Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] 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 15:23, 4 February 2016 editSageRad (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,374 edits Statement by SageRad: bleep out original curses and make more brief to have mercy on anyone who has to read this.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:15, 23 January 2025 edit undoRosguill (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators144,380 edits Result concerning שלומית ליר: ReplyTag: Reply 
(1,000 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}} <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!--
{{Redirect|WP:AE|for the policy regarding the letters æ or ae|WP:LIGATURE|the automated editing program|WP:AutoEd}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude>
<includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly> --><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly>
<noinclude>{{editabuselinks|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}} <noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!--
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
</noinclude>
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K |archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 189 |counter =347
|minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(7d) |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}}
}}
{{TOC left|limit=2}}{{clear}}


==שלומית ליר==
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ollie231213==
<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 שלומית ליר===
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found ]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. <p>To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see ]).''</small>
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Smallangryplanet}} 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|שלומית ליר}}<p>{{ds/log|שלומית ליר}}</p>
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Ollie231213}} – ] (]) 23:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
; Sanction being appealed : Topic Ban from Longevity broadly construed, imposed at
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
], logged at
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
]
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation of ''how'' these edits violate it :


ShlomitLir (שלומית ליר) created their account back in 2014. The breakdown of their edits is as follows:
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Spartaz}}


*2014 to 2016: no edits.
; Notification of that administrator :
*2017 to 2019: 1 edit per year. None related to PIA.
*2022: 7 edits. Mostly in their userspace.
*2023: 21 edits. Again, mostly in their userspace. Made two edits in the talk page of ] complaining about its content and calling it .
* 2024: Started editing after a 10 month break at the end of October.
**Made 51 edits in October and 81 edits in November (copyedits, adding links, minor edits).
**In December, that number rose up to almost 400, including 116 in December 6 alone and 98 in December 7. Became ECR that day.
**Immediately switched to editing in PIA, namely in the ] article where they with an unclear image with a dubious caption, and without providing a reason why.
**They also edited the ] article, with a caption not supported by the source (replaced by yet with a contextless caption when the previous image was removed) and WP:UNDUE content .
**they also in the second AfD for ] despite never having interacted with that article or its previous AfD. They have barely surpassed 500 edits, but the gaming is obvious, highlighted by the sudden switch to editing in PIA.


More importantly, there's the issue of POV pushing. I came across authored by them on Ynet, once again complaining about what they perceive as an anti Israeli bias on Misplaced Pages. They have also authored a report for the World Jewish Congress covering the same topic. The report can be seen in full . I think that someone with this clear POV agenda shouldn't be near the topic.
===Statement by Ollie231213===


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
The reason that I was topic banned was because, in the admins' words, I am "''clearly here to advocate for a specific position on longevity articles rather than following our long standing policies and guidelines''" and that I am "''consistently editing articles, and voting in AfDs, to favor the position of the Gerontology Research Group is incompatible with the goals of Misplaced Pages.''"
<!-- 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. -->
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on and re-iterated on (see the system log linked to above).
*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|Femke}}.


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
These are accusations which I strongly deny. The implications here are that I am not following Misplaced Pages policy and am affiliated with the ], both of which are false. I explained very clearly in my statement why I believed I was following Misplaced Pages policy, but these arguments appear to have been ignored.
Adding some additional comments on 2025-01-16: On top of POV issues, the user has a number of tweets that appear to be a , , , and . They've also been . If this - combined with the tweets, the forms, the op-ed and the report to the WJC, all under this user's name (that they also use to edit Misplaced Pages - this is ) isn't a clear cut case of canvassing, I don't know what is. ] (]) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


Adding some more comments on 2025-01-22: The user in question says that they have been on[REDACTED] for years – and so surely aware of what does and does not count as canvassing. As recently as last month they were , as well as I've already mentioned. I understand that we are always meant to ], but we are looking at a situation in which a user (1) has extensive experience with Misplaced Pages and (2) is encouraging people, subtly and not so subtly to do things that are against our policies. ] (]) 19:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Let me use an example here: we can probably all agree that an organisation like the ] is, generally speaking, considered a reliable source for many things on Misplaced Pages. However, what if we're dealing with a specialist topic area - astronomy, for example? Are you going to argue that the NYT is an equally reliable source on that topic as NASA is? What normally happens is that, for stories about astronomy, news organisations simply report what NASA has said. They don't do the research themselves. If the NYT published a story claiming that a new star had been discovered, but no authoritative bodies such as NASA had verified the claims, would we just add that to Misplaced Pages without even a footnote?


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
Well, the GRG is to gerontology what NASA is astronomy. Just look at how many times you see news organisations say "...according to the Gerontology Research Group" in stories about the world's oldest people - these are just a few: . Lots of other sources clearly consider the GRG to be an authority in the topic area. All I am saying is that Misplaced Pages should reflect this and base its articles on longevity primarily on this source and not on other less-reliable ones.


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
For example: ], recognised by the GRG and Guinness World Records as the world's oldest man, died recently aged 112. However, the previous day, a man named Andrew Hatch died at the claimed age of 117, according to (which might generally be considered reliable). However, he was not able to prove his age so was not recognised by Guinness and the GRG. So what happens here? Do we treat both sources as equally reliable and say that both were the oldest man?!? No, Guinness and the GRG are clearly more reputable and widely-recognised as authorities in this topic area than the Contra Consta Times. I'm not saying don't include Andrew Hatch at all on Misplaced Pages, but include him as a "longevity claim" and not as if his age is definitely true.


===Discussion concerning שלומית ליר===
So, just to summarise: I made it very clear in my statement in the initial request that I am following Misplaced Pages's policies. I just want Misplaced Pages's articles on longevity to based on the best sources, and don't want unverified information to be included as if it is fact. My edits in the past have been in line with ], ], ], ], ], and ]. I don't see how I can be justifiably topic-banned when I've clearly explained why I am following policy and am acting in good faith. And, should the ban be repealed, I promise to act in a more civil manner in the future. -- ] (]) 23:47, 25 January 2016 (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 שלומית ליר====
*'''Comment''' ''Ollie's assertion that we should "base its (Misplaced Pages) articles on longevity primarily on this (GRG) source and not on other less-reliable ones." goes right to the heart of why he must stay topic banned. GRG is not a super source of absolute WP:TRUTH that must be used to the general exclusion of all other RS.'' --> I have explained '''very clearly''' what my point of view is here and '''explained why it is in line with policy'''. I am not suggesting that other sources be excluded, just that they are not given ] as sources which are considered authorities on the subject according to mainstream consensus. It should be clear to anyone wishing to write good encyclopedic articles that you '''cannot''' treat all sources as if they are ]. Again, how on earth can I be topic banned for simply suggesting that the most reputable sources on a specialist subject should be the primary source used to write articles on Misplaced Pages? -- ] (]) 01:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe contents of this filing to be in clear policy violation and have reached out to the arbitration committee for further clarification before commenting further.] (]) 14:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
: I was given clarification from an admin regarding my concerns and will now be drafting a response. Thank you for your patience. ] (]) 21:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
First and foremost, I value accuracy and transparency and am fully prepared to address any verified errors or missteps. My contributions are made in good faith, with only the intention of supporting Misplaced Pages’s mission. I am a veteran editor on Hebrew wiki, yet am learning to appreciate the sometimes stark differences in rules in this section, so am doing my very best to keep up to speed and abide fully as I edit further here.
As a longtime editor on another wiki who finally decided this year to match pace on English wiki, I strenuously reject any accusations of EC gaming when a passing glance on my global log will confirm I have not radically altered my editing pace nor article focus. In regards to NPOV concerns, I will defer to the numerous comments below affirming that there is no policy violation by having an opinion, onsite or off, and must register mild complaint that NPOV accusations are being leveled here without any policy violation having been affirmed on any of these individual contributions.
While contributions observed superficially (and without clear context of edit conversation and interaction with other editors) may appear to be agenda oriented, if I were granted more word counts, I would happily highlight the context of most edits made to make clear I was pushing back against previous bias efforts (past and present) by editors (including a number on the precipice of sanction in PIA5). Perhaps it would have been wiser to report what I felt was POV editing behavior instead of pushing back, but I only believed my efforts were to restore and preserve article balance, not disrupt it.
I am grateful for the admin guidance received so far and appreciate being better informed about certain grey areas. I meant no intention to remotely approach anything resembling canvassing and believed the commentary was allowable (most especially since it was on a proceeding I was neither participating in, nor linking out to). I understand now that this may be perceived as “call to action” which was not remotely the intent, most especially to an audience that is mostly academic and, to the best of my knowledge, does not edit Misplaced Pages. (I also humbly must point out that no report was made indicating any increase in activity to suggest editors had been canvassed). I have now been well appraised and will take great care and caution to ensure no further off-site commentary remotely approaches such this territory of concern. If there are any questions or doubts in the future, I will seek future guidance from admins before venturing into potentially questionable territory. ] (]) 01:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by Thebiguglyalien====
::P.S. I don't understand how this works - how is this a "fair trial" if just some editors turn up and comment but not others? Am I allowed to request input from someone who will likely defend me? (And a number of respected users have, by the way). If not, how do we get both sides of the argument? -- ] (]) 01:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
This is the first ARBPIA report since the proposed decision ] and it's specifically a matter of POV pushing, responding admins should be aware of the "]" remedy. The committee is discussing whether to implement a remedy stating that admins at AE are "empowered and encouraged to consider a topic ban" purely for biased editing. So far, the argument against is that it's redundant because AE admins are already supposed to do this. ] (]) 05:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-29/Special_report


====Statement by Selfstudier====
::@] If the only opinions that matter are those of the uninvolved admins, then why is anyone else even allowed to comment? I'm not going to canvass support but it seems totally unfair that there is no systematic way of dealing with appeals like this. Where's my lawyer? Other editors have expressed frustration at the behaviour of LegacyPac and others (see ). Now, can you please provide evidence that I am editing to "advocate for the GRG position"? The implication is that there is COI but I've clearly explained why that's not true. -- ] (]) 22:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
To the extent that it is relevant, the WJC report was discussed at ]. ] (]) 11:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by starship.paint (2)====
:@]: So yet another editor involved in the longevity ], clearly biased against me, arguing in favour of a topic ban, who does NOT explain why my edits have violated policy. It's a strawman to claim that I am arguing that the GRG is the "only and only true source"; I am not. I am saying that other sources clearly recognise that the GRG is an authoritative body on the topic of the oldest people in the world and thus, Misplaced Pages's articles should be based '''primarily''', but not solely, on that source. If we want to make an article of the top 100 oldest people ever, then it should be based on verified data from the most reliable source that deals with age verification, not on a mish-mash of other sources like news reports on people claiming to be 135 or whatever and then compiled in a jumbled ], ] mess. This really should be common sense. How can sourcing articles on a specialist subject primarily to specialist organisations, most reliable on the topic, in any way "degrade the quality of the articles"? It's madness. Are you going to topic-ban people who insist that astronomy-related articles should be based primarily on the ], like NASA, the ESA, etc.? I should hope not, because those editors are the ones following core policy. Now, I repeat again: how is this a fair trial? -- ] (]) 02:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


I would to like to raise at ], where there had been an existing unsourced paragraph ({{tq|On the morning of October 7, a tour minibus...}}) that שלומית ליר added to ( / ) from the ]. '''The reference is relevant, but I believe it may not verify every detail in the Battle of Sderot paragraph''' (e.g. "Netivot", "Holocaust survivors"). The reference contains a short paragraph of text and a video that is 4:21 long. I can't watch the video in the reference, but I believe it is this same video that is 4:20 long which contains the same screenshot as the reference, on the same topic. Most of the video is an interview of the daughter of a dead victim who was on the bus (the daughter had been on the phone with the victim), except for 1:58 to 2:13 which appears to be a quote from the bus driver. The publisher themselves do not have too much reporting in their own voice (on the video), yet this reference was used to cite a paragraph entirely stated in Wikivoice. No attribution was made to the relative or the bus driver, or to the publisher. I can't be totally sure though, due to unfamiliarity with Hebrew. '''] (] / ])''' 13:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:@] You're quite right, I don't understand why this sanction was imposed, otherwise I wouldn't be appealing it! You also falsely represent my argument. My argument is that I was editing in line with policy. Do you contest this? If so, can you explain why? So far, no one has done so.


====Statement by xDanielx====
:@]: ''"All you are doing is reinforcing the impression of an externally coordinated campaign to manipulate Misplaced Pages in support of an ideology."'' --> Oh look, YET ANOTHER user who doesn't actually respond to any of the arguments I've made, but instead just accuses me of editing with an agenda. So who is it really who is editing with an ideology? -- ] (]) 07:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
{{yo|Arcticocean}} I don't really see how NPOV can be read as requiring edits which support both sides of a controversy. Our content policies don't impose any positive duties; they only tell us what not to do. The text of the policy doesn't support the notion that a ''pattern'' of edits could be in violation, even if no particular edit is in violation.


In principle, such a pattern of edits could violate the , but I don't believe this board has ever enforced it. If it were to be enforced, I think it should be for more serious violations like the double standards that e.g. ] attempted to demonstrate, rather than mere opinion-driven editing which applies to the vast majority of CTOP editors. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 03:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
===Statement by Spartaz===
I don't have anything to add beyond what Ed and I said in the original AE. Ollie, the only opinions that have any weight here are the uninvolved admins. Everything else is just noise. Do not canvass others to come and support you. It won't affect the outcome but would be obvious evidence that you are not editing per our accepted norms. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


===Statement by Legacypac=== ==== Statement by Hemiauchenia ====
This user has engaged in off-wiki canvassing regarding the IP conflict. Take the following recent tweet from the 12 January
Ollie demonstrates a lack of understanding of wikipolicy in his appeal. If, as he say,s "GRG is to gerontology what NASA is astronomy" we can safely treat GRG as just one of many RS. Our ] article does not even mention NASA (that I can see) and the lead says "Astronomy is one of the few sciences where amateurs can still play an active role" NASA is definitely a great authority but hardly the primary or final authority in astronomy.
For posterity in case it is deleted it contains the following remarks: {{quote|If you can't handle the facts, just delete them Propaganda on
@Misplaced Pages includes targeting Israel, demonizing it, and erasing inconvenient truths, from falsifying war outcomes to deleting Israeli inventions and attempting to erase the reality of Palestinian suicide bombers.}}
Along with this is a screenshot of the current AfD ]. People are of course allowed to be caustic about Misplaced Pages off-wiki, but calling out a specific AfD with highly charged rhetoric, essentially inciting canvassing seems out of line. ] (]) 02:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
: For those concerned that this might be outing, שלומית ליר is very open about their real life identity on their userpage. See (). If you reveal your real identity on Misplaced Pages, your tweets about Misplaced Pages on your Twitter account connected to your real-life identity are fair game to mention. There's also reverse confirmation in this tweet . ] (]) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by Cdjp1====
If someone wants to write up ] and would report he claimed to be 117, has lots of id that verifies that, but did not have a birth certificate because birth certificates were not issued in his region (just as the contracosta times did), they should write it. For completeness, they should also note that GRG would not validate his age. But Hatch is a total red herring as no editor has tried to include him in any table or assert he was the world's oldest man (that I'm aware of).
As we seem to be ok to pull evidence from the statements of the editor in question, they have also commented more recently about () in response to a question of if Misplaced Pages can be "saved". -- ] (]) 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
Ollie's assertion that we should "base its (Misplaced Pages) articles on longevity primarily on this (GRG) source and not on other less-reliable ones." goes right to the heart of why he must stay topic banned. GRG is not a super source of absolute ] that must be used to the general exclusion of all other RS. (I commented on the AE request that led to the topic ban, not sure if that makes me involved or uninvolved) ] (]) 20:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
It has been several days. Perhaps שלומית ליר could clarify whether their belief about the way Misplaced Pages works turned out to be a true belief or a false belief so that this report can progress. ] (]) 09:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


I am interested in the cited above, specifically how this differs from the widely reported situation that resulted in the ']' case that employed Discord (and/or X, I forget) rather than a Google form. Is a consistent decision procedure being used to distinguish between encouraging participation and canvassing/meatpuppetry? I think a lot of people don't know where the line is, assuming there is a line, or at least some kind of fuzzy decision boundary. ] (]) 04:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
===Statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights===
It will be quite unsurprising that I see no reason to overturn the sanctions here. The amount of energy that's been expended arguing that the GRG is The One And Only True Source<sup>TM</sup> on this subject is so enormously wasteful that allowing editors back in who want to continue that fight will only degrade the quality of the articles on human longevity. I don't see where the implementation of sanctions violated any policies, nor do I see how lifting them will be in any way helpful. Therefore, I strongly recommend this be closed with no action and a reminder that brevity is actually a virtue. ] (]) 19:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
:In response, 1. Misplaced Pages isn't a court of law and 2. my previous points, especially that one about brevity, are reaffirmed. ] (]) 05:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


===Statement by JzG=== ====Statement by Vice regent====
I'm satisfied by שלומית ליר's above explanation regarding canvassing. People with bad canvassing intentions don't reveal their identity. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 04:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I am unsurprised that Ollie rejects the findings of independent admins reviewing his conduct - that is pretty much the definitive rationale for enacting a sanction, since people who accept independent views rarely end up here.


====Statement by (username)====
Ollie, find some other area to edit. Leave this topic completely, forever. All you are doing is reinforcing the impression of an externally coordinated campaign to manipulate Misplaced Pages in support of an ideology. We're bored with it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning שלומית ליר===
===Statement by (involved editor 3)===
:''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. -->
*Users are allowed to have a POV - it's a rare user indeed who edits a contentious topic without having some strong opinions about it. For conduct to be actionable at AE it needs to be an actual policy violation. The misleading use of images doesn't rise to the level of AE action in my view, and judging whether an addition like is UNDUE is not within AE's purview, as long as it is supported by the source. ] (]) 23:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:The PIA5 remedy hasn't passed yet, and its interpretation is as yet unclear to me: but in my view we are already empowered to deal with biased editing, in the sense of editing that violates NPOV. What I'm not willing to do is sanction on the basis of someone's opinions alone; they have to be shown to have let their opinions get in the way of following our PAGs. ] (]) 07:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I see some evidence - based on Arcticocean's digging below - that שלומית ליר is using images without sufficient care, but I don't see that rising to the level of a sanction. As to the rest, xDanielx is correct - nowhere do our policies require treating both sides of a conflict equally - indeed our PAGs discourage false balance. Those diffs could be actionable if they individually or collectively violate policy, but I have yet to see evidence of that. ] (]) 03:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::The off-wiki canvassing is a problem. It merits a warning at least, I don't know if the formality thereof matters. If there was evidence that שלומית ליר was aware of ] I would consider something more stringent. ] (]) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* While I understand {{u|Vanamonde93}}'s concerns, I think that we are required to assess the totality of the user's contributions. Contentious topic editors are required to uphold NPOV. ] places an obligation to {{xtn|Within contentious topics,… edit carefully and constructively… and… adhere to the ]}}. The linked page provides that {{xtn|Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view… We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence}}. If an editor is ''only'' adding content that significantly favours one or the other side to the conflict, this is incompatible with their contentious topic obligation. That is because an editor making ''only'' one-sided edits will simply not be taking the necessary steps to ensure that the ''whole article'' is written from a neutral point of view. As their number of one-sided edits increases, the likelihood decreases that the editor is ensuring our content is neutral and impartial. Once we reach the point of being sure that they are not attempting to ensure neutrality of content, we can conclude the editor is not meeting their contentious topics obligations and we can issue a sanction. This can only be assessed with hindsight and by looking at the editor's contributions as a whole. ] 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Assessing the topic area contributions of the respondent (שלומית ליר) since they became extended-confirmed {{logid|166341641|at 17:33, 8 December 2024}}, there is cause for concern. I counted 19 edits to the area conflict. Taken together, they significantly skew the articles negatively against the opposing side of the conflict:
::* ].
::* ].
::* ] which was perhaps casting doubt on the relevant section, ''Massacre of pensioners'', and ].
::* ], therefore giving greater weight to the claims, in a context where the claims were already described at considerable length; ]; ].
::* ], then ], both to the first line of the article.
::* ] and ].
::* On the talk pages, there has been a ] although I would be prepared to look past that (it was like meeting like). I am skipping a few further and insignificant talk page comments.
::* There are then edits to ]: ]; ]. At ], there is then an expansion, again of the article lead, ] (]).
:: Assessing the edits as a whole, it is difficult not to conclude that the respondent user is failing to meet their contentious topics obligation to edit neutrally in this topic area. As the number of edits is so far limited, if a sanction is imposed, it could justifiably be light-touch. ] 20:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::: {{re|xDanielx}} Thanks for commenting. Most of the edits do not have a neutral, encyclopedic POV. There is an effort to influence our articles away from neutrally describing the subject without taking sides, contrary to ]. Even if each edit in isolation is insufficient for sanctioning, taken ''as a whole'' the edits show an inability or unwillingness to edit neutrally. One non-neutral edit shouldn't be sanctioned; twenty is a different story. This is not about the ''percentage'' of biased edits but about the weight or amount of them. Therefore, the assessment wouldn't really change even had the editor made some 'neutral' edits along the way. I'm happy to concede that editors cannot be compelled to balance edits of one bias with edits of another, but I don't think that comes into it. In a nutshell, this is about ]. ] 08:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*The offwiki canvassing is a problem...{{u|שלומית ליר}}, you're fairly inexperienced here. Were you aware ] is not allowed? ] (]) 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:For transparency, שלומית ליר reached out to me, and I explained multiple policy and advised her to go ahead and respond here without waiting for individual feedback from her email to arbcom, which may or may not happen. ] (]) 22:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*I take it that per {{u|Barkeep49}}'s brief oversighting of potentially-sensitive content in this report (]), and then restoration of the same (]), concerns of outing have been investigated and the report can proceed on its merits? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 19:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:That's correct. I got a request, I didn't really feel it was OUTING, but as I indicated in my edit summary OS is a tool of first resort. I consulted with the OS listserv and received some responses quickly agreeing with me and so I unsuppressed and restored the material. ] (]) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*It's not for AE to decide content disputes, and that's mostly what this looks like. We can handle things like flagrant misrepresentation of sources, but how ''best'' to represent them is a matter for consensus discussion, not us to decide here. The canvassing was a cause for concern, but it looks like it was rather unintended and had little if any actual effect, and they've agreed to stop that going forward. (Note that doesn't mean anyone must stop criticizing Misplaced Pages or what happens on it; do all of that you like. Just don't encourage people to take particular actions based on that.) I don't see any further action as necessary at this point. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*:+1 ] (]) 18:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*I'm not satisfied with שלומית ליר's please of good faith. I think that the call for "interference" on Twitter (not even a week ago!) is a real concern in light of the standards being established by PIA5. I'm also concerned about the timeline of their knowledge of relevant CTOP sanctions. They were warned about PIA in April 2023 (by me, apparently). They should have been familiar with canvassing rules from the moment they got that warning to be on their best behavior. Not only that, but perusing their edit history, I see that there are several edits that are PIA violations prior to reaching XC on December 8 (e.g. ], although there's clearly many others in their edit history). In sum, I see no reason to believe the narrative of good faith presented here by them in light of the available evidence and do believe that we should consider at the minimum a logged warning. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 20:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I would be okay with a logged warning for canvassing, which remains the most concerning behavior to me. I find it difficult to see my way to penalizing violations of the XC restriction after the editor has already reached XC status without a clear finding of gaming XC status, and I don't see that here. ] (]) 20:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I wouldn't call it gaming, I think it's a pattern of intentional defiance of community rules, which in turn makes the otherwise rather exemplary defense written here by them less than convincing. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 21:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


==Luganchanka==
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ollie231213 ===
<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>


====Statement by Glrx==== ===Request concerning Luganchanka===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}} 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Ollie231213's appeal does not show an understanding of why sanctions were imposed. Instead the argument is that GRG should be as respected as NASA and therefore implies the sanctions were improper. The ban should stay. ] (]) 05:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Luganchanka}}<p>{{ds/log|Luganchanka}}</p>
===Result of the appeal by Ollie231213===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the discretionary sanctions log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
*


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


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
===Request concerning Prokaryotes===
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Tryptofish}} 00:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

;Sanction or remedy 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.-->
# Reversion to version of article where the article says "He is a child sex offender" in the second sentence despite consensus at BLPN discussion that this is problematic because Ritter never actually interacted with a real child.


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
#. Revert of .
#. Revert of . BLP CTOP warning given

;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
*There is an edit notice that displays when editing the page, notifying users of the ArbCom sanctions.
*User was a party to the ArbCom case: .
*Received a "final warning" about GMO editing from {{u|MastCell}}: .


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
At BLPN, there has been consensus that the version of the article describing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the second sentence of the article is problematic, as he did not actually have sexual contact with a child, only a police officer impersonating one. ]. Luganchanka has been persistently edit warring against this apparent consensus. For which he has been warned by {{Ping|NatGertler}} , which he subequently blanked There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article going back to at least August ], but Luganchanka persistently cites a "consensus" for its inclusion that as far as I can tell does not seem to exist, with Luganchanka aggressively editing to enforce its inclusion. ] (]) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I think that this is a self-explanatory violation of 1RR by a user who has been extensively warned before. --] (]) 00:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
: Luganchanka's response is disingenuous and misleading. Look at the ] discussion I linked above. Nobody other than Luganchanka thinks that Ritter should be described as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article. The dispute isn't about whether or not the convictions should be mentioned in the lead at all or not, it's specifically about the use of the phrase "child sex offender", and there is no consensus to include that as far as I can tell, despite Luganchanka's vociferous claims to the contrary. ] (]) 20:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
{{cot|For brevity. --] (]) 22:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)}}
:: RfC opened ]. ] (]) 16:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Prokaryotes has now replied, and ironically presents this link: as indicating that I am "ignoring" editor consensus. However, the discussion is actually me reaching out to other editors with a compromise, and even saying that I "fully support" an edit that Prokaryotes had made. --] (]) 00:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
:Prokaryotes has now said that the two reverts here are his only recent GMO-related edits, a statement that can be seen as patently false simply by looking at the recent edit history at ]. --] (]) 01:18, 26 January 2016 (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. -->
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


===Discussion concerning Luganchanka===
In any case, the central issue here is 1RR (as opposed to having an argument over content – and indeed arguments over whether the reverts were justified display a failure to understand the central issue here). --] (]) 01:34, 26 January 2016 (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 Luganchanka====
I'm very happy that the two administrators who have commented as of this time very clearly understand what is going on. Given Prokaryotes' demonstrated lack of understanding of why the 1RR violation is wrong, administrators may want to consider how likely it is that a block will really prevent anything, in that the behavior is likely to continue after the block is lifted. Perhaps a topic ban, something that was explicitly pointed out in MastCell's warning, is really what is needed. And the defenses from other editors illustrate how extensive the problem is. Albino Ferret is even saying that I don't understand NOR, or some such nonsense. There seems to be a belief that if editors on the POV-pusher "side" don't get what they want, then it's OK to violate 1RR to get the content that they want. The initial flurry of AE complaints just after the GMO case has passed, and editors should by now understand what ArbCom meant. AE needs to be firm about this. --] (]) 18:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


The intro on the ] page had remained largely the same for several months, as you will see on the talkpage it is an intro approved, and reverted to, by multiple senior editors. There has been a recent flurry of activity / edits. While I ], it does look like those edits are attempting to downplay / whitewash Ritter's sexual offence conviction(s). I have not been 'aggressive' at all, rather I have simply referred contentious edits to the talkpage to build consensus, attempting to do my duty as a good Misplaced Pages editor.] (]) 20:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Prokaryotes has self-reverted, which is obviously a good thing. I wonder if he can convince the rest of us that he understands why this self-reversion was needed, as opposed to doing it in hopes of avoiding sanctions? --] (]) 20:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
:...Considering, for example, ? --] (]) 21:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
{{cob}}
'''Still a problem.''' Inasmuch as the self-revert was helpful, it seems to have come without any real self-awareness, more like a last-minute effort to avoid trouble here. This comment just made at the article talk page, , following a series of similar comments, is completely objectionable in context, and clearly demonstrates that the conduct is continuing unabated, self-revert or no. --] (]) 00:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


Please see the ], where there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior[REDACTED] editors, that Ritter's sexual offence conviction should be included in the lead to the article. My edits have simply been aimed at ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article.] (]) 20:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
@MastCell and other admins: I'm continuing to see ongoing problems. Prokaryotes argues incessantly against reliable sources based on bizarre reasons. He objects that one source is not reliable because it was written by one author instead of multiple authors: , and objects to another because "GM crops" are supposedly not to be used as foods: . This isn't good faith editing; it's trying to throw anything at the wall to prevent us from citing sources that go against his POV. The purpose of 1RR is not simply to assure that second reverts are self-reverted; it is to prevent editing that hampers consensus. Even though I filed this about 1RR, the editing is happening under DS. Where you ask Prokaryotes to demonstrate that he understands, please do not accept inadequate answers. --] (]) 22:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
:And I just remembered that your warning to him was already a "final warning". --] (]) 22:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


: Thank you to @] and @] for your feedback. If you see the ], discussions - {{tq|14 August - Vandalism by removing all reference entirely to Ritter being a "Convicted Sex Offender"}} and {{tq|First sentence}}. The latter discussion ended on 26th September, and resulted in the intro we had until a flurry of edits the other day, trying to move information on Ritter's sexual offence conviction, downplay it, whitewash it etc. My edits were aimed at restoring the edit reached by consensus, which had been in place for several months until the recent raft of edits with the clear aim of moving / downplaying Ritter's sexual offence conviction.] (]) 06:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


:: Thank you for this ], I really do appreciate your feedback and advice here!!] (]) 16:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) <small>(moved from ] — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC))</small>
;] after ]
*''Definition of a "final warning":'' You have been warned, but you can keep on doing it. We will just give you another final warning, and another, and another.
*''Definition of "1RR":'' Make as many reversions as you want. Then proclaim at length that you were doing it for a good reason. Then self-revert, and keep on proclaiming that you were right all along.
*''Definition of "Arbitration Enforcement":'' Not to be confused with a system for dealing rapidly with violations of decisions made by ArbCom. A place where uninvolved administrators wait for other uninvolved administrators to show up, and for editors to argue at length about why various content considerations mean that 1RR violations are justified.


:: As per ]'s comments:
--] (]) 21:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


{{tq|"Unfazed by "Emily's" age, Ritter asked "Emily," "you want to see it finish?" Ritter then turned on the webcam and ejaculated in front of the camera for "Emily." Detective Venneman then notified Ritter of his undercover status and the undercover operation and directed Ritter to call the police station."}}
===Discussion concerning Prokaryotes===
<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 Prokaryotes====
The second reference is in response to an ongoing OR investigation, which was triggered when readded content previously considered settled, was changed back to a ]/]. My edit summary, "''per talk page, no consensus, dont readd without conclusion of current discussion, see also OR noticebaord discussion''"


https://casetext.com/case/ritter-v-tuttle
The OR discussion involves Tryptofish, i had to report him after fruitless attempts to sort this out @, . Tryptofish is ignoring any editor arguments in this matter, or alternatives, and it seems he tries to use this request here to remove me from further participating.


] (]) 18:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I believe that in light of the ongoing OR discussion my second reported ref above should not be treated as a revert. Additionally, i suggest to use this request here as a chance to settle the current ongoing disputes, which would involve Tryptofish and a couple more editors. I state that i thought 24 hrs had past (look at my edit history, hundreds of edits in the past 24h, well it has now almost past).] (]) 00:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


====Statement by NatGertler====
@KingOfAces, he is casting , and - where he essential frames everybody participating in the current discussion as a ], among his common theme as fringe. You be the judge Arb. ] (]) 00:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Editor's edits today focused on trying to main a negative descriptor of what subject believed, despite it not being in the three sources that were listed (nor in the old version they ultimately reverted to.) Efforts were first trying to simply restate the claim, then trying to source it to an opinion piece (problem) from the Washington Examiner (also a bit of a problem, per ]), then trying to state as a fact what had merely been stated in a non-prime article as an accusation. BLP concern was pointed out repeatedly via edit summary and on Talk page. Removal of unsourced contentious BLP claims and even false claims is not "whitewashing" despite how editor wishes to depict it, it is in accord with our practices. -- ] (]) 21:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)====
Additional i want to state that these <s>two</s> actually four (see aboves Tryptofish response, though all related to the same single content) edits described below as edit warring are my only GMO related edits in a long time. While Tryptofish and KingofAces make GMO edits on a daily routine. ] (]) 00:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

@MastCell, your warnings were not related to 1RR, and given how easy it is to break 1RR, and given this situation a topic ban seems very drastic. Also to my knowledge a final warning should come from Arbcom not as a quick single admin decision, at least that is my impression when lurking around here. ] (]) 02:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Aircorn, i have self reverted naw. Thanks ] (]) 20:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@MastCell, can you clarify what you mean with "there is a strong pattern here"? It would be helpful if you cite a Misplaced Pages guideline. Besides me breaking the 1RR i am not aware of any wrong doing in my 2016 edits. Thanks. ] (]) 01:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Kingofaces43====
Was about to request this myself. First, I should point out there was also a previous revert that technically doesn't cross the bright line of 1RR, but gaming of 1RR to keep edit warring has been specifically called by arbs as behavior to deal with by DS.. A common problem can be seen in their edit summaries like, "''per talk page, no consensus, dont readd without conclusion of current discussion, see also OR noticebaord discussion''" where they try to edit war in their preferred content change that did not have consensus on the talk page (yet citing it as if they did) in order to replace the longer standing consensus version. It's like a reverse ] where someone tries to claim the status quo cannot remain and their preferred addition must remain even when the new edit does not have consensus.

