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 22:15, 19 March 2011 editPaul Siebert (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,740 edits →Comments by others about the request concerning Tentontunic← 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;}}{{shortcut|WP:AE}}
--><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly>
</noinclude>
<noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!--
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
<noinclude>{{TOC limit}}</noinclude>
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|counter =347
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 85
|minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(5d) |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==
== Jacurek ==
{{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=Jacurek, Volunteer Marek, Dr. Dan and Lokyz are sanctioned as described in this thread; M.K is warned. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)}}
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
===Request concerning Jacurek===
; User requesting enforcement : ] ] 09:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


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


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

;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.-->
Jacurek, who has a long history of disruption and sanctions relating to eastern European topics, after coming back from a ban, has focussed his editing almost entirely on lame edit-warring over the inclusion of Polish, German or Lithuanian geographical terms in the leads of various articles.
# - 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 :
*On ]:
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
*On ]:
*Already 2 blocks in last 4 months for edit warring.
*On ]: (in the usual old tag-teams, with {{user|Volunteer Marek}} (aka Radeksz) against {{user|Dr. Dan}}, {{user|M.K}} and {{user|Lokyz}}). Also possible IP sock: <small>(Notice: that this IP is not any of the editors discussed here. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC))</small>
*On ]: ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
*On ]:
<!-- 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)
He also made the obvious ] move of removing the German name from ] , explicitly in retaliation, and in blatant breach of the long-standing Gdansk rules.


: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)
More edit-warring just under 3RR elsewhere: on ],


*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)
One thing that's troubling is that the same old cliques and tag-teams known from the ] days are still showing up together on the same articles regularly in many of these cases.
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
not applicable, has long history of Digwuren and EEML sanctions
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : renewed revert restriction at the least, preferably full topic ban from geographical naming issues, or full ban


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : I would take action myself here, as I have done before, if not for the fact that in one of the contentious naming issues cited above I gave my own editorial opinion earlier. ] ] 09:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
<!-- 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. -->
:: Re. to Piotrus' comment below: asking "who gave me the diffs" is a pretty serious assumption of bad faith all by itself. I'm perfectly able to collect diffs myself. I saw something light up on Jacurek's talkpage (which happened to be still on my watchlist from time immemorial), and out of curiousity took a look at what he had been up to. ] ] 16:29, 12 March 2011 (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 Jacurek===


===Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian ===
====Statement by Jacurek====
<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>
Recently, I focused my work on adding missing alternative names to the articles related to shared Lithuanian, Polish, Jewish, Belorussian or Ukrainian history and heritage following general naming policy .
I have beed editing without violating any standards of behaviour and in line with normal editorial process. All my edits/reverts presented here are spread out over time, discussed by me , ,
, , or in line with discussion I followed and ALL are supported by the ]. I stated in my edit summaries why I'm doing such edits and the polices I followed


====Statement by PerspicazHistorian ====
I was adding alternative names in various languages:
*By far I am also concerned how my edits were forcefully reverted without a proper reason despite providing enough references. Please check how I am getting attacked by them on ] Page.
I didn't know about the three-revert-rule before ] told me about this: ].
Please grant me one more chance, I will make sure not to edit war.<br>
*In the below statement by LukeEmily, As a reply I just want to say that I was just making obvious edit on ] by adding a list of notable people with proper references. And according to ] it is clearly said: "Edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism." It was a good faith edit but others reverted it. I accept my mistake of not raising it on talk page as a part of ].<br>
*As a clarification to my edit on ], it can be clearly seen that I provided enough reference to prove its a terrorist organisation as seen in this . I don't know why is there a discussion to this obvious edit? Admins please correct me if I am wrong.
:@], Yes I read about 1RR and 0RR revert rules in ]. I now understand the importance of raising the topic on talk page whenever a consensus is needed. Thank You ! ] (]) 07:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, I will commit to that. ] (]) 13:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) <small>Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC) </small>
:At that time I was new to how AFD discussions worked. Later on when ] was marked for deletion, I respected the consensus by not interfering in it. The article was later deleted. ] (]) 11:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*Hi @] , I just checked your user page. You have 16 years (I am 19) of experience on wiki, you must be right about me. I agree that my start on Misplaced Pages has been horrible, but I am learning a lot from you all. I promise that I will do better, get more neutral here and contribute to the platform to my best. Please don't block me.
::''<small>P.S.- I don't know If I will be blocked or what , according to this enforcement rules, I just want to personally wish good luck to you for your ongoing cancer treatments, You will surely win this battle of Life. Regards.</small>'' ] (]) 12:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)<small>Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section.] (]) 15:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small>


*1) I just asked an user @] if the page move is possible. What's wrong with it? I still have not considered putting a move request on talk page of article.
*German names to Polish places:
: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
*Polish names to Belorussian places:
: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====
*Yiddish, Belorussian, Ethnic Kashubian and Ukrainian names to Polish places:
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====
*Polish, Yiddish and Russian names to Ukrainian places:
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)
*Lithuanian names to Polish places:


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


A lot of pro-RSS/BJP editors turn out to be sock-puppets, so please can we do a checkuser on this account. And to be even-handed, why not checkuser NXcrypto too.
*...and '''finally''' Polish names to the Lithuanian places:
Here however, all my edits were immediately '''reverted''' by {{user|Dr. Dan}}, {{user|M.K}} and {{user|Lokyz}})
'''I was called Dyslexic''' , '''amusing''', '''a troll''' , '''a nationalistic troll''' '''chauvinist playing games''' etc.
Disrespect, taunting and incivility was also directed at other people by mentioned editors: '''ex-admin RPG player is trying to make a project of Misplaced Pages a playground of his own'''
Please note that one was warned by administrator because of these incivil remarks and another complained about .


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 .
Here are just few diff's as an examples of the name removals by mentioned editors:


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


I can see a good case for restricting PerspicazHistorian to draft articles and talk pages for a month, and suggesting that he/she seeks advice from more experienced editors. Another solution would be a one-revert rule to last six months.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 13:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*As far as removing a German name from the lead of the ] article I reverted my own edits ] ] from December in line with this discussion and linked this talk page in my edit summary . This edit was NOT to make any point.


====Statement by Capitals00====
*As far as ], each two edit are different and this one is not even mine
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)
*As far as IP sock: - this is not me and I wonder why FP can so easily and without any proof accuse people of using socks?


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


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


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)
*On ]: ,, ,, ,
*On ]: , , , ,
*On ]: , , , , , , , , , , ,
*On ]: , , ,
*On ]: , , , ,


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


====Statement by UtherSRG====
The bottom line is that I was following normal editorial process, watching revert count limitations and all my edits were supported by the ].
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)
We really have an opportunity now to resolve ongoing problem of removal by some Lithuanian editors all Polish names from the articles related to the Polish-Lithuanian heritage and reach the agreement thanks to discussion here . I echo this comment '''%100'''. Please Sandstain, look outside the AE box this only time and the problem will gone.--] (]) 02:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


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


===Result concerning PerspicazHistorian ===
<s>'''MISSED FROM MY GDANSK SECTION-PLEASE ADD''' - please do not classify me together with editors who remove one language names for nationalistic reasons. I was editing names in various languages (German, Polish, Russian, Lithuanian, Yiddish, Latvian, Latvian and Byelorussian) - Refer to my edit history.
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
- (adding German)
then correcting to follow standards --] (]) 21:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for correcting--] (]) 21:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)</s>


{{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)
===Third opinion of an uninvolved administrator===
<!-- 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. -->
As per permission of the reviewing administrators third opinion has been requested Thank you all for patience.--] (]) 02:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
:@], that explanation of edit warring is a bit wanting. An edit war is when two or more editors revert content additions/removals repeatedly. Even a second reversion by the same editor can be considered edit warring. Best practice -- and what I highly recommend, especially for any inexperienced editor -- is ''the first time'' someone reverts an edit of yours, go to the talk page, open a section, ping the editor who reverted you, and discuss. Do you think you can commit to that?
:<small>Re: your question on why your "obvious edit" was reverted: we don't deal with content issues here, only with behavior issues, but from a very quick look, the source is 50 years old, and using a list headed "TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS LISTED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967" that includes a certain organization as a source that the organization should be described as a terrorist organization is ]; in their ] NXcrypto provided an edit summary of "Not a reliable source for such a contentious label. See WP:LABEL." Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here.</small> ] (]) 11:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm seeing this as a CIR issue. I'd like input from other admins, if possible. I'm a little concerned that setting a tban from IPA is just setting a trap. Maybe a p-block from article space would be a kinder way to allow them to gain some experience? ] (]) 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@], have you seen how many times I or others have had to move your comments to your own section? This is an example of not having enough experience to edit productively. Please do not post in anyone else's section again. ] (]) 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I do agree we're in CIR territory, and the concerns expressed are completely valid. I don't think this editor is ill-intentioned. They just don't seem very motivated to learn quickly. Well-intentioned-but-a-slow-learner is something that can only be fixed by actually practicing what you're bad at. I'd prefer an indef from article space which gives them one more chance to learn here before we send them off to mr.wiki or Simple English to try to learn. Not a hill I'm going to die on, though. ] (]) 11:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::@], like Uther I have major concerns about the edit you made yesterday, which included replacing a citation needed tag with these sources.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Significance of Different Type of Prasad in Hinduism For God |url=https://www.ganeshaspeaks.com/predictions/astrology/prasad-food-for-god/ |access-date=2024-12-30 |website=GaneshaSpeaks |language=en-GB}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=What Is Prashad |url=https://www.swaminarayan.faith/articles/what-is-prashad |access-date=2024-12-30 |website=Shree Swaminarayan Mandir Bhuj |language=en}}</ref> The first is a company that markets astrology services. The second is the site for a religious sect. Neither is a reliable source for explaining the concept of prasada in Wikivoice. You made this edit ''yesterday'', after you'd confirmed here and on my talk that you understood sourcing policy.
:::::The reason for an indef from article space is to allow you to learn this policy: You would go into article talk and suggest sources to fix citation needed tags. Another editor would have to agree with you that the sources are reliable before they'd add them. ] (]) 12:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*A tban from IPA for PerspicazHistorian would be a relief to many editors trying to keep this difficult area in reasonable shape. However, Valereee makes a good point about 'setting a trap': it's doubtful that PH would be able to keep to a tban even if they tried in good faith. I would therefore support a p-block from article space. ] &#124; ] 16:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC).
*:{{u|Vanamonde93}}, no, I don't really think PH can usefully help clean up their mess; I was following Valereee, who has been going into this in some depth, in attempting to keep some way of editing Misplaced Pages open for PH. It's a bit of a counsel of desperation, though; there is very little daylight between an indef and a p-block from article space. Yes, we ''are'' in CIR territory; just look at PH's ] for NXcrypto being "engaged in edit wars before on contentious Indian topics": one diff of an opponent complaining on NXcrypto's page, and one diff of somebody reverting NXcrypto. What do those actually prove? That NXcrypto has opponents (big surprise). So, yes, as you suggest, I'll support an indef as well. ] &#124; ] 20:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC).
*Is there a length of time proposed for the p-ban or would it be indefinite? ] (]) 17:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I would say indefinite; not infinite, but I'd be wary about letting them back into articlespace without some kind of preclearance. ] (] • she/her) 18:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*It looks to me like there is a consensus for an indefinite partial block for PerspicazHistorian from article space. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within a day or so, I will close as such. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Given PH's recent slew of requests on multiple admin talk pages, yes, please do. - ] ] 12:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*<!--
-->


{{reflist talk}}
====Comments by others about the request concerning Jacurek ====
{{hab}}


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


===Request concerning LaylaCares===
There's an ongoing discussion about the proper way of handling alternative names here . The underlying problem is complete disregard for naming policy on the part of Dr. Dan/Lokyz/MK. This is compounded by the fact that there is some confusion over what the actual policy is. Hence the discussion.
; 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>
Jacurek's edits at Gdansk where a response - and in line with - to the discussion as it was occurring at Naming conventions (the diff above), with comments provided by a third opinion (which I requested) at Vilnius university , and are in agreement with views expressed by such individuals like ] and ] who are about as far as humanely and even super-humanely possible from being "same old cliques and tag-teams known from the WP:EEML days." As such Jacurek's edits are part of the standard BRD cycle, are not edit warring, and none of them are in any way a breach of policy.


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
Throughout Jacurek has remained calm and civil despite several provocations. In particular, Dr. Dan has made several personal attacks against various users:
* Dr. Dan calling editors "nationalist trolls"
* Dr. Dan calling editors "nationalist trolls"
* Dr. Dan taunting Piotrus, shortly after coming off an interaction ban with him: ("It's nice to have you back editing after your ]. It must have been an unpleasant experience. ")
* Dr. Dan implies that editors are "nationalistic, chauvinistic"


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
At the naming conventions discussion Deacon of Pndapetzim, who I think can fairly be characterized as an "opponent" of people who used to be on the Eastern European mailing list has stated:
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
''Without wishing to offend anyone, my experience of other language names in leads is that they function in practice as nationalist scent markings.''
Jacurek's edits were completely in line with this sentiment.


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
Additionally Deacon stated, in reference to inclusion of German names in ledes of articles on Polish places:
<!-- 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.-->
''Can't say I approve of most of those edits.'' - again, in line with Jacurek's above edits.
# EC gaming


Likewise, Deacon said: ''in those cases this should be in the main text with citations not just in brackets at the lead, where it looks like simple nationalist scent-marking and is thus provocative. ''


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
At ], user Novickas, who can also be seen as usually on the other side of the issue stated:
''Yes, I think all articles ought to follow WP:Lead, which emphasizes concision and readability, but leaves room for an entity's multiple names by way of a dedicated name section.'' - again in reference to the inclusion of German names in Polish places.


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
As such Jacurek's edits are not in any way a way of making a POINT but rather a response to what people are saying the policy is.
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 :
Did I mention that none of Jacurek's edits in any way violated any kind of policy what so ever?


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
Finally, let me point out that a discussion on the subject is actually ongoing and amazingly, for like the first time in a long while it is actually civil, calm and is even starting to look productive, people who previously have very strongly disagreed with each other in the past might actually be able to work something out and '''about the last freakin thing that is going to help here''' is a completely pointless and baseless AE report such as this one which good money says will do nothing but attract the usual infighting, bickering and sniping.


===Discussion concerning LaylaCares===
What is the point of this AE report? How is it not counter productive? Why do you find it necessary to sabotage a potentially productive discussion?] (]) 10:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>


====Statement by LaylaCares====
'''Response to Sandstein's suggestion and Ed Johnston'''


====Statement by Aquillion====
You can't judge/sanction editors based on whether they're "engaged in a campaign of mass removal or mass addition" if the editor involved is following established naming guidelines. For comparison look at ]'s edits (and I wish to be 100% clear that this is no way a criticism of Herkus), particularly all the edits with the edit summary "lang-de" which in the recent past have comprised the majority of Herkus' editing on Misplaced Pages. Jacurek's edits are no different than Herkus' and neither editor did anything wrong. The only difference is that when Herkus "engages in his campaign of mass addition" he IS NOT immediately reverted by tag teams of Polish editors who also refuse to discuss the issue meaningfully and some of whom engage in personal attacks - but this does happen with addition of Polish names to places with shared Polish and Lithuanian history. Unlike Jacurek, Herkus is left alone, because he is more or less following current naming policy (again, if that is the appropriate policy is another question) - just like Jacurek was.] (]) 16:05, 13 March 2011 (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)


===Statement by Dan Murphy===
:We're not examining mass additions or removals per se, but edit wars. Whether the reverts conform with any naming policy or guideline is irrelevant for the purpose of this request, because the ] does not exempt such reverts. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Please look at ], written by the account under discussion. It's a hit job, originally placed in mainspace by this account. Anyone who wrote that shouldn't be allowed with 1 million miles of the topic.] (]) 23:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by starship.paint====
::I understand perfectly well that AE is not about judging compliance of edits with the naming policy. However it is also the case that in one instance you get edit wars because a group of editors does not wish to comply with naming policy, whereas in the other case - which involves exactly the same kinds of edits - you don't get edit wars because, well, because the editors on both sides are more reasonable and have no problem with following policy. As such, punishing Jacurek in this case, even if he reverted others is tantamount to rewarding the battleground behavior of those who purposefully ignore this naming policy. If the purpose of this board is to prevent conflicts from continuing in this area then encouraging this kind of behavior is obviously not the way to further that goal. A bit of common sense is needed here.] (]) 19:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I've edited Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations, so Dan Murphy's link is inaccurate for the purposes of this discussion. For the version of Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations with content only written by LaylaCares, . '''] (] / ])''' 10:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)====
'''Response to this "list" business'''
Uhh, not sure what this list is supposed to be or what it is supposed to accomplish (in fact, it's a bad idea to begin with) but for what it's worth:
#I've never edited ] or ].
#I made one edit to ] '''back in August''' (so 5+ months ago) after Lokyz removed the name with an edit summary that made no sense, but I didn't make any further edits even after he blind reverted me literally within minutes (, , ) (btw, please note that "Suvalkų kraštas", the Lithuanian term, has been in the article on the ] for something like 3 years straight and no Polish editor ever tried to remove it - which is quite telling when you compare it to the situation at ]).
#On ], after observing the blind reverts by Lokyz , , I started a discussion on talk on March 5th without making any edits myself. Please note that Lokyz's edit summary justification for his revert was: ''PLease use talk page before starting edit war.'' (on an edit war he started) - however, once I started a discussion on talk he didn't even bother to reply or actually discuss. Hence, '''four days later''' on March 9th, I made the change to the article - this was my single edit to the article. Of course it got reverted within minutes (again - well, actually this time it took him two hours) . At that point I requested a third opinion , still not making any edits to the article myself. Novickas at this time edited the article by expanding the names section which is fine with me. Note the pattern here: Lokyz, Dr. Dan and MK blind revert, while at the same time admonishing users to "discuss on talk" or claiming that there is "no consensus" yet, they then don't even bother discussing things when a discussion is initiated. If they do discuss the discussion is very quickly derailed by irrelevant strawmen (like discussion of whether the article on ] should have the Polish "kot" in it , even though no one has ever proposed that - you can also ask Kotniski about how productive these "discussions" tend to be and why that is).
#On ] I was also the one who initiated the discussion on talk in the first place, way back in October (though note previous personal attacks by Lokyz, who calls Jacurek dyslexic and says '''"Dyslexic people are amusing"''' which is extremely offensive in its own right, no matter who it is directed at). Jacurek likewise tried to engage in good faithed discussion (note also Dr. Dan's mocking of Kotniski in response to with the "Er,..." parody of Kotniski's statement - seriously how is meaningful discussion possible in such circumstances?). Since the talk page consensus appeared to be for the inclusion of the name, and since Lokyz and Dr.Dan ceased participating in the discussion, I '''made one edit''' to the article restoring the name (my edits in November where just a standard expansion of the article) on March 7th, or '''three months after I initiated discussion'''). The edit was again reverted within minutes by Lokyz with an edit summary in which he purposefully used my previous name (in what I took to be a form of harassment), despite the fact that I had previously asked him specifically not to do that and to which he agreed. I made no further edits to the article after that but instead brought the matter to talk again. Here's the sad/ironic thing - recently through a joint Polish-Lithuanian effort the cemetery was restored as a symbol of Polish-Lithuanian friendship and joint history, and the Lithuanian government funded a sign with the Polish name at the entrance to the cemetery - since generally public signs written in Polish are banned in Lithuania this was a "big deal". But apparantly, some editors are more nationalistic than the Lithuanian government.
#On ] I made '''a single edit''' because the article already has a section which discusses the name in much detail and I was just being told by Novickas and Deacon that policy says that in such cases there's no need for a separate inclusion of the name in the lede. I did not edit war here and don't even try to freakin' pretend that I did. This is total nonsense.
Bottom line: I made '''one edit''' at ] long time ago which was reverted within minutes and I made no subsequent edits. I made '''one edit''' at ] and when it was reverted, within less than three hours, asked for third opinion. At ] I initiated discussion on talk and only after it seemed like an agreement was reached for inclusion, and having given it enough time (3 months) did I make '''one edit''' and add the name. This too was reverted within minutes and I didn't edit the article any further. I think the picture that emerges here is crystal clear.


