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 00:22, 5 December 2016 editJFG (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors53,874 editsm Forgot a diff I cited →Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Hidden Tempo← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:05, 24 January 2025 edit undoRed-tailed sock (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions145 edits →Result concerning Luganchanka: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}} <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!--
{{Redirect|WP:AE|the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae|MOS:LIGATURE|the automated editing program|WP:AutoEd}}
--><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude>
<noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!--
<includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly>
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
<noinclude>{{editabuselinks|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}
</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 = 203 |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==
==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>
{{hat|1=Blocked for one year by unanimous consent of uninvolved administrators. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 19:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)}}
'''''Note after moratorium: review reopened'''. I suggested recently that this review remain on hold till after the Thanksgiving weekend, but now SageRad has opened it, as indeed I invited him to on his page. He has removed all his month-old posts and added a new statement, also according to my suggestions, so that's fine. The review can now go ahead and hopefully reach closure, and not run into the sands. I agree strongly with ] below, before the break, that we must avoid a situation where "SageRad he is leaving Misplaced Pages forever, then come back in a month or two and we have the same problem." (Let me emphasize that I don't have any notion that SageRad would do that in a manipulative way. But it's the kind of thing that happens when feelings run high.)


===Request concerning שלומית ליר===
''Anyway, it seems a good idea to keep the interrupted previous discussion on the page, since it remains highly relevant, but also to have the month-long divide visible. I've tried to achieve this by a new header for new community discussion (moving Sage's new statement to it), and another one for new uninvolved admin discussion (known as "Result concerning SageRad"). Please feel free to change my changes if you can think of a better system (archive templates?).] &#124; ] 16:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC).'' (I'll have to do this in installments, since I keep getting edit conflicts.) ] &#124; ] 16:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC).
; 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>
'''''Adding''': Well, the new header for community discussion didn't work, bad idea. (The new header for admin result discussion seems to work as intended.) I've removed it and instead marked all new community sections after the break with <ins>''Comments after resumption of case in November 2016''</ins>. My dream is that people will continue to mark any new sections in this way, but if not, I'll try to go in and do it. (Of course there's no need to mark additions to sections that have already been so marked — for instance, this request does not affect you, ]). I hope that's clear, and sorry for my inefficient clerking. ] &#124; ] 16:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC).


===Request concerning SageRad===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Jytdog}} 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|SageRad}}<p>{{ds/log|SageRad}}
<!--- 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: ] : discretionary sanctions
<!--- 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 of ''how'' these edits violate it :


ShlomitLir (שלומית ליר) created their account back in 2014. The breakdown of their edits is as follows:
; ] 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. -->
<small>Note, trimmed and extra content placed on subpage ] per Bish . ] (]) 16:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)</small><p>


*2014 to 2016: no edits.
SageRad is on a campaign against skepticism and for giving more credence to altmed, and this ] behavior, civil as it may be, has been consistently disruptive on fringey medical and CAM topics like ]. The key issues are BLUDGEONing discussion with soapbox-y rants against "skepticism" and for "Truth " -- a consistent behavior of using talk pages as forums, talking about "meta-issues", etc, instead of focused discussion on crafting content based on sources per policy and guidelines. He also misrepresents sources in the course of his arguments. In all of that, he fails to yield to consensus and accuses other editors of lacking "integrity". His presence on these topics is a time sink.
*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.
* The issue goes back at least to SageRad's editing at ] in May 2015 ( and ) which led to a block.


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
* From Dec 2015 to March 2016 at ] - see ] in which SageRad bludgeoned the talk page with expressing his perception that the article was hijacked by "Skeptics". See in Dec 2015 and also from December and and and and and though to in Feb 2016 saying pretty much the same thing.

What spurs this filing, is that SageRad has continued this campaign -- really ] behavior -- against the perceived skeptic takeover, in article space this fall.
* On Sept 10, opened a section at ]focusing on his "skeptic" issue ], generally OFFTOPIC soapboxing disrupting already difficult discussions with Greger fans objecting to any critical discussion of Greger. Made mostly all on this "skeptic" stuff.
* On Sept 11 at the ] pursuing his campaign there, making exemplified by
* On Sept 16 at ], an article about another diet advocate where we have consistent trouble from "fans", making , again arguing against the ] attribution and writing the following ( which '''misrepresented the source''' as I showed him . He went on to invoke Godwin's Law .
* On Sept 25 he joined a discussion at ] in a section entitled "]" where he helpfully brought a new ref but then '''misrepresented it''' and again arguing that we should include more positive content about detox diets (the conclusion presented in the source is the opposite as pointed out to him . He also brought more of his anti-Skeptic campaigning in (already cited dif).
* Most recently at ] which has been a struggle to keep neutral in the face of a lot of advocacy, SageRad has again been abusing the talk page like and fighting perceived skeptic agenda - (, and refusing to engage refs summarized twice ( and later .
<p>I dread that this is heading into another slog like the Paleo diet discussed above and I have no desire to do that again.

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
# block for violating BLP at ] (see relevance above)
#] per GMO arbcom case in December 2015
#] via AE for 5 days for violating TBAN in July 2016
#] for one 1 month via DS for violating TBAN in August 2016

;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 in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to 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 : ; 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 , , , 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)
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
If you look at SageRad's , this anti-skeptic pro-altmed editing is pretty much all they do here (with the exception of some Race & Intelligence work and some scattered editing on basic biology). In all these cases he is making difficult editing situations worse by adding his meta-issue to whatever the local issues are. Am suggesting '''a TBAN from anything related to health''', as it is articles about health/alt med where he has mostly brought his SOAPBOXing and disruptive, time-wasting behavior. I would suggest alt med more narrowly but I don't want to get into endless border disputes. ] (]) 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
* link updated per SageRad's request. ] (]) 15:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
* Bishonen, I will do no more adjusting. Thanks. ] (]) 16:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
::Bishonen, while i think restricting SageRad from soapboxing would help, the deeper problem of not dealing with sources and even misrepresenting them, and relentlessly advocating for his preferred content, is not going to be addressed by that. The disruption from SageRad's first edits here have been in the field of health which is why I requested what I did. ] (]) 18:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
* ]; while i see how you could suggest that this is at base an interpersonal dispute, SageRad's editing has focused on health from his first days here and there is one consistent arc of behavior that I described in my OP. Yes, that means he and I have clashed since he arrived, since my editing is also focused on health. So yes there is an element of interpersonal dispute, but in my view, it arises from my having to deal with SageRad's problematic behavior on health topics for all this time. I don't seek SageRad out; he keeps showing up on topics I edit and behaving this way. The problems are actual, not perceived by me. ] (]) 19:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
::OK, thanks for your reply. When I filed this I was concerned it might get framed as an interpersonal dispute. I cannot deny that we have been at loggerheads since he arrived; I don't want that to obscure the facts of SageRad's consistent pattern of POV editing and his behavior pursuing that POV, since he arrived here. ] (]) 19:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
::] I know you nodded at the problem with SageRad's behavior with your suggestion about some limit on his talk postings. However, I contest your description of this as "Some of this may be wits-end exasperation on the part of good-faith editors, but some of it is also a clash between editors who just cannot stand one another." and the mention of RfCs as a possible solution. This is not a DR thing. SageRad has demonstrated a consistent set of problems with regard to POV on content about health and behavior trying to get that content into WP. It is not going to be resolved by treating it merely as a series of good faith content disputes that can be resolved with RfCs. That is why I posted here. ] (]) 19:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
* and now i am going to shut the heck up, unless I am asked something. :) i am arguing too hard. I ''am'' long term frustrated. ] (]) 19:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
:Actually one more thing. The history between SageRad and me does go back to his very first edits here and I am very comfortable putting that history on the table. is his talk page before he purged it at the start of this year; that is where key interactions between SageRad and me took place. I invite anybody who wants to cast this as equivalent to review that from the top down. ] (]) 20:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
* fwiw, i have no objection at all to the month pause in conjunction with SageRad taking a break ] (]) 02:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
<ins>''Comments after resumption of case in November 2016''</ins> <p>
*] In ] (a guideline) the section about what to do, ], emphasizes concision, and the last bullet of the section on ] links to ], which is indeed a behavioral policy. A whole slew of essays about people who are "not here" discuss bludgeoning talk pages, including ], ], ], ], ] and yes ] note that going on and on, and not yielding to consensus, to push any agenda are unacceptable behaviors in the community. It all goes back to ]. -- ] (]) 04:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
* Yep that was a mistake on my part with regard to SashiRoll. I removed it right after I did it, before they posted here. . I mistakenly thought they were carrying disagreements from ] to here. My bad. ] (]) 08:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
* ], this is obvious to every one else here, but let me point this out to you. You have written several times that {{tq|He claims that i never back off when shown to be wrong.}} ( in edit note and content; , etc. and have written a ton trying to refute that. But the quote from me in the first diff doesn't say that, and i have not written anything like that here. ''Even here'' you are misrepresenting things. And then you go on and on about that... ''even here'' you are bludgeoning the heck out of this page. ''Look'' at how much you have written. Also, you were given very good advice on your talk page about how to proceed here at AE, which you have ignored. Not taking in feedback/advice, misrepresenting, bludgeoning. It is all ''right here''. And you cannot see that but keep asking what you have been doing wrong, and keep framing this as anything to do with your particular POV. ] (]) 03:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
* as this drags on it gets diffused/confused, as drama board discussions tend to do. ] doesn't understand his/her own edits nor mine, and how they fit into the content dispute, which they explicitly they were getting involved with below. I explained what is going on at the article talk page in . I don't expect admins to waste time on this as it outside the issue of SageRad's behavior, but in case you want to.... ] (]) 01:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
; 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. -->
*
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


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)
===Discussion concerning SageRad===
<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====
<ins>''New statement after resumption of case in November 2016''</ins>:
I am ] as my editing makes clear to anyone who takes the time to look. I edit articles well, according to policies. I have written observations about patterns i see in Misplaced Pages in places where that is appropriate.


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
This is an onerous and disruptive request made by Jytdog and if anything, should boomerang back at him for wasting everyone's time with drama and disrupting my ability to edit for a month now.


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
I request Jytdog to reduce the length of his statement to 500 words and 20 diffs which is a guideline stated on this page for good reason. It keeps things less onerous to respond to. Maybe he'll surprise me and be willing to do so. '''(((Added: he has declined to do so. Oh well, sorry to readers for length of this case.)))''' '''(((Further added: I do not consider linking a sub-page to be actually limited to the 500 words/20 diffs as it's still material presented. Might as well not bother.)))'''


===Discussion concerning שלומית ליר===
I care about Misplaced Pages, but i'm pretty disgusted at this point with this case. A total waste of time. Talk about time-sink.
<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====
I respect good dialog, and there is such a thing as good dialog with integrity. It's recognizable when it's present and when it's absent.
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====
We must have good dialog on article talk pages to discuss content.
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====
Different people have different points of view. That's welcome here. Out of this difference comes beauty, when it works. What doesn't work is to pillory other editors like Jytdog is doing here, and which is part of the pattern to which i spoke.
To the extent that it is relevant, the WJC report was discussed at ]. ] (]) 11:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by starship.paint (2)====
Do you want there to be things that cannot be spoken within Misplaced Pages, under threat of attacks like this one? If so then let's be clear. You want to restrict the realm of discourse so things you don't want to hear cannot be spoken. That's the way of fascism. That's not the ideal of this place.


