Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:18, 5 November 2010 editShell Kinney (talk | contribs)33,094 edits →Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy: thoughts← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:34, 9 January 2025 edit undoSeraphimblade (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,244 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/Header}} --><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 = 72
|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==
== Martintg ==
{{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===
{{hat|1=No admin action taken. Martin has agreed to abstain from unblock discussions in the area of his ban. Other matters were mentioned in the comments that would need better quality data to investigate any further. ] (]) 23:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC) }}
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
===Request concerning Martintg===
; User requesting enforcement : ] ] (]) 01:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Martintg}}


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|PerspicazHistorian}}<p>{{ds/log|PerspicazHistorian}}</p>
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : <s>Block.</s> Topic ban.


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
<s>] is topic-banned from topics related to Eastern Europe.</s> "{{User|Martintg}} is topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics...." A request for clarification explained that this included "Communist terrorism". Although Martintg challenged whether this decision related to him, he abandoned it. A recent decision involving ] shows that becoming involved in procedures involving other editors is the same as editing proscribed articles. Martintg has chosen to defend ] who has been blocked for offensive comments about other editors at ]. Therefore Martintg has violated his topic ban. ] (]) 01:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
I would ask the arbitrators to look at their recent decision considering mark nutley who has a CC topic ban: "I really don't know how much clearer the message can be to the topic-banned users: Please go away. If the discussion is on-wiki and even tangentially related to climate change, and is not directly discussing you, then ''leave it alone''". Martintg was topic-banned from "Communist terrorism", asked for clarification and then abandoned it. ] (]) 03:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
Reply to Sandersaede, there was a request for clarification that decided this topic was part of Eastern Europe and Martintg raised then abandoned a request concerning whether it still applied. Martintg's definition of terrorism as including government actions allows for the inclusion of Soviet terror against other nationalities inside the former Soviet Union which were "national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe". ] (]) 14:21, 31 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.-->
# - removed "discrimination" sidebar from the page of ] (fascist ideology) even though the sidebar was inserted inside a section, not even the lead.
# - tag bombed the highly vetted ] article without any discussion or reason
# - attributing castes to people withhout any sources
# - edit warring to impose the above edits after getting
# - just like above, but this time he also added unreliable sources
# - still edit warring and using edit summaries instead of talk page for conversation
# - filed an outrageous report on WP:ANI without notifying any editors. This report was closed by Bbb23 as "{{tq|This is nothing but a malplaced, frivolous personal attack by the OP.}}"


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
=====Reply to AGK, re: "Constitution of Estonia"=====
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
From 1940 to 1990 the Soviet Union considered Estonia to be one of its republics, although the legality was disputed. Therefore the legitimate constitution during this period is a matter of dispute, which the article resolves by referring to the ] as ''de jure'', although the Soviets considered the Soviet constitution to be ''de jure''. ] (]) 22:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
*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)
===Statement by Martintg ===
I thought I was talking about Justus Maximus' unblock request for a block he received for comments he made on ANI, where he implied some editors were Marxist apologists who promoted terrorism, which is clearly offensive. He did remove those comments but was blocked in any case. I've been discussing JM's unblock for several days on ANI,,,, on his talk page, on an admin's page and nobody (let alone The Four Deuces who was also involved in that discussion too) had any issue in regard to my involvement until now. I thought talking about issues of ] and how we treat newbies is sufficiently abstracted from any underlying content, in this case whether or not ] promoted terrorism . I would have participated just the same as if the original issue was related to ] or ].


: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)
FWIW, the original topic ban ''"topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed"'' was narrowed to by motion, dropping ''"widely construed"''. Note that the Climate Change topic ban under which Mark Nutley was blocked incorporates the term ''""''. The importance of the presence of "broadly construed" in the remedy was higlighted in a clarification related to the original topic ban, most of the Arbitrators concurred with the viewpoint of Steve Smith when he stated: ''""''. This ''"broadly construed"'' portion of my topic ban was removed when it was narrowed in September.


*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)
I drafted a recent clarification request in good faith about whether the narrowed topic ban was still applicable to the article ], but soon abandoned it since it seemed to be a waste of the Committee's time (and mine) over something that I can easily avoid (and have avoided since) in deference to ] (despite a couple of other editors welcoming my involvement), since the issue would be moot anyway in a couple of months time as my topic ban will expire anyway. But construing my good faith discussion of a user's unblock request due to his block over comments on ANI in light of ] as a violation is stretching things a bit too far.


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
So it is not clear to me how discussion of JM's unblock request, which was related to his block related to his use of phrases deemed offensive during a discussion on the ANI page, which in turn was due to his perception of some editors and his view of their conduct, which in turn was related to a discussion of whether or not ] (a German national, by the way) promoted terrorism in his 19th century writings, which in turn was related to ] which is an article about terrorism in Western Europe, Asia and South America (and no mention of Eastern Europe) and its proported relationship to Marxist doctrine, is related to my topic ban on East European national, cultural or ethnic disputes.
<!-- 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 was only trying to help diffuse the situation and help JM understand how things work on Misplaced Pages. He seems to be widely read on Marxist writings and seems to have great potential to contribute. However given the climate of the increasingly broad and elastic interpretation of topic bans, I'm quite prepared to strike all my comments on JM's talk page and take no further part in trying to assist. --] (]) 03:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


===Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian ===
*Petri Krohn's involvement below appears to be an issue of ], Arbitrator Shell Kinney is familiar with Petri's affiliation with a certain fringe political group, please contact her for the details. --] (]) 21:04, 31 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>


====Response to AGK and others==== ====Statement by PerspicazHistorian ====
*By far I am also concerned how my edits were forcefully reverted without a proper reason despite providing enough references. Please check how I am getting attacked by them on ] Page.
My edits of ] are fully sourced from ], Estonia's reference encyclopaedia similar to ]. Text accurately reflects the content from Estonica. There never has been any connection with the article ] and ethnic, cultural and national disputes. Nobody objected to my edits until it appeared that the original AE report wasn't going to get the result desired by Petri Krohn
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.
I must say this is the first time I've seen ] interpreted as a struggle over "opposing constitutional views", I thought it was about people protesting about the appropriateness of moving a war grave, but then I've only edited that article twice. After scanning through the article ], the only reference to the ] is in the section ], where the constitution is actually used in support of the minority to veto more extreme legislation in regard to the ] monument. No mention in that article that the disturbance was a result of conflict between two "opposing constitutional views".
: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
Now Petri has said he has just now created a redirect from ] to ] to apparently bolster his case, which begs the question on why ] hadn't existed as a redirect before this AE report if there truly was a dispute over "opposing constitutional views". My reaction to this is that constitutions are specific legal documents related to a specific legal state order. ] discusses the evolution of a series of specific constitutional legal act(s) related to a specific state order of the ]. Our opinions of a republic's notion of itself, based upon a specific legal POVs and assumptions as presented in the text of the constitution and commentary from sources like ], is irrelevant and cannot be subject to dispute over POV, only verifiability. Redirecting ] to ] makes no sense. ] should be expanded to discuss the specific constitutional legal act(s) as they pertain to the Soviet system and in the mean time be redirected to either ] or ], I have no problem with that.
:1)Yes I usually edit on RSS related topics, but to ensure a democratic view is maintained as many socks try to disrupt such articles. Even on ] page, I just edited on request of talk page and added a graph. I don't think its a POV push.
:2) My main interest in editing is ] and ] topics.
:3)There have been certain cases in past where I was blocked but if studied carefully they were result of me edit warring with socks(although, through guidance of various experienced editors and admins I learnt a SPI should be filed first). I have learnt a lot in my journey and there have been nearly zero case of me of edit warring this month.
:Please do not block me. ] (]) 14:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*@] I beg apologies for the inconvenience caused, thanks for correcting me. I will now reply in my own statement section. @] I am a quick learner and professionally competent to edit in this encyclopedic space. Please consider reviewing this enforcement if its an counter-attack on me as mentioned in my previous replies. You all are experienced editors and I have good faith in your decision-making capability.] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*@]@] I have edited content marked as "original research" and "mess" by you, I am ready to help removing any content that might be considered "poorly sourced" by the community. Please don't block me.] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*@] This enforcement started for edit-warring and now I feel its more concerned to my edited content(which I agree to cooperate and change wherever needed). After learning about edit wars, there has been no instance of me edit-warring, Please consider my request.--] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@] I am not a slow learner, I understand the concerns of all admins here. I will try my best to add only reliable sources, and discuss content in all talk pages, as I already mentioned ]. ] (]) 12:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@]@] I think admins should focus more on encouraging editors when they do good and correct when mistaken. I have made many edits, added many citations and created much articles which use fine citations. The enforcement started out of retaliation by nxcrypto, now moving towards banning me anyways. I started editing out of passion, and doing it here on wiki unlike those who come here just for pov pushes and disrupt article space(talking about socks and vandalizers on contentious Indian topics).
*::The article ] doesn't only has issue on citations, but the whole article is copypasted from the citations I added. I just wanted to point that out. Remaining about ], I am currently pursuing Btech in cs from IIT delhi, idt I am a slow learner by any means. Still, happy new year to all ! ] (]) 14:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::@] You mean to say, "<sub>The ''prasada'' is to be consumed by attendees as a holy offering. The offerings may include cooked food, ] and confectionery sweets. Vegetarian food is usually offered and later distributed to the devotees who are present in the ]. Sometimes this vegetarian offering will exclude prohibited items such as garlic, onion, mushroom, etc. "</sub> is not copy pasted by website? Is this also a wiki mirror website? How would you feel if I doubt your competence now? ] (]) 14:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::@ ] I just asked others to share their opinion in the enforcement. With all due respect, I don't think its wrong in any sense. ] (]) 15:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::To all the admins involved here,
*:::::* I agree to keep learning and apologize if my previous edits/replies have annoyed the admins.
*:::::* I have not edit warred since a month and please see it as my willingness to keep learning and getting better.
*:::::*Please give me a chance, I understand concern of you all and respect your opinion in the matter. But please don't block me from editing from main article space. I promise that I will abide by all the rules and will learn from other editors.
*:::::] (]) 15:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by LukeEmily====
I'm not sure Petri Krohn's POV of "opposing constitutional views" is actually based upon any published source or is it likely he just made this up. I've done some digging around and all I could find is manifesto published by ] , apparently signed by a person named "]" which Petri has linked himself to . Whether Offliner has some sort of affiliation with ] too, who knows. Are Petri Krohn's and Offliner's disagreement with my good faith edits to ] an issue of ]? That needs to be determined elsewhere.
PerspicazHistorian also violated ] by engaging in an edit war with {{u|Ratnahastin}} who reverted his edits and restored an article to a stable version by admin. Also, I want to assume good faith but it is surprising that PerspicazHistorian claims that he did not know the three revert rule given that he has more than 800 edits.] (])


====Statement by Doug Weller====
Given the way Petri Krohn and Offliner have piled on to this AE report, in conjunction with the creation of ], there appears to be a larger issue than that what was originally reported. This AE report ought to be referred to the Arbitration committee, admins patrolling AE have done that in the past.
I'm involved so just commenting. I don't think this editor is competent. I had to give them a community sanction caste warning as they were making a mess of castes. See this earlier version of their talk page.]https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:PerspicazHistorian&oldid=1262289249] and ]'s comment that "It was very unwise of you to keep moving ] to article space when it has not passed review. As a direct result of your actions, a deletion discussion is taking place, and when this is complete and the article is deleted, you will be prevented from recreating it. ] (]) 14:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)" There have also been copyright issues. I strongly support a topic ban. ] ] 11:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


:::I won't be involved in the decision. No more treatments for me, just coast until... ] ] 12:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
The battleground is where you want it to be. I was minding my own business editing what I thought was uncontroversial topic based upon reliable sources and now this is be painted as wrong doing by two apparent activists. Afterall, the article isn't called ] or something. If the admins here think my good faithed edits to ] backed by a reliable source is also covered by my topic ban, then I will no longer edit that article either. --] (]) 04:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


====Statement by Toddy1====
====Response to Petri Krohn's continued agitation====
This is another editor who appears to have pro-] (RSS) and pro-] (BJP) views. I dislike those views, but find it rather alarming that Misplaced Pages should seek to censor those views, but not the views of the political opponents. Imagine the outrage if we sought to topic-ban anyone who expressed pro-] views, but allowed ] to say whatever they liked.
I don't know how long this report will remain open and be continued to be used as a platform for apparent ] ]ING by Petri Krohn. But his latest unsourced (and unsourcable under ]) assertions are just plain factually incorrect, one only has to read the original text in wikisource to see there is no ethnic element to the ], Article 9 states:
:''"The rights, liberties, and duties of everyone and all persons, as listed in the Constitution, shall be equal for Estonian citizens as well as for citizens of foreign states and stateless persons who are present in Estonia."''
These rights that Article 9 refers to include Article 49:
:''"Everyone shall have the right to preserve his or her ethnic identity"''
and Article 50:
:''"Ethnic minorities shall have the right, in the interests of their national culture, to establish institutions of self-government in accordance with conditions and procedures determined by the Law on Cultural Autonomy for Ethnic Minorities"''.
There are no issues with the constitution, that I am aware of, ethnicity does not play a part at all. There may be issues with regard to some laws passed by the parliament in the past, but as I have shown above, the constitution has been used to veto those laws. Edward Lucas is presumably referring to internet sites like those russophone sites run by ] and their supporters.