Prokaryotes' edit warring was also brought up in a separate case they brought forward here that was closed without much comment on them because Prokaryotes withdrew the complaint. Prokaryotes' edit warring had quite a bit of coverage at the ArbCom case too. They narrowly avoided a topic ban by one vote. . Opposing arbs generally said the behavior was a problem, but didn't quite reach the point of action at that time. Their edit warring and battleground behavior was the largely last straw on the camel's back that triggered the ArbCom case. Considering their behavior issues have continued even after the warning MastCell gave (mentioned in Tryptofish's request) that they were precariously close to enforcing DS after the case, it doesn't look like there's any other options left. I'd suggest 0RR at a bare minimum, but Prokaryotes has received sufficient warning on impending topic bans due to other things mentioned at the case such as casting aspersions, battleground mentality, a nearly passed ban, that a topic ban would better help prevent disruption at this point. ] (]) 00:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
{{collapse top|title=Response to Prokaryotes' claims about me}}
:It looks like Prokaryotes is doubling down on the battleground behavior they were warned about in this very board. For those not involved, I was referring to the real-world issues outlined in sources with general "anti-science" sentiment when it comes to scientific consensus on topics like vaccines, climate change, GMOs, etc and the common themes we see in fringe sources. My comments were mostly referring to subject matter (e.g., tactics). I wasn't addressing editors excluding the bit where I mentioned that some editors were misunderstanding the subject matter. That Prokaryotes takes those comments and tries to paint a very different picture about my comments such as painting everyone as a climate change denier is a huge stretch and continuation of the battleground behavior that almost got them topic banned. I shouldn't need to clarify that further at this point, though it is an ongoing problem in the topic that some editors try to manufacture drama like this. ] (]) 01:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

I have to echo Tryptofish's that it's still a problem. Given the history and near topic-ban shown at ArbCom with this continuation of behavior even after the self-revert nearly 24 hours later, a short block won't prevent future disruption with that in mind. We're past that point. 0RR or the impending topic ban Prokaryotes was warned about multiple times can though. I'd rather give sanctions a chance instead of doing a GMO 2 case, but we need enforcement of the sanctions to get peace in the topic, especially when editors already warned they were on the brink continue that behavior. Otherwise, civil editors in the topic are going to burn out as battleground behavior and edit warring continues amongst even those that nearly were sanctioned by ArbCom. Admins should consider that the DS are meant to prevent disruption when the history shows it's only been continuing. ] (]) 07:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
=====New developments=====
Admins, I've unfortunately got to go over the word limit with these new developments, so let me know if you want trimming, a separate case, etc. Essentially, we now have a trainwreck perpetuated by Prokaryotes. Because we didn't get timely action on this, Prokaryotes has resorted to going to different boards to engage in battleground behavior in a retaliatory fashion, which am I concerned was to avoid scrutiny while their case was open here. Regardless of intended reason (they've never responded) the case should have been opened here so we could actually get some focused scrutiny on my edits.

The short of it is that they are violating ] by purposely misrepresenting two of my comments at ] incorrectly claiming I am calling editors climate change deniers. The purposeful misrepresentation comes from me directly telling them before they opened the thread and after that those two comments were about content, not editors (i.e., sources describe many of the methods to oppose scientific consensus in this topic as being the same is climate change denial, vaccine controversy, etc.) mainly and . I made it clear my only comments related to editors were: 1. Some editors were misunderstanding some technical details in sources. 2. Mentioning that Prokaryotes' false claim I was commenting on editors as climate-change deniers was a behavior issue (misrepresentation) I wasn't going to mention further so we could focus on content at NORN. They decided to double-down instead to call discussion on content personal insult.

Here are some of my other main comments relating to my intent on my comments if any admins are interested in what's going on with respect to my behavior. If an admin still thinks something is odd on my part, I'll gladly chat with them or even open up a case on myself if they thought it was needed. I don't think it's needed, but I'd abide by such a request so we could get a focused look on what I actually said (my cited comments should make it clear it's very different than Prokaryotes portrays though).

For Prokaryotes though, we have them opening up an ANI case shortly after this AE case opened, repeatedly misrepresenting my comments after being notified many times, false accusations of canvassing at ] just today, and an overall continuation of the battleground out-for-blood behavior at ANI that nearly got them topic banned at ArbCom with a split vote. That's a continued "lack of insight" as you described ], and I'll also ping ] on these ongoing behavior issues. This is just continuing the same battleground behavior cited at ArbCom we've always had with Prokaryotes that still don't appear to be improving. Something needs to stop it. ] (]) 01:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
:Just a note that the ANI Prokaryotes opened was closed with "Closing with no action as none is merited." . I do hope we don't need to go through this circus every time Prokaryotes' acts up, but it's unfortunately a trend now. ] (]) 16:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by David Tornheim====

The problem is not Prokaryotes. The problem is that Tryptofish, KingofAces43 and likely also {{u|Aircorn}} want to change language that was already settled upon and had been stable since last August 2015-early September 2015. That language used the term "scientific agreement" to replace "scientific consensus". The stable language was the result of a compromise created and executed by Jytdog and agreed to by Prokaryotes at this end of lengthy discussion that I was also involved in. Others like myself saw the change as a slight improvement and allowed it to stand. That language was incorporated in the <b>lead</b> of the ] article on September 4, 2015. Prokaryotes inadvertently had not revised the language in the <b>body</b> during that edit. That was the status quo ante consensus position on the language in the <b>lead</b> during this dispute. Now the three editors I named want to go back to the disputed "scientific consensus" language, despite significant opposition to the change , and to the fact that the term "scientific consensus" is little more than ] and ] explained .
<p>I will note that this all started when I tried to correct the portion of the <b>body</b> of the article that still had the "scientific consensus" language in it and had not yet been corrected to the agreed upon language with all the other articles back in September 2015. Shortly after I made the correction , Aircorn put the word "consensus" back in and in his edit notes suggested the need for yet another RfC. I explained why I thought that was needlessly causing new problems and was against the former agreement decided months ago at ] I explained again the how the agreement came into being again at ] .
<p>In summary, the problem is not Prokaryotes, but the other three editors who are working against the agreed upon language and creating drama by so doing. --] (]) 02:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

<p>{{u|Aircorn}} : "I was (and still am) unaware of any[REDACTED] consensus for changing ''scientific consensus'' to ''scientific agreement''. I believe the most recent discussion on the issue...was at ]." The first post in that section by {{u|Johnfos}} says: "Most GMF articles on WP, like this one , contain the statement that: there is "'''general scientific agreement''' that food on the market ...."."
This shows that Aircorn was aware that the <i>status quo</i> on the articles had the language "scientific agreement", not "scientific consensus". It is my understand that per ] (please correct me if I am wrong), stable language in the article is assumed to have consensus by default, even if the previous talk page discussion(s) did not clearly achieve it. Per the essay ], "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." Also in ], it says "BRD will fail if...There is a preexisting dispute on the page, by editors with entrenched positions, and you are reigniting a debate that has achieved stalemate without consensus." That is exactly where things stood when the above three editors tried to change the "scientific agreement" language (the ]) to "scientific consensus". --] (]) 17:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

<p>{{ping|Aircorn}} Thank you so much for owning up to what happened. Very upstanding, and also to the suggestion that Prokaryotes self-revert which s/he did within 21 minutes of your suggestion. If Tryptofish had made that suggestion to Prokaryotes, perhaps this entire AE action could have been avoided. Much appreciated. It makes it much easier to work together when you show such integrity. Thanks again. --] (]) 17:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

<p> and on the other hand have just the opposite effect, and are directly contradicted by the cooperative behavior of Aircorn and Prokaryotes to resolve the dispute, where each is owning up to their own behavior. How are we to work together when some editors will do anything to try to punish another editor and try to justify a topic ban for someone who they disagree with? It's an attempt to sway consensus by removing anyone who disagrees on content. This ] attitude and lack of accountability has to stop and is bad for the project. <b>] with a warning is justified for these lasts post and any like them for those continuing to press for more punishment when editors are working together to resolve disputes.</b> This action could have been avoided entirely if the Plaintiff had simply pointed out and warned the Defendant of the 1RR rather than going straight to court. --] (]) 18:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

<p>KingofAces43 mentions raised by Prokaryotes as if it were problematic. However, many like me agree that the issues Prokaryotes raised are a very real problem that needs to be addressed. Prokaryotes should be applauded, not condemned, for staring that helpful discussion about the unnecessary use of '']'' comparisons, which resulted in the very productive section with {{u|Softlavender}}'s which has quite a bit of support. --] (]) 17:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by AlbinoFerret====
I also have concerns that Tryptofish and Kingofaces43 are using AE to win a content dispute. Tryptofish has an opinion that Core policies like ]/synthesis can be overcome with a local consensus. in a dispute over a synthesis claim. In fact both editors are arguing to include ] in the GMO articles. Removal of those who wish to follow WP policy would aid in this quest to retain OR. ] 02:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
:@Tryptofish, excuse me? POV pushers following a comment about me? That is an ] to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a POV pusher. The only POV I have is that WP policies and guidelines be followed. If you think otherwise you best have some diffs. ] 19:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears Prokaryotes followed Aircorn's very good advice and has self reverted the 1RR violation. ] 20:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Aircorn====
I was (and still am) unaware of any[REDACTED] consensus for changing ''scientific consensus'' to ''scientific agreement''. I believe the most recent discussion on the issue before I partially reverted David was at ]. ]&nbsp;] 07:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@David. It shows nothing except that Misplaced Pages is inconsistent. The wording "scientific consensus" has been in the controversies section since . You made an edit in good faith, I partially reverted in good faith because I did not think there was any consensus. Now we are having this discussion in multiple places. ] was followed and ] would have been too if Prokaryotes had not broken 1rr. ]&nbsp;] 20:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
::So I went back through the edit history again and see I made a mistake. I meant to change Davids edit to scientific consensus, but ended up changing the lead one instead. That was a mistake on my part and added to my confusion and possibly to others. Apologies to all. ]&nbsp;] 20:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes. You still have time to self revert. ]&nbsp;] 20:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


===Result concerning Prokaryotes=== ===Result concerning Luganchanka===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections 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. --> <!-- 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. -->
*<!--
* This looks like an unambiguous 1RR violation. Insofar as I can parse Prokaryotes' response, it doesn't seem that either revert meets the criteria for 1RR/3RR exemptions. I already did the final-final-warning thing with Prokaryotes awhile back. Given that, and the fact that there's no evidence of any insight in Prokaryotes' response, I feel a block would be appropriate, but I will leave this open for other admins to comment. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 01:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
-->
** {{ping|Prokaryotes}} It is indeed easy to slip up and unintentionally violate 1RR. I've probably done it myself. If it happens, then the ''right'' response is: "Hey guys, I accidentally violated 1RR. My bad. I'll go ahead and self-revert". The ''wrong'' response is... well, pretty much anything else. Your response seemed to consist mostly of misguided self-justification combined with criticisms of other editors, both of which are inappropriate when ''you'' are the one who has violated a revert restriction. Like many admins, I'm generally willing to cut people a break if they accidentally screw up, but you have to meet us halfway by ''recognizing'' that you've screwed up and trying to fix it.<p>This particular 1RR violation is moot, at this point, with the self-revert, but the lack of insight that I mentioned in my original comment is, if anything, more apparent, which concerns me because there's a strong pattern here and it's not heading in a good direction. The level of enabling in some of the "outside" comments here is likewise unhelpful, as is the general pro and con content argumentation. I'd be OK with closing this request without action (in light of the self-revert), but with a recognition that there aren't likely to be much additional leeway given to Prokaryotes. Thoughts from other admins? ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 01:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
:@]: whether you're correct or not, you were edit warring. I believe an indef block from the article and/or a temporary site block would be an appropriate sanction here. ] (]/]) 20:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* This is a plain 1RR violation. The talk-page consensus may be unclear, but that doesn't give anyone a license to break 1RR. If admins decide that a block is needed, then something between two days and one week would be appropriate. If people keep on reverting the lead of ] then more admin action is likely. Anything that looks like edit warring on GMO pages ought to receive a strong response. ] (]) 18:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
::I've blocked the user for 48h for violating 3RR based on the report at ].--] (]) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* @], edit-warring ''to remove'' negative content at a BLP is an exemption to 3RR. I see that NatGertler mentioned this in their edit summaries and at talk. As voorts points out, it doesn't matter whether you're right when you're reverting an edit that is being claimed as an exemption, even if you believe ]whiyou are "ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article". The solution is to go to talk, discuss, and get consensus. If you'd like to respond, ping me to your response at your talk and I'll post it here. ] (]) 16:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@], if you really believe those two sections -- senior editors, indeed, ] was between someone with 13 edits and somcoen who wasn't ECR, for heaven's sake -- somehow prove consensus was strong, and you think that means you can ignore all the later ones -- at one of which you didn't even respond to a ping, where people were objecting -- then this is maybe looking like a ] issue.
*:But even if you ''had'' been somehow editing to support a consensus you believed was settled, you cannot edit-war contentious material into a BLP when others are objecting to it. The solution, always, is to go to talk, discuss, and reconfirm consensus. There is zero urgency to have this information in the article. Including something negative in a BLP is not something you should ''ever'' edit war over. ] (]) 18:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*Luganchanka's reading of the state of consensus on the talk page as supporting their edits is so far off base that it borders on being a CIR issue if it's sincere. Indef block from ] seems appropriate. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I see RTH's point about the "First sentence" section in isolation. I'd note that the link to ] isn't really appropriate here, as bringing the discussion to BLP/N was an appropriate action (if it was then brought to NPOVN, NORN, etc., ''that'' would be forumshopping). I'd like to see some actual contrition around the edit warring and frivolous accusations of {{tq|whitewash}} before writing this off as time-served. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 15:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::That's fair; I'll strike the link. My point in including it was that, when conversations fragment, we sometimes get these sorts of chaotic incidents. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Understood, I think that meaning was clear for us here in the admin section, but I could easily see a new editor misinterpreting it unintentionally. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I am not at all comforted by the fact that Luganchanka has proceeded to make ]. The cited BBC source does not state {{tq| masturbated and ejaculated on camera}}, saying only {{tq|graphic sex act}}. As written, this is essentially another BLP violation, building a case that a ban from this topic is needed. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Having reviewed the other sources, reliable sources do confirm the masturbation claim (, ) but not ejaculation, which appears to be supported only by ''New York Post'', a generally unreliable source. {{u|Luganchanka}}, in light of this clarification, can you please address your decision to include the claims as you initially wrote them? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::The detail is in the record of ''Ritter v. Tuttle'' (case No. 3:15cv1235 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2018)), so it isn't completely made up. But I would also like to hear from the user on this point as to whether there was secondary sourcing here. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Seeing ] here and ], ] at ], I see no comprehension of the use of primary vs. secondary sources, nor any reflection of their past errors in engaging with this topic. I believe that a block from the page is needed to prevent further BLP violations as they have shown no understanding of the relevant policies even after being given several warnings, reminders and opportunities to revise their position. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 18:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::{{yo|Luganchanka}}
*:::::::] calls upon users to {{tq|{{strong|{{em|not}}}} use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person}}. There are some narrow exceptions (when {{tq|primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it {{em|may}} be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source}}), but adding material to the article not found in reliable secondary sources is... suboptimal ''at best'' under our ].
*:::::::— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{yo|Luganchanka}} Would you please provide a direct link to the talk page section you are referring to when you say {{tq|there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior[REDACTED] editors}} regarding the lead? — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Luganchanka|Hemiauchenia}}
*:It does seem that the discussion at ] does indicate some support for that language i.e. ({{tq|convicted child sex offender}}) in the lead, with some general lean against putting it in the first sentence. So, while {{tq|There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences}} is true if it means the literal first sentence, I do see a rough consensus to include the material in the lead section in some way in that discussion.
*:That being said, the BLPN discussion had a bit of different tone and tenor from the discussion on the talk page. There was on the article's talk page, but Luganchanka, despite having been pretty vocal about this subject in the past, hadn't participated in that BLPN discussion. They instead grounded their edits in the argument that the article's talk page had consensus for the current content, and nothing on the article's talk page had changed that consensus. And that much was true. In any case, we've got <s>]</s>two different forums with two different answers here, which appears to be what's leading to the whole kerfluffle.
*:Then the analysis comes to whether or not the label is a straightforward BLP violation, requiring us to read the sourcing in the article. , which is cited in the ''body'' of the article (but not the lead), does state that Ritter {{tq|was convicted unlawful contact with minors and other charges}} in the state of PA (the PA statute is ; "unlawful contact with minors" is the verbatim name of the crime). When dealing with a sting operation, PA treats it as {{tq|an offense of the same grade and degree}} as if the criminal had actually contacted a child (unless it's a lesser crime than a third-degree felony, in which case it becomes a third-degree felony). This is an extremely common practice in the United States (there are lots of philosophical questions regarding ''mens rea'' and ''actus reus'' here, but that's not really relevant here). In any case, labeling this to be a child sex offense (or, alternatively, to simply use the name of the crime in the article) does not appear to be straightforward malice/POV-pushing/libel, and a reasonably informed individual might shorten it in this way. Whether or not that is ''wise'' or ''optimal'' to shorten it is the proper subject for content discussion.
*:Aside from the edit warring (which was not acceptable, and was aptly handled by a block), this looks like a content dispute. A heated one involving a living person, sure, but a content dispute nonetheless. I see good-faith—albeit passionate—disagreement. If the editors were to come together and engage in one forum (such as the article's talk page, where this has been discussed a bunch), rather than splitting the discussion over multiple pages, I feel like we might have our best shot at attaining a consensus going forward.
*:In short, it looks like the conversation fragmented, and consensus-building broke down. Edit warring ensued, which was bad, but we've already blocked for that in order to dissuade it going forward. A ] on the article's talk page for what the lead should look like is probably the best way to go forward here.
*:— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 15:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::RTH, are you objecting to a p-block from the article? ] (]) 13:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Ping to @] ] (]) 18:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*Luganchanka has been blocked for a week by ] for BLP violations and personal attacks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Just noting that this was a regular admin action and I wasn't aware this was before AE. ] (]) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*::With this in mind, I think we should wait to hear from RTH but otherwise expect to move forward to an indef p-block on top of SFR's stopgap action, as we haven't seen anything coming close to an adequate recognition of the relevant policies and practices from Luganchanka and after several second chances and nudges, I don't see reason to expect them to change course. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

==BabbleOnto==
<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 BabbleOnto===
==CFCF==
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|ජපස}} 17:34, 13 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>


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|BabbleOnto}}<p>{{ds/log|BabbleOnto}}</p>
===Request concerning CFCF===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|AlbinoFerret}} 17:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|CFCF}}<p>{{ds/log|CFCF}}
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] : ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask 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. --> <!-- 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.-->
# Inserts POV caption that does not describe the image "fruit and candy flavored e-liquid may appeal especially to younger users" # Sealioning
# Refusal to ]
# Inserts off topic claim (about brain development (children) and is a [[Safety of electronic cigarettes | Safety claim) in the lede, at the beginning of the paragraph (prominent position), that is not in the body of the article. It is also already covered in the Safety article.
# Inserts editorial (primary non MERDS) into the article to counter a MEDRS secondary source. # Personalizing an argument.
# Adds image of illegal drugs and paraphernalia to consume them into the e-cig article relying on fringe source. # Railroading the discussion.
# Adds a blog post <s>to an< activist site</s> from a known anti-tobacco activist (Stanton Glantz, as described in multiple high quality RS ) that is currently the subject of an RFC. to prove his point. <small> 1/31/2016 Edit Strike, reword, and add RS on activism.</small>
# Adds off topic material against consensus in this section. This happened after this section was opened and he was notified.


This is all after I warned them about ] sanctions, and . Very nearly a ] on the subject. I see no reason to continue tolerating this kind of obstinate ]. Additional diffs available on request from admins, but looking at the user history should suffice to indicate the problem is obvious, I hope.
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
* Previous AE section where CFCF was warned not to edit against consensus.


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->

;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> <!-- 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. -->
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above).
*Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
Discretionary sanctions mean that editors on a page must adhere to accepted editorial norms and follow policy and guidelines. CFCF is an experienced editor. He is very active on the ] page and had done a lot of editing to it. Because of this he is very knowledgeable on what is and isnt problematic. He should know better than to insert a editorial (primary) to counted a secondary MEDRS source. He should know better than to insert claims at the front of a paragraph in the lede that are not on the page, and not on topic for the page. He should know better than to use fringe sources to link e-cigs to illegal activity. He should know better than to write captions for images that are not about the image to bring in POV about children. But he has chosen to ignore MEDRS and insert POV after POV edit. He is also arguing to keep these POV edits in place. This one is very problematic as it points out a WEIGHT problem along with POV. This one where he argues an editorial in a journal is a position statement. This push to include pure POV without any discussion beforehand or consensus, one after the other is problematic. He has also added multiple images about children, as {{u|KimDabelsteinPetersen}} points out 40% of the images in the article now are about children and vaping, a very POV focused number considering the article states that use by them is low compared to other age groups. ] 17:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a ] with respect to the topic and their ] surrounding it has been subject to at least one ] thread that remains active: ]. The hope was that they would ] and move on from this, but it seems they either will not or cannot. ] (]) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

In response to CFCF's post I will point out it is against ] which the talk page has been following lately. Pushing POV edits without and contrary to consensus is problematic. I will also point out the deceptive multiple edit diffs he uses. ] 18:46, 27 January 2016 (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, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> <!-- 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. -->
Notified here.
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


===Discussion concerning BabbleOnto===
====Responses by AlbinoFerret====
<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>
@MarkBernstein While Stanton Glantz may be a professor, he is also a recognised activist. As found in numerous reliable sources. While the whole university site isnt an activist site, his personal blog on the site can be reasonably found to hold his thoughts and agenda. ] 19:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


====Statement by BabbleOnto====
Cloudjpk has provided diffs against me. But none of them show anything really relevant to this current situation.
I would first like to begin by point out the person filing this complaint . They have frequently left "warnings" which read more like threats on and for people who disagree with them. Nor would I be the .
*A year ago I discussed if a source with pharmaceutical funding was biased. I do find activists biased, and started a RFC to gain consensus on if the source should have in text attribution (not removal). Both diffs show how editors should solve differences on content on a contentious article, discussion beforehand. Sadly in CFCF's case that was not done.
*I thank Cloudjpk for including this diff what it shows is I reverted CFCF editing against consensus of a closed merge discussion that was brought to and CFCF was warned not to edit against consensus.
*The last link is pretty much ancient history (sadly dragged up to toss mud). The almost a year old section was about me being to active in the topic and editing to much. I took a 6 month self break from the topic. During which time I was just as active in other areas of WP, because I am mostly homebound and have lots of free time. I am no longer as active in the topic and have other interests, including being a NAC on ] where I have closed around 260 RFC's, but still find e-cigs interesting. ] 22:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


To be honest I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm being charged with doing.
I believe because of a prior Arbcom section that I was involved in concerning JzG/Guy that he is involved. I have left a message on his talk page. He disagrees and I hope that he recuse's himself from this section. ] 18:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


I think in general the user is alleging I've been uncivil, unhelpful, and, in their words, obstinate and tendentious. I know when someone disagrees with you it may feel like they're getting in your way and acting in bad-faith, but that's not always true. I've never tried to be disruptive or uncivil. I've , I've that were clarified to be wrong, I've , at times and work together. And when those editors , I didn't provoke any further.
@Guy I will give a link to the Lancet source. <b>I will also point out that it is an "editorial" as can clearly be seen right above the title.</b> Regardless of the respectability of the Lancet, an editorial is a primary source and not ]. Editors should never rely on editorials to counter findings of a secondary source, in this case ] a part of the UK Department of Health.


I now address the specific edits in the complaint:
I will explain the Lancet POV problem. I point out that we have been here before. McNiel wrote a criticism of the Grana review,. The source was said to be primary. In the McNiel case CFCF was against including it. Here is <b>In the case of criticizing a negative review CFCF argued to keep the primary source criticism out, . In this case CFCF wants the primary source criticism of a positive review in.</b> This shows a big POV problem. ] 19:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


1. I don't see how this is sea-lioning. The user misquoted the article. I pointed out the misquotation, then addressed a accusation against me that I was second-guessing the sources (A claim which was never substantiated). I then said any source would have to support that actual claim which was in the article. I don't know what this violates.
@Jytdog Yes I suggested that S Marshall start a new section like he had been doing on the talk pages until he took a break. I also think you are missing some of the finer points comparing the Stanton Glantz RFC with the later post by CFCF. The RFC is about a MEDRS review. Many may disagree with me, but thats why we have RFC's to see where consensus lies. But I wonder how many of those no comments would agree to add a blog page by him? Not many by reading the talk page, where the journal reviewing the source was a main reason to vote no. Blogs are not reviewed. Blogs of activists {as pointed out in numerous high quality RS), are not good sources to add anything, find a MEDRS secondary source. As for the Lancet, all I am reading here are excuses to bring in a lower primary source to counter a higher secondary source. That is just not done, we should hold to our high standards of MEDRS secondary sources. As I have pointed out above, the talk page has had these discussions before. Thats part of the problem, CFCF is applying MEDRS differently depending on the view of the source. ] 06:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
:No its not my opinion, that Glantz is an activist is found in numerous high quality sources . It is a primary source, and unsuitable for use for any medical claims. It is not even a report, but a submission to the FDA on deeming regulations, something anyone can do. ] 14:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


2. I don't see how this is refusing to get the message (IDHT). The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it. I replied with what I actually said. What part of that interaction is saying "I didn't hear that?"
{{u|S Marshall}} Involvement is not just specific with a topic, it can also be with an editor on different topics. If an editor calls for sanctions against you on a notice board, it is likely that the two of you are involved because of this. This link contains quite a large section by me calling for JzG/Guy to be sanctioned. As does my comment in the GMO case calling for him to be included as a party, and likely face sanctions if he was included. Just as Jytdog cant say he is uninvolved as I presented evidence and PD against him at Arbcom. ] 10:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


3. Admittedly probably the strongest of the four allegations. I'm not pretending I was perfect in all of my comments. I should have kept my criticism strictly to their argument. I ask you to read it in context and keep in mind you're viewing a hand-picked assortment of my worst edits, and this is the worst they could find. Also consider that conversation accused me of , perhaps you can see I lose my cool sometimes too.
===Discussion concerning CFCF===
<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 CFCF====
These edits do not constitute anything apart from a departure from the point of view of AlbinoFerret. All edits are properly sourced and I can categorically refute each accusation:
#There are a multitude of sources to support that statement, I have used at least three separate ]-compliant sources.
#That statement is taken without any alteration from the Centers for Disease Controls website: , where is is repeated multiple times. I also chose to add the statement later in the article body, and suggested expanding the article by using the linked website, which is among the highest quality MEDRS-compliant sources.
#The Lancet is a recognized medical authority, this statement was written in their name and as such is compliant as per ]
#Using a review article as per ] I included a number of images adding to the quality of the article.
#This is not a blog post but a comment submitted to the CDC with numerous references and is backed by the University of California Los Angeles Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education. Neither is the inclusion of the authors material the subject of the RfC – but rather if citing him should require attribution as an "anti-tobacco activist". The current RfC reads in favor of no with a vote of 6 to 0 (I have not voted).


4. I'm not even really sure what "railroading the discussion" means. Thus, to keep this section short and to save words, I don't know what I'm being accused of doing wrong here.
I believe it is also important to note that AlbinoFerret chose to revert these edits multiple times, I did not revert back, choosing each time to engage in discussion on the talk page. See reverts: , , .


All of this has stemmed out of arguments over two sources. I have tried to find compromise, I have tried to negotiate, I have tried to build consensus. I've been going through the proper channels, I've been participating in the RfC, I've been discussing it on the ANI, I source every claim I make, for a month now I've been trying to constructively explain my side and defend my argument against challenges. It's incredibly frustrating to now be facing an Arbitration Enforcement on grounds that '''I'm''' not working with others. ] (]) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I am under the firm belief that I chose the constructive approach, following up any controversy with discussion, not reverting. ]<span style="font-size: .90em;">] ]</span> 18:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
*:Edited. ] (]) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:Response to KimDabelsteinPetersen
:<small>(''Kim has a declared connection to electronic cigarettes, disclosure can be seen at the top of the page: ]'')</small>
:2. Brain development is negligible beyond adolescence, at least in the sense of being affected, this is a content dispute about a qualifier, and I do not dispute that it could be included, but the full phrase was removed entirely without discussion.
:3. That is a different situation, without the full backing of an editorial board. This is the same reason I chose not to include the multiple critiques in the BMJ , . I'm glad to see I was as consistent in 2014.
:4. Following another editor removing the image I asked on the talk page if a cropped version would be better . Also note that this is one of two images from the same source which I added, the other which remains in the article.
:5. The FDA comment was reposted in full, available in pdf-format here:
:]<span style="font-size: .90em;">] ]</span> 20:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


*:Sorry, the sub-header for this section says that only admins can edit this section, I didn't realize I was allowed to reply here.
====Statement by Starke Hathaway====
*:Yes, I will. I intend on taking an extended break from wikipedia, as well. ] (]) 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC) <small> Moved from uninvolved admin section; you can answer questions, make comments, discuss, but all your input needs to be in your own section. ] (]) 17:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
Having reviewed the diffs, I am not persuaded that CFCF has done anything more heinous than disagreeing with AlbinoFerret in a content dispute. My own independent review of the interactions between CFCF and AlbinoFerret leaves me with more concern over the behavior of the latter than the former. See for instance. ] (]) 18:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
**::{{TQ|an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.}}
**:: What I meant was that I'm willing to respect the consensus and not make any further edits or argue any more contrary to what the consensus decided. It seems to me that saying I have "Issues around understanding policy" and asking me to "learn policy" has subtext that says "Until you agree with this consensus, and you won't be allowed to edit at all." Is respectful disagreement with this consensus allowed? I'm afraid if in order to avoid a ban I have to ''personally agree'' with the consensus, beyond just respecting it, then there's nothing I can do. I still do disagree with the consensus's result. Nonetheless, I'm not going to edit or argue further, I'll respect it as a legitimate.


***::: Re:{{tq|no, you don't have to agree. You just have to accept and move on.}}
====Statement by TracyMcClark====
***::: Then I accept the consensus. I'm not going to argue in those discussions any further, though I still personally disagree, I understand a consensus has been reached which is other than my opinion. Nor will I edit disruptively or against the consensus. I appreciate the admin who noted I largely kept my disagreement in the talk pages, not editing the articles themselves. I plan on staying away from the topic in general for quite a while.


****:::: Re:{{tq|BabbleOnto, do you understand what we're talking about when we describe your participation at talk pages as WP:sealioning, and why we think it's such a problem, particularly in contentious topics? Do you think you can avoid participating in that way at article talk pages?}}
Once again CFCF has shown today on talk and article space that their purpose in the e-cigs area isn't to build a reasonable NPOV entry but to advocate their personal fundamental opposition to the subject. No surprise here considering the OP's advocacy in the past which already led to sanctions against tem.] (]) 19:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
****:::: Yes, and yes.


====Statement by MarkBernstein==== ====Statement by ProcrastinatingReader====
I've interacted with BabbleOnto in several threads. There's a few problems, but ultimately, I think they have a certain opinion on what the article should say, and will debate endlessly to get the article changed to their position. I mean, sure, reasonable people disagree on how to interpret sources and apply policy, but I don't think BabbleOnto is actually interested in faithful application of policies to write high quality articles based on good sources.
Is it entirely reasonable to describe a site of the University of California San Francisco as "an activist site"? The author of this particular page is a full professor of medicine. This does have an unfortunate appearance. ] (]) 19:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


That's not terribly problematic by itself, but most discussions with BabbleOnto are exhausting. Rather than actually trying to understand someone's argument in good faith, I think BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible, and making a superficially reasonable response ''ad nauseam''. They reply endlessly in this manner. As well as misrepresentation of opponents' arguments, on multiple occassions BabbleOnto has either misrepresented sources or hasn't read their own sources. I can't think of a single thread where BabbleOnto didn't have the last word, or a single thread where it seemed like BabbleOnto was actually trying to understand the arguments of other editors in a charitable way. As such, I think it's very difficult to work collaborately with BabbleOnto on the lab leak theory and related articles. ] (]) 21:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
====Statement by KimDabelsteinPetersen====
In reply to the diffs and CFCF's reply to these:


====Statement by Newimpartial====
# A "multitude of sources" here is unfortunately used to mislead, since what we are interested in, is the prevalence of this argument in the literature. In other words it is a ] issue. Several sources do state this, but several sources also consider it moot. When combined with prevalence of ] in controversial issues such as this, then any editor should be cautious when relying on, or promoting such.
As the editor to whom BabbleOnto was responding in the diffs of the filing, I feel compelled to comment now that they have defended (to varying degrees) their first three diffs. I will reply as briefly as I know how to their defense of the diffs, .
# The response by CFCF is incorrect, as the CDC page has the added correct context of ".. among youth". Translating such into a generic statement, ie. all agegroups, is problematic. Particularly when this has been pointed out. For background: Nicotine has a detrimental effect on a growing brain, but not on an adult brain (see Surgeon General (2015)).
# Here CFCF uses the language "recognized medical authority" where he should have written "recognized medical journal". The Lancet itself is not an authority or a recognized scientific body. What it cooks down to, is that CFCF wants to use a primary editorial source to dispute a secondary review from Public Health England. This is strange because he is against using similar sources in comparable situations.
# This one is problematic - CFCF wants to place an image of e-cigarettes using illigal drugs, despite the topic being extremely minor in the literature. This seems inline a ecig negative POV as the above.
# Here CFCF is using a pressrelease and a blog post to argue a point. Strangely he is arguing on the talk page that the pressrelease is a position statement?!