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)
This is not a "democracy" but it's also not a locked-down ideological place. People must be able to discuss things without fear of being attacked viciously by actions like this one.


====Statement by xDanielx====
Jytdog's 1,500 word complaint is a character attack and misrepresents me greatly, and misrepresents many things.
{{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)
There are a couple things that i can learn, though...


==== Statement by Hemiauchenia ====
* Be more brief. Not my strong point. Keep it short.
This user has engaged in off-wiki canvassing regarding the IP conflict. Take the following recent tweet from the 12 January
* Don't speak to patterns that i see in article talk pages regarding editor motivations (even if they're screamingly apparent). Keep it to the content strictly.
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====
I can do these things better. When i edit an article, i can keep all dialog to the sources and the content, and not impute non-ideal motivations to other editors, even through suggestions.
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====
Wouldn't it be great if everyone would do that? Because most people who are attacking me here do that constantly. But ok, i can be the bigger person and do that.
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)
Except on Jimbo's page and other appropriate places, i ''can and will'' speak to patterns (not specific editors, and i've never named any specific editors).


====Statement by Vice regent====
So i call on whoever closes this to please put an end to the attempt to silence people who speak to patterns on forums like Jimbo's page. If speech like this is chilled then you get a closed ideological system. That's not good.
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)


====Statement by (username)====
So much of Jytdog's long rant uses words like "bludgeon" and "battleground" and "soapboxing" -- guess what? I could use the exact same words about him, having observed him for a year. And several others. But i don't take them to AE like this. I'm not that sort. Trying to shut someone down because you don't like what they have said in dialog is a bad thing. I don't like many things Jytdog has said. Some things i do appreciate. But i don't spend my time trying to shut him down, but instead i tolerate that people have different points of view. I wish he'd have more integrity in dialog when it comes down to specific conflicts, but so it goes.
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning שלומית ליר===
Jytdog's rant is really a pile of fallacious insinuation.
:''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==
* I don't say i know "The Truth" as he says. That's a lie. I often say there are multiple points of view and that's more than ok. That's expected and a beauty of how Misplaced Pages works -- when it works.
<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'm not on a "campaign" -- what a slander word. I have a point of view that i speak, like anyone else.
* I don't "bludgeon" -- i speak to the topic at hand when i have something to add.
* I do see patterns and speak to them in forums where it's appropriate. Occasionally have touched on that in content talk pages, where it's not appropriate -- sorry for this. I'll not do that anymore ever.
* "Battleground behavior" -- not really. There are controversies about many topics, and i often will enter those, going to sources, and sometimes finding and fixing problems in logic of articles or NPOV problems. That's ''good'' -- that is what Misplaced Pages is all about.
* "IDHT" -- no. I hear others. Often others are the ones with their fingers stuck in their ears. Really, go to the details. Read the talk page at ] where it seems Jytdog was the one with "IDHT" in neon on his forehead. Seriously not engaging in dialog cooperatively, more obstructionist.
* I am '''not''' on any campaign about "fad diets" or any other "fringe" topics. I'm on a campaign for good sourcing only. If ] sources show some nuance that should be reflected. Nothing more. Jytdog's slanderous words are just that.


===Request concerning Luganchanka===
So yeah, this whole rant of Jytdog's is a bunch of slanderous misrepresentations. It's a lawyer's work. I'm not a lawyer. I'll trust others to see through the Wikilawyering and see what's going on. He doesn't like me or my point of view and thought he had enough "stuff" to throw it on a wall and see what sticks.
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}} 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Luganchanka}}<p>{{ds/log|Luganchanka}}</p>
Well, i'm not perfect. Take any specific thing, bring it to a forum, and i will be '''more than happy''' to discuss it, and to recognize how i can be a better editor. Really, i want to learn more, and be a better editor and better person all the time.


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
But do it '''right''' -- do it about a specific thing, not some mega-bomb of insinuations. He's the one on a campaign. He's the one with behavioral problems. He's the one who want to shut me up because he doesn't like my point of view.


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
I've been generally civil. I always want to get back to the sources and the content, to improve articles. Only in spaces where it's '''what people do''' have i spoke about larger patterns in Misplaced Pages, and it got discussed, and i'm thankful. (After some admin banned me for a month the first time, then i brought it up again and it was a long fruitful conversation.)
<!--- 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 :
Also, whoever reviews this, don't believe the hype of a small group of editors who consistently attack people like me, making comments here. It's like flies attracted by smell to a pile of rotting fruit... they are here by attraction, self-selection.
<!-- 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 ]):
So, in brief, i'm here. I'm an editor. Any limitation on my editing would be a bad decision here and would enable vague attacks against editors who dissent too often from a "mainstream" viewpoint -- and Misplaced Pages is not meant to be a "mainstream" encyclopedia. It's meant to be a '''verifiable''' encyclopedia. A '''solid''' encyclopedia. A '''neutral point of view''' encyclopedia. There is no party line here except good sourcing and neutral representation of those sources.
BLP CTOP warning given


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
If you want me to be more careful about not ever imputing motives to other editors in content discussions, then '''yes, i'll do that''' -- and i'll add that those who would rather see me gone forever should to the same but probably won't, and are ten times worse than me in this regard. But whatever, i'll be the bigger person and do that.
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)
: 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)
:: RfC opened ]. ] (]) 16:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


===Discussion concerning Luganchanka===
And i'll be more brief.
<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====
Treat me with respect and i'll do the same.


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)
I don't expect that to happen here, but whatever. Leave me alone unless you have something productive to say. I've got other things to do.


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)
] (]) 15:35, 26 November 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)


:: 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>
'''Let me be clear. I do not wish to be blocked. I wish to pretty much retire, but not to be blocked. To be blocked would be a huge emotional blow that i would not forget easily. It would not be "merciful" as Mjolinarpants tries to portray it. That is not a good reason to block someone. I don't need or want that. No sympathy blocks please.'''


:: As per ]'s comments:
{{u|Tryptofish}}, when i speak here in defense, and i say things to counter the many many many accusations by Jytdog, you then make this out to be a problem? What is going on with you? This is a ''defense'' and so when Jytdog in his accusation that i speak about "The Truth" and it's a lie then i say "I don't say i know "The Truth" as he says. That's a lie." --- And no, i do ''not'' do those things again here in this statement. You're really twisting things. Notice that i ''did'' say there's one aspect that i've done wrong occasionally -- speaking about motivations on content talk pages -- and would cease that altogether. So there's one thing i say i've done wrong, ok. And then i write counter to the charges made. You cannot interpret me defending myself here as another "crime"... what a Kafka-esque situation. ] (]) 00:35, 27 November 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."}}
{{od}}


https://casetext.com/case/ritter-v-tuttle
Am i doing the right thing adding here? Assuming it's alright.


] (]) 18:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* To clarify for {{u|Littleolive_oil}}, i responded to which i had . Of course it's his choice to decline, but then re-quoted his first paragraph here and acted as if his judgment is unquestionably right and represents a consensus, which isn't correct. SO i replied a bit curt, yes, and called it "arrogant" to act like your point of view is assuredly correct about another person.


====Statement by NatGertler====
* The ] stuff was '''way back in January''' and i'm a learning being. Secondly, among the copious text you can find a handful of diffs that ''in isolation of context'' seem a bit jarring. Keep that in perspective.
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)====
* My intention with ] was for the article be become more NPOV by representing the sources on the diet accurately and with due weight. The fact of it taking a lot of words is '''not evidence of wrongdoing by me'''. It matters ''what was said and why''. I saw a certain group -- and this is inescapable because they '''show up on these topics''' in a place with thousands of editors -- seriously pushing for a particularly negative presentation of the topic ''despite'' a more mixed reception by reliable sources. So it was not NPOV. Why so many words? Because i care what is ''right'' according to the sources and policies of Misplaced Pages. You cannot assume it's ''me'' who is the problem when there are many exchanges in a dialog. I tend to want complete dialog, to leave nothing hanging, and to be clinically accurate about sources and policies. What's wrong with that? I dislike dialog that is evasive or insulting or otherwise not as direct and good-faith as possible. So, 11 months ago i wrote many comments on a talk page of ] to see about fixing an NPOV problem that i saw in the article (which had been seriously changed recently in this direction). So... what's my crime there? 11 months ago... discussion NPOV issues... and you blame '''me''' for this?
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning Luganchanka===
* I have said '''i can cease to even make the occasional insinuation of non-ideal motivations on content talk pages''' -- but then let us agree that '''everyone''' must do the same and this must be applied with equity. Those on the so-called "other side" must also cease onerous and frequent comments about other editors. Why do we not see these being reprimanded? Why is no editor ''ever'' blocked for continuously casting rather nasty aspersions to editors when out <s>"fringe-hunting"</s>*? Let's see it stop everywhere. I will do my part. But the hypocrisy is astounding. People who so frequently lambaste other editors with all kinds of characterizations of motivation then want me blocked for a year because of occasionally saying things of a similar nature when i see it? And i do promise to even cease ever implying anything regarding motivations on content talk pages.
:''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. -->
*<!--
-->
:@]: 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)
::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)
*::::If we think that the user has been explained ] to the extent that a reasonable person would conclude that they are either (a) intentionally ignoring it, or (b) ], then I do not object to a p-block from that article. Either such case here ''might'' warrant something wider, particularly if this behavior pattern appears elsewhere.
*::::But if they haven’t ever been explained the primary source rules, it might make sense to do that in clear and explicit terms before giving them an indef p-block. People who do research for a living, or work with primary sources in other contexts, often find our guidance a bit non-obvious since they are used to writing secondary sources instead of tertiary sources.
*::::My apologies for the delay on this; I have been very busy.
*::::— <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 14:05, 24 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==
* I do '''not have an "anti-skeptic agenda"'''. My ''only'' agenda is for NPOV. Only if a particular ideological agenda is threatening to NPOV content then i say "I see a pattern here that seems problematic" and this is what i have done. I see a dogmatic set of beliefs that do fit largely with those of the "Skeptic" movement (which is not wholly skeptical in a most ideal sense) and i've said this simply. Anyone can see if they think this fits reality or is off-base. Glad we had the discusson on Jimbo's talk page (finally, after a couple blocks initially). It's a fair question and it's not a "campaign". (Once, i questioned whether "skeptic" is a fair title for an author, but that's a content question ''related'' to this topic. Still, not a campaign.)
<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===
* I am '''not''' on some campaign about "altmed" or any such thing as Jytdog claims. That's nonsense. I've edited on a wide range of things, some of which are controversial. I like to find edges -- the borders between the known and unknown -- and see that define them correctly. That's one of my attractions and interests. It's not about "alternative medicine" and most things in that category i couldn't give a hoot about.
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|ජපස}} 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|BabbleOnto}}<p>{{ds/log|BabbleOnto}}</p>
* I '''absolutely never''' have "followed Jytdog around" as alleged somewhere in this case. Like ''American Express'' he just seems to be "everywhere you want to be" as a super-prolific editor with a clear interest set. If anything, it seems that ''he'' is interested in alt-med in a sense. Admirable as long as he sticks to sources with integrity.