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've been thinking the other day about what I find so objectionable about Petri Krohn's ] organisation, it is that they seek to turn an issue of the rule of law that applies equally to all into an ethnic issue through misrepresentation, agitation and soapboxing. To my mind ''that'' is incitement to ethnic hatred which has no place in Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 19:21, 4 November 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 .
===Statement by Petri Krohn ===
] that followed were targeted precisely against the revisionist interpretation of the ] Martintg has now introduced into the article. If this is not about "national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe", I do not know what is!]]
I have made every effort not to cross paths on or off Misplaced Pages with Martintg or his Eastern European supporters. I do not follow his edits or interfere with his editing and try not to edit articles in his limited scope of interest. Yet Martintg is exhibiting a pattern of following my edit history and editing the same or related pages, or coming to the defense of my opponents in disputes where I am a party. (The most innocent case of this is editing ] after I added a link to it in two articles.) This has to stop! I will also be filing a related sock puppet investigation on him in a case where I believe he broke his topic ban by editing an article I had pointed him to.


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.
In the ] against Martintg I posted a long comment explaining the dispute Martintg is involved in.


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)
:''"The central and core issue in the Eastern European disputes – as it relates to Estonia and other Baltic republics – is the claimed ] in exile..." '''


====Statement by Capitals00====
It is of relevance only for the record, as due to conflicting edits, I made my edit two minutes after Jehochman had issued a one week ban. I could have been more terse. A minimal topic ban that would keep Martintg out of the dispute could be worded as follows:
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)
:''"Any content, (edit, section or article) that describes or tries to describe Soviet rule in the Baltics or Eastern Europe as illegal or oppressive or communism as immoral or criminal."''


====Statement by Vanamonde93====
This week Martintg started rewriting the article on the ]. () The article is now yet another POV-clone of the claimed state continuity of the Baltic states in exile, as it only reflects the legal fantasy on the unrecognized government-in-exile. Already his falls under his topic ban on “disputes”, as it introduced the disputed claim that the Soviet Union "occupied" Estonia in 1940.
{{U|Toddy1}}: I, too, am baffled by your comment. We don't ban editors based on their POV; but we do ban editors who fail to follow our PAGs, and we certainly don't make excuses for editors who fail to follow our guidelines based on their POV. You seem to be suggesting we cut PH some slack because of their political position, and I find that deeply inappropriate. Among other things, I don't believe they have publicly stated anywhere that they support the BJP or the RSS, and we cannot make assumptions about them.


That said, the fact that this was still open prompted me to spot-check PH's contributions, and I find a lot to be concerned about. is from 29 December, and appears to be entirely original research; I cannot access all of the sources, but snippet search does not bear out the content added, and the Raj era source for the first sentence certainly does not support the content it was used for. ], entirely authored by PH, is full of puffery ({{tq|"first to sacrifice his life for the cause of Swarajya"}}, and poor sources (like , and , whose blurb I leave you to judge), from which most of the article appears to be drawn. ], also entirely authored by PH, has original research in its very first sentence; the sources that I can access give passing mention to people whose names include the suffix "appa", and thus could perhaps be examples of usage, but the sources most certainly do not bear out the claim.
Martintg's only other contribution to article space, after his last topic ban ended, is to the article on ]. () Laar is the former prime minister of Estonia a, but also a controversial revisionist historian, who's books have been... <small>(Claimed BLP violation by Martintg, will restore with source – or, why should . If Martintg cannot even allow this statement to exist, then clearly Laar is part of a dispute, and he should not be editing the article. -- ] (]) 20:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC))</small> – and a primary source for Martintg's disputed POV. Although the edits were innocent, I would consider the article to be under his topic ban. -- ] (]) 17:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


I will note in fairness that I cannot access all the sources for the content I checked. But after spotchecking a dozen examples I have yet to find content PH wrote that was borne out by a reliable source, so I believe skepticism is justified. We are in territory where other editors may need to spend days cleaning up some of this writing. {{U|Bishonen}} If we're in CIR territory, just a normal indefinite block seems cleanest, surely? Or were you hoping that PH would help clean up their mess, perhaps by providing quotes from sources? That could be a pathway to contributing productively, but I'm not holding my breath. ] (]) 18:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
''P.S.'' – I have made request for a sock puppet investigation at ]. -- ] (]) 21:49, 1 November 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)
===== Response to AGK and EdJohnston =====
One side in the ethnic conflict in Estonia, including the right-wing nationalist parties, the former “]” and most notably, former prime minister and historian ] will argue that the underground “National Committee” formed by ] in 1944, and the government in exile declared by ], in Oslo, Norway in 1953 represent a ''de jure'' continuation of the ] – as it existed before June 1940. They also argue that constitutional rule was only established in Estonia in 1992, when the government in exile ceased operations and handed “power” over to president ] and then prime minister Mart Laar. According to this view Estionia was under ] from 1940 to 1991 or 1992. and any action taken by local Estonian authorities, including implementing its workforce-hungry immigration policy, were actions of occupation authorities and thus without legitimacy. This is the point-of-view the article on the ] – as created by Matrintg – exist to promote. This interpretation of history is relevant, as it forms the legal basis of the denaturalization (loss of citizenship) of the ethnically non-Estonian population carried out under Mart Laar's rule in 1992. At the time the share of Estonian speakers in Estonia was a little over 50%.


====Statement by UtherSRG====
The opposing view, shared by Estonia's Russophone minority as well as modern Russian historiography is that the non-violent anti-authoritarian revolution in Estonia in June 1940 (known as ]) preserved the legal continuity of the Estonian state, and thus the petition of the '']'' to join the Soviet Union on July 22 as the ] was constitutional. This view also holds, that the renamed Republic of Estonia of 1990, under prime minister ], and the succeeding independent member state of the United Nations of 1991 – all the way to modern Estonia – represent a legal continuation of the Estonian SSR (and thus its ].) Some on this side would argue, that the rise to power of Mart Laar and the constitutional changes that followed were a ''coup d'etat'', carried out to pursue a racist national policy. People holding these views will argue that Estonia practices an ] policy by disenfranchising and discriminating against its minorities.
I've mostly dealt with PH around ]. They do not seem to have the ability to read and understand our policies and processes. As such, a t-ban is too weak. The minimum I would support is a p-block as suggested below, though a full indef is also acceptable. They could then ask for the ] when they can demonstrate they no longer have ] issues. - ] ] 20:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


:Based on , I'm more strongly leaning towards indef. - ] ] 12:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The conflict between these two opposing constitutional views reached a climax in April 2007, with ]. The events also brought in a large number of new editors to Misplaced Pages, initially to edit war over the article ], with some of them continuing in disputes that eventually resulted in the ] arbcom case. -- ] (]) 23:20, 1 November 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 ===
''P.S.'' – I have redirected ] to ]. However, I cannot see how the article could accurately reflect the needs of this redirect with Martintg anywhere near the article. -- ] (]) 03:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
'''Update''' – Apart from the historical dispute of the continuity of the Constitution of Estonia and its reflection on present-day ethnic violence, there is the question if the undisputed post-1992 constitution is in fact a tool of oppression used by an apartheid government. I am not going to provide reliable sources as I will only show that a dispute exists. Here is one that came up from the on-line forum on Pravda with an English translation of Russian sources. – Quote: ''UNITED NATIONS again reminds about its apprehension those that in article 48 of constitutions of Estonia the participation in the political party is permitted only to the citizens of the country.'' The underlying claim seems to be that Estonia is a racist, apartheid state ''and'' the 1992 constitution of Estonia is instrumental in creating this system of apartheid. There is thus no need to go into the history to show that the constitution is part of an ethnic dispute in Eastern Europe. -- ] (]) 18:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


{{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)
;...some more on the 1992 constitution.
<!-- 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 lead section of the article ] should in fact contain text on the following lines.
:@], 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?
{{quote|The purpose of the new constitution adapted in 1992 is to transform Estonia into a mono-lingually Estophone monocultural entity. Opponents of the constitution argue, that it is a racist tool of oppression targeted at Estonia's Russophone population, and the foundation of Estonia's ].}}
:<small>Re: your question on why your "obvious edit" was reverted: we don't deal with content issues here, only with behavior issues, but from a very quick look, the source is 50 years old, and using a list headed "TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS LISTED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967" that includes a certain organization as a source that the organization should be described as a terrorist organization is ]; in their ] NXcrypto provided an edit summary of "Not a reliable source for such a contentious label. See WP:LABEL." Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here.</small> ] (]) 11:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm seeing this as a CIR issue. I'd like input from other admins, if possible. I'm a little concerned that setting a tban from IPA is just setting a trap. Maybe a p-block from article space would be a kinder way to allow them to gain some experience? ] (]) 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@], have you seen how many times I or others have had to move your comments to your own section? This is an example of not having enough experience to edit productively. Please do not post in anyone else's section again. ] (]) 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I do agree we're in CIR territory, and the concerns expressed are completely valid. I don't think this editor is ill-intentioned. They just don't seem very motivated to learn quickly. Well-intentioned-but-a-slow-learner is something that can only be fixed by actually practicing what you're bad at. I'd prefer an indef from article space which gives them one more chance to learn here before we send them off to mr.wiki or Simple English to try to learn. Not a hill I'm going to die on, though. ] (]) 11:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::@], like Uther I have major concerns about the edit you made yesterday, which included replacing a citation needed tag with these sources.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Significance of Different Type of Prasad in Hinduism For God |url=https://www.ganeshaspeaks.com/predictions/astrology/prasad-food-for-god/ |access-date=2024-12-30 |website=GaneshaSpeaks |language=en-GB}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=What Is Prashad |url=https://www.swaminarayan.faith/articles/what-is-prashad |access-date=2024-12-30 |website=Shree Swaminarayan Mandir Bhuj |language=en}}</ref> The first is a company that markets astrology services. The second is the site for a religious sect. Neither is a reliable source for explaining the concept of prasada in Wikivoice. You made this edit ''yesterday'', after you'd confirmed here and on my talk that you understood sourcing policy.
:::::The reason for an indef from article space is to allow you to learn this policy: You would go into article talk and suggest sources to fix citation needed tags. Another editor would have to agree with you that the sources are reliable before they'd add them. ] (]) 12:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*A tban from IPA for PerspicazHistorian would be a relief to many editors trying to keep this difficult area in reasonable shape. However, Valereee makes a good point about 'setting a trap': it's doubtful that PH would be able to keep to a tban even if they tried in good faith. I would therefore support a p-block from article space. ] &#124; ] 16:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC).
*:{{u|Vanamonde93}}, no, I don't really think PH can usefully help clean up their mess; I was following Valereee, who has been going into this in some depth, in attempting to keep some way of editing Misplaced Pages open for PH. It's a bit of a counsel of desperation, though; there is very little daylight between an indef and a p-block from article space. Yes, we ''are'' in CIR territory; just look at PH's ] for NXcrypto being "engaged in edit wars before on contentious Indian topics": one diff of an opponent complaining on NXcrypto's page, and one diff of somebody reverting NXcrypto. What do those actually prove? That NXcrypto has opponents (big surprise). So, yes, as you suggest, I'll support an indef as well. ] &#124; ] 20:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC).
*Is there a length of time proposed for the p-ban or would it be indefinite? ] (]) 17:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I would say indefinite; not infinite, but I'd be wary about letting them back into articlespace without some kind of preclearance. ] (] • she/her) 18:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*It looks to me like there is a consensus for an indefinite partial block for PerspicazHistorian from article space. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within a day or so, I will close as such. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Given PH's recent slew of requests on multiple admin talk pages, yes, please do. - ] ] 12:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*<!--
-->