<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
I also got to ask why you are limiting this to just these articles? MK regularly edit wars with Belorussians editors over similar matters . Herkus adds German names to Polish places all the time - but never gets reverted <s>because Polish editors, unlike Lithuanian ones, actually follow policy</s>. Why isn't that relevant?] (]) 20:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
:The list is currently limited to the articles named in the request and the editors who have been making language-related reverts on them. If there are similar problems with other articles or other editors, I recommend that you make a separate AE request about them. If the same editors have also made similar reverts in other articles, or other editors have made similar reverts in the same articles, you can mention them here so that we may consider including them in the list. I should note that I think that your above, "Polish editors, unlike Lithuanian ones, actually follow policy", is extremely problematic, as it indicates nationalist prejudice on your part, and I will take it into account in the decision. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


===Result concerning LaylaCares===
::Oh for Christ sake! My comment that "Polish editors, unlike Lithuanian ones, actually follow policy" obviously is in reference to the editors involved in this request - Lokyz, MK and Dr.Dan and then Jacurek and myself. There's no prejudice in it and it is factually verifiable as noted above. The whole request is about the fact that Lokyz, MK and DD have been purposefully ignoring naming policy. Why am I getting the sense that you are purposefully looking for any kind of excuse to railroad me into a sanction? First you put me in that little list of yours for no reason, and now you come up with this nonsense.] (]) 21:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''

<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
::I can see that the choice of words wasn't the best one and what I should have said was that "because I follow naming policy, unlike Dr. Dan, MK and Lokyz". Apologies. However, my temper at the moment is running extremely high because of the ridiculous insinuations that you (Sandstein) are making against me and the waste of my time that you are forcing me into - I just wasted an hour and a half of my life writing a response, instead of doing real life work, spending time with my kid, or even working on some Misplaced Pages article. As a result I wrote quickly and unclearly. I'm striking it above.] (]) 21:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
*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)
:::Thank you for this clarification, which I accept on a good faith basis. You must be extremely careful what you write, because statements that vilipend whole groups of editors on the basis of their nationality are completely unacceptable, especially in a ] context, and if you repeat such statements you may be sanctioned for them without further warning. I normally assume that people mean exactly what they write. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
*I agree with Barkeep but I'd up it to 4 months. I don't believe that a TBAN is necessary at this point. ] (]/]) 04:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

*@]: I agree that the draft should be G5'd, but will wait for consensus to develop here. ] (]/]) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::And if you want to see a previous discussion which is relevant here which says the same thing look here and here . Why not go after Kotniski here too? Why not include him in the "list"?] (]) 22:19, 13 March 2011 (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)
:::These diffs do not show that Kotniski added or removed languages to the articles at issue here. They cannot therefore be included in the list. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
*I would just pull EC and require the editor to apply via AE appeal for its restoration. They should be very clearly aware that receiving such restoration will require both substantial time and making ''real'', substantive edits outside the area, as well as an understanding of what is expected of editors working in a CTOP area. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The diffs are not presented to show that Kotniski added or removed languages, but rather as a response to your threat to "take it (my hastily written statement) into account in the decision." Please address the relevant point, not a completely different point.] (]) 22:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
*I see a clear consensus here to remove the EC flag. For clarity, when I proposed a TBAN above it was because removing this flag ''is'' an ARBPIA TBAN as long as the ECR remedy remains in place; it's simply a question of whether the editor get the other privileges of EC or not. I don't see a consensus on what to do with the draft, but given that other editors have now made substantive contributions to it, I don't believe it's a good use of AE time to discuss the hypothetical further. ] (]) 17:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

This is completly wrong:
''Edit-warring to add or remove a language from any one article does not necessarily reflect bias, as there may be policy-based grounds for such reverts (even if these do not excuse edit-warring). But a pattern of consistently adding or removing the same language from multiple articles cannot be reasonably explained on guideline grounds, since the guideline makes reference to the use of names in English-language literature, which differs from topic to topic. Such a pattern of editing, therefore, can only be explained by a desire to put nationalist bias ahead of Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. This makes such a pattern incompatible with WP:NPOV and, consequently, grounds for sanctions.''

Specifically:
''But a pattern of consistently adding or removing the same language from multiple articles cannot be reasonably explained on guideline grounds'' - no, but it can be explained by the fact that editors will add the language '''which they are familiar with''' to a topic '''which they are familiar with'''. I'd happily add relevant names to articles on ] but I have no idea what these may be.
''Such a pattern of editing, therefore, can only be explained by a desire to put nationalist bias'' - no, it can be explained by the fact that editors edit topics they are familiar with.
''This makes such a pattern incompatible with WP:NPOV'' - since when is AE in the business of adjudicating content disputes, which is what WP:NPOV involves? To quote Sandstein himself: ''compliance with this guideline is a content issue, because it requires editorial judgment, and cannot therefore be reviewed in an arbitration context.''

The above statement appears to be nothing but an attempt to find a flimsy excuse to sanction people who did nothing wrong. It is railroading plain and simple.] (]) 21:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

'''Add in light of Sandstein's insinuation of "nationalist editing'''
I should also add that in the past I have
#defended ]'s addition of German names to Polish articles (within reason) (placeholder for diff here - gimme time to find it, wasting more of my time), and have done so recently at the naming conventions discussion and elsewhere. I've generally have had an amicable relationship with Herkus (at least I think so) so why not ask HIM if he regards my revert of him as good faithed or as sanction-worthy? He's certainly not the person who brought this whole mess to AE. If he's not complaining why are YOU including it here?
#Added Yiddish names to Poland and Lithuania related articles
#Added Lithuanian names to Polish related articles.

Thus, Sandstein's charge/insinuation of "nationalist bias" is highly inflammatory, insulting, and essentially a personal attack. None of the provided diffs substantiate it and it is exactly the kind of statement that he himself regularly tries to sanction other editors for. Since the same rules apply to Sandstein in this respect as they do to other editors, I ask him to strike that portion of his statement.] (]) 22:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
:Declined. Whether your edits (like those of the other editors) reflect nationalist bias is a matter under investigation in this request. My concern in this respect, above, was accompanied by a . If you disagree with the eventual outcome of the request you can appeal against it. Assumptions of bad faith are unlikely to help your case. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
::There has been no evidence provided of "nationalist bias" so far and you should not make such charges against editors without substantiating them FIRST. Not a "they might or might not be substantiated later". You do sanction others exactly for such behavior hence you should not engage in it yourself. I am not assuming bad faith. I do question your judgment however.] (]) 22:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

'''Response to Deacon'''

Your comments at the naming conventions discussion did indeed imply that. But the point here is that after they were made Jacurek STOPPED adding names to the articles since it became clear that the policy itself was under dispute. His subsequent edits which are being dredged up here as "evidence" are completely in line with your view of the matter.] (]) 22:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

'''Response to Ed Johnston's comments'''
(copied from his talk)
''This ban would be applied to all editors listed below who have previously been sanctioned under any Eastern European cases'' - Ed, can you please explain to me why you are including me in this group? It appears you are doing so only because Sandstein included me there. But if you actually look at the list and read the comments, then you will notice that out of the six articles listed by Sandstein, two I've never edited in my life, and on the other four I made a '''single edit''', sometimes long time ago (I have over 20k edits, I've even forgotten some of these) and when I was reverted, I '''ceased making any further edits'''.

There's no way that making a single edit on an article can be in any way construed as "edit warring" or anything else. I have also supported the inclusion of German names in Polish articles (within reason), and have added Lithuanian names to Polish articles as well as Yiddish and Hebrew names to Polish articles (like I said, I got over 20k edits and I'm not going to waste my time going back and looking for the odd diff or so, but they're there). I've consistently applied ] policy, regardless of the places involved. Of course I've mostly edited Poland related articles - I don't speak ], ] or ]! At no point have I edit warred and in fact I asked for third opinion and discussed things on talk, and am currently in process of working on naming conventions guideline in order to sort out this mess. Can you explain at all what would justify your proposal to sanction me?] (]) 16:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

'''Comment on Sandstein and Deacon's discussion of BRD'''
*Deacon: ''Why should anyone be punished for following it (BRD)?'' - yes, exactly.
*Sandstein: ''WP:BRD involves stopping after a single revert.'' - yes, exactly. And that is precisely what I did. In each of these cases I ceased editing the relevant article as soon as I got reverted.
*Deacon: ''BRD means that if you are bold, and you get reverted ... you discuss it. '' - did that too. Asked for third opinion, discussed things on talk, '''without making any further edits to the articles themselves'''
*Deacon: ''It doesn't mean that if you revert a controversial edit you have to simply accept the edit if the other editor or a friend just doesn't feel like respecting BRD himself.'' - this is true and in fact allows for more reverts then I actually made, provided discussion is under way. I, in fact, did "accept the edit" and made no further changes to the articles.

The parts I disagree with:
*Deacon: ''The editors placing the alternate names ..., know their edits will be opposed but apparently think it worth the fight.'' - No. The editors placing in the names are simply following policy at ]. Now, you might disagree with the policy as she is written, but that's why we're having a discussion about it at present. It is the editors who are removing the names that are acting against policy and being disruptive.
Likewise
*Deacon: ''we should be predisposed to be sceptical towards the addition of these names, which in practice is usually nothing more than nationalist scent-marking; inserting them in knowledge of their controversy is the behaviour that is disruptive and violates our conduct policies; removing such inclusions follows our conduct policies.'' - Maybe we should be skeptical, but then that should be in the policy itself. As I said at the discussion repeatedly my main concern is that the situation is not treated consistently. There's no edit wars on insertion of German names into Polish places (sometimes extremely small villages) and that's supposed to be fine. Same for insertion of Lithuanian names into Polish places. But if a Polish name (or for that matter Belorussian) gets put into a Lithuanian place the three editors mentioned above (Dr. Dan, Lokyz and MK) converge on the article and edit war to keep it removed and all hell breaks loose. If we're going to be skeptical in one case, we need to be skeptical in other cases as well. Otherwise you're singling out a particular group/country for special treatment (whether good or bad) and that can't be justified, either on policy or ethical grounds.
:Additionally, saying that inserting names is nothing "more than nationalist scent-marking" is an unverifiable assertion (since you can't observe people's motives) and is potentially offensive to boot. Are these edits (population 404), , (population 282), (population 27!!!), , , (population 273), (population 13!!!!!!!), , , (population 16!!!), , , (huge metropolis, population 280), , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "nationalist scent-marking"? And that's just since March 1st!
:Jacurek didn't do anything more than what Herkus is doing. He just had the misfortune of running into Dr. Dan, Lokyz and MK. He shouldn't be punished for that. And let's have Sandstein apply his own words, quote: ''" But a pattern of consistently adding or removing <u>the same language</u> from <u>multiple articles</u> cannot be reasonably explained on guideline grounds"''. Whose more consistently adding the same language to multiple articles? Herkus? Or Jacurek, who also added German names to Polish places, Lithuanian names to Polish places, etc.. Again, I don't think Herkus is doing anything wrong here, but neither is Jacurek.] (]) 17:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
::These diffs are by another user, {{user|HerkusMonte}}. That user is not involved in the edit wars that are at issue in this request, and so their edits are not reviewed here. They can be made the subject of a separate AE request if they are believed to be sanctionable. <p>For the benefit of anybody reading this, I believe the discussion alluded to above is ] (). It explains why, in my view, an editor is also engaged in (and therefore sanctionable for) edit-warring if they contribute a single revert to an edit war that is otherwise carried on mainly by others. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Yes, they are by another user who is not subject of this report but they are illustrative of the situation. For one thing they clearly show that your own condition that ''a pattern of consistently adding or removing <u>the same language</u> from <u>multiple articles</u> cannot be reasonably explained on guideline grounds'' - does not apply to Jacurek, neither in relative or absolute terms.
:::And the reason why the above edits are not subject to an AE report are that
:::#the point is that Herkus wasn't doing anything wrong and neither was Jacurek. Since I don't think Herkus is doing anything wrong, why in the world would I want to file an AE report on him? I'm basically saying "editor A is not at fault - for comparison see editor B who does the same thing and is also not at fault". And Sandstein replies with "you can take editor B to court if you want to" - what's the logic here?
:::#the reason Herkus didn't get into any edit wars is simply because he didn't have to contend with a "Dr. Dan" or a "Lokyz" or a "MK" (he does revert when reverted). But that's neither Herkus' nor Jacurek's fault. If somebody DID actually go and remove those massive name additions, what do you think would have happened? People shouldn't be punished for being reasonable.
:::#Future Perfect at Sunrise for some reason decided to single out and pick on Jacurek.] (]) 18:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:::

===Comment by Piotrus===
I am rather disappointed by FPS here.

First, I'd like to ask: who gave you those diffs and requested that you post to AE on their behalf? It's not like you have edited any of the articles in question, nor have you been a participant to any talk page discussions, as far as I am aware.

Second, I really hoped that the established editors with no axes to grind, in particular, respected admins (and I do respect FPS), would not use the "specter of EEML" ] argument. Instead of concentrating on editors who are creating the battleground through baiting and incivility (see VM post above), let's just go for the good, old EEML members, because, well, they are EEML, hence evil, hence the source of all problems, right? Somebody is being incivil to them? They surely deserved it. There is an edit war? Surely, they are the only guilty party.

Third, Jacurek has not violated any policy. Has 3RR been violated, even once? No. Has CIV been violated, even once? No. Regarding , this edit is in line with ], and the implication of this for Gdansk rule need to be discussed; I recently raised this on talk there. As things stand, however, NCGN explicitly suggests moving of alt. names from lead to a dedicated section and states they should not be restored, and Jacurek was acting within NCGN to the letter (now, I started a discussion on talk to discuss whether this letter is correct and benefits Misplaced Pages, but this is hardly an AE issue). Lastly, yes, there has been a slow edit war at some articles, but in most if not all cases, Jacurek is enforcing NCGN, where other editors, propagating battleground and disruption, are attempting to go against policies on those articles. NCGN supports foreign name in articles as long as they are significant (and NCGN has nice, simple check for significance - 10% of English google sources). On ] (talk) I've shown NCGN applies, yet Jacurek's opponents have not bothered to discuss it - they just revert him. Ditto for ]. Nobody has done an analysis for ], but I expect NCGN applies as well. On two other articles, in Vilnius University the nameing section was ''just'' expanded enough to warrant an end to inclusion of the name in lead. I'd have to look at Suvalkija more closely. ] seems totally unrelated to that and I'll have to review it more closely again.

Bottom line, Jacurek seems not to have violated any policies, most of his reverts are policy-supported (whereas most of those by his opponents are not), so how about the admins here focus on incivil, baiting editors and give the rest of us some breathing ground?

All that said, 1RR for everyone would be a good ''voluntary'' rule to declare. I hereby do so for my self, for the next month on all naming-affected articles, and I would strongly suggest everyone else follows suit. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 15:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

:Responce to FSP: Thank you for clarifying my question, and I apologize if the tone was too aggressive. I would still appreciate an explanation why you singled Jacurek for the report.

:Comments for Sandstein and EdJohnston: I appreciate that you are willing to look further than just one side of the conflict. I would appreciate if you could tell me why did you decide to include Volunteer Marek in your analysis, with his 4 reverts total, each on a separate article, compared to Jacurek (19 reverts), MK (12 reverts), Dr Dan (14 reverts) and Lokyz (16 reverts). The last time I check, adhering to ] and ] was ''the right thing to do''... ] explicitly notes the need for ''repetetive'' reverts, so I am having trouble seeing why a user adhering to 1RR (or, even more clearly, making a single revert to an article in the space of many weeks or months) can be included in a discussion of edit warring. I also note that two of his reverts you cite specifically mention no responses for days or longer to discussion on talk. <s>I would also appreciate clarification whether an editor reverting following a policy like NCGN and another reverting against it are to be treated as "equal"?</s> Lastly, I would like to ask if you will be looking at incivility (which I think is at least as problematic as reverts), or just reverts. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 04:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

:Policy interpretation question at ]: I raised a question related to interpretation of EW/BRD ]. I would suggest that admins hold of on applying sanctions to VM till consensus is reached on that particular interpretation (this does not concern sanctions against other editors, IMHO). --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 18:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

===Comment by Kotniski===
Echoing most of what Piotrus says, I note that this issue will ''never'' be sorted out by applying unilateral sanctions against a randomly chosen editor or two on one side of the debate. It's been going on for years; somehow those who consistently remove non-Lithuanian names from Lithuania-related articles seem to be exempted from any kind of rebuke or sanction (which of course in no way justifies the pointy removal of non-Polish names from Poland-related articles) - but in any case, it's necessary to resolve the underlying issues, through some kind of mediation or preferably involvement from the community at large, to work out the best ways to present this kind of important information to readers without being dictated to by those on various sides who are clearly driven mainly by irrational nationalist sentiment. --] (]) 16:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
:AE is not really equipped procedurally for broad reviews covering many editors and their whole editing history. That would need a request for an arbitration case. But I suspect that after ] and ] the Committee is so fed up with this whole ensemble of editors and their obscure historical grievances that it would just indef topic-ban them all and throw away the key. And I suspect that we are coming to a point at AE where we'll come to the same conclusion eventually, one editor at a time. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
::My point is that we need to stop focusing on ''editors'' and their "editing history" (whether one, two or many) and address the substantial issues of disagreement. You're right that AE (and indeed ArbCom generally) is not equipped procedurally for anything except the same old types of editor-focused action which are already known not to work; which is why we need to start thinking outside the AE box here.--] (]) 16:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
::: Well, if people are trying to reach some new agreement at the geographical names guideline, that's great and I'm all for it. But Jacurek's editing was not directed towards creating such an agreement. He was just edit-warring. His talk page contributions are few, and all seem to be focussed merely on asserting his own position, which is rather overtly of the type "treat geographical names as symbolic badges of recognition of historical national claims of possesion". And it is precisely this mentality that is the problem here. Whatever eventual solution there may be for these questions, Jacurek's editing has been persistently part not of the solution but of the problem. ] ] 16:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Absolutely not true. I was just discussing the issue trying to reach agreement here ] for example and on countess other talk pages. I was adding alternative names in various languages, your accusation of me trying to claim a "national possession" is ABSOLUTELY not true. FP - Can you please wait for my statement before posting more accusations? I should find some time this weekend to respond.--] (]) 16:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::FP, as I said earlier, I do respect you, and I think you are ''partially'' right here. Jacurek ''was'' doing quite a few reverts. However, as I, VM and he himself pointed out, 1) he was not alone and 2) most if not all of his edits were in line with the policies (unlike those of his opponents). I wish he had used the talk more and reverted less, but he is less guilty than many others, and unlike some, he has been civil, and he has been following the NCGN policy more often then not. I don't understand why you have singled him out in this report? Saying this, I'd also strongly urge Jacurek to follow my advice and declare that he will voluntarily restrict himself to 1RR on articles with disputed naming (and I urge others to follow mine and hopefully, his suit in this). I'd also suggest that the admins here try to be more creative than blocks and topic bans (lot of good have they done in the past, as we can see) and instead impose a bunch of 1RR restriction on a number of editors who focus on reverting (1RR restriction is the correct scalpel-level solution for revert warring, although I know that some people prefer to nuke anything nail shaped instead...I hope this mentality will not be seen in this discussion). For those who promise to voluntarily restrain themselves but are later shown they didn't keep the word, I'd of course suggest harsher penalties in the future (community patience is not unlimited). I will end by saying that if the outcome of this AE will be punishing only one of the edit warring editors, and at that one who was mostly in line with NCGN and who was, unlike some of the others, civil, it will send a pretty bad message out. It would also be nice if people would stop dredging the "EEML specter", poisoning the well with "if an involved editor was a party to the EEML case, 100% of the problem lies with him" argument (intentionally or not, this is the effect I am seeing). --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 05:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::I have no problem with voluntarily restricting myself to 1RR on articles with disputed naming, please consider this comment as my commitment. However my commitment alone will not eliminate the problem of removal by few Lithuanian editors all Polish names from the articles that share common Polish-Lithuanian heritage. There is hope that this amazingly constructive discussion that is going on here will result in new rules being drafted and the issue will be resolved. --] (]) 10:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Actually most of bigger Lithuanian cities have Polish names in the name section be it ], ] or ], as does ], and it is according to the WP:NCGN section that suggests the names not to be returend to lead after such section is created. It was an agreement that was reached, and that was and still is violated by an editor who has opinion of his own. So there is no conspiracy to remove one nation names from other nations cities articles, as one is trying to persuade others.--] (]) 12:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Lokyz, you kept removing Polish names from the articles given by you as examples and all others summarizing your reverts with "what's the Polish etymology of the name?"which shows that the problem for you was not the place where alternative names should be included but existence of the Polish name itself. The name section has been created later because of the pressure applied by several editors. --] (]) 10:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::: ''and it is according to the WP:NCGN section that suggests the names not to be returend to lead after such section is created''Obviously this is not a view shared by all editors as seen here where a German editor returns the Germanized name of a Polish city to the lead, this needs to be clarified. Personally I support the view, to remove names from lead, but if this is not accepted than there should be no double standards.--] (]) 14:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::I just want to remind Jacurek, taht on ] there was a discusssion, which finaly led to solution and compromise suitable for many users and many towns. I do also see a difference between a "Name" and translation of the object's description like it was noted on ], and after this discussion the article remained stable for a long time, so I was thinking the compromise was reached.--] (]) 17:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

===Comment by uninvolved Hodja Nasreddin===
I followed several AE cases to understand what must be done by someone who wants to edit conflict-free, especially in the area of discretionary sanctions. Surprisingly, this boils down to a very simple rule: ''do not edit war under any circumstances''. Even if you revert once a week, someone will bring you to AE. It goes like that: no reverts -> no conflicts -> no sanctions. This apply to all sides and almost all AE cases.] (]) 15:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

===Comment by Deacon of Pndapetzim===
Don't understand why my comments at ] were mentioned. In the comments Volunteer Marek/Radek was referring to, I expressed my opinion that we ought to be weighted against having alternate culture names in leads (in order to avoid nationalist wars). As it appears this AE request was brought against Jakurek for going around inserting such names into leads, I'm very confused as to why my comments are claimed to support his case? ] (<small>]</small>) 22:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

;Punishing users for following BRD ... good idea?
:Add: As I and others have argued at ], we should be predisposed to be sceptical towards the addition of these names, which in practice is usually nothing more than nationalist scent-marking; inserting them in knowledge of their controversy is the behaviour that is disruptive and violates our conduct policies; removing such inclusions follows our conduct policies. I'm concerned about the level of actions being taken against certain users merely because, over a few years, they've reverted inclusion of alternate language versions of place-names. As placing these names (and indeed removing stable ones) is inherently controversial in these area, why does ] not apply? Why should anyone be punished for following it? I also find the idea that you can get sanction for some reverts of various warring IPs over a couple of years quite ghastly. This is simply punishing users for having an account: not a good idea. ] (<small>]</small>) 16:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

::] involves stopping after a single revert. The names at issue have been added and removed more than once. Also, edit-warring is forbidden no matter whether one reverts IPs or users with an account. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

:::BRD means that if you are bold, and you get reverted ... you discuss it. It doesn't mean that if you revert a controversial edit you have to simply accept the edit if the other editor or a friend just doesn't feel like respecting BRD himself. The editors placing the alternate names, esp. in the last few years (the Piotrus 1 extends amnesty to edits preceding the case), know their edits will be opposed but apparently think it worth the fight. This is the disruptive behavior. Whether or not the disruptive behaviour causes an edit war depends on whether or the inserting users fight to keep their controversial edit; reverting any reverts of a controversial edit is the only way other users can practically adhere to the spirit of BRD. The way to solve this is not by punishing the users who are reacting to the controversial edits via BRD, but by adjusting our tolerance of such controversial edits in the first place. ] (<small>]</small>) 16:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I am in (rough) agreement with Deacon here. At least one proposed sanction (on VM, who made no more than 1 revert to each article in question, and participated extensively in talk discussions) seems to say that "following BRD can still get you in trouble". Is this really a message we want to send to the community? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 17:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

===Comment by Mymolobaccount===
Proposing topic bans to all editors who are actively working on solving the naming dispute so they won't be able to achieve solution to the issue? That's wikipedia at its finest. Sandstein's behaviour here and proposals are one of the most counterproductive to Misplaced Pages and cooperation between editors from opposed POV's that I have seen. Two opposite sites are sitting down to talk and solve the issue, Sandstein comes in and proposes to ban active participants instead of letting them work out a solution on which they are working in good faith and in civil manner.
--] (]) 00:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

===Comment by Vecrumba===
For the most part I have pretty good relations with editor on both sides of the fence, generally being "pro-" both sides. I would be happy to assist in mediating, anything is better than more draconian measures which breed nothing but bad blood. Unless someone proposing <u>'''any solution'''</u> is <u>intimately aware</u> of the historical conflicts underlying naming disputes, any action they take (hello admins!) will make things worse, not better. ]<small> ►]</small> 01:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

:Yes, I believe these are excessive sanctions. If they edit warred over naming conventions, they should be either placed on 1RR per week restriction or banned from editing names. ] (]) 03:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

===Comment by M.K.===

*Diffs which supposedly should show my “nationalistic” revert warring with IP from 2008-2009 time frame lacks background. That IP is full time abusive revert warrior, I complained about abusive nature of that IP and his various IPs farm , , . Community offered little interest in those cases during that time, but surprise surprise '''Radeksz aka Volunteer Marek was the first who attacked me back then''' . The same IP range reappearing in those articles again now of course supporting EEML group as usual. Of cause none of current admins looking into these IP again.
* From relevant time frame I made two reverts with 10 hour time gap on the listed article. I'm surprised that it could cause offense and '''I am sorry''' for that and whatever damage you think this might caused. I was frustrated that community is not willing to help nor do they care about, as I saw the case with disruptive IP case or the EEML case itself, when one of the most notorious groups are enabled to operate in old habits again as if EEML revelation never happened. For instance:
user: Volunteer Marek '''constantly stalking editors again''':
*''''''
*''''''
*''''''
*'''''' and so on… And again for some reason no action on this individual regarding these continues stalking. Question Why?
*Additionally those edits supply growing conclusion that Volunteer Marek mislead arbcom with topic ban lifting. Volunteer Marek claimed "was unable to assess and improve articles which tangentially might have to do with Eastern Europe and Poland - for example article on the famous Polish economist Michal Kalecki", "if any disputes arise in the future, I will be careful to observe high standards of conduct", "Somebody's got to make a show of good faith however", "it shouldn't be controversial", so Arbcom lifted saying "With the understanding that any relapse is likely to be poorly received.". Volunteer Marek just went back to EEML agenda .
*On sanctions:
**Conventional sanctions would yield little result as those individuals may recruit sockpuptes or proxies as they did in the past, as we have grim examples (yet main Jacurek account is still free).
**Volunteer Marek, jacurek promised countless times to behave and they failed to keep up their promises.
** Imposing name ban - as advocated here too - on remaining Lithuanian editors alongside with those individuals because they outnumber everyone. When last revert sanctions were proposed Piotrus recommended on EEML too that single-purpose socks should take care of reverting.] (]) 11:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
*P.S. please allow additional 24 h for finalizing my report as I am terribly busy. ] (]) 11:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

===Comment by BorisG===

I would recomment to admins to err on the side of caution. If there are clear and ''persistent'' patterns of disruption (e.g. edit warring), sanctions may be called for. However without a ''persistent'' pattern, a warning is enough. Also if disruption is caused in a very niche area like this naming saga, sanctions should only apply to this activity. Topic banning editors for niche violations is throwing productive editors with the bathwater.

I would also suggest that admins give a strong warning to all involved editors NOT to use the AE page as a battleground. - ] (]) 17:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

: Thank you for that uninvolved perspective. The sooner AE is closed down as a forum for content control&mdash;specifically, not entertaining charges of disruption unless there are <u>'''clear and repeated'''</u> violations of 3RR, sockpuppetry, et al.&mdash;the sooner editors will be forced to deal with each other. ]<small> ►]</small> 18:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

: One area where I would sanction draconian measures is perma-banning anyone who sockpuppets in an area of conflict. There's no excuse for that. Unfortunately, in the Wikiworld, that would only result in immediate charges of sockpuppetry, for example, where multiple editors might attend the same university. The moral is, the more draconian the enforcement, the larger the carrot being held out to those seeking to control content. For now, those editors control content the most effectively who have mastered the art of the unintended consequences of enforcement. ]<small> ►]</small> 19:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

===Comment by Novickas===
I'm really sorry to see that we haven't been working towards compromise and consensus on the alternate names issue. Not surprised; there's a lot of long-standing bad blood. But I think the problem would be better addressed by more discussion at the guideline pages and more participation by outsiders at the individual articles. (I don't think they need to be experts in the area.) I'd rather see a 1RR per week/per editor for renaming (in Sandstein's intepretation of renaming) at all Eastern European articles. Because the admins here will be wanting to keep clear of voicing their opinions at these articles, could we agree on a separate venue to discuss them? Pick some previously-uninvolved editor out of the pool of mediators, say? ] (]) 00:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
===Result concerning Jacurek===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.-->

I encourage editors to make only comments directly pertinent to the request, because "the usual infighting, bickering and sniping", as Volunteer Marek puts it, is likely to ] in the form of sanctions. Fut. Perf., I agree that the request looks actionable at first glance, but without a ] notification diff, we are forbidden to act on it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

: Jacurek has been sanctioned (and, through each sanction, obviously, also warned) under DIGWUREN half a dozen times. Just look at the log. ] ] 16:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

::But we still need a diff of a valid warning for the record. should do, and I recommend that you complete the request with it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
::: Indeed, will do, and, with all due respect, demanding that I also paste it somewhere up there now that you've already seen it is taking bureaucratic process-wonkery to an unprecedented extreme. No, I won't. ] ] 16:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, as a preliminary opinion, I think that there is actionable evidence that several editors have engaged in edit-warring to remove or add names from the leads of the articles named by Fut.Perf. and Jacurek, as can be seen in the history of e.g. {{la|Bernardine Cemetery}}. I suggest that we compile a consolidated list of reverts by editor and decide on that basis whether to sanction anybody, after requesting the involved editors to comment. If not other admin disagrees, I'm going to start compiling such a list. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that any campaigns of mass removal or mass addition of alternate-language names should be looked into. Sandstein's idea of making a consolidated list of reverts sounds good. ] (]) 13:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
:I've started the list below; all admins are welcome to help complement it. We should try to cover all previously EE-warned editors and recent edit wars. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
::Before we start discussing sanctions against individuals, I submit the following principles for administrator discussion:
::*Whether the reverts complied with the ] is irrelevant, as such edits are not exempt from ]. Also, compliance with this guideline is a content issue, because it requires editorial judgment, and cannot therefore be reviewed in an arbitration context.
::*Reverts from earlier years are relevant insofar as they are part of a continued edit war involving the same editors, or as part of a pattern of adding or removing the same language (see below).
::*Edit-warring to add or remove a language from <u>any one article</u> does not necessarily reflect bias, as there may be policy-based grounds for such reverts (even if these do not excuse edit-warring). But a pattern of consistently adding or removing <u>the same language</u> from <u>multiple articles</u> cannot be reasonably explained on guideline grounds, since ] makes reference to the use of names in English-language literature, which differs from topic to topic. Such a pattern of editing, therefore, can only be explained by a desire to put nationalist bias ahead of Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. This makes such a pattern incompatible with ] and, consequently, grounds for sanctions. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

====Further admin comments about the Result concerning Jacurek====
*I've made a new sub-heading to clarify that this is where admin comments can continue. Move this section below if you prefer. I'm glad Sandstein has collected the evidence on these articles because it helps narrow the issue. I see that other participants have also been notified, and we await their responses. Among the possible actions we might take, we could consider a ban on adding or removing any alternate names for articles. This ban would be applied to all editors listed below who have previously been sanctioned under any Eastern European cases. This would mean renaming bans for all the editors below except M.K., who could be notified of the discretionary sanctions and warned. Banned editors could still argue on the talk pages for changing the alternate names.

*This assumes that the discussion here reaches a conclusion on which of these changes in alternate names exceed the limits of good-faith editing. Sandstein's argument is that consistent changes to promote the same ethnicity are usually in bad faith. I see the logic of that, especially for people who were previously sanctioned. (These aren't newcomers who are unfamiliar with our customs). ] (]) 05:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
:*A renaming ban is a good idea for (at least some of) the editors discussed here. But I'm not convinced it that it is sensible to extend it to all editors under EE sanctions. We have no evidence that this is a widespread problem in this topic area (although I wouldn't be surprised if it were) or with most previously sanctioned editors. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
::*My proposal is to consider a renaming ban only for the editors named in your table below who are also under EE sanctions. Perusal of the dates of these reverts of the alternate names shows that a good number of the reverts have occurred since 1 March. If there is a recent upsurge, and if the editors below are the main ones doing the reverting, that is a reason why they should come to our attention. It distinguishes them from the other sanctioned EE editors. ] (]) 22:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Right, I agree; I misread you. I'm proposing an editor-by-editor analysis and sanctions below, based on the principles submitted above and the evidence collected below.
:::*Jacurek has engaged in nationalist edit-warring about names, violating ] and ]. He has a very long history of EE sanctions, up to a 6 months topic ban, so his "last chance" moment has already passed. Proposed sanction: indefinite EE topic ban.
:::*Volunteer Marek has made individual reverts in support of and in conjunction with Jacurek's nationalist edit-warring about names. He has a moderate history of EE sanctions, and notably a past sanction for covert coordination of edits with Jacurek (]). Proposed sanction: six months renaming ban as described below; warning for expressing what sounds like nationalist prejudice on this page ().
:::*M.K has participated in nationalist edit-warring about names. They have not previously been warned about arbitration sanctions, so none can be imposed here. Proposed consequence: warning.
:::*Dr. Dan has participated in nationalist edit-warring about names. He has also made mild personal attacks (, ). He has a moderate history of EE sanctions. Proposed sanctions: indefinite renaming ban, three months topic ban.
:::*Lokyz has participated in nationalist edit-warring about names. He has also made slightly more serious personal attacks (, ). He has a limited history of EE sanctions. Proposed sanctions: indefinite renaming ban, three months topic ban.
:::A renaming ban mans that the editor is banned from changing, removing or adding names (including translations) in a Eastern European language with respect to a subject that the same article already designates with a name in another Eastern European language. This notably also covers anything that appears as part of the article (such as categories, images or templates), and moving pages. For the purpose of this ban, "Eastern European language" includes German. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
::::@Sandstein: I support all the bans you've recommended above. I suggest keeping this open for at least another 24 hours to see if more admins will comment. ] (]) 00:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::Considering that the principles and sanctions proposed above have not been opposed by an administrator after two and a half days; that no other administrator (or uninvolved user) has commented here a day after a at ], that I have discussed the application of ] to this case in more detail , that the arguments advanced by the users at issue (to the extent that they have made a statement at all) are unpersuasive; based on the considerations above and the evidence below, in application and enforcement of ], the sanctions proposed above are enacted. They are notified to the users and logged at ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

====Name-changing reverts in the EE topic area====
=====Jacurek=====
{{userlinks|Jacurek}} (), partially copied from the request
*On ]: (adding Polish)
*On ]: (adding Polish)
*On ]: (adding Polish)
*On ]: (adding Polish)
*On ]: (adding Polish)
*On ]: (adding German), (removing German)
Previous sanctions: many blocks up to 3 months for topic-related misconduct; ] 1RR restriction (2009) and (2010); ] and ] (6 months in Dec 2009)

=====Volunteer Marek=====
{{userlinks|Volunteer Marek}}, previously editing as {{u|Radeksz}} ()
*On ]: (adding Polish)
*On ]: none
*On ]: (adding Polish)
*On ]: none
*On ]: (adding Polish)
*On ]: (removing German)
Previous sanctions: Three non-overturned topic-related blocks; ] and ] (rescinded in June 2010)

=====M.K=====
{{userlinks|M.K}} () (no warning found)
*On ]: none
*On ]: , (removing Belarusian, Polish)
*On ]: , , , , , , , , , (removing Polish)
*On ]: none
*On ]: none
*On ]: none
Previous sanctions: none

=====Dr. Dan=====
{{userlinks|Dr. Dan}} () ()
*On ]: , , , (removing Belorusian, Polish)
*On ]: (removing Polish)
*On ]: , , , , , , (removing Polish)
*On ]: (removing Polish)
*On ]: none
*On ]: none
Previous sanctions: 2 incivility blocks, ] interaction ban for 3 months in 2010

=====Lokyz=====
{{userlinks|Lokyz}} () ()
*On ]: , , , , (removing Polish and English)
*On ]: , (removing Polish)
*On ]: , , (removing Polish)
*On ]: , (removing Polish)
*On ]: , , , (removing Polish)
*On ]: none
Previous sanctions: One non-overturned AE block; ] and restricted for edit-warring (2008)
{{hab}} {{hab}}


==AstroGuy0==
== Jalapenos do exist ==
{{hat|{{u|AstroGuy0}} has been issued a warning for source misrepresentation by {{u|Voorts}}. No other reviewers have expressed any wish for further action. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) }}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning AstroGuy0===
{{hat|1=Jalapenos do exist is warned not to misrepresent sources. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)}}
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}} 03:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|AstroGuy0}}<p>{{ds/log|AstroGuy0}}</p>
===Request concerning Jalapenos do exist===
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 10:49, 13 March 2011 (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|Jalapenos do exist}}


;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 --->

(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.-->
# . Reversion of edit. With diff #2 below: Violation of global 1RR restriction on I-P articles. Violation of Jalapenos' 1RR per day ban on I-P articles.
# 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.
# . Reversion of edit. With diff #1 above: Violation of global 1RR restriction on I-P articles. Violation of Jalapenos' 1RR per day ban on I-P articles.
# 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"
# Gross violation of ] through the creation of another heavily biased article from this user. See further explanation below.


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
# Warning by {{user|Georgewilliamherbert}}


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


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

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

On December 20 last year, Jalapenos do exist was banned from making more than one global revert per day on I-P related articles, for a period of three months. This came on top of the 1RR restriction that was imposed on all editors in the I-P topic area. The first two diffs in the evidence section above demonstrate that Jalapenos has violated both restrictions by making two clear reverts on the same article only 8 hours apart.

The third diff above, represents the state of the article as Jalapenos created it before others started to make substantial edits to it. I submit that the article he created represents a gross violation of NPOV, for several reasons:

* As with other I-P articles Jalapenos has created, this article completely omitted any statements from Palestinian moderates, presenting only extreme or hardline points of view. Thus, we learn in the intro that Palestinians in Rafah celebrated in the streets, but nowhere in the article was it mentioned that Palestinian residents of Awarta condemned the attack. We learned that Al-Aqsa called the attack "heroic" and Hamas justified it, but not that the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority condemned it. Nor did the article mention that the attack may have been carried out in retaliation for the killing of two Palestinian teenagers from Awarta last year. I was able to find all this information in five minutes from the sources that Jalapenos himself provided: Jalapenos must have read them, but he has chosen to simply omit any information that might detract from his one-sided presentation of Palestinians as bloodthirsty and vengeful.

* Jalapenos included not one, but ''three'' horrific images of bodies of the victims. All three images were quickly deleted from Commons by an admin, but not before J. had reverted the removal of only ''one'' of them by another user (see diff #1 above). Note that J. gave no reason for his revert.

* Jalapenos restored the information about Palestinians in Rafah celebrating the killings after I had removed it as ] in the lead (see diff #2 above). He gave no explanation for his revert, in common with his usual practice. Nor did he leave any explanation on the talk page. At the moment he reverted it, he must have been aware that the residents of Awarta had had an opposite response, calling the killings bestial, but for Jalapenos only the response of the Rafahns merits inclusion in the intro.

Jalapenos has a long history of creating heavily biased content on this encyclopedia, as a look at his editing history will demonstrate. I'd like to think the user is capable of reform but I'm afraid I see no evidence of it with this latest series of edits. I am therefore requesting a topic ban for this user. ] (]) 11:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

; Response to Jalapenos

J. states that he was merely responding to a request to move the picture, but Biosketch's comment on the talk page included the comment: ''please consider that plastering photos of the victims all over the article is nonconstructive editing''. Clearly, he felt that the addition of three pictures was excessive. Jalapenos ignored this concern in restoring the image.

Regardless, the condition of the article before others made substantial changes was demonstrably one-sided, to a degree that I think ought to be considered unacceptable. Excluding all but the most extreme Palestinian viewpoints and plastering the article with graphic images of "dead babies", to quote User:Y, should surely be evidence enough of that. ] (]) 15:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

: I'm withdrawing the violation of 1RR charge. I missed the fact that Jalapenos had restored the image to a different section, and that he might have believed that by doing so he was responding to Biosketch's main concern. He still could, I think, have asked for clarification, but I think this can no longer be described as a clearcut revert. My apologies to Jalapenos and the adjudicating admins for the error.

: In regards to the other part of the case, I will probably have more to say tomorrow. ] (]) 18:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

; Request downgrade

On reflection, though I believe the article created by Jalapenos was blatantly POV, I probably would not have brought this request on that evidence alone, it was that in combination with the 1RR violation, since withdrawn, that persuaded me to file it. Though Jalapenos has in my experience made some highly questionable edits at times, and in my opinion added some marginal content, I'm not entirely sure a sanction is warranted at this point. In the absence of further evidence from other users, therefore, and in the interests of collegiality, I am downgrading my enforcement request from a topic ban to a warning. ] (]) 14:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


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

===Discussion concerning ]===
====Statement by Jalapenos do exist====
I create a pretty good article almost single handedly, and instead of getting thanked, first I get hit with a frivolous AfD (snow kept), and now this bullshit.

In edit #1, a user had removed an image of a victim from the Reactions section with the statement "inappropriately situated, no connection to Reactions"; I agreed, so I restored the image to the Victims section, explaining what I did and why. A very mundane edit in the course of upkeep on an article I created, and by no means a revert. So much for the 1RR allegation.

The NPOV allegation is nonsense. I really don't feel like going through all the falsehoods and carefully constructed half-truths, but if you just look at this article and my other articles, you can see that they are not biased, and many editors have said as much. I'm proud of the fact that I've received compliments from editors with declared sympathies on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Please take a good, long look at Gatoclass' editing and complaint history. What's going on here is that Gatoclass has a strong partisan POV regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, he seeks to imprint his POV on any he article he can (typically articles where someone else did the real work), he relentlessly bullies anyone who gets in his way, and he attempts to manipulate the AE process for this purpose. Of course, people who share his partisan POV will support these attempts, and people who oppose it will oppose them. You guys can either find a way to put a stop to this behavior, or you can let your time get wasted with drama and watch as sensible editors continue to disappear from this area out of frustration. ] (]) 14:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

=====Response to Gatoclass=====
Having apparently abandoned the 2RR allegation, Gatoclass is now clutching at the idea that I ignored Biosketch's concerns when restoring a photo to the Victims section. Not exactly an issue for AE, but in any case Biosketch has explicitly stated "I support displaying one photo in the Victims section, as a relevant document illustrating the event with which the article is concerned". My position is similar, and we editors who are actually writing the article are, at this very moment, having a civil and rather nuanced discussion on what to do with the photos. Cptnono, NortyNort and Biosketch essentially agree with me, and Robofish essentially agrees with Y, who unilaterally deleted all the photos by invoking ]. I agree with Biosketch that meanwhile the deletion "should be reverted pending a more articulate explanation", and you might say that our concern is being ignored, but I am bound by 1RR. Meanwhile, Gatoclass, who has contributed nothing to the article except a short series of POV-serving edits, has simply not participated in the discussion. And why should he, when he can circumvent the normal consensus-building procedures and just force his partisan position on the article by gaming AE? I guess that he will soon receive assistance from Mkativerata, who has not sullied himself with actual discussion on the talk page either. That's how it goes. ] (]) 17:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

=====Response to Sandstein regarding Fatah and sources=====
I originally wrote in the lead: ''Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, the military wing of Palestinian Fatah, claimed responsibility for the attack, calling it a "heroic operation"'' This was based on the cited '']'' article, which wrote: ''The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the armed wing of Fatah, the dominant political faction in the West Bank, said it had carried out the "heroic operation … ".'' Word for word.

I also wrote in the body: ''Fatah, the group that controls the Palestinian National Authority, released a statement by its militia, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, in which it claimed responsibility for the killings. The statement said the "heroic" operation was a "natural response to massacres committed by the occupation against our people in the Gaza Strip and West Bank."'' This was based on the cited '']'' source, which wrote: ''"PA officials in Ramallah expressed skepticism over a statement released by Fatah’s militia, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, in which it claimed responsibility for the killings. The statement said the “heroic” operation was a “natural response to massacres committed by the occupation against our people in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.”'' Again, word for word. (See also ElComandantChe's briefer statement on this.)

Both cited sources state that Fatah's militia/the armed wing of Fatah, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, claimed responsibility for the attack. As do my statements. Neither source attributes any responsibility to the PA, nor do either of my statements. The Guardian source notes the commonly known fact that Fatah dominates the PA, as does my second statement. Everything in both statements is in one or both of the sources, though the ''second'' statement has a short explanatory clause that's only stated explicitly in the ''first'' source.

Mkateriva deleted the second statement entirely with the edit summary ''rm statement that falsifies and exaggerates source and throws in a copyright violation for good measure''. I've already shown that the edit summary is at least partially false. I'm not sure what he meant by "throws in a copyright violation". He then proceeded to remove the first statement entirely, with the edit summary ''rm claim contradicted by http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=211909'' This edit summary is also false (though it might have been an innocent mistake), because Mkateriva's second Jpost article does not contradict my Guardian and first Jpost articles; it merely notes that '']'' published a contradictory report, and it neither endorses nor challenges this report. '']'' is owned by a prince of Saudi Arabia, a regime not known for allowing a robust independent press. While it would nevertheless be perfectly fine to include both statements side by side, there is no justification for simply deleting a statement agreed on by both The Guardian and The Jerusalem Post because it is contradicted by Al Hayat, an inferior source in both quantity and quality.

In short, my statements did not misrepresent the sources in any way, and Mkateriva selectively removed them under flimsy and partially false pretexts. It is entirely obvious that he was uncomfortable with the claim of responsibility by Fatah's armed wing, reported by two mainstream reliable sources, and chose to deal with this discomfort by simply deleting them. What this episode illustrates is that with a strong enough commitment to deception and sophistry, ''any'' edit - any edit whatsoever - can be portrayed as sinister, and any selective removal of material, no matter how biased and egregious, can be gotten away with by using AE as a distractive. The logical conclusion of this type of behavior is Unomi's long missive which basically boils down to "there are things in the sources that JDE didn't use!" How true, and how tragic, since I would be going back to use the sources more thoroughly, thereby improving the article and Misplaced Pages, if only I weren't stuck here responding to spurious accusations. The question is whether people who act like this have to pay any price for it, or if they can just go on freely slinging their mud hoping that some of it will stick while they continue with their bad editing. ] (]) 00:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

=====Response to Sandstein regarding Hamas and sources=====
The main issue here is that the source has been changed since I used it. The is titled ''Palestinian takes revenge, kills 5 settlers''. This is where I got ''but stated that the incident was a Palestinian "revenge" attack on Israelis''. That the whole thing is a statement by Hamas is simple: the source is a Hamas website. The Hamas statement acknowledges that the attack occurred but, notably, does not claim responsibility. That Hamas denied responsibility has been stated ''explicitly'' in that same primary source and in mainstream secondary sources, e.g. , but I was using the first source anyway and its indication by silence was sufficient to source the point. My summary of Hamas's position was accurate and representative of the source in every element. ] (]) 00:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

====Statement by Mkativerata====

In addition to the substantial evidence filed above, a few other issues demonstrate the relentless POV-pushing of JdE on this article:
*''Falsified linking of the attack to Fatah and the Palestinian Authority''. was the article before anyone else really touched it. It said ''Fatah, the group that controls the Palestinian National Authority, released a statement by its militia, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, in which it claimed responsibility for the killings.'' Plainly, this statement is designed to push a POV that Fatah, and thus the PA, is linked to the attacks. The statement falsifies the . The source says nothing of Fatah releasing a statement. Absolutely nothing. The source ''actually'' says that the PA (controlled by Fatah) was "sceptical" of a statement supposedly released by the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. Of course, the main content of the source is to show that Fatah and the PA condemened the attacks. But JdE's article makes no mention of the PA's condemnation, instead choosing to falsify the source to implicate Fatah. The fact that JdE's content also violated the copyright of the source cited demonstrates the extreme rush in which this hatchet job of an article was prepared.
*Of course, we later found out that in fact the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades denied having anything to do with the attack. In I added a more up-to-date source saying that al-Aqsa denied involvement, and that the "statement" claiming responsibility was issued by a random splinter group that uses al-Aqsa's name. But despite the evidence to the contrary, JdE in restoring the perjorative links to Fatah despite the source used being obviously out of date and overtaken by more accurate sources (I'd edit the article again... but 1RR).
*As per Gatoclass, the article took great pains to mention anything that could reflect badly on the Palestinian administration. But JdE conspicuously ignored information ''from the same sources'' that could provide a more balanced view, such as the condemnations by PA, the reaction of residents of Awarta.
Breaches of 1RR are forgivable, and it seems there weren't any here. But POV-pushing by source falsification and selective inclusion of perjorative material cannot be tolerated. This is exactly what topic bans were designed for. --] (]) 19:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
:On the first point. The source says ''"PA officials in Ramallah expressed skepticism over a '''statement released by Fatah’s militia, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, in which it claimed responsibility for the killings'''"'', i.e. JDE representation of the source is quite accurate. No comments on credibility of both JPost articles mentioned above. --] (]) 22:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
::On what basis does "Fatah's militia" = "Fatah"? That link is plainly a falsification, especially when (a) the same sentence says that the PNA (controlled by Fatah) expressed scepticism about the statement; and (b) it is well established that the description of AAMB as "Fatah's militia" is dubious and controversial. JdE has deliberately set out to mispresent the source to tie the attacks not only to AAMB but to Fatah. --] (]) 22:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
@Sandstein: Just a couple of points: (1) Unomi has presented more evidence of source falsification below (see the Hamas "revenge" issue). (2) A dispute about POV on a particular article is a content issue; an accusation that a user is pushing POV in his or her article work is a conduct issue. Pushing POV falls within the scope of ARBPIA sanctions as conduct that "seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". AE admins here aren't being asked to adjudicate on a content dispute (the content dispute at the article has pretty much settled down); they're being asked to sanction an editor for pushing POV. Accordingly, I think the POV accusations against JdE are actionable as an AE request. --] (]) 22:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
:Agreed, POV-pushing is sanctionable, but normally not on the basis of writing a single (even if possibly deficient) article. We'd need evidence for a ''pattern'' of non-neutral conduct. The previous AE request cited below may be relevant, though. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
::Actually, on further review and in fairness to JdE, the Hamas/revenge/attribution issue may be due to an earlier version of the source that was linked. It seems an earlier version of the Al Qassam article said in its headline, "Palestinian takes revenge, kills 5 settlers". Al Qassam is linked to Hamas, so perhaps the attribution of the "revenge" quote to Hamas can be explained on that basis. An earlier version of the source is copy/pasted at . --] (]) 23:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
As another example of the POV-pushing in ], JdE included ] as a "See also" link. That article is a controversial article essentially claiming a concerted effort by Palestinian factions to use violence to derail the peace process in 2010. Including a see also link in ] was none other than a brazen attempt, unsupported by any reliable sources, to suggest that these murders were a cynical part of that so-called militancy campaign. It should come as no surprise that JdE is one of the principal authors of ]. --] (]) 23:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

@JdE's recent lengthy post, as it questions my own edits:
: The phrase "It added that the perpetrator managed to return safely to his base." is a word-for-word copyright violation of .
:The suggestion that ] is an unreliable source in these matters is completely spurious. A read of our own WP article on the newspaper will show that. The fact that the Jerusalem Post reported Al-Hayat's reports verbatim indicates that it is accepted for its reliability across the spectrum of reasonable I/P views. New York Times article is a good read. It was abundantly clear by the time of my edit (and remains clear now) that early news reports attributing the attack to the AAMB were completely wrong, and I make no apology for correcting it. --] (]) 00:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

====Statement by unomi====
Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort, neither its selection of articles nor individual articles will ever be 'finished', we work together, sometimes competitively and at best cooperatively to continually improve presentation of the material available - in light of this we shouldn't hold any one editor responsible for 'perfecting' an article. I believe that this holds true when looking at the broad selection of sources available for any given subject, however, when an editor chooses to selectively include material from a source - and indeed materially misrepresent the content of the sources - then we have a problem.

JDE was fairly recently sanctioned at AE, see , where uninvolved admins stated: "I do, however, see other problematic editing, including apparent single-purpose, POV-driven editing affecting multiple articles, including article creation, ..." and "... we caution him that future misconduct on these articles can result in him being excluded from the topic area, blocked from editing, or otherwise restricted.".
Did JDE fail to represent the sources he used adequately?
Looking at indicated by Mkativerata above, starting from the bottom up.

1. Hamas, the group that governs the Gaza Strip, did not claim responsibility, but stated that the incident was a Palestinian "revenge" attack on Israelis and argued that Palestinian factions "have the full right... to use all tools and means of resistance" against Israel.
* The only thing regarding the perpetrator and motivation stated there is: "Israeli media claimed that angry Palestinian attacked a home in the illegal settlement of Itamar near Nablus and killed Five settlers from one family before he escapes." I would also note that the passage regarding armed resistance is edited to remove any mention of international law, the occupation and changes 'Israeli occupation forces and the armed Israeli settlers' to simply 'Israel'.

* Also note that the page shows related stories, one bearing the headline: "Hamas denies responsibility for Itamar incident" and contains: "Al-Rashak confirmed that harming children is not part of Hamas' policy, nor is it the policy of the resistance factions."

2. Fatah, the group that controls the Palestinian National Authority, released a statement by its militia, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, in which it claimed responsibility for the killings. The statement said the "heroic" operation was a "natural response to massacres committed by the occupation against our people in the Gaza Strip and West Bank." It added that the perpetrator managed to return safely to his base.
* The source article as a whole is somewhat confusing to be honest, personally I would probably look for a more authoritative source regarding just who claimed responsibility for what. A quick google search quickly brings into to question the quality of the assertion: ''A previously unknown group, the Imad Mughniyah Cell of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack Saturday, but an unnamed Israeli officer told Haaretz daily that this was "nonsense."''
* The source does however repeatedly state that the PNA condemned “any act that targets civilians, regardless of their identity.” the entire first 1/3 of the source article is dedicated to the PNA condemning the killings, yet none, not one bit of that is mentioned under Palestinian reactions, not just a little. That the PNA condemned the killings is repeated in just about every source that was in use at that time.

3. is used 3 times, mostly for details that in some cases are contradicted by sources closer to the event, such as the 2 unharmed children were hiding rather than sleeping. But much information in the source is ignored such as:
* ''Israeli authorities suspect that the killings, the deadliest attack inside a settlement in several years, were either a strike by Palestinian militants or a revenge attack by residents of the West Bank village of Awarta, where two Palestinian teenagers were shot to death a year ago as they collected garbage near Itamar.''

* ''Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad also criticized the killings. "As we have always rejected violence against our people, we reject it against others and we condemn it."''
* ''Tensions between settlers and Palestinian villagers have been escalating for weeks. Founded in 1984, the Itamar settlement sits on land that was once controlled by the village of Awarta, said Awarta Mayor Qais Awwad.''

* ''In recent weeks, Palestinians have accused settlers in the area of chopping down hundreds of olive trees, burning Palestinians' cars and shooting at villagers. Last week, Israeli soldiers were accused of using live gunfire to quell one clash, injuring 10 Palestinians and one settler.''

* ''Itamar's settlers are considered among the most fervent, believing Israel has a historic and religious right to absorb the West Bank, which Israel seized during the 1967 Middle East War. Most of the international community, however, views Israel's settlements as illegal and has called for Israel to end the occupation by allowing Palestinians to build their own state on the land.''

* ''Israeli soldiers appeared to be focusing their efforts on family members of the two Palestinians killed last March. At the time, Palestinians had complained that the unarmed youths were killed by settlers from Itamar, although Israeli soldiers said they shot the teens. A military investigation was opened into the incident. Several male relatives in the family were arrested Saturday and their home remained surrounded by Israeli soldiers.''

I can reach no other conclusion than JDE deliberately excluded information which would be of value to an encyclopedic article but might run counter to his intentions with wikipedia.

We aren't talking about just not doing diligent research in finding appropriate sources, we are talking about intentional and consistent omissions from numerous sources that he had read. It is this kind of editing which is most problematic in terms of editor friction and is an impediment to a collaborative editing atmosphere, not to mention being just plain manipulative of wikipedia readers. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]]]</i> 21:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

;Comment to Sandstein
Regarding: "Whether the article as a whole conformed to WP:NPOV when it was created, or whether relevant information was omitted, is probably a content dispute that cannot be decided in an arbitration context"

I have to echo the sentiment of Mkativerata above. The I/P discretionary sanctions state that this type of behavior is falls under the purview of AE: ''that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the '''purpose of Misplaced Pages''', any expected standards of behavior, or any '''normal editorial process'''.'' it also explicitly mentions ]: ''Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Misplaced Pages's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, '''neutral point of view''', no original research and verifiability) in their editing''. ] has as its first line: ''Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means '''representing fairly''', proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, '''all significant views''' that have been published by reliable sources.'' - it may be that this should be followed in ''theory'' but that in practice it rarely happens (especially in contentious areas), but that is more than anything the fault of those who should be enforcing the policy. One could argue that omitting material that speaks to possible motives, such as carried by the LA Times, might potentially be a content issue, but surely not that the PNA had condemned the attacks when half of the article is about 'reactions' and when the sources are brimming with the PNA reactions. It strikes me that intentionally omitting that the PNA had condemned the attacks, and even going so far as intimating that it was linked to them is such a gross violation when you consider that just about every single source JDE used carried the information that the PNA had condemned them. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]]]</i> 23:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

;Response to JDE's comment
Regarding: "The logical conclusion of this type of behavior is Unomi's long missive which basically boils down to "there are things in the sources that JDE didn't use!" How true, and how tragic, since I would be going back to use the sources more thoroughly, thereby improving the article and Misplaced Pages, if only I weren't stuck here responding to spurious accusations."
:Let me be Frank, Shirley you must be joking. In light of your previous AE where you also forwarded this very same mix of mild outrage, denial of any wrong-doing and deflection of core issues I find myself yet again amazed at the credulity that you attribute to your fellow editors. I do however welcome your tacit acknowledgement that you did not reflect the weight of contents in the sources that you used. That you ''would have, if only..'' rings mightily hollow however; you managed to add the responses of the UN, France, Germany, US, 'quartet on the Middle East', Perez and Netanyahu - replete with flags in most cases, yet the Palestinian reactions are 1. giving out candy, 2. military wing of fatah claiming responsibility calling it 'heroic', 3. Hamas calling it an act of revenge - yet failed to mention what is stated in ''just about each source that you use'' - The Palestinian National Authority condemning the attacks. Sorry, but the contention that you somehow didn't have the time to mention that is laughable. The conscious and willful omission of what is given weight in the sources is a blatant ] violation, and attempting to reduce that to "there are things in the sources that JDE didn't use!" is brazen, but brings us back to the same situation as in the previous AE - assume bad faith or assume no clue.

Regarding: "The question is whether people who act like this have to pay any price for it, or if they can just go on freely slinging their mud hoping that some of it will stick while they continue with their bad editing."
:Indeed.
:<i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]]]</i> 02:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

;Comment regarding the downgrade request by Gatoclass
I never expected more to come of this than a warning and would find that a satisfactory conclusion to this request as well. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]]]</i> 14:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

====Comments by others about the request concerning ]====
I was heavily involved in the ] article yesterday and also, albeit to a much lesser extent, with the ] article that split off of it. My immediately following comments may therefore be considered, and may indeed be, biased. On the matter of Revert #1, in all fairness it ought not to be classified as a Revert. I removed a photo placed in the Reactions sections, feeling that that was not an appropriate place for it; whereupon ] proceeded to restore the photo in the Victims section – which, at least in relative terms, was a more appropriate place for it (or less ''in''appropriate, depending on how you want to construe it).

I can sympathize with ]' remark about the article taking on what could be considered, and indeed may have been, a biased character. I commented to that effect on the Discussion page with regard to the omission of Prime Minister Fayyad's formal condemnation and with regard to the (spurious, in my view) attribution of responsibility to the Fatah party. The ''Jerusalem Post'' article that was the source for the first paragraph of the Palestinian reaction did include information to the effect that Fayyad condemned the massacre, but the editor(s) elected not to include it in the article. It also explained that Fatah did not directly claim responsibility for the massacre but rather that a faction of Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade did – but this comment too went unaddressed.

However, I would not be as hasty as ] in concluding that ]'s edits deliberately left out information. One must keep in mind the fact that this was a clear case of aggressor and victim. Oftentimes that relationship is not so sharply defined in the ongoing cycle of violence between Israel and the Palestinians but, given the circumstances, in this case it is only natural to frame it in those terms. Furthermore, specifically with regard to the Fatah point, ] may simply not have been informed enough as an editor on the dynamics of the Palestinian's quasi-political/quasi-paramilitary leadership structures. That is to say, he may candidly have been unaware of the distinction between Fatah and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
I'm not one to draw clear conclusions one way or the other, but these observations are what I have to contribute to the discussion for the benefit of those that will ultimately ''need'' to draw them.—] (]) 17:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


Additional comments by editor filing complaint:
;Comment by Cptnono


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)
Since the concern over edit warring has been withdrawn this is only a case of POV pushing. I agree that JDE created a article that was overly emotional. It is an overtly emotional subject. We cannot punish an editor for writing about a dead baby. If he was not edit warring then he did nothing many editors would not do. So if he was not edit warring he was simply adding a POV that any rationale editor should understand. He did not edit war over it and instead let other editors counter the expected POV. When babies do not die then editors will not have to mirror the sources. Next time he should try harder but if an admin can honestly say they see a problem with an editor writing an article about an emotional subject then they need to go check out the new page patrol page. Gatoclass should accept that he made a request for enforcement on partially false pretenses and drop it. JDE should try harder to write less emotionally even when it deals with dead babies. Dead babies die in Gaza City so this statement could be reversed to apply to POV pushers on the other side. No edit warring? What is the problem Gatoclass? ] (]) 07:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


===Discussion concerning AstroGuy0===
;Cooment by BorisG
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>


====Statement by AstroGuy0====
I agree with Biosketch. If an article appears one-sided (as this one arguably did), the right thing to do is to correct or remove the bias and include missing info, not to file an AE request. Since there was no attempt by JDE to dispute or disrupt such changes, there is no justfification for any sanction (perhaps a warning). And both sides will do well by assuming good faith and avoiding gross incivility expressed in some comments above.


====Statement by Iskandar323====
On a more general point, I think admins should consider discouraging any ''future'' AE requests by editors involved in disputes. Why? Because this page itself has become a battleground. I think this should apply to both sides. Don't know how practical this is, just an idea. Cheers. - ] (]) 14:38, 14 March 2011 (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)
- ] (]) 14:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)====
===Result concerning Jalapenos do exist===
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
:''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.-->
*After a brief review, the only potentially actionable problem I see is the accusation that Jalapenos do exist may have misrepresented the source when he that "Fatah, the group that controls the Palestinian National Authority, released a statement by its militia", whereas the source reads: "PA officials in Ramallah expressed skepticism over a statement released by Fatah’s militia ..." This does appear to attribute responsibility to the PA and Fatah in a way that the source does not. I'd appreciate a comment by Jalapenos do exist on this matter. <p>The other accusations have been withdrawn (1RR) or do not seem actionable to me: Whether the article as a whole conformed to ] when it was created, or whether relevant information was omitted, is probably a content dispute that cannot be decided in an arbitration context. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
*<s>The first point raised by Unomi is also potentially problematic. Jalapenos do exist wrote in the article that "Hamas, the group that governs the Gaza Strip, did not claim responsibility, but stated that the incident was a Palestinian "revenge" attack on Israelis", citation marks in the original. This text is sourced to . Nowhere does this source contain the words "Hamas" or "revenge", or the assertion that Hamas did not claim responsibility, or even the assertion that Palestinians did it. That claim is attributed to "Israeli media" in the source: "Israeli media claimed that angry Palestinian attacked ...". This looks like another potential source misrepresentation. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)</s> Apparently the source has changed in the interim. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


===Result concerning AstroGuy0===
:*I am unconvinced by Jalapenos do exist's explanation concerning the PA/Fatah source misrepresentation issue. I've taken note that the requesting editor now only asks for a warning. Given that '']'' does not apply to AE requests, we are not bound by that request to "downgrade" the sanction. Nonetheless, under these circumstances, closing the request with a warning may be prudent so as not to unnecessarily inflame tempers, and if no admin disagrees, I will do so. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
::*Without objection, so closed. Jalapenos do exist is warned not to misrepresent sources when contributing content to Misplaced Pages. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:31, 16 March 2011 (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. -->
*<!--
-->
:The second diff was before AG0 received a CTOP alert. I've alerted AG0 to other CTOPs that they've edited in, and I am going to warn them for their conduct in diff #1 without prejudice to other admins determining that further action is warranted. ] (]/]) 04:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:I also looked at the source, and it indeed does not in any way support the claim made; it does not mention "Pakistani" even once. This is a fairly new editor, but I think we need to make it very clear to them that misrepresentation of sources is not something we will tolerate. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::Given that AstroGuy0 has already been issued a warning, I don't think anything further is necessary, and will close as such unless any uninvolved admin shortly objects. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}} {{hab}}


== Tentontunic == ==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 Tentontunic===
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 02:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Tentontunic}} ; 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 --->
Violation of 1RR:
# 8:30, 16 March. 2011
# 23:11, 16 March, 2011
# 0:47, 17 March, 2011
# 23:51, 17 March, 2011

(2 & 3 are adding new material - 1 & 4 are deleting material.)

*'''Reply to T. Canens''' (1) 1. is re-writing the section " Western perspectives on terrorism committed by groups claiming adherence to Communist ideology/Usage of the term" and removal of a synthesis tag. 2. is new material - Tentontunic had added similar material to ], and I confused the articles. 3. is insertion of text at the beginning of a section that changes the emphasis - the section originally began by saying that "Communist terrorism" was "a term used by the Nazi Party as part of a propaganda effort". It now begins "one of the features of was the use of terrorism". 4. is deletion of the section "Usage of the term. Tentontunic set up an RfC which is still on-going to consider changes because "no clear consensus has been reached". (2) A request for clarification determined that this article comes under Eastern European articles and 1RR was imposed under Digwuren sanctions. ] (]) 12:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks on other editors:

And Jonathan is wrong, it really ought to surprise me that you would restore a BIAS tag on this article, yet on left wing terrorism you remove one within a few hours. You argue on communist terrorism to no end, you appear to be tendentious in your approach to articles which may be critical of communism in fact. Did you not just get warned for just this behavior? We have here an article, about mass killings which happened under communist regimes, it does not matter how many died under capitalism, or democracy, or the rule of the evil overlords of the mole people. What matters on this article is how many died under Communist Regimes. Tentontunic (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Then why do I require yours? Should you try and add your proposal to the article you will require consensus, just as I do. What you have written above is little more than propaganda, and an entire waste of time. You say you wish to see a NPOV article, then please try and write in a NPOV manner. Tentontunic (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I added my proposed content above today, the proposal had two editors who agreed with the inclusion, P Siebert reverted this with the edit summary, no consensus. But then proceeded to add content only he himself has agreed to. I fully intend to remove this as it is nothing more than a propaganda piece. And I should like Paul Siebert to explain why he feels justified adding content with no consensus, but removing content which at least had two people agree to and only him objecting. Tentontunic (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

So what your saying is, I need consensus, and you do not? As stated, what you have written is pure propaganda, there is no other way to describe it. You have basically written "these are not communists" You have given undue weight to a fringe uncited paper, you have made an entire hash of it. It`s junk and needs to be excised, at least what I had written was mainstream and neutral. Tentontunic (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
# Warning by {{user|The Four Deuces}}
# Warning by {{user|Paul Siebert}} 20:03, 17 March, 2011

;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Block or warning

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : <Your text>

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

===Discussion concerning Tentontunic===

====Statement by Tentontunic====

====Comments by others about the request concerning Tentontunic ====
Upon reading the TFD's request I realised that some comments are needed, because the way TFD represented the issue is somewhat confusing, and for an uninvolved person it is almost impossible to understand the underlying conflict. I personally believe that this request is somewhat premature, however, as far as it has been filed, we have to continue with that.<br>This story starts with this Tentontunic proposal made on Feb 26, which was an absolutely correct step from the procedural point of view. <br>This proposal lead to long debates, and eventually I asked Tentontunic's permission to take this text as a base and to modify it, a proposal he totally agreed with . <br>I have made some changes (considerable changes), which, in my opinion, fixed accuracy and POV issues of the proposed text , and from this moment the things started to develop in a wrong way. <br>Firstly, Tentontunic initially declared that the text is awful and requested for references .<br> My request to explain what concretely is wrong with the text was rejected , and I had to do some time consuming job to collect needed references to address Tentontunic's request .<br>When the needed references have been provided, Tentontunic stopped to respond. <br>However, immediately after the article became unprotected, he added his own (initial) version of his text into the article , totally ignoring my modifications, sources and arguments.<br> I added the modified version (which, in my opinion, was quite a natural step, because by abstaining from discussion Tentontunic implicitly recognised that he had no counter-arguments), and this my edit was reverted back under a pretext that there is no consensus for either proposal.<br>In connection to that, I have to say that Tentontunic's understanding of the consensus policy is deeply flawed, because he believes that unsupported claims like: "''] '' are sufficient to remove a properly referenced text from the article. I recommend to read the discussion in the ] section to get a more complete impression about this story. <br>My conclusion is that, since Tentontunic is a relatively unexperienced user, it would be possibly premature to speak about serious sanctions, however he has to be seriously warned about the need to observe WP policy.--] (]) 04:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

AE is to be used for complaints related in ''some way'' to the arbitration result for Digwren. In the case at hand, this is a case of TFD using WP as a personal battleground. His actions about Tentontunic are not based on seeking NPOV on WP, but on silencing a voice he sees as opposing his. Including but limited to a remarkable series of AfDs and an egregious example (really - read this one as a sparkling example of ]!) where the only way he would have ever found the articles is by looking at Tentontunic's edit history and not by actually randomly seeking out articles in any specific group or for any specific rationale otherwise. AE requests by TFD against Tentontunic at , edit war complaints made at , SPI report made at showing an ongoing battleground which, properly examined, should not be held against Tentontunic. In point of fact, while Digwuren has little to do with any of this, I suggest that whoever examines this (noting Paul's rather unique view of this, and his similar views on many pages including one where he asserted that I must hold a specifc view on pseudoscience becasue I disagree with him on whether ] is a proper topic for WP) examine the use of noticeboards repeatedly for ] acts. Examples of Paul's acts in this include: wherein he asserts that I was not "uninvolved" with regard to pseudoscience issues because "'' L2 and Collect have been extensively involved in disputes on several Communism related WP pages, such as Communist terrorism and Mass killings under Communist regimes. It is not a secret that the users working in this area frequently display more or less pronounced partisan behaviour, and, taking into account that Collect and L2 definitely belong to the opposing camps, Collect can hardly be considered as a neutral uninvolved party in a discussion about the L2 block. ... For sake of objectivity, I believe I have to explain that, since I myself also frequently participate in Communism related disputes, and since L2 and I belong to the same camp, I cannot be considered as an uninvolved party."'' Paul is clearly acting here as a battleground ally, and admits it as such when he improperly accused me of taking sides on a what he considered a pseudoscience issue, and where my position may be read by any arbitrator or admin. ] (]) 07:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:@ T. Canaens: They are not, and are not. And have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of Digwuren sanctions. Note the ] at play. ] (]) 11:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


@ T. Canaens: Re your #2. This article is under 1RR applied per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case. Frankly speaking, I have no idea why the broad Communism topic has been connected to the Eastern Europe, however, that is a decision of administrators, who seem to bee seek and tired of the constant edit war over this article. One way or the another, since all editors working in this area appeared to be restricted with 1RR per the Digwuren case, the reports of the case when this system is gamed should be filed here.<br>Re your #1. As I already wrote, I see no ''formal'' violation of the 1RR in this case, so this report seems somewhat premature. However, the spirit of the policy is definitely violated, because the user removed the text that was written in full accordance with ], ] and ] policies under a laughable pretext that it is a piece of propaganda (without providing any support for that claim), and introduced ''another'' text where the same events were represented in a quite different way to push quite opposite POV. Concretely, this text , which was removed by Tentontunic, states that "'' this term ''("Communist terrorism" PS)'' has been applied by the US administration to the actions of Communist partisans during ] to affect both the domestic and South Vietnamese public opinion and to justify the actions of the US army as "counterterrorist" measures.''", and this text, which was added by him, presents Vietnamese "Communist terrorism" as a broadly accepted term without any reference to its origin from the US war propaganda. This is definitely a revert, and this revert is not supported by the users, and importantly by what the sources say (see, for instance, a discussion there ). However, the most important thing here is that Tentontunic believes that he can revert any edit without providing serious evidences for that. That is not what the policy states, because the neutral text, which is supported by reliable sources and contains no synthesis cannot be removed simply because some users believe it is a propaganda.--] (]) 14:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Sandstein. The 1RR restriction has been applied per the ] authorized in the ]. Therefore, if these sanction are in effect, then the article does have a connection with the EE topic (where the term "Eastern Europe" is defined broadly). However, if the topic has just a tangential relation to the EE issue (the point I fully agree with, unless the definition of "Eastern Europe" includes the whole Earth), then 1RR restrictions should be removed, because the Digwuren case is applicable to the EE issues only.--] (]) 22:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

====Comment by Volunteer Marek====
This report is just another piece of evidence for the fact that WP:AE is just another weapon in the battleground toolbox, nothing more. It <u>is</u> the battleground, it <u>creates</u> battlegrounds, it makes existing battlegrounds <u>worse</u>, not better. You make blocks and sanctions cheap, ] for blocks and sanctions goes up. And so you get endless frivolous reports which just waste everyone's time, and embitter editors against each other.] (]) 07:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:Marek, unfortunately, although the report is premature, it hardly is "frivolous". The editor refused to discuss the proposed text, removed it under a pretext that it is "propaganda" (without providing any evidences that the text written based on western scholarly articles and containing no synthesis can be a piece propaganda), and introduced his own text ''without any attempt to discuss it on the talk page''. All these steps could be simply reverted per normal rules, however, since the article is under 1RR, this step may lead to sanctions against a user who will do that. Therefore, we simply have no choice other than to go to this page.--] (]) 14:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

::Sandstein: ''Recommending closure with a warning to Tentontunic not to make invalid AE requests.'' - ummm, Tentontunic is not the one who made this invalid AE request. TFD did. And he might have already been warned before about making invalid AE requests (I can't remember whether this was "official warning" or just people telling him to chill out with these - I'd have to go back and look through the archives).] (]) 21:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:::Thanks for pointing out that I miscopied the username; that has been corrected. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

====Comment by Martintg====
We all seem to agree this report is premature. Looking at the diffs presented by TFD there are no reverts. The only revert I see in the edit history is the one by TFD. I have to agree with the others that this report appears to be an attempt by TFD to wikilawyer a sanction via AE to get the upper hand in a content discussion, this kind of ] antics is just as disruptive as any real edit warring. Therefore I think ] should apply. --] (]) 00:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

===Result concerning Tentontunic===
:''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.-->
*Can someone explain (1) why is each of the 4 diffs supplied a revert and (2) how the revert is related to Eastern Europe? ] (]) 10:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
**Assuming '']'' that the entire article is under a validly imposed 1RR, I'm not seeing a 1RR violation here based on those diffs. 1RR is one revert per day, not one edit per day. ] (]) 00:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

*The request is not very helpful because it does not show what the diffs are supposed to be reverts of. I can't see a 1RR violation at first glance. Nothing of what <s>Tentontunic</s> The Four Deuces writes makes this issue more clear. And like Timotheus Canens I am not sure how the article is in the EE topic area anyway. Recommending closure with a warning to <s>Tentontunic</s> The Four Deuces not to make invalid AE requests. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

== ZjarriRrethues ==

''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
===Request concerning ZjarriRrethues===
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 02:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

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

;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ]
]


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
ZjarriRrethues is an editor that frequently edits Greece-related topics in a persistently tendentious, incivil manner, misusing sources and engaging in other forms of intellectual dishonesty, lately exhibiting strong signs of ] and ] behavior and engaging in personal vendettas. Specifically:
# - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing.
# - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist.


;Deliberate, extensive, systematic manipulation of sources:
ZjarriRrethues has become an expert at gaming Misplaced Pages's sourcing requirement to push his POV. He does so by using a variety of means, such as quoting snippets from Google Books out of context ("snippet abuse"), distorting the wording so as to completely change the meaning, selectively quoting from his own sources, and so forth.
* A crystal-clear, recent example can be seen here , when it turns out that in fact the ''exact'' opposite is true . Incidentally, ZjarriRrethues frequently rails that M. Sakellariou is an unreliable Greek nationalist source , however, when it suits his purpose, as here, he has no problem using him.


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
* Though this is the most recent instance of source fraud, it is part of a persistent, long-established pattern. Another excellent example is here , when again the exact opposite is true .
<!-- 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.
* Also here , as pointed out here .
; 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)
* Quite brazen is also this instance here , as illustrated here . The claim that the prefecture was predominantly Albanian and Bulgarian is nowhere to be found in the source.
: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)
* Falsely adding "According to Greek media", when in fact one of the main sources used in the article is The Balkan Chronicle , which is not Greek . Piqued that he can't have his way, he then starts tagging the article in revenge (where he sees "peacockery" is beyond me).
:: <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)
* Another crystal-clear example is here , when he adds that only the ''town'' of ] is predominantly ethnic Greek, even though the source used clearly says that the entire ''district'' of Himara is such. When I point this out in the talkpage , he changes tack, attacking the source though it meets ].
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

* Another manifestation of egregious intellectual dishonesty is removal of sources he doesn't like on the flimsiest of grounds, for example here , even though if the Greek tribes lived south of the Zeta valley in Montenegro, that would automatically imply they lived in Albania as well. On the other hand, he doesn't mind mentioning Montenegro in the same article when it suits him .
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

* Again, this isn't an isolated incident, but part of a long established pattern, e.g. here (removing the source on the grounds that it is "offline", and again here , where he removes a perfectly reliable, peer reviewed academic publication on the spurious grounds that it is "fringe, POV, and biased" (after having first removed that the region of Himara is predominantly Greek , which is what the source supports - under the bogus edit-summary of "precise").

* Yet more tendentious editing and spurious source removal can be seen here (removing "bilingual" without explanation, even though many sources in the article attest to that). I think the point is clear by now. Months later he comes back again , apparently unable to let it rest (and again note the misleading edit summary, as he removed "bilingual" but makes no mention of that in the edit summary).

* Quoting from sources in a highly selective manner is another favorite tactic, clearly shown in this new article he recently created , where for instance he makes sure to omit that source #1 includes the organization among organizations that are "ethno-nationalist" in nature, and also makes sure to omit information such as ''"However, the combination of the recent change in approach towards minority issues, together with High Court's reversing of a previous restriction on the operation of the the Turkish Union of Xanthi has served to alleviate the tension in this area"'' , which is critical in influencing the reader's perception. The article in general is highly POV, something which I will return to in this report.

* Again, such behavior is nothing new, as can be seen here , where he makes sure to "omit" the rest of the relevant info from the source .

* Other examples of tendentious editing can be seen here (highly POV re-write of the lede), here (without so much as an edit-summary), (removing the word "Greek" from an ancient Greek city in Albania that was the political center of one the local ancient Greek tribes, the ], even though the sources clearly describe it as such), (describing an extremist nationalist organization (even by the standards of the region) as "liberal nationalist" under the misleading edit summary of "precise" - by now, whenever I see an edit by Zjarri-Rrethues with the summary of "precise", I assume something's up), and it goes on (speaks for itself), and on (the source says exactly that ).

;Incivility, threats, assumptions of bad faith, contempt for others
* Incivility and assumptions of bad faith ("...as always...", "...like always..." note that "or deductions" and "oring" is Zjarri's self-made jargon for ]). Here he is taking it upon himself to remove another user's comments on the spurious grounds of ] , when in fact this is not the case. Here he is calling another editor a meatpuppet without any evidence or basis whatsoever .

* In discussions involving content disputes, ZjarriRrethues routinely threatens other users with "I will seek admin intervention", "I will go to ANI", etc.. , in a clear attempt to intimidate other users. This has a chilling effect on discussions, and goes against the very heart of the principle of decorum.

* When backed into an intellectual corner, he immediately starts accusations of personal attacks ("npa comments" in his own self-made jargon for ]), again in an attempt to intimidate.

* Condescension, contempt for others: . Even simple, politely put questions are met with contemptuous sarcasm .

The above diffs are bad enough. But what made me file this report was a recent incident, where after being unable to have his way on ], ZjarriRrethues explicitly expressed an intention to retaliate by pushing a pro-Turkish POV on various articles (that's what the gist of the "too few Turkish editors" part). This shows a clearly vindictive and spiteful intent, and above all ] mentality.
True to his word, he creates the following highly unbalanced, POV article (for the reasons mentioned above, i.e. quoting from his sources in a highly selective manner). That the article is highly POV and unbalanced is plainly obvious (a litany of negativity), and is clearly solely intended to portray Greece in as negative a light as possible as a way of spiting Greek users. In 6k+ edits, he has hitherto never shown the ''slightest'' interest in the ], and now this, after his stated declaration to push a pro-Turkish POV. He has also concurrently engaged in other highly ]y behavior, where, after I objected fact that practically every single sentence in ] begins with "According to..." , he threatens to "retaliate" on ] , just to make a point.
True to form, he does just that . This is pure ]: He has ''never'' shown the slightest interest in that article up until now, he is merely using the article to make the point that since ] is used as a source in ] without the qualifier "According to", then I shouldn't object to him being used with the qualifier in the Greco-Turkish War article. Inane, petty, and POINTy.
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
User has been warned of ARBMAC sanctions in the past, and sanctioned as well .
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Topic ban from anything to do with Greece, Greeks, Greek editors, etc...

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ZjarriRrethues is the classic example of a national POV advocate who has found ways of gaming the wikipedia environment so as to largely avoid sanction. Yet, while in perhaps isolation most of the above diffs may not be deserving of a topic ban, the overall picture is one of a user who has engaged in persistent, systematic disruption and abuse of the system. His incivility and contempt for other makes it impossible to collaborate with him. There are many users I have had disagreements with, but none so implacably hostile and impossible to work with as ZjarriRrethues. His persistent gaming of the sourcing requirement is particularly insidious, as it is difficult to detect and even more difficult to point out. But the recent POINTy, vindictive behavior goes beyond any past disruption and raises the disruption to the next level. I have lived with ZjarriRrethues' POV-pushing for over a year now, and I have never before taken him to AE, partly because I understand that we are all human and have our national backgrounds and POVs. To push one's national POV is bad enough. But to want to retaliate against users of a certain nationality by explicitly stating an intention to push a particular POV that he ''knows'' would annoy them is the epitome of a spiteful, vindictive, disposition and is a sanctionable instance of ] behavior and breach of decorum. This user has shown some capability of being productive in topics that have no relation to Greece or Greeks, but I am convinced that, for whatever reason, he has an axe to grind with that particular country.

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

;Reply to ZjarriRrethues
* The allegation that I have been "making constant reports" regarding ZjarriRrethues is both severe and false. ''Constant'' reports? Hardly.

* With the exception of ], ] and ] all the other Greece related articles are about ], Albanian villages, Albanian commissioned churches, so on. This user is very keen on "proving" that this or that place in Greece, or some individual was in fact Albanian. As for the Sagudates and Belegezites, I suspect the interest there stems from the ] POV he has expressed .

* The only formal action I have taken regarding ZjarriRrethues are two SPIs long ago, the claims that I reported him "some other times to admins" and that all the reports contain the phrase "spiting Greek users" are again false. I should note that it was for making false statements at WP:AE that ZjarriRrethues was sanctioned with an interaction ban against me . This is the first time I report him to AE, while he already filed 3 non-actionable AE reports on me since September (filed the same report twice after it was ignored the first time).

* Regarding Hellenic Nomarchy, there remains the question that since according to you Sakellariou is such an unreliable nationalist source, why use him at all? Is it because in this particular instance he appeared to portray ] in a positive light?

* Regarding ], this claim is nowhere to be found in the source, which in fact says this , which was corroborated by another user (and I think it's about the city rather than the prefecture anyway). This is the problem with using snippets.

* Regarding the antiquity of the Albanian ethnic identity, why did you essentially negate my change here to this , which implies that the references to "Arbon" and "Albanoi" in Polybius (2nd century BC) and Ptolemy (2nd century AD) refer to Albanians rather than peoples of uncertain ethnic identity, which is the case?

* As far as Phoenice goes, the explanation for this is completely inadequate. You didn't add "Roman", you just removed "Greek", when in fact the town was founded by Greeks (the ]), who are moreover the earliest recorded inhabitants of the place. Not only that, but Phoenice never ceased to be inhabited by them, nor is there any evidence of substantial Roman or Illyrian settlement in the town. Even to this day, the nearby settlement of ] is ethnic Greek. If we follow your logic that "Greek" should be removed because it was conquered by Rome, then we should apply the same to every single ancient Greek city out there. Furthermore, this is also completely false. The Illyrians never stayed there for even a year.

* The Byzantine Empire ''was'' predominantly Greek-speaking, and that is blindingly obvious. In fact the entire Eastern Mediterranean basin was part of the ]-speaking world since even before the Roman conquest, while Greek became official sometime in the 7 century, i.e. for most of the Empire's history. The Empire was even referred to by its contemporaries as the "Empire of the Greeks".

* Regarding ], the addition which you removed on the grounds that it was OR ''clearly'' says that it entered Albanian via Ottoman Turkish, ''not'' that entered Albanian via Arabic. I don't see how much clearer that could be.

* As for the Turkish Union of Xanthi, why did you leave out important bits from source #1 that could influence the reader's perception ? Where does this sudden interest in the ] come from? ] (]) 17:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

* What do you mean ] is only "once attested as a polis"? If it's attested once, it's attested, period. Doesn't matter if it's attested once, twice, or thrice. Moreover, it is listed in the ''Inventory of archaic and classical poleis'' here .

* From ], the article never said that it was "Greek", but "Greek-speaking", which even the source you have provided here supports .

;Reply to Sandstein
You are correct that the tone I have used in this report may be overly confrontational. I regret that but I cannot undo it, however I will adopt a less confrontational tone henceforth.

* ]: I don't think this meets ]. He's not ''really'' admitting fault. There is also the question of why use Sakellariou in the first place, since the user has gone on the record that he considers him a Greek nationalist and hence unreliable.

* ]: The point here is in Cplakidas' edit summary , not so much the edit itself. It is my impression that ZjarriRrethues was less interested in actually improving the article, than in finding an opportunity to make the point that ] was predominantly Albanian. Yet, as Cplakidas makes clear, if he had actually read the entire source, he would have realized that the opposite is true. Also note that an interest in Albanian demographics is a recurring thread throughout the evidence of this report.

* ]: The problem here is that while perhaps individual sources aren't grossly misrepresented (though they are stretched as you say), they do not support the rather serious claim of "Collaboration" with the Nazis, which was the title of the section. Going by the sources, the claim of collaboration simply does not add up. If the material from the sources had been added in the main text ''without'' being part of a "Collaboration" section it might have been acceptable, but to create a "Collaboration" section on the basis of these sources is not.

* ]: Ok, my bad. I should have been more careful.

* ]: When I alleged falsification because of this (his removal of region), the very first source of the article clearly says that the district of Himara is predominantly Greek. True, at the location where he removed "region", both sources only mention the town, but since he went over the sources so meticulously, I find it hard to believe that he would have missed the fact that the very first source used in the article says "the district".

* Regarding the what I allege to examples of tendentious editing, I mean just that, not that they are misrepresentation of sources. In ], he removed one of the alternate names because it was Greek, removed that it was a Greek city , stated that it was a settlement of the Taulantii without a source, changed it "was a city in modern Albania" which just sounds odd and so forth. He is basically trying to portray the city as "Illyrian" as possible and minimize it's "Greekness" as much as possible. He does so without any sourcing. Regarding ], again, I do not allege source falsification here, but this edit is tendentious : He removes sourced information without so much as an edit summary, while here he removes that ] was a Greek city without adequate justification: The town was founded by Greeks (the ]), who are moreover the earliest recorded inhabitants of the place. Not only that, but Phoenice never ceased to be inhabited by them, nor is there any evidence of substantial Roman or Illyrian settlement in the town. Even to this day, the nearby settlement of ] is ethnic Greek. If we follow his logic that "Greek" should be removed because it was conquered by Rome, then we should apply the same to every single ancient Greek city out there. There is clearly a pattern whereby he tries to remove the word "Greek" from the description of ancient cities in Albania. This description of a nationalist organization as "liberal nationalist couldn't be further from the truth , and he also used a misleading edit summary ("precise") while tagging it as minor. Removing something as well-known that the Byzantine Empire was Greek-speaking is tedious, as that is one of the salient, and well-known features of said Empire.

* Regarding the Kanun, I am not so much alleging source falsification, as a dishonest removal using a misleading edit summary. There is absolutely no ] in this instance. ZjarriRrethues is moreover quite fluent in English, I do not buy that he misunderstood the source. The source says ''in turn via Arabic'', i.e. it entered Turkish via Arabic, not that it ''also'' entered'' via Arabic (which makes no sense - how can a word enter via two different languages?)

* As far as the statements of intending to go to AN/I and seeking admin intervention, he in fact not once went through with it. This leads me to believe that he never actually intendended to do so, but was merely using it as a rhetorical device because he knew it would intimidate other users (how could it not?).

* Regarding Kastoria prefecture, I had included the wrong diff, which I have now fixed. I think the misuse of the source is quite clear.

;Clarification
I am getting the impression that Sandstein thinks that everything I allege falls under "misrepresntation of sources". However, that is not true. Some does, but some falls under simple tendentious editing, e.g. his removal from ] under a false edit summary of ].

;Reply to Future Perfect at Sunrise
You are correct when you say that there is a complete breakdown of trust between the various parties. I'm not sure I agree with your 60/40 assessment or for the need for bans all around. Then there is also the question of this , which as far as I'm concerned marks an unprecedented low by ZjarriRrethues, and is the core of this report.

===Discussion concerning ZjarriRrethues===

====Statement by ZjarriRrethues====
*I don't see any violation of any policy by any of my edits. I have written many good articles, some of which are related to WikiProject Greece and they were featured on DYK. I've written DYK content that is related to WikiProject Greece, while the user who reported me has been following my edits since the time I signed up to wikipedia and making constant reports regarding me.
*My contributions to Greece-related articles include:
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]



*I received an interaction ban in the past because I reported Athenean i.e my ban wasn't edit-related. Athenean has reported me twice to SPI, some other times to admins and now to AE. All the reports contain phrases like the ''spiting Greek users'' one and many attributions of nationalist motives to me. If I was a nationalist I wouldn't refute sources that say that Albanians became emperors of the Byzantine Empire in the 4-5th century AD(i.e prove the existence of a concrete Albanian ethnic identity), while they were first attested in the 11th century AD in historical records. What kind of nationalist wouldn't want to prove that his nation is half a millenium older?



*Athenean says that my article ] is highly POV(although it did pass the DYK review by a much more experienced user with 31k edits), so the verdict on the article's ''pov'' is on that and if someone wants to add that it's a nationalist or any other kind of organization he should add it. Btw Athenean saying that the article is ''solely intended to portray Greece in as negative a light as possible as a way of spiting Greek users'' is excessively inappropriate. I wrote the ] and I also wrote ]. Does the ] article also show that grossly negative intention that is being attributed to me constantly by Athenean?


*Regarding the ] issue I made a mistake that I couldn't predict because the google search result doesn't show the whole quote . Of course after it was proven that I was mistaken I accepted it. I only quoted Sakellariou in order to not quote a ] and yes I have many times said that he is a nationalist source because that is how other scholars label his works

*Regarding the ], which Athenean labels as an ''excellent example of source fraud'': This is the quote from the source and this is my edit , which is a precise quote from the work, so the verdict is on the comparison. Regarding the National Republican League a Greek user claimed that one of the sources shouldn't be used because it was connected with the Communist resistance groups and I accepted it, however the part that isn't related to that(collaboration of Athens branch) is undisputed and other Greek users accepted it .

*Regarding ]: This is entirely ] because the edits I made use as sources also Greek authors and there's no misuse . Athenean says that the source says nothing about the prefecture, but my edit also doesn't say anything about the prefecture i.e I didn't make deductions about it.

*Regarding the ] isn't ] when Athenean the creator of the articles wrote sentences like ''The death sent shockwaves through the ethnic Greek community of Albania'' of course I added such tags. In Himarë one of the sources that I removed as offline then was indeed offline since you had to buy the book to verify it and it didn't even have snippet view option, while the source that among others says that there were Albanian emperors of the Byzantine Empire in the 4-5th century AD is unreliable and fringe since Albanians were attested for the first time many centuries later. If I was an Albanian nationalism pov-pushing user, why would I support its unreliability instead of using it to prove the existence of an Albanian identity many centuries before the current wikipedia version?

*Regarding the Zeta valley issue deductions like ''that implies automatically...'' are ] i.e Athenean should find a source that says ''ancient Greek tribes lived in northern Albania along the Shkoder lake opposite to the Zeta valley, instead of assuming that ''it is automatically implied...''

*] was for some centuries an important city of the Chaonians, but in the 3rd century AD it was conquered by Rome and it became a Roman city and remained such until the end of its existence in the 6th century AD. Would you label as an ''ancient Greek city'' a settlement that belonged to such tribes from the 5th to 3rd century and for the next 700-800 years it belonged to the Roman and after the 4th century AD to the Eastern Roman Empire?

*Regarding the ]: Was the Byzantine Empire a predominantly Greek-speaking empire(similar to saying Was the Roman Empire a predominantly Latin-speaking Empire?)? It wasn't a predominantly Greek-speaking Empire, because although coine Greek became official at some point the native language of the majority of its citizens wasn't coine Greek. Btw that didn't even have a source, so of course it was ].

*Regarding ] it's a word that entered Albanian dictionary via Ottoman Turkish, which acquired from Arabic i.e not ''via'' Arabic but via Turkish.

*Regarding my comments about Turkey-related articles Athenean says that I ''expressed an intention for Turkish pov-pushing'', which I didn't express.

*When some users ] any kind of argument, it's obvious that you have to start RfCs, ask admin intervention, go to relevant boards i.e that's not attempt to intimidate other users as Athenean says.
:'''Replies'''
*Regarding ]: the NEA newspaper is a Greek one as well as in.gr and that's why I changed eyewitnesses to Greek media.

*Regarding Kastoria Prefecture: This is the quote I was using and I also added on the talkpage , but when I added it I didn't add the full link quote and because many users were editing/reverting each other at the same time eventually Dianna reverted a revert that wasn't even mine..

*Kanun: The text I reverted says '''and in turn via Arabic'', which isn't even correct. In Albanian it entered via Turkish not ''also'' via Arabic.

*Regarding Apollonia: My edit(about the Illyrian settlement) is sourced by Wilkes, while some of the rest are parts of other sections of the articles and I just added a brief summary of them on the lead. I also removed the ''Greek city'' because it became a city of the Ardiean Kingdom and then the Romans captured it from them, while the two names kat'Epidamno and pros Epidamno aren't an actual name but just a description(pros Epidamno means near Epidamnos). Athenean claims that I , but I added Wilkes as a source .

*Regarding Byllis: I removed the polis attribution, because as I added below it is only once attested as polis(only once it was described as a polis by ] in the 6th century AD, which by that time had the meaning of an early medieval township or commune/an actual ancient ], but it's not labeled by none of the contemporary or later scholars as a polis, whatever Stephanus meant i.e the lead shouldn't say ''was an ancient polis located in Illyria'') since it's only once labeled as such by someone who lived many centuries after the era, in which a settlement could be a ]) and I also removed the Pyrrhus as a founder theory, because it was actually conquered by him and I added the source. The city being the settlement of the Bylliones was already a part of the article.


*Regarding the ]: Greek language at some point became its official language and lingua france but the empire was a multiethnic empire and in no way the majority of its people were ''Greek-speaking''(i.e people whose mother tongue was Greek)

Regarding ]: I explained that because there were no official statistics about ethnicity in the Ottoman empire, all views should be attributed to the scholars, which was also accepted in a ECCN discussion I started
. However, Greek users were trying to not attribute to each scholar his own view, but add it as a fact. I also started a RfC, in which the only person who replied agreed with the Ottoman censi issues and the Greek views. Athenean had also agreed about the Ottoman censi, but later changed his comment and supported the non-inclusion of the fact that Sakellariou's work is a Greek view(he has been labeled as a standard nationalist on various subjects)

*I agree with many parts of FutureP's comment and I appreciate his honesty. I may have a solution regarding. Sandstein's assessment has shown that although there were a few ambiguous cases and even less, in which I did misrepresent sources, many of the ones so far assessed don't represent intellectual dishonesty or misuse of sources. Many times during these disputes I have to repeat myself and always find my arguments get ] as a response. For example in the Zeta plain dispute I explained many times to the user, who added it that it's not backed up by the source and yet the misrepresantion of sources continued with reverts and more source misuse, while Athenean included my edit in this report and labeled it as an example of a ''manifestation of egregious intellectual dishonesty'', which was retracted only after Sandstein's and FutureP's assessments. Usually during these disputes I have to start a RfC, in which most people don't reply because the same users that were part of the dispute, continue the discussion on the RfC section and it soon becomes too long. Other times I go directly to FutureP's talkpage and ask for his opinion, which isn't given in many disputes, however, in the very few disputes that he actually decides to intervene all cases are almost immediately resolved. Which brings me to my proposal. If in any of these disputes there was a quick assessment of the situation by someone like FutureP or Sandstein, there wouldn't be any long-drawn and trivial discussions or misrepresentation of sources and eventually no edits like the one regarding the Zeta valley would be reported to AE.--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 08:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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

=====Evaluation of the evidence by Sandstein=====
This request makes very severe allegations in a very confrontative tone, so looking at the conduct of both users appears necessary. If the evidence holds up, sanctions against ZjarriRrethues appear unavoidable, but if much of it does not, the same applies to Athenean for making this kind of request. I'll use the space below to examine some of the claims made in the request.

*] (March 2011):
:Athenean claims:
::"ZjarriRrethues has become an expert at gaming Misplaced Pages's sourcing requirement to push his POV. He does so by using a variety of means, such as quoting snippets from Google Books out of context ("snippet abuse"), distorting the wording so as to completely change the meaning, selectively quoting from his own sources, and so forth. A crystal-clear, recent example can be seen here , when it turns out that in fact the ''exact'' opposite is true ."
:ZjarriRrethues later admitted (, ) that his citation was incorrect.
:'''My assessment:''' {{cross}}/{{tick}} This item of evidence proves an improper use of sources by ZjarriRrethues, but not necessarily out of bad faith rather than mere carelessness. After all, ZjarriRrethues was quick to admit his mistake, which Athenean does not mention. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

*] (June 2010):
:Athenean claims:
::"Though this is the most recent instance of source fraud, it is part of a persistent, long-established pattern. Another excellent example is here , when again the exact opposite is true ."
:ZjarriRrethues :
::"The surrender of ], a predominantly Albanian town by the Ottoman empire to the Kingdom of Greece is regarded as more of a loss for Albanians because it would have secured the southern end of the Albanian state in the same that ] secured its northern border."
:The that Athenean claims is true was made by {{u|Cplakidas}}, and reads:
::"The surrender of ] secured Greek control of southern Epirus and the Ionian coast, whilst denying it to the newly-formed Albanian state."
:The cited source, Hall p. 95, reads: <small>(Link can be found via Google, but probably not copyright-kosher, so not linked here)</small>
::"The Greeks took Janina at relatively little cost to themselves. They demonstrated that they did possess a competent military, capable of functioning in difficult conditions. They also acquired a location that guaranteed them control of an Ionian hinterland stretching from the Gulf of Arta to Corfu. The real losers here were not the Ottomans, but the Albanians. Janina, a predominantly Albanian town, could have secured the southern end of the new state in the same way that Scutari would anchor the north."
:'''My assessment:''' {{cross}} No misrepresentation of sources by ZjarriRrethues. What ZjarriRrethues wrote matches the cited source. In contrast, what Cplakidas wrote (and Athenean claims is true) does not, as "southern Epirus and the Ionian coast" are not mentioned on p. 95 by Hall. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:: I wouldn't say that Cplakidas/Athenean's version would have been wrong. ''"outhern Epirus and the Ionian coast"'' is a reasonable paraphrase of ''"an Ionian hinterland stretching from the Gulf of Arta to Corfu"''. But I also can't see much wrong with Zjarri's version. Both versions simply emphasise different aspects of the sourced passage. I agree with you about your analysis of the "Hellenic Nomarchy" incident. ] ] 11:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

*] (June 2010):
:Athenean alleges that ZjarriRrethues misused sources "Also here , as pointed out here ."
:ZjarriRrethues wrote:
::In various towns and villages EDES members were aiding members ] organizations.<ref name="Saraphēs1980" group="NGL"/> During the operations of the ] in the area of ] EDES members acted as guides on mountain paths.<ref name="Saraphēs1980" group="NGL">{{cite book|last=Saraphes|first=Stephanos G.|title=ELAS: Greek resistance army|url=http://books.google.com/books?ei=sIG5TKG4N8vEswaw0bWvDQ&ct=result&id=3e9mAAAAMAAJ&dq=EDES+%2B+collaborationist&q=In+the+towns+and+villages+EDES+members+were+openly+aiding+members+of+the+various+collaborationist+organizations,+and+in+the+mopping-up+operations+on+Helicon,+EDES+men+even+acted+as+guides+to+the+Germans+on+the+mountain+paths.#search_anchor|accessdate=16 October 2010|year=1980|publisher=Merlin|page=194}}</ref> Along with the British government the German authorities in Greece provided covert assistance to EDES, which increased the quality of the armament of the group.<ref name="ThomasAbbott1983" group="NGL">{{cite book|last1=Thomas|first1=Nigel|last2=Abbott|first2=Peter|title=Partisan warfare 1941-45|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=z1CNJitx5RkC&pg=PA26-IA7|accessdate=16 October 2010|year=1983|publisher=Osprey Publishing|isbn=9780850455137|page=26}}</ref> Since autumn 1943 EDES and the ] of Nazi Germany had important connections, which led to an armistice and a collaboration pact against the other major resistance group of Greece, the ] in February 1944.<ref group="NGL">{{cite book|last=Kretsi|first=Georgia|title=Ethnologia Balkanica|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=-ebpDLhkVWcC&pg=PA182|series=Ethnologia Balkanica|volume=6|year=2002|publisher=LIT Verlag Münster|location=Berlin|page=182}}</ref> In 1948 ] reported that accusations regarding collaboration of EDES with German and quisling authorities had damaged its reputation.<ref name="FundSmothers1948" group="NGL">{{cite book|last=Smothers|first=Frank Albert|title=Report on the Greeks: findings of a Twentieth Century Fund team which surveyed conditions in Greece in 1947|url=http://books.google.com/books?ei=Xo25TO6yKInFswbhn6zLDQ&ct=result&id=eEdoAAAAMAAJ&dq=the+major+resistance+movement+and+in+collusion+with+collaborationists+of+Athens)+had+damaged+the+reputation+of+EDES&q=Accusations+of+collaboration+with+the+enemy+and+with+the+quisling+Security+Battalions+(in+action+against+the+major+resistance+movement+and+in+collusion+with+collaborationists|accessdate=16 October 2010|year=1948|publisher=Twentieth Century Funds|page=31}}</ref> After World War II, Zervas the leader of EDES participated in ]' cabinet as Minister without Portfolio from 24 January to 23 February 1947, and afterwards as ] until 29 August 1947.<ref group="NGL">{{cite web | publisher=General Secretariat of the Government | url=http://www.ggk.gov.gr/ggk_old/goverments-54910.php.html|title=ΚΥΒΕΡΝΗΣΙΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ ΜΑΞΙΜΟΥ - Από 24.1.1947 έως 29.8.1947 | language=Greek |accessdate=2010-07-13}}</ref> The ] and the ] opposed his appointment suspecting him of collaboration with ] during WWII and dictatorial ambitions.<ref name="iatrides" group="NGL">{{cite book|last1=Iatrides|first1=John|last2=Wrigley|first2=Linda|title=Greece at the crossroads: the Civil War and its legacy|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Vv1t3D_3vjkC&pg=PA137&dq=Napoleon+Zervas+collaboration&hl=en&ei=FqVQTNeGINSisQaX5KTWBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Napoleon%20Zervas%20collaboration&f=false|year=1995|publisher=Penn State Press|isbn=0271014113|page=137}}</ref>
{{reflist|group="NGL"}}
:'''My assessment:''' Looking at the sources , I find:
:*NGL 1: {{cross}}/{{tick}} ZjarriRrethues cites , but this seems to be a Google-related error, because reads "... organizations, and in the mopping-up operations on Helicon, EDES men even acted as guides to the Germans on the mountain paths", and so supports at least the second part of what ZjarriRrethues wrote. On this basis I cannot find that there has been misrepresentation of sources. What is problematic, though, is that ZjarriRrethues does not make clear that the author, ], was a leading officer in ELAS, the enemies of EDES at the time, which draws his reliability into doubt. On the other hand, ZjarriRrethues later .
:*NGL 2: {{cross}} ZjarriRrethues writes:
:::"Along with the British government the German authorities in Greece provided covert assistance to EDES, which increased the quality of the armament of the group."
::The cited source reads:
:::"... but because it received rather more British aid (and also some covert German assistance) it was better armed and more conventional in structure."
::This basically supports ZjarriRrethues's text, even though the paraphrasing omits the "some" qualifier. I do not find misrepresentation of sources here.
:*NGL 3: {{cross}} ZjarriRrethues writes:
:::"Since autumn 1943 EDES and the ] of Nazi Germany had important connections, which led to an armistice and a collaboration pact against the other major resistance group of Greece, the ] in February 1944."
::The cited source, Kretsi at p. 182, footnote 42, reads:
:::"Since autumn 1943, there was an important connection between EDES units in north-west Greece and the 12th mountain army corps and in early February 1944 led to an armistice and a pact of mutual assistance against ELAS".
::ZjarriRrethues's text fairly represents the cited source. It is a bit a stretch to render "a pact of mutual assistance" as "collaboration pact", but the basic meaning seems to be the same. I find no misrepresentation of sources here.
:*NGL 4: {{cross}} ZjarriRrethues cites , but it appears that he meant to cite , which shows the relevant text. He writes:
:::"In 1948 ] reported that accusations regarding collaboration of EDES with German and quisling authorities had damaged its reputation."
::The snippet reads:
:::"Accusations of collaboration with the enemy and with the quisling Security Battallions (in action against the major resistance movement and in collusion with the collaborationists of Athens) had damaged the reputation of EDES."
::ZjarriRrethues's text matches that of the source; there is no misrepresentation. "In 1948 The Century Foundation reported ..." simply means that the Foundation reported that such accusations were made; it does not mean, as per the in which Athenean joins, that the Foundation ''made'' these accusations themselves.
:*{{cross}} The in which Athenean joins also addresses something concerning one "Gonatas" in a by one McNeill, but a reference to either is not found in the text by ZjarriRrethues, reproduced above, cited as evidence by Athenean. This means I can't find a problem here either. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

*] (January 2011):
:Athenean claims:
::"Falsely adding "According to Greek media", when in fact one of the main sources used in the article is The Balkan Chronicle , which is not Greek .
:At , ZjarriRrethues removed a reference to "eyewitnesses" and replaced that word by "Greek media", writing:
::"According to <s>eyewitnesses</s> Greek media the death occurred after an altercation in Goumas' store," and "... demanded that he not speak to them in Greek according to <s>eyewitnesses</s> Greek media.]"
:'''My assessment:''' {{tick}} The source cited here, () does not say anything about "Greek media", but it does say "eyewitnesses". I find that by making this edit ZjarriRrethues did misrepresent the cited source.
:Athenean claims further:
::"Piqued that he can't have his way, he then starts tagging the article in revenge (where he sees "peacockery" is beyond me)."
:The given by ZjarriRrethues for this is unpersuasive. He writes:
::"isn't ] when Athenean the creator of the articles wrote sentences like The death sent shockwaves through the ethnic Greek community of Albania of course I added such tags."
:But ] refers to "peacock terms" as promotional terms such as "legendary, great, eminent, visionary, outstanding...". Nothing like that can be found in the article. It is therefore incomprehensible, and I find it disruptive, that ZjarriRrethues tagged the article as "peacock", "overcoverage" and "inappropriate tone" without any explanation.
:I find it likewise disruptive, though, that Athenean uses emotional terms such as "piqued" and "revenge" to characterize these mistaggings, without providing any evidence for these characterizations. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:: Not sure I agree about the "eyewitness"/"Greek media" thing. Of course, the "Ta Nea" source ''says'' "eyewitnesses", but that source and the next one ''are'' in fact "Greek media" (the only non-Greek one, to which Athenean refers, is "Balkan Chronicle", whose status as a RS may be in doubt; I can see no indication that they have the potential for much independent journalistic research.) Whether and in what cases it is legitimate to hedge the validity of a source by a qualifier such as noting its nationality is a difficult editorial issue, but doing so is not "falsifying" the source. ] ] 12:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

*] (July 2010):
:Athenean claims:
::"Another crystal-clear example is here , when he adds that only the ''town'' of ] is predominantly ethnic Greek, even though the source used clearly says that the entire ''district'' of Himara is such. When I point this out in the talkpage , he changes tack, attacking the source though it meets ]."
:In the following text, ZjarriRrethues added the underlined words "The town of":
::"<u>The town of</u> Himara is predominantly populated by an ethnic Greek<small> </small> community.
:'''My assessment:''' {{tick}} This change is not supported by the source given in the same sentence, as the citation provided in the reference shows. ZjarriRrethues has therefore misrepresentated this source. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:: Yes, apparently a mistake in not changing/updating the source. It seems the jury is still out on whether the edit was actually factually correct. I notice that in its present state the relevant section of the article claims that "''the ethnic composition of both the town and region predominantly Greek''", with two references that don't support the second part of the assertion either, so, somebody else must also have been falsifying sources in a similar way. ] ] 15:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

*] (March 2011):
:Athenean claims:
::"Another manifestation of egregious intellectual dishonesty is removal of sources he doesn't like on the flimsiest of grounds, for example here , even though if the Greek tribes lived south of the Zeta valley in Montenegro, that would automatically imply they lived in Albania as well. On the other hand, he doesn't mind mentioning Montenegro in the same article when it suits him ."
:'''My assessment:''' {{cross}} This is a content dispute about who lived in which valley and does not establish source misrepresentation. As ZjarriRrethues notes in reply, the statement that "the Greek tribes lived south of the Zeta valley in Montenegro, that would automatically imply they lived in Albania as well" is original research unless backed by sources. It's also not clear why it would be dishonest to mention at that certain finds in Albania are similar to certain other finds in Montenegro. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:: I'd go even further and say the source misrepresentation was in the other version, which Zjarri removed. The source quite clearly does ''not'' state Greek presence reached up to a place where they bordered on the tribes of the Zeta valley, but only that they may ''at some point during the Bronze age'' have bordered on those tribes which ''in classical times'' were near the Drin valley, but which may have been "southernmost outliers" of those near the Zeta. The ] is a lot further south than the ]. The removal was clearly justified. ] ] 15:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

*] (25 July 2010)
:Athenean claims:
::"Again, this isn't an isolated incident, but part of a long established pattern, e.g. here (removing the source on the grounds that it is "offline", and again here , where he removes a perfectly reliable, peer reviewed academic publication on the spurious grounds that it is "fringe, POV, and biased" (after having first removed that the region of Himara is predominantly Greek , which is what the source supports - under the bogus edit-summary of "precise")."
:'''My assessment:'''
:*{{tick}} It is indeed not clear why at ZjarriRrethues removed the source with the edit summary "the source is offline". The source is, in fact, a book, which is offline by nature, as represented at ], which has been very much online for years. It is true that the cited page 187 is not shown in Google's preview, but that does not invalidate the reference to the book: at the most, the URL could have been removed, not the whole citation. Moreover, ZjarriRrethues tagged the edit as ], which it is clearly not. This edit was disruptive.
:*{{cross}}Whether ZjarriRrethues was justified to a as "fringe, pov, biased" is a content dispute that can't be adjudicated here. At any rate, the source looks like it is self-published, so there may well be policy-based grounds for its removal.
:*{{cross}} At ZjarriRrethues removed the words "and region" from the text "The ethnic composition of both the town <s>and region</s> is predominantly Greek", which is sourced to p. 39 of the same . The relevant text on p. 39 reads: "In the mountain town of Himara, where the population predominantly consists of members of the ethnic Greek minority ...". This means that ZjarriRrethues's edit correctly changed the article to reflect what the source says: the town has a Greek majority, but nothing is said about the region. Athenean's statement to the contrary is false. ZjarriRrethues again mistagged the edit as minor, but was also so mislabeled. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

*] (25 August 2010):
:{{cross}} The content removals at and may or may not have been correct or a good idea, but that is a content dispute that has nothing to do with "deliberate, extensive, systematic manipulation of sources", under which header this evidence is submitted.

*] (March 2011) and Himarë again (26 December 2010):
:{{cross}} Athenean objects that the articles or edited by ZjarriRrethues omits certain information, allegedly present in the sources, that would present the organization in a less positive manner. But that, too, has nothing to do with "manipulation of sources". Choosing what to include, and what to exclude, in an article is a necessary exercise of editorial judgment, and disagreements about it are content disputes. Selective use of sources is not a misrepresentation of sources, as long as all content that is referenced to sources correctly represents what these sources say.

*{{cross}} The many edits given as "other examples of tendentious editing" seem to reflect content disputes as well. It is not clear from the evidence, nor from looking at the edits, how ZjarriRrethues might have misrepresented sources by making these edits. There is one case that warrants a closer look:
:At ] on 1 July 2010, ZjarriRrethues the following text:
::"It entered ] via ] (and in turn via ]) and was used by the Ottomans to describe local self-governance customs throughout the empire."
:He did so with the edit summary "] not supported by the source(no reference to the word entering Albanian via Arabic))". The says on p. 111:
::"The term ''Kanun'', etymologically related to Greek canon, 'pole', 'rule' and transported through Arab into early Turkish, derives from Ottoman administrative concepts of indirect rule and self-governing ..."
:In his statement, ZjarriRrethues explains that "it's a word that entered Albanian dictionary via Ottoman Turkish, which acquired from Arabic i.e not via Arabic but via Turkish". That is indeed what the source says, and that is probably what whoever wrote the article text meant to say as well, but did not clearly express. I am assuming in good faith that ZjarriRrethues misunderstood the text "(and in turn via ])" to mean that the Albanian word was directly derived from Arabic. Even so, he should not have deleted the text outright, but should have tried to make more clear what the source says. Still, this deletion, even if arguably detrimental to the article, is not a misrepresentation of sources, because what's left still correctly represents what the source says (even if not all of it). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

*Under the header "Incivility, threats, assumptions of bad faith, contempt for others", Athenean claims:
::"Incivility and assumptions of bad faith ("...as always...", "...like always..." note that "or deductions" and "oring" is Zjarri's self-made jargon for ]). Here he is taking it upon himself to remove another user's comments on the spurious grounds of ] , when in fact this is not the case. Here he is calling another editor a meatpuppet without any evidence or basis whatsoever ."
:'''My assessment:''' {{tick}}/{{cross}} I agree that some of these edits are problematic with respect to the "you're always..." attitude, but not severely so. Only one edit is really problematic: "only RfC or RSN will make you not revert everything that doesn't support Greek nationalist theories" (, January 2011).

* Moreover, Athenean claims:
::"In discussions involving content disputes, ZjarriRrethues routinely threatens other users with "I will seek admin intervention", "I will go to ANI", etc.. , in a clear attempt to intimidate other users. This has a chilling effect on discussions, and goes against the very heart of the principle of decorum."
:'''My assessment:''' {{cross}} I don't feel intimidated by another editor announcing that they will seek admin intervention. If the request for admin intervention is well-founded, it is unobjectionable. If it is not well-founded, then the admin will say so. Such announcements, therefore, are not disruptive, even if they are not very helpful either. They may be a breach of decorum, but not one requiring sanctions.

* Athenean goes on to state:
::"When backed into an intellectual corner, he immediately starts accusations of personal attacks ("npa comments" in his own self-made jargon for ]), again in an attempt to intimidate."
:'''My assessment:''' {{tick}}/{{cross}} Making accusations of personal attacks that appear to be unfounded (as or ) is clearly not good talk page protocol. But in one case cited in the evidence, , the reference to ] was appropriate, as the other editor did make such personal attacks as "the albo that trolls most greek articles..skanderbeg is 'albanian' but bouboulina isnt 'greek'? why dont you clean your national myth infested house of an article zjarri before coming over here...?" (). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

*Furthermore, Athenean says:
::"Condescension, contempt for others: . Even simple, politely put questions are met with contemptuous sarcasm ."
:'''My assessment:''' {{tick}} These comments ''are'' incivil:
:*"Alexikoua it seems that you can't even understand basic geography of the Balkans" ()
:*"you can't even understand basic English phrases" ()
:*"Antid. I was going to write that article, so please move that draft piece you started on your sandbox or csd it. Btw please read ]." (, apparently relating to , which is not ''prima facie'' incompetently written)
:*"Antid. please csd your article as it is of a very low quality like the ], ] etc. FutureP has told you not to deal with subjects, about which you don't possess the necessary knowledge." ()

*Athenean says that what motivated him to make this request:
::"was a recent incident, where after being unable to have his way on ], ZjarriRrethues explicitly expressed an intention to retaliate by pushing a pro-Turkish POV on various articles (that's what the gist of the "too few Turkish editors" part). This shows a clearly vindictive and spiteful intent, and above all ] mentality."
:Athenean refers to by ZjarriRrethues:
::"Btw I should edit some of those Turkish-related articles, because it seems that although it's such a large country too few Turkish users edit topics related to their own state."
:'''My assessment:''' {{cross}} That statement can only be interpreted as an announcement of POV-pushing if one assumes ], which we don't. Also, complained about is not "plainly obviously" unbalanced. For a reader unfamiliar with the topic, such as I, there is nothing obviously negative or biased in the article.

*Finally, Athenean says:
::"He has also concurrently engaged in other highly ]y behavior, where, after I objected fact that practically every single sentence in ] begins with "According to..." , he threatens to "retaliate" on ] , just to make a point. True to form, he does just that . This is pure ]: He has ''never'' shown the slightest interest in that article up until now, he is merely using the article to make the point that since ] is used as a source in ] without the qualifier "According to", then I shouldn't object to him being used with the qualifier in the Greco-Turkish War article. Inane, petty, and POINTy."
:'''My assessment:''' {{cross}}/{{tick}} That interaction looks pretty poor . <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

=====General comment by Fut.Perf.=====
What we have here is a long-standing situation of a "travelling circus", with three users ({{user|Athenean}} and {{user|Alexikoua}} on the one side versus {{user|ZjarriRrethues}} on the other) following each other into countless disputes, often leaving yesterday's dispute half-resolved while getting embroiled in the next. None of the three is acting in bad faith, and all three ''could'' have something constructive to offer, but there are two factors that have made the situation unbearable.

The first is the mutual, deeply entrenched, tendency of evaluating each and every edit under the single perspective of emphasizing the historical role of one's own ethnic group and de-emphasizing that of the other, making the one side look historically good and the other bad. Each and every topic, be it ever so trivial, is (mis-)used to serve this agenda – from ancient etymologies through the genealogies of medieval personalities through the roles of this or that political group during the wars of the 20th century, to the demographics of minorities today. It's an obsession, there's no other word for it. It's extremely tedious, and often extremely silly.

The second factor is the equally mutual, equally deeply entrenched feeling of distrust that has evidently taken possession of both parties, and which regularly leads to talk page discussions breaking down. People on both sides regularly lack the patience of spelling out their arguments in concrete terms, dealing out accusations instead. They're so engrossed in their permanent disputes that they've in fact developed their own private dispute jargon that only they can understand. All of them act opportunistically when it comes to asserting or dismissing the reliability of sources, depending on whether they can offer an opportunity for scoring points in their ethnic tug-of-war; all of them are quick to point out the failures of correct sourcing in the other side while being prepared to resort to the same kinds of sloppiness themselves the next day.

In terms of talk page behaviour and quality of source work, it is my personal, quite subjective impression that Athenean is slightly better than Zjarri, and Zjarri is a good deal better than Alexikoua; while in terms of content merits Zjarri is more right than wrong in about 60% of the time, and more wrong than right in the remaining 40%. Needless to say, these subjective impressions are impossible to prove with diffs.

All three of them know I've gone on record repeatedly with exasperated calls for having the lot of them banned. But somehow that would be a pity too. I really don't know what else to do about them. ] ] 19:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:Very broadly speaking, I get the same kind of feeling from what I have reviewed of the evidence so far. I'll continue reviewing it, but should I come to agree with your assessment, we will have to consider how to stop this circus. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

===Result concerning ZjarriRrethues===
:''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.-->

After reviewing the evidence, I conclude:
*The evidence establishes multiple incidents of misconduct by ZjarriRrethues, including source misrepresentation, incivility and personal attacks, as well as substandard compliance with referencing and other editorial standards.
*But most of the evidence does not hold up under review. This makes most of the request not actionable. In particular, Athenean has failed to support many of his very severe and wide-ranging accusations against ZjarriRrethues, including "an expert at gaming Misplaced Pages's sourcing requirement to push his POV", "distorting the wording so as to completely change the meaning", "a user who has engaged in persistent, systematic disruption and abuse of the system" or "the epitome of a spiteful, vindictive, disposition". This, in and of itself, is problematic conduct on the part of Athenean.
*The incidents cited in the evidence and the tone of the AE request give credence, '']'', to Future Perfect at Sunrise's theory that both editors "have a mutual, deeply entrenched, tendency of evaluating each and every edit under the single perspective of emphasizing the historical role of one's own ethnic group" and an "equally mutual, equally deeply entrenched feeling of distrust ... which regularly leads to talk page discussions breaking down".
I see two options how we could proceed here:
*We could determine which sanctions are appropriate for both editors on the basis of the present evidence.
*Or, and I tend to prefer this option, we could engage in a broader review of the editing of at least Athenean and ZjarriRrethues, and possibly other members of the "traveling circus", and if we find that it confirms Future Perfect at Sunrise's view, indefinitely topic-ban all of them (as it seems evident that little useful editing can occur under such circumstances).
*ZjarriRrethues's proposal that administrators mediate individual disputes does not appear workable, as this is not the job of admins, and I do not think that one would find many volunteers for such duties.
What do other admins think about how to proceed? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

== The Sham ==

''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
===Request concerning The Sham===
; User requesting enforcement : ] ] 18:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

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

;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] - Breaking 1RR and also NPOV/OR

; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
# Revert of Cptnono's work
# Reverted my work - the first two are consecutive so they are one revert
# Reverted Golgofrinchian's revert of The Sham's revert.
# ...
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
# Warning by {{admin|HJ Mitchell}}-not a warning but proof he was blocked for breaking 1RR on the same article.
# Warning by {{admin|HJ Mitchell}} - made aware of ARBPIA.
# ...
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Article ban, but if his behaviour continues elsewhere, quickly expand ban

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : The Sham pretty well only edits this one article, I always though he was a sock, but his actions are poor enough to be blocked regardless of socking. The reverts were not only bad for being reverts, but also because they reintroduced POV problems, UNDUE, and made accusations as fact in wikipedias voice.

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


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


:Ethnographic groups and cultural heritage are '''related but distinct concepts'''. An ''ethnographic group'' refers to a '''community of people''' defined by shared ancestry, language, traditions, and cultural identity. In contrast, ''cultural heritage'' refers to the *''practices, artifacts, knowledge, and traditions preserved or inherited from the past''. But cultural heritage is indeed a component of ethnographic groups.
====Comments by others about the request concerning The Sham ====
: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)
The sham continues to make edits to the concerned page without making any reply here, maybe action should be taken wihout waiting for a reply from the sham. ] ] 20:33, 19 March 2011 (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 from Cptnono
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
*I came to this page after Passionless brought up labels and how to address "riots" v "protests" at AN. He was right. There was POV from both angles. And 1/rr is 1/rr.] (]) 20:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


===Result concerning The Sham=== ===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'd like to hear from others before implementing anything, but I think Passionless' suggestion of an article ban might be a good idea. It would seem more effective than another short-term block. ] &#124; ] 18:35, 18 March 2011 (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)
::Agreed. and no reaction to this request (indeed little communication of any kind) is not a good sign. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:41, 19 March 2011 (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).