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
So. I continue to maintain largely innocence and to call this a lawyerish "takedown attempt" by someone whose ideology or point of view is different from mine. That should not stand. This is not a place where one person gets to take down another because of different point of view. You don't get to remove people because what they say is "inconvenient" or a "time sink" to you. Believe me, Jytdog is '''extremely inconvenient''' to me and a '''huge time-sink''' to me, but i am not trying to get rid of him. I actually appreciate his point of view very much despite frustrations with other aspects of his editing style. There is no "house POV". Dialog is where things get worked out. You don't get to purge people who see the world a bit differently from you.


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
] (]) 01:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
* One final note. I used the term "fringe-hunting" in a derogatory way above. There ''is'' so much good to "fringe-hunting" when done in a good way. All points of view must be in tension to produce the best content. There ''is'' too much "fringe pushing" and i am grateful to those who do the work of trimming the unsupported aspects. Jytdog's voice here in Misplaced Pages is valuable. I wish he'd be more civil and less "BATTLEGROUND", and i wish i would always be the same. But our voices in a good tension are what Misplaced Pages needs to refine the edges between what is known and what is not known to science (and other disciplines). I've done my own "fringe-hunting" at ] and there is much further to go to keep discussion to sources and content. I am thankful to editors of all points of view, when they state their concerns in a thoughtful and civil way. Looking for NPOV content in all directions is good work to be done. "Fringe-hunting" is a service if done in a good way supported by reliable sources, and watching out for excesses of "fringe-hunting" pushing the pendulum too far in the other direction is likewise good work to be done. Misplaced Pages needs both Jytdog and myself, and many others, in a friendly tension to produce and refine excellent content.
<!-- 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.-->
# Sealioning
# Refusal to ]
# Personalizing an argument.
# Railroading the discussion.


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.
] (]) 02:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- 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 ]):
I must give all that i can, for i do not wish to be banned. I wish to see justice prevail here.
<!-- 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).


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
Jytdog claims above and :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
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)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
{{talkquote|as for SageRad's claim that all he wants to do is represent refs accurately, I presented several diffs (of the many times he has done it) of SageRad misrepresenting refs in pursuit of his agenda and not backing off that, even when shown it. The claim is part of the self-delusion.}}
<!-- 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 BabbleOnto===
I can show diffs of myself seeing that i'm wrong and acknowledging that, thereby disproving Jytdog's claim and accompanying personal attack ("self-delusion"). If i show that his claim is wrong and that the attack is unjustified, it must erode his case against me. If i can show that '''he actually''' shows the exact behavior of which he accuses me, then it further erodes his case and even argues for a boomerang result.
<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 BabbleOnto====
is a discussion in which i am citing solid MEDRS sources with the very simple point that they call misophonia a "condition" and therefore so should the article. Simple. Yet Jytdog '''refuses'' to accede this, and instead goes into an argument about nosology and then i point out that he is '''incorrect''' in his ] argument and that he's ''also'' doing ] and ] as well as contradicting the most recent MEDRS sources on this '''very simple question'''... and still he has ''not acceded this point nor produced better arguments or sources to support his position''. He is doing exactly what he's accused me of here. Stubbornly sticking to a point that he seems to want to control the article even when it's not supported by sources, and pushing SYN and OR.
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 .


To be honest I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm being charged with doing.
Now to prove Jytdog's claim about my behavior wrong. He claims that i never back off when shown to be wrong. Well, is Jytdog's reversion of my edit to ]. I saw that he is actually correct, and went investigating review articles on the subject. Then i wrote on his talk page to say:


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.
{{talkquote|Jytdog, i hope you will not mind me posting here to say that i agree with your edit where you corrected my edit. I was mistaken to think that this source satisfies the WP:MEDRS requirement of being a secondary source (review article). I will be more careful in the future regarding this.}}


I now address the specific edits in the complaint:
And so i have lived by these words. I've never made that mistake again, and i admitted when i was wrong.


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.
He "great, thanks" showing that he saw what i wrote. Therefore for him to say that i never admit to being wrong is either a memory failure or misrepresentation.


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?"
'''Please take this into consideration when evaluating his interpretive claims about me. He's wrong here and he's also wrong in many other regards. I am not perfect but i'm not the evil agenda pusher that he paints me. I'm a good editor and i admit when i am wrong.'''


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.
In short, please take such accusations with a grain of salt. Given 20 hours and enough resources i ''could'' show most of what Jytdog says to be either wrong or exaggerated or interpretive polemic. Anyway, i '''had''' to counter this wild claim and now i must go to work. Please use a sober and calm mind and invest enough time if you wish to judge this case. It's quite important and is not to be taken lightly. It affects me greatly as well as Misplaced Pages in general.


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.
] (]) 14:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


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)
*:Edited. ] (]) 23:56, 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.
{{od}}
*: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>
**::{{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.}}
Someone posted which was swiftly removed by Bishonen who is the one proposing that I be blocked for a year. The statement is quite good and true as by my estimation, and why should something be removed? Please see the dynamic going on, many layers of suppression and chilling of speech. ] (]) 21:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
***::: 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?}}
Re: the above, {{u|Bishonen}}, why would someone post while logged out? Maybe the atmosphere here is a Reign of Terror. Maybe people fear to speak what they see, because they get drawn and quartered like you're doing to me here. Seriously, you all really don't seem to get the way you're being and how it's so oppressive. People are afraid to defend others because they're afraid that there will be reprisals against them. This is a place of intense persecution of some people, and the line is '''not''' purely about their behavior. It's more about their alignment. This is an atmosphere of political purging. The denial here is thick and sickening. I used the word ] about 50 times because it feels very accurate.
****:::: Yes, and yes.


====Statement by ProcrastinatingReader====
I've edited with pretty good practices. I've been much more civil than some others who are on the persecution side of this thing. The hypocrisy is astounding. I continue to be unable to believe the level of nasty stuff that is allowed here, and yet to call it crap is anathema. This place is captured. I name that problem and that's why these people don't want me here. You can say goodbye to any shred of credibility that this is a place where integrity matters.
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. ] (]) 21:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}


====Statement by Newimpartial====
{{yo|Dennis Brown}} -- when you say that after reviewing my talk page, you see nothing's changed, and therefore think a block is good -- please specify what you mean. What about my talk page and what do you think it shows about me? I'd really like to know what people see in me. What's the deep dark evil you see or the behavioral problems.
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, .


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 ].
State a concise case. What did i do wrong? In simple terms, what did i do wrong that justifies excluding me from Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 00:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


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 ].
{{od}}


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.
Above, i showed that a claim by Jytdog in his screed was absolutely and provably incorrect. He said that i never admit to being wrong, and i showed where i clearly admitted to him that i was wrong and said thank you to him for pointing it out.


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.
Here, i have another point in his screed that is provably wrong. Please pay attention. This is how he's distorted things in nearly every point. It's too tiring to go through it all, and he is relying on the appearance of a bulk of accusations to make it seem that "SageRad ''must'' be bad because there's '''just so much here!'''" Well, think again.


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)
He wrote:


====Statement by Objective3000====
"* On Sept 25 he joined a discussion at ] in a section entitled "]" where he helpfully brought a new ref but then '''misrepresented it''' and again arguing that we should include more positive content about detox diets (the conclusion presented in the source is the opposite as pointed out to him ."
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)
:@], 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====
But i '''didn't misrepresent the article!''' You can go and read the dialog! For one thing, i quoted the entire abstract of the article and then i summarized it as "There is little clinical evidence to support the use of these diets. That's true. That is lack of crucial evidence. However, there is some evidence that certain foods have detoxification properties. This is an area that needs more research, according to the above review article."
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)
After i cited the MEDRS source (recent review article in relevant discipline), another editor wrote "If you want to make a medical claim for us to assess, or make arguments based upon such claims, point out the MEDRS sources. The entire idea of "detoxification" in the context here is pseudoscience. FRINGE (and the associated ArbCom decisions) place a very high bar on presenting pseudoscience as something else."
Then i replied, "That which I quoted is a MEDRS source."
Then Jytdog wrote, "you have starkly mischaracterized the conclusion of the source," and quoted from the source. But i '''didn't misrepresent the source'''. I said other things that the source said, accurately. There was no contradiction.
I replied with "I didn't misrepresent the ref. I quoted the entire abstract."
The Jytdog, instead of pursuing this or acknowledging it, replied with "Please read and follow the guidance in WP:NOABSTRACT." And yes, i know ] which says not to rely ''only upon'' the abstract of articles. Fine. But i didn't misrepresent the source. He and i sort of talked past each other.


====Statement by IntrepidContributor====
But further, he said of me, "arguing that we should include more positive content about detox diets" but this is not what i said. I was simply pointing out that the sources do have some nuance to them. I didn't change the article or argue for anything specific. It was, to me, a reasonable discussion on a talk page. And now he wants to use it as fodder to ban me?


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 that's '''one single example''' of how Jytdog misrepresents what happened. I didn't misrepresent the source and i also didn't use it to add anything to the article. I commented on the talk page to show that the 100% demonization of the concept was going too far. That is all.


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.
If you go into 95% of his accusations, you will see that they are mostly misrepresenting dialogs and my character. ] (]) 00:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


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.
I see the suggestion by {{u|Count Iblis}} about a 0RR limit. I find this interesting, though i'd point out that i have hardly ''ever'' even gone to 1RR in my editing. I do strongly prefer dialog on the talk page. If you see the example above about the "Detoxification" article, i didn't even edit the article at all. I know that there is so much work to do in studying the sources, ''before'' even considering to edit an article. Also there is usually a need to get clear with other editors why an edit is useful. So a 0RR would really not change my editing much. Please, i hope you weren't under an impression that i edit war much... i don't. I think i am a good editor. I seek good dialog. Thank you for your suggestion. It might be fine, not onerous, because i don't revert things ideally. Ideally people discuss and come to some consensus -- as long as everyone is truly ]. Most of the real work is in the discussion on talk pages, anyway. The meeting of minds, the converging of points of view. ] (]) 01:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


] (]) 14:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
{{u|Count Iblis}}, i fully agree with . I do think that making only a few, high-quality talk page posts would improve my editing. I worry that one talk page comment per week is too few, but perhaps two or three talk page edits per week would suffice. And being more precise / avoiding hyperbole / focusing on content strictly would improve my editing. I am learning. I have learned a lot, and i have much more to learn. Thank you. ] (]) 02:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


=== Statement by TarnishedPath ===
{{od}}
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)
One more case in which i admitted that i was wrong, contrary to Jytdog's claim that i never admit when i am wrong:
::and again at ] '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


===Statement by berchanhimez===
is a diff in which i urge ''everyone'' to slow down and return to good sourcing. And is a comment in which i actually did admit ''to Jytdog'' that the sources do seem to categorize the Whole30 diet as a "fad diet" and i did not oppose its categorization as such. I looked to the sources and saw that you were correct, and admitted it.
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 ====
Like i said, i am attracted to edges. I like to discern what is ''known'' and what is ''not known''. Sometimes this leads to cutting "fringe" and sometimes this leads to rolling back some cutting that may have gone too far, when there actually ''is'' good sourcing to support some content that's been cut. ] (]) 02:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
{{yo|Jytdog}}, response to No, it is '''not''' "obvious to everyone else here" -- that's your delusion / gaslighting phrase. That is evidence of '''your''' behavioral problem -- your domineering and distorting speech. Sorry but you're not God. I take good feedback, but i don't grovel and beg against my principles. I edit well, and you wish to assassinate me. You're more the one who cannot admit to ever being wrong, even when evidence stares you in the face. And '''you''' are the one attacking me and trying to get me banned, so keep that in perspective. Now blaming me for defending myself and trying to gaslight the conversation. People ought to take note of '''that''' if anything. ] (]) 08:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)====
'''''IF''''' i were to propose a condition for myself, i would say "SageRad may not speak of motivations of other editors on article talk pages." I might also propose some kind of interaction limit between Jytdog and myself -- bidirectional. Something like "SageRad and Jytdog must be exceptionally careful to speak without aspersions and to keep all discussion ''strictly'' to content and ''never'' make insinuations about the others' motivations or otherwise insult the other." ] (]) 15:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===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. -->
*<!--
-->
*{{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)
*: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)
*::{{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)
* 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.