{{reflist talk}}
I will not be providing any sources, as I have no intention of editing the article. A quick in English provides some interesting results, including this opinion by ]: I am not endorsing anything that Lucas is saying, but he is making a strong argument that a ethnic dispute exists – and that, any dispute about Estonia, be it about the constitution or whatever, will follow ''ethnic'' lines. -- ] (]) 17:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
{{hab}}


==LaylaCares==
'''Response to Biophys''' – You are in fact arguing, that Martintg should be allowed to edit the ], as it is about a statue, but not the ]s as it about an ethnic dispute. I cannot agree with you. -- ] (]) 23:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
{{hat|There is consensus to remove LaylaCares's EC flag. ] (]) 17:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}

<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
===Comment by Collect===

This appears to be "topic ban extension shopping" at best. The comments did not address Eastern Europe as a topic, and the extension of Digwuren has reached the level of putting a size 20 foot into a sixe 9 shoe. The nature of each editor's personal biases is irrelevant - there is no case to be made for stretching Digwuren even further. Note: I am banned from editing the London Victory Parade article ''which I have never even read,'' as a result of the spandex topic bans. ] (]) 16:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Offliner===
A few weeks ago Martintg was blocked for a week for a ] of his topic ban. Additionally, former arbitrator FloNight urged Martintg to step back from pov contributions in the Eastern European topic area. Based on the current AE report, and especially edit one has to question whether Martintg has learned anything from his latest block. The edit inserts text ''when the Soviet Union occupied Estonia'', which clearly is a POV contribution about the topic of ], one of the main EE disputes and battlegrounds. The edit is similar to what Martintg was already blocked for. It seems that—contrary to ArbCom's demands—Martintg has failed to disengange from the battleground, and is continuing to violate his topic ban. ] (]) 19:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

:'''Response to AGK'''. edit relates to the national dispute about the ], with the other side claiming that Estonia being joined to the Soviet Union constitutes an occupation, while the other claims that it does not. The topic is the same for which Martintg was already blocked for (mainly edit.) Please see ] thread for details. ] (]) 22:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

===Comments by others about the request concerning Martintg ===
In my opinion, this is too broad understanding of the topic ban. Although ] edited only two articles, both of which had a relation to Communism, he is a newbie, so it would be premature to speak about him as about an anti-Communist SPA. In his posts Martin has been focused only on the way ] was being treated, not on the content of his edits. He carefully avoided any content disputes. In my opinion, it would be hardly correct to speak about violation of the topic ban. In any event, even if it is the case, this violation is rather tangential, so a warning would be quite sufficient.--] (]) 02:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

:Can I concur with Paul Siebert here. It seems unduly harsh and possibly counterproductive to interpret a topic ban as extending into discussions about other users, merely because said users have been themselves banned in relation to a somewhat-distantly-related topic. I think the MartinG's arguments on Justus Maximus's behalf may actually help JM to understand that the action taken against him wasn't due to his viewpoint, but to his behaviour. ] (]) 03:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Martintg is not topic-banned from articles about Eastern Europe, see . I guess that is the reason why TFD was unable to link the appropriate ArbCom decision, as required for enforcement. In any case, I hope that this time a deeply involved administrator will not abuse his administrative rights and quickly enforce a highly dubious extremely harsh block without support from other administrators, like it happened before (why does he even have admin right after such major violation is beyond my understanding). --] 08:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Could we stop with this nonsense now? There is nothing controversial in articles about ] and ] - this can easily be seen from the fact that there are not even unreliable sources claiming any controversies. This is just an attempt to silence or drive Martin away from Misplaced Pages. Martin has agreed to stay away from further attempts to defuse issues peacefully, I recommend an official ArbCom warning for both TFD and Petri Krohn (perhaps an interaction ban - or ban from ArbCom and AN/I pages?) for repeated attempts to misuse arbitration enforcement to resolve personal and content issues. --] 21:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
:Re to AGK. <s>I suggest to quote accurately this<s> According to , Martintg "is topic banned from articles ''about'' national, cultural, or ethnic disputes...". This article is ''about'' constitution. Of course any political or historical subject is ''related'' to numerous conflicts (consider US constitution, for example). Such an extended interpretation would prohibit Martintg from editing ''any'' historic/political subjects in Eastern Europe. If that was Arbcom intention, this should be explained to Martintg and other users who have similar sanctions.] (]) 22:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
::People, how about ''helping'' your colleague to resume productive editing, instead of looking for every excuse to report him to AE? This battleground must stop.] (]) 13:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
::: I '''strongly''' second that last comment, Biophys. ] 20:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
::::This is obvious. The modified editing restriction by Arbcom is well-intended and can work in a friendly atmosphere. If one thinks that "Estonian constitution" might be a violation of ban, why would not one discuss this with Martintg? In fact, I left Martintg a notice a couple of weeks ago that he should not edit "Communist terrorism" article (violation or not) because that will bring him and Marlnutley a trouble. But Estonian constitution looks a legitimate subject to me, so I would not even bother... ] (]) 12:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Rsp to AGK - no, there is nothing controversial about ] and ], which can clearly be seen from lack of ''any'' kind of sources in Offliner's and Petri's claims, not to mention, solid, peer-reviewed sources in major scientific journals. The claim that Mart Laar's book was banned in Germany is simply an ''untruth''.

As for Martintg's previous block, it was a clear-cut case of administrative abuse. At the time when the only non-involved administrator expressed worries about quality of evidence against Martin and suggested him to stop editing those articles or he might get a ''warning'', an admin deeply involved in ] case (who also was against partial lifting of the Martin's topic ban) blocked Martin in what must be a record time in closing arbitration enforcement case. And since it was Martin's first offense, a standard procedure would have been a warning, especially considering the weak evidence. Second offense would get 12 or 24h ban. But the admin blocked Martin immediately for a week. Like I've said before, I do not know why his administrative rights were not immediately removed after such blatant misuse.
:--] 08:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
:: Sander: What do you say to User:TFD at ] and to User:Offliner at ], after "Response to AGK"? ] 20:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

:::In case of TFD, note "Soviet Union considered Estonia..." and "Soviets considered the Soviet constitution to be ''de jure'' ...". There are no modern scholars in the Western world who support this view, only couple of local-importance Soviet apologists. Hence there is really no dispute. I would recommend creating a separate article about the constitution of the Estonian Soviet Republic, in case someone thinks it is needed - I don't think it is, as the constitutions of Soviet republics were pretty much copy-paste material.
:::As for Offliner... I would recommend to stop this battleground mentality immediately. Again, there are no modern Western scholars of law or history who dispute the occupation - quite the opposite, the case is often used as a textbook example of a military occupation. This has been discussed in-depth in the talk page of ] - and at best so far there are some sources who fail to use "occupation", no scholarly sources whatsoever which claim there was no occupation. Of course, Russia's official view is that Baltic states joined Soviet Union voluntarily, but even historians in Russia (e.g. ], the grand old man of history) do not support that view.
:::I heartily recommend reading the link to the {{plainlink|url=http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?176651-UN-report-Estonia-is-a-racist-apartheid-state|name=Pravda.ru web forum}} that Petri gave. I don't think I've never seen the level of racism as in that forum before (actually, lying here - I remember seeing a Russian forum which called to kill all people in Baltic states as they are "nazis") - and this is the best source for Estonia being a "racist, apartheid state", a web forum mentioning UN report which according to a post in the thread actually doesn't exist... I don't think further comments are necessary.
::::--] 21:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::Again, I heartily recommend reading Petri's latest link, {{plainlink|url=http://edwardlucas.blogspot.com/2007/08/esstonia.html|name=a blog post}} by ], which concludes:
:::::{{cquote|Fifteen years on, Estonia's policy may be too tough, or just right, or even too lax. Compared to most European countries’ citizenship laws, it is quite generous. In any event, calling it “apartheid” is not only nonsensical, but stupidly insulting, to a country that has responded with intelligence and restraint to a devastating historical injury.}}
:::::Of course, Lucas doesn't mention the constitution at all, he discusses the citizenship law. I think that Petri's arguments would only win if he would read the sources he links to, perhaps then he would also stop using Holocaust denialist web pages as sources for Misplaced Pages, as it has happened a couple of times recently.
::::::--] 21:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

With reference to Petri Krohn's "'''I have made every effort not to cross paths on or off Misplaced Pages with Martintg or his Eastern European supporters,'''" Petri made it a point to stalk me and level accusations of bad faith at Sandstein's talk and Shell Kinney's talk&mdash;where I was pursuing options for putting conflict in the past&mdash;culminating in Petri leveling blatantly false allegations of outing attempting to get me blocked, followed by his attempts to cover up his own self-outing on-Wiki edits. Diffs have been provided prior. ]<small> ►]</small> 22:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
: And you will note I have not filed an AE or AN/I over Petri's behavior, but as I have noted elsewhere, even my personal commitment to moving forward from conflict can tolerate only so much abuse. ]<small> ►]</small> 14:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

===Result concerning Martintg===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
*See ]. Martintg has agreed to concede the point, at least as regards to his actions during the remainder of his topic ban. The ban expires on 22 December. I asked him to "voluntarily agree to absent yourself from any unblock review proceedings (or in ANI discussions or on any admin talk pages) where the person involved has recently edited any article or subject matter on your banned list." Based on his agreeing to this, I recommend that the enforcement request should be closed with no further action. ] (]) 20:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
::Hang on, Petri Krohn may be expanding his statement. He has more issues besides Martintg's participation in the unblock discussion. ] (]) 21:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
:;Question for Petri Krohn and others
::Can you create a list of articles from which you think Martintg should be restricted during the remainder of his topic ban, that would avoid the problems you identify? Do you think he should avoid editing anything to do with Estonia during WW II? In your opinion does this prevent him from writing about the ]? ] (]) 06:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
*I have reviewed ], which closed on 3 October with a 1-week block of Martintg. I find myself agreeing with the admins who closed that one that Martintg's editing of ] was improper. I am not quite convinced by the people bringing this case that he can't edit ], though I could be persuaded otherwise. The admins in the 3 October case seemed unhappy with Martintg's general behavior at that time, and I see their concern. However, I'm not seeing enough problems for a new block of Martintg at this point or for any additional restrictions. So I would be willing to close this case with no further action. Per my comment at the top of this section, he's already agreed to behave as though his topic ban covers unblock discussions, which was the original reason for bringing this case. ] (]) 15:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
* Marting the article {{La|Constitution of Estonia}}, an article which it is claimed relates to "''national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe''" (as prohibited by ). For the benefit of me and other administrators not intimately familiar with the subject matter of the conflicts of Eastern Europe, an explanation is required as to how that article does relate to the specified disputes.<p>If it is demonstrated that the article does relate to the historical disputes in question and so for Marting to edit the article would constitute a violation of his topic ban, I would be minded to propose a two-week block for the infringement (with the absence of leniency in the length of that block being owned to the fact that Marting was blocked for violating his topic ban not even one month ago). ] 21:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
::* Response to Biophys' 22:08, 1 November 2010 comment: Um, yes, I see that, and that's what I quoted. Unless I'm missing something, you just said "you quoted that wrong, the arbitration motion says this: …", then quoted precisely what I said.<p>On a general note: Thanks for the responses from everybody. I'll read through them all, then comment further. If any other uninvolved sysops have a comment to make, now would be an ideal time to jump in. ] 20:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
:::* Biophys: Thanks, that makes more sense. ] 20:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
*I am unsure whether AGK is planning to make a further comment. My own inclination at this point, if I am the one who closes, is to say that the original complaint that Martin unwisely participated in an unblock discussion has been addressed by his voluntary agreement to the wider interpretation of his ban. The allegation about ] is a new issue raised by Petri. This may reflect unclarity in the editing restriction, since I don't know whether Constitution of Estonia is about a dispute. I am inclined to close this with no action, not ruling out a new filing about ]. If there is a new filing, I'd expect more data as to whether the current restriction is adequately holding down disputes in this topic area. I don't see any actual edit war at ]. I note that ] does not lose jurisdiction to consider Martin's editing on 22 December, when the official Arbcom ban expires, since AE could impose a new restriction if it is shown to be necessary. ] (]) 18:08, 4 November 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}}


===Request concerning LaylaCares===
== Jeffrey Vernon Merkey ==
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Vice regent}} 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|LaylaCares}}<p>{{ds/log|LaylaCares}}</p>
{{hat|Most recent IP blocked. This is not the place to request "high-level contacts" from WMF.}}
===Request concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey===
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 03:21, 2 November 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|Jeffrey Vernon Merkey}}


;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] ;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.-->
The IP's listed in the ] have been making baseless accusations of sockpuppetry against me. Due to the articles which the IP's have edited, their obsession with tagging an IP in Canada as being me (though the sockmaster knows full well I live in Colorado), and the geolocation corresponding with the sockmaster's recently self-reported location, these are ban-evading sockpuppets of banned user {{user1|1=Jeffrey Vernon Merkey}}, and should be blocked.
# # EC gaming
#
#
#
#
#
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Block IP's listed in the SPI. High-level contact from Wikimedia Foundation to the ISP to inform them of the abuse originating from one of their subscribers.