1. BabbleOnto is now doubling down on the claim that I {{tq|misquoted the article}}. I didn't "misquote" the article - I didn't quote the article, and I explained what my comment meant in the rest of the (now collapsed) thread that ends . Also, I provided a clear explanation of why I thought they were second-guessing sources later in the thread, but BabbleOnto never responded to that explanation. They are now responding to the accusation of ] with pure ].
All in all it seems quite clear to me that CFCF is having difficulty in seperating his personal ] from his work as a[REDACTED] editor on this article. And that is problematic.


2. On this they say, now, that {{tq|The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it.}} This is repeating a misreading they made in the original thread, where they mistook a statement I made about another editor's comment as if it were about theirs. In this "defense", I see no attempt to read thoughtfully what other editors say in reply to them and revise their understanding accordingly; all I see is zero-sum mentality and ].
Short response to {{u|MarkBernstein}}: He may be a full professor, but it is still a blog, and the source is still opinion and primary. In fact that particular blog is part of Pf. Glantz activism/advocacy, something which he btw. is well known, and well regarded, for. See the discussion on the talkpage, as well as his BLP article for details. --] 20:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


3. BabbleOnto is now justifying an edit where they said to me, {{tq|You have a habit of inserting small lies into everything you say}} and {{tq|You're not adding anything constructive. You're just refusing to explain anything and saying conclusory statements, or lying about what you said}} - all this based on a misreading of what I had actually written - because I was going to refer to {{tq|a basic failure in reading comprehension}} '''''two hours later'''''. This seems like a time travel paradox.
And we've now turned from ], to lets associate it with drug use. I'm not questioning the mention of this in the article, but more the ] put upon it. And, if i wasn't aware of CFCF's status as a serious medical editor, i would seriously say that he has now turned to the next page in an advocacy handbook. --] 20:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


4. They don't bother defending themselves on this one, but just to point out the actual issue with the diff, they doubled down on their accusations that I {{tq|said a material lie}}, and that I {{tq|lied when said that quoted the article out of context. Pointing out being caught lying}} and then proceeded to STRAWMAN the rest of my comment to which they were replying. If they had read my prior comment with a reasonable level of attention, they would have understood that there were no "lies", just a misunderstanding or two in each direction. But ] again; even in responding to this filing BabbleOnto is still insisting I did things that I quite obviously didn't do.
Noticeable, with regards to the general POV and WEIGHT porblems, should also be the talk page discussion here ] --] 20:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


It is exhausting to deal with this kind of quasi-CPUSH (not quite civil, but certainly push) behaviour. The Talk page in question has seen a recent influx of single-purpose or nearly single-purpose POV accounts, and in terms of editor energy, this one certainly seems not to be a net positive for Misplaced Pages as a project. Perhaps if they edited away from Covid and US politics, their track record might improve. ] (]) 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
''In reply to the reply from CFCF:''<br/>
2. The problem is location and weight ''combined'' with the lack of qualifier. <br/>
3. It really doesn't change anything. An editorial is opinion, it is not a position statement from a scientific body or a secondary review. And the other discussion is actually very like this, since that was the peer-reviewed opinion of several ''expert'' scientists within the topic-area, while the editorial board of a journal aren't a) expert in the topic, nor b) peer-reviewed.<br/>
4. Pictures carry content - one image from a reference may be uncontroversial, while another from the same reference may be significantly controversial. You really should know this.<br/>
5. What difference does it make that it is in PDF format?? It is still unpublished unreviewed opinion of some scientists, sourced from a blog! I'm shocked that you appear to think that PDF is a guidance to reliability. Anyone can send letters - that doesn't make it reliable. --] 21:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


====Statement by Cloudjpk==== ====Statement by Objective3000====
Just a quick aside to Valereee's aside: {{TQ|Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn....}} ] currently has posts from 19 editors lacking the edits for extended confirmed. ] (]) 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Starke Hathaway AlbinoFerret's complaint and his related history raises more concerns about him.
:@], this is also a problem at other CTOPs, and is likely to become more problematic. I assume due to off-Wiki forums. ECR might just produce more users gaming EC. I thought it would be useful to put your aside into the CTOP template at the top of CTOP TPs. But that assumes folks read it. Walt Kelly said something along the lines of: “If only I could write, I’d write a letter to the mayor, if only he could read." This discussion is likely better off elsewhere. ] (]) 21:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::Note: ] was just TBanned from the topic of COVID-19 and indef blocked until the accusations of off-wiki coordination made by them at ANI are retracted. Those accusations are like their suggestion made in their statement in this filing. ] (]) 12:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by JoelleJay====
AlbinoFerret finds reliable sources he disagrees with biased: ] .
At the very least, can we get more admin involvement on the lab leak page so trolling like ] doesn't disrupt things even more? ] (]) 07:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by IntrepidContributor====
AlbinoFerret deleted text he does not like He claims his change was by consensus, but he deleted a notable source without AFD discussion. He did not not move all the content back to the safety page as he claims. IMO this was gaming the system.


I have been observing BabbleOnto and while there are valid concerns about bludgeoning, I think the proposed sanctions are too much. His engagement in the Covid lab leak topic is driven by commitment to WP:NPOV, which our articles fail to adhere to, and he made the mistake of arguing with editors who were never going to listen (resulting in what looks like sealioning on his part). He's not only editor to raise issues in the topic and engage in good faith discussion, only to find themselves pulled to AN or AE disputes after staying out of the seasoning traps and refusing to capitulate to threats. In a parallel AN case concerning another editor in same topic, I suggest there may be possible off-wiki coordination , but it can also be on-wiki ().
And none of this is new; this is a longstanding pattern ] (]) 22:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


One need only cross-reference names from , checking those that voted for labeling COVID-19 lab leak as conspiracy, with the names of complainants here. Contrast all these old timers with the steady stream of tens if not hundreds of regular editors complaining that our article fails NPOV, and see that their gentle approach doesn't work . Our chief complainant is already preparing his next case , and this might not be his first.


I suggest that administrators consider a 1 to 2 month topic ban for BabbleOnto to provide opportunity for him to correct his approach, while staying alert to the tactics of POV editors trying to draw them into content debates to influence outcomes.
==== Comment by uninvolved JzG ====
The "blog post" from an "activist site" is actually a submission to the FDA jointly issued by the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education,
University of California San Francisco and the Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University. It is extensively referenced and although not peer reviewed is clearly an expert opinion and not a mere "blog post".


] (]) 14:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
One of the diffs cited as evidence of evil behaviour also includes this:


=== Statement by TarnishedPath ===
{{quotation|The same advertising tactics the tobacco industry used years ago to get kids addicted to nicotine are now being used to entice a new generation of young people to use e-cigarettes,” said CDC Director Tom Frieden, M.D., M.P.H.}}
Please see ] where BabbleOnto edited ] restoring previously reverted content and ] using a shit source after they'd been told by multiple other editors in discussions ] and ] that the source was shit. Notably in the edit summary they wrote "{{tq|Read discussion page. Manual revert. No serious challenge has been made to these changes. Methinks an admin needs to get involved...}}" despite them being in a ] situation. If a clue is not gotten by the editor fast I'd suggest TBANs from both COVID and AP2 is warranted in order to cease their disruption. '']''<sup>]</sup> 04:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


:Noting the editor's continued behaviour at ]. Refer to ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
The CDC is not some random bunch of activists, and to pretend that citing the CDC is POV-pushing is plainly completely unacceptable.
::and again at ] '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


===Statement by berchanhimez===
The complainant also objects to an "editorial primary non-MEDRS" statement contradicting a "MEDRS" source. In fact, the edit in question was an article in The Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world, which pointed out that a figure ''estimated'' by Public Health England to be based on "an extraordinarily flimsy foundation" Now, The Lancet does not often go into bat against public health bodies, and Public Health England is not actually a MEDRS, there's been a lot of discussion on opinions by medical and public health bodies and they are not considered reliable to the standard of peer-reviewed articles.
This user was given no less than 4 chances on the talk page to stop talking about bans/other editors and start talking about the content. They have continued crying about how they're scared of getting banned... yet they continue blabbing about other editors getting banned for their bad behavior ]. ''At a minimum'' a partial block from the talk page(s) in question is warranted, and it would be beneficial for a topic ban from the origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


==== Statement by Shibbolethink ====
I find it worrying that despite the lengthy arbitration, motivated reasoning of this type is still going on. Misplaced Pages really doesn't care how fervently you might wish that medical academics were in favour of vaping, the fact is that there are profound and well-founded reservations about it, and it is Misplaced Pages's policy that these must be adequately reflected in articles. The edits of which AlbinoFerret complains are all entirely defensible and to an independent onlooker they appear to be necessary corrections to pro-vaping activism. This is an area where the evidence base is ambiguous and there is still spirited debate within the scientific community, we definitely should not be trying to protray it as settled one way or another, and balancing statements of the type CFCF added are necessary to maintaining NPOV.
I am heavily involved in this overall dispute as someone who has gone back and forth with BabbleOnto. I wanted to add that, in general, my feeling from interacting with this user is that they ''could'' be a good contributor to this site, and absolutely ''could'' follow the PAGs. They have shown an ability to be courteous . I think the issue is that in FRINGE and other contentious areas like COVID-19 origins, they have shown a tendancy to become "hot-headed" when tensions rise, and to reference an us vs them mentality (and numerous examples from others above). It seems they have also been egged-on, and made more combative from other PROFRINGE users (and probably some anti-FRINGE users as well who do admittedly ]) in that topic space (e.g. )


We are told often to use narrowest possible restriction to protect the project. In this case, '''I think that would be a COVID-19 origins TBAN''', where most of the disruption has been. The user states they have learned what to do when consensus is against them. If they fail to show that lesson in AP2 articles more than just the 10 or so edits they've made in those articles, an AP2 TBAN would be appropriate at that time (]). Just my 2 cents.—&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 22:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
If there is to be an outcome here it should be a topic ban for AlbinoFerret for making vexatious complaints and attempting to abuse Misplaced Pages process to gain an advantage in a content dispute.


====Statement by Kingsindian==== ====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
I have no opinion on the request except to state that {{u|Mystery Wolff}} should not be commenting here as they are under a topic ban from the area. They are a new user, so they should be advised that topic bans apply to all pages. They should simply avoid commenting on this matter altogether. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 17:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


====Statement by LesVegas==== ===Result concerning BabbleOnto===
:''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. -->
First of all, '''Guy is involved'''. I'm going to assume in good faith that he is saying he's uninvolved because he doesn't edit on E-Cig or tobacco articles, so he might think he's classified as impartial, but he has definitely been involved in several interactions with Albino Ferret and CFCF that I have seen. One of the more recent ones was when Albino Ferret commented about Guy's behavior ] on a GMO case. JzG was also involved in an E-Cig Arbitration Request case where he commented on Albino Ferret, said he supported a topic ban for him, and characterized the E-Cig topic as Guy and CFCF also both supported topic banning Albino Ferret and Guy, CFCF, and Albino Ferret , with Guy and CFCF arguing against Albino Ferret's stance there. ] (]) 01:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
*<!--

-->
==== Comment by Johnbod====
*{{u|BabbleOnto}}, please edit your statement down further to fit within the restriction. This also serves as an opportunity to rephrase your defense, which currently is not convincing at first glance. ProcrastinatingReader's description of the situation seems quite apt, particularly {{tq|BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible}}, which is currently a pretty fitting description of your response to them here, given that you zeroed in on the "superficially reasonable" part and ignored the much more serious parts of the testimony. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Just brief comments provoked by the (unsigned) "Comment by uninvolved JzG" above.
*:Ok, having read through nearly every edit that BabbleOnto has made, I agree with the complainants that not only does BabbleOnto engage in sealioning, it appears to be almost exclusively what they do. The discussion at ] exhibits perhaps even more concerning argumentation than the diffs provided in the initial report. Throughout these discussions, BabbleOnto tends to demand a standard of stating the obvious (with respect to the context of said sources) that is absurd, and continues to lawyer for such standards even when the situation becomes ]. When criticizing sources' ability to account for basic claims, I can find no examples of BabbleOnto themselves attempting to find sources that would resolve the issues they identify--this is uncollaborative behavior. There is a clear pattern of engaging in this behavior across recent US politics topics consistent with the scope of ]. The only saving grace to BabbleOnto's track record is that none of this has translated into disruptive editing of actual articles, just unproductive engagement on talk pages. I am currently in favor of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics; if they are actually here to build an encyclopedia and not to provide a punching bag for debate club, they can use this opportunity to learn more constructive patterns of editing in topics that they are less personally invested in. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*The diff in the complaint above is ''neither'' "a blog post to an activist site from a known anti-tobacco activist" (Per Albino Ferret) ''nor'' "a submission to the FDA jointly issued by the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco and the Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University." (per JzG). It is a press release from the "Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco" linked to a PDF of the submission , which is submitted by 9 academics whose affiliations are footnoted to the "Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco and the Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University." The diff (#5 in the list) in fact comes from the talk page of the EC article (a CFCF contribution) not the article itself.
*::{{u|Valereee}} in line with their follow-up response, I take Objective3000's comments as potentially a basis for community discussion rather than a call for protective action on the lab leak talk page right now. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 21:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*JzG says "In fact, the edit in question was an article in The Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world, which pointed out that a figure estimated by Public Health England to be based on "an extraordinarily flimsy foundation" - as extensively covered on the EC talk page, the "estimate" is from by 12 academics, which commissioned by PHE England from 6 academics (at 113 pages long, much the most comprehensive on the subject) endorsed as the best estimate available. ''The Lancet'''s comment has itself .
* I have to agree, this looks like sealioning. {{u|BabbleOnto}}, you're new here, and I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt about your ability to learn to collaborate. WP works on collaboration and consensus, and sometimes consensus goes your way, sometimes it doesn't. You have to be willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you. And you absolutely must not insist everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers. I've seen editors at both the Thompson and the lab leak talks tell you they don't actually owe you an answer to your satisfaction.
*It is true that "balancing statements of the type CFCF added are necessary to maintaining NPOV" (JzG), but these need to ''accurate'', and I don't think that either CFCF's edits nor JzG's comments are sufficiently so - in common with much else in the WP debate on the subject, including many of Albino Ferret's contributions. Hence the complaint. The ecig talk page is busy and time-consuming to follow but it is fairly effective at grinding through this stuff, and the process should be allowed to continue.
*The actual press release/submission deal with very specific US regulatory matters, and US evidence of prevalence etc, and the authors are generally careful to keep qualifying their statements to reflect this. What the submission wants might be summarized as to bring US regulation to what the EU already has in large part. There is also some evidence that prevalence of ecig usage in youth is widely different between the US and elsewhere in the world (higher in US). All editors need to take care not to globalize US-specific material on this. ] (]) 12:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

====Comments by Doc James====
*Per this edit the image was placed in the section on motivation and was very well referenced. Not seeing what is so horribly wrong with it?
*Agree this is not the best place for that content and Albino removed it after a couple of hours
*Agree that we should tend to stick with reviews rather than editorials.
*This was added to the talk page and uses the CDC and the UCSF as refs. What is wrong with this?

I am just not seeing anything that causes significant concern. This appears to be an attempt by Albino to eliminate those who disagree with them. ] (] · ] · ]) 12:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

====Comment by Beyond My Ken====
I support Guy's suggestion of a topic ban for Albino Ferret for using Misplaced Pages processes as a weapon in pushing a POV. ] (]) 19:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by wuerzele====
I carefully reviewed the diffs in this AE request and find the request more than adequately supported and actionable.
CFCF's transgressions and non-neutral edits may not be obvious to the casual observer. I implore arbcom members to make the effort to look at the diffs REGARDLESS of their opinion about e-cigs:
# To insert the Lancet editorial (primary non MERDS) into the article to counter a MEDRS secondary source is obviously incorrect, already acknowledged by Doc James even though he otherwise found "no issues" with CFCF s behavior (but unsurprising giving tehir close relationship on wikiproject med).
# The caption CFCF inserted may sound good by itself, but is clearly WP:SYNTH at best because it does not describe the photo of colorful containers - this is unearnest editing.
# what AF described as "off topic claim" is hard to see at first, but since it is a ] claim and was also inserted in the lede, and not in the body of the article I can see the point. This is POV pushing.
# Adding illegal drugs to sway an article is something I have seen happen for years at ], and is no mild form of tendentious editing.
# Adding a blog post again contradicts the MEDRS argument that CFCF so prominently enforces on people who disagree with him, a double standard.
# Adding off topic stuff against a talk page consensus is a clear DS violation.
# To edit on ] to further his own arguments is one thing, but to participate in a slow edit war about a highly controversial issue, in what can be seen as tag-teaming with QuackGuru and Yobol respectively to make yobol's revert of the more cautious versions of {{U|LesVegas}} and {{U|Tsavage}} stick is the very disruptive behavior he . --] (]) 03:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

* '''Admin JzG describing himself as "uninvolved JzG" in his section is false:'''
His self evaluation is incorrect and worse: deceptive. I second the ] who made the case, that JzG is involved, supported by multiple diffs. by calling himself uninvolved he aims to legitimize his turning of the table against AF, the requester, by proposing a 3 mth ban. under "Result concerning CFCF", it says "the section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators". Furthermore, JzG has a history of involvement on many sites, and has gotten a away with blocking editors. 2015 arbcom members should be well aware of the review, as JzG was . arbcom clerks, please move His comments.--] (]) 07:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Jytdog====
I recently started working on the e-cig articles again for a while, and was really surprised by the level of bad feeling that is still there. When I came on the scene, the "pro-ecig" faction was trying to simplify the article (which it does need) and were proposing content without sourcing. (This section: ]. S Marshall proposed it and AlbinoFerret and others signed off on it (Johnbod at least asked for sources!). When I asked for sources I got rough treatment from {{u|S Marshall}} and , with the caustic: {{talk quote|But, you see, that leads to the problem your buddy QuackGuru had, where he said the same thing again and again in every paragraph}}. Again, I was just asking for sources and wanted the draft content to accurately reflect them.

When S Marshall went ahead and , finally with sources, it became clear that the draft text had basic factual errors in it. (like e-cigs are 20% better than patches for quitting, when no source said that). These things could have been easily worked out. Instead, drama and trying to force things through. AlbinoFerret actually did a pretty collegial job working with me to fix it once we had sources.

But the level of bad feeling is high. See between AlbinoFerret and S Marshall on S Marshall's Talk page about the Mystery Wolf appeal. From S Marshall: {{talkquote|it's moot while Jytdog is active anyway as I don't have the patience to deal with them. The topic area attracts that breed of editors like flies to shit}} Asking for sources for a proposal is exasperating? S Marshall he is taking a self-imposed break, which I think is wise.

About the point Albino raises about Stanton Glanz being an "anti-tobacco activist" and mischaracterizing the source as a "blog post"... Albino himself got fixated on adding an attribution for Glanz as an "anti-tobacco activist" but nobody on any side agreed with him, and Albino even started an RfC on that and got no !votes supporting using that attribution, and all !votes opposing. (see ]. But he brings that point as though anybody agrees with him - but not even other members of the pro e-cig faction agree. Which just shows that his judgement is out of whack here.

About the Lancet editorial, it is frustrating to see this mischaracterized all around. MEDRS discusses editorials in the normal sense of published opinions written and signed by some individual(s), and it advises the community to treat them as primary. Rightly. The Lancet Editorial in question was by the editorial board - it was signed, "The Lancet". It is a rare thing for the journal ''per se'' to make a statement, especially one of the Lancet's stature. For the UK-based Lancet in particular to comment on the PHE report is ...something. It is not of equal stature to PHE itself (PHE is a "major health organization" per MEDRS and I would not consider any journal's editorial board - not even the Lancet - to be one), but the critique was important and should be mentioned. Both sides are distorting things in making the case around that source. Tensions are high.

About CFCF's behavior generally. I agree that CFCF has been too bold lately - there is too much churn and he is driving some of it. The overall churn is so fast and the tone on Talk so negatively charged that I have stopped paying attention to the article. But back to CFCF, there was no urgent need for CFCF to update the images in the article, for example, and he did emphasize the risks to children and the potential for use of e-cigs with pot in the images he selected. Pretty POV. Does that violate DS? Hard to see that, and I don't see that this is more worthy of AE than other behaviors I have seen in the brief time I have been back. I find the filing to be exaggerated and ramping up tensions yet more.

I think if additional sanctions were imposed to slow down editing and discussion for a while, it might be useful. Two talk page postings and one edit per day, per involved editor, and another admonishment to ''try'' to make edits and suggestions that opponents would be likely to accept - the whole ] thing? Something like that. ] (]) 06:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

* {{u|AlbinoFerret}} continuing to call the posting a "blog" is not helping you - they reproduced a formal report they submitted to the FDA on their blog, yes, but it is not some random "blog" posting like , oh, (random e-cig blog). You missed the point of what I said about the "anti-tobacco activist" which is that the ''label'' is yours, and yours alone. And that you remain committed to this is also meh. We need to think about how to dial things down and this weak AE is not helping. ] (]) 08:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

* {{u|S Marshall}} I was not trying to prevent change and you can bring no diffs to show that. Asking for the sources that support proposed content is WP 101 and your reaction to that very basic request, and your characterization of it here at AE, shows how twisted up you have become over this topic. Your instinct to step away was good and you should stick to it. If you persist here I will present a case to have you topic-banned or at least blocked - that will not be hard to do based on your recent behavior, which I do understand arises from your frustration, and which has been out of line. Please reconsider what you are doing here. ] (]) 18:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

* {{u|S Marshall}} yes it is obvious that you approached me with bad faith; thanks for acknowledging that. I acknowledge that asking for sources for your proposed content slowed you down and I understand that was frustrating. I hope you have enough perspective to see that proposing content without sources is abnormal at best; you still haven't acknowledged that we all found it to be inaccurate, when we finally did have sources. However much you find the current content "fundamentally deceitful" as far as I know there is nothing inaccurate in it. The process of trying to improve the article in ways that satisfies everybody is hard. And the article needs improving. There is no doubt about either thing. But the frustration you have expressed and are expressing is not helpful. And you have provided no diffs supporting your claim that I was trying to prevent change, and you will not be able to. To anybody reading what you are writing, you are only digging a hole for yourself. ] (]) 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

* S Marshall ] and needed sourcing. Period. And as you still have not acknowledged, the proposed content ''was'' inaccurate. And I did acknowledge the article needs improving - no one is disputing that. ] (]) 20:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

* Yes S Marshall. In response to my question to the specific sources for the specific content you were propising, instead of simply providing the sources for your proposed content you:
:
: then and hand-waved that I should go check how QG used sources...
: in your edit note that I wasn't paying attention and in your remark you provided me some random citation without connecting it to some part of the content you were actually proposing
: in your edit note and on the Talk page you "having trouble assuming good faith" and wrote {{talk quote|I literally have no idea how you could possibly fail to see the sources. Surely you must be capable of reading the article and seeing the sources which are there now }}. As I did then, I find this bizarre because you greatly condensed the content and added new things like the very surprising (and as it turned out, inaccurate) statement that {{talk quote|Reviews in 2014 and 2015 found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products}}. For all your intensity about improving the article you were trying to force through content that just wasn't true. I can only attribute this to you being so frustrated .... but it is really disruptive and strange behavior. I am not going to go on with the rest of the diffs. But these diffs are plain as day that instead of simply doing is what is normal and providing citations for the content you proposed, you were so frustrated and stuck that you wasted time abusing me (and insulting QG) instead of just ... providing the sources.
: And then you just went and , with incorrect information and all.


:Do you think you can learn to do that? Because if you don't think you can, this may not be the right hobby for you.
Your behavior through this little episode was really out of line - ''so much drama'' over a very, very basic WP thing. That you cannot see this.... whew. ] (]) 03:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


:<small>As an aside, I'm going to recommend what I always recommend to new editors who end up here: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn. Go edit in noncontentious topics, where other editors are a lot less exhausted and have the energy to be more patient with new editors.</small> ] (]) 18:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
====Statement by S Marshall====
{{collapse top|title=Tangential}}
{{collapse top|Self-collapse colossal back-and-forth, which is not directly relevant to the complaint about CFCF and is clearly never going to have any effect on Jytdog.—] <small>]/]</small> 12:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)}}
::@], hm, yes, and ] also has 37 archives, and even with archiving at 21 days, 20 sections. Do you think an ECR is something that talk page needs? That's not part of the authorized restrictions an individual admin can place...hm, and I'm not sure of the policy w/re most efficiently getting that done and wasting the fewest people's time. @]? ] (]) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I've seen this and I think it's about the wrong editor. CFCF's general conviction that he's always right and his judgment is better than anyone else's is certainly annoying, but Jytdog is far more disruptive and problematic.—] <small>]/]</small> 08:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
:::I would object to ECPing the talk page. COVID-19 ], though this specific ''article'' is protected. The purpose of protecting the page (in this case) is to push newer users to the talk page, where they can discuss changes they want made (such as by edit requests) and contribute towards consensus-building while not edit warring. Protecting talk pages is truly, ''truly'' a last resort. Ordinary good faith people would be entirely shut out and silenced—we'd not even get edit requests—and I frankly don't see anything near the level of disruption/LTA abuse that would justify jumping straight to ]. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 01:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:JzG is not involved per WP:INVOLVED. He is a sysop who's had a lot to say at enforcement-related venues on this topic, but his participation at the editorial level has been minimal. I do think he's wrong, in that unilateral measures against AlbinoFerret are extremely unlikely to improve the situation on that page. If you follow his advice and take unilateral measures against AlbinoFerret then things ''will'' quieten down at the drama boards for a few weeks, but the cost of that decision is to crystallise the current text, which is a frankly disastrous thing to do.<p>A large part of the problem we have on this page is that the current text is so biased that it's attracting people who weren't previously Wikipedians to try to fix it. In the previous ArbCom case, QuackGuru the primary author was found by ArbCom to have been showing double-standards for sources. Since he was finally topic-banned, first MysteryWolff (now also topic-banned) and now Jytdog have shown up to try to prevent change. I think Jytdog's here because he was topic-banned from his real area of interest, and decided to focus on electronic cigarettes instead; no stranger to drama, that one. Anyway, obstructionism always works on Misplaced Pages because our rules give all the advantages to people who're motivated to retain the current text. So nearly a year after all this drama kicked off, most of the defective text remains totally unchanged ''and it will continue to generate problems until fixed''.<p>The upshot is that a unilateral ban for AlbinoFerret will do very little to end the drama. The only thing that'll do ''that'' is to fix the text, which can't be done with the current population of obstructionists on the page.—] <small>]/]</small> 08:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
::::@], not ECP. ECR: non-EC are restricted from anything but making edit requests. ] (]) 14:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{u|Jytdog}}, I can only judge your intentions from your conduct, but your conduct makes it pretty damn clear that you're there to delay and disrupt attempts at change. What you ''say'' and imply is that you're trying to slow down the pace of change to enable proper consideration of edits. The rate of change is in fact already at a dead stop, and in the real world your actions have the effect of keeping it there. This would be fine if the current content was fit for an encyclopaedic article, but it isn't; it's fundamentally deceitful. It's phrased in dry, pseudo-academic language largely ripped from academic sources and carefully packed with footnotes, which is dangerous because gives an entirely false impression of a careful unbiased article, and your actions have the effect of preserving that.<p>It is established fact that QuackGuru was the primary article author. It is an established ArbCom finding that he exhibited such an extreme double-standard for sources that he required impeccable academic evidence for anything that might suggest e-cigs were less harmful than tobacco, but he would edit-war to retain anti-e-cigarette content that was sourced to an interview with a professional lobbyist published in a Welsh regional newspaper. This is the text that your actions have the effect of defending.<p>I unwatched that page after an occasion when you joined in a discussion about a change I had been trying to implement for four months. You began that discussion by demanding sources that were easily visible in the article text and had been discussed in the archives, which is the exact behaviour previously exhibited by QuackGuru (topic-banned) and Mystery Wolff (topic-banned). And I totally lost all patience with you, because I've totally lost all patience with that behaviour.<p>Actually this is a perfectly simple article to write. We have a Cochrane review, and we have clinical practice guidelines from major Western nations, and when we have those things we don't need any other sources. We can strip out everything else and write the whole article in a few, simple paragraphs. But we can't ''get'' from here to there because radical changes to QuackGuru's misleading and deceptive text are always opposed by you and other editors of your stripe. And I've run out of AGF for the whole lot of you, so I've unwatched the page, which means you win but it's good for my blood pressure.—] <small>]/]</small> 20:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::I see. In any case, ECR is the sort of remedy that should be reserved for more or less when all else fails—it’s still ''super'' restrictive. If new users/inexperienced users are trying to contribute towards consensus-building on the talk page (or even if they’re doing ordinary confused new editor things), and aren’t edit warring, I don’t think we’d actually be ] by enforcing ECR.
*{{u|Jytdog}}, apart from your great care with civility, you're behaviourally indistinguishable from a long series of editors who've been topic-banned. Your demand for sources that were already in the article may have been phrased as a patient and careful request for further discussion, but I always understood it as the innocent face on a continuation of four months of pettifogging bureaucracy intended to keep me running around in circles doing lots of work without result. If you can't see anything wrong with the current article, then you're in good company with your now-topic-banned predecessors. I invite you to take a fresh, ''honest'', look at what the article ''actually says'', in comparison with the sources that are ''actually trustworthy'', and do it with your critical brain in gear looking for cherry-picked sources and skew. And if you've got a mind that can do that and still not see anything wrong with the article, then I don't want to talk to you about electronic cigarettes ---- if you've got a mind like that, then I'd much rather talk to you about an amazing deal I can offer you on some swampland near Louisiana.—] <small>]/]</small> 20:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::Suppose someone in good-faith sees “anyone can edit”, and they want to edit something topical. But then they see that the page that they want to edit is protected. They read the explanation that appears after clicking the “view source” tab. They then read that they can discuss this page with others, click on the first blue link, and then make a section using the “add topic” button in order to start a discussion.
*And we're back here again. Yes, my proposed text was "highly compressed and summarising". I'm here to write an encyclopaedia. I have serious objections to the expansive, didactic, pedantic, pseudo-scholarly style of the article's current text. I think the article should be intelligible to a vulnerable teenager who's wondering whether or not to take a puff. It's presently written for degree-educated professionals who make decisions for a living --- most of whom will see right through the faux-academic style to the heart of the matter, which is that the article has no theme and no thesis and it reaches no conclusions. It takes 13,000 words not to get anywhere at all. It is a ''shit'' article, Jytdog, and my proposed edit unambiguously improved it.<p>Yes, my proposed text did need sourcing. The sources were already present in the article. I pointed this out until I was cobalt blue in the face and you never even admitted that I might have a point. No, what you wanted was for me to directly link the sources for you right there on the talk page, in my proposed text so that you could quibble them, as in fact you eventually proceeded to do. And then you added your preferred minutiae and trivia into the text in the so-called interests of "balance". Of course the real effect was to obscure the simple, intelligible points I made (based on the Cochrane review and the clinical guidelines from major Western democracies) with controversy based on cohort studies and reviews. This is QuackGuru's method, and I see right through it.—] <small>]/]</small> 22:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::“OK”, the newbie thinks, “maybe I will find someone else who agrees with me, or I’ll at least get some answer as to why the article is this way”. They leave their computer and come back in an hour. They then discover that their question has been removed by some random editor with edit summary “] violation, user not ]; malformed edit request” and find a contentious topics notice on their own user talk page, all because they don’t make a properly formatted edit request (i.e. “please change X to Y”). Or maybe they wont navigate the talk page history and they’ll angrily post that their earlier comment was deleted. Or maybe they just won’t come back. To top it off, nothing at any point in this process was obvious to them that such a requirement existed—there is no edit notice that says so, and so they couldn’t know.
:::::] is ]y. It dissuades new voices from joining conversations, and it makes it somewhat hostile to true newbies. In particular, it dissuades people who, for example:
:::::#Are Not hardcore/insane enough to deal with intense wiki-bureaucracy;
:::::#Are unable to cope with handling unfamiliar wikitext markup when making edit requests for anything that is not a trivial word change, or who have abstract changes in mind more than concrete ones;
:::::#Do not want to spend an hour of their time to figure out how to say the magic words to summon another editor to fix a typo.
:::::The chief way that ECR works is by making LTAs/sockmasters have to put on a lot of effort or make a lot of edits. This raises the (time) cost of socking, and it has the benefit of possibly exposing tells along the way. But that also means that we’re imposing the same thing on good-faith newbies.
:::::When deciding whether or not to impose ECR, we have to balance that it is extremely BITEy to good-faith newbies against its ability to prevent disruption. There are times where we are basically left to throw our hands up because of LTA/sockmaster abuse, and conclude that the tradeoff is worth it; the ArbCom has done this for certain contentious topics. But, the ArbCom had the wisdom to not enable ECR as a page sanction across all contentious topic areas—there is a very real tradeoff that needs to be really carefully considered. And I don’t the tradeoff leans towards embracing ECR ''here''. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'm don't think we need to have this discussion here and now, but I don't disagree it's bitey and needs to be used only where necessary. I was just asking the question of someone who is working at that article: is this an article talk where it's necessary? ] (]) 17:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}} {{collapse bottom}}
*Summarised version of the bits of the above which are directly relevant to CFCF -vs- AlbinoFerret:-<p>JzG's proposal will not resolve the problem. The root cause of the behavioural problems on this page is bias in the text. It is uncontroversial that there is bias. The primary author of the current version of the article was QuackGuru; and Arbcom have found that QuackGuru showed a double standard for sources; therefore, QuackGuru-authored text reflects QuackGuru's biases. CFCF in good faith, and others about whom I can no longer assume good faith, are behaving in such a way as to delay and prevent substantial changes to the article, and therefore to preserve the bias which exists. If you unilaterally topic-ban AlbinoFerret who is pro-change, then the effect of this decision will be to further crystallise the bias which is apparent to many knowledgeable readers. This will continue to attract new editors who want to correct the text, as it consistently has for years. These people will continue to be frustrated in this aim, and the ongoing drama will continue, until someone, somehow, forces change. Topic banning the worst offenders has not helped, because as soon as you get rid of one, another one pops up and is entitled to a fresh assumption of good faith. There is nothing in Misplaced Pages's standard dispute resolution toolkit that can deal with the problem on this page and at some point, someone in authority is going to have to get creative.—] <small>]/]</small> 12:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
*I've read Mystery Wolff's complaint below and I confirm that: (1) I have implied that his topic ban is fully justified; (2) I have implied that he's not competent to edit in the topic area; and (3) I have been amused by what I see as his misconceptions and misunderstandings in the past. If these implication are seen as "mocking and taunting", then I will also be happy to correct that by saying these things more plainly, more directly and more seriously.—] <small>]/]</small> 23:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


*{{u|BabbleOnto}}, are you planning to answer my questions above? Do you think you're able/willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you? Are you able/willing to stop insisting everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers? ] (]) 13:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
====Statement by Mystery Wolff====
*:BabbleOnto's response understanding this as a suggestion to take a break from Misplaced Pages as a whole isn't quite what I was hoping to see. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Remarking solely to the abusive and derogatory remarks made directly at me by S Marshall here ''inside this very AE'', and on various user TALK pages, (and also the thinly veiled comments directly alluding to my personal nature, my competence and generalized editorship) I strongly object to their placement and usage here. <br />
*:@], an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.
They are not fair, and its a continuance of tag-teaming, battlegrounding, mocking and taunting by S Marshall against my generalized editorship and others. This is NOT how Misplaced Pages is supposed to function. I will not be gamed and made sport of and be silent to attacks like this that are outside of Article space. This AE has a responsibility to the entire project, and not solely to any specific articles. Being gamed, and mocked derogatorily is disruptive, moreover ''it is corrosive'' to the health of the project.
*:@], I'd support a tban, but is AP2 enough? It seems like COVID and fringe science need to be included? ] (]) 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*::AP2 + COVID? I see the same behavior at the Brian Thompson article and Havana Syndrome, so COVID alone doesn't seem adequate. Oddly, the intersection of "medicine and politics" would appear to cover all affected topics but maybe that's too bespoke? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@], re:{{xt|It seems to me that saying I have "Issues around understanding policy" and asking me to "learn policy" has subtext that says "Until you agree with this consensus, and you won't be allowed to edit at all." Is respectful disagreement with this consensus allowed? I'm afraid if in order to avoid a ban I have to personally agree with the consensus, beyond just respecting it,}} no, you don't have to agree. You just have to accept and move on. ] (]) 23:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*I think {{u|BabbleOnto}} is actually getting the right idea. You do not have to ''agree'' with consensus. There are some consensus positions here I don't agree with, and some I think are rather silly. But, until and unless they change, I respect and abide by them all the same. If I try to challenge them, and it becomes clear that such a challenge was unsuccessful, there comes a time to just shrug, realize you can't win 'em all, and ]. Since they seem to have gotten that point, I think maybe see how things go, and if they return to disruption, I think they're quite clear on what the results of that will be. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:In my experience sealioning is a habit editors have an extremely difficult time breaking. I was going to agree with Rosguill re: a tban from AP2 + COVID, maybe appealable after 3 months and 500 productive and unproblematic edits. This editor is basically ONLY editing in CTOPs, they're doing it disruptively -- we're talking about an editor with only 177 whom other editors are describing as exhausting to interact with! -- and the specific kind of disruption is both frustrating and tedious to prove ''and'' frustrating to try to get attention to because who you need so many diffs to prove it. That plus the apparent difficulty in breaking that habit, which btw they were continuing ''during this case''...I dunno. ] (]) 14:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I certainly understand your point. I am a little hesitant to sanction for "sealioning", as often it is difficult to tell where enthusiasm ends and disruptive tendentiousness begins, and I certainly do not want to have a project where people are afraid to advocate viewpoints contrary to a current consensus. That said, if everyone else feels sanctions are warranted, I won't object terribly strongly; I just generally prefer someone to get a chance to show if they've gotten the point (or in some cases, to conclusively demonstrate that they have not). ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Generally I'm with you. Let people show they've dealt with the issue. Reblocking is pretty easy in most cases. But sealioning...well, it's such a difficult issue to prove/assess, and there are so many people doing it who don't even have the self-awareness to fix the problem that I kind of feel like it needs a tougher approach than I'd normally argue for. Not a hill I'm going to die on, but if the editor is back here or at ANI for the same issue, I am going to be extremely unhappy with them.
*:::@], do you understand what we're talking about when we describe your participation at talk pages as ], and why we think it's such a problem, particularly in contentious topics? Do you think you can avoid participating in that way at article talk pages? ] (]) 20:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


==Marlarkey==
Note to Admins: My comments are regarding that of S Marshall only, the ones talking about me, as I they were done here, I have no other option than to remark here. S Marshall has already been warned to not taunt me specifically and others also. He has said he can not work with me in other AE, and I am sorry but, its simply unfair and wrong to be spreading and canvassing...that I am someone, that can not be worked with on Misplaced Pages. If I need to take this to another venue, instructions are welcome, but I make these remarks in good faith now. Thank you. ] (]) 22:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
{{hat|Marlarkey p-blocked from ] and formally warned to be more mindful of policies, guidelines and best practices when editing CTOPs, particularly PIA <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 19:54, 16 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>


====Statement by (Username)==== ===Request concerning Marlarkey===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|WeatherWriter}} 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

===Result concerning CFCF===
:''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 propose a three month topic ban for AlbinoFerret for vexatious complaint and attempting to use Misplaced Pages process to gain an advantage in a content dispute, per my observations above. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

==Darkfrog24==
{{hat|Darkfrog24's existing topic ban is replaced with a topic ban from the manual of style, and manual of style-related topics, specifically including quotation marks and quotation styles. This applies on all pages, including your and other's user talk pages. This may be appealed no sooner than 12 months from today (4 February 2016). ] (]) 13:24, 4 February 2016 (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>


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Marlarkey}}<p>{{ds/log|Marlarkey}}</p>
===Request concerning Darkfrog24===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|SMcCandlish}} 20:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Darkfrog24}}<p>{{ds/log|Darkfrog24}}</p>
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
:]
:]
:]

<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask 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. --> <!-- 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.-->
# Despite many admin warnings to move on, in and after (, etc.), Darkfrog24 instead attempts ] by ] ], trying to recruit a fellow frequent ]/] editor (who {{em|didn't}} take the bait and is not a party here) to go after me vexatiously while DF24 cheerleads: {{tq|"I'm going to be speaking very carefully because I'm the one under topic ban right now.}} (I.e., they're crossing the ban's edge.) {{tq|"If you want to ... just talk about frustration with SmC, that's one thing. If you have something concrete enough for a formal complaint, I'd be interested in hearing about it. Some of this may be corroborating."}}
# Darkfrog24 posts (in same discussion) material about me and the (temporary) result of my ] request about DF24's logical-quotation (LQ) editwarring at MOS and mainspace – the very topic of DF24's ban.
# Further pursuit of same dispute, in user talk, projecting implications that I'm the one harassing, and I'm posting on {{em|their}} talk page (I haven't, since DF24 asked me a question by name there , days ago.
# Canvassing admins, after the ban , to advise DF24 how "to oppose a longstanding Wikimedia MoS rule" and "do about it", i.e. how resume the fight against consensus they were banned for. Editor even changed thread name to refer to their ban in posting this violation of it. A nearly identical message was posted on talk pages of several other admins (], {{U|Laser brain}}, {{U|EdJohnston}}, Thryduulf, etc.), but I have diff limits, and can't insert them all here. It's a whole series of ban violations, showing irreconcilable ] and ]. JzG very clearly.
#There are other examples, but this should be enough, and I think admins here are already aware of them.


''''''
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
# - Mainspace PIA edit prior to EC status.
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request and acknowledgement of aforementioned edit.
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request.
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Accused another editor of vandalism.
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Says, "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration."
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary.
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary.

''''''
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request.
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request..."''Someone has reverted my removal of Israel - Hamas *AGAIN* so I've taken it out *AGAIN*.''"
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
# - Self-revert of direct previous mainspace reversion that was prior to EC status.
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status...Made while this enforcement request was being typed up. This reversion by Marlarkey is of an edit with the direct edit summary of "Per ]". User is 100% disregarding CT requirements.

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : N/A. No previous blocks or topic bans.
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> <!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
# Topic ban, from aforementioned AE request, delivered by {{U|Thryduulf}}


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): at 15:29, 21 November 2024.
<!-- 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. -->
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months:
DF24 received a {{tlx|Ds/alert}} for ] and warning ({{em|not}} overturned) , resulting from the aforementioned ANEW request.
*Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months: The one that resulted in their ban.


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
User has been on Misplaced Pages (on and off) since at least January 2010. It seems there is a ]-related issue on ArbCom PIA/Contentious topics, given the very clear lack of ignorance of the ArbCom Notification and subsequent edit summary arguments. I do not necessarily believe a block will be of use in this case, due to this editor's on-and-off Misplaced Pages editing status (less than 500 edits since January 2010). Either a topic ban and/or a 1,000 EC status requirement (i.e. EC-status requirement is something higher than 500 edits) is being requested. '''The ]''' (] 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
*One of the edits by Marlarkey listed above from 13 January 2025 has been by {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} for Marlarkey not being ECR logged. '''The ]''' (] 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- This might be a little over the 500-word limit; I can try to trim it if necessary. But this is both a DS request and a ban-violation reports; post two requests would be longer than combining them. -->DF24 is transgressing their ban and ], perpetuating and more intensely personalizing the AT/MOS dispute central to the ban, seemingly for revenge. Was such behavior (diffs of other warnings also available).
:*{{ping|Marlarkey}} I want to ], so I wanted to let you know that ] is what we call "broadly constructed". If you read ], it says, "{{tq|These are the current arbitration remedies applicable to any pages and edits that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.}}" The edit you are attempting to me is ''related'' to the Arab-Israel conflict. The page itself does not have to be entirely about the war to be covered under the restrictions. Any edit that is at least, even slightly related to the conflict is covered under the restrictions. While the page is about declarations of war throughout history, the specific edit is related to whether the Israel-Hamas war was a declaration of war. That is obviously related to the conflict, given it specifically is in regard to the ]. That is why the edits were reverted and why this violation report was filed. Hopefully that makes sense. Also, just a quick side-note, accusing other editors of vandalism is ] and is not really how Misplaced Pages operates. You should always ]. '''The ]''' (] 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::*{{ping|Marlarkey}} We are all working together to create a better encyclopedia. No one is against you and we do wish for all to edit Misplaced Pages. The ArbCom restrictions require that you have (1) at least an account of 30 days old and (2) at least 500 edits, to be able to edit content anywhere on Misplaced Pages regarding the Israel-Hamas war. At the time of all the edits linked above, you did not have 500 edits on Misplaced Pages. You were roughly at 490. At the time of this, you now have over 500 edits, which means you could now edit content regarding the Israel-Hamas war. That said, this report was made because of the several edits you made prior to reaching the 500 edit requirement.


:::Please understand this is for the edits that you made which were in clear violation of the policy, which requires you to have 500 edits prior to editing anything even remotely related to the conflict. This report was not that you are incorrect with your removal of the content. Not at all. This report is because you removed the content before you were allowed to (i.e. the 500-edit mark). Please understand we all are on the same-side here and no one is vandalizing anything. Once this is resolved, I would be more than happy to calmly discuss the content changes with you. I hope you can understand that this report is specifically because you made the changes before you were allowed to and not at all regarding the content in those changes. '''The ]''' (] 00:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Just before the ban, DF24 wrote: {{tq|"The way I see it, I've done nothing wrong"}} . AE already made the problems clear. DF24 for their ban, disputing everywhere , as if AE admins were unable to assess it correctly.


*{{ping|Rosguill}} After my last reply, I realized I went 105 words over the 500-word limit. I would like to request that 105-word extension (so I do not have to reword or remove the last reply I made). I do not plan to reply again as I think everything I needed to say and link to has been said and linked to. '''The ]''' (] 00:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
When I raised these matters with Thryduulf (who said take it to AE), DF24 didn't take the hint (third diff), pursuing it on my own talk page while professing to not want interaction; this defies reason on several levels.


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
Admins suggested that, DF24 being a professional proofreader, that this an obvious productive area , . But DF24 says they mostly can't stand to do it, because WP's punctuation choices are not "correct English". . This fundamentalist, anti-linguistics view is central to the matter – MoS {{em|must}} be changed, no matter what and how long it takes, because it is {{em|wrong}}. This will not be cured by a block of any length. Over six years of tendentious, disruptive campaigning, yet DF24 admits our users don't care about this punctuation trivia anyway Keeping this up is ] (at least regarding ARBATC).


Third party in the first two diffs (we're interacting well now) isn't involved in the LQ debate, and found the circular rehash of it at ] tiresome in September. He's just a {{em|not}}-random AT/MOS editor – one to whom DF24 (noting an earlier argument between me and that editor about MOS) has repeatedly cast ] about my mental health, after the ban , and after Ds/alert: , . Also, a long string of dishonesty allegations (increasing after ban) without evidence, only links to DF24's previous claims and denials , , , , etc. Can prove this habit of incivility and gaslighting is much broader, but would need length-limit extension.

; Remedy proposed :
Given the personalized nature of DF24's continuance of the dispute, the attempts to recruit a previously uninvolved {{em|AT/MOS}} editor to tagteam (see also last AE's evidence of attempt to recruit a new editor to file anti-] RfC on DF24's behalf), and the fact that DF24 has been quite {{em|productive}} in unrelated mainspace and other things since the TB, I suggest the best response isn't the promised block (could make grudgematching worse), but:
* Extended topic ban, from the scope of ] (i.e. ], ], and related pages, which involve mostly overlapping issues and editing circles), with a longer time before appeal.
"Walling-off" would remove DF's ability to involve more AT/MOS editors in style-warrior crusading, permits ongoing good editing, and obviates further admin action. DF24 needs to start up a new conversation with other guests in some different room at the Misplaced Pages party.

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
* by SMcCandlish
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


===Discussion concerning Marlarkey===
; Later responses as needed:
<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>
* Re: Darkfrog24's "defense", I don't think I need to respond to much of anything in it in detail. It's all obvious deflect-and-misdirect ], and a return to the claim that AE admins didn't already look at the evidence presented last time and determine what it meant. The editor clearly refuses to accept that pursuing the same take-down-MoS-editors-who-cross-me battlegrounding pattern that multiple admins warned them to stop pursuing is not okay just because they craftily avoid including the words "quotation marks". Using ] techniques to veil emotional-instability and dishonesty insinuations behind wording one can play "CYA" games with when called on it is ] (the very "Are you okay?" post DF24 cites as exonerating, is actually just another example of the same "something must be wrong with you" insinuation pattern). A sensible answer would have been "sorry, I just hadn't fully dropped it yet, I have now, and it won't happen again." Instead it's just more attempts to turn AE attention to someone else so the gaming can continue. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 08:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
* {{Ping|Thryduulf}} I can certainly voluntarily avoid interacting with Darkfrog24 (was already doing so since Jan. 26). I don't think a mutual interaction ban is justified, and dropped my own suggestion of a one-way IBAN because it would be redundant with the wider TBAN proposed. No problem (much less two-way, or one-way from {{em|me}}) is occurring when I run into DF24 {{em|outside}} ARBATC-scope discussions, e.g. when mutually participating in some (Jan. 26). Even in ARBATC discussions that do not touch on the quotation marks thing, I've often bolstered DF24's views, e.g. & ; & (anon was me accidentally logged out ); ; & ; ; etc., etc. – some of those during then-ongoing quotation marks disputation elsewhere; I was careful to not let my irritation with the editor's behavior in that topic affect my responses to them otherwise. The problem isn't that DF24 and SMcC can't get along (even in ARBATC matters in particular), it's that DF24 just will not drop one ARBATC issue, and it's affecting their ability to be constructive in that sector, including now trying to get other ARBATC editors to manufacture ] with whoever DF24 is angry at over this pet issue (the target is incidentally me this time, but could just as easily have been Dicklyon or someone else). DF24's counter-suggestion of harassment by me, to deflect attention from their own, has no merit. I've twice suggested (in both these AE threads) that DF24 should {{em|not}} be blocked, just separated from the conflict area and left to keep editing, and also defended them against an earlier accusation of TBAN violation , as well as omitted evidence from this filing of an additional violation on the basis that it was unintentional. Not exactly hounding, is it? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 01:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC) Clarified, 02:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
* Re: DF24's additional comments: "I ''want'' ... to speak at any formal complaint that might be filed against SmC ... to file one myself ... to participate ... with CurlyTurkey " is a long way of saying {{em|DF24 is actively planning to hound me forever}}, and laying out this plan right in front of AE. The admonitions against this {{em|still}} aren't sinking in, even after a wider topic ban and an interaction ban are contemplated. So, I reinstate my original request for a 1-way IBAN in addition to an expanded TBAN. I took it on good faith that DF24 was just angry at not getting their way, but below they state clearly that now it's an anti-SMcC thing in particular. Good faith assumption is now exhausted, per ]/].<br /><small>The other stuff can be dispensed with quickly: " does not understand how I think or why I do what I do." Oh, I agree. I take pains not to imply any particular motivation for the Great Quotation Marks Crusade. DF24 seems to entirely believe what they're saying and that "opposing ... and doing something about" logical quotation at all costs is of vital importance for Misplaced Pages, even if DF24 knows the rest of the project doesn't care (see previous diffs). That it was arguably being done in good faith doesn't make the end result okay. This won't-let-go behavior is similar to that which resulted in another whole-topic ban against DF24 in a mainspace area. The "stop presuming to take credit for my work" thing is a ''non-sequitur'', and another evidence-free ]. "alk to Tony1, SlimV and Izno" – DF24 already canvassed the other MoS regulars in the last AE request, with no effect on the outcome. The rest of DF24's response is more projection and gaslighting, more "not me" reversal of DF24's own behavior.</small> <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 02:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)<br />Re: "If SmC pulls on someone else what he pulled on me" – i.e. presented evidence that AE accepted. (DF24's new diff is, as usual, just another link to DF24 ], not to actual evidence.) WP does not need someone to make it their mission on here to fire up a personalized dispute every time a particular individual and any other editor have an issue to air out between them that doesn't involve DF24. Darkfrog24 is effectively testifying against their own case, really effectively. Enough said. I'm going back to sourcing and other real wiki-work. If I'm needed for anything, please ping me. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 05:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
*Re: "in what way do you believe my conversation with Curly_Turkey was not consistent with the letter or spirit of the topic ban? ... it did not concern quotation marks or the MoS in any way" &ndash; This is clear in the AE request: Diffing material relating to the previous (ANEW) eruption of the LQ editwarring, in furtherance of generating additional disputation with one of the other editors in the LQ discussion, obviously isn't consistent with either the letter or spirit of the TBAN. Switch topics: Would it be okay for someone TBANned from GMOs or Israel/Palestine to diff old GMO or Israel/Palestine disputes and encourage another editor to launch new disputes against one's opposition on that issue? {{em|Obviously}} ]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 00:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


===Discussion concerning Darkfrog24=== ====Statement by Marlarkey====
<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>


{{userlinks|WeatherWriter}} is repeatedly reverting edits which are removing information outside the scope of the page in question. My edits are validly citated within the scope of the page. {{userlinks|WeatherWriter}} has cited WP:ARBPIA but that is not relevant to THIS article which is not a Palestine-Israel article. This article is not a contentious topic - it is factual.
====Statement by Darkfrog24====
The topic ban covers quotation marks and WP:LQ . It does not cover SMcCandlish specifically or talking about other editors or their behavior in general.


My edits are WP:NPOV. This article is about declarations of war - the opening statement states "A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state announces existing or impending war activity against another."
For all SMC's links, please just ''look'' at what I actually said, in its original context. Do not take his summary of matters at face value.
1. Hamas is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hamas should not be included in the article
2. Hezbollah is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hezbollah should not be included in the article
3. Russia vs Ukraine are both nation states - the question then is whether there has been a declaration of war.


In the case 1 & 2, the removal of these two entries is WP:NPOV and the inclusion or otherwise in this article is in no way a comment on the conflict in question - only whether they constitute a declaration of war by one nation state on another. Which they do not because they are nation states.
*Diff #1: Saturday, user {{ping|Curly_Turkey}} pinged me to ask if SMcCandlish had violated a topic ban placed against him in September . I told CT that said topic ban had a two-month expiration date and had been appealed anyway. In other words, CT asked "Did SMC break the rules?" and I answered "No he didn't." Curly also referenced SMC's behavior, which has been inappropriate. We were not talking about WP:LQ or quotation marks the MoS; we were talking about SMcCandlish.
*2 is just #1 again.
*3 I want SMcCandlish to leave me alone. I've told him so repeatedly, and so have others: . If it is necessary for someone to follow me around, appoint a neutral party. Regarding my "one tenth" comment, I'm referring to things like this:
*4 I asked the admins about the specifics of the topic ban as they saw them and for constructive criticism regarding my conduct. The whole reason I am banned is because my understanding of the rules is different from theirs. Asking questions about what is expected of me is the solution.


In the case of 3, the inclusion of Russia vs Ukraine only relies on whether there has been a declaration of war. The citation I gave is documented evidence of Russia announcing that a state of war exists between Russia and Ukraine.
I did not make accusations without evidence. Plenty was provided and there is more. ]. Example, I actually said "The way I see it, I've done nothing wrong, but you clearly don't feel that way. So what do you see as a positive change that I could make here?" And here's why I cut back on gnoming: .


I suggest that by taking the action they have that the complainant is the one acting in a that asserts a political opinion about the conflict
Example: SMcCandlish claimed that I removed a dispute tag "without doing anything to resolve the disputes." That's not true. I attempted to resolve the dispute by replacing the source, which I believed he had contested. Here's the two of us talking about it. Not true + He knows it = "Not being honest" is the ''nice'' way to put it. I'd need more space to refute every point.


SMcCandlish has not been shy about calling me a liar without cause or about making vicious claims about my motives . Here he is saying "I don't want Darkfrog to be allowed to say I'm not honest or speculate about my motives!" SmC is ].


The reference by Weatherwriter to 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Is only a partial quote - what I actually said was "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration. I care about whether it is in the scope of this page."
::January 2016: "{{green|hope that he just improves his manners and figures himself out}}" '''is not an aspersion against SmC's mental health'''.
The key is the final point - the scope of this article and whether the edits are validly cited in accordance with the topic of the article...namely a list of declarations of war.


Weatherwriter reversions of my edits serve to support a political opinion on a page which is about facts.
::September 2015: "{{green|if you and JG66 want to get back to working out the intro sentence, you don't need to make sure you haven't run out of Valium}}" '''is not an aspersion against SmC's mental health'''. One or the other of them had said the situation was stressful, and I cracked a joke about how ''they'' would not need Valium.


'''I'm pretty angry about being accused in this way when MY edits were factually based and neutral point of view, whereas by reverting my edits it does precisely the opposite, allowing contentious and politically biased information to infect the page.''' GRRRRRRrrr
::September 2015: "{{green|Please go easy on anyway ... Something might be going on}}" '''is not an aspersion against SmC's mental health'''. I've known him on Misplaced Pages long enough to tell that, last summer, he'd been acting in a manner that was unusual for him and speculated that something might be wrong IRL.


] (]) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
And yes, he ''does'' know that's what I meant: Scroll down until you see {{green|"Are you okay?"}}


Remedy: Tell SMcCandlish to leave me alone.


On another point, following me reviewing the information in this complaint by WeatherWriter...
Response to SMC's further allegations: This editor does not understand how I think or why I do what I do. He wants you to believe that this isn't a response to his actions, that I'm just randomly mad and lashing out at just anyone. That's not true. (And speculating about my motives while saying that I should be banned from speculating about his motives is messed up.) Lots of editors don't agree with me on quotation marks. More than one editor commented on the last AE thread. SmC said and is continuing to say things that he knows aren't true.
"If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)" The complainant cites a link to information which I have JUST accessed and have never seen before just now. I was NOT aware of this information so it is false to suggest that this constitutes evidence that I was aware.


Again this makes me angry at the accusations being made against me. If you don't want people editing and contributing to[REDACTED] then please just say so. GRRR
What do I want here? I've already unwatched the MoS and quotation mark pages. I ''want'' to reserve the right to speak at any formal complaint that might be filed against SmC for his behavior or to file one myself and to participate in ordinary conversations&mdash;like the one I had with CurlyTurkey&mdash;under Misplaced Pages's ordinary rules. I'm trying to make the best of this topic ban. What I ''need'' is for him to ''stay away from me'', cease acting as though I were his business in any way, stop presuming to take credit for my work, stop following me around, stop misrepresenting what I say. What's it going to take from me to get that? The question is not rhetorical.
] (]) 00:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I give up... I'm being accused and being told off for responding to the accusation. I don't know anything about this procedure, have never seen this page before and know nothing about how this works because its new to me.
*:But I get it - I'm not part of the club that decides things... so I'll let you get on with that. ] (]) 00:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::<small>(Moved from WeatherWriter's section</small> I get it - you'd rather call me out by this procedure than have an accurate encyclopaedia article. You've made accusations against me and put me through this over restrictions that I knew nothing about and policies I knew nothing about. I simply came across something inaccurate and followed what I understood to be WP principles and made an objectively accurate edit.
::::So now the end result is that an inaccurate article containing a politically biased assertion is going to stay live. ] (]) 02:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
===Result concerning Marlarkey===
:''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. -->
*<!--
-->
{{u|Marlarkey}}, you have gone a bit over your 500 word allotment for responses. Please do not comment further unless directly asked to. I will remove an additional reply that was both over your limit and in the wrong section. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 00:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{u|Weather Event Writer}}, extension granted as that's essentially what Marlarkey has already taken. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 01:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


Oh good God. . I can't even say "Are you okay?" without him imagining some ulterior motive.


Ok, having now reviewed ]'s page history, its talk page discussion, and Marlarkey's contributions more generally, I find that:
{{ping|Thryduulf}} Last week, I was not aware that I was not allowed to ask involved admins about the core issue underlying the topic ban. I stopped doing so as soon as EdJ and KillerC told me otherwise. This is what I mean when I say your understanding of the rules is different from mine. ] (]) 13:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
:* Marlarkey has repeatedly violated ] at ] since having received a CTOP notice
{{ping|EdJohnston}} I thought the topic ban already covered the MoS in general.
:*Irrespective of whether it is correct or not to include the Israel-Hamas war, Israel-Hezbollah war, or wars between states and non-state entities more broadly, WeatherWriter's edits to the page are plainly not ], which has a specific (and serious) meaning on Misplaced Pages
I think you should talk to Tony1, SlimV and Izno. ] (]) 22:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
:*It appears to be a long-term status quo to include non-state entities provided that there is a citation to some sort of formal declaration of war, and the page's inclusion of conflicts involving non-states ] and ] do not appear to have been challenged at any point.
:*Marlarkey is incorrect to assert that their edit is {{tq|objectively accurate}}. Whether the edit is accurate is subject to community consensus, and the talk page arguments in favor of inclusion base themselves on RS reporting which is a valid, policy-compliant argument. Marlarkey's arguments that a declaration of war can only occur be between two states do not make any reference to a reliable source stating this; while that text is currently in the lead of the article, it does not have a citation nor is it clear that any citation in the article directly backs this.
:*In light of discussion at ], which at this point shows multiple editors in favor of keeping the Hamas and Hezbollah wars, only Marlarkey firmly for removing them, and one other editor calling for discussion as of December 31st, Marlarkey's edits to unilaterally remove the entries in January amount to slow-motion edit warring
:*Given that Marlarkey has had an account for well over a decade, has edited a wide variety of topics, hit 500 edits while this was happening, does not appear to have otherwise shown interest in Israel/Palestine topics, and that the edits at Declaration of war don't fit into any clear POV-warrior pattern, I don't think that pulling extended-confirmed or issuing a PIA topic ban would help.
I'm thus inclined to suggest an indefinite partial block from ] (but not its talk page) as a regular admin action for edit warring, and a logged warning to be mindful of CTOP standards. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC
*As Marlarkey stated that they were unaware of CT, I wanted to confirm that I double checked and found that the CT notice was properly left in November. If Marlarkey chose not to read it, well, that's rather on him&mdash;we can only leave messages, we can't force people to read them. I would otherwise agree with Rosguill's assessment. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*I entirely endorse Rosguill's reading of this. I am not happy about Marlarkey's approach to our restrictions, but I don't see this as EC gaming, and I can't see how pulling EC rights could be justified at this stage. As such I endorse the proposed page block and logged warning. Marlarkey, you seem to believe that because you are right on the substance you can ignore process and guidelines - that simply isn't true. The arbitration committee has consistently held that ]; you need to be able to edit within the scope of our policies. ] (]) 17:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
* Pretty much everything Rosquill said. {{u|Marlarkey}}, it doesn't look like you have a huge amount of experience working in ]s. I'm sorry you're finding this upsetting, but CTOPs are a whole 'nother world, and you're either going to have to learn how to nonproblematically work there, or not work there. ] (]) 18:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:FWIW, the CTOP warning was ]. You've got your archiving set so aggressively that you may be missing a lot of messages, and it's completely plausible that you missed this one, which was only on your talk for two days, and after it was left you didn't edit for a month. However, we do assume that if you've got your archiving set that aggressively, you're keeping on top of anything important by checking your notifications to make sure you didn't miss anything.
*:You can probably prevent this happening in future by having your talk page archive ''no more frequently than you typically go between editing sessions'', leaving maybe the five most recent messages unarchived, and/or being sure to check your notifications when logging back in. Any one of those three and you've have likely seen the notification. ] (]) 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hatb}}


==DanielVizago==
In case my meaning wasn't obvious, the want/need dichotomy is meant to indicate "I am willing to forego what I want to get what I need." As for what I want, I mean I want to reserve the right to do something like this: If SmC pulls on someone else what he pulled on me, I want to talk about it. I've done it before without incident. ] (]) 03:40, 31 January 2016 (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 DanielVizago===
{{ping|EdJohnston}} But it ''does'' currently cover WP:MOS and WT:MOS themselves, right? So what you're considering is an expansion of the gag order? Question: Do you believe my conversation with Curly Turkey concerned the MoS in some way or is this because of something else? ] (]) 05:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Schazjmd}} 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|DanielVizago}}<p>{{ds/log|DanielVizago}}</p>
:You guys are right that there is a lot that I don't understand a lot about this situation. It seemed like asking questions about what I saw as the core issue underlying the topic ban&mdash;challenges to WP:LQ&mdash;would solve that problem, and I didn't expect it to be so controversial. (In my defense, the topic ban alert specifically says "ask me if you have any questions.") The way I see it, I just didn't know that asking involved admins about WP:LQ was covered by the ban, and I stopped asking about it as soon as I found out. Answering a question about another editor's behavior also didn't look like it was covered. (It actually still doesn't. If that's not the case, please inform me.)


:However, the reverse is also true. I didn't guess that non-WP:LQ MoS issues ''weren't'' covered (and if they are, now would be the time to say). That being the case...


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
:'''Reasons not to expand the scope or duration of this topic ban'''


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
:When MOS:IDENTITY came up for review, I took the lead, working cooperatively on an eleven-person team. The issue was controversial and many of us held disparate views. The two proposals went through ''nine'' drafts: I also did the considerable legwork of publicizing the proposals and posting notifications to the talk pages of all participants in the previous RfC that had inspired the revisitation.
# Added ] to a BLP, after CTOP notification and several talk page messages notifying DanielVizago that the category is not to be applied to articles about individuals (per category description, {{tq|This category is for issues relating to misandry. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly misandrist.}});
# and Removing sourced content from ] that states misandry is not a major an issue as misogyny;
# Changing content in ] to emphasize misandry (reverted by another editor with edit summary {{tq|rv, poorly sourced (sources supplemented by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH), earlier version was better, closer to sources}});
# Added "bimisandry" to ], citing 4 sources, none of which include that term;
# 14 Jan 2025, weird edits adding ] with piped names to unrelated articles, then those names directly to the category page;
# restored the "bimisandry" edit to ], then a 5th ref that includes the term but is just a blog; I left a 4th-level warning on talk page;
# (after final warning) adds <nowiki>] and ]</nowiki> to ]; those two individuals don't have articles and there is no mention in this article of their charges or convictions, even though the category solely consists of {{tq|articles of female individuals who have been convicted of rape in a court of law.}}


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
:But taking the lead on a big multi-person project was relatively new for me. More often, I'm doing things like this: The discussion of animate vs inanimate pronouns for fictional characters eventually covered thirteen sub-threads. I found a way to cut through the moot points to the chase.
*None


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
:It's a bit of a tangent, but I also don't think this TB should have covered the article space in the first place (for me or Dicklyon). I'd say ] is a good example of my work there. Removal of unsourced material and of a six-year-old typo that flipped the meaning of a relevant sentence . Took a bit of digging through a lot of archived pages, but I found the edit in which the error had been inserted, confirmed with the Wikieditor in question that it was probably accidental , and corrected it. As for conflicts, discussions of WP:LQ at WT:MOS did occasionally include sources, but more often they dealt with beliefs and qualitative matters. Which editors ''believe'' one system is ''better'' than the other? Because the article space is subject to WP:V, conflicts stuck more closely to ''facts''. Which sources say what? As such, they tended to end quickly:
*I alerted them on


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
{{ping|Thryduulf}} {{ping|Liz}} {{ping|Laser_brain}} {{ping|JzG}} {{ping|KillerChihuahua}} {{ping|EdJohnston}} Alert acknowledged, but I feel the need to say that my messages on your talk pages were a good-faith effort to make the best of the topic ban period. My questions were meant to assess the differences between my view of this matter and your own and so directly address the underlying cause. My best guess as to what the point of all this is is the threads concerning WP:LQ at WT:MOS.
Above diffs are all edits ''after'' the CTOP notification was provided. Before then, DanielVizago misapplied ] to 46 articles, which is what caught my attention. Their attempts to add "bimisandry" to ] started . On 28 Dec 2024, DanielVizago added a lot of content to ] about misandry, which another editor with edit summary {{tq|remove recently added pro-fringe section and put back the excerpt}}. Most of their 122 edits have been reverted by multiple editors.