: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.
'''''THOSE''''' who discuss how to circumscribe "the topics SageRad is disrupting" are accepting the arguments of Jytdog that i ''am'' disrupting. However, i've shown several of his arguments to be false and to misrepresent what's happened, so bring that into your thinking.


:<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)
There are no grounds to ''assume that i'm guilty'' just Jytdog says so, and a few of his friends say "yeah yeah!"
{{collapse top|title=Tangential}}
::@], 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 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)
::::@], not ECP. ECR: non-EC are restricted from anything but making edit requests. ] (]) 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 ] 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 “] 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}}


*{{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)
Think for yourself, look into the case deeply. You'll see more than is apparent if you only hear those who shout the loudest. ] (]) 21:50, 29 November 2016 (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. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:22, 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.
*:@], 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)


==DanielVizago==
{{od}}
<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===
{{yo|Soham321}} asked me to demonstrate that i am capable of self-criticism. Yes, i am, most certainly. If you read the whole of the above (i know it's a lot, i'm sorry) you will see that i say several times that i can improve, and i want to.
; 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>
I would make fewer comments on talk pages. I would ''never'' impute motivations of other editors in any specific content disputes.


I would go into more esoteric topics and not walk this "edge" of what's known and not known, which is interesting because of the controversy but also fraught with tension.


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
I truly enjoy working with Misplaced Pages, as it's fun, it's a thinker's diversion by which i have learned so much.


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
I would get my sourcing right ''before'' adding an edit instead of making an edit with less than the best sourcing and then having to find better sourcing to defend it.
# 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 :
I would not go so close to the edge. I would stick to less controversial and cutting-edge topics.
*None


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
I would not go looking for controversy, or looking for the "edges" of fringe versus not-fringe.
*I alerted them on


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
I would not concern myself at all with the so-called "Skeptic" movement even though i retain my reckoning of what it is, i would not care anymore what they all do. I would unwatch the "Fringe" noticeboard. I would be satisfied with what i've already said on Jimbo's talk page. Others can discuss it in the future. Enough for me. I've found out what i wanted to, and said my piece.
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'd go editing ] and ] and ] and such things that are not so controversial for whatever reasons.


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
Thanks for asking, Soham321.
*


{{od}}




===Discussion concerning DanielVizago===
I would like to point out that i strictly observed the one-month voluntary break, {{u|Bishonen}} and perhaps i could get credit for that. I lived by my word. Also, note that your assumption that i would have had 20 hours if i'd waited to the 28th is not correct. I have ''other things i must do in life'' and the case hanging over me was onerous so i wrote a quick thing. Your assumptions and reasoning need to be checked. Pretty much all your judgments suffer from the same one-sided viewpoint and lack of understanding.
<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====
If this has "gone on long enough" then why not drop the request? Why would the bias be toward blocking me?


====Statement by caeciliusinhorto====
I am ''not a burden to Misplaced Pages'' when i'm not under fire in this way. I'm only writing to this extent because the trial is purporting to judge me, and with so many bad assumptions and misrepresentations, one wants to protect one's reputation and ability to edit in the future.
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. ])
Like i said, i want to go off into the night gently. I respected the one-month voluntary wikibreak to the extent to you, Bishonen, had to email me to bring me back. I can do that again. I want to be the hell out of here, but this case is onerous and i'm being judged ridiculously. Let this go drop the charges, let this end.
* 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)
What's going on here is ridiculous.... and a huge time-sink for me... but this doesn't mean that simply blocking me for a year is right. It would be very, very wrong. Jytdog's assertions are all so very interpretive and fuzzy, and based on essays and soft concepts, and i have shown him to be wrong on many counts.


====Statement by Simonm223====
I'm not a perfect person but i'm not a bad person. I'm a good editor. I know the policies and i desire to follow them. So i've apparently ruffled feathers by the combination of being pretty sure about some sourcing when it's extremely simple and another person is opposing it vehemently (like ] which really seemed to trigger Jytdog but look at the evidence yourself, please).... and by speaking about trend observations on Jimbo's talk page. Those two things seemed to make me Public Enemy Number One despite not breaking any policies.


You must see past this and how it's a political persecution, not a proper punishment or blocking to "protect Misplaced Pages" -- it only protects certain interests on Misplaced Pages, certain interpretations. ] (]) 22:10, 29 November 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 (username)====
{{u|The Wordsmith}}, i see your note. If everything is dropped here, no block or ban, we would ''not'' end up here in a month, unless another editor has stored up a year's worth of grudges to air in this way. Please, it's not me who has done this. Jytdog has apparently been building up frustrations for a year and saving the diffs, etc. My editing these days is sparse, and is at the very most as you may see at ] which is a condition i have and which is quite interesting scientifically. Or adding an excellent source to ]. Or helping the talk page dialog at ] to get people to clarify their positions and sources. I have a family and work, and other than this horribly time-sinking case, i would rather be off Misplaced Pages save for a few times a month to while away some hours with some scientific pastime, reading journal articles and improving articles in subtle and non-controversial ways. If you buy into the assumption that i've been horribly harmful to Misplaced Pages because Jytdog says so, it's up to you but i would ask you to please look into some of these things, and also to mind that so much of it's from a year ago... and i have learned and mellowed since then. Except for this case because it irks me to be under judgment and microscope of others in this way, but may this please end soon! Please consider that dropping this request would not result in the "same thing" coming up in a month unless someone brings another onerous case (and shouldn't those who do that be challenged instead of obeyed?) ] (]) 23:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning DanielVizago===
{{u|Capeo}}, in response to the logic is not good. I do ''not'' have the time to do this and it's disruptive to my life but i will not stand by and let something roll me away without a fight. Your logic is flawed. It is a huge drain upon me that this is occurring and unfair. And your claim about the misophonia article is mistaken. It's ''two'' MEDRS sources and ''both'' refer simply to misophonia as a "condition" (as shown in ) and there is no complication except what Jytdog is trying to introduce through OR with ] and even that argument is flawed because an idiopathic condition is still called a condition. You are incorrect there. Please check the facts of the matter. Please redact what is incorrect and note to that effect. This is too important to get wrong. Integrity matters, and integrity means representing things accurately. is absolutely available and incontrovertible what i am saying and what Jytdog is saying there. Misophonia is a '''condition''' and this is the '''simplest litmus test regarding integrity possible''' to evaluate that dialog correctly. ] (]) 00:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
:''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. -->
*<!--
-->


]
{{u|Black Kite}}, if the shoe fits. ] (]) 00:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


==Ekdalian==
{{u|Seraphimblade}}, i do mean well. Thank you. I do ''not'' have access to "The Truth" but only to reliable sources. I've never claimed to have "The Truth" on my side. I have admitted to being wrong. I am introspective. I am not perfect and i will say that again. I'm not railing. I don't take disagreements personally. I take ''this'' personally because this is an action to block me, and i don't wish to be blocked. Please understand this. Please also dig into this case. You'll see that some of the things Jytdog has alleged are not true, which is verifiable through diffs i've linked above. That must count for something? Please understand the position i am in. ] (]) 03:23, 30 November 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 Ekdalian===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 03:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


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


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


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
In response to the by {{u|Capeo}} -- what "consensus"? Read the entire ] talk page. It is mainly Jytdog and myself in actual dialog with {{u|Samara-x}} occasionally chiming in, often critical of Jytdog. Jytdog very often left open questions asked of him unanswered. Another editor (CFCF) did re-revert an edit in the same direction as Jytdog but when i pinged them and invited them to discuss they ''never'' discussed anything. You say {{tq|Your response was to ignore consensus, harp on a single word without examining what the sources in question actually conclude...}} But as i read the talk page, there was no "consensus" as you wrote in your comment. Seriously, there was only myself an Jytdog in dialog, disagreeing. How can there be "consensus" there? I also didn't "harp" on a single word. It's about getting the article right. The word is a symbol of the concepts and i certainly ''did'' read the whole Cavanna & Seri paper, i engaged with it. I think i was quite polite and thorough, despite my sensitization to Jytdog prior to that dialog. You've misrepresented things in your comment. That's how this place goes... the drumbeat is sounding and i'm to be killed. Oh well. But you cannot do it with deceptions and distortions. Just kill me because you WANT TO and because i'm "inconvenient" for you... it's not a righteous thing. If you do it while misrepresenting the story, painting me as a bad person, then it gives you an excuse. Go ahead, block me. But don't pretend it's because i'm a bad person. Just do it because you can... because you want to. Just use the raw power and block me because of raw power. That's all it is. And i '''will''' use the word '''''INTEGRITY''''' because it matters. I think you misrepresented what happened at ]. How could there possibly be a "consensus" that i went against when it was only Jytdog and myself in dialog there at the talk page, '''and''' when i didn't force my preferred wording into the article -- as you can see from the edit history? You '''might be right''' about the correct interpretation of the sources, but you weren't there at the talk page, and Jytdog left questions with his logic and claims unaddressed there and clipped the article greatly -- against the wishes of others. So, while your content-related comments ''may'' be correct or not, you weren't there at the talk page to discuss this at the time, and your behavioral claims about me are not correct as far as i can tell from the talk page dialog. I was very willing to figure this out with Jytdog there on the talk page, and i'd gone to the NPOV board to encourage him to use the talk page well and explain his edits. These things could have been resolved well, but he brought it ''here'' as if i am the problem here. I wish you would distinguish your view on whether misophonia is a "condition" from your assessment of my behavior at the ] article. Also, adding a "POV" tag is ''not'' a bad or hostile thing. It's a tool used when there's a POV question that's not been resolved, as a warning to readers and a call to other editors to work on it. There ''was'' a POV dispute and this seemed appropriate. Why do you make it seem wrong how i edited there? Please explain better why my editing there was wrong, if you would? ] (]) 11:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
====Statement by JzG====
<!-- 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.-->
SageRad has taken it upon himself to be arbiter of "integrity" on Misplaced Pages. The recent discussions on Jimbotalk showed that Sage rejects conflicting opinion as invalid, and considers that intergrity is measured by consonance with his ideology. On his user page he links to a website promoting an "ethical skeptic" agenda, which promotes ] (conspiracy theorist and supervisor of Judith Wilyman's substandard and anti-vaccine PhD) and the website where ], ] and others rant against pesky science for not accepting their beliefs. He has adopted the rhetoric of , who was ] while promoting Sheldrake and woo-meister Deepak Chopra (where he also had a COI, IIRC). Sage has used the name of Viharo's website, ''Misplaced Pages, we have a problem'', as the title of at least one o his threads: .
# - 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 :
<!-- 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 ]):
One could put this down to the aftermath of ARBGMO, but long before that he was inserting accusations of censorship against ] based on Gorski's banning him from commenting for trolling. The skeptic community is generally skeptical about anti-GMO rhetoric, and this seems to have set Sage against organised skepticism pretty much from the outset.
*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


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
All this would be fine if Sage were capable of understanding the difference between his opinion and objective fact. He consistently demonstrates that he is not.
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.