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : As also noted in the SPI, I am under an interaction ban with socks of banned user {{user1|1=Jeffrey Vernon Merkey}}, but the terms of the ban explicitly allow me to report socks to administrative boards.


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : , , , , ] (]) 03:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
===Discussion concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey===
Pretty obvious case of EC gaming. Account created on Nov 17, 2024, then about 500 mostly minor edits followed by the first substantial edit ever was the creation of on Dec 17 (subsequently moved to draftspace).''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
====Statement by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey====


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
====Comments by others about the request concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey ====


===Result concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey=== ===Discussion concerning LaylaCares===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
:''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.-->
Most recent IP blocked. If you want "high-level" contact from WMF you are at the wrong page. ] (]) 18:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
{{hab}}


====Statement by LaylaCares====
== Oclupak ==


====Statement by Aquillion====
{{hat|1=Oclupak is banned indefinitely from the topic of the ]. ] (]) 16:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC) }}
Question: Assuming it's determined that they gamed the extended-confirmed restriction, would the page they created be ]-able? I've asked the relevant question in more detail ], since it is likely to come up again as long as we have such a broad restriction on effect, but I figured it was worth mentioning the issue here as well. --] (]) 14:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
===Request concerning Oclupak===
; User requesting enforcement : '''<font face="Arial">] <sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 13:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


===Statement by Dan Murphy===
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Oclupak}}
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====
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ]
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)====
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : At ], # , in support of recent IP vandalism , and . It is clear that Oclupak supports disruption of the article talkpage (edit summary ''a kind of vandalism that can be justified, as all other avenues to bring about a NPOV have been tried''), and that he is not able to edit 9/11-related topics without promoting his view that "it is a kind of vandalism that can be justified" and "this article promotes exclusively the official propaganda of the U.S. government."
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
# Warning by {{admin|NuclearWarfare}}
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Minimum 3-month topic ban from 9/11-related topics, broadly construed, enforceable by blocking. Given the opinion expressed in the diff, I see little hope that this editor can ''ever'' edit on 9/11 related topics.


<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : @ T. Canens, this is just the most recent occurrence in a pattern of behavior that indicates that Oclupak is not able to respect community norms in this matter. He otherwise seems to be a productive editor, so I have to believe that he understands the likely consequences of his support for outright vandalism. '''<font face="Arial">] <sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 13:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


===Result concerning LaylaCares===
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
:''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. -->
===Discussion concerning Oclupak===
*I agree that this looks like EC-gaming. Absent evidence that the edits themselves were problematic, I would either TBAN from ARBPIA or pull the EC flag until the user has made 500 edits that aren't rapidfire possibly LLM-assisted gnomish edits. ] (]) 17:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

*I agree on the gaming piece and would suggest mainspace edits+time for restoration of EC. I will throw out 3 months + 500 (substantive) main space edits. ] (]) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
====Statement by Oclupak====
*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 have nothing to add to what I already said. It will all come down to this: if the administrators who will pass judgement on this incident are of the same clique as Tarage, MONGO and Acroterion, they will blindly follow their suggestion and ban me from all 9/11-related articles. If, on the other hand, they are genuinely impartial, and if they investigate the matter, even superficially, they will come to realize that this article has been hijacked a long time ago by editors who tolerate no other POV but their own and that the claimed consensus for their approach only exists because, one by one, all opposing views have either been banned or have quit Misplaced Pages in disgust. The result is the vandalism we are witnessing right now which is apparently the only way available to express a dissenting view to this extremely biased article. If the responsible administrators do not find a reasonable and equitable solution to this situation, what can they expect if not even more vandalism in the future? I'm sure IP 174.89.59.40 would have had something worthwhile to contribute to the 9/11 article and that his acts of vandalism are the result of being blocked systematically with weasel arguments at every attempt before he resorted to . ] (]) 15:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
*@]: I agree that the draft should be G5'd, but will wait for consensus to develop here. ] (]/]) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

*:I don't think the wording of ] allows for deletion of a page that was created by an EC user. <small>(ECR also seems to forget that anything other than articles and talkpages exists, but I think the most reasonable reading of provision A still allows for G5ing drafts at admins' discretion if the criteria are met.)</small> That said, a consensus at AE can delete a page as a "reasonable measure that necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project". Deleting under that provision is not something to be done lightly, but I think for a case where a page's existence violates the spirit of an ArbCom restriction but not the letter, it'd be a fair time to do it. And/or this could make for a good ARCA question, probably after PIA5 wraps. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
====Comments by others about the request concerning Oclupak ====
*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)
''If, on the other hand, they are genuinely impartial, and if they investigate the matter, even superficially, they will come to realize that this article has been hijacked a long time ago by editors who tolerate no other POV but their own and that the claimed consensus for their approach only exists because, one by one, all opposing views have either been banned or have quit Misplaced Pages in disgust.''
*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)
Editor seems to fail to realize that wikipedia is not here for him to ] but to report what mainstream, scientific concensus. 9/11 conspiracy theories have been universally debunked and are fringe. ] (]) 15:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
: Supporting is simply unacceptable. On Misplaced Pages, subjects such as ], the ], ], ]'s religion and birthplace, ] etc. all have in real life substantial numbers of people who believe, often fervently and with the greatest conviction, that the "official version" is not correct, and that moreover, there is a conspiracy to stop the truth coming out, and that most key "official" evidence has been doctored somehow. 9/11 conspiracy theorists may find it difficult to accept that as far as Misplaced Pages policy on fringe ideas goes, they are in much the same company as these people (although some clearly cross over into a couple of the other areas quite happily). Such discomfort is not a reason to change Misplaced Pages policy regarding the use of the best reliable sources. I feel particularly strongly about this because the current vandalism has led necessarily to the talkpage being semi-protected, which is always a regrettable event. Encouraging such behaviour shows contempt for Misplaced Pages processes rather than a desire to make them better, and, as suggested by Soxwon above, an open attempt to abuse Misplaced Pages for political ends. Oclupak has been on Misplaced Pages for a while now; he should by now have learnt that encouraging vandalism (and no one questions that it is vandalism) is thoroughly out of order. ] (]) 16:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

:What can I say? I knew he would be back to his old tricks. I would have been one one to make this request had ] not done it first. This user simply does not understand, will never understand, and will continue this inappropriate behavior. Misplaced Pages loses nothing with his removal. --] (]) 09:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

===Result concerning Oclupak===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
Since the editor seems unlikely to follow Misplaced Pages policies concerning conspiracy theories, especially 9/11, I recommend that he be topic banned from articles and talk pages concerning the September 11 attacks, and from any discussion of that topic on other pages. The ban would be indefinite. ] (]) 20:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
*I am quite hesitant to impose any sanction, let alone an indefinite topic ban, for a single comment that, as far as I can tell, caused no disruption by itself. We are not (or at least should not be) in the business of banning people solely for expressing unpopular viewpoints on the talk page. But is clear disruption, and on the basis of that diff, I concur with the proposal for an indefinite topic ban. Indefinite is not infinite, and in the unlikely event this user can demonstrate their ability to edit in accordance with our guidelines, they can always appeal the ban. ] (]) 04:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
*I'm seeing a pattern of consistent tendentious editing that has not ceased since I gave my warning. I think that Ed's idea is a good one. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 04:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
*Thanks for the additional data. After hearing the views of the other admins I'm imposing an indefinite ban of ] from ''articles and talk pages concerning the September 11 attacks, and from any discussion of that topic on other pages.'' The ban will be logged at ]. ] (]) 15:49, 3 November 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}} {{hab}}


== Gilabrand == ==AstroGuy0==
{{hat|{{u|AstroGuy0}} has been issued a warning for source misrepresentation by {{u|Voorts}}. No other reviewers have expressed any wish for further action. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) }}

<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
{{hat|Gilabrand restricted to 1RR until the end of January}}
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
===Request concerning Gilabrand===
; User requesting enforcement :] 15:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

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

;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ]

; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
# Removes material that is the subject of intense discussion on the talk page. The user has not made a single comment on the talk page
# Removes tag that is the subject of discussion on the talk page. The user has not made a single comment on the talk page.
# Removes tag that is the subject of discussion on the talk page, discussion that even includes discussion of why the tags should not be removed. The user has not made a single comment on the talk page.
# an edit discussed extensively on the talk page. No reason given in the edit summary and the user has not made a single comment on the talk page.
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
# notified of case
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Topic ban

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Gilabrand has repeatedly reverted without discussion on a number of pages. Trying to get this user to explain their reverts is more difficult than getting a baby to explain relativity. It is not possible to engage in a good faith discussion about a dispute when users refuse to discuss the dispute and when they deny that a dispute even exists, as seen in the repeated removal of tags placed and discussed on talk pages.

I think the self-rv was enough and request that this be considered withdrawn. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 07:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

===Discussion concerning Gilabrand===

====Statement by Gilabrand====
Nableezy has again succeeded in throwing a wrench into the works. After the tags were reverted by other editors, I copyedited the article to remove all sources of dispute. After this cleanup, I removed the tags believing that contentious statements on both sides were no longer there and the tags were no longer necessary. Instead, Shuki reinserted a poorly worded POV section that I deleted, and Nableezy popped an artery because he wanted all the SYNTH and OR put back so that he could fight some more. He then added not two, but three tags, for spite. I reverted them with an edit summary explaining my actions. It may have been impolite, I agree, but nothing compared to the rude, threatening and vulgar comments that Nableezy spouts non-stop, as he snoops around for opportunities to wreak havoc in this project. Just seeing his name on a page is enough to scare people away. I am sorry for leaving that edit summary. I am sorry I edited the page. I am sorry for being so naive as to think that I could stop the fighting on a page where Nableezy's name appears. I restored the tags and the way is now clear for Nableezy to continue doing whatever it is he does. As I said, it's a free world.--] (]) 05:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
:::The "creative solutions" below regarding sanctions on my editing will certainly make Nableezy very happy. But you might as well delete my account right now, because I do not intend to leave 50 word messages about every sentence I change. My interest is in improving articles on Misplaced Pages, not wikilawyering with the likes of "editors" who are probably 90 weaklings in real life who are using this site to terrorize others. Please check the records to see how many articles I have expanded, copyedited and upgraded over the last several months, and don't forget to check Nableezy's record, which includes not a single valuable contribution to ANY article on Misplaced Pages. Yes, he has been busy, adding controversial tags, hunting down sockpuppets, masquerading as an administrator with the power to "block accounts immediately," threatening new editors, engaging in edit-wars with perceived opponents, and wasting everybody's time and energy reporting people endlessly on boards such as this. His commandeering of articles by placing multiple tags on them and not allowing anyone to touch them from that point on is outrageous, and administrators who side with this behavior by imposing sanctions on those who are trying to help need to think again. --] (]) 06:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

====Comments by others about the request concerning Gilabrand ====
'''Comment by Shuki''' This is a extremely lame and quite frivolous. Frankly, I questioned one of the edits myself, but thank God I'll AGF Gilabrand anyday given her experience in copyediting articles to better English then most of us and NPOV. Gilabrand was just being ]. Big deal. Nableezy has been warned about about bringing frivolous reports to AE. --] (]) 16:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
'''Comment by NickCT''' Fairly unabashed ]ing. Not really all that surprising given the editors history. ] has a point with the whole "commenting on talk page" thing. If you want to ] at least try to make some excuse on the article's talk page. ] (]) 16:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

'''Comment by Supreme Deliciousness:''' It seems as the lifting and shortening of Gilabrands 3 month block and six month topic ban, did not help her behaviour: --] (]) 16:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

'''Comment by AgadaUrbanit:''' How it seems when it's not? I think we should leave Gila alone. There is a consensus for her edit. She made a single edit on the discussed page, took part in discussion and had an intellectual decency to self revert. ] (]) 21:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

===Result concerning Gilabrand===
:''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.-->
Gilabrand has backed away from the dispute, which obviates a need for action at this time. However the sarcastic tone of comments at ] is not a good sign. An editor who would be operating under a topic ban if it had not been lifted needs to be very careful about tendentious editing, and Gilabrand has not been careful enough here. ] (]) 17:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