Before the level 4 warning, I guiding DanielVizago away from CTOP; they don't engage on their talk page. (They've posted there once, to say "thanks" in response to a warning.) With their refusal to communicate, poor sourcing, and non-NPOV edits, I don't think they should be editing in this topic area. ]&nbsp;] 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I would feel better about this if any of you would acknowledge that you have read the evidence that I have offered that my accuser is not being honest with you and looked at the diffs in question in their original context rather than relying in his misleading presentation. I'm not saying you necessarily didn't; I'm saying I'd feel better if you affirmatively indicated that you did. Similarly, I'd like to thank you for the acknowledgement that I did not violate the ban as it was presented to me.


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
Since one of the reasons given is the belief that my contribution is a "net negative," I believe that MOS regulars and punctuation article contributors other than SMcCandlish should be consulted.
*


I will ask now: In the interest of avoiding further proceedings, in what way do you believe my conversation with {{user|Curly_Turkey}} was not consistent with the letter or spirit of the topic ban? From my perspective, it did not concern quotation marks or the MoS in any way. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


Even though it's probably too late to change anyone's mind, I want the following on record. SMcCandlish is making most of this up, both here and in the original discussion. There are a few outright lies, a ton of exaggerations, and a whole lot of speculation presented as if it were fact. I personally believe that SMcCandlish deliberately spammed this page with a large amount of irrelevant information specifically to confuse and distract and to present me in a falsely bad light. I believe he deliberately posted so much in the hopes that no one would sit down and look at each diff in context, '''let alone allow me to refute his accusations when I have been told to keep at least my initial response to 500 words'''. It is not immediately obvious that the accused does not need to wait for permission to break the 500 word rule. It also makes it harder for me to tell which parts of his accusation you are reacting to and therefore which parts I should address. It's taken me a couple of days to think about it, but right now my best assessment of the situation is that you, the admins, are objecting to 1) my conversation with Curly Turkey and 2) the fact that I asked you about the right way to oppose a longstanding rule. If you were actually objecting to something else, please tell me.


===Discussion concerning DanielVizago===
*1) I think we might be on the same page on this point, but my conversation with Curly did not involve quotation marks or WP:LQ or even the MoS; it concerned SMC's behavior and ban status. Curly asked me if SMC had violated a September topic ban, and I said that SMC hadn't. He also asked about SMC's tendency to accuse people of doing something while doing it himself, so I provided him with links to his posts on my talk page, specifically so that he could also see SMC's rebuttal.
<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 DanielVizago====
*2) WP:LQ is challenged relatively often. It has come up ]. Depending on your definition of challenge, it's been challenged '''6&ndash;10 times since the beginning of 2014''', rarely by the same person. Even long and heated debates do not usually result in anyone getting blocked or banned. This was an issue before I joined Misplaced Pages, it's going to be an issue while I'm not at WT:MoS, and it's almost certainly still going to be an issue afterward. I felt that one of my goals for the next six months should be to find out what I'm doing that's different, <u>which I consider the underlying reason for this topic ban</u>. Since the topic ban alert specifically said I was allowed to ask questions, I asked the admins who participated in the last conversation, including yourselves, for their perspective. It seemed better than to appeal, get unbanned, and ''then'' try to figure it out. Please take this as what it is: a good-faith interest in how other people's interpretations of the rules differ from my own and a beginning of an effort to do better.


====Statement by caeciliusinhorto====
I also believe that you may have seen this for what it was if you hadn't just been exposed to SMC's screeds.
Since this report was opened, DanielVizago has continued to make questionable edits adding articles to ].


* , categorising a living person who has been accused (but not charged, let alone convicted) of sexual assault as a rapist (cf. ])
Speaking of questions, when someone comes to WT:MOS saying we should change WP:LQ, I say "Yes!" but when they show up asking how to use WP:LQ, I'm the first one there with the "Here's how." '''I disagree with this rule but I haven't been breaking or undermining it.'''
* adds the category to a disambiguation page on the basis of one of the people listed on that page, who had in fact been convicted not of rape but of
* and edit categorise two sexually-motivated murderers as rapists despite no evidence that they ever raped anyone in the article (cf. ])


] (]) 10:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I also feel this procedure could be benefited by some established guidelines for appropriate notification on the order of ]. You guys may be no more subject to suggestion and bias than anyone else, but that does mean that "accuser is known to exaggerate" and "that's not exactly what happened" are going to have more weight coming from a third party than from the accused. Whether or not such a system is applied to my case, we should probably develop one. Whether it's for six months or twelve, I'm going to need a project and it's one of the ones I'm considering. ] (]) 23:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


====Statement by Dicklyon==== ====Statement by Simonm223====
Darkfrog is correct that the topic ban was not quite broad enough to force her to drop the stick. That can be fixed. ] (]) 05:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


Might be wise, as long as doing so wouldn't interfere with evidence, to get a revision deletion on some of the diffs presented above that make unfounded statements about BLPs. ] (]) 18:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
====Statement by JzG====
Darkfrog's immediate reaction to the topic ban was to canvass opinion on how he could plan to carry on his campaign when the ban expires: , , , , , .

I think that tells us something important about his determination to continue this, despite clear and unambiguous feedback that his efforts are not appreciated and not in line with Misplaced Pages ethos.

I don't see any alternative here but to extend the TBAN and send an unambiguous sign that no ''means'' no. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)==== ====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning Darkfrog24=== ===Result concerning DanielVizago===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''

*I've p-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor communicating. ] (]) 12:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*I want to hear what they have to say, but I'm going to need a fairly convincing explanation as to how they're here to build an encyclopedia and not to POV-push men's rights activism content where it doesn't belong. The IDHT and spammy behavior and the BLP vios on top of that aren't super encouraging, either, but if they decide to communicate, I'm happy to reassess. ] (] • she/her) 22:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I'd like to hear what they have to say, too, but I'm also not averse to letting this archive with no further action since the p-block is an indef. I've left another message at their talk. ] (]) 13:41, 19 January 2025 (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. --> <!-- 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. -->
*<!--
*It's clear that Darkfrog24 has not understood why the topic ban was imposed, and so it needs to be restated and possibly broadened to cover all discussions about the manual of style and manual of style related topics on all pages, including their user talk page. It also needs to be said that, even if the topic ban is not broadened that further speculation, discussion or similar about how to proceed with the same campaign once the ban expires will in future be treated as a topic ban violation. Topic ban violations typically result in being blocked from editing.
-->
:I'm also tempted by an interaction ban between Darkfrog24 and SMcCandlish, either one way (Darkfrog24 may not interact with SMcCandlish) or two way (neither may interact with the other) as nothing productive is currently occurring when the two engage. I'd prefer a voluntary agreement that both stay completely away from each other, but if that is not forthcoming then an interaction ban could be imposed.
:The 6-month date for appeals seems too lenient now, so if we add anything new here it should be for 12 months, and if we don't we should extend the date of appeal of the original topic ban to 12 months from when this discussion closes.
:I want input from other admins on both suggestions before I do anything more here though. ] (]) 22:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
*I agree with ]'s proposal to extend DF24's indefinite ban to cover all discussions about the manual of style and MOS-related topics on all pages, including user talk, and to allow appeal of the ban in 12 months. Not sure whether an IBAN from SMcC is worthwhile. Perhaps we could just warn DF24 that they can be blocked if they won't stay away from SMcC. ] (]) 17:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
:*Darkfrog24, up to this point you are only ], not from all style discussions. ] (]) 22:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
* Concur that the TBAN needs to be extended as proposed by Thryduulf, with an extension of the appeal timeframe to 12 months. I believe Darkfrog24 is capable of contributing constructively to article space but behavior since the limited TBAN has demonstrated that the expanded scope is necessary. I'm not in favor of an IBAN at this time—I believe the inability to discuss MOS issues will have the desired effect. --] ] 14:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
**OK, unless there is further comment I will, in a day or so, change the topic ban to "You are topic banned from the manual of style, and manual of style-related topics, specifically including quotation marks and quotation styles. This applies on all pages, including your and other's user talk pages. You may appeal this topic ban 12 months after ." as there is no appetite for an Iban I'll not place one. {{replyto|Darkfrog24}} your edits since the original topic ban have not been violations of that ban, hence you are not being blocked for violating them, however they demonstrate you have entirely missed the point. Despite repeated advice before and after it was placed, you have not let the subject drop rather you are skirting the edge of the ban and planning how to continue the behaviour that lead to it when the ban expires. This expanded topic ban is thus necessary to prevent disruption to the encyclopaedia. That you have made good edits in the topic area is not the point, the point is that the sum of your activity is a net negative. ] (]) 21:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
***As there has been no objections or other comments from uninvolved users, I'm enacting this as proposed. ] (]) 13:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
{{hab}}


]
==SageRad==
<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>


==Ekdalian==
===Request concerning SageRad===
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Edward321}} 01:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


===Request concerning Ekdalian===
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|SageRad}}<p>{{ds/log|SageRad}}
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 03:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
<!--- SageRad --->


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Ekdalian}}<p>{{ds/log|Ekdalian}}</p>
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] :
<!--- https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#SageRad_topic_banned --->
"SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- 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. -->
# SageRaded removes tags from ]; according to the article, Eisenstein has a column where they write "on topics including genetic modification and the patenting of seed".
# SageRad edits ]; according to the article, DuPont "makes and sells hybrid seed and genetically modified seed" and has made and sold pesticide.
# Further edit by SageRad to the Dupont article.
# Further edit by SageRad to the Dupont article.
# SageRad edits ]
# SageRad further edits ]
# SageRad edits ]; according to the article "Dow’s Agricultural Sciences segment provides crop protection and seed/plant biotechnology products and technologies, urban pest management solutions and oils".
# SageRad edits ]
# SageRad further edits ]
# SageRad further edits ]
# SageRad further edits ]
# SageRad further edits ]
# SageRad edits ]; according to the article, d'Entremont "works on debunking ideas about alternative medicine, the anti-vaccination movement, and the anti-GMO (genetically modified organisms) movement".


;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 :
<!-- 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.-->
# - Restoring recently added disputed content, contrary to ]
# - Casting unsubstantiated aspersions and poisoning the well against another editor.
# - Poisoning the well against another user without any evidence of misconduct.
# - Restoring recently added disputed content again and essentially asking to get consensus for it, contrary to ].
# - Performs a blanket revert in order to make a ], just because their previous edit was reverted, despite it being the version that was arrived upon by a month long discussion on , also saying "LE also wants to discuss and revisit the content proposed by the sock" , LukeEmily later elaborated that they are okay with the version that Ekdalian was actually reverting
# - Same as above but edit warring
# - Edit warring and casting aspersions saying that reverting editor is acting like the blocked sock {{noping|Nobita456}} "stop behaving like Nobita please"
# - Attacks and tries to poison the well against another editor also says that "WP:ONUS doesn't mean you need to achieve consensus with editors condemned by admins for persistent POV pushing! "
# - Restores the aforementioned attack saying "Related to the content only, related to WP:CONSENSUS to be precise; accept the truth, I don't want to report minor incidents" when told to focus on content
# - calling a ] edit as vandalism and issues final warning for vandalism
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> <!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
# Explanation
# Explanation


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
*Has a <nowiki>{{Ds/aware|ipa}}</nowiki> template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. and notified of WP:ARBIPA by Dennis Brown in 2022
<!-- 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. -->
*SageRad was mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
*SageRad was reminded of their topic ban by Looie496.
*SageRad was reminded of their topic ban by HighInBC.


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
I also note that Ekdalian has a history of aggressive edit warring in the contentious topic as a part of slow running edit war.On , many of their most recent edits have been reverts to prevent content addition as well. It has gotten to the point where experienced users like {{noping|Sitush}} have called them out for it because they usually misrepresent the consensus or comments by editors such as Sitush to claim that consensus already exists when there is none, they do not provide diffs when asked to substantiate their claims either. They have been reprimanded in past over similar conduct about misrepresentation and exaggeration by {{ping|Dennis Brown}} on this venue as well. They have a history of attacking other users and trying to poison the well against them instead of ] as diffs above prove.
<!-- Add any further comment here -->


I am not seeking any topic bans but Ekdalian should be at least told not to misuse the talk page for adding more fuel into heated disputes, and use the revert button only when it is necessary. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 03:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I'll requote the decision against SageRad, emphasizing the parts some people are missing "''SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from '''all pages''' relating to genetically modified organisms '''and agricultural chemicals''', broadly construed''; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."


I'm unimpressed by your defence of #10, it was an unsourced change, sure disruptive but not vandalism (which has a very specific meaning). Please refer to ]. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 07:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

<!-- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ASageRad&type=revision&diff=702517041&oldid=702372022 -->
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->


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


===Discussion concerning SageRad=== ===Discussion concerning Ekdalian===
<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> <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 SageRad====


====Statement by Ekdalian====
Could we please be done with this? It's bad for my love life, and it's bad for my ability to sleep through the night. I'm observing the topic ban to a strict degree. I have not edited anything about GMOs or agrochemicals '''at all''' since the topic ban. Period. I'm not stupid. I know that violating my topic ban would be suicide. Someone obviously spent a '''lot''' of time trying to compile a case. Looks like enemies have it out for me. I'm editing with integrity and not touching the areas from which i am topic banned. I don't have time to waste on this and i'm not even going to grace this case with any point-by-point rebuttal. It's clear this is a witch hunt trying to find an excuse to get me blocked. ] (]) 10:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


I have nothing to say as such! I have been serving Misplaced Pages since 2013, particularly related to contentious caste articles, fighting against caste promotion, POV pushing and vandalism. Heated debates are common in the contentious topics. I have neither violated 3RR, nor abused any editor! Yes, in case someone has been topic banned and condemned by admins, I do mention the same so that NPOV is not violated. Many admins are aware of my activities including SPI, anti-disruption and anti-vandalism. Thanks & Regards. ] (]) 06:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
But, just to be safe, '''none''' of the diffs provided show me discussing GMOs or agrochemicals '''at all''' -- because i have not. And when Kingofaces writes:
:Action (warning) may be taken against NXcrypto for being unable to identify vandalism (refer to point number 10), and wasting the time of our admins! Thanks. ] (]) 06:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
{{talkquote|SageRad has also been commenting directly at ANI on a discussion on GMOs}}
::Nxcrypto, it is a clear case of vandalism. The user intends to misrepresent and project their caste as ] (higher status among Bengali Kayasthas) by intentionally changing Eastern (Bengal) to Western! Moreover, the user has done similar vandalism in multiple articles only in order to promote Western Bengali Guhas. Thanks. ] (]) 08:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
he's actually speaking of a that begins with:
{{talkquote|Editor KingOfAces casts aspersions
Kingofaces43 is casting very serious aspersions, and here - where he essential frames everybody participating in a OR noticeboard discussion as a climate change denier, among his common theme as fringe.}}
In other words -- it's '''not''' "a discussion on GMOs" -- it's a discussion on meta-level aspects of Misplaced Pages culture, mainly about the use of "fringe" as an aspersion, and how we deal with name-calling, and all that. It is '''not''' a discussion on GMOs, and his trying to frame it as such is a lie.


*In response to Bishonen's comments, I would like to inform here that Sitush is referring to my response at a time when {{u|Nobita456}}'s sock was driving a discussion and I had filed an SPI! Therefore, I was delaying the discussion in order to eliminate the sock from the same. Sitush has been quoted out of context! Thanks. ] (]) 12:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
And once again, what Kingofaces calls:
*:{{u|Orientls}}, the user has already been blocked for vandalism; I have years of experience in this area and quite sure of what I have mentioned! Thanks. ] (]) 06:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
{{talkquote|They also responded directly to me at WP:FTN when I asked for more eyes on this GMO discussion}}
*:{{ping|Bishonen}} I have clearly mentioned that I am not sure! But, {{u|Orientls}} seems to be so sure that they have stated that I am 'falsely' accusing him of meatpuppetry! How can you be so sure that there has been no mail exchanges? Orientls, do you think you are God? Regards. ] (]) 06:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
links actually to which has '''nothing''' to do with GMOs. Again, a lie.


====Statement by Orientls====
And most of his issue seems to be that i have opinions and speak against a McCarthyism sort of dynamic that i see going on. Ironically, this very case here is another such incident within that dynamic. I should not have to be wasting my time on this.


I find this comment by Ekdalian unpalatable: "The user intends to misrepresent and project their caste as Kulin Kayastha." How are you so sure of their caste? I don’t see where they have self-identified as such, and you also accuse them of attempting to project "their caste'" with another one by "vandalising" Misplaced Pages, which is a serious accusation against a new editor. I think an editor of your tenure should be able to recognize what constitutes vandalism because those edits are not vandalism, you should also refrain from speculating about the caste of editors.
As for DuPont -- my edits on that company (and Dow who have merged with them, hence ) have been about the chemical ] (like this edit ) which is ''not'' an agrochemical. It's a Teflon additive that did pollute water in West Virginia and in the Ohio River. That's not at ''all'' under my topic ban. And i also edited about ] to correct a trade name. Styrofoam is made by Dow but Thermocol is made by another company. I also made the same change at ] to correct that trade name ().


reasoning seems odd, especially when Sitush himself states: "CharlesWain began this discussion. They are not a sock, are they?" , implying that you were opposing changes proposed by an editor who was not a sock by misrepresenting Sitush's comments. I also think canvassing was inappropriate, particularly with its problematic heading, "Kind attention: Bishonen and admins active here." It sounds as if you are trying to recruit people to back you up here.
Seriously, my edit to ] ??????? This is out of control. So he's a wonderful thinker, author of ''Sacred Economics'' and a social change agent in the world. He probably wrote something about GMOs sometime, but i've never read it, and it's not his main thing, not what he's known for. You're really stretching. This is looking like McCarthyism, sort of proving my point, the actual point for which this case appears to have been brought against me.


Honestly, I’m not surprised by the diffs cited in the report, especially if your conduct at ARE is like this where your edits are under scrutiny.
So, even though i said i wouldn't, i just went through all the diffs provided, and as i know, they do '''not''' show me editing anything '''at all''' about GMOs or agrochemicals. I know this because my conscience is clear. I have '''not''' edited anything about GMOs or agrochemicals '''at all''' since the topic ban. I ask for this case to be summarily dropped, as it's onerous and seems to be intended to "get me" for being outspoken on cultural issues within Misplaced Pages. Good day. ] (]) 11:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


{{ping|Bishonen}} While the filer himself made it clear that he is not "seeking any topic bans", Ekdalian deserves a topic ban following this . By calling an editor with almost 4k edits a "comparatively new user" and falsely accusing him of "meatpuppetry", Ekdalian has proven he is not capable of editing here without poisoning the well and making personal attacks. ] (]) 03:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Look, i still reserve the right to speak to meta-issues on Misplaced Pages that are ''not'' about GMOs or agrochemicals.
The topic ban '''is what it is''' -- and you cannot "clarify" it to become greater than it is.


====Statement by (username)====
Let's give it a rest already. ] (]) 16:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

Note that i was quite aware of which explicitly did ''not'' prohibit editing about companies that may '''also''' make agrochemicals or GMOs. Those were subject to DS and not the ban, and that was already clarified. I operated under that clarification when i edited about PFOA and Styrofoam, if Only in Death was unaware of this clarification, then now they are.

How far would a topic ban reach? Like if i edit about corn, would that be a violation because there '''is''' GMO corn in the world? As you see, people tried to claim a violation when i edited about ] because maybe (i have no idea) he wrote something about GMOs somewhere. Well he probably '''did''' mention them in his many book but i've no idea. This is simply '''topic ban creep''' gone crazy. Come on already. I'm done with this. If this is how it is then you basically kill my ability to edit Misplaced Pages because i'll be nailed to the cross whatever i do. ] (]) 17:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

And there's . ] (]) 17:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

{{u|Tryptofish}}, I guess that "Science Babe's" page does say that, but I hadn't noticed when I made the single talk page comment about peacock language, it's not what my edit was about, and I know her as only a commenter on food safety regarding food additives. I had no intent of making any comment on GMOs by posting that comment on the article's tone. I was well aware of three BLPs that were considered to be within the topic ban and i '''never''' touched them and never will. I would be happy to include "Science Babe" in that list from this point forward, though it wasn't in any initial list from the ArbCom case (which did list three i think). And for goodness sake, all i said was that the article seemed to be too promotional, a general comment on tone. I didn't think it was a violation and i'll never touch that page again. ] (]) 20:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Re Only in Death's comment: I have '''no "MO"''' except to edit articles well. I have many interests and one of them is the history of chemical spills in the U.S.

Re DHeyward's comment: The only one being '''tarred and feathered''' here is me, and it's a joke. I honestly do have an interest in chemical contaminations because i was born in a town with polluted rivers, and i have been affected. As a human being, i have an interest that we know about what's happened in history, solely so we don't repeat the same mistakes. That is an '''honorable''' intention and it's part of "the sum of human knowledge" and it's a concern shared by millions of other people. So please simply let me do my little piece of the work as one human being, and stop attributing motives that i don't have.

Re JzG's comment: Thanks. Honestly though, i thought of "Science Babe" only as commenting on food additives and not about GMOs as i've noted elsewhere. As for "get as close to the topic as you can" -- no, that's not what i'm doing, for goodness sake. I'm '''not''' editing about GMOs. Seriously, in the real world, ideas don't fit into tiny neat separate boxes but i'm simply not editing about GMOs or agrochemicals, and i'm not trying to "get to them" somehow. If i'm not allowed on my neighbor's property, i can still walk near the fence sometimes. The line is where the line is, and i'm editing on many topics, ''some'' of them a degree or two of separation from the topic ban areas, but then again most people are a couple degrees away from Kevin Bacon. I couldn't even edit about "bacon" in fact as animals eat GMO feed. And Kevin Bacon probably spoke out about GMOs at some point or wrote a song about them. I say check my contribs and judge. I'm editing well and i'd like to be able to do so in peace. Thanks. ] (]) 01:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

And by the way, as for "Science Babe" i'll just say "I'm sorry, it was my oversight, i didn't see that part of the lede, and even though my edit had nothing to do with GMOs, it's still too close for comfort, and i'll never touch her article ever ever ever again... scout's honor." As for chemicals like PFOA, it's a different topic and i'm not trying to "tar and feather" any company. I'm looking at contamination and following that wherever it went. That is done now too, but i still have the right to edit judiciously in that realm with discretionary sanctions and i think that ought to be ok. As for Charles Eisenstein, he's totally unrelated to GMOs as far as i know. It's not in the article and not his wheelhouse as far as i knew. Anyway, i'm busy editing for real on things like ] which is another of my passions, and i'll just be on my way. ] (]) 18:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm really getting tired of this vexatious complaint. Release me already somebody. Release me from this bullshit. Is BMK trying to claim that ] is also banned because genes are modified by evolution? And no i'm not a fucking '''POV warrior''' already -- stop the name-calling and let me fucking go, someone. I don't deserve to be locked up in this cell.

And BMK, how the ''bleep'' do you think it's okay to call people names who write in my support, like "'''it is not helpful for the peanut gallery to egg them on'''" -- like you think that's '''okay'''? Where are your manners? Where is your decency? I'm an editor and i do good editing. I use sources and i look at articles. This is ] -- who are you to be above me in such harsh judgment and then call names to people like {{u|HughD}} when he writes in my defense after having some experience editing with me at ] and ] where we have been doing top-notch editing with several others, thank you very much??? Really, now -- please be ]. You're wasting my time in a vexatious case and insulting others for what seems ideological reasons here. This is not conducive to good editing on Misplaced Pages -- this whole thing seems to be obstructionist intimidation to knock out someone with outspoken opinions on some core Misplaced Pages values and issues. I don't want to spend any more of my time on this. I really just wanted to go on my way but after name-calling people who even write a word in my defense, boomerang is looking attractive. . . . . . where does the nonsense stop? ] (]) 11:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by AlbinoFerret====
Having commented on the recent WP:ARCA section on increasing the topic bans to "companies that produce them" for the topic banned editors from the GMO case. I would like to point out . As a result, SageRad is not topic banned from editing articles of companies that produce agricultural chemicals as long as he is not editing about agricultural chemicals/GMO's. None of the diffs provided are on agricultural chemicals/GMO's. ] 03:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that that the warnings predate the close of the ARCA section and one was specifically about that section and should be covered by ] ] 03:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Kingofaces43====
SageRad has also been commenting directly at ANI on a discussion on GMOs starting with scaled back to , quite obviously so they could claim they weren't directly entering discussion on GMOs.

Followed by:

With this of an edit summary, "There is a reason that i continue to compare the anti-fringe movement to McCarthyism." All these above occurred in , which was explicitly focused on genetically modified organisms, the scientific consensus around it, and how we deal with ] aspects in content discussion around it.

They also responded directly to me at ] when I asked for more eyes on this GMO discussion with , which is another unambiguous violation followed by more Regardless of meta-discussions popping up within the specific incidents, there they have been plenty of discussions on topic banned users in this topic to not even be commenting from the sidelines at admin boards when they are topic banned.

There have been some previous instances where SageRad has been chaffing against their ban, though not quite as bad as others sanctioned at the case. There still have been issues going on though with a previous AE case. I won't even suggest any particular actions to admins, but SageRad needs to stay out the topic plain and simple without finding ways to skirt the ban. I'm concerned there's a lot of the same soapboxing and hyperbole related to ], etc. that got them topic banned from GMOs, but that might be something ANI handles if they can respect the topic ban. ] (]) 04:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Beyond My Ken====
My observation is that SageRad is much more interested in complaining about being "bullied" by other users who attempt to guide his edits in such a way that is consistent with his topic ban then he is in actually living within the ban and finding other non-banned areas to edit in. He is clearly here to push an agenda, and when he is prevented from doing so, immediately begins his "bullying" trope on talk pages and noticeboards. At this point, I see him as a disruptive element who, by his example, encourages other ]-sympathetic editors to behave similarly. He is a net negative to the project, one that we can hardly afford to allow to roam freely at a time when Misplaced Pages is experiencing a concerted effort to throw off the discipline of the scientific standard and allow all sorts of unscientific nonsense into the encyclopedia. I urge the admins evaluating this complaint, on the basis of the evidence that has been presented, <s>to broaden SageRad's topic ban to include all fringe-related areas, and</s> to encourage admins to police his behavior vigorously.{{parabr}}If the admins who frequent AE doubt that there is a stromg effort to influence Misplaced Pages in favor of fringe subjects, all they need to do is to look up at some of the complaints being filed here., whic clearly outline their program.] (]) 06:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
:@SageRad: Please consider "Broadly construed". Generally what that means is that if there is a '''''mere possibility''''' of the subject being part of the topic ban, you should turn your back and go do something else. You, on the other hand, appear to be minutely parsing the subject matter, and then diving in. That's just not going to fly with a "broadly contrued" topic ban, something which you've been warned about at least twice now. ] (]) 19:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
::@Darkfrog: SageRad's topic ban is not phrased to say that he is banned from those pages "except where the edits cause a problem". It is a plain, straight-out ban from those '''''pages''''' which '''''broadly construed''''' come under the terms of the ban. The quality or efficacy of the edits is totally irrelevant and should not be considered by the admins evaluating this complaint. ] (]) 19:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
:::Upon reflection, struck one suggestion above. ] (]) 20:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
::::@HughD: "SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all '''''<u>pages</u>''''' relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed." (emphasis added) ] (]) 18:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::@HughG: "Genetically modified <u>organisms</u> refers to '''''any''''' life form: animal, arthropod, reptilian, plant, bacterial - any '''''organism'''''. I'm not sure what it is that is preventing you from perceiving this, especially since the ban is intended to be "broadly construed" to any '''''<u>page</u>''''' whatsoever that deals with that range of items.{{parabr}}What is typical for the POV-edit warrior is to pick away at what they perceive as the edges of their ban, hoping that no one will notice, but the entire point of having a topic ban be "broadly construed" is to stop that behavior in its tracks. It is has been said here over and over again, but I suppose it's worth re] (]) 07:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Darkfrog24====
Very uninvolved non-admin. Most of these edits don't specifically mention GMOs, but SageRad is also banned from "pages relating to genetically modified organisms." According to AlbinoF, that does not include DuPont or Dow, but my own take is that it would include d'Entremont.

*1. No GMO mentioned. Is it the filer's position that SR is trying to indirectly talk about GMOs by minimizing mention of one of their supporters or detractors?
*2. No GMO mentioned
*3. No GMO mentioned.
*4. No GMO mentioned.
*5. Mentions PFOA, not GMOs. Does the article that SR recommends talk about GMOs? If so, I ''guess'' it could be construed as a way to induce others to talk about GMOs, but it could also just be what it looks like. AGF.
*6. No GMO mentioned.
*7. No GMO mentioned.
*8. Recommending the same NYT article. Again, depends on what it says.
*9. The edits made by OnlyinDeath do not mention or involve GMOs.
*10-12. No GMO mentioned.
*13. Maybe this one. SR is talking about the article in general and it mentions GMOs in the opening paragraphs but SR him/herself does not.

IMO #1 and #13 are the only ones that can be construed as violations, but it is reasonable that the filer would not know that DuPont and Dow are not covered by the ban, so I wouldn't call it deliberate spam either.

Yes, SR mentions GMOs or more specifically the discussion of GMOs on Misplaced Pages in this AN/I discussion; self-removes this part of the post about twelve hours later. I don't see the problem with "Resent your calling my response 'hysterical'" or those other posts.
Bottom line: There is a ''lot'' of stuff in this complaint that's innocuous. The comment on the SciBabe article talk page <strike>could be</strike> <u>is</u> a problem, <u>and the fact that it appears that SageRad's claim not to know that D'Etremont was involved with GMOs is untrue casts doubt on his credibility</u>. The <strike>real</strike> <u>clearest</u> issue here is the participation in the AN/I discussion, which included GMOs even though it was not solely about them. I'd go with yes, SageRad was over the line here. If SR has been engaging in a pattern of such borderline activity, then action is warranted. If not, I'd just clarify the terms of the topic ban so that they explicitly state that SR is not allowed to participate in meta-discussions of GMOs on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
:{{ping|Only_in_death}} It sounds like ''technically'' SageRad's Dow and DuPont edits don't violate the ban, even though I'll agree with what I infer to be {{ping|Edward321}}'s opinion that one would think these pages would be covered. I'd say this: Do the edits cause or constitute a problem? Do they exacerbate a conflict or push a POV? If so, then the admins should consider extending the topic ban, but it should be acknowledged that SageRad did not violate its existing terms with these edits. ] (]) 18:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC) BMK, I would agree, but there appears to be an exception specifically permitting topic-banned users to edit articles on companies like Dow and Dupont so long as they don't mention GMOs. This is a case of three violations, not fourteen. ] (]) 01:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Only in Death====
Re Darkfrog, SageRad is banned from agricultural chemicals, which are a major part of Dow's business. The only reason I did not report SageRad for those transgressions was they appeared to take the hint and backed off the article. The AE report I actually which was closed by EdJohnston despite being a blatant violation was a different matter, evidence of their attempt to canvass support for their POV pushing. ] (]) 17:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
:DF, SageRads MO is to show up at an article, declare bias, and attempt to skew it towards their POV. (Their contribution history contains the evidence of that). As they hold a viewpoint that corporations (GMO affiliated ones mainly) are bad and up to no good, this generally means trying to paint them in an unduly negative light. By coatracking, unreliable sourcing etc. Not restricted to companies, individuals who are pro science (and so, anti fringe/pseudoscience) get the same treatment. As SageRad has a basic lack of understanding of how NPOV, Fringe/Pseudoscience policies work, this means they get into the same arguments in multiple venues with multiple editors who have to explain things over and over again. Take a look at the NPOV and fringe noticeboards (and archives) for a sample. Not to mention the rubbish at Veganism. ] (]) 19:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Of course, there is also . Oh and then in order to not edit there. Seriously, why are we putting up with this rubbish? ] (]) 17:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by MarkBernstein====

The complaint is vexatious, and is apparently intended to lure admins at AE into carelessly extending a topic ban into domains which ArbCom explicitly rejected, for the purposes of gaining advantage in a topic dispute and of further securing Misplaced Pages for the American right.

Is perfluorooctanioc acid an agricultural chemical? It sure sounds chemical, doesn’t it? Does it have something to do with GMOs? Kind of sounds like it would! DuPoint and Dow do make some farm products! Obviously, a breaching experiment: ring the alarms!

Unfortunately for this complaint, some Wikipedians have knowledge of a variety of domains, and others are remarkably willing to '''look stuff up.''' A long time ago, I earned a doctorate in chemistry. Also, a long time ago, I was employed by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., though by Central Research, not by the agrochemical division. I can say with some confidence that perfluorooctanoic acid is not an agricultural chemical, at least not on this planet! (Speculation on the slippery nature of perfluorinated wildlife might amuse arbitrators more than this complaint.) DuPont has long been a world leader in fluorocarbon chemistry, and its perfluorinated polymer, Teflon, is a household word. Perfluorooctanoic acid is used to manufacture Teflon and related polymers, as a water repellent, and for related applications. There’s quite a decent article on this on a Web site called ].

The question of whether the topic ban extends to non-agricultural chemicals, or to other operations of these and other companies, was explicitly raised -- by myself and others -- at ARCA. ArbCom's rejection of this broad construction was clear and unambiguous. '''The editor raising this question should be topic-banned from discussion of topic bans for GMO''' in order to avoid future disruption. ] (]) 18:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Tryptofish====
I have not looked at all the company-related edits, but the last edit listed in the opening filing, , is an unambiguous violation, because the lead section of ] clearly notes that the subject is notable for criticizing "the anti-GMO (genetically modified organisms) movement". --] (]) 19:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

==== Statement by JzG ====
SageRad has been active at {{la|Vani Hari}}, discussed during the case, and the dispute between Hari and d'Entremont is well documented - the dispute explicitly includes Hari's GMO fearmongering and when this is taken along with Dow and DuPont I would say it's time to start making firm statements that no, we do not mean get as close to the topic as you think you can get away with, we mean, stay away from GMOs, broadly construed.

I would not like to see SageRad blocked this time, but equally I do think he needs to actually leave that area alone, and in fact it might be helpful if he was to drop the stick entirely (e.g. stop kvetching about use of a site associated with David Gorski, with whom he has a dispute over GMOs). <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by DHeyward====
The result of "broadly construed" findings was to stop eactly this type of tar and feathering approach to GMO companies. Sorry but I find little coincidence in the editing of GMO company products in a negative tone and editing GMO products themselves. These editors need to get off the "ZOMG! these GMO companies are killing us in so many different ways!" treadmill and find a new hobby. --] (]) 00:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Hugh====
I see no topic ban violation in the diffs in the complaint. Uninvolved with GMOs, minor interactions with SageRad. ] (]) 07:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Beyond_My_Ken}} ] authorizes topic bans constrained by ]. I see no authorization for a page ban sanction animal. Topic bans are bans on topics not pages. Is your point that this sanction here is not a topic ban, it is some kind of page ban thing, exempt from ]? Some read "broadly construed" as a sort of two degrees of separation, that is, any page that wikilinks to a article that is in scope is in scope, maybe some of that is going on in this complaint, topic ban creep. ] (]) 07:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Beyond_My_Ken}} Thank you for your reply above. You emphasized the word "pages" in the topic ban notice. What is that word's significance to you? Our project's policy ] provides guidance on how to interpret the scope of a topic ban, my understanding is ''all'' topic bans. Do you think the topic ban at issue in this complaint is constrained by ], or does the use of the word "pages" in the notification make it into some kind of page ban or some kind of topic ban on steroids? Thanks again. ] (]) 06:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Cla68====
As contentious as the GMO articles continue to be, I'd say a healthy dose of boomerang on some of the editors here following SageRad around trying to get him banned would probably help things out, but I doubt any of the responding admins will put any effort into doing so. ] (]) 16:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


===Result concerning SageRad=== ===Result concerning Ekdalian===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections 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. --> <!-- 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 will point out that I was ] by Ekdalian. That said, I'll state that I don't think NXcrypto's diffs are anything much; it's surely a stretch to call them "casting apersions" and "poisoning the well" and the like, especially in the IPA area where the tone is often sharp. The comments by Sitush are a little more concerning, though. ] &#124; ] 10:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC).
*
==Alex 19041==
<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 Alex 19041 ===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement: {{userlinks|Est. 2021}} 16:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested: {{userlinks|Alex 19041}}<p>{{ds/log|Alex 19041}}</p>
==AJB43 ==
{{hat|1=No action, since the user has agreed not to edit the OETA article until they satisfy the 500/30 rule that has been imposed as an ] remedy ] (]) 15:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC) }}
===Request concerning AJB43 ===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Zero0000}} 07:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|AJB43 }}<p>{{ds/log|AJB43 }}
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] & ]
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] : "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict."
<!--- 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. --> <!-- 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.-->
# revert #
# revert
# revert
# revert
# revert


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
* ]
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
* ]
* informed by edit summary
* acknowledges the information and denies it applies
* informed on talk page
* acknowledges the information, says "I read the link", again denies it applies.


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
* ]


===Discussion concerning Alex 19041===
Although talk pages are included in the ] (it says "pages", not "articles", and this interpretation was confirmed at ]), I did not list such edits. The only issue here is whether the page ] "could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". To clarify, OETA was the military government established by the British government in Palestine when it was conquered from the Ottoman Empire in 1917. It lasted until replaced by a civilian government in 1922. This was a key moment in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. To judge AJB43's denial, we only need to read AJB43's edit summaries and text to see that AJB43 is editing the article precisely out of concern for the Arab-Israeli conflict:
<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>
* "It is not relevant to put the name of something that is not a country here, it distorts the on the ground realities of today."
* "The "State of Palestine" is a partially recognized non-entity that has no effective control of anything on the ground. Thus, it is not a country"
* "Palestine is an only semi-recognized non-entity that doesn't claim what its borders are."


====Statement by Alex 19041====
The 30/500 rule was introduced to keep PIA articles from being disrupted by SPA editors like this. Unfortunately, there are not yet (correct me if I'm wrong) the technical means to enforce it. Please enforce this case by a long block. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

* ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

===Discussion concerning AJB43===
<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 AJB43====

I submitted the dispute for a third opinion earlier, and prior to this reporting.

User Zero0000 is the biased one here, reverting my non-partisan edits for personal, partisan goals. My edits are not out of concern for the Arab-Israeli Conflict, and could not reasonably be construed that way. My edits are made out of pedantry- the successor area to the OETA that Zero0000 wants to refer to as Palestine is in fact the Palestinian National Authority. This is about precise terms for an online encyclopedia, not a vested interest on my part.

If you look at Zero0000's user page, it explicitly states the term "Palestine," and displays numerous other examples of the user's interest in the Arab-Israel Conflict, including stating that Zero0000 has been to "Palestine (West Bank and Gaza). That is clear conflict of interest right there. I edit the article to show "Palestinian National Authority," but Zero0000 doesn't like this because personal opinions hold that it must be "Palestine."

This is spin at its finest. The user is the one who is reverting my edits and trying to have me banned because the user wants to interject politics into a Misplaced Pages article, in which POV has no place.

I appeal against any ban.


I have been made aware of the rules and will follow them in the future - I hope this suffices as a statement as I don't think there is anything worth adding that hasn't been said already
] (]) 08:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)AJB43


====Statement by (username)==== ====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning AJB43=== ===Result concerning Alex 19041===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections 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. --> <!-- 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. -->
<!--
*
--><span id="Est._2021:1737475502593:WikipediaFTTCLNArbitration/Requests/Enforcement" class="FTTCmt"></span>
*I've just added the template {{tl|Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} at ]. Our article on the ] goes back to the 19th century to explain the conflict, and has three paragraphs on the time period beginning in 1917 which is when the OETA was active. It is clear that the OETA article is part of the broadly-construed topic area of the Arab-Israeli conflict. We should give the editor ] the opportunity to back away from the dispute to avoid a block for violating the 500-30 rule. ] (]) 18:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
:*Per to stop editing the article until he reaches 500 edits and 30 days tenure, I think this report can be closed without a block. ] (]) 21:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
{{hab}}


*To recap what's already been said at the initial hearing this got ], it has been identified that Alex19041 is not extended-confirmed, has now been made aware of the 30/500 editing restriction for PIA, has acknowledged that they should not make any edits to the topic, but has not quite acknowledged that they also should not make comments relating to the topic outside of article space. If they can acknowledge that, an IBAN would be unnecessary as they will not be engaging further with the discussion at-issue for some time. If they can't acknowledge that, we'd likely need to escalate to blocks, as there's no reason to expect the IBAN to be observed. Some concern was also raised that Est. 2021's replies to Alex 19041 included personal attacks, although it should be noted that Est. 2021 has made an effort to remove potentially-problematic statements from their prior comments at ARBCOM (sections on their talk page containing similar language have been removed entirely, which is within their purview on a user talk page). <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
==Jaqeli==
*(came here from the ill-fated ArbCom case request). I agree with Rosguill. Some assurance from Alex 19041 and from Est. 2021 that they will leave the problematic edits behind would be good.] (]) 21:28, 21 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>
*I agree that the reported user needs to show some understanding that as a non-EC user, they need to leave this ] alone ''across all namespaces''. However, sanctions are for serious, ongoing problems, three unwelcome talk page posts made over the course of an hour does not strike me as sufficient cause for a formal iban. If there's more to it than that, it needs to be made clear, with diffs. ] ] 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*It doesn't look like {{u|Alex 19041}} has edited since the case started. Alex, if you are seeing this, you do need to come in here and respond. Ignoring this will not make it go away. ] (]) 15:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


==]-related pages==
===Request concerning Jaqeli===
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|EtienneDolet}} 04:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


===Request concerning ]-related pages===
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Jaqeli}}<p>{{ds/log|Jaqeli}}
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Beeblebrox}} 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


; Pages about which enforcement is requested : ]-related pages
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ], as per all subjects Armenia and Georgia related, broadly defined


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- 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. -->
*On 15 March 2015, Jaqeli was given a to be allowed to edit Georgian scripts, ], ], and ] for three months and then reappeal the entire ban which was removed on 29 June 2015. Nonetheless, during this time Jaqeli edited , , , , , , , , , , several Georgian letters, , , and creating , among other edits.


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
Despite being topic banned twice, Jaqeli seemingly exhibits the same behavior he has in the past.
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->


I ''think'' this is the right place to ask for this? Requesting an expansion of ] to cover all articles related to ], as it has unfortunately become a political hot-button issue as the POTUS made it a prioroty on his first day back in office to sign an executive order to revert the name of the mountain back to "Mt. McKinley".
* - One month after the topic ban was removed, Jaqeli removes all mention that the Georgian branch is related to the Armenian branch, which is accepted by all reliable scholars and sourced with Cyril Tumanoff


In the past twenty-four hours there has been heavy editing/disruption in articles and on related talk pages and protection has been needed at several. ] was probably hit hardest, but ] got some too, as has ], which is explicitly not even part of the executive order. I wouldn't be surprised if the same issue is happening in ] related articles, but haven't checked for myself. ] ] 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
* - removed all mention of Ghadana of Armenia being Armenian despite the fact that the sources within the article itself support the claim


:Yeah, just checked Gulf of Mexico. 28 new talk page sections in the past day, was already ECP protected two weeks ago per ].
* - Jaqeli removes Armenia from the article title under the excuse "no Armenia existed back then" despite the article having content about the ] and ]
:I kinda think a single admin could do this, but I am editorially involved and probably slightly too infuriated to be objective. ] ] 22:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for the replies, that's kind of what I thought, but again didn't want to act on it as I'm editorially involved. ] ] 22:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
* - Removing the native Armenian name and other native names and leaving only the Georgian native name. This dish popular throughout the Caucasus.
<!-- Add any further comment here -->


* - Jaqeli removes an academic source about the family's Armenian origins and removes all mention of such from the article. Similar to his past on Mesrop Mashtots.


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
* and - Jaqeli twice lists Georgia in the ]. I found this to be exagerrarated since it appears that the sources do not claim that Georgia was a "great power" or anything of that nature.
===Discussion concerning ]-related pages===
<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 ]-related pages====
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
* and - Jaqeli was previously banned twice from Armenian and Georgian articles on 5 January 2014 on ], and on 15 August 2014 , such as removing sourced content for the Armenian role in the Georgian language on ] and ].


====Statement by Isabelle====
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
Since I've protected Denali's talk page, I will comment here. I agree that we will be seeing serious issues in the coming month, considering all the shit the new president is throwing at the wall, but I believe the administrators are well equip to deal with this at the moment. I believe {{u|Valereee}} has protected the Gulf of Mexico's talk page, and I've dealt with Mount Denali's. We might need to apply more extensive protection during this coming month to stop the vandals, but current tools will do just fine. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*As stated above, banned in and by ]
*Topic banned successfully appealed on


====Statement by Valereee====
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
Pinged here: yes, I've semi'd Talk:Gulf of Mexico, yesterday for 24 hours, today for another 31. I dislike protecting a talk, but it was a burden for editors working there. ] (]) 23:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
The user appears to conduct a concerning ] editing pattern in Armenian related articles ever since the lifting of his ban. I find that every time he edits an Armenian related article, it is disruptive in one way or another. This disruptive editing pattern is similar to the very same disruption that has gotten him the AA2 ban in the first place. The user has a pretty extensive which includes several blocks from edit-warring and topic ban violations. Yet, despite all the blocks, warnings, and bans, the user continues to display a disruptive editing pattern.


:100+ edits today on the article, which is EC protected. I feel like that's a lot. ] (]) 23:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
<center>'''Therefore, I believe that the user's AA2 topic ban should be reinstated for second and final time.'''</center>


====Statement by (username)====
''For past inquiries, please see Jaqeli's:''
*AA2 report of 2 January 2014 (verdict: topic-banned): ]
*AA2 report of 15 August 2014 (verdict: topic ban reinstated): ]

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

===Discussion concerning Jaqeli===
<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 Jaqeli====

====Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
Regarding the AA2 report of 15th August (which I initiated), I was surprised after it to see Jaqeli continue to edit many articles related to Georgia. When I asked Sandstein about this, I was told that Jaqeli's editing restriction applied only to articles that contained material relating to BOTH Armenia and Georgia . In other words, Jaqeli had no restriction on editing Armenia-related articles and no restriction on editing Georgia-related articles. I do not think that most people would read a ''"topic ban from everything related to both Armenia and Georgia"'' in this very restricted way. And given that a lot of the pov editing that Jaqeli has now been accused of is removing evidence of any Armenia/Armenian connections, this very restricted topic ban could be perceived as actually encouraging pov editing. If any editing restrictions are going to be reimposed on Jaqeli, would the closing administrator make the wording of it quite clear as to what the topic ban refers to, and consider whether it should be "everything related to Armenia and everything related to Georgia", or perhaps " "every article that could reasonably be expected to be related to Armenia regardless of whether it currently has content related to Armenia". A lot of the uncontroversial content that Jaqeli has worked on or added and that is only Georgia-related seems quite useful, quite specialized, and nobody else is doing it (so it would be a loss if he is gone). However, there seems to be a fundamentally bad attitude within his editing aims in that he consciously wishes at all times and whenever possible to minimize or remove legitimate content that mentions Armenia from articles that primarily concern Georgian history or culture or that jointly concern Georgian and Armenian history or culture. ] (]) 22:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


===Result concerning Jaqeli=== ===Result concerning ]-related pages===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections 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. --> <!-- 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 suggest restoring Jaqeli's previous topic ban from <u>''everything related to both Armenia and Georgia''</u> per ]. The DS log entry has links to all the past discussions. ] (]) 15:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
:@]: AMPOL already covers "Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed". I think that "broadly construed" would include Denali and Gulf of Mexico in the current moment. In any event, I think you'd want to go to ARCA, not here, for an amendment. ] (]/]) 22:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Also, ] is already ECP and ] has semi-protection. There's no protection on ], but I'm not seeing anything in the page history that would justify it.l ] (]/]) 22:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*AE couldn't expand the scope of an existing CT designation; only ArbCom could do that. But I don't think we need to. If the disruption is related to a current American politics controversy, that's clearly related to "post-1992 politics of the United States", and so is ''already'' in scope of the existing CT designation. So, I'd say just treat it as such. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


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

<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 Callmehelper===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Srijanx22}} 18:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Callmehelper}}<p>{{ds/log|Callmehelper}}</p>
===Request concerning HistoryWrite===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Zero0000}} 09:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|HistoryWrite}}<p>{{ds/log|HistoryWrite}}
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] : 30 day, 500 edit general prohibition. ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask 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 :
; Details of charges
<!-- 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. --> <!-- 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.-->
# - Violates copyrights

# - Files a frivolous report against other editors, mislabels their edits as "vandalism" and then rudely responds to onlookers as also noted by Liz by saying "That's a very rude reply, Callmehelper."
This editor has made hundreds of junk edits to "satisfy" the 500-edit rule for editing in the Arab-Israel area. I can't list them all here, please see its ], its ], and read its comment "Malik, now that I have amassed 500+ nonsense edits, how will you justify your unilateral deletions of my contributions, and your rewriting of history with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict?" .
# - Mislabels an edit as "vandalism".
# - Trying to get article on a non-notable subject created and not dropping the ].
# - Casts ] against the new page patrollers, and demeans them as "{{tq|people those rejected are so much had biased opinions that I can't discuss.}}"


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
Almost certainly a sock, but I'm no good at identifications.

;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->

Edit quoted above proves both awareness and intention to subvert. Also got ARBPIA notice on talk page.


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here --> <!-- Add any further comment here -->

This is intolerable. Less than a permablock would be too little. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:31, 2 February 2016 (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. -->


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


====Statement by Callmehelper====
In Misplaced Pages’s Arab-Israeli topics, I have made very important and cited contributions, among them:
This is my side ;
* “the Palestine Liberation Organization had been an internationally recognized terrorist organization”
# '''1 Allegation''' : Yes, it was indeed a copyright violation. This was my first encounter to something like copyright violation. Which i just copy-paste of a paragraph from govt website. Then one senior editor tell me in my talk page about what copyright violation is and how that works, and it was my very healthy and learning session for me tbh. Please see the whole discussion, then it will exhibit a full picture. First conversion happened in my talk page then little more conversations happened in his talk page And ultimately matter solved and i learnt by this conversations and after that i never did anything like copyright violation. I don't know why this issue is used here against me.
* “Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital”
<br>
* “Jordan had occupied then annexed the West Bank and then attacked Israel in the Six Day War”
# '''2nd Allegation''' : This is little complex and long problem. Although i explain it very deeply during AN/I. But i will cut it short. It was started very much before. '''Firstly someone tag me about this vandalism by saying that one editor try to manipulate some paragraph in that page then i got involved in this. I restored that paragraph but it was reverted by again that guy and it keep going for sometime, then i told them in his talk page but he just delete that talk without replying, then i go for article talk page and write all that issue but no one replied, then i go to two administrator personal talk page, one was busy and one told me that i should go for AN/I but here also i got no reply for 2 days. after all that someone replied that i should go for main article talk page, which i was already did. this was disappointing for me as i feel in a loop as in talk page no one replied. so i replied very rudely but it was more of a frustration for 4 days. But nevertheless, I apologise to that editor and that senior editor named Lez who told me about my rudeness, in next reply. Moreover i also apologise to that editor in his talk page on
<br>
# 3 Allegations : It was related to 2nd allegation. It was indeed a Vandalism, because after discussion done in that talk page that editor was again removing all this , so i had to go to his talk page and said about this is Vandalism pls stop doing it but again that guy deleted my vandalism warning without replying to me , But ultimately that editor stopped doing vandalism in that page and it then remains restored after so my efforts for continuous 5 days.<br> But i don't know how that respected complainer think that this is not vandalism? IT WAS VANDALISM. <br>


# '''4th & 5th Allegations''' : I am not aware about WP:Stick. Simply I make a draft and leave a (template submit) in my draft and then it goes for discussion. After so much long long conversations, it was finalized that the draft is still not acceptable as it lack Notability and i ultimately accept that and this conversation end in very light way. <br>
My contributions were based on historical facts, germane to the topics, and gave historical context to what have become pro-Palestinian propaganda Misplaced Pages pages. Yet, people taking decidedly anti-Israel points of views, deleted all of my contributions.
'''My Conclusion''': I whenever make any statement in uncivil manner i never ever leave as it is without my apology. i apologise to those whenever i feel that i replied them in uncivil way. <br> As i am not so english fluent, so i don't have much dictionaries of words, so ultimately some my words reflect a little rudeness, but it was never be my intention. so apologise to him immediately. <br> Although i am new , but i am sure i will be adapt myself very soon about all the policies. I also work on myself perticularly about my choice of words. <br> Those seniors who seen my choice of bad words should advice/warm me in my talk page instead of going direct complaining, as i seen such policy as , as i never ignored any type of warning/advice or suggestions. <br>This was my side. <br>I will accept any kind of warning or ban after all.<br> Thanks.<br> Much Regards.


====Statement by (username)====
Ultimately, Malik Shabazz, to his credit, did not send me to arbitration, he gave me a warning, not about content, but technicality: ]. Therefore, I wrote the following in my ]:
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

I am HistoryWrite. Unlike many who suppress their agendas, mine is clear and open. I am on Misplaced Pages to combat the Arab/Muslim-led political warfare campaigns and efforts to distort and falsely rewrite history in regard to Israel and the Middle East in general, and the Arab-Palestinian agenda in particular.
Many efforts have been made to block my historical additions and a recent warning was given to me that I must have 30 days and 500 edits in Misplaced Pages in order to edit “controversial” pages such as the State of Palestine or the Palestine Liberation Organization.

As such, I now have more than 30 days, and here are my 500 edits that once and for all make me legitimate to write factual historical information, specifically regarding the most prominent contributions of the PLO (and many Palestinians): violence and terrorism.

My 1…500 edits.

Subsequently, I left a note for Malik informing him that I now have the required number of edits. However, to correct the context and meaning, the “500+ nonsense edits” refer '''ONLY''' to the numerical edits in my own Userpage, and '''DO NOT''' refer to '''ANY''' of my edits/contributions in Misplaced Pages in general, or the Arab-Israeli topic in particular.

The Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA3 would curtail Gore Vidal if he were to join Misplaced Pages today, although I’m sure the intent is rather to stop drive by attacks. My contributions have been substantial. Interestingly, if a person writes a 30,000 word article and hits save, that is one edit. Correcting a comma is one edit. Where’s the logic, but I digress.

Contributors are weighing in on many issues: ]; ]; “hundreds of junk edits”; “aggressive statement”; “POV-warrior gaming the system,” I’m “not a serious editor.” Those statements are either wrong or irrelevant to why I am here. What is most difficult to understand are why people like ] and ] would okay a site ban prior first reading any statement of explanation from me.

I have been published in major newspapers and I have a relevant voice that will be heard. At the end of the day, I was warned, and now I have 500 edits. I would rather this arbitration deal with the propaganda that is allowed by the pro-Palestinian perspective, rather than banishing me on a technicality. Speaking of technicality, I was actually sent to arbitration ''after'' I had the 500 edits.

HistoryWrite

====Statement by Nomoskedasticity====
Surely the aggressive statement of intent on the user page is enough to demonstrate that this editor is not here to contribute to an encyclopaedia but instead to ]. ] (]) 09:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Torven====
I had to go digging for it, but this isn't the first time someone has tried to sneak into the circus this way. About six months ago, ] was banned for doing ].
Considering the user's talk page, I don't see much reason to view this situation any differently.] (]) 15:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

* ] was not banned for "almost the same thing." The user's page states: This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the operator has abusively used multiple accounts. ]

{{re|HistoryWrite}} Check his block log. Before the Checkuser results were posted to his page, he was blocked for, among other things, gaming sanctions. The intent of the 500/30 restriction isn't to make you crank out 500 edits as quickly as you can. It's to give new users time to learn how Misplaced Pages works, both technically and in policy, before they dive into an area that frequent disruption has turned into a minefield. For instance, I've been browsing the site for several years and actively following the notice boards for just over a year. I know some policies well enough, since it is impossible to follow some notice board discussions without them. At the same time, I had no clue how to ping a user until last week when DHeyward pinged me (which, by the way, if you are reading this, thank you for that). Seeing how more experienced editors post and interacting with them is one of the best ways to learn, and by trying to circumvent the sanctions, you have shown you have no interest in learning how to work with the community and are here simply to push your point of view. That won't get you very far, and may have already sabotaged your stated agenda. Also, this board does not use threaded discussions; everyone responds in their own section. ] (]) 00:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Darkfrog24====
Non-involved non-admin here. To answer your question HistoryWrite, the logic behind the 500 edits rule is to force new editors to practice on non-controversial parts of Misplaced Pages before jumping into the deep end (and also to make it harder to use ]). The rules here are byzantine and even experienced users can run afoul of regulations that they didn't know were there. If you'd spent your thirty days doing real editing you might have found out that the place to deal with the problems you see in the articles on Palestine is at ] or run across a productive ] or found out what is meant when we say that Misplaced Pages focuses on ] rather than truth. Even if, let's say, you spent the past thirty days conscientiously ''reading'' Misplaced Pages talk page discussions (I'm doing something called ]), you didn't learn what you needed to learn. For example, you added this text about the PLO attacking civilians but you didn't cite a reliable source backing it up; it's an important step and you didn't know you weren't supposed to skip it. Five hundred edits on regular articles would have gone a long way toward proving that you were at least trying; they were meant to establish your reputation.

People here find your edits disturbing because it makes it look like you care more about technicalities than about cooperating with other Wikieditors. It's a little like someone cheating on their driving test. Even if your edits didn't involve running over anyone's grandmother, we're still not confident that you know what the blinking yellow light means. ] (]) 20:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Sir Joseph====
The ruling of ARBCOM says 500 edits. That's what this guy did. Just like all other stupid ARBCOM ruling that comes back to bite them such as 1RR or we can revert for no reason. Maybe next time ARBCOM will clarify and issue a ruling with clarify and think it through. But as the ruling stands, this person did nothing wrong. And of course, since he's pro-Israel, he automatically gets labeled a sock. I'm surprised I wasn't yet labeled a sock at some point. That is of course how it works in this area. Regardless, what Misplaced Pages doesn't need is yet another pro-Israel editor kicked away merely to prove to the world the bias of Wiki. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 20:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
:@Nomoskedasticity, Have you looked at Nableezy or Nishidany or a million other of editor's statements? Why are only pro-Israeli statements fair game? ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 20:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
:@Darkfrog24 adding that the PLO targeted civilians is WP:COMMON and should not need a reference and while you state you are AGF, I fail to see it. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 20:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
: maybe if you guys wouldn't be so militant about reporting every third pro Israel editor he wouldn't be so vocal?? Just a thought? ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 23:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Serialjoepsycho====

I'd classify this as ] the system. If someone can just type 1 letter on their own talk page 500 separate times then there's no point behind this rule. Misplaced Pages we put emphasis behind the spirit of the rules more than the letter of the rules. The question is if he spirit of this is clear? If it is clear you should ban them outright and if it's not you should simply require that they get 500 more edits before editing in this topic area, and 500 that aren't the nonsense that took place here.] (]) 22:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
:Reviewing everything, that this gaming was in response to the reversion of this edit today and all the wikilawyering above, I can't see any call for any actual leniency here. This SPA and their behavior is exactly what ARBCOM drafted this rule to stop. It would seem apt to drop a indef ban.] (]) 23:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by (username)====<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning HistoryWrite=== ===Result concerning Callmehelper===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections 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. --> <!-- 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. -->
*<!--
* This is an unambiguous case of a POV-warrior gaming the system. An indefinite topic ban is the obvious solution. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
-->
*It's hard to imagine a better way to prove you are not a serious editor than to do stuff like this. I'd be OK with either an indef topic ban or an indef block. ] (]) 15:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
*Thirded. Support an indefinite topic ban as well. The userpage itself lends itself to an indefinite NOTHERE block but I'm willing to ] that there is a chance at an edit that isn't going to confirm an indefinite block but basically one more edit is sufficient to make that case. -- ] (]) 23:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
*I'm sorry, I can't bear the idea of piddling around with topic bans for this kind of crude gaming of the system. I expected such cases might happen when the 500/30 rule was first instituted (on Gamergate) — though I didn't expect it to be quite this open and unembarrassed — and I always assumed they would mean a ] block. I have blocked the user indefinitely. I hope nobody minds. (I'll have to do the formalities, logging etc, tomorrow, my computer is about to shut down.) ] &#124; ] 23:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC).
*Late to the discussion, but for the record I blocked {{user|FDJK01}} for transparent gaming of the 500/30 rule. This is even more blatant, and the bad-faith contempt for the restriction indicates that they have no business on Misplaced Pages. I endorse Bishonen's indef. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 01:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:::As do I, as an individual. The rule was intended as a screen to keep out the newest disputants, but perhaps it might work also as a way of identifying the troublemakers. ''']''' (]) 22:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
{{hab}}

Latest revision as of 21:15, 23 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.
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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

    שלומית ליר

    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 שלומית ליר

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    שלומית ליר (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:ARBPIA
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation of how these edits violate it

    ShlomitLir (שלומית ליר) created their account back in 2014. The breakdown of their edits is as follows:

    • 2014 to 2016: no edits.
    • 2017 to 2019: 1 edit per year. None related to PIA.
    • 2022: 7 edits. Mostly in their userspace.
    • 2023: 21 edits. Again, mostly in their userspace. Made two edits in the talk page of Palestinian genocide accusation complaining about its content and calling it “blatant pro-Hamas propaganda”.
    • 2024: Started editing after a 10 month break at the end of October.
      • Made 51 edits in October and 81 edits in November (copyedits, adding links, minor edits).
      • In December, that number rose up to almost 400, including 116 in December 6 alone and 98 in December 7. Became ECR that day.
      • Immediately switched to editing in PIA, namely in the Battle of Sderot article where they changed the infobox picture with an unclear image with a dubious caption, and removed a template without providing a reason why.
      • They also edited the Use of human shields by Hamas article, adding another image with a caption not supported by the source (replaced by yet another image with a contextless caption when the previous image was removed) and WP:UNDUE content in the lead.
      • they also voted in the second AfD for Calls for the destruction of Israel despite never having interacted with that article or its previous AfD. They have barely surpassed 500 edits, but the gaming is obvious, highlighted by the sudden switch to editing in PIA.

    More importantly, there's the issue of POV pushing. I came across this article authored by them on Ynet, once again complaining about what they perceive as an anti Israeli bias on Misplaced Pages. They have also authored a report for the World Jewish Congress covering the same topic. The report can be seen in full here. I think that someone with this clear POV agenda shouldn't be near the topic.

    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

    Adding some additional comments on 2025-01-16: On top of POV issues, the user has a number of tweets that appear to be a clear admission of gaming, implicit canvassing, creating and sharing lists of potential "most biased articles", and clearly calling for specific edits. They've also been cited as coordinating an off-wiki coordination hub for editing Misplaced Pages. If this - combined with the tweets, the forms, the op-ed and the report to the WJC, all under this user's name (that they also use to edit Misplaced Pages - this is not outing) isn't a clear cut case of canvassing, I don't know what is. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Adding some more comments on 2025-01-22: The user in question says that they have been on[REDACTED] for years – and so surely aware of what does and does not count as canvassing. As recently as last month they were advising users on Hebrew Misplaced Pages as to how best to get their edit counts up, as well as promoting the "most biased articles" survey I've already mentioned. I understand that we are always meant to WP:AGF, but we are looking at a situation in which a user (1) has extensive experience with Misplaced Pages and (2) is encouraging people, subtly and not so subtly to do things that are against our policies. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    Notification diff


    Discussion concerning שלומית ליר

    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 שלומית ליר

    I believe contents of this filing to be in clear policy violation and have reached out to the arbitration committee for further clarification before commenting further.שלומית ליר (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    I was given clarification from an admin regarding my concerns and will now be drafting a response. Thank you for your patience. שלומית ליר (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    First and foremost, I value accuracy and transparency and am fully prepared to address any verified errors or missteps. My contributions are made in good faith, with only the intention of supporting Misplaced Pages’s mission. I am a veteran editor on Hebrew wiki, yet am learning to appreciate the sometimes stark differences in rules in this section, so am doing my very best to keep up to speed and abide fully as I edit further here.

    As a longtime editor on another wiki who finally decided this year to match pace on English wiki, I strenuously reject any accusations of EC gaming when a passing glance on my global log will confirm I have not radically altered my editing pace nor article focus. In regards to NPOV concerns, I will defer to the numerous comments below affirming that there is no policy violation by having an opinion, onsite or off, and must register mild complaint that NPOV accusations are being leveled here without any policy violation having been affirmed on any of these individual contributions.

    While contributions observed superficially (and without clear context of edit conversation and interaction with other editors) may appear to be agenda oriented, if I were granted more word counts, I would happily highlight the context of most edits made to make clear I was pushing back against previous bias efforts (past and present) by editors (including a number on the precipice of sanction in PIA5). Perhaps it would have been wiser to report what I felt was POV editing behavior instead of pushing back, but I only believed my efforts were to restore and preserve article balance, not disrupt it.

    I am grateful for the admin guidance received so far and appreciate being better informed about certain grey areas. I meant no intention to remotely approach anything resembling canvassing and believed the commentary was allowable (most especially since it was on a proceeding I was neither participating in, nor linking out to). I understand now that this may be perceived as “call to action” which was not remotely the intent, most especially to an audience that is mostly academic and, to the best of my knowledge, does not edit Misplaced Pages. (I also humbly must point out that no report was made indicating any increase in activity to suggest editors had been canvassed). I have now been well appraised and will take great care and caution to ensure no further off-site commentary remotely approaches such this territory of concern. If there are any questions or doubts in the future, I will seek future guidance from admins before venturing into potentially questionable territory. שלומית ליר (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Thebiguglyalien

    This is the first ARBPIA report since the proposed decision was posted at ARBPIA5 and it's specifically a matter of POV pushing, responding admins should be aware of the "AE topic bans" remedy. The committee is discussing whether to implement a remedy stating that admins at AE are "empowered and encouraged to consider a topic ban" purely for biased editing. So far, the argument against is that it's redundant because AE admins are already supposed to do this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-29/Special_report

    Statement by Selfstudier

    To the extent that it is relevant, the WJC report was discussed at Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-03-29/Special report. Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by starship.paint (2)

    I would to like to raise this 9 December 2024 edit at Battle of Sderot, where there had been an existing unsourced paragraph (On the morning of October 7, a tour minibus...) that שלומית ליר added a reference to (archive 1 / archive 2) from the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation. The reference is relevant, but I believe it may not verify every detail in the Battle of Sderot paragraph (e.g. "Netivot", "Holocaust survivors"). The reference contains a short paragraph of text and a video that is 4:21 long. I can't watch the video in the reference, but I believe it is this same YouTube video that is 4:20 long which contains the same screenshot as the reference, on the same topic. Most of the video is an interview of the daughter of a dead victim who was on the bus (the daughter had been on the phone with the victim), except for 1:58 to 2:13 which appears to be a quote from the bus driver. The publisher themselves do not have too much reporting in their own voice (on the video), yet this reference was used to cite a paragraph entirely stated in Wikivoice. No attribution was made to the relative or the bus driver, or to the publisher. I can't be totally sure though, due to unfamiliarity with Hebrew. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by xDanielx

    @Arcticocean: I don't really see how NPOV can be read as requiring edits which support both sides of a controversy. Our content policies don't impose any positive duties; they only tell us what not to do. The text of the policy doesn't support the notion that a pattern of edits could be in violation, even if no particular edit is in violation.

    In principle, such a pattern of edits could violate the UCoC policy, but I don't believe this board has ever enforced it. If it were to be enforced, I think it should be for more serious violations like the double standards that e.g. this attempted to demonstrate, rather than mere opinion-driven editing which applies to the vast majority of CTOP editors. — xDanielx /C\ 03:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Hemiauchenia

    This user has engaged in off-wiki canvassing regarding the IP conflict. Take the following recent tweet from the 12 January permanent archive

    For posterity in case it is deleted it contains the following remarks:

    If you can't handle the facts, just delete them Propaganda on @Misplaced Pages includes targeting Israel, demonizing it, and erasing inconvenient truths, from falsifying war outcomes to deleting Israeli inventions and attempting to erase the reality of Palestinian suicide bombers.

    Along with this is a screenshot of the current AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Palestinian suicide attacks. People are of course allowed to be caustic about Misplaced Pages off-wiki, but calling out a specific AfD with highly charged rhetoric, essentially inciting canvassing seems out of line. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    For those concerned that this might be outing, שלומית ליר is very open about their real life identity on their userpage. See (archived). If you reveal your real identity on Misplaced Pages, your tweets about Misplaced Pages on your Twitter account connected to your real-life identity are fair game to mention. There's also reverse confirmation in this tweet . Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Cdjp1

    As we seem to be ok to pull evidence from the statements of the editor in question, they have also commented more recently about running interference on Misplaced Pages (archive) in response to a question of if Misplaced Pages can be "saved". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Sean.hoyland

    It has been several days. Perhaps שלומית ליר could clarify whether their belief about the way Misplaced Pages works turned out to be a true belief or a false belief so that this report can progress. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    I am interested in the Google form cited above, specifically how this differs from the widely reported situation that resulted in the 'Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area' case that employed Discord (and/or X, I forget) rather than a Google form. Is a consistent decision procedure being used to distinguish between encouraging participation and canvassing/meatpuppetry? I think a lot of people don't know where the line is, assuming there is a line, or at least some kind of fuzzy decision boundary. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Vice regent

    I'm satisfied by שלומית ליר's above explanation regarding canvassing. People with bad canvassing intentions don't reveal their identity. VR (Please ping on reply) 04:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning שלומית ליר

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Users are allowed to have a POV - it's a rare user indeed who edits a contentious topic without having some strong opinions about it. For conduct to be actionable at AE it needs to be an actual policy violation. The misleading use of images doesn't rise to the level of AE action in my view, and judging whether an addition like this is UNDUE is not within AE's purview, as long as it is supported by the source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      The PIA5 remedy hasn't passed yet, and its interpretation is as yet unclear to me: but in my view we are already empowered to deal with biased editing, in the sense of editing that violates NPOV. What I'm not willing to do is sanction on the basis of someone's opinions alone; they have to be shown to have let their opinions get in the way of following our PAGs. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      I see some evidence - based on Arcticocean's digging below - that שלומית ליר is using images without sufficient care, but I don't see that rising to the level of a sanction. As to the rest, xDanielx is correct - nowhere do our policies require treating both sides of a conflict equally - indeed our PAGs discourage false balance. Those diffs could be actionable if they individually or collectively violate policy, but I have yet to see evidence of that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      The off-wiki canvassing is a problem. It merits a warning at least, I don't know if the formality thereof matters. If there was evidence that שלומית ליר was aware of WP:CANVAS I would consider something more stringent. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • While I understand Vanamonde93's concerns, I think that we are required to assess the totality of the user's contributions. Contentious topic editors are required to uphold NPOV. Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics#Guidance for editors places an obligation to Within contentious topics,… edit carefully and constructively… and… adhere to the purposes of Misplaced Pages. The linked page provides that Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view… We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. If an editor is only adding content that significantly favours one or the other side to the conflict, this is incompatible with their contentious topic obligation. That is because an editor making only one-sided edits will simply not be taking the necessary steps to ensure that the whole article is written from a neutral point of view. As their number of one-sided edits increases, the likelihood decreases that the editor is ensuring our content is neutral and impartial. Once we reach the point of being sure that they are not attempting to ensure neutrality of content, we can conclude the editor is not meeting their contentious topics obligations and we can issue a sanction. This can only be assessed with hindsight and by looking at the editor's contributions as a whole. arcticocean ■ 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Assessing the topic area contributions of the respondent (שלומית ליר) since they became extended-confirmed at 17:33, 8 December 2024, there is cause for concern. I counted 19 edits to the area conflict. Taken together, they significantly skew the articles negatively against the opposing side of the conflict:
    Assessing the edits as a whole, it is difficult not to conclude that the respondent user is failing to meet their contentious topics obligation to edit neutrally in this topic area. As the number of edits is so far limited, if a sanction is imposed, it could justifiably be light-touch. arcticocean ■ 20:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    @XDanielx: Thanks for commenting. Most of the edits do not have a neutral, encyclopedic POV. There is an effort to influence our articles away from neutrally describing the subject without taking sides, contrary to WP:NPOV. Even if each edit in isolation is insufficient for sanctioning, taken as a whole the edits show an inability or unwillingness to edit neutrally. One non-neutral edit shouldn't be sanctioned; twenty is a different story. This is not about the percentage of biased edits but about the weight or amount of them. Therefore, the assessment wouldn't really change even had the editor made some 'neutral' edits along the way. I'm happy to concede that editors cannot be compelled to balance edits of one bias with edits of another, but I don't think that comes into it. In a nutshell, this is about Misplaced Pages:Advocacy. arcticocean ■ 08:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • The offwiki canvassing is a problem...שלומית ליר, you're fairly inexperienced here. Were you aware WP:canvassing is not allowed? Valereee (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      For transparency, שלומית ליר reached out to me, and I explained multiple policy and advised her to go ahead and respond here without waiting for individual feedback from her email to arbcom, which may or may not happen. Valereee (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I take it that per Barkeep49's brief oversighting of potentially-sensitive content in this report (Special:Diff/1269845558), and then restoration of the same (Special:Diff/1269848988), concerns of outing have been investigated and the report can proceed on its merits? signed, Rosguill 19:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      That's correct. I got a request, I didn't really feel it was OUTING, but as I indicated in my edit summary OS is a tool of first resort. I consulted with the OS listserv and received some responses quickly agreeing with me and so I unsuppressed and restored the material. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • It's not for AE to decide content disputes, and that's mostly what this looks like. We can handle things like flagrant misrepresentation of sources, but how best to represent them is a matter for consensus discussion, not us to decide here. The canvassing was a cause for concern, but it looks like it was rather unintended and had little if any actual effect, and they've agreed to stop that going forward. (Note that doesn't mean anyone must stop criticizing Misplaced Pages or what happens on it; do all of that you like. Just don't encourage people to take particular actions based on that.) I don't see any further action as necessary at this point. Seraphimblade 16:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
      +1 Valereee (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I'm not satisfied with שלומית ליר's please of good faith. I think that the call for "interference" on Twitter (not even a week ago!) is a real concern in light of the standards being established by PIA5. I'm also concerned about the timeline of their knowledge of relevant CTOP sanctions. They were warned about PIA in April 2023 (by me, apparently). They should have been familiar with canvassing rules from the moment they got that warning to be on their best behavior. Not only that, but perusing their edit history, I see that there are several edits that are PIA violations prior to reaching XC on December 8 (e.g. Special:Diff/1256599528, although there's clearly many others in their edit history). In sum, I see no reason to believe the narrative of good faith presented here by them in light of the available evidence and do believe that we should consider at the minimum a logged warning. signed, Rosguill 20:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      I would be okay with a logged warning for canvassing, which remains the most concerning behavior to me. I find it difficult to see my way to penalizing violations of the XC restriction after the editor has already reached XC status without a clear finding of gaming XC status, and I don't see that here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
      I wouldn't call it gaming, I think it's a pattern of intentional defiance of community rules, which in turn makes the otherwise rather exemplary defense written here by them less than convincing. signed, Rosguill 21:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Luganchanka

    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 Luganchanka

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Luganchanka (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/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 19:55, 12 January 2025 Reversion to version of article where the article says "He is a child sex offender" in the second sentence despite consensus at BLPN discussion that this is problematic because Ritter never actually interacted with a real child.
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

    18:28, 12 January 2025 BLP CTOP warning given

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    At BLPN, there has been consensus that the version of the article describing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the second sentence of the article is problematic, as he did not actually have sexual contact with a child, only a police officer impersonating one. Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Scott_Ritter_Biography_-_Noncompliance_with_MOS_and_BLP_Guidelines. Luganchanka has been persistently edit warring against this apparent consensus. For which he has been warned by @NatGertler: , which he subequently blanked There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article going back to at least August Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence, but Luganchanka persistently cites a "consensus" for its inclusion that as far as I can tell does not seem to exist, with Luganchanka aggressively editing to enforce its inclusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Luganchanka's response is disingenuous and misleading. Look at the Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence discussion I linked above. Nobody other than Luganchanka thinks that Ritter should be described as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article. The dispute isn't about whether or not the convictions should be mentioned in the lead at all or not, it's specifically about the use of the phrase "child sex offender", and there is no consensus to include that as far as I can tell, despite Luganchanka's vociferous claims to the contrary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    RfC opened Talk:Scott_Ritter#RfC:_Ritter's_sexual_sex_offenses_convictions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    20:27, 12 January 2025

    Discussion concerning Luganchanka

    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 Luganchanka

    The intro on the Scott Ritter page had remained largely the same for several months, as you will see on the talkpage it is an intro approved, and reverted to, by multiple senior editors. There has been a recent flurry of activity / edits. While I WP: assume good faith, it does look like those edits are attempting to downplay / whitewash Ritter's sexual offence conviction(s). I have not been 'aggressive' at all, rather I have simply referred contentious edits to the talkpage to build consensus, attempting to do my duty as a good Misplaced Pages editor.Luganchanka (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Please see the Talk:Scott_Ritter, where there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior[REDACTED] editors, that Ritter's sexual offence conviction should be included in the lead to the article. My edits have simply been aimed at ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article.Luganchanka (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Thank you to @Valereee and @Red-tailed hawk for your feedback. If you see the Talk:Scott_Ritter, discussions - 14 August - Vandalism by removing all reference entirely to Ritter being a "Convicted Sex Offender" and First sentence. The latter discussion ended on 26th September, and resulted in the intro we had until a flurry of edits the other day, trying to move information on Ritter's sexual offence conviction, downplay it, whitewash it etc. My edits were aimed at restoring the edit reached by consensus, which had been in place for several months until the recent raft of edits with the clear aim of moving / downplaying Ritter's sexual offence conviction.Luganchanka (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for this (nest), I really do appreciate your feedback and advice here!!Luganchanka (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) (moved from admin-only sectionRed-tailed hawk (nest) 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC))
    As per Rosguill's comments:

    "Unfazed by "Emily's" age, Ritter asked "Emily," "you want to see it finish?" Ritter then turned on the webcam and ejaculated in front of the camera for "Emily." Detective Venneman then notified Ritter of his undercover status and the undercover operation and directed Ritter to call the police station."

    https://casetext.com/case/ritter-v-tuttle

    Luganchanka (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by NatGertler

    Editor's edits today focused on trying to main a negative descriptor of what subject believed, despite it not being in the three sources that were listed (nor in the old version they ultimately reverted to.) Efforts were first trying to simply restate the claim, then trying to source it to an opinion piece (problem) from the Washington Examiner (also a bit of a problem, per WP:RSP), then trying to state as a fact what had merely been stated in a non-prime article as an accusation. BLP concern was pointed out repeatedly via edit summary and on Talk page. Removal of unsourced contentious BLP claims and even false claims is not "whitewashing" despite how editor wishes to depict it, it is in accord with our practices. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Luganchanka

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    @Luganchanka: whether you're correct or not, you were edit warring. I believe an indef block from the article and/or a temporary site block would be an appropriate sanction here. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've blocked the user for 48h for violating 3RR based on the report at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    • @Luganchanka, edit-warring to remove negative content at a BLP is an exemption to 3RR. I see that NatGertler mentioned this in their edit summaries and at talk. As voorts points out, it doesn't matter whether you're right when you're reverting an edit that is being claimed as an exemption, even if you believe Rosguillwhiyou are "ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article". The solution is to go to talk, discuss, and get consensus. If you'd like to respond, ping me to your response at your talk and I'll post it here. Valereee (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Luganchanka, if you really believe those two sections -- senior editors, indeed, this one was between someone with 13 edits and somcoen who wasn't ECR, for heaven's sake -- somehow prove consensus was strong, and you think that means you can ignore all the later ones -- at one of which you didn't even respond to a ping, where people were objecting -- then this is maybe looking like a WP:CIR issue.
      But even if you had been somehow editing to support a consensus you believed was settled, you cannot edit-war contentious material into a BLP when others are objecting to it. The solution, always, is to go to talk, discuss, and reconfirm consensus. There is zero urgency to have this information in the article. Including something negative in a BLP is not something you should ever edit war over. Valereee (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Luganchanka's reading of the state of consensus on the talk page as supporting their edits is so far off base that it borders on being a CIR issue if it's sincere. Indef block from Scott Ritter seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill 22:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      I see RTH's point about the "First sentence" section in isolation. I'd note that the link to WP:FORUMSHOP isn't really appropriate here, as bringing the discussion to BLP/N was an appropriate action (if it was then brought to NPOVN, NORN, etc., that would be forumshopping). I'd like to see some actual contrition around the edit warring and frivolous accusations of whitewash before writing this off as time-served. signed, Rosguill 15:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      That's fair; I'll strike the link. My point in including it was that, when conversations fragment, we sometimes get these sorts of chaotic incidents. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Understood, I think that meaning was clear for us here in the admin section, but I could easily see a new editor misinterpreting it unintentionally. signed, Rosguill 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      I am not at all comforted by the fact that Luganchanka has proceeded to make Special:Diff/1269831044. The cited BBC source does not state masturbated and ejaculated on camera, saying only graphic sex act. As written, this is essentially another BLP violation, building a case that a ban from this topic is needed. signed, Rosguill 16:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Having reviewed the other sources, reliable sources do confirm the masturbation claim (, ) but not ejaculation, which appears to be supported only by New York Post, a generally unreliable source. Luganchanka, in light of this clarification, can you please address your decision to include the claims as you initially wrote them? signed, Rosguill 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      The detail is in the record of Ritter v. Tuttle (case No. 3:15cv1235 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2018)), so it isn't completely made up. But I would also like to hear from the user on this point as to whether there was secondary sourcing here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Seeing Special:Diff/1269853673 here and Special:Diff/1269853955, Special:Diff/1269845272 at Talk:Scott Ritter, I see no comprehension of the use of primary vs. secondary sources, nor any reflection of their past errors in engaging with this topic. I believe that a block from the page is needed to prevent further BLP violations as they have shown no understanding of the relevant policies even after being given several warnings, reminders and opportunities to revise their position. signed, Rosguill 18:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Luganchanka:
      WP:BLPPRIMARY calls upon users to not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. There are some narrow exceptions (when primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source), but adding material to the article not found in reliable secondary sources is... suboptimal at best under our biographies of living persons policy.
      Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • @Luganchanka: Would you please provide a direct link to the talk page section you are referring to when you say there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior[REDACTED] editors regarding the lead? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Luganchanka and Hemiauchenia:
      It does seem that the discussion at Talk:Scott Ritter#First sentence does indicate some support for that language i.e. (convicted child sex offender) in the lead, with some general lean against putting it in the first sentence. So, while There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences is true if it means the literal first sentence, I do see a rough consensus to include the material in the lead section in some way in that discussion.
      That being said, the BLPN discussion had a bit of different tone and tenor from the discussion on the talk page. There was notification about a BLPN discussion on the article's talk page, but Luganchanka, despite having been pretty vocal about this subject in the past, hadn't participated in that BLPN discussion. They instead grounded their edits in the argument that the article's talk page had consensus for the current content, and nothing on the article's talk page had changed that consensus. And that much was true. In any case, we've got two different forums with two different answerstwo different forums with two different answers here, which appears to be what's leading to the whole kerfluffle.
      Then the analysis comes to whether or not the label is a straightforward BLP violation, requiring us to read the sourcing in the article. This NY Times piece, which is cited in the body of the article (but not the lead), does state that Ritter was convicted unlawful contact with minors and other charges in the state of PA (the PA statute is here; "unlawful contact with minors" is the verbatim name of the crime). When dealing with a sting operation, PA treats it as an offense of the same grade and degree as if the criminal had actually contacted a child (unless it's a lesser crime than a third-degree felony, in which case it becomes a third-degree felony). This is an extremely common practice in the United States (there are lots of philosophical questions regarding mens rea and actus reus here, but that's not really relevant here). In any case, labeling this to be a child sex offense (or, alternatively, to simply use the name of the crime in the article) does not appear to be straightforward malice/POV-pushing/libel, and a reasonably informed individual might shorten it in this way. Whether or not that is wise or optimal to shorten it is the proper subject for content discussion.
      Aside from the edit warring (which was not acceptable, and was aptly handled by a block), this looks like a content dispute. A heated one involving a living person, sure, but a content dispute nonetheless. I see good-faith—albeit passionate—disagreement. If the editors were to come together and engage in one forum (such as the article's talk page, where this has been discussed a bunch), rather than splitting the discussion over multiple pages, I feel like we might have our best shot at attaining a consensus going forward.
      In short, it looks like the conversation fragmented, and consensus-building broke down. Edit warring ensued, which was bad, but we've already blocked for that in order to dissuade it going forward. A Request for Comment on the article's talk page for what the lead should look like is probably the best way to go forward here.
      Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      RTH, are you objecting to a p-block from the article? Valereee (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      Ping to @Red-tailed hawk Valereee (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Luganchanka has been blocked for a week by User:ScottishFinnishRadish for BLP violations and personal attacks. Liz 18:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      Just noting that this was a regular admin action and I wasn't aware this was before AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      With this in mind, I think we should wait to hear from RTH but otherwise expect to move forward to an indef p-block on top of SFR's stopgap action, as we haven't seen anything coming close to an adequate recognition of the relevant policies and practices from Luganchanka and after several second chances and nudges, I don't see reason to expect them to change course. signed, Rosguill 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    BabbleOnto

    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 BabbleOnto

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    BabbleOnto (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/COVID-19#Contentious_topic_designation
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 11 January 2025 Sealioning
    2. 11 January 2025 Refusal to get the message
    3. 11 January 2025 Personalizing an argument.
    4. 11 January 2025 Railroading the discussion.

    This is all after I warned them about WP:AE sanctions, and they dismissed my warning out of hand. Very nearly a WP:SPA on the subject. I see no reason to continue tolerating this kind of obstinate tendetiousness. Additional diffs available on request from admins, but looking at the user history should suffice to indicate the problem is obvious, I hope.

    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)
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 9 Dec 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    This is a WP:SPA with respect to the topic and their disruption surrounding it has been subject to at least one WP:FTN thread that remains active: Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Gain_of_function_research. The hope was that they would WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on from this, but it seems they either will not or cannot. jps (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    diff

    Discussion concerning BabbleOnto

    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 BabbleOnto

    I would first like to begin by point out the person filing this complaint is involved in the content disputes at issue. They have frequently left "warnings" which read more like threats on my talk page and others' talk pages for people who disagree with them. Nor would I be the first person who would they would get banned from this topic for disagreeing with them.

    To be honest I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm being charged with doing.

    I think in general the user is alleging I've been uncivil, unhelpful, and, in their words, obstinate and tendentious. I know when someone disagrees with you it may feel like they're getting in your way and acting in bad-faith, but that's not always true. I've never tried to be disruptive or uncivil. I've admitted when I was wrong, I've dropped arguments that were clarified to be wrong, I've tried to find compromise, at times begging people to provide their sources and work together. And when those editors refused to, I didn't provoke any further.

    I now address the specific edits in the complaint:

    1. I don't see how this is sea-lioning. The user misquoted the article. I pointed out the misquotation, then addressed a accusation against me that I was second-guessing the sources (A claim which was never substantiated). I then said any source would have to support that actual claim which was in the article. I don't know what this violates.

    2. I don't see how this is refusing to get the message (IDHT). The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it. I replied with what I actually said. What part of that interaction is saying "I didn't hear that?"

    3. Admittedly probably the strongest of the four allegations. I'm not pretending I was perfect in all of my comments. I should have kept my criticism strictly to their argument. I ask you to read it in context and keep in mind you're viewing a hand-picked assortment of my worst edits, and this is the worst they could find. Also consider that conversation accused me of having a basic reading comprehension problem, perhaps you can see I lose my cool sometimes too.

    4. I'm not even really sure what "railroading the discussion" means. Thus, to keep this section short and to save words, I don't know what I'm being accused of doing wrong here.

    All of this has stemmed out of arguments over two sources. I have tried to find compromise, I have tried to negotiate, I have tried to build consensus. I've been going through the proper channels, I've been participating in the RfC, I've been discussing it on the ANI, I source every claim I make, for a month now I've been trying to constructively explain my side and defend my argument against challenges. It's incredibly frustrating to now be facing an Arbitration Enforcement on grounds that I'm not working with others. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Sorry, the sub-header for this section says that only admins can edit this section, I didn't realize I was allowed to reply here.
      Yes, I will. I intend on taking an extended break from wikipedia, as well. BabbleOnto (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC) Moved from uninvolved admin section; you can answer questions, make comments, discuss, but all your input needs to be in your own section. Valereee (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      • an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.
        What I meant was that I'm willing to respect the consensus and not make any further edits or argue any more contrary to what the consensus decided. It seems to me that saying I have "Issues around understanding policy" and asking me to "learn policy" has subtext that says "Until you agree with this consensus, and you won't be allowed to edit at all." Is respectful disagreement with this consensus allowed? I'm afraid if in order to avoid a ban I have to personally agree with the consensus, beyond just respecting it, then there's nothing I can do. I still do disagree with the consensus's result. Nonetheless, I'm not going to edit or argue further, I'll respect it as a legitimate.
        • Re:no, you don't have to agree. You just have to accept and move on.
          Then I accept the consensus. I'm not going to argue in those discussions any further, though I still personally disagree, I understand a consensus has been reached which is other than my opinion. Nor will I edit disruptively or against the consensus. I appreciate the admin who noted I largely kept my disagreement in the talk pages, not editing the articles themselves. I plan on staying away from the topic in general for quite a while.
          • Re:BabbleOnto, do you understand what we're talking about when we describe your participation at talk pages as WP:sealioning, and why we think it's such a problem, particularly in contentious topics? Do you think you can avoid participating in that way at article talk pages?
            Yes, and yes.

    Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

    I've interacted with BabbleOnto in several threads. There's a few problems, but ultimately, I think they have a certain opinion on what the article should say, and will debate endlessly to get the article changed to their position. I mean, sure, reasonable people disagree on how to interpret sources and apply policy, but I don't think BabbleOnto is actually interested in faithful application of policies to write high quality articles based on good sources.

    That's not terribly problematic by itself, but most discussions with BabbleOnto are exhausting. Rather than actually trying to understand someone's argument in good faith, I think BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible, and making a superficially reasonable response ad nauseam. They reply endlessly in this manner. As well as misrepresentation of opponents' arguments, on multiple occassions BabbleOnto has either misrepresented sources or hasn't read their own sources. I can't think of a single thread where BabbleOnto didn't have the last word, or a single thread where it seemed like BabbleOnto was actually trying to understand the arguments of other editors in a charitable way. As such, I think it's very difficult to work collaborately with BabbleOnto on the lab leak theory and related articles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Newimpartial

    As the editor to whom BabbleOnto was responding in the diffs of the filing, I feel compelled to comment now that they have defended (to varying degrees) their first three diffs. I will reply as briefly as I know how to their defense of the diffs, as revised.

    1. BabbleOnto is now doubling down on the claim that I misquoted the article. I didn't "misquote" the article - I didn't quote the article, and I explained what my comment meant in the rest of the (now collapsed) thread that ends here. Also, I provided a clear explanation of why I thought they were second-guessing sources later in the thread, but BabbleOnto never responded to that explanation. They are now responding to the accusation of WP:CPUSH with pure WP:IDONTHEARTHAT.

    2. On this they say, now, that The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it. This is repeating a misreading they made in the original thread, where they mistook a statement I made about another editor's comment as if it were about theirs. In this "defense", I see no attempt to read thoughtfully what other editors say in reply to them and revise their understanding accordingly; all I see is zero-sum mentality and WP:IDHT.

    3. BabbleOnto is now justifying an edit where they said to me, You have a habit of inserting small lies into everything you say and You're not adding anything constructive. You're just refusing to explain anything and saying conclusory statements, or lying about what you said - all this based on a misreading of what I had actually written - because I was going to refer to a basic failure in reading comprehension two hours later. This seems like a time travel paradox.

    4. They don't bother defending themselves on this one, but just to point out the actual issue with the diff, they doubled down on their accusations that I said a material lie, and that I lied when said that quoted the article out of context. Pointing out being caught lying and then proceeded to STRAWMAN the rest of my comment to which they were replying. If they had read my prior comment with a reasonable level of attention, they would have understood that there were no "lies", just a misunderstanding or two in each direction. But WP:IDHT again; even in responding to this filing BabbleOnto is still insisting I did things that I quite obviously didn't do.

    It is exhausting to deal with this kind of quasi-CPUSH (not quite civil, but certainly push) behaviour. The Talk page in question has seen a recent influx of single-purpose or nearly single-purpose POV accounts, and in terms of editor energy, this one certainly seems not to be a net positive for Misplaced Pages as a project. Perhaps if they edited away from Covid and US politics, their track record might improve. Newimpartial (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Objective3000

    Just a quick aside to Valereee's aside: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn.... Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory currently has posts from 19 editors lacking the edits for extended confirmed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Valereee, this is also a problem at other CTOPs, and is likely to become more problematic. I assume due to off-Wiki forums. ECR might just produce more users gaming EC. I thought it would be useful to put your aside into the CTOP template at the top of CTOP TPs. But that assumes folks read it. Walt Kelly said something along the lines of: “If only I could write, I’d write a letter to the mayor, if only he could read." This discussion is likely better off elsewhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Note: IntrepidContributor was just TBanned from the topic of COVID-19 and indef blocked until the accusations of off-wiki coordination made by them at ANI are retracted. Those accusations are like their suggestion made in their statement in this filing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by JoelleJay

    At the very least, can we get more admin involvement on the lab leak page so trolling like this doesn't disrupt things even more? JoelleJay (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by IntrepidContributor

    I have been observing BabbleOnto and while there are valid concerns about bludgeoning, I think the proposed sanctions are too much. His engagement in the Covid lab leak topic is driven by commitment to WP:NPOV, which our articles fail to adhere to, and he made the mistake of arguing with editors who were never going to listen (resulting in what looks like sealioning on his part). He's not only editor to raise issues in the topic and engage in good faith discussion, only to find themselves pulled to AN or AE disputes after staying out of the seasoning traps and refusing to capitulate to threats. In a parallel AN case concerning another editor in same topic, I suggest there may be possible off-wiki coordination , but it can also be on-wiki ().

    One need only cross-reference names from Feb 2021 RfC, checking those that voted for labeling COVID-19 lab leak as conspiracy, with the names of complainants here. Contrast all these old timers with the steady stream of tens if not hundreds of regular editors complaining that our article fails NPOV, and see that their gentle approach doesn't work . Our chief complainant is already preparing his next case , and this might not be his first.

    I suggest that administrators consider a 1 to 2 month topic ban for BabbleOnto to provide opportunity for him to correct his approach, while staying alert to the tactics of POV editors trying to draw them into content debates to influence outcomes.

    IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by TarnishedPath

    Please see this edit where BabbleOnto edited Gain of function research restoring previously reverted content and WP:POVPUSH using a shit source after they'd been told by multiple other editors in discussions here and here that the source was shit. Notably in the edit summary they wrote "Read discussion page. Manual revert. No serious challenge has been made to these changes. Methinks an admin needs to get involved..." despite them being in a WP:1AM situation. If a clue is not gotten by the editor fast I'd suggest TBANs from both COVID and AP2 is warranted in order to cease their disruption. TarnishedPath 04:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    Noting the editor's continued behaviour at Talk:Gain-of-function research. Refer to Special:Diff/1270316266. TarnishedPath 01:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    and again at Special:Diff/1270346091 TarnishedPath 03:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by berchanhimez

    This user was given no less than 4 chances on the talk page to stop talking about bans/other editors and start talking about the content. They have continued crying about how they're scared of getting banned... yet they continue blabbing about other editors getting banned for their bad behavior rather than refocusing on the content as requested. At a minimum a partial block from the talk page(s) in question is warranted, and it would be beneficial for a topic ban from the origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Shibbolethink

    I am heavily involved in this overall dispute as someone who has gone back and forth with BabbleOnto. I wanted to add that, in general, my feeling from interacting with this user is that they could be a good contributor to this site, and absolutely could follow the PAGs. They have shown an ability to be courteous . I think the issue is that in FRINGE and other contentious areas like COVID-19 origins, they have shown a tendancy to become "hot-headed" when tensions rise, and to reference an us vs them mentality (and numerous examples from others above). It seems they have also been egged-on, and made more combative from other PROFRINGE users (and probably some anti-FRINGE users as well who do admittedly WP:BITE) in that topic space (e.g. )

    We are told often to use narrowest possible restriction to protect the project. In this case, I think that would be a COVID-19 origins TBAN, where most of the disruption has been. The user states they have learned what to do when consensus is against them. If they fail to show that lesson in AP2 articles more than just the 10 or so edits they've made in those articles, an AP2 TBAN would be appropriate at that time (WP:ROPE). Just my 2 cents.— Shibbolethink 22:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning BabbleOnto

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • BabbleOnto, please edit your statement down further to fit within the restriction. This also serves as an opportunity to rephrase your defense, which currently is not convincing at first glance. ProcrastinatingReader's description of the situation seems quite apt, particularly BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible, which is currently a pretty fitting description of your response to them here, given that you zeroed in on the "superficially reasonable" part and ignored the much more serious parts of the testimony. signed, Rosguill 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Ok, having read through nearly every edit that BabbleOnto has made, I agree with the complainants that not only does BabbleOnto engage in sealioning, it appears to be almost exclusively what they do. The discussion at Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman)/Archive 2 exhibits perhaps even more concerning argumentation than the diffs provided in the initial report. Throughout these discussions, BabbleOnto tends to demand a standard of stating the obvious (with respect to the context of said sources) that is absurd, and continues to lawyer for such standards even when the situation becomes WP:1AM. When criticizing sources' ability to account for basic claims, I can find no examples of BabbleOnto themselves attempting to find sources that would resolve the issues they identify--this is uncollaborative behavior. There is a clear pattern of engaging in this behavior across recent US politics topics consistent with the scope of Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/American politics. The only saving grace to BabbleOnto's track record is that none of this has translated into disruptive editing of actual articles, just unproductive engagement on talk pages. I am currently in favor of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics; if they are actually here to build an encyclopedia and not to provide a punching bag for debate club, they can use this opportunity to learn more constructive patterns of editing in topics that they are less personally invested in. signed, Rosguill 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      Valereee in line with their follow-up response, I take Objective3000's comments as potentially a basis for community discussion rather than a call for protective action on the lab leak talk page right now. signed, Rosguill 21:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I have to agree, this looks like sealioning. BabbleOnto, you're new here, and I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt about your ability to learn to collaborate. WP works on collaboration and consensus, and sometimes consensus goes your way, sometimes it doesn't. You have to be willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you. And you absolutely must not insist everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers. I've seen editors at both the Thompson and the lab leak talks tell you they don't actually owe you an answer to your satisfaction.
    Do you think you can learn to do that? Because if you don't think you can, this may not be the right hobby for you.
    As an aside, I'm going to recommend what I always recommend to new editors who end up here: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn. Go edit in noncontentious topics, where other editors are a lot less exhausted and have the energy to be more patient with new editors. Valereee (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Tangential
    @Objective3000, hm, yes, and Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory also has 37 archives, and even with archiving at 21 days, 20 sections. Do you think an ECR is something that talk page needs? That's not part of the authorized restrictions an individual admin can place...hm, and I'm not sure of the policy w/re most efficiently getting that done and wasting the fewest people's time. @Rosguill? Valereee (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would object to ECPing the talk page. COVID-19 isn't subject to ARBECR generally, though this specific article is protected. The purpose of protecting the page (in this case) is to push newer users to the talk page, where they can discuss changes they want made (such as by edit requests) and contribute towards consensus-building while not edit warring. Protecting talk pages is truly, truly a last resort. Ordinary good faith people would be entirely shut out and silenced—we'd not even get edit requests—and I frankly don't see anything near the level of disruption/LTA abuse that would justify jumping straight to WP:ECP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Red-tailed hawk, not ECP. ECR: non-EC are restricted from anything but making edit requests. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I see. In any case, ECR is the sort of remedy that should be reserved for more or less when all else fails—it’s still super restrictive. If new users/inexperienced users are trying to contribute towards consensus-building on the talk page (or even if they’re doing ordinary confused new editor things), and aren’t edit warring, I don’t think we’d actually be preventing disruptive edits by enforcing ECR.
    Suppose someone in good-faith sees “anyone can edit”, and they want to edit something topical. But then they see that the page that they want to edit is protected. They read the explanation that appears after clicking the “view source” tab. They then read that they can discuss this page with others, click on the first blue link, and then make a section using the “add topic” button in order to start a discussion.
    “OK”, the newbie thinks, “maybe I will find someone else who agrees with me, or I’ll at least get some answer as to why the article is this way”. They leave their computer and come back in an hour. They then discover that their question has been removed by some random editor with edit summary “WP:ARBECR violation, user not WP:XC; malformed edit request” and find a contentious topics notice on their own user talk page, all because they don’t make a properly formatted edit request (i.e. “please change X to Y”). Or maybe they wont navigate the talk page history and they’ll angrily post that their earlier comment was deleted. Or maybe they just won’t come back. To top it off, nothing at any point in this process was obvious to them that such a requirement existed—there is no edit notice that says so, and so they couldn’t know.
    WP:ECR is WP:BITEy. It dissuades new voices from joining conversations, and it makes it somewhat hostile to true newbies. In particular, it dissuades people who, for example:
    1. Are Not hardcore/insane enough to deal with intense wiki-bureaucracy;
    2. Are unable to cope with handling unfamiliar wikitext markup when making edit requests for anything that is not a trivial word change, or who have abstract changes in mind more than concrete ones;
    3. Do not want to spend an hour of their time to figure out how to say the magic words to summon another editor to fix a typo.
    The chief way that ECR works is by making LTAs/sockmasters have to put on a lot of effort or make a lot of edits. This raises the (time) cost of socking, and it has the benefit of possibly exposing tells along the way. But that also means that we’re imposing the same thing on good-faith newbies.
    When deciding whether or not to impose ECR, we have to balance that it is extremely BITEy to good-faith newbies against its ability to prevent disruption. There are times where we are basically left to throw our hands up because of LTA/sockmaster abuse, and conclude that the tradeoff is worth it; the ArbCom has done this for certain contentious topics. But, the ArbCom had the wisdom to not enable ECR as a page sanction across all contentious topic areas—there is a very real tradeoff that needs to be really carefully considered. And I don’t the tradeoff leans towards embracing ECR here. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm don't think we need to have this discussion here and now, but I don't disagree it's bitey and needs to be used only where necessary. I was just asking the question of someone who is working at that article: is this an article talk where it's necessary? Valereee (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    • BabbleOnto, are you planning to answer my questions above? Do you think you're able/willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you? Are you able/willing to stop insisting everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers? Valereee (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      BabbleOnto's response understanding this as a suggestion to take a break from Misplaced Pages as a whole isn't quite what I was hoping to see. signed, Rosguill 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      @BabbleOnto, an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.
      @Rosguill, I'd support a tban, but is AP2 enough? It seems like COVID and fringe science need to be included? Valereee (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      AP2 + COVID? I see the same behavior at the Brian Thompson article and Havana Syndrome, so COVID alone doesn't seem adequate. Oddly, the intersection of "medicine and politics" would appear to cover all affected topics but maybe that's too bespoke? signed, Rosguill 17:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      @BabbleOnto, re:It seems to me that saying I have "Issues around understanding policy" and asking me to "learn policy" has subtext that says "Until you agree with this consensus, and you won't be allowed to edit at all." Is respectful disagreement with this consensus allowed? I'm afraid if in order to avoid a ban I have to personally agree with the consensus, beyond just respecting it, no, you don't have to agree. You just have to accept and move on. Valereee (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I think BabbleOnto is actually getting the right idea. You do not have to agree with consensus. There are some consensus positions here I don't agree with, and some I think are rather silly. But, until and unless they change, I respect and abide by them all the same. If I try to challenge them, and it becomes clear that such a challenge was unsuccessful, there comes a time to just shrug, realize you can't win 'em all, and move on. Since they seem to have gotten that point, I think maybe see how things go, and if they return to disruption, I think they're quite clear on what the results of that will be. Seraphimblade 14:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
      In my experience sealioning is a habit editors have an extremely difficult time breaking. I was going to agree with Rosguill re: a tban from AP2 + COVID, maybe appealable after 3 months and 500 productive and unproblematic edits. This editor is basically ONLY editing in CTOPs, they're doing it disruptively -- we're talking about an editor with only 177 whom other editors are describing as exhausting to interact with! -- and the specific kind of disruption is both frustrating and tedious to prove and frustrating to try to get attention to because who you need so many diffs to prove it. That plus the apparent difficulty in breaking that habit, which btw they were continuing during this case...I dunno. Valereee (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
      I certainly understand your point. I am a little hesitant to sanction for "sealioning", as often it is difficult to tell where enthusiasm ends and disruptive tendentiousness begins, and I certainly do not want to have a project where people are afraid to advocate viewpoints contrary to a current consensus. That said, if everyone else feels sanctions are warranted, I won't object terribly strongly; I just generally prefer someone to get a chance to show if they've gotten the point (or in some cases, to conclusively demonstrate that they have not). Seraphimblade 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
      Generally I'm with you. Let people show they've dealt with the issue. Reblocking is pretty easy in most cases. But sealioning...well, it's such a difficult issue to prove/assess, and there are so many people doing it who don't even have the self-awareness to fix the problem that I kind of feel like it needs a tougher approach than I'd normally argue for. Not a hill I'm going to die on, but if the editor is back here or at ANI for the same issue, I am going to be extremely unhappy with them.
      @BabbleOnto, do you understand what we're talking about when we describe your participation at talk pages as WP:sealioning, and why we think it's such a problem, particularly in contentious topics? Do you think you can avoid participating in that way at article talk pages? Valereee (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Marlarkey

    Marlarkey p-blocked from Declaration of war and formally warned to be more mindful of policies, guidelines and best practices when editing CTOPs, particularly PIA signed, Rosguill 19:54, 16 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 Marlarkey

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Marlarkey (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:ARBPIA
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    1. 19 August 2024 - Mainspace PIA edit prior to EC status.
    2. 19 August 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request and acknowledgement of aforementioned edit.
    3. 19 August 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request.
    4. 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Accused another editor of vandalism.
    5. 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Says, "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration."
    6. 21 November 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary.
    7. 21 November 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary.

    1. 13 January 2025 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
    2. 13 January 2025 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request.
    3. 13 January 2025 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request..."Someone has reverted my removal of Israel - Hamas *AGAIN* so I've taken it out *AGAIN*."
    4. 13 January 2025 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
    5. 13 January 2025 - Self-revert of direct previous mainspace reversion that was prior to EC status.
    6. 13 January 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status...Made while this enforcement request was being typed up. This reversion by Marlarkey is of an edit with the direct edit summary of "Per WP:ARBPIA". User is 100% disregarding CT requirements.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    N/A. No previous blocks or topic bans.
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    at 15:29, 21 November 2024.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    User has been on Misplaced Pages (on and off) since at least January 2010. It seems there is a WP:CIR-related issue on ArbCom PIA/Contentious topics, given the very clear lack of ignorance of the ArbCom Notification and subsequent edit summary arguments. I do not necessarily believe a block will be of use in this case, due to this editor's on-and-off Misplaced Pages editing status (less than 500 edits since January 2010). Either a topic ban and/or a 1,000 EC status requirement (i.e. EC-status requirement is something higher than 500 edits) is being requested. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    • @Marlarkey: I want to keep assuming good faith, so I wanted to let you know that WP:ARBPIA is what we call "broadly constructed". If you read WP:PIA, it says, "These are the current arbitration remedies applicable to any pages and edits that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." The edit you are attempting to me is related to the Arab-Israel conflict. The page itself does not have to be entirely about the war to be covered under the restrictions. Any edit that is at least, even slightly related to the conflict is covered under the restrictions. While the page is about declarations of war throughout history, the specific edit is related to whether the Israel-Hamas war was a declaration of war. That is obviously related to the conflict, given it specifically is in regard to the Israel-Hamas war. That is why the edits were reverted and why this violation report was filed. Hopefully that makes sense. Also, just a quick side-note, accusing other editors of vandalism is assuming bad faith and is not really how Misplaced Pages operates. You should always be assuming the other editors intents with good faith. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • @Marlarkey: We are all working together to create a better encyclopedia. No one is against you and we do wish for all to edit Misplaced Pages. The ArbCom restrictions require that you have (1) at least an account of 30 days old and (2) at least 500 edits, to be able to edit content anywhere on Misplaced Pages regarding the Israel-Hamas war. At the time of all the edits linked above, you did not have 500 edits on Misplaced Pages. You were roughly at 490. At the time of this, you now have over 500 edits, which means you could now edit content regarding the Israel-Hamas war. That said, this report was made because of the several edits you made prior to reaching the 500 edit requirement.
    Please understand this is for the edits that you made which were in clear violation of the policy, which requires you to have 500 edits prior to editing anything even remotely related to the conflict. This report was not that you are incorrect with your removal of the content. Not at all. This report is because you removed the content before you were allowed to (i.e. the 500-edit mark). Please understand we all are on the same-side here and no one is vandalizing anything. Once this is resolved, I would be more than happy to calmly discuss the content changes with you. I hope you can understand that this report is specifically because you made the changes before you were allowed to and not at all regarding the content in those changes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    • @Rosguill: After my last reply, I realized I went 105 words over the 500-word limit. I would like to request that 105-word extension (so I do not have to reword or remove the last reply I made). I do not plan to reply again as I think everything I needed to say and link to has been said and linked to. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Marlarkey

    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 Marlarkey

    WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly reverting edits which are removing information outside the scope of the page in question. My edits are validly citated within the scope of the page. WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has cited WP:ARBPIA but that is not relevant to THIS article which is not a Palestine-Israel article. This article is not a contentious topic - it is factual.

    My edits are WP:NPOV. This article is about declarations of war - the opening statement states "A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state announces existing or impending war activity against another." 1. Hamas is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hamas should not be included in the article 2. Hezbollah is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hezbollah should not be included in the article 3. Russia vs Ukraine are both nation states - the question then is whether there has been a declaration of war.

    In the case 1 & 2, the removal of these two entries is WP:NPOV and the inclusion or otherwise in this article is in no way a comment on the conflict in question - only whether they constitute a declaration of war by one nation state on another. Which they do not because they are nation states.

    In the case of 3, the inclusion of Russia vs Ukraine only relies on whether there has been a declaration of war. The citation I gave is documented evidence of Russia announcing that a state of war exists between Russia and Ukraine.

    I suggest that by taking the action they have that the complainant is the one acting in a that asserts a political opinion about the conflict


    The reference by Weatherwriter to 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Is only a partial quote - what I actually said was "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration. I care about whether it is in the scope of this page." The key is the final point - the scope of this article and whether the edits are validly cited in accordance with the topic of the article...namely a list of declarations of war.

    Weatherwriter reversions of my edits serve to support a political opinion on a page which is about facts.

    I'm pretty angry about being accused in this way when MY edits were factually based and neutral point of view, whereas by reverting my edits it does precisely the opposite, allowing contentious and politically biased information to infect the page. GRRRRRRrrr

    Marlarkey (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


    On another point, following me reviewing the information in this complaint by WeatherWriter... "If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)" The complainant cites a link to information which I have JUST accessed and have never seen before just now. I was NOT aware of this information so it is false to suggest that this constitutes evidence that I was aware.

    Again this makes me angry at the accusations being made against me. If you don't want people editing and contributing to[REDACTED] then please just say so. GRRR Marlarkey (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    • I give up... I'm being accused and being told off for responding to the accusation. I don't know anything about this procedure, have never seen this page before and know nothing about how this works because its new to me.
      But I get it - I'm not part of the club that decides things... so I'll let you get on with that. Marlarkey (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    (Moved from WeatherWriter's section I get it - you'd rather call me out by this procedure than have an accurate encyclopaedia article. You've made accusations against me and put me through this over restrictions that I knew nothing about and policies I knew nothing about. I simply came across something inaccurate and followed what I understood to be WP principles and made an objectively accurate edit.
    So now the end result is that an inaccurate article containing a politically biased assertion is going to stay live. Marlarkey (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Result concerning Marlarkey

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

    Marlarkey, you have gone a bit over your 500 word allotment for responses. Please do not comment further unless directly asked to. I will remove an additional reply that was both over your limit and in the wrong section. signed, Rosguill 00:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Weather Event Writer, extension granted as that's essentially what Marlarkey has already taken. signed, Rosguill 01:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


    Ok, having now reviewed Declaration of war's page history, its talk page discussion, and Marlarkey's contributions more generally, I find that:

    • Marlarkey has repeatedly violated WP:PIA at Declaration of war since having received a CTOP notice
    • Irrespective of whether it is correct or not to include the Israel-Hamas war, Israel-Hezbollah war, or wars between states and non-state entities more broadly, WeatherWriter's edits to the page are plainly not vandalism, which has a specific (and serious) meaning on Misplaced Pages
    • It appears to be a long-term status quo to include non-state entities provided that there is a citation to some sort of formal declaration of war, and the page's inclusion of conflicts involving non-states Ambazonia and SADR do not appear to have been challenged at any point.
    • Marlarkey is incorrect to assert that their edit is objectively accurate. Whether the edit is accurate is subject to community consensus, and the talk page arguments in favor of inclusion base themselves on RS reporting which is a valid, policy-compliant argument. Marlarkey's arguments that a declaration of war can only occur be between two states do not make any reference to a reliable source stating this; while that text is currently in the lead of the article, it does not have a citation nor is it clear that any citation in the article directly backs this.
    • In light of discussion at Talk:Declaration of war, which at this point shows multiple editors in favor of keeping the Hamas and Hezbollah wars, only Marlarkey firmly for removing them, and one other editor calling for discussion as of December 31st, Marlarkey's edits to unilaterally remove the entries in January amount to slow-motion edit warring
    • Given that Marlarkey has had an account for well over a decade, has edited a wide variety of topics, hit 500 edits while this was happening, does not appear to have otherwise shown interest in Israel/Palestine topics, and that the edits at Declaration of war don't fit into any clear POV-warrior pattern, I don't think that pulling extended-confirmed or issuing a PIA topic ban would help.

    I'm thus inclined to suggest an indefinite partial block from Declaration of war (but not its talk page) as a regular admin action for edit warring, and a logged warning to be mindful of CTOP standards. signed, Rosguill 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC

    • As Marlarkey stated that they were unaware of CT, I wanted to confirm that I double checked and found that the CT notice was properly left in November. If Marlarkey chose not to read it, well, that's rather on him—we can only leave messages, we can't force people to read them. I would otherwise agree with Rosguill's assessment. Seraphimblade 12:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I entirely endorse Rosguill's reading of this. I am not happy about Marlarkey's approach to our restrictions, but I don't see this as EC gaming, and I can't see how pulling EC rights could be justified at this stage. As such I endorse the proposed page block and logged warning. Marlarkey, you seem to believe that because you are right on the substance you can ignore process and guidelines - that simply isn't true. The arbitration committee has consistently held that being right isn't enough; you need to be able to edit within the scope of our policies. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Pretty much everything Rosquill said. Marlarkey, it doesn't look like you have a huge amount of experience working in WP:CTOPs. I'm sorry you're finding this upsetting, but CTOPs are a whole 'nother world, and you're either going to have to learn how to nonproblematically work there, or not work there. Valereee (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      FWIW, the CTOP warning was left on your talk page. You've got your archiving set so aggressively that you may be missing a lot of messages, and it's completely plausible that you missed this one, which was only on your talk for two days, and after it was left you didn't edit for a month. However, we do assume that if you've got your archiving set that aggressively, you're keeping on top of anything important by checking your notifications to make sure you didn't miss anything.
      You can probably prevent this happening in future by having your talk page archive no more frequently than you typically go between editing sessions, leaving maybe the five most recent messages unarchived, and/or being sure to check your notifications when logging back in. Any one of those three and you've have likely seen the notification. Valereee (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    DanielVizago

    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 DanielVizago

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Schazjmd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    DanielVizago (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/Gender_and_sexuality#Final_decision
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 29 Dec 2024 Added Category:Misandry to a BLP, after CTOP notification and several talk page messages notifying DanielVizago that the category is not to be applied to articles about individuals (per category description, This category is for issues relating to misandry. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly misandrist.);
    2. 4 Jan 2025 and 5 Jan 2025 Removing sourced content from Misogyny that states misandry is not a major an issue as misogyny;
    3. 5 Jan 2025 Changing content in Male privilege to emphasize misandry (reverted by another editor with edit summary rv, poorly sourced (sources supplemented by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH), earlier version was better, closer to sources);
    4. 13 Jan 2025 Added "bimisandry" to Biphobia, citing 4 sources, none of which include that term;
    5. 14 Jan 2025, weird edits adding Category:Female rapists with piped names to unrelated articles, then added those names directly to the category page;
    6. 14 Jan 2025 restored the "bimisandry" edit to Biphobia, then added a 5th ref that includes the term but is just a blog; I left a 4th-level warning on talk page;
    7. 14 Jan 2025 (after final warning) adds ] and ] to Hurtcore; those two individuals don't have articles and there is no mention in this article of their charges or convictions, even though the category solely consists of articles of female individuals who have been convicted of rape in a court of law.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    • None
    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

    Above diffs are all edits after the CTOP notification was provided. Before then, DanielVizago misapplied Category:Misandry to 46 articles, which is what caught my attention. Their attempts to add "bimisandry" to Biphobia started 16 Dec 2024. On 28 Dec 2024, DanielVizago added a lot of content to Supremacism about misandry, which another editor reverted with edit summary remove recently added pro-fringe section and put back the excerpt. Most of their 122 edits have been reverted by multiple editors.

    Before the level 4 warning, I tried guiding DanielVizago away from CTOP; they don't engage on their talk page. (They've posted there once, to say "thanks" in response to a warning.) With their refusal to communicate, poor sourcing, and non-NPOV edits, I don't think they should be editing in this topic area. Schazjmd (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning DanielVizago

    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 DanielVizago

    Statement by caeciliusinhorto

    Since this report was opened, DanielVizago has continued to make questionable edits adding articles to Category:Female rapists.

    • Possibly the worst edit, categorising a living person who has been accused (but not charged, let alone convicted) of sexual assault as a rapist (cf. WP:BLPCRIMINAL)
    • This edit adds the category to a disambiguation page on the basis of one of the people listed on that page, who had in fact been convicted not of rape but of sexual activity with a minor
    • this and this edit categorise two sexually-motivated murderers as rapists despite no evidence that they ever raped anyone in the article (cf. WP:CATV)

    Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Simonm223

    Might be wise, as long as doing so wouldn't interfere with evidence, to get a revision deletion on some of the diffs presented above that make unfounded statements about BLPs. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning DanielVizago

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I've p-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor communicating. Valereee (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I want to hear what they have to say, but I'm going to need a fairly convincing explanation as to how they're here to build an encyclopedia and not to POV-push men's rights activism content where it doesn't belong. The IDHT and spammy behavior and the BLP vios on top of that aren't super encouraging, either, but if they decide to communicate, I'm happy to reassess. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'd like to hear what they have to say, too, but I'm also not averse to letting this archive with no further action since the p-block is an indef. I've left another message at their talk. Valereee (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    ]

    Ekdalian

    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 Ekdalian

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    NXcrypto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Ekdalian (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. 12:51, 11 January 2025 - Restoring recently added disputed content, contrary to WP:ONUS
    2. 21:55, 11 January 2025 - Casting unsubstantiated aspersions and poisoning the well against another editor.
    3. 12:01, 13 January 2025 - Poisoning the well against another user without any evidence of misconduct.
    4. 19:11, 15 January 2025 - Restoring recently added disputed content again and essentially asking to get consensus for it, contrary to WP:ONUS.
    5. 15:05, 16 January 2025 - Performs a blanket revert in order to make a WP:POINT, just because their previous edit was reverted, despite it being the version that was arrived upon by a month long discussion on the talkpage, also saying "LE also wants to discuss and revisit the content proposed by the sock" , LukeEmily later elaborated that they are okay with the version that Ekdalian was actually reverting
    6. 17:42, 16 January 2025 - Same as above but edit warring
    7. 19:42, 16 January 2025 - Edit warring and casting aspersions saying that reverting editor is acting like the blocked sock Nobita456 "stop behaving like Nobita please"
    8. 14:31, 18 January 2025 - Attacks and tries to poison the well against another editor also says that "WP:ONUS doesn't mean you need to achieve consensus with editors condemned by admins for persistent POV pushing! "
    9. 18:47, 18 January 2025 - Restores the aforementioned attack saying "Related to the content only, related to WP:CONSENSUS to be precise; accept the truth, I don't want to report minor incidents" when told to focus on content
    10. 18:29, 19 January 2025 - calling a WP:NOTVANDAL edit as vandalism and issues final warning for vandalism
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Date Explanation
    2. Date Explanation
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    • Has a {{Ds/aware|ipa}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. and notified of WP:ARBIPA by Dennis Brown in 2022
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I also note that Ekdalian has a history of aggressive edit warring in the contentious topic as a part of slow running edit war.On Bengali Kayastha, many of their most recent edits have been reverts to prevent content addition as well. It has gotten to the point where experienced users like Sitush have called them out for it because they usually misrepresent the consensus or comments by editors such as Sitush to claim that consensus already exists when there is none, they do not provide diffs when asked to substantiate their claims either. They have been reprimanded in past over similar conduct about misrepresentation and exaggeration by @Dennis Brown: on this venue as well. They have a history of attacking other users and trying to poison the well against them instead of focusing on the content as diffs above prove.

    I am not seeking any topic bans but Ekdalian should be at least told not to misuse the talk page for adding more fuel into heated disputes, and use the revert button only when it is necessary. Nxcrypto Message 03:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    I'm unimpressed by your defence of #10, it was an unsourced change, sure disruptive but not vandalism (which has a very specific meaning). Please refer to WP:NOTVANDAL. Nxcrypto Message 07:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Ekdalian

    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 Ekdalian

    I have nothing to say as such! I have been serving Misplaced Pages since 2013, particularly related to contentious caste articles, fighting against caste promotion, POV pushing and vandalism. Heated debates are common in the contentious topics. I have neither violated 3RR, nor abused any editor! Yes, in case someone has been topic banned and condemned by admins, I do mention the same so that NPOV is not violated. Many admins are aware of my activities including SPI, anti-disruption and anti-vandalism. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    Action (warning) may be taken against NXcrypto for being unable to identify vandalism (refer to point number 10), and wasting the time of our admins! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Nxcrypto, it is a clear case of vandalism. The user intends to misrepresent and project their caste as Kulin Kayastha (higher status among Bengali Kayasthas) by intentionally changing Eastern (Bengal) to Western! Moreover, the user has done similar vandalism in multiple articles only in order to promote Western Bengali Guhas. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    • In response to Bishonen's comments, I would like to inform here that Sitush is referring to my response at a time when Nobita456's sock was driving a discussion and I had filed an SPI! Therefore, I was delaying the discussion in order to eliminate the sock from the same. Sitush has been quoted out of context! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
      Orientls, the user has already been blocked for vandalism; I have years of experience in this area and quite sure of what I have mentioned! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Bishonen: I have clearly mentioned that I am not sure! But, Orientls seems to be so sure that they have stated that I am 'falsely' accusing him of meatpuppetry! How can you be so sure that there has been no mail exchanges? Orientls, do you think you are God? Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Orientls

    I find this comment by Ekdalian unpalatable: "The user intends to misrepresent and project their caste as Kulin Kayastha." How are you so sure of their caste? I don’t see where they have self-identified as such, and you also accuse them of attempting to project "their caste'" with another one by "vandalising" Misplaced Pages, which is a serious accusation against a new editor. I think an editor of your tenure should be able to recognize what constitutes vandalism because those edits are not vandalism, you should also refrain from speculating about the caste of editors.

    This reasoning seems odd, especially when Sitush himself states: "CharlesWain began this discussion. They are not a sock, are they?" , implying that you were opposing changes proposed by an editor who was not a sock by misrepresenting Sitush's comments. I also think canvassing was inappropriate, particularly with its problematic heading, "Kind attention: Bishonen and admins active here." It sounds as if you are trying to recruit people to back you up here.

    Honestly, I’m not surprised by the diffs cited in the report, especially if your conduct at ARE is like this where your edits are under scrutiny.

    @Bishonen: While the filer himself made it clear that he is not "seeking any topic bans", Ekdalian deserves a topic ban following this new message. By calling an editor with almost 4k edits a "comparatively new user" and falsely accusing him of "meatpuppetry", Ekdalian has proven he is not capable of editing here without poisoning the well and making personal attacks. Orientls (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Ekdalian

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I will point out that I was canvassed to this discussion by Ekdalian. That said, I'll state that I don't think NXcrypto's diffs are anything much; it's surely a stretch to call them "casting apersions" and "poisoning the well" and the like, especially in the IPA area where the tone is often sharp. The comments by Sitush are a little more concerning, though. Bishonen | tålk 10:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC).

    Alex 19041

    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 Alex 19041

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Est. 2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Alex 19041 (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:ARBPIA & WP:IBAN
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 21 January 2025
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Alex 19041

    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 Alex 19041

    I have been made aware of the rules and will follow them in the future - I hope this suffices as a statement as I don't think there is anything worth adding that hasn't been said already

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Alex 19041

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

    • To recap what's already been said at the initial hearing this got at ARBCOM, it has been identified that Alex19041 is not extended-confirmed, has now been made aware of the 30/500 editing restriction for PIA, has acknowledged that they should not make any edits to the topic, but has not quite acknowledged that they also should not make comments relating to the topic outside of article space. If they can acknowledge that, an IBAN would be unnecessary as they will not be engaging further with the discussion at-issue for some time. If they can't acknowledge that, we'd likely need to escalate to blocks, as there's no reason to expect the IBAN to be observed. Some concern was also raised that Est. 2021's replies to Alex 19041 included personal attacks, although it should be noted that Est. 2021 has made an effort to remove potentially-problematic statements from their prior comments at ARBCOM (sections on their talk page containing similar language have been removed entirely, which is within their purview on a user talk page). signed, Rosguill 16:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    • (came here from the ill-fated ArbCom case request). I agree with Rosguill. Some assurance from Alex 19041 and from Est. 2021 that they will leave the problematic edits behind would be good.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I agree that the reported user needs to show some understanding that as a non-EC user, they need to leave this CTOP alone across all namespaces. However, sanctions are for serious, ongoing problems, three unwelcome talk page posts made over the course of an hour does not strike me as sufficient cause for a formal iban. If there's more to it than that, it needs to be made clear, with diffs. Beeblebrox 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    • It doesn't look like Alex 19041 has edited since the case started. Alex, if you are seeing this, you do need to come in here and respond. Ignoring this will not make it go away. Valereee (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Denali-related pages

    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 Denali-related pages

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Pages about which enforcement is requested
    Denali-related pages


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:CT/AP

    I think this is the right place to ask for this? Requesting an expansion of WP:CT/AP to cover all articles related to Denali, as it has unfortunately become a political hot-button issue as the POTUS made it a prioroty on his first day back in office to sign an executive order to revert the name of the mountain back to "Mt. McKinley".

    In the past twenty-four hours there has been heavy editing/disruption in articles and on related talk pages and protection has been needed at several. Denali was probably hit hardest, but Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute got some too, as has Denali National Park and Preserve, which is explicitly not even part of the executive order. I wouldn't be surprised if the same issue is happening in Gulf of Mexico related articles, but haven't checked for myself. Beeblebrox 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Yeah, just checked Gulf of Mexico. 28 new talk page sections in the past day, was already ECP protected two weeks ago per WP:CT/AP.
    I kinda think a single admin could do this, but I am editorially involved and probably slightly too infuriated to be objective. Beeblebrox 22:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for the replies, that's kind of what I thought, but again didn't want to act on it as I'm editorially involved. Beeblebrox 22:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint


    Discussion concerning Denali-related pages

    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 Denali-related pages

    Statement by Isabelle

    Since I've protected Denali's talk page, I will comment here. I agree that we will be seeing serious issues in the coming month, considering all the shit the new president is throwing at the wall, but I believe the administrators are well equip to deal with this at the moment. I believe Valereee has protected the Gulf of Mexico's talk page, and I've dealt with Mount Denali's. We might need to apply more extensive protection during this coming month to stop the vandals, but current tools will do just fine. Isabelle Belato 23:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Valereee

    Pinged here: yes, I've semi'd Talk:Gulf of Mexico, yesterday for 24 hours, today for another 31. I dislike protecting a talk, but it was a burden for editors working there. Valereee (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    100+ edits today on the article, which is EC protected. I feel like that's a lot. Valereee (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Denali-related pages

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    @Beeblebrox: AMPOL already covers "Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed". I think that "broadly construed" would include Denali and Gulf of Mexico in the current moment. In any event, I think you'd want to go to ARCA, not here, for an amendment. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, Denali is already ECP and Denali National Park and Preserve has semi-protection. There's no protection on Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute, but I'm not seeing anything in the page history that would justify it.l voorts (talk/contributions) 22:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    • AE couldn't expand the scope of an existing CT designation; only ArbCom could do that. But I don't think we need to. If the disruption is related to a current American politics controversy, that's clearly related to "post-1992 politics of the United States", and so is already in scope of the existing CT designation. So, I'd say just treat it as such. Seraphimblade 22:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Callmehelper

    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 Callmehelper

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Srijanx22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Callmehelper (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/India-Pakistan
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 4 January - Violates copyrights
    2. 19 January - Files a frivolous report against other editors, mislabels their edits as "vandalism" and then rudely responds to onlookers as also noted by Liz by saying "That's a very rude reply, Callmehelper."
    3. 19 January - Mislabels an edit as "vandalism".
    4. 21 January - Trying to get article on a non-notable subject created and not dropping the WP:STICK.
    5. 21 January - Casts WP:ASPERSIONS against the new page patrollers, and demeans them as "people those rejected are so much had biased opinions that I can't discuss."
    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)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Callmehelper

    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 Callmehelper

    This is my side ;

    1. 1 Allegation : Yes, it was indeed a copyright violation. This was my first encounter to something like copyright violation. Which i just copy-paste of a paragraph from govt website. Then one senior editor tell me in my talk page about what copyright violation is and how that works, and it was my very healthy and learning session for me tbh. Please see the whole discussion, then it will exhibit a full picture. First conversion happened in my talk page seethen little more conversations happened in his talk page pls see And ultimately matter solved and i learnt by this conversations and after that i never did anything like copyright violation. I don't know why this issue is used here against me.


    1. 2nd Allegation : This is little complex and long problem. Although i explain it very deeply during AN/I. But i will cut it short. It was started very much before. Firstly someone tag me about this vandalism by saying that one editor try to manipulate some paragraph in that page then i got involved in this. I restored that paragraph but it was reverted by again that guy and it keep going for sometime, then i told them in his talk page but he just delete that talk without replying, then i go for article talk page and write all that issue but no one replied, then i go to two administrator personal talk page, one was busy and one told me that i should go for AN/I but here also i got no reply for 2 days. after all that someone replied that i should go for main article talk page, which i was already did. this was disappointing for me as i feel in a loop as in talk page no one replied. so i replied very rudely but it was more of a frustration for 4 days. But nevertheless, I apologise to that editor and that senior editor named Lez who told me about my rudeness, in next reply. Moreover i also apologise to that editor in his talk page on same day.


    1. 3 Allegations : It was related to 2nd allegation. It was indeed a Vandalism, because after discussion done in that talk page that editor was again removing all this , so i had to go to his talk page and said about this is Vandalism pls stop doing it but again that guy deleted my vandalism warning without replying to me see , But ultimately that editor stopped doing vandalism in that page and it then remains restored after so my efforts for continuous 5 days.
      But i don't know how that respected complainer think that this is not vandalism? IT WAS VANDALISM.
    1. 4th & 5th Allegations  : I am not aware about WP:Stick. Simply I make a draft and leave a (template submit) in my draft and then it goes for discussion. After so much long long conversations, it was finalized that the draft is still not acceptable as it lack Notability and i ultimately accept that and this conversation end in very light way. pls see

    My Conclusion: I whenever make any statement in uncivil manner i never ever leave as it is without my apology. i apologise to those whenever i feel that i replied them in uncivil way.
    As i am not so english fluent, so i don't have much dictionaries of words, so ultimately some my words reflect a little rudeness, but it was never be my intention. so apologise to him immediately.
    Although i am new , but i am sure i will be adapt myself very soon about all the policies. I also work on myself perticularly about my choice of words.
    Those seniors who seen my choice of bad words should advice/warm me in my talk page instead of going direct complaining, as i seen such policy as , as i never ignored any type of warning/advice or suggestions.
    This was my side.
    I will accept any kind of warning or ban after all.
    Thanks.
    Much Regards.

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Callmehelper

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions Add topic