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)
Sage is intelligent and articulate, but he lacks the ability to accept that any conclusion differing from his own might be grounded in truth. The diffs above clearly show this. The biggest problem is that any topic ban would have to include all areas subject to skeptical activism, and I don't honestly think he edits anything much else. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
: @Tryptofish: I am not sure this actually is a case of editors who can't stand each other. I can't speak for Jytdog, but I do not dislike Sage at all. That's part of the problem: I feel very conflicted. I like him but his constant ] is vexing. In my opinion, if he could accept the possibility of any valid conclusion other than his own, he would be a valued contributor. He has the time and intelligence to read sources, after all. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
: @SageRad: You ask "What do others want to ask me or have me respond to?" Really? You can ask that still, after the recent discussions at Jimbotalk? I'd say that and contain a pretty complete answer to exactly that question. Your problem is as I state above: you seem unwilling or unable to accept that any conclusion other than yours could possibly be valid, and you clearly consider that anybody who states a conclusion other than yours is ill-informed, stupid, corrupt or some combination of the three. followed by set the tone, and I reckon the whole reason we are here is that if you took a straw poll of those who have spent time trying to work on articles alongside you, most of us would be of the opinion that left to your own devices you would make those edits again right now. It would be lovely to be proved wrong, but I have never seen any evidence of you even acknowledging that these are matters where reasonable people may differ, let alone being open to changing your mind. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
: @Bishonen: Fine with that, Sage has a new baby I think - I can still remember the effects of infant-induced sleep deprivation even two decades later. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
: <ins>''Comments after resumption of case in November 2016''</ins>: {{ping|Bishonen}} Your six month review is fine as long as the topic areas don't include those under current dispute. I would not consider six months at Wikibooks productively writing anti-GMO material to be evidence of rehabilitation, and I don't think you would either. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
* {{u|JerryRussell}}, no this is not an extended content dispute. And Jytdog is absolutely right: the definition of mainstream is that which has predominant support among the relevant scientific community. We have mainstream views on everything, because that is what ] means. The status of ] is irrelevant: the definition of mainstream, along with the canonical policy ], means that Misplaced Pages ''is'', de facto and by design, a mainstream encyclopaedia. ] also has consensus, and if you think this is an accident you can see Jimbo's take at ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:24, 27 November 2016 (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 ]. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 07:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
====Statement by Tryptofish====
I don't have anything particularly global to add, although I agree with Bishonen's concern that there is a genuine time-sink going on.


# So, do you still stand by your aspersions in the edit summary and restoration of disputed content contrary to ]?
Some of this may be wits-end exasperation on the part of good-faith editors, but some of it is also a clash between editors who just cannot stand one another. See also: ]. It's not as simple as white-hats and black-hats.
#Were you wishing to ensure WP:NPOV by poisoning the well against an editor? How does that even help the discussion? Read ].
# So, do you believe you have the right to cast aspersions without accompanying it with required diffs? "Admins are aware how you had kept the term 'Kshatriya' in the article on ] in spite of knowing that it is an agrarian caste! " - Which admins are aware of this "edit" that you accuse CharlesWain of pushing? In fact you made a similar accusation before too but it was a different good faith editor that made that edit not, CharlesWain.
#So you think the onus to achieve consensus depends not on the people who want to include the content but on those who dispute it?
# It's only you who considered it a WIP version contrary to these comments that indicates that there was a consensus at the talkpage , secondly why did you perform a blanket revert only because your previous edit was reverted, isn't that a very ] behaviour?
# Why did you have to start a heated edit war? You could instead asked them for clarification to know what exactly they meant when they said that content needs to be "revisited". You state that the editor has been warned for "teaming up with Nobita", when did that happen?
# Knowing someone on wiki doesn't mean you get to attack them also what do you mean by "behaving like Nobita"?
# Do you really think the attack you made at the editor and saying that you don't need to achieve consensus with them just because they were blocked for edit warring was the "truth"?
# Same as above, that restoration combined with your assertion here proves that you think it's appropriate to poison the well.
# Read ] and ], vandalism and disruptive editing are not the same, the only thing being discussed here is that diff which you still assert as vandalism, not the account. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 13:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
Instead of editors getting sucked into tl;dr arguments where nobody persuades anyone else, have content RfCs been adequately explored as a way of moving past logjams? (Example RfC question: "Below are some sources that say that misphonia is a genuine disorder, and some sources that say that it is not. Taking the sources together, should this page present it as a genuine disorder?")
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
I've been trying to think of a possible DS restriction on SageRad that might be practical to design. Perhaps a word limit for talk page comments about AltMed pages? --] (]) 18:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


===Discussion concerning Ekdalian===
:{{re|Jytdog}} I did not say it was interpersonal at its base. It isn't. But it is, partly ("some"). --] (]) 19:15, 24 October 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>
:@Guy: I agree with you that Sage has a lot of potential as an editor, and I was referring more to Jytdog than to you, but despite the replies from Jytdog and from you, I still think that my statement is accurate. --] (]) 00:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
====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. ] (]) 06:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: I IAR put back (collapsed) the version of Sage's statement that he had reverted, and I think that it is a better statement than his original one. @Sage: you are permitted to add to your original statement, so you can always add new stuff (well, there's a word limit that is not being followed at the moment) as long as you don't delete the old stuff; you can also strike through anything you wrote. --] (]) 00:43, 25 October 2016 (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. ] (]) 06:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::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)


*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)
====Statement by Kingofaces43====
*:{{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)
I've been seeing problems with SageRad continue to brew on my watchlist after their GMO sanctions. Just in the context of their previous sanctions from GMOs, part of the reasoning why they were topic banned was the exact same behavior we're still seeing here. When people start to complain about how a topic is being antagonized by SageRad's continued soapboxing, they're often met with SageRad's "What, who me?" responses when told to knock it off just like we are seeing in their response to this AE. Basically, disruption in fringe and health topics followed by playing the victim when they're behavior on article pages is called out. Add in the obvious battleground behavior, and we're back to where we were with SageRad before the GMO ArbCom case. That's especially apparent with their "othering" (i.e., "bullies") of editors that try to curtail the disruption SageRad causes in topics where they engage in advocacy or soapboxing about their personal ideals. It's becoming apparent SageRad just won't listen even after their sanctions. Same behavior as GMOs, just different topics now.
*:{{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)


*Thanks {{u|LukeEmily}} for commenting here! I don't think I have to explain every diff provided here since Bishonen has already mentioned that {{tq|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.}} But as LukeEmily suggested, let me answer each point briefly:
At the end of the day, I don't have strong convictions about specific action against SageRad since I don't have to deal with them in my topic areas anymore (mainspace at least), but it's apparent they just moved their behavior issues outside their topic ban. I do feel for editors that still end up putting up with this behavior pretty regularly though. Here area a few ideas for sanctions to impose on SageRad that should at least stop the disruption and maybe turn them around:
*:1. My edit summary explains why I reverted.
*:2. I wanted to ensure that NPOV is maintained.
*:3. I am not filing anything anywhere against the user; why shall I provide evidence? The concerned user understands what I mean!
*:4. Again, my edit summary explains why I reverted.
*:5. No, this is not the last consensus version, it represents a WIP version; explained today on ]!
*:6. LukeEmily has already accepted the lapse in communication for point numbers 5 and 6.
*:7. It was a request since I know the user (interacted in Misplaced Pages for years) and I expect rational behavior from him! I have used the word 'please'.
*:8. Saying the truth in order to ensure NPOV; repetition (refer to point number 2)!
*:9. Same as above! The editor should not have reverted my edits on the article talk page!
*:10. If the filer cannot understand what is vandalism/disruptive editing, I have nothing to say. The user has already been blocked for vandalism! Thanks & Regards. ] (]) 09:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by Orientls====
1. '''One-way interaction ban when dealing with Jytdog'''. I don't have super strong support for this as it's really just a band-aid, but the continued battleground behavior is obvious while Jytdog has been acting at least relatively reasonable (though obviously frustrated) in the face of this string of continued behavior. I'm usually open to less complicated two-way bans, but I think we can agree SageRad's behavior is the core issue here to work on first.


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.
2. '''Expanding topic bans''' as JzG mentioned. Probably the most concrete topic ban would be a broadly construed ban on any topic related to health (including environmental contamination for clarity). A topic ban on any ] topic could be a secondary consideration, but that's harder to define for avoiding wikilawyering. Word limits might have been a consideration back when SageRad was newer to Misplaced Pages, but the issue here seems to be they just can't let go in these topics.


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.
3. '''Long-term block'''. SageRad has used tons of rope already still showing behavior (regardless of what they actually say) that they are not ] and are instead using Misplaced Pages more for soapboxing and hyperbole. Maybe that can change if they are handed a topic ban that gets them out of this activism mindset and into topics where they can act like a normal editor. I think we have to acknowledge though that if this all continues, the ] is going leading to this last option. ] (]) 02:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


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.
:Seeing ] and ] comments on on applicable DS for a topic ban, explicitly imposes DS on "all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted". In terms of DS, there would be no issue with a ] topic ban option, and the case could be made under that for a medical topic ban because that's where the fringe issues occur. ] (]) 15:17, 25 October 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)
<ins>''Comments after resumption of case in November 2016''</ins>:
====Statement by LukeEmily====
I came across this by accident(don't have any email address associated with my account for private communication). I was not pinged here although my name was mentioned. In general, I agree with {{ping|Bishonen}}. Bishonen and other Admins, please may I request a couple of days to review/comment on each point in more detail? {{ping|Ekdalian}}, please could you change your response to be '''very''' specific for each of the 10 points made? Also, please be less emotional("are you God?" is an emotional response):-). Please could you respond in terms of diffs(facts) for each point instead of subjective statements that are difficult to confirm without diffs? (5) and (6) were not Ekdalian's fault. Yes, it is true that I disagreed with Ekdalian about the content/consensus. But Ekdalian's good faith misunderstanding about my position was due to my faulty communication, I did in fact say "revisit" and apologized later and took responsibility for my unclear statements ] (]) 01:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)


It looks like SageRad hasn't shown any improvement over their break. There already was a pretty clear admin consensus that a block was needed (after multiple blocks already), and SageRad was given a whole month after that to organize a response. They pretty much squandered that and went back to soapboxing, going way over the word limit to near 5,000 words (after complaining about other editors that actually did scale back to 500 words), and still engaging in obvious battleground mentality, especially with the Jytdog this and Jytdog that comments. That's especially after they are trying to about speaking to editor motivations and avoiding Jytdog only to immediately turn around and start taking potshots in their next edits (i.e,). Not to mention mention and endorsing an IP edit here that casts ] about me too (we'd need to hand out interaction bans left and right to tamp this behavior down). This shows a complete personal disregard for the disruption SageRad is causing.