*Are we saying that GIlibrand is off the hook because of ? I would prefer to see her make an actual promise to stop edit warring on this article. If not, restoring the topic ban might be considered. ] (]) 20:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

::In my opinion, the editing on both sides has been lame, with a pointless edit war over tags. Also, there's a centralized discussion over the legality issues, which is nearing completion, so I've protected the article. Although I disapprove of Nableezy's hyperbole, a restriction to require Gilabramd to explain her edits along with a 1RR per day could be helpful. ] (]) 23:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
:::I agree with both suggestions: the 1RR and the required explanations. I hope the explanation will be better than : ''"No dear, the problems have been addressed and all statements are sourced so go take a hike"''. Her explanation should be on the talk page. ] (]) 00:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
::::Okay, I propose the following wording, then - taken, mutatis mutandis, from an ARBMAC sanction imposed by {{user|Stifle}}:
:::::{{user|Gilabrand}} is limited to one revert per rolling 24-hour period per article on all articles within the area of conflict, as defined in ], for 3 months. Furthermore, they are required to discuss any reverts they do make on the talk page in a minimum of 50 words, in English, within 30 minutes of the revert.
::::I think 3 months is a reasonable starting point. Feel free to suggest alternate durations. ] (]) 05:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

::::::3 months is perfectly sensible. Personally, I'd say until the end of January, if only because it's easier for admins who watchlist the pages to remember, but that's entirely up to you. While I think there should be a requirement to explain edits, I don't consider a 50 word minimum to be necessary. ] (]) 16:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
{{od2}} Very well. Under the authority of ], {{user|Gilabrand}} is limited to one revert per rolling 24-hour period per article on all articles within the area of conflict, as defined in ], until 00:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC). Furthermore, they are required to discuss any reverts they do make on the talk page, in English, within 30 minutes of the revert, excepting reverts of obvious (as in, obvious to someone who has no knowledge of the subject) vandalism, as defined in ]. ] (]) 20:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
{{hab}}
::::Nableezy withdrew his complaint. Why are you continuing this discussion??????--] (]) 21:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
:::::I missed legality revert which was made without discussion on talk page. This is a disruptive behavior. I guess admins are fair here, Gila. ] (]) 01:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


===Request concerning AstroGuy0===
== Nableezy ==
; 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>
{{hat|1=No admin action taken. ] (]) 04:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC) }}
===Request concerning Nableezy===
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 20:48, 2 November 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|Nableezy}}


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : 1RR restriction, ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
(Even though this isn't the usual R&I fare, I consider the intersection of "Race/ethnicity and sex offending", to come under "the intersection of '''race/ethnicity''' and human abilities '''and behaviour'''")


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# 1st revert
# 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.
# 2nd revert
# 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 notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
# notified of case.
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Topic ban


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : In the past 6 months or so, Nableezy has been
# banned from editing articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for two months on 16 April
# topic-banned until end of August from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries on 27 July
# topic-banned from Gaza War, and all related articles, discussions, and other content, for six weeks on 15 August
# restricted to 1RR until December 31 for all articles which relate to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights on 16 September
# blocked 24 hours for reverting without discussion contrary to 1RR probation on Golan Heights article on 9 October
# blocked one day for violation of 1RR restriction on 19 October
# restricted to 1RR per day for the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, until the end of December 2010 on 21 October


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
Something is not working here.


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : : Made aware of contentious topics criterion:
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
===Discussion concerning Nableezy===


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
====Statement by Nableezy====
The first "revert" listed is not a revert, it is an edit. Could NMMNG please explain what version of the page I reverted to? Shuki initially made an edit to that page. I modified, not removed or reverted, that edit so that it properly reflected the source cited. There is not a single version of that page that resembles my rewrite of Shuki's edit. This is one of the reasons that reports at AN3 have to show what version of the page the edit reverted to. No such version exists here and no definition of the word "revert" applies to my initial edit. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 20:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
<!-- 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. -->
:As far as I understand it, a revert is anything that changes content another editor put in the article, per ]: ''A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word''. ] (]) 21:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
::And what material did I "reverse" "in whole or in part"? By this definition any edit to existing material is a "revert". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
:EJ, could you please tell me why I should be sanctioned for making a single revert when I am restricted to 1 revert? How many reverts did I make? What edit did the first revert listed here "revert"? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
::That is truly retarded. I replaced "Palestinians and left-wing activists intentionally vandalizing trees with saws in order to accuse settlers" with "Palestinians had destroyed trees with the intention of blaming settlers for the destruction.". You are going to call the first edit a revert because not every word Shuki wrote was kept. Fine, block me, but that is idiotic. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
::I would like to expand on why this is idiotic. EdJohnston says that I removed, in my initial edit, the phrase "intentionally vandalizing trees with saws." It is true that I changed the sentence "Palestinians and left-wing activists intentionally vandalizing trees with saws in order to accuse settlers" to "Palestinians had destroyed trees with the intention of blaming settlers for the destruction." I then also added a direct quote from the source which says the following: 'According to ''Yedioth Ahranoth'', photos taken by the group "allegedly show Palestinians and left-wing activists cutting down Palestinian olive trees using an electric saw".' So I included that the trees were cut down with a saw. The only part of the phrase that I am accused of removing that actually isnt in my edit is "intentionally vandalized". I replaced "intentionally vandalized" with "destroyed". Because of this replacement I supposedly made a revert. This effectively says that every copy-edit of any edit, no matter how awkwardly worded or nonsensical the original, is by definition a revert if any word is replaced. My edit has as a section title that these are claims of "staged vandalism", including even that word. To call the first edit a revert opens up an insanely wide definition of a revert, a definition that I certainly will remember for any future AE or AN3 report. Change any word and its a revert, thats the rule you are making. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 00:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
Its nice having fans, it really is. As much as I would like to respond to some of the mindless droning below, I would instead like to focus on the topics that matters here. If I made 2 reverts I should be blocked, if I did not I shouldnt. There is a restriction on the number of reverts I may make, I acknowledge that and I have been scrupulous in abiding by it. I would like EdJohnston to clarify his reasons for calling the first edit a revert. My edit included a portion of the phrase he says I removed. Is it his position that the changing of the words "intentionally vandalized" to "destroyed", for the first time, constitutes a revert? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 03:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small>


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
Sandstein, I would like to ask a question. If there were a 0RR, would there be no changes allowed to any text? That once material is added it cannot be modified in any way? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 06:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small>


Additional comments by editor filing complaint:
If it is decided that my first edit was a revert then fine, I should be sanctioned. But to define that first edit as a revert opens up the definition of the term way past what has been used at AN3 and AE in the past, and if that is the definition used here it is the definition I will expect admins to enforce for every future AE or AN3 request I make. But can yall get to the point and make a decision already? Either that or restrict the ability of my many fans from filling the below section with the babbling that largely characterizes it? I can ignore it for only so long before a response to some of the more asinine comments will be necessary. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small>


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)
Phil, if ''pointless edit warring over tags from editors who've in the past have edited far more constructively'' is a reference to me, allow me to explain. I have just about given up trying to actually deal with the content. Any correction to the inaccurate or biased material that fills the articles in the topic area made by me is summarily reverted by a number of users. So I place a tag and discuss the issues, vainly hoping to either convince the other party and have them make the corrections or have a third party evaluate the discussion and do the same. Apparently I cant even do that anymore as even tags placed are summarily removed by POV-pushing accounts that demand that not only their biased view be the only one included but further demand that there cannot even be mention of the fact that their biased view is the only one included. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small>


====Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy ==== ===Discussion concerning AstroGuy0===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
**NOTE: Countering bad editing with worse editing is a bad idea. I'm not saying ] can't be applied even after an editor was banned 4 months in the same year but Nableezy refuses to abide by wikipedia guidelines and is, if anything, an interruption to proper oversight. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 22:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


====Statement by AstroGuy0====
*'''Comment by Shuki''' Looie496, you got to be kidding. I have yet to see Nableezy work things out with anyone and that is why it is so frustrating to edit with him. Please bring examples of this collaborative behaviour you attribute to him. Honest. I'm waiting. As for maintaining neutrality, it exists but very rare. Nableezy is a SPA account to introduce negative information on Israeli articles and has virtually no interest in improving Arab articles. I have previously proposed a creative resolution instead of a block that he should concentrate on improving Palestinian articles and perhaps bringing them to good status rather than the sad state they are in now. Until then, you cannot ignore that no one on 'the other side' has a record in the past six months like Nableezy. --] (]) 22:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


====Statement by Iskandar323====
*'''Comment by Chesdovi regarding Looie496''' I find Looie’s comment worrying. I am blocked for 1 whole month after having a clear 4 year run for being “unable to edit from a neutral point of view.” (I have yet to be informed which of my edits compromised NPOV.) Nab has had ban after ban, restrictions and blocks in such frequency and is still deemed a viable editor? What message does this give to other editors, myself included, who get severe treatment without anything like the AE history Nab has managed to attain for himself. I am encouraged however, that you have not rushed to block Nab before a fair and comprehensive discussion has taken place. ] (]) 23:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
:*I agree that it's worrying. I think it would be helpful if one of the more experienced admins could let us know if the attitude Looie496 is displaying below is compatible with how AE is supposed to work. I mean, do editors with multiple topic bans, editing restrictions and blocks in a topic under ArbCom discretionary sanctions get "more latitude"? And if it's impossible to give them more latitude, should editors of opposing POV be topic banned for no specific offense? I must have missed the discussion about all this. I think I dropped out at the point where an editor with a clean record for 4 years got blocked for a month because an admin wanted to "give a strong response". ] (]) 00:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
:*I think you guys need to look at it a different way. I completely disagree with Looie496 and it isn't based on the 7 sanctions mentioned. It is on the '''11''' total (at least 1 reduced) and extensive . I do see what he is getting at, though. It is easy to assume that Nableezy is up against a wall and is either a necessary evil or fighting the good fight by countering hordes of POV editors. Whatever the reason, he has gotten away with much more than anyone else (see Chesdovi), continues to be tendentious in anything even mentioning the legality or boundaries of Israel, and won't stop slinging mud (calling others wikilawyers and made it clear that he meant it "in the most derogatory way" is my favorite recent one). I think he should have been banned months ago. He wasn't. And realistically, I don't think ''this'' potential violation was that bad. POV pushing (WP:WORDS!) yes but he did use the talk page. Like usual he doesn't appear to be interested in reaching consensus but at least he waited to make the last revert. So if we want to open a discussion on his overall editing then super. However, this incident probably isn't enough and I see why Looie might be hesitant. Realistically, a week block isn't near enough for Nableezy's transgressions so no block would be just as well, IMO. It won't matter since it will be appealed and lifted anyways. So this might as well be closed unless we are going to address the overall concerns and not this particular incident.] (]) 02:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment by Epeefleche regarding Looie496'''
More than worrying. Looie’s comment is starkly belied by the facts. Even a brief review of his editing, or even his recent block history which is set forth above, reflect quite the opposite regarding this editor. In addition, Looie's particular comment that <blockquote>"'''If Nableezy is taken out of action I am going to feel a need to topic-ban a number of other editors''' who are clearly incapable of editing neutrally without oversight, and that is a suboptimal solution"</blockquote> is mildly outrageous. A clear violation of wp:admin.


====Statement by (username)====
Looie -- let me be clear ... You are not allowed to threaten editors that you will topic-ban them if Nableezy is sanctioned here. That is beyond the pale. A shocking threat from a sysop. It is a form of wheel warring; though you are not threatening to reverse the sanction, you are threatening to take an opposite (and more than equal) action in the face of the sanction being applied. It is clearly a threatened abuse of admin tools. If the editors are not subject to topic-ban today, they ''will not'' become so simply because Nableezy is sanctioned. If another editor decides to bring the issue of your threat here up at AN/I or elsewhere, kindly let me know, as I would like to contribute to such a discussion.
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning AstroGuy0===
I would also note that this area is now one in which Looie has indicated he is involved, in that he has flagged for us his strong feelings about it, which he indicated will lead to him taking admin action against other editors if this editor is sanctioned. Involvement is generally construed very broadly, to include disputes on topics, regardless of the age or outcome of the dispute. It is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, as he has flagged himself as being here, that he pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.--] (]) 02:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
*'''Comment by NickCT''' - More tit for tat arbitration. Note that the aggressive editing Gilabrand took part in above seems somewhat more sever than the technical 1RR violation nableezy stands accused of. ] (]) 02:24, 3 November 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. -->

*<!--
*'''Response by Looie496''' Just look at the edits that form the basis of this complaint, and then look at the source. It should be perfectly clear that the original version misrepresented the source, and that the version as Nableezy modified it was neutral and accurately represented the source. I am new to the I-P domain and haven't yet seen all that many examples of conflicts, but so far every example I have seen has followed this same pattern. I have little doubt that both sides would like to push their own point of view if they could, but so far every indication I have seen is that the Israeli side currently has the upper hand. ] (]) 02:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
-->
:I'm not sure that your response reflects that you are taking to heart what I have said. I understand that you are new to this domain. Also that you are new to having admin responsibilities. Both facts militate, I would suggest, to you heeding my advice. As a new admin, you must exercise care in using your new functions. You may have reviewed these already, but if not you may find helpful the ] and the ], as well as the ]. As admin tools are also used with judgment, it can take some time for a new admin to learn when it's best to use the tools, and it can take months to gain a good sense of how long a period to set when using tools such as blocking in difficult disputes. New admins such as you are also strongly encouraged to start slowly, and build up experience on areas ''they are used to''. Your approach seems to be somewhat at odds with that.--] (]) 03:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
:The second diff was before AG0 received a CTOP alert. I've alerted AG0 to other CTOPs that they've edited in, and I am going to warn them for their conduct in diff #1 without prejudice to other admins determining that further action is warranted. ] (]/]) 04:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Looie496, if you make a statement "that the Israeli side currently has the upper hand", it should be supported by differences as any strong statement is. Reading your posts I believe you should not be the one to handle the editors involved with I/P conflict articles.
: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)
*:About Nab, and 1RR in general. 1RR is imposed to stop editor edit warring. Nab never stopped edit warring. Only now instead of reverting in 24 hours. I believe topic ban should be imposed, during which Nab could concentrate on contributing on different topics. --] (]) 03:13, 3 November 2010 (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)
*::Wow, 25hrs looks like full-on ] to me. Again, it is a separate incident than this report. Of course, it could be argued that the tags should not have been removed anyways so again it would just be appealed and lifted again.] (]) 05:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
*::@Looie -- As to your comment that" "In my opinion Nableezy is the main force maintaining any semblance of neutrality ... and needs to be given if anything more latitude rather than less. The system of Nableezy working things out with other editors ... is working reasonably well." I would suggest that you take a look at the string directly below this one. Perhaps we are discussing different editors?--] (]) 22:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment by Sol''' The policy in question specifies that a revert "reverses the actions of other editors". The first edit modifies and expands on the content, it doesn't reverse it. *Yawn* It's just another day in the hot I/P e-turf war. Someone spots Nableezy with a possible policy violation and the usual lynch mob arrives. The judge acquits and the crowd burns him in effigy. I'm amazed anyone volunteers to admin these things. ] (]) 03:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment by VsevolodKrolikov (uninvolved editor)''' (I've never, as far as I recall, ever edited I-P pages and don't intend to start.) Nableezy's first edit was to what was clearly a POV representation as fact what the source itself called an allegation. He replaced with key quotations from the source. Is this a revert or an expansion? I think a certain generosity of interpretation is allowed, given what was changed. The second edit was clearly a revert, rather ]y and done aggressively, but I don't think a formal warning is merited (just a word from an uninvolved admin). Sanctions would be silly based on the evidence presented here, including user history.] (]) 03:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment by Nsaum75''' What nableezy is accused of is no different than what people from the "other side" have been accused of. However enforcement and sanctions often *'''appear'''* lopsided, casting doubt on the fairness of AE and the admins who manage it. In general, AE has become a tool used to punish those with opposing views and the baiting, gaming of the system, provocation and like must be stopped. Several admins have even as much as acknowledged this. However '''NOTHING''' has been done, and good, productive editors have been driven away because they do not want to become part of the "game". The "pro israel" side is just as guilty as the "other" side when it comes to creating a disruptive atmosphere. And the rampant sockpuppets on the "pro-Israel" side create animosity and only make the situation more clouded and complex. '''HOWEVER''' If those who manage these boards are incapiable or unwilling to apply '''uniform''', firm, decisive action and make progress towards restoring editors' faith in the AE process, then <u>perhaps it is time to recall some of the admins who regularly manage the boards</u>, or at least find new leadership. Over the past few years I have watched I-P issues turn AE into a three-ring circus. I'm sure I am not the only one who has taken note of this, although it escapes me why I'm the only person who says anything. Maybe its fear of somehow being "punished" or "sanctioned" for bringing up one's concerns. I dont know...but I do know that the the lack of effective leadership here discredits Misplaced Pages and creates a vicious circle into which the admins are pawns of those who abuse the system. --]<sup>]</sup> 05:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment by WookieInHeat''' while i find nableezy's approach to editing rather uncooperative in often making thinly veiled personal attacks and automatically assuming bad faith with other users (even in this very thread), i can't really be bothered with this case per se. regardless, thought i would offer an opinion on looie496's comment below which generated many replies. i understand where looie is coming from, in that nableezy could be seen as providing balance against the opposing side. however the line "nableezy is the main force maintaining any semblance of neutrality" gave me a chuckle. nableezy openly displays his COI with the arab-israel subject on his user page; he may be a "balancing force" to some degree, but calling him a "neutral force" of any sort can only really be described as a bad joke. cheers ] (]) 05:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
*:::Wookie, you have twice, insultingly, characterised ] as "loonie". Could you please strike and correct this? Thanks. --] (]) 07:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
::::changed it, sorry my mistake, wasn't meant as an insult; honestly misread his name (it was 2 in the morning). i apologized to looie on his talk page for any offense i may have caused. cheers ] (]) 12:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
*It seems to me that it would be unjust to discipline Nableezy for not knowing that his edit constituted a revert when even a couple of admins (Timotheus, Mkativerata) don't come to that conclusion. Since he acted in good faith, maybe we should all just walk away better informed and on notice for the future. --] (]) 06:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
:I forgot to make clear that last message was a '''Comment'''. By me. JGGardiner. Sorry about that. --] (]) 07:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
:: '''Comment:''' I make this comment to remark that I am grateful to you, JCGardiner, for making it clear that your above comment was a comment. ] 16:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
* I agree with JGG that Nableezy acted in good faith here. Furthermore, it is perfectly clear that Nableezy's version is a much more accurate summary of the source than the one he changed. Are we really going to punish Nableezy for accurate editing? This is an enormous exercise in time-wasting, and should be closed with no sanction, other than a note to be more wary in future. --] (]) 08:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
:'''Question'''PhilKnight, what are you going to topic ban Shuki for? It is Nab, who was edit warring, it is Nab, who violated 1RR. What Shuki, who hardly edited in the last month, has to do with it? Please compare to . Nab made 500 contributions between October 21 and today. Shuki made 500 contributions between August 15 and today. See the difference? --] (]) 14:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
::Shuki has made over 100 edits in the last week but I fail to see why you are even stating the numebr of edits unless you think it somehow adds to the weight of your arguments, which it clearly does not. ] (]) 14:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I'm a bit curious too. I was not even part of this article edit war but admins are dragging me into it and talking about topic banning me??? --] (]) 21:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

===Result concerning Nableezy===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
*In view of the large number of sanctions already issued for this editor in 2010, I suggest that there should be a one-week block for the 1RR violation. ] (]) 21:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
:*Here are the two reverts: Twice, on October 31, Nableezy removed from the article the phrase ''"intentionally vandalizing trees with saws."'' The definition of a revert is given in ]. It means undoing the work of another editor. Removing words previously added meets the definition. ] (]) 21:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
*I can't agree. In my opinion Nableezy is the main force maintaining any semblance of neutrality in this and a number of other articles, and needs to be given if anything more latitude rather than less. The system of Nableezy working things out with other editors such as Shuki and Cptnono is working reasonably well. If Nableezy is taken out of action I am going to feel a need to topic-ban a number of other editors who are clearly incapable of editing neutrally without oversight, and that is a suboptimal solution. ] (]) 21:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
*I cannot agree with Looie. If the AE process is to have any credibility, we must not show favors one way or another. Mitigating factors - such as baiting, provocation, enforcing consensus, correcting obvious misrepresentation, etc., can and should be taken into account in deciding upon any sanction; but no editor is (or should be) indispensable, and showing favors in this way only destroys the credibility of the AE process. If others are being disruptive, they can and should be sanctioned, but that is not a reason to not to impose sanctions on this editor if a violation is established.<p>That said, I think EdJohnston took the definition of revert too literally. The definition should be interpreted with common sense - for under a literal interpretation even ''adding'' material that has never been there is a revert, as it "reversed" the implicit decision not to include it. That is nonsensical. I think the first edit cannot be fairly characterized as a revert, and therefore this request should be dismissed on that ground. ] (]) 04:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
**Having thought this over, I agree with T. Canens regarding whether there was a 1RR violation. ] (]) 15:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I accept Nableezy's characterisation of the first edit as not being a revert. Taken literally every tweak would be a revert. In addition - though this has little bearing on whether 1RR has been breached - the edit appears to have been completely justified. I agree with Timotheus Canens above that this AE request should be decided on the no-breach ground rather than for the reasons suggested by Looie. Right or wrong as they may be, they don't justify a 1RR breach and seem to have provoked unnecessary distractions in the sections above.--] (]) 04:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
*I have been asked to comment here on my talk page by PhilKnight. I agree with EdJohnston that both edits are reverts because they undo - at least partially - the edit by Shuki immediately preceding them. This must have been clear to an editor of Nableezy's experience: ] provides that "''A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors,"'' (in this case, Shuki) ''"in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word.''" According to that policy definition, every tweak is indeed a revert, as Mkativerata says. I disagree with T.Canens that under that definition even "even adding material that has never been there is a revert", because in that case there is no action by others that is undone. Consequently the request is actionable. I also disagree with Looie496 that the perceived impact on the editing environment must be taken into account, because the 1RR restriction (to be enforced here) did not include any socially gameable exception of that sort. Topic-banning "a number of other editors who are clearly incapable of editing neutrally" sounds like a pretty good solution to me. Since I'm taking a break from AE, I'll not take enforcement action myself, but frankly, if such clear-cut violations of validly imposed sanctions are not acted upon, you may just as well shut down this board. <p>I'm also amazed at the palaver going on here: the point of AE is not to arrive at a consensus solution, but to give individual admins a basis on which to take action, like ]. If any admin believes that the conditions for action are met, they are free to go ahead and ''act.'' This sort of discussion can then take place, if needed, on appeal. No need to have it twice. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

*Firstly, thanks to Sandstein for commenting. Regarding Looie's comment, if a sanction was perceived to be overly stringent, then I'd prefer to block or ban anyway, followed by modifying the restriction to 2RR/day or whatever. However, in this case, I don't consider there's a problem with the sanction, more a problem with a number of editors who are incapable of editing neutrally. I agree with Sandstein, issuing topic bans sounds like a pretty good solution. I'm inclined to topic ban Nableezy and Shuki until the end of the year, but allow involvement with centralized discussions at ]. ] (]) 12:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
**Having posted the above comment earlier today, and thought it over, I'm less certain about giving Nableezy and Shuki equal topic bans. ] (]) 15:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
***It is not obvious from the face of the request the ground for a topic ban on either party, since we seem to agree that there is no 1RR violation, so diffs would be helpful. ] (]) 21:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
****I'm no longer intending to issue topic bans. However, I'm concerned there seems to be a general deterioration in the I-P editing, such as pointless edit warring over tags from editors who've in the past have edited far more constructively. ] (]) 21:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
*****Oh, I agree with that. ] (]) 21:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
* I concur with Sandstein that both the first and second edits constituted a reversion. An editor is placed on a 1RR/2RR prohibition because it has been demonstrated that they are consistently unable to engage in ]; for that reason, I am disinclined to show leniency here. ] 16:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
* I concur with Mkativerata. I do not concur with Sandstein. I view a robotic literal interpretation of the finer points of policy wording (the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law) as a form of Wikilawyering, as if people are reaching for any excuse to impose a punishment. In the ''spirit'' of ], I accept Nableezy's claim that the first edit was not a revert, but rather an attempt to be constructive, and I also allow the possibility that Nableezy was unaware of the interpretation being bandied about above. I see no need to impose sanctions on someone who made a good faith edit while being completely aware of sanctions already in place. ~] <small>(])</small> 17:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
*Among the admins who commented, I do not see any consensus for action against Nableezy. Enforcement discussions don't become any wiser when they are open more than 48 hours. Suggest closing this. ] (]) 23:40, 4 November 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}} {{hab}}


== Epeefleche == ==Lemabeta==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning Lemabeta===
''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|EF5}} 20:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
===Request concerning Epeefleche===
; User requesting enforcement : <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 20:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small>


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


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ]


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
# Removes tag discussed extensively on talk page without making any comments on talk page
# Again
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
# Notified of case
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Restriction on reverts, or removing tags, or a topic ban

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : I think Epeefleche is being purposefully antagonistic with his removal of the tag, knowing that I am under a 1RR. The tag and the cause for its placement is discussed extensively on the talk page. Epeefleche twice removes a tag that explicitly says to not remove absent consensus for doing so, and he does so without making any comment on the talk page. Such editor behavior makes it impossible to assume good faith and when an editor even denies that there is a dispute it is impossible to have a good faith discussion about how to solve the dispute.

:This may seem like a minor, trivial thing, but I am really sick and tired of dealing with bullshit like this. Epeefleche claims that whether or not OR is present in the article is discussed in the AfD and that there is consensus that there is no OR. That is a manifestly absurd statement that any person who reads the AfD can see. He then also claims that I am the only person on the talk page who feels that there is OR in the article. I am also one of only 2 editors who had made any comments at all on the talk page, so 1/2 isnt exactly a small percentage. The removal of a tag that is discussed on the talk page was done in bad faith and the second quick revert of a tag that says not to remove absent consensus is further evidence of the bad faith practice and gaming that Ep regularly engages in. I dont know whether or not an admin will see this in the same way, but I for one am sick of dealing with such editing behavior. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small>

:Cirt, your response does not make any sense to me. What about Ep's involvement with the AFD entitles him to repeatedly remove a tag placed on an article and discussed on the talk page? Should I take from this that editors may remove any tag they wish without discussion or addressing the cause of the tag and make multiple reverts within minutes to do so? If that is the lesson here I can learn it, no problem. But I dont think that is the lesson here. The user has not been engaged on the talk page, despite what you write below ( is the only edit the user has made to the talk page, and he did that after removing the tag twice), and the user has not addressed any of the issues raised. Why exactly should an editor be entitled to repeatedly remove a tag placed in good faith and discussed on the talk page? Both removals by Ep were manifestly done in bad faith, if that is not sanctionable then so be it. But Ill keep that lesson in mind going forward. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small>

:Che, in case you havent noticed, I havent brought AE cases every time I have been reverted. If Ep had been reverting content or something similar I would not have brought this here. But I cant even place a tag on an article, a tag that is valid and discussed on the talk page, without certain users repeatedly removing it? I have already given up trying to fix the actual content, I realize that there is a set of users that will revert almost any content change I make. But even a frickin tag is removed? The reason I brought this here is I am tired of dealing with such bad faith actions and bad faith editors. What other recourse is available to me? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small>

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

===Discussion concerning Epeefleche===

====Statement by Epeefleche====
*Nableezy fails to reflect the following:
#Nableezy, I, and others had extensive conversation at the article's AfD as to whether the article is OR or not. Nableezy argued repeatedly that it is. In comment after comment at the AfD. For example: "" and "", and "", and "" Not only was Nableezy's position revealed not to be the consensus position. It was revealed to be a fringe, tiny minority position. As I and others pointed out to him. In fact, of the 12 !voters, only 1 other agreed with him.
#When I first deleted, I left a note in the edit summary that the tag was , Nableezy reverted me pointing me to the talk page. And making the curious statement—at distinct odds with the AfD discussion of a dozen editors— that "".
#When I reverted, I in turn indicated in my edit summary "", and within 2 minutes (and before this was opened)
#I wrote at the talk page ""
#The talk page that Nableezy referred me to, curiously, was one where he was to express his view of OR.

To be transparent, I have in the past triggered a sanction of Nableezy myself with a complaint. But I'm not sure precisely why Nableezy is under 1RR at the moment, or what the scope of his restriction is. Frankly, whenever I run into him, he seems to repeat himself a lot and not respect consensus, as at the AfD, so I'm not interested in conversations that involve him for the most part.

But this sort of bad faith behavior and blatant attempt to intimidate on his part is just the sort of thing that should qualify an editor for sanctions.

I made a good faith appropriate revert of the tag. Completely in line with the AfD rejection of his notion that there is an OR problem at the article. He is of the somewhat peculiar (IMHO) view that ''because he is under 1RR'', I should not have reverted. He appears to believe that because he is under a 1RR restriction, presumably for disruptive editing, all other non-disruptive editors editing articles that he edits are under 1RR as well ... or else they are editing in bad faith, if they disagree with him. I'm not quite sure that is the intent of 1RR.

In the immediately preceding string, Nableezy's sanctions for his disruptive behavior over the past six months are detailed. Though I weighed in there, I did ''not'' weigh in against Nableezy. Making his suggestion that I am "being purposefully antagonistic" towards him somewhat odd. If I were, ''surely I could have joined those in the above string'' calling for further sanctions against him.

Just yesterday, Nableezy at the AfD accused others, without apparent basis, of "". And yet here he himself accuses me ''without any honest/legitimate basis whatsoever'' of "being purposefully antagonistic", "regularly" engaging in "bad faith practice and gaming", "manifest" bad faith, "bad faith actions", and being a "bad faith editor". Nableezy's incivility here, and the defamatory nature of his incivility, is disturbing to me.

I urge an admin to take appropriate action against Nableezy. He surely was aware that his view was a severely fringe minority view in the AfD. And that it was not supported by anyone else on the talk page. And I had in fact responded on the talkpage before he brought this. He has rebutted the assumption of good faith, and should be appropriately sanctioned for bringing this in bad faith, IMHO.--] (]) 21:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
:And — as to the continued thumbing of his nose by {{userlinks|Nableezy}} at core Misplaced Pages policies, and continued disruption, ''at the same AfD'' — see .
:Rarely have I seen a 7-times-blocked editor so blatantly tell admins to go F... themselves, and so clearly admit his lack of interest in abiding by core Misplaced Pages policies. We really need the admins here to step up to the plate, and sanction Nableezy for his continued willful disruption. To do otherwise is to encourage continued disruption and a complete lack of respect for WP's policies and the admins who apply them (by him and others), to the detriment of the Project.--] (]) 02:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

====Comments by others about the request concerning Epeefleche ====
.--'']] ]'' 20:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

'''Comment by ElComandanteChe''': I only wounder if filling AE complaint every time being reverted is a honest attempt to build a consensus, a ] or a ] to relegate own 1RR restriction? --] (]) 21:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
:I'm not sure it belongs to this page, but I'll still replay to this here instead of user talk page: Nableezy, you did а great job alienating many editors (perfectly able to edit productively otherwise) with impatience, arrogance and disrespect. No surprise AGF is applied to you no more. --] (]) 22:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

'''Comment by Greg L''': Complainant writes {{xt|Epeefleche twice removes a tag that explicitly says to not remove absent consensus for doing so, and he does so without making any comment on the talk page.}} I can’t see that this bit has a factual basis. The differences provided by complainant ( and ) resolve to the removal of <code><nowiki>{{Original research}}</nowiki></code> tags wherein the rendered tag on the page has no proviso about not removing the tag nor does the rendered code for the tag. I see there was an AfD tag there too, which states in the rendered banner that the tag is supposed to be removed only by an administrator. However, no differences were provided regarding respondent’s removal of AfD tag.

Too often, these <code><nowiki>{{I DON'T LIKE IT}}</nowiki></code> tags are used as sort of ransom note to force continued and protracted debate over a complainant’s concerns after others have concluded that the complainant’s views are not shared by the community consensus and that the complainant is merely being tendentious. I wasn’t there, and I haven’t seen the talk pages, but I have no doubt that the matters were being discussed and there was an honest difference of opinion as to the factual need for having the tag the respondent removed. ] (]) 22:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
:You werent there, you havent read the talk page, but you know, to the extent of having no doubt, what happened. That is amazing. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 22:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
::Am I wrong? Was there no discussion on the talk pages? And please explain your allegation that the tags supposedly say they aren’t supposed to be removed; I can see no such thing. Hold that thought; let me go look at the page now; one moment…<p>Well, I wasn’t surprised. Your name is cybersquated all over ] twelve times and Epeefleche’s name is there once, where he wrote as follows: {{xt|As reflected in the AfD, Nableezy's view that this is OR is a fringe, tiny minority view. Consensus is at odds with his view.}} I don’t have to go look at the AfD discussions blow-by-blow to have a pretty good idea as to what occurred there and there is no requirement that the entire wikipedian community drop what it’s doing and get swept up in wikidrama of your making. If you ''really'' want me to don my fishing waders and jump into that article chest deep to understand the blow-by-blow of this wikidrama, I think I might be willing to oblige you. And perhaps I might spend some time there to ''really'' understand the atomic-level details of the dispute and (hopefully) add another voice of reason to the community consensus. But you just might do better to let things settle out, take a break, and catch your breath. ] (]) 22:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
::::I thought it was standard operating procedure for tags that you only remove them if there's no ongoing discussion. And for the OR tag, it ] In the AFD I voted for keeping it on the grounds that there is enough material here for an article but with the reservation that the article in it's current form was largely SYNTH. And Epeefleche ] my opinion so it looks like he's removing an OR tag for something he'd already agreed was OR. Which is bizarre. Either way the article is still largely OR and the tag needs to stay up until it's resolved. ] (]) 23:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
:::::The art, here, is in trying to ensure that one’s actions are a true reflection of the community consensus. If the number of editors active on that article discuss an issue and arrive at a general consensus that the article content is deficient, then the article content is to be fixed. If the general consensus is that there is no problem, then the tag is removed. It is not be be used as an <code><nowiki>{{I DON'T LIKE IT}}</nowiki></code> tag by a party that didn’t get his or her way so as to force continued discussion; that would be tendentious. I don’t know what the true situation is here since honest editors can have honest differences of opinion. But the phenomenon I am describing here—of a tendentious editor using tags as a tool to force the community to continue to deal with issues that have already been addressed—is exceedingly common on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

===Result concerning Epeefleche===
:''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.-->
*'''Comment:''' Will defer to judgment of other admins on this one, but it does not seem that action is warranted with regards to {{user|Epeefleche}}, due to the user's engagement with Misplaced Pages processes, including talk page discussion and an AFD consensus determination. Whether anything should be done with regards to {{user|Nableezy}}, is also another matter responding admins may wish to evaluate. -- ''']''' (]) 21:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
*As it regards Epeefleche, my opinion is that this complaint should be dismissed without action. Both parties have been previously notified of the case, and I'm not seeing enough to justify sanctioning either. ] 23:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

== Nableezy, RolandR tag-team and obfuscation ==

''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
===Request concerning Nableezy, RolandR===
{{userlinks|Nableezy}},<br>
{{userlinks|RolandR}}

; User requesting enforcement : <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 02:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Nableezy}},<br> {{userlinks|RolandR}}

;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : 1RR restriction, gaming the system (see explanation) ]


; ] 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.-->
# Blind, reactionary ''"garbage"'' revert (after I disagreed with his promotion of fabricated material on Psagot).
# tag-team blind revert, calling the removal of picturesque wordings, and further edits ''"introduce POV assessment"'' # - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing.
# - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist.
# The only response I received was from RolandR's handler following my request that he clarifies the blind revert. I say blind revert because, for example, he reinserted the false claim that Levy's parents were holocaust survivors - which was not in the supplied source and, best I'm aware, isn't true. Anyways, I posted a request for clarification and this was my reward.
# Side comment: Ravpapa also made a single quirky claim and vanished from the talkpage. I find it disturbing when editors game the system in this fashion but to his defense, he made no reverts.
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
In the past 6 months or so, Nableezy has been
# banned from editing articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for two months on 16 April
# topic-banned until end of August from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries on 27 July
# topic-banned from Gaza War, and all related articles, discussions, and other content, for six weeks on 15 August
# restricted to 1RR until December 31 for all articles which relate to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights on 16 September
# blocked 24 hours for reverting without discussion contrary to 1RR probation on Golan Heights article on 9 October
# blocked one day for violation of 1RR restriction on 19 October
# restricted to 1RR per day for the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, until the end of December 2010 on 21 October
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : To the discretion of admins who are not suggesting to respond to bad editing with obfuscation and worse editing.

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : My concern is very great. Nableezy is not only playing games but still (after being banned 4 months for it) pushing "colonial" type descriptives towards Israeli localities, completely ignores the input of fellow editors about bad sources and what is factual content while making such commentaries as calling others ''"certain ultra right-wing nationalists"''

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : both editors notified on their respective talk-pages.
is

===Discussion concerning Nableezy, RolandR===

====Statement by Nableezy====
I would invite any admin to take a thorough look at Jaakobou's editing of BLPs of people he finds to hold objectionable views. I invite them to look at his involvement in the articles on ], ], and ] and contrast his editing behavior there with his editing of the articles on people whose views more closely align with is such as ]. After doing that I would like that admin to consider if Jaakobou should be allowed anywhere near the BLPs of those people who hold views antithetical to his own.

To the current dispute. Jaak raises two articles, but focuses on ]. Jaak made an edit the article that reinserted Jaakobou's favored phrasing in the lead, phrasing that had been discussed in the past and rejected by more than a majority of editors. I reverted that edit on . I opened a section on the talk page explaining why I did so. Ravpapa commented agreeing that Jaak's edit was inappropriate. Jaak did not respond to the comments there, instead choosing to in a BLP the very next day, ignoring the fact that a section had been opened and so far had unanimous agreement that Jaak's favored phrasing and edit was inappropriate. To sum this up, Jaak is upset that after I reverted his edit and explained why, another editor agreed that his edit was wrong and that when he re-reverted, ignoring the open section on the talk page, another separate editor agreed that his edit was wrong and reverted.

Now, Jaak's complaint about Psagot. I supplied a source published by a university press, another written by well-known journalist, and on the talk page supplied another one by a mainstream news source calling this specific settlement a colony. I dont think providing such high quality sources to an article is a bad thing.

Finally, Jaak's complaint about my calling certain people "ultra-right wing nationalists". Im sorry Jaak, I wont do that again. Ill forget the veiled insinuations of antisemitism regularly bandied about by your good self and not make such comments in the future. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 03:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small>

====Statement by RolandR====
I have not the faintest idea why I have been included in this request, and there is no indication of what sanction or remedy I am supposed to have violated. I have made just one revert on this article; and I am not subject to any sort of restriction. My revert was of an undue and poorly-sourced POV addition, which had been extensively discussed several months ago, when Jaakobou was last edit-warring to include this. Perhaps it was thought that adding a second party to this latest attack on Nableezy would make it appear better-founded than recent frivolous attempts to sanction and silence him.

I object most strongly to the characterisation of Nableezy as "my handler", and I request that this comment be struck. This implies an untrue accusation of meatpuppetry, and suggests that I am incapable of editing on my own. It is a serious breach of many Misplaced Pages guidelines, and should not be permitted.

There is not even the flimsiest case here for me to answer, and Jaakobou should be warned against any further unfounded harassment.<span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 08:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
:Further, despite Jaakobou's statement above, my one edit did not "reinsert the false claim that Levy's parents were holocaust survivors". This was the sole evidence for Jaakobou's characterisation of my edit as a "blind revert", so this charge too can be seen to be false. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 08:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

====Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy, RolandR ====
Using ] for identifying agenda-driven editors, I suggest that Nableezy, RolandR, and Jaakobou might all be candidates for forced extended vacations away from this topic area unless they start collaborating, cooperating, and compromising with each other a little better. ] (]) 06:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
* '''Comment by VsevolodKrolikov''' I fail to see what RolandR has done wrong except disagree with Jaakobou. Referring to Nableezy as RolandR's handler is making an accusation of meatpuppetry, which should be redacted or backed up. Jaakobou's notice to RolandR about this discussion seems rather ] for one revert: . Ravpapa is insinuated as doing drive-by editing and being "quirky". was to tell Jaakobou that he was editing against long established consensus of which he was aware, and was phrased in a civil and articulate manner. Nableezy's previous behaviour, for which he was penalised, is aggravating, but cannot form the basis of a complaint. Apart from incivility, which he has got to stop, I think Nableezy hasn't done anything wrong in this instance. He's used the talkpage, not broken 1RR etc. If anything, Jaakobou is edit warring on ]. This complaint seems frivolous, particularly against RolandR. ] (]) 06:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

===Result concerning Nableezy, RolandR===
:''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.-->

== Nableezy (civility)==

''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
===Request concerning Nableezy===
{{userlinks|Nableezy}},<br>

; User requesting enforcement : {{userlinks|Cptnono}},<br>

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Nableezy}},<br>

;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] (Decorum which expressly mentions ] and ])

; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
# (emphasis mine)
#I am not going to bother with the diffs right up above where he calls another editor's comments retarded and idiotic.

;Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to :
#
#
#
#
#

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
Speaking of idiots (me), I feel bad for bringing this here since anyone wanting to look at it from a contrary point of view can easily see the ongoing conflict and assume the worst. So just to make it simple: Calling someone an idiot is not OK. There has been ongoing civility issues and it cannot continue. I've already expressed that I believe Nableezy should be topic banned. This issue has nothing to do with potential POV, edit warring, gaming, or any other true or false accusations. Can Nableezy call editors idiots?


Realistically, there should not be this many AEs open here. I should't be putting this up for review. But in the midst of ongoing discussion here Nablezy made the comment and an admin closed the discussion without seeing it. So add me to the list of editors about to get a topic ban. I feel that I have a good case for appeal if it comes to that. And if not, maybe a break is something that should be considered.


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
I likely filed this improperly, but to sum it up they continue to make pages in a scope they were banned from. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 20:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:On the bullet point, I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:(Not sure if I’m allowed to reply here) I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:: <small>Response to Bishonen. Moved from results section. ] (]/]) 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
::(RES to Bishonen) That's fair. When starting the AE, it only gave me nine options, none of which seemed to fit right. The third bullet ("Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on DIFF by _____") didn't seem to fit, as the sanction wasn't for verbal conduct. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 22:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


===Discussion concerning Nableezy=== ===Discussion concerning Lemabeta===
<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 Nableezy====
====Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy====
;Statement by Epeefleche
Disturbing behavior. Especially in light of his other behavior re: the same AfD and associated article, discussed above. My comments are noted in the last two paragraphs of my entry . While Nableezy seems undisturbed by the prospect of being blocked, I concur that one is in order.--] (]) 07:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


====Statement by Lemabeta====
'''Comment by Sean.hoyland''' - An baseless accusation that an American citizen supports a designated terrorist org on a public website and it's Nableezy response that's the problem. Marvelous. He should have told him to go fuck himself. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 07:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
:Nableezy's support for a designated terrorist org is not really a matter of dispute. See the nice yellow userbox at the bottom of his page. ] (]) 10:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Yeah, my bad. Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed" I recognize my mistake. --] (]) 20:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::I believe you're confusing ] with ]. ←&nbsp;]<sup>&nbsp;]</sup> 10:18, 5 November 2010 (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.
'''Comment by George''' - Clearly an uncivil comment, though somewhat understandable. Apparently Nableezy was responding to ]'s accusation that Nableezy had an affinity for a certain terrorist group. WookieInHeat's comment came after a third editor asked them to "avoid such pointless personal attacks", and the comment itself is rather... naive and insulting, to put it nicely. Even if one believes that Nableezy has an "affinity for the Palestinian cause" as WookieInHeat suggests, Hamas is one of many political groups in the Palestinian territories, and members of those various groups often hate each other. It would be like telling someone "you're proud to be an American, so you must be a socialist" because the current President of the United States is a Democrat and has been accused of being a socialist by his critics. However, while the reason behind it is understandable, I wonder if the incivility by both Nableezy and WookieInHeat wouldn't be better resolved with some apologies and striking of statements. ←&nbsp;]<sup>&nbsp;]</sup> 10:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
:So i don't believe ethnographic group should be considered as either history of the Caucasus or cultural heritage. ] (]) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::In my opinion, cultural heritage (both tangible and intangible) '''emerges from''' ethnographic groups but '''does not define the group itself'''. ] (]) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think ethnographic groups fall under the category of Ethnography, or even socio-cultural antropology but for sure not cultural heritage. ] (]) 21:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I understand, i already apologized on my talk page for this accident. I will not repeat this mistake again. ] (]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)====
'''Comment by Shell Kinney''' - I'm a wee bit concerned that we have multiple editors making a report on the same person at the same time, especially if the best evidence they have is getting called an idiot after bad faith remarks that included claiming an editor was supportive of terrorism. That looks a lot like poking someone with a stick until they pop and then running here because you got them to say "idiot". Boggles the mind a bit. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning Nableezy=== ===Result concerning Lemabeta===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
*<!--
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.-->
-->
I'm seriously disturbed by the recent flurry of ARBPIA requests. Thinking it over. ] (]) 07:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
* I don't see Lemabeta mentioned in the case itself, but they're currently under ] from "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed". ] (] • she/her) 20:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:To be fair, when you click above to add a new enforcement request, the template states:<br><nowiki>;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]</nowiki><br><nowiki><!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---></nowiki> ] (]/]) 20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{tq| Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed"}} @]: what did you think "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage" meant? I think it's pretty obvious that that an article on an ethnic group from the Caucasus and about an ethnologist who writes about that region is covered by your topic ban. ] (]/]) 20:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Note that I've deleted ] as a clear G5 violation. I think ] is a bit more of a questionable G5. ] (]/]) 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Your definition of "ethnographic group" includes the phrases "shared ancestry" (i.e., history), and "shared&nbsp;... traditions" and "shared&nbsp;... cultural identity" (i.e., cultural heritage). Your attempt to exclude "ethnographic group" from either of the two categories in your topic ban is entirely unpersuasive, particularly since your topic ban is to be "broadly construed". ] (]/]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: this doesn't seem like a mistake to me, but I'm okay with a logged warning here. ] (]/]) 21:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: This is about violating the TBAN. Per my response to leek, I think the issue is with the AE request template, which is a bit unclear. ] (]/]) 22:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: I don't think a block is needed here, but the next violation, definitely. ] (]/]) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: They were "reviously given&nbsp;... contentious topic restriction", the topic ban at issue. ] (]/]) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{re|Lemabeta}} Not every single thing you could write about an ethnic group would fall under cultural history, but that's not really relevant on the Rachvelians page, where the History section was entirely about their cultural history, even containing the words {{tqq| highlighting their ethnographic and cultural identity}}. There's a reason we use the words "]" on most TBANs, and a reason we encourage people to act like they're TBANned from a broader area than they are. (Consider: Would you feel safe driving under a bridge where clearance is exactly the same height as your vehicle? Or would you need a few inches' gap to feel safe doing it?){{pb}}This does seem like a good-faith misunderstanding, so if you will commit to not making it again in the future, I think this can be closed with a clarification/warning. But that's an important "if". If you want to argue semantics, then the message that sends to admins is that you don't intend to comply with the TBAN, in which case the next step would be a siteblock. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{u|EF5}}, I don't understand your {{tq|"Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above"}} statement, can you please explain what it refers to? ]? Lemabeta's block log is blank.
:That said, I'm unimpressed by Lemabeta's lawyerly distinctions above, and also by ]. I'll AGF that they ''were'' accidental, but OTOH, they surely ''ought'' to have taken enough care to realize they were violations; compare Voorts' examples. I suggest a block, not sure of what length. A couple of weeks? ] &#124; ] 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
::{{u|EF5}}, OK, I see. Blocks and bans are ], and the block log only logs blocks. ] &#124; ] 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC).

Latest revision as of 03:34, 9 January 2025

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

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

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

    Standard of review
    On community review

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

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

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

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

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Important notes:

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

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

    A couple of reminders:

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

    Closing a thread:

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

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

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

    PerspicazHistorian

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

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

    Request concerning PerspicazHistorian

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

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


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

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

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


    Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian

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

    Statement by PerspicazHistorian

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

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

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

    Statement by LukeEmily

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

    Statement by Doug Weller

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

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

    Statement by Toddy1

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

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

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

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

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

    Statement by Capitals00

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

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

    Statement by Vanamonde93

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

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

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

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

    Statement by UtherSRG

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

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

    Result concerning PerspicazHistorian

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

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

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

    References

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

    LaylaCares

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

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

    Request concerning LaylaCares

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

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


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


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

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

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning LaylaCares

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

    Statement by LaylaCares

    Statement by Aquillion

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

    Statement by Dan Murphy

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

    Statement by starship.paint

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning LaylaCares

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

    AstroGuy0

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

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

    Request concerning AstroGuy0

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

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


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

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

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


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint:

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

    Discussion concerning AstroGuy0

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

    Statement by AstroGuy0

    Statement by Iskandar323

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning AstroGuy0

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

    Lemabeta

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

    Request concerning Lemabeta

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

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


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


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

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

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

    Here

    Discussion concerning Lemabeta

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

    Statement by Lemabeta

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

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Lemabeta

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