that resulted in the antagonism that you see displayed in his comment above, and also motivating his "hobby horse" comment. ] (]) 16:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Re the topic starter: I disagree with TS that WMC and Lar were engaged in a "needling match." WMC politely asked that Lar refactor a personal attack. He responded by needling him about the Wall Street Journal editorial.] (]) 16:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by UtherSRG==== | |||
| :I have difficulty seeing how a ] restriction on interaction between WMC and Lar would harm the project. Their unchecked mutual animosity helps no one. ](]) 16:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I've mostly dealt with PH around ]. They do not seem to have the ability to read and understand our policies and processes. As such, a t-ban is too weak. The minimum I would support is a p-block as suggested below, though a full indef is also acceptable. They could then ask for the ] when they can demonstrate they no longer have ] issues. - ] ] 20:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :While the editors involved appear to have problems with civil communication with each other, I'm not sure that an AE enforcement is the right thing. Maybe if TS specifically layed out a case for enforcement (as the instructions request) it might be clearer. --] (]) 16:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Based on , I'm more strongly leaning towards indef. - ] ] 12:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I suggest that the editors keep these sorts of discussions confined to the . ] (]) 17:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::They now indicate they believe the article they edited was copied from one of the websites they used as a reference, when in reality the website is a mirror/scrape of the Misplaced Pages article. I believe we are firmly in ] territory here. - ] ] 14:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: is a mirror of the Misplaced Pages article. - ] ] 16:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Result concerning PerspicazHistorian === | |||
| ''The cited link above shows William M. Connolley extending a needling match '' - wrong. Lar called me a prat; I aske him to retract the PA. I considered contacting an admin, but reflected that the advice in general has been that one should in general contact the offending party to request redress first. Is taht advice now retracted? ] (]) 18:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
| {{u|PerspicazHistorian}}, can you explain your understanding of ] and the ] rule? I'd like you to read thoroughly enough to also explain wny someone may be edit warring ''even if they aren't breaking 3RR''. ] (]) 21:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Lar: Are you persisting with interactions with editors of the climate change subject area, or have you withdrawn completely from activity in that area? If you have not, why not? ] 19:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
| :@], that explanation of edit warring is a bit wanting. An edit war is when two or more editors revert content additions/removals repeatedly. Even a second reversion by the same editor can be considered edit warring. Best practice -- and what I highly recommend, especially for any inexperienced editor -- is ''the first time'' someone reverts an edit of yours, go to the talk page, open a section, ping the editor who reverted you, and discuss. Do you think you can commit to that? | |||
| :<small>Re: your question on why your "obvious edit" was reverted: we don't deal with content issues here, only with behavior issues, but from a very quick look, the source is 50 years old, and using a list headed "TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS LISTED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967" that includes a certain organization as a source that the organization should be described as a terrorist organization is ]; in their ] NXcrypto provided an edit summary of "Not a reliable source for such a contentious label. See WP:LABEL." Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here.</small> ] (]) 11:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm seeing this as a CIR issue. I'd like input from other admins, if possible. I'm a little concerned that setting a tban from IPA is just setting a trap. Maybe a p-block from article space would be a kinder way to allow them to gain some experience? ] (]) 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@], have you seen how many times I or others have had to move your comments to your own section? This is an example of not having enough experience to edit productively. Please do not post in anyone else's section again. ] (]) 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I do agree we're in CIR territory, and the concerns expressed are completely valid. I don't think this editor is ill-intentioned. They just don't seem very motivated to learn quickly. Well-intentioned-but-a-slow-learner is something that can only be fixed by actually practicing what you're bad at. I'd prefer an indef from article space which gives them one more chance to learn here before we send them off to mr.wiki or Simple English to try to learn. Not a hill I'm going to die on, though. ] (]) 11:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@], like Uther I have major concerns about the edit you made yesterday, which included replacing a citation needed tag with these sources.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Significance of Different Type of Prasad in Hinduism For God |url=https://www.ganeshaspeaks.com/predictions/astrology/prasad-food-for-god/ |access-date=2024-12-30 |website=GaneshaSpeaks |language=en-GB}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=What Is Prashad |url=https://www.swaminarayan.faith/articles/what-is-prashad |access-date=2024-12-30 |website=Shree Swaminarayan Mandir Bhuj |language=en}}</ref> The first is a company that markets astrology services. The second is the site for a religious sect. Neither is a reliable source for explaining the concept of prasada in Wikivoice. You made this edit ''yesterday'', after you'd confirmed here and on my talk that you understood sourcing policy. | |||
| :::::The reason for an indef from article space is to allow you to learn this policy: You would go into article talk and suggest sources to fix citation needed tags. Another editor would have to agree with you that the sources are reliable before they'd add them. ] (]) 12:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *A tban from IPA for PerspicazHistorian would be a relief to many editors trying to keep this difficult area in reasonable shape. However, Valereee makes a good point about 'setting a trap': it's doubtful that PH would be able to keep to a tban even if they tried in good faith. I would therefore support a p-block from article space. ] | ] 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. ] | ] 20:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC). | |||
| *Is there a length of time proposed for the p-ban or would it be indefinite? ] (]) 17:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I would say indefinite; not infinite, but I'd be wary about letting them back into articlespace without some kind of preclearance. ] (] • she/her) 18:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *It looks to me like there is a consensus for an indefinite partial block for PerspicazHistorian from article space. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within a day or so, I will close as such. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Given PH's recent slew of requests on multiple admin talk pages, yes, please do. - ] ] 12:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *<!-- | |||
| --> | |||
| {{reflist talk}} | |||
| I would like to add to this discussion. I commented at Tony Sidaway's talk page not expecting my comment to be anything more than my opinion of what was being discussed. Lar came to the discussion accusing me of being bias about WMC and him, an accusation I feel is hurtful to make. His whole comment to me is rude. Lar is an administrator that I used to go to for lots of different things. I don't know why he wrote to me like he did but I don't think he, as an administrator, should be talking to people like this. I think that this should be stopped. I don't want any problems with Lar, but lately he's been commenting after I make comments trying to put me in a bad light and it's not right. I'm sorry but this behavior of his towards me is starting to make me nervous. Thanks for listening, --]] 19:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | {{hab}} | ||
| ==LaylaCares== | |||
| == Edit war on 1RR article ] == | |||
| {{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=== | |||
| {{hat|Not an enforcement request}} | |||
| ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Vice regent}} 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| In the wake of my comment on a talk page deprecating a journalist's comment, an edit war has developed on this article between Viriditas, Dave souza and two IPs. It has been under 1RR since the days of the probation. The Committee indicated that all remedies under the probation should be kept in place, so it still applies and there is a notice about it on the talk page. --] 14:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :It appears that {{user|98.234.114.225}} <s>and {{user|Dave souza}}</s> breached 1RR; the IP has made at least 3 reverts and appears to be the instigator. <s>Dave souza blocked 12h,</s> IP blocked 48h. ] (]) 14:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Misread one of the diffs. Looks like Dave did not violate 1RR after all. (While technically a revert, I don't think it's appropriate to consider the first text removal one, since the text has been there for a while.) ] (]) 15:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|LaylaCares}}<p>{{ds/log|LaylaCares}}</p> | |||
| I'm still learning this stuff. I'll provide a much clearer analysis if I have to do this kind of thing again. Fortunately no lasting harm was done thanks to the blocking admin's prompt action in unblocking. ] (=] ) 16:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == Africangenesis == | |||
| {{hat|Editor notified of CC remedies and promises to edit in accordance with them}} | |||
| ''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' | |||
| ===Request concerning Africangenesis=== | |||
| ; User requesting enforcement : ] 22:57, 21 October 2010 (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 : {{userlinks|Africangenesis}} | |||
| ;Sanction or remedy |
;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 : | ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ||
| <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | |||
| * ]: | |||
| # EC gaming | |||
| # The clique that had controlled this article drove me and many other good editors away. I read at wattsupwiththat that this problem might have been rectified. I hope you aren't continuing the problem." ''Battleground behavior: raking up ancient alleged misdeeds during discussion of article improvement.'' | |||
| # "Recall that I was the one that forced the cadre to admit..." ''Battleground behavior: raking up ancient alleged misdeeds during discussion of article improvement.'' | |||
| # "So this is the tactic." ''Battleground behavior: failure to assume good faith'' | |||
| # "So convincing you is the standard. WP:OWN". ''Failure to assume good faith, personal attack.'' | |||
| # 'In the past, wasn't ownership of this more prominent article partially maintained by insisting that details relevant to disputes and credibility of the scientific claims on this page, be pushed off to other specialized, less prominent pages, i.e., isn't disputing edits on this page on such a basis, "battleground behavior"?' ''Battleground behavior: raking up ancient alleged misdeeds during discussion of article improvement. Failure to assume good faith.'' | |||
| # "Also, in the time of the great ownership problem, one of the few consolations was that visitors could get a much better sense of the state of the science on the talk page than in the article proper. Because the discussions and ownership behavior on the talk page were often embarrassing to the owners, another frequent battleground behavior by the owners was more rapid archiving of the talk page. Since your sympathies were with the owners positions, if not their behavior, you may not have been sensitive to some of these tactics. You see, despite that fact that the talk pages were a battleground, that doesn't mean that they were devoid of information or that the battles themselves didn't inform visitors of how credible the page itself was. However, I doubt you were aware that increasing the speed of archiving was battleground behavior. It is less excusable now with wider availability of broadband than it was then. Hopefully, we can get more of the actual science in the article and rapid archiving will some day, not be considered battleground behavior." ''Battleground behavior: raking up old alleged misdeeds, failure to assume good faith, personal attacks during discussion of article improvement.'' | |||
| # "You accuse me of putting in an unsourced original research statement, when you didn't bother to read the sources, you don't assume good faith, you leave the article in an erroneous state and now you are stalking my every post as part of your edit war. Who is being uncivil?" ''Battleground behavior: failure to assume good faith, personal attack, while discussion of article improvement.'' | |||
| * ]: | |||
| # on being asked on his talk page to assume good faith: "I agree. I haven't received any indication that would work better, however. They don't admit they are wrong when you are polite or if you rub their faces in it. But, in the latter case, maybe they will read the article the next time." ''Battleground behavior. Displaying an antagonistic attitude.'' | |||
| ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
| * ]: | |||
| # , edit summary: "reverting revert by Schulz who is not participating on the talk page, he didn't defend his ocean acidifcation revert and apparently not this one either" ''Battleground behavior: personal attack in edit summary.'' Stephan Schulz, who is the subject of the attack, pointed out caveats in the paper on October 19. Africangenesis apparently remembers Stephan from when he last edited Misplaced Pages before, in 2007 . | |||
| ; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): | |||
| # Warning by {{user|Tony Sidaway}} (TS) | |||
| # Warning by {{user|Tony Sidaway}} | |||
| # Warning by {{user|Tony Sidaway}} | |||
| # Warning by {{user|Mann jess}} | |||
| ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
| # ... | |||
| Pretty obvious case of EC gaming. Account created on Nov 17, 2024, then about 500 mostly minor edits followed by the first substantial edit ever was the creation of on Dec 17 (subsequently moved to draftspace).''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Formal "Warning of intended sanctions" (see remedy cited above), stating the battleground behavior is unacceptable and will lead to a topic ban from climate change articles if he continues in this way. | |||
| ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
| ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : At I decided to step back from editing the article and leave the talk page alone. I wanted to see if this editor would interact well with others if I got out of his way. I also set the archive period back to 21 days following his expression of concern about archiving. | |||
| <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
| : The antagonistic attitudes and personal attacks on talk pages have been characteristic of this topic area for some time and were the primary focus of the arbitration case which ended a week ago. This editor had left Misplaced Pages three years ago and has decided to return on hearing about the arbitration case. He has a good knowledge of the field and could be an asset. | |||
| ===Discussion concerning LaylaCares=== | |||
| ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ''The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a ] of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.'' | |||
| <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> | |||
| * . --] 23:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by LaylaCares==== | |||
| ===Discussion concerning Africangenesis=== | |||
| ====Statement by |
====Statement by Aquillion==== | ||
| Question: Assuming it's determined that they gamed the extended-confirmed restriction, would the page they created be ]-able? I've asked the relevant question in more detail ], since it is likely to come up again as long as we have such a broad restriction on effect, but I figured it was worth mentioning the issue here as well. --] (]) 14:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Why am I being warned about disruptive edits, when none of these are edits? And why are only comments considered uncivil and not reverts that don't assume good faith, and when they don't hold up on the talk page aren't restored leaving the article in an obviously erroneous state. Or as in Schulz case just drive-by reverting without participating on the talk page. Careless reverts by people who don't read the edits or the sources in good faith. And then there are similarly careless characterizations without careful consideration. For example, TS essentially called me a liar above, when he state that Schulz participated on the talk page relevant to his reverts. Schulz did not respond on the chemistry. And the article where Schulz "pointed out caveats in the paper on October 19.", is not the article involved in either revert. The first revert was about ocean acidification where he only left the dismissive and erroneous chemist edit summary, and the second was about the erroneous article statement that solar forcing had a cooling effect, the article was the IPCC FAR report, not one that Schulz had any caveats on. (But I do.). This is the same Schulz as before, but evidently thinks if he drives-by only once a day, he can stay under the radar. And once again TS showed the lack of careful consideration and assmption of good faith typical of those that escaped the purge. I may have been uncivil, but I was careful to be correct and was pointedly correct when I did so. But I've had my say, and it is not in my nature to be uncivil, it took conscious and conscientious effort to convict these editors of their behavior, and I am naturally too lazy to continue the effort. But you need to know, that those remaining are just as guilty as those banned, they are just little more than an ill-informed mob without their leader. That is how it worked, they were so numerous they could run under your radar. The ] article owes much to my participation in the past, in the face of fierce opposition and hypocritical double standards for evidence. If you look back you will see I was a model of polite persistence. I came back to see if things had changed, and they have some, what is left is an ill-informed mob that tends to embarrass themselves if they try to address the science. The can't sustain scientific arguments, so they are left with only a double standard application of wikipedia arguments. | |||
| ===Statement by Dan Murphy=== | |||
| But, as I say, I'm through with the incivility and any response in kind to their battleground tactics. I accept that sanctions are in force and will honor them. I actually hold myself to a higher standard. For instance, you won't see me reverting text just because it is unsourced, unless I have actual reason to believe that it is also incorrect, and I will stick around and discuss any issues or sources that are brought forward, giving the editor a fair hearing.--] (]) 00:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Please look at ], written by the account under discussion. It's a hit job, originally placed in mainspace by this account. Anyone who wrote that shouldn't be allowed with 1 million miles of the topic.] (]) 23:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by starship.paint==== | |||
| :I'd like to add that I am sympathetic to the Arbcom and Misplaced Pages's problems in attempting to achieve the same excellence on controversial topics that is so common on other articles. I like the wiki philosophy, and have devoted considerable thought to how it might be made to work on controversial articles with only minor tweaking of the rules. The problem isn't so much the battling, that can easily result in compromises where each gets their say and response. The problem is WP:OWN, in this case, by a near religious ideology with enough numbers. It has driven away a lot of good editors, many who like myself probably kept on contributing as IPs. You might be interested in a discussion I had with Tony at his blog during my disillusionment.. This is just wikipedia, as a lover of science, what was sad and unforgivable was the climategate revelation that that scientists were playing the equivalent of WP:OWN for real, with the science itself. I look forward to seeing further advancement in the field of climate science and am excited about the opportunity represented by this period of unusually low solar activity to advance the science.--] (]) 00:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I've edited Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations, so Dan Murphy's link is inaccurate for the purposes of this discussion. For the version of Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations with content only written by LaylaCares, . '''] (] / ])''' 10:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by (username)==== | |||
| ====Comments by others about the request concerning Africangenesis ==== | |||
| He's still at it . --] 23:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
| More incivility and problematic behavior: | |||
| * | |||
| * In response to incivility warning: | |||
| * After being asked for a source: | |||
| * ] whenever you don't understand the basic science?"] | |||
| * | |||
| ===Result concerning LaylaCares=== | |||
| More warnings on behavior: | |||
| :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
| * By ], | |||
| <!-- 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. --> | |||
| * By ], | |||
| *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) | |||
| <span>]<span style="margin:0 5px;font-variant:small-caps;position:relative;top:-6px"><sub>]</sub>|<sub>]</sub></span></span> 23:40, 21 October 2010 (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">[]]</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== | |||
| * None of the above appear to have happened since the sanctions warning. Yes, the editing record is known. ] (]) 00:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|{{u|AstroGuy0}} has been issued a warning for source misrepresentation by {{u|Voorts}}. No other reviewers have expressed any wish for further action. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) }} | |||
| <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
| ===Request concerning AstroGuy0=== | |||
| Africangenesis is formally notified, and he has promised to abide by the sanctions, so that's it. --] 00:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ; 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> | |||
| :These were before the most recent sanctions warning, but after the multiple he received earlier. In any case, so long as he's able to work constructively (as he's claimed above) then I'll leave it be. Thanks. <span>]<span style="margin:0 5px;font-variant:small-caps;position:relative;top:-6px"><sub>]</sub>|<sub>]</sub></span></span> 01:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
| ::If this quote (from African Genesis's own statement, above) isn't an example of battlefield behaviour, I don't know what is: "those remaining are just as guilty as those banned, they are just little more than an ill-informed mob without their leader". --] (]) 16:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
| I think if he can curb such expressions during article improvement discussions that will be a great improvement. We cannot do much about what a Wikipedian actually thinks, deep down, about his fellow editors. ] (=] ) 16:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <!--- 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 : | |||
| :Fair enough. But I hope not to read such comments again on Talk pages, from Africangenesis or anyone else. I think we can all agree that they're not exactly conducive to lowering the temperature and encouraging calm consideration of how to improve Misplaced Pages's global warming articles. --] (]) 16:44, 22 October 2010 (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.--> | |||
| # 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 : | |||
| ===Result concerning Africangenesis=== | |||
| :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' | |||
| ::User of the discretionary sanctions. ] (]) 23:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
| <!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
| == WeijiBaikeBianji == | |||
| : Made aware of contentious topics criterion: | |||
| ''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' | |||
| <!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
| ===Request concerning WeijiBaikeBianji=== | |||
| ; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 10:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|WeijiBaikeBianji}} | |||
| ;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ], ], ] | |||
| ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
| # WeijiBaikeBianji renames four articles in this topic area, replacing the direct connection to intelligence in the titles with an indirect one to IQ, without discussing this first. Less than an hour later, he suggests ] that the ] article be renamed to something similar "for parallelism with other subarticles of intelligence quotient" when the only reason this proposed name is parallel to the other articles is because he’d just unilaterally renamed them all. When I mention ] (in this comment ) as one article that isn’t parallel to his proposed rename, he immediately renames that one also. | |||
| # WeijiBaikeBianji renames ] to "Genetics and the decline of race", again without any discussion. When this was subsequently discussed on the article talk page ], five editors (me, Muntuwandi, Victor Chmara, Moxy, and Dbachmann) agreed that the new title was inappropriate and/or non-neutral. Dbachmann, an administrator, referred to this move as "a rather crude example of pov-pushing by article title." | |||
| # Three examples of WeijiBaikeBianji selectively removing external links from BLP articles (the third diff is him reinstating his edit when it was reverted, without first attempting to resolve this on the discussion page). Some of the links that he removed may have not belonged there, but the problem with these edits is that they removed all of the links to articles and pages describing these researchers positively, keeping only those which were critical of them. This involved keeping the links to negative articles about these living people that were just as irrelevant as the positive ones he’d removed. In both cases, a neutral editor (Maunus) subsequently removed the critical links that WeijiBaikeBianji had kept or added, agreeing with me that they weren’t relevant either: | |||
| # Two examples of WeijiBaikeBianji removing links to other Misplaced Pages articles because they weren’t consistent with changes he was intending to make to those articles in the future. This isn’t advocacy, but it’s article ownership: other people’s edits to these articles should not be rejected only because they aren’t consistent with WeijiBaikeBianji’s plans. | |||
| # The first edit is an example of WeijiBaikeBianji removing content from an article based on what he apparently considers a misrepresentation of the one of its three sources, along with not being able to verify the other two sources. The wording that he replaced it with is non-neutral and puts the word "race" in scare quotes, even though this is not done in either the article title or any of the sources being cited. The second example is of him restoring content that someone else removed, which contained original research that was not supported by any of the sources being cited, and which also cited Misplaced Pages itself as a source. The issues with the material WeijiBaikeBianji reinstated were discussed ]. I’m including these edits alongside one another because I think it’s important to compare WeijiBaikeBianji’s standards for material that supports his point of view with his standards for material that doesn't. If article content disagrees with his point of view, he’ll remove it based on very subtle sourcing issues or his inability to verify its sources, but if material supports his point of view, he’ll reinstate it when it’s removed by others even if it involves circular citations and obvious original research. | |||
| ; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): | |||
| :None yet as far as I know, although multiple editors (including admins in some cases) have expressed concern about the neutrality of his edits on article talk pages. See the discussion about his rename of the Race and genetics article for an example. | |||
| ;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : I’m posting about this here because I think these things need attention via the discretionary sanctions, so it probably should be up to admins to decide what course of action is appropriate. Since WeijiBaikeBianji has not yet been formally warned about his behavior, I’m not convinced that a block or topic ban is necessary yet, and I’d consider it an acceptable result if admins were to decide that a warning and/or probation is enough. WeijiBaikeBianji probably has the potential to contribute to these articles productively if he could learn to be less aggressive about advocating his point of view, and not keep engaging in article ownership behavior. But since he doesn’t seem to be learning this on his own, I think admins need to do something to help him learn it. | |||
| ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : I should point out that I’m currently topic banned from these articles, although not because of any misconduct on my part - it’s because of the ] between my account and that of an editor who was topic banned as a result of the arbitration case. However, both the admin who topic banned me and one of the arbitrators have told me that even while I was topic banned, it would be acceptable for me to post about it here if I felt that there was editor behavior on these articles that needed attention via the discretionary sanctions. There are several other examples of behavior from WeijiBaikeBianji that I think demonstrate advocacy and article ownership, but I’ve only provided a sampling of the behavior from him that I think makes this clearest. Since what matters here is the general behavior rather than the specific examples, it’s important that this thread not get sidetracked by discussing individual content issues. When advocacy is the one of behavioral problems being discussed, it becomes necessary to provide examples of the editor in question inserting or reinstating non-neutral content, but the discussion still needs to be about the editor behavior rather than the content itself. | |||
| ; 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. --> | |||
| ===Discussion concerning WeijiBaikeBianji=== | |||
| ====Statement by WeijiBaikeBianji==== | |||
| I thank Ferahgo the Assassin for her timely notification of this request for enforcement on my user talk page. I agree with uninvolved editors Looie496, Angus McLellan, and T. Canens in their analysis of and recommended disposition for this request. I note for the record that the request for enforcement was not accompanied by notice to any of the other involved editors, whether or not they were named or referred to without naming in the request. (I also note that some of the discussion of this request is occurring away from here, on the talk pages of some of the uninvolved editors who have responded.) I think all those uninvolved editors are Misplaced Pages community administrators and that they have said all that needs to be said about this request. On my part, I will go back to ] because I am ] and have plenty of volunteer work to do without being bogged down in ]. | |||
| ====Comments by others about the request concerning WeijiBaikeBianji ==== | |||
| * Were I uninvolved - I probably am, but better to err on the side of caution - I'd endorse Looie's comment. ] ] 21:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :*I was told specifically by an arbitrator that doing this is not a problem if I believed someone's editing behavior needs attention via the discretionary sanctions. I was told this is only a problem if I file an excessive number of these, and this is my first (possibly only) one. Additionally, my topic ban specifically allows this, since I was told by the admin who topic banned me that this would be acceptable. When I appealed my topic ban to him in his user talk, saying that whatever decision he makes should address the problems with the editing environment that are unrelated to me, he told me "You are still free to request sanction of those other editors at ]; at least then one decision or another will be made." -] (]) 22:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would also like people who think I’m doing something wrong by posting about this here to read ]. Not only was I given permission to post here by the admin who topic banned me, but I was given permission ''specifically in response'' to requesting admin attention for the same behavior I’m reporting here, including most of the same examples/diffs. | |||
| :::If I actually am doing something wrong by making this report, then there’s a serious problem here with contradictory messages from admins. Since I was given permission to post here about ''this exact thing'', I don't see how anyone could have expected me to predict that posting about it would be regarded as abusing that permission. -] (]) 00:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===Result concerning WeijiBaikeBianji=== | |||
| :''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.--> | |||
| <!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> | |||
| I propose that this request be dismissed and the requesting party be prohibited from filing enforcement requests in this area. An editor who is topic-banned should not be filing enforcement requests unless there are clear and obvious violations, which is not the case here. ] (]) 19:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *When you are topic banned, you are banned from the topic, that is, you are banned from making any edit that has anything to do with the topic. This request has a lot to do with the topic. Therefore, it is within the scope of your topic ban. And, no, this is not "necessary and legitimate dispute resolution", because this request has nothing to do with your topic ban. Really, when you are banned, you should disengage and find something else to work with. ] (]) 03:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *I would disagree with the rest of you, at least in the theoretical sense. Nothing in my topic ban was meant to stop Ferahgo from filing a topic ban request. Now, I don't think that it would be wise for her to do this, and in fact think that she should abandon the topic area altogether. But I think this request should be evaluated on its own merits and the idea of preventing her from filing AE reports should only be discussed if this becomes a persistent problem. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 19:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Socking at ] == | |||
| <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
| {{hat|socks blocked, page protected}} | |||
| There's a very obvious "duck test" sock trying to shoe-horn his opinion into this article by edit warring. | |||
| * {{userlinks|The great sluggo}} | |||
| * {{userlinks|Alan8746}} | |||
| * {{userlinks|Marvin1292}} | |||
| And possibly: | |||
| Additional comments by editor filing complaint: | |||
| * {{userlinks|Stevehhll}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| --] 21:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion concerning AstroGuy0=== | |||
| :Well, I've taken the first step by semi-protecting the article for a week. I think an SPI request would be appropriate here. ] (]) 21:44, 22 October 2010 (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> | |||
| ::See ]. ] (]) 21:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by AstroGuy0==== | |||
| :::Actually, this has been brought up twice (!) at SPI. The main case is at ]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 22:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Iskandar323==== | |||
| I think this is me again. I filed cases in multiple venues without really flagging what I was up to. Between 2113 and 2144 I filed cases here, at ] and at ] with no real coordination and not knowing that the ] had already been filed by ]. It's even worse than that--before actually doing anything I edit warred up to three reverts with that very aptly names sock puppet, "The great sluggo". Must. Not. Panic. So. Much. | |||
| 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)==== | |||
| Sorry everybody. | |||
| <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
| ===Result concerning AstroGuy0=== | |||
| Thanks Looie for the prompt semi-protection of the page and the pro-active approach. We need to co-ordinate a bit more, that's all. All in all, not bad for a Friday evening when a young man's fancy turns to... oh TMI. --] 22:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
| <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
| *<!-- | |||
| --> | |||
| :The second diff was before AG0 received a CTOP alert. I've alerted AG0 to other CTOPs that they've edited in, and I am going to warn them for their conduct in diff #1 without prejudice to other admins determining that further action is warranted. ] (]/]) 04:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I also looked at the source, and it indeed does not in any way support the claim made; it does not mention "Pakistani" even once. This is a fairly new editor, but I think we need to make it very clear to them that misrepresentation of sources is not something we will tolerate. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Given that AstroGuy0 has already been issued a warning, I don't think anything further is necessary, and will close as such unless any uninvolved admin shortly objects. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | {{hab}} | ||
| ==Lemabeta== | |||
| == CC: Uninvolved eye (and voice) == | |||
| <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> | |||
| {{hat|Yet another thread that is not an enforcement request}} | |||
| Hi. Can someone obviously uninvolved take a look at the following edits (and edit summaries) by ] and, if deemed appropriate, lend a calming voice to the situation? | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| Thanks. --] (]) 15:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===Request concerning Lemabeta=== | |||
| :Is there a reason to believe a user can ''not'' delete material from his own UT page? (your third diff)? I had thought that such was a pretty much unalienable right on WP. Likely that one should be deleted from the complaint IMHO. ] (]) 15:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|EF5}} 20:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Read the edit summary of that one. --] (]) 15:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Let me just mention that I was not involved in any arbitration ruling on Misplaced Pages, at least not in the last 3 years, so the comment above clearly doesn't belong to the page where people ask for enforcement of arbitration rulings. I realize that my problems don't belong here, either. But I would still be grateful if someone told me whether a user can ask for some protection against blackmailing by other users, e.g. in the situations described in the four links above. An answer on my talk page might be good. Thank you, Lumidek --] (]) 15:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::(ec)I have also read, for example, edit summaries from others from their UT pages. Recognise "do let me know if you manage to think)," "ultimately pointless," " fool," "PZ is a world-class asshat. That is all.)," "potty peer begone," "rv trolling" and so on? Again - yhe edit was proper, and the disingenuousness about complaining about the edit summary would make far more sense if you complained about other edit summaries from UT pages, really. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. ''Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor'' more or less. ] (]) 15:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For those not versed in Jewish religious sayings, the incomplete statement above means "You are not obliged to finish the task"; but the complete saying continues "but nor are you free to abstain from it" -- thus actually contradicting Collect's argument. <sub>The disgrace of it -- two Jews debating Pirkei Avot online on Shabat!</sub><span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 16:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Lemabeta}}<p>{{ds/log|Lemabeta}}</p> | |||
| The ] article has seen what appears to be the renewal of an attempt to add BLP-violating material (poorly sourced speculation) that was last there back in Spring and apparently pushed by the same parties who are now back to try again. | |||
| <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
| I've put a request for the article to be temporarily given full protection to stop this campaign in its tracks. There are not newcomers but editors who have tried to insert this stuff before. ] (=] ) 16:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
| Collect, please be arcse that edit summaries such as those you quote are emphatically ''not'' acceptable, and thic anybody abusing Misplaced Pages editing privileges in that way under the discretionary sanctions ''will'' come under scrutiny. The old "us versus them" mentality is dead. ] (=] ) 16:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
| :Which was my point. Folks should ''not'' be blind to such summaries, ''nor'' should they only report ones that they do not agree with. And the "lo alecha" quote was precisely what I meant - If one wishes to work on a task, one should not shrink from it on the basis that they only see with ''one'' eye the task ahead. Clear? (Whilst I am not Jewish (though having Jewish relatives), an Orthodox synagogue president said I was born to study Talmud) ] (]) 16:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| On his user page Lumidek identifies himself as the celebrated theoretical physicist ]. ] (=] ) 16:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| It seems that Luboš hasn't changed much since this , take particular note of the comment by ] posted . ] (]) 19:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| Everybody needs to '''stop''' creating sections here that are not specific enforcement requests. If you have any doubts, please read the instructions at the top of the page. If you file a request here, at a minimum you need to specify the remedy that is involved and how it applies to the current situation. This is not ANI. ] (]) 20:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I suggest you re-read ]. --] (]) 20:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Lumidek== | |||
| ''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' | |||
| ===Request concerning Lumidek=== | |||
| ; User requesting enforcement : ] 20:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Lumidek}} | |||
| ;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] | |||
| ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ||
| <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | |||
| * ]: | |||
| # - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing. | |||
| # violates ] (BLP) of the arbitration, which editors in the topic area are expected to follow. The restored text, initially added by the same editor in March but removed shortly thereafter, contains highly speculative and damaging accusations about Briffa and his colleagues sourced from a blog and an opinion column in the Melbourne-based ] written by ]. | |||
| # - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist. | |||
| * ]: | |||
| # violates ] 3 (User conduct), 6 (Casting aspersions), and 21 (Battlefield editing) which the instructions in the discretionary sanctions instruct all editors in the topic area to follow. | |||
| ;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. --> | |||
| # (in edit summary) violates ] 3 (User conduct), 6 (Casting aspersions), and 21 (Battlefield editing) which the instructions in the discretionary sanctions instruct all editors in the topic area to follow. | |||
| *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) | |||
| # violates ] 3 (User conduct), 6 (Casting aspersions), and 21 (Battlefield editing) which the instructions in the discretionary sanctions instruct all editors in the topic area to follow. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): | |||
| :: <small>Response to Bishonen. Moved from results section. ] (]/]) 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| Other than informal warnings about the discretionary sanctions and their applicability to his first edit today, Lumidek has received no prior warnings about the sanctions resulting from the recently concluded arbitration case. | |||
| ::(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) | |||
| ;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : As Lumidek misinterprets informal warnings as "blackmail" and removal of his edits as "vandalism", a formal notification of the discretionary sanctions would help. | |||
| ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
| ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Lumidek's self-identification as the celebrated theoretical physicist ] is confirmed by on Motl's blog. I'm not a Scientologist, by the way, but I do look rather fetching in a kilt. | |||
| <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
| : Lumidek has also made some other edits today in the field of theoretical physics, without controversy. If he's back on Misplaced Pages for good now, that's very welcome news. | |||
| ===Discussion concerning Lemabeta=== | |||
| ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ''The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a ] of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.'' | |||
| <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==== | ||
| 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 Lumidek==== | |||
| :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 Lumidek ==== | |||
| <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
| ===Result concerning |
===Result concerning Lemabeta=== | ||
| :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the |
:''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.--> | |||
| *<!-- | |||
| <!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> | |||
| --> | |||
| * 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 ... 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". ] (]/]) 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 ... 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">[]]</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? ] | ] 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| ::{{u|EF5}}, OK, I see. Blocks and bans are ], and the block log only logs blocks. ] | ] 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:
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}}.
|
wikimedia.org).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. Request concerning PerspicazHistorian
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)
Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorianStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by PerspicazHistorian
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.
Statement by LukeEmilyPerspicazHistorian 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 WellerI'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)
Statement by Toddy1This 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 Capitals00I find the comment from Toddy1 to be entirely outrageous. What are you trying to tell by saying " 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 " Statement by Vanamonde93Toddy1: 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 ( 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)
Statement by UtherSRGI'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)
Result concerning PerspicazHistorian
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)
References
|
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. Request concerning LaylaCares
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)
Discussion concerning LaylaCaresStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by LaylaCaresStatement by AquillionQuestion: 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 MurphyPlease 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.paintI'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
|
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. Request concerning AstroGuy0
(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")
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 AstroGuy0Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AstroGuy0Statement by Iskandar323This 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
|
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
- 5 Jan 2025 - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing.
- 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
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- To be fair, when you click above to add a new enforcement request, the template states:
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).