It's very clear by their continued actions (regardless of what they say) that SageRad is not ] by their primary actions here being kicking up battleground drama. Things like 0RR or editing restrictions could have been useful in the past, but Sage lost the ability for that much rope many blocks and sanctions ago. It's clear that nothing is going to fix Sage's battleground mentality across the board. They just keep digging their hole deeper here, so this really should be a strong candidate for a block with all that in mind, especially when such an editor continues behavior they know they are going to be sanctioned for. The recently proposed editing restrictions will just end us up right here again due to SageRad's editing mentality apparent in their actions. ] (]) 17:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Skyring====
After a tangential mention in discussion below, a tangential comment. SageRad has his own strong views, is well-informed, intelligent, and productive. There's a place for him here. But when he encounters opposition, rather than discuss the points of opposition in the context on improving the article(s), he takes it personal and tries to convert other editors to his views, which he considers to be the rational factual objective plain truth, and everybody else is a deluded fool or a tool of big business or something, and ultimately Misplaced Pages is fatally flawed because of this evil and that evil.

Well, it's not. It works, it's a valuable reference, it's an internet marvel. SageRad should get offa his soapbox, work with those who have contrary opinions, and for the love of ghod, stop filling pages with long rambling rants! SageRad, we love you, we want you, it's just your behaviour needs a bit of a tweak. Okay? --] (]) 06:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Alexbrn====
As an editor who has had a role in the current ] article I was surprised to see, on 20 October, postings by SageRad on both the article's Talk page and at ] report a "POV issue" because "This article presents 'chemophobia' as if it's a psychological phenomenon ..."
*
*
On re-reading the article I saw (as did a number of other editors) that this is simply not the case: the article says ''precisely'' the opposite. This has been pointed out but since then no retraction, explanation or further comment has been made. On top of SageRad's editing history this looks far from being constructive activity. What is going on?

Because of SageRad's problematic stance towards skepticism I don't think a TBAN on health content is quite right - a TBAN needs to cover (probably in addition) any topic covered by the ] guidance - broadly construed - though I fear this will not succeed because SageRad seems to have a novel view of what is, and is not, fringe that is out-of-sync with the Project. ] (]) 09:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by OID====
@Wordsmith, discretionary sanctions are authorised for a number of areas SageRad has been problematic in. So realistically you could apply any sanction you wanted (provided you felt it had merit). The real issue is that SageRad is not topic-bound in his disruption. He has an anti-skeptic agenda which manifests in disruptive editing wherever skepticism is evident. He is not pro-fringe as it was, just anti-evidence-based science. His editing MO is to show up at an article, declare bias, argue with people until he finally gets they dont agree with him, then rants about how everything is unfair.

The problem is fringe and skepticism cover a huge range of topics. From pseudoscience, lifestyle, history, medical etc. Normally a targetted topic ban would suffice, but to limit SageRad's disruption would require a 0/1 revert restriction AND some sort of enforced character limit on discussions. And even *then* that would really only just keep disruption to a minimum, it wouldnt prevent anything as SageRad has a worldview that is incompatible with how Misplaced Pages populates article content. Alexbrn has laid out the most recent example. Jzg and a couple of others say SageRad is clearly intelligent etc, but I disagree. SageRad has repeatedly failed to grasp basic[REDACTED] concepts & policies, and as Alexbrn's example shows above, clearly has an issue in reading comprehension. There is a CIR issue here. This may be because he skim-reads and fails to grasp what is actually said - Jytdog has listed a number of examples where SageRad cherry-picks/looks at brief abstracts/summaries instead of reading and understanding what material actually says.

But this disruption is not limited to Misplaced Pages, this is just his latest venue for pushing his POV/Agenda. He came here (and was subsequently sanctioned) after getting into conflict with Gorski. He previously linked to his rants/comments offsite - and even a basic internet search shows his attack-dog mentality when criticised (just in case anyone thinks to accuse me of outing, SageRad has previously linked to his offsite comments himself, then deleted them when it was pointed out they showed his bias). If you are unable to actually implement a workable sanction, this will need to go to ANI or Arbcom for a site ban discussion. ] (]) 14:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
:Annnnd we reached the hysterical McCarthy accusations again (this is an ongoing theme, if you take a look at SageRad's talkpage history, specificially their interactions with MjolnirPants). Essentially this illustrates the problem - where multiple people disagree with SageRad, its everyone else that is the problem. Keep in mind, this is multiple editors in multiple topics over an extended period of time (since SageRad came to wikipedia). This is simply a case of 'this person is not suited for wikipedia'. Failure to agree with others is generally fine. People are not required to agree all the time. Failure to agree plus disruption plus personal attacks, plus agenda pushing plus inability to accept consensus is not ok. ] (]) 16:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
:'cool down blocks' imply there is something to cool down from. Or that SageRad is acting out currently. This is not the case. SageRad's current behaviour is completely normal for him. Both during his entire tenure at Misplaced Pages, and his off-site activities. ] (]) 07:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
*<ins>''Comments after resumption of case in November 2016''</ins>:

Just popped in from my holiday to address Wordsmith: any topic ban by necessity would need to be so broad as to be unworkable. "Things Sagerad decided today he thinks are biased" would about cover it. Likewise unless you are going to interaction ban him from most of the contributors to the fringe, RS and NPOV noticeboards, again fairly pointless. The point of restrictions on an editor is to minimise disruption to the editing process of the encyclopedia - at this point the simplest and effective way is *at least* a one year block until they learn to play with others. ] (]) 18:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

====Plea by DrChrissy ====
I am not here to comment on the merits or otherwise of this case, rather, I am here to make observations on Sage's behaviour and a plea for a moritorium. Sage's most recent behaviour on this noticeboard and at other places is very uncharacteristic for him. He is making unfocussed edits and flailing around in the multiple threads regarding his behaviour. He has even resorted to swearing which I don't think I have ever seen him do before. His baby is a new baby, I think only 6 weeks old or so, and I think is his first. To make this brief, I believe Sage may be experiencing some sort of melt-down. A moritorium would show compassion and allow Sage to either calm down and/or make decisions in a more rational way which Arbcom would be more able to deal with. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 17:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Robert McClenon====
Unfortunately, I see two problems here. The first has to do with the subject editor, ], who has been editing aggressively since May 2015 with a strong point of view on medical and agricultural topics. The second has to do with the history between the subject editor and the filing editor, ]. Jytdog has long been editing aggressively in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy to try to ensure that medical and scientific articles follow Misplaced Pages ] guidelines. Jytdog is almost always right with regard to policy, and has made enemies in Misplaced Pages, and SageRad is one of them, and SageRad has been aggressively attacking Jytdog since he began editing Misplaced Pages in May 2015. (SageRad made a few scattered edits before then.) Jytdog is absolutely correct in writing:
Actually, one more thing. The history between SageRad and me does go back to his very first edits here.

Jytdog is completely correct in writing:
I don't seek SageRad out; he keeps showing up on topics I edit and behaving this way.

I first became familiar with SageRad when he showed up at ] hounding Jytdog and claiming mistakenly to be a DRN volunteer. SageRad has been going after Jytdog at least since June 2015.

It is impossible to reason with SageRad to advise him that his behavior is disruptive. SageRad has, since May 2015, seen all efforts to advise him to modify his behavior as "McCarthyism" and "bullying". SageRad was topic-banned by the ArbCom from the topic area of genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals. (In case anyone argues that there was a ] proceeding, he wasn’t just banned by one kangaroo under discretionary sanctions. He was banned by the community-elected panel of kangaroos, except that we are not kangaroos because we are great apes.) He has recently been blocked twice, first for five days, then for one month. It isn’t clear why SageRad is so determined to change Misplaced Pages when he has apparently decided that Misplaced Pages is such an ugly corrupt place, but that is SageRad.

If any editor other than Jytdog had been the one filing this request, I would suggest that SageRad be '''Site-Banned'''. As it is, Jytdog is the wrong editor to be filing this request, because Jytdog is right, but it looks too much like (almost justified) revenge. I suggest that SageRad be blocked for another month, and that Jytdog be asked to let other editors deal with SageRad after he is unblocked this time.
] (]) 17:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Capeo====
I was trying to avoid commenting here because I've butted heads enough with Sage that it just feels like piling on. That said, what the admins here are seeing as a meltdown is actually pretty par for the course. Outbursts claiming McCarthyism (such as here against Guy or here against... everyone I guess) are fairly normal with Sage, though the Stalinism claim is a new one to me. This has been an ongoing issue when it comes to such hyperbolic claims against other users or WP in general. ] (]) 18:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a further note to admins, it seems unlikely SageRad will accept a voluntary editing restriction after saying they wouldn't accept an enforced one. I highly doubt it will work and will just serve to incite more drama. Perhaps I'm wrong, and SageRad will be fine with it, but I don't think you're going to get the response you're hoping for. ] (]) 20:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Because SageRad keeps insisting that folks look at the Misophonia talk page I did. As well as the article, its history, its sources and the current research. The article was a mess earlier in the year with extraordinary levels of advocate editing. To the degree that editors were adding things to the article, openly in edit summaries no less, to favor particular researchers. The majority of editors on the talk page over the last couple years I looked at also say they have Misophonia. It was brought back to some semblance of balance by Jytdog and others back in February. It quickly spiraled back to being a mess in the interceding months. Looking at the current research "a proposed condition" is exactly the proper way to characterize Misophonia according to the preponderance of RS. There is no diagnostic criteria for it. It's not listed in any diagnostic text. It's near invariably associated with other conditions such as OCD (primarily), anxiety disorders, Autism spectrum or Tourette's Syndrome. SageRad's selective use of a sentence from the Cavanna abstract is not engaging with the actual sources or even the abstract in question, or even Cavanna's actual paper. Even in the abstract itself, it's admitted "At the present stage, competing paradigms see misophonia as a physiological state potentially inducible in any subject, an idiopathic condition (which can present with comorbid psychiatric disorders), or a symptomatic manifestation of an underlying psychiatric disorder."

Cavanna and the one study he cites that agrees with him (that aren't his own) is the only person I can find that presently suggests it might be a primary condition. Even then he admits, in regard to the current definition of Misophonia, "This definition challenges the subsequently proposed views that misophonia is a discrete/idiopathic condition (which can present with comorbid psychiatric disorders)8 or a symptomatic manifestation of an underlying psychiatric disorder, at least in a proportion of cases.4 If confirmed by future systematic studies in large populations, the presence of high rates of comorbidity would go against the argument that misophonia should be labeled as a primary diagnosis. In fact, it would suggest that it is a symptom manifestation of other underlying or comorbid diagnoses and should more appropriately be labeled as a symptom, rather than as a stand-alone diagnosis. Either way, the addition of misophonia to nosographic classification systems of psychiatric disorders, such as the DSM, would require careful consideration." 8 is the study I mentioned. 4 is a short paper by Cavanna. Long story short: Jytdog's wording is correct and it appears SageRad is ignoring the caveats the source in question, which he provided, which isn't even close to the totality of sources in question. ] (]) 01:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by MjolnirPants====
I'm not going to post my usual, fifteen paragraph explanation of every nuance of my own thoughts about this. I'm just going to say two things.
#I actually do 'like' SageRad in that I get the impression I could have a few beers with him, work alongside him, or have a friendly relationship with him as my next door neighbor. I would likely befriend him if I knew him IRL.
#I absolutely, wholeheartedly, 100% without reservation '''support a permanent site ban'''. His views are immutable, and they are utterly incompatible with Misplaced Pages. He constantly expresses angst and frustration at his participation here. This is one of those rare cases where a permanent site ban would (eventually) make everyone happier, including Sage. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 19:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


*<ins>''Comments after resumption of case in November 2016''</ins>: After the break, I just want to express my support for the proposal by {{u|Bishonen}} below. {{u|SageRad}}, I would much rather you spend time with your family than spend time fruitlessly banging your head against the wall here. Like I said above, my main reason for supporting this is because I see it as being best for ''you'' as well as WP. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 00:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
*{{ping|SageRad}} What we want and what is best for us is often not the same thing. For example, I want everyone I argue with here to bow to my superior intellect and post glowing praise about how intelligent and eloquent I am, to be responded to by the few who have met me in real life, adding how devastatingly handsome, well-endowed and skilled in the sack I am. But I think we can all agree that would result in me becoming pretty much the exact opposite of all those things. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 00:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
*{{ping|SageRad}} In consideration of the way you have often reacted to humor, I have written a much more serious response ''']'''. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 17:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by (Roxy the dog)====
I'm going to tender for the ] supply contract with wikipedia. Must be racing up in value. -] ] 08:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Count Iblis ====
<ins>''Comments after resumption of case in November 2016''</ins>: In general Jytdog is doing an excellent job keeping Misplaced Pages clear of quack edits and pseudo-scientific arguments. SageRad has shown problematic behavior in this respect. The case of articles like the one about Michael Greger are, however, a special case where the consensus is wrong. We have to keep in mind here that unlike in case of a topic like climate change where the scientific community has been able to keep unreasonable skeptics from polluting the science with false arguments, in case of nutrition the science has been compromised, see e.g. about Dr. Alderman's conduct. What has happened as a result of this polarization within the scientific community, were frankly some scientists are getting away with conduct that would be considered to be scientific fraud if this were going on in another field, is that the dangers of a bad diet will not be highlighted as much as it should. So, while we all know that smoking is bad because it raised the chance of getting lung cancer by a factor of ten, few people know that the same i true w.r.t. not eating enough fibers and the chance of getting colon cancer. This this then why people like Greger, etc. speak out, attract huge audiences but people looking at Misplaced Pages only see the watered down consensus view where the truth seems to be deeply buried.

Then because the Misplaced Pages community has failed to deal with this problem (which amounts to giving scientific articles written by people like Dr. Alderman a lot less weight than the people who have done proper scientific research), advocate editors who may well have the wrong sort of agenda on most other topics, step into this subject and are then able to raise arguments that get some traction. That then leads to the article in question getting locked because it's then not only SageRad anymore that you could eliminate to fix the problem.

Apart from this issue, there of course do also exist other articles about genuine fad diets that may be edited in unacceptable ways by their supporters. But I think it is very important for us to make sure the real problems that do exist within the science of nutrition are dealt with here in a better way, as that will allow us to deal with problem editors much better. ] (]) 19:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest a 0RR restriction for SageRad and a one edit per week per article limit (including talk pages, so it's one edit to the article and one talk page edit per week). If you can only make one edit that you cannot revert, then this is a waste of time unless you know that your edit will stick. If it is not seen to be good enough and reverted, you can use the talk page to explain what you wanted to do, but you can only have one attempt at making your point, so unless you can write down something that your fellow editors will consider to be good arguments, it will be futile.

Giving people just one attempt to get it right, make whatever they've done a waste of time if it's not right, can work wonders. When I was at university, a professor told us on the first day that we had to study hard because there was only going to be one make-up exam, after that we would have to wait until next year. Also he had the habit of not raising his voice at the start of lectures if the students were not yet quiet. It is amazing how quickly a class full of loud students would become quiet simply due to the professor being inaudible and the fact that it would be a problem if you don't pass the exam. ] (]) 01:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

{{re|SageRad}} I agree what edit warring isn't the issue, but I do think that limiting the amount of edits you'll end up focusing more on the core of your argument. By moving away from talk page conversations to a more formal presentation of your point of view where you write something there as if it were a journal article, you'll automatically tend to stay away from invoking things like "Stalinism". After all, if the other editors cannot accept what they are reading, they'll not take on board your arguments and you don't get to argue with whatever they have to say. The best you can do is to make your arguments as acceptable as possible, which means staying away from hyperboles, basing it on peer reviewed articles as much as possible. ] (]) 01:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by JerryRussell====
<ins>''Comments after resumption of case in November 2016''</ins>:
This is an extended content dispute. And in my opinion, Jytdog is in the wrong. The problem is described at this diff: where Jytdog argues that Misplaced Pages is a "mainstream" encyclopedia. It is not: ] is a '''failed proposal'''. The appropriate policy is, that Misplaced Pages is ]!! All of the so-called battleground behavior that is described above is a result of Jytdog and his allies attempting to push "mainstream" views to the exclusion of other views which are also supported by reliable sources. ] (]) 20:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

:{{ping|JzG}}, do you dispute my statement that ] was a ''failed proposal'' that failed to achieve consensus because many editors opposed it? What about ], also a failed proposal, right? Of course I agree that Misplaced Pages completely describes the "mainstream" view, identifies it as such, and gives it pride of place per ]. But, Wiki also represents so-called "fringe" views neutrally.

:{{ping|Bishonen}}, in your new statement and call for a block, you mention SageRad's criticism of Jytdog here, as further evidence that SageRad needs to be blocked. But since SageRad is asking for a boomerang, isn't this the one venue where such criticism gets a safe harbor? Or am I mistaken?

:{{ping|Tryptofish}}, your comment {{tq|he is taking a sort of Thomas More role, and there's only one way that can end}} is very apropos. For one thing, it plays into the blood metaphor -- which I think is over-the-top, but SageRad started it. More importantly, Thomas More met his end under King Henry VIII, one of the most notorious tyrants of history. Is that our model for running Misplaced Pages?

:You mentioned that SageRad should have listed his accomplishments here, rather than at his user page. Well, we can fix this. Here's what he said:

:{{tq| Have i "ruined" the article on the Paleo diet? How about Misophonia? How about the dozen or more articles i've created? How about adding sources on ]? How about improving ]? How about working out issues on ]? How about helping work out conflicts at ]? Really. I have done much good work and i do not deserve this. Especially as i have stated that i am totally willing to not speak to anyone's potential motivations on any article talk page. That's the crux here, isn't it? Isn't that the one thing i really did wrong on occasion? And isn't that something done so so so often by others when it's the "other direction" in terms of point of view? In the "dominant viewpoint" that's been crystallizing on Misplaced Pages? I would really appreciate (honestly) a simple and direct from-the-heart answer to this.

Pages created:
* ] (species of bacteria)
* ] (psychological concept coined by Otto Rank)
* ] (native leader in the time of colonization by Europeans)
* ] (first hat maker in the "Hat City" town of ])
* ] (a noble man who helped develop blight-resistant American chestnut through back-breeding)
* ] (sources were used in the ] article that were misleading as they applied to a different Tory's Cave, this one. I created an article for that Tory's Cave, and transcribed a poem about the cave into the article. I hope that the people in the area pick this up and develop the article more. Rather than throwing away good sources, i preferred to create a new article for the other cave. I wish all editors had a generous attitude in regard to editing -- to build rather than to simply delete. This historical work is fascinating.
* ] (a cave in ] where a noted Tory sympathizer hid. Continues my spelunking expedition begun with cleaning up ].)
* ] (an early settler of ] who did not support the ] and ended up run out of town and hiding in ])
* ] successor to sachemship after ], lived well, was highly respected.
* ] Connecticut historian and genealogist of colonial times.}} (copied from SageRad's user page) ] (]) 00:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

:Complaints are coming in from the admins below, that this case is becoming a time sink, therefore it's necessary to issue the block and get it over with. Wouldn't it be equally just as easy to end the time sink with a "not guilty" finding? And that would have the advantage of taking the wind out of SageRad's "McCarthyite" charges.

:I just noticed that ] has a COI statement at his user page. He says he works for a small startup pharmaceutical company. He promises not to edit articles directly related to his company or its products, or anything to do with acute neurological disorders. He says that should draw a fence around his COI. But, does it really? Obviously, as a person who works in the industry, he must have other friends who also work in the industry. According to WP:COI, one should avoid editing in areas related to one's friends. Could Jytdog's industry connections have anything to do with the very powerful POV displayed in Jytdog's conflict with SageRad?

:And, why aren't the admins asking any of these questions? ] (]) 21:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC) tweaked at Bishonen's request, see my talk page ] (]) 02:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement 2 by Tryptofish====
<ins>''Comments after resumption of case in November 2016''</ins>:
When I see an editor who is in a protracted dispute but who seems to me to have it in them to be a good and productive editor, I try to find a way for them to become such a good editor. Here, I have failed, and I feel very bad about it, because I like Sage and I really do believe that he has it in him if he wants. Yesterday, I tried hard at his user talk to give him useful advice, and I see that today, he has thanked me and said that he followed about half of my advice. You are welcome, truly. But I guess you followed the wrong half. In his new statement here, he has a bullet list of things he says he does correctly ("I don't say..."). Unfortunately, he does most of those very things wrong right here in his new statement. On his user talk page, he listed articles where he has made good contributions, and I wish he had done that here instead. In any case, Sage genuinely believes in what he says here, and he is incorrect. I guess he is taking a sort of ] role, and there's only one way that can end. Bishonen's proposed solution is as good as anything that I can think of. --] (]) 22:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
:I've read the comments that were pinged to me, and I really cannot think of anything more that I can say here. I also want to note that some editors have made new comments, but have put them in the pre-break section. --] (]) 20:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
::I've read the more recent comments by admins, about whether there could be an alternative to a block that would allow Sage to continue to make content contributions, something like a civility restriction, and I wish I had a good idea about how to make that work. But I think the problem would be that, per what Sage has been saying here, it's a sure-thing that he will say something that would send us back here. --] (]) 21:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by olive====
<ins>''Comments after resumption of case in November 2016''</ins>:
I am traveling and on a borrowed computer with internet that may quit anytime, so these are quick observations rather than a statement.

<del>*{{u|Dennis Brown}} Per your comment on the recent discussion on Sage Red's talk page. Sage Red is understandably upset. Why during an AE that Jytdog opened is Jytdog on Sage Red's talk page reprimanding Sage Red. If I assume good faith, that Jytdog was trying to help, this is at best poorly judged and shows an ongoing propensity to push editors too far. How far did Jytdog push his agenda on article talk pages and why aren't we asking that question? I don't see that this is a one sided problem. A fair resolution might be an interaction ban. Is it fair to judge Sager Red on that page during this time?</del>
* I see a listing here of articles Sage Red has contributed to in a substantial way. Why is he being removed from these articles as would happen with a site ban? A site ban says, you have not contributed in a way that is valued. Is his behavior on these article sanctionable? If not, and I don't see sanctionable behavior, we should be able to discriminate between potentially problematic articles and others, with a sanction that also discriminates. I am not suggesting a sanction of any kind, to be clear, beyond an interaction ban.
*Frankly, I looked at the last article Sage Red was involved in and was surprised when an AE was filed. I saw a discussion about sources; I saw two editors, not one, who felt strongly about the way sources should be used. Neither was automatically right.
* Sage Red has said he will be brief in his comments in the future. I'd also suggest that no editor should be determining how much another editor needs to explain a position. I've worked with editors who are so brief as to be impossible to understand. One is not better than the other. I wonder if time sink means impatience with another's viewpoint. This is a collaborative project which means non one controls articles or talk pages and no one controls a discussion. When they do its called ownership. Attempts to "control" are bound to create problems in a discussion like frustration.
* I believe, and especially given my own experiences, that we have at best a somewhat skewed version of what went on in these discussion and at worst the wrong end of the stick completely.(] (]) 03:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC))

**'''This is the most enlightened comment I've seen throughout this AE:''' Credit Count Iblis remarks here

''Giving people just one attempt to get it right, make whatever they've done a waste of time if it's not right, can work wonders....
''

and

''@SageRad: I agree what edit warring isn't the issue, but I do think that limiting the amount of edits you'll end up focusing more on the core of your argument. By moving away from talk page conversations to a more formal presentation of your point of view where you write something there as if it were a journal article, you'll automatically tend to stay away from invoking things like "Stalinism". After all, if the other editors cannot accept what they are reading, they'll not take on board your arguments and you don't get to argue with whatever they have to say. The best you can do is to make your arguments as acceptable as possible, which means staying away from hyperboles, basing it on peer reviewed articles as much as possible. Count Iblis (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

What many may not understand here is how it feels to be accused as SageRed was or is, how it feels to be to told you should have listened by the person or people who have been in conflict with you, or the desperation one feels when misunderstood. Instead of a steam roller remedy could we implement something more specific to the perceived problems which will preserve an editor's abilities while helping them integrate into a culture that is very specific to Misplaced Pages. I have also been in conflict with Jytdog and I can tell you he is not always right nor is his manner always easy to deal with. As we should with Sage Red, we protect Jytdog for what he does right. I'd like to see us try a more humane, enlightened approach to disputes making it possible to hold on to editors with talent and abilities, and as in Jytdog's case commitment, rather than toss away what is not replaceable.(] (]) 03:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC))

**As always the limitations of arbitrations AE and AN, AN/I notice boards is that it is truly impossible to have a sense of a situation unless one has been involved and following closely. Sometimes the decisions almost accidentally hit the mark and are accurate; more often though the experienced editor can produce diffs that paint a picture that with out context and the experience of being in that situation cannot be disproved. I am not going to question Jytdog's motives here; I don't know what they are. Nor am I going to question Sage Red's, but what I would like to see this community move towards is the knowledge that we don't ever really know the whole story, that our particular views may be slanted, that we don't have body language and voice to judge truthfulness. What we can do is see that editors are valuable and that we can, once the light shines on a problem situation, who ever created it, design remedies that act as guides to the boundaries the community has developed and give the editors and I say editor'''s''' a chance to learn to function within those boundaries. I think this system is archaic. Can't we be more enlightened with how we treat people, with how we deal with problems , with understanding the limitations of a computer screen and a few diffs.(] (]) 02:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC))

====Statement by SashiRolls====

<ins>''Comments after resumption of case in November 2016''</ins>:
* I will ''testify'' that I have read the 6 diffs adduced to the Scientific Skepticism page and don't see anything untoward in them whatsoever. Nor do I see a serious problem with any other diff I have looked at (in misophonia and in detoxification)
* I will ''say'' that I think SageRad's contributions seem impressive.
* I will ''mention'' that I've interacted with Jytdog on ] and found him preemptive and unpleasant in calling an RfC "putrid". While I completely agree with his conclusion that the OP's gallup poll should not be included in the lead, I think he could be less combative in stating his POV.
* I will ''admit'' that when I read {{yo|Tryptofish}} calling SageRad Thomas More, my first thought was for ] or ] and not for SageRad's head. I think all might do well to re-read ] incidentally.
* I will ''keep quiet'' about all that I am meant to ''keep quiet'' about, except to say that I think the arguments made by JerryRussell above about ] being a failed proposal are important ones. While you are all discussing in a scientific domain, where some seem to think there is a verifiable and replicable truth, imagine how much trickier it becomes in parts of Misplaced Pages where it is a question of less verifiable sciences... voodoo economics, sociology and the like.
* I will ''moan'' that I have suffered '''much''' worse attacks from editors than what I see any evidence above that SageRad has been guilty of. In fact, perhaps because of where I've clicked in the Smörgåsbord of diffs above, I've yet to see an attack.
* I will ''note'' that I find the suggestion that SageRad be forced to leave for his own good decidedly paternalistic (which does not mean to say it is necessarily untrue).
* I will ''close'' by asking you to be clement. AE should not be ]. ] (]) 00:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

After posting:
:* I will ''be threatened'' by Jytdog as follows for making this statement (the "this" in the following citation from my talk page refers here): " was unwise. Your battleground behavior will be obvious to admins at the AE, and if you keep editing promotionally on ] and that becomes an issue we need to bring to ANI, that diff will become a key piece of evidence for your being ]. ] (]) 03:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)"
:* For the record, I have been on "the anti-promo team" if I've been on any team at all at that page and have done as much as anyone there to ensure a pleasant editing environment. I have also been thanked by several editors for my work trying to restablish NPOV on that page.
:* Is this how AE works? Ignore the users, allow those who bully them to carry on... business as usual? ] this morning, before work & coffee <small>timestamp</small>

After work:
:* Sorry Jytdog. That just kind of broke the Monday morning routine into "panic", wondering what I'd done and if there really was a cabal and everything. I need a Wiki-break. ^^ ] (]) 17:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Request
:* Wouldn't it be simplest just to reassure us that the charges aren't true Bishonen, rather than sending us to study someone's talk page? That's a lot of folks who seem "wp:involved" and a lot of us who are just gazing on with wonder. Remember our discussion about transparency? Smear s(m)ells, light is better. ] (]) 22:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Final comment concerning experiments and new users
:* I would like to thank Bob K31416 for testing the waters over at misophonia, because it makes clear how a new user tends to be "broken into" a page. My own experience with Jytdog, above, also speaks to this issue of how new "unknown" users are treated. While I am not criticizing either Jytdog or Roxy the Dog, I do think it is telling that both reacted without trying to understand what Bob K31416 or I were getting at, but instead both seem to have chosen to either ABF and/or invoke their power as holders of a certain preestablished consensus (what SageRad has called House POV). I will not belabor the point by comparing this at length to my own experience, though I would note that one actor below (Tryptofish) has been active in both cases (and was incidentally the first commenter on the GMO RfC, and if I've understood correctly, the author of the winning formulation). The ways in which this RfC has been used are unhealthy, though admittedly coming from an environment (José Bové land) in which the opposite conclusions are the media consensus, it is an interesting change of POV. While I know that the specifics of this case are not directly related to GMO, I do know that I was brought to AE for allegedly violating the same RfC on GMO. This was rejected as a "red herring" relatively quickly in my own case, and by observing my topic ban (despite later developments showing that I was not the problem on the page in question) I have started enjoying Misplaced Pages more, since I no longer deal with aggressive character attacks (perhaps because I'm starting to be known a little bit and have learned when ''not'' to push -- which, actually, quite often is when it's time to hit "save" for a change that page "owners" would dislike.) What happens on pages like the presidential candidates' pages or pages related to GMOs is '''completely''' unlike the sorts of behaviour that are tolerated on other pages (cf. ] where a user seems to be blocking all forward progress with impunity...) {{maroon|Please do not execute SageRad}}. Best wishes to all involved for a happy December. ] (]) 06:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Skyring====
<ins>''Comments after resumption of case in November 2016''</ins>:
I see SageRad's articlespace contributions as generally valid, and he's willing to discuss his edits. WP depends on contributions from many different viewpoints, and we need editors to find good sources and include their material. Whether he's anti-skeptic, pro-GMO or whatever, it's unimportant. Our way of working corrects most distortions.

I don't really see any anti-SageRad crusade going on. On the contrary, some of his strongest articlespace opponents have spoken up for him here and elsewhere.

His behaviour on talkpages and admin noticeboards etc. is the problem. Long screeds accusing others of this and that. A lot of time has gone into dealing with his behaviour.

He has had ample time to reflect, to read the copious amounts of excellent advice sent his way, to gain an understanding of the problem. He has been told the best course forward, but he rejects it. There seems no alternative but increasingly lengthy blocks until his behaviour changes. Misplaced Pages cannot simply be lenient to those who have had every opportunity to work productively with other editors and turned away. It is not fair on those editors who play by the rules that SageRad continue on. --] (]) 04:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

====Procedural comment by Wnt====
<ins>''Comments after resumption of case in November 2016''</ins>:
I have not examined this case and have formed no overall opinion at this time, but looking at {{re|Jytdog}}'s complaint, the "]" argument alarms me. It is not merely that WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, but the way he proposes applying it virtually guarantees that anyone arguing against an entrenched interest would be subject to sanctions. The WMFlabs xtools were probably never certified for forensic use, and there are some obvious risks in simply counting up bytes, not taking into account that there are large quotes, for example, of proposed article text presumably to satisfy demands that edits be discussed on the talk page. But even if I take those numbers as a given, an editor can be expected to contribute half the edits on a talk page whenever it happens that a few other main participants are disagreeing with him. It should not be a Wikicrime to disagree with two, three, even five other editors on the talk page! I am also not impressed with the claim that he submitted a series of identical edits when, for example, in one such edit he was saying that not all Paleo diet believers are trying to lose weight, and in another he is arguing that an article about a special diet (whatever its merits) ought to be permitted to include a cookbook. (And I'll add that citing a cookbook, or any other source, should not require that the source be "notable". We are not here to condemn the paleo diet, but to let readers have an easy road to understand what people following it eat!) Whatever action you take, please don't take action against him based on this flawed basis that he talks too much - editors are apprised of no such rule when they enter Misplaced Pages, but rather are at every opportunity urged to go to the talk page, and if they heard of something like this, they would perhaps decide that edit-warring is a safer approach. ] (]) 03:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
{{re|Jytdog}} Your response about SOAPBOXing also seems inappropriate where that series of comments is concerned. In those edits SageRad is concerned there about labelling something a "fad diet", about general bias toward the article subject matter, about whether a cookbook should be cited ... in all of them he is very sharply focused on Misplaced Pages content. Expressing a strong opinion ''about how an article should be written'' is not SOAPBOXing. We know these disputes over content will exist, we know they are annoying to all involved, but we also know that letting them simmer on the talk page is the least worst way to deal with them. ] (]) 20:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Soham321====
<ins>''Comments after resumption of case in November 2016''</ins>:
{{u|The Wordsmith}} writes: {{Quote|My first preference would be for some sort of I-ban or Civility Parole that restricts casting aspersions and allegations of fascism/Stalinism/etc. Does anyone have any ideas? I'm trying to dig deep into archives to look for a similar case where a restriction fixed the problem, but not immediately coming up with anything.}}

Wordsmith, using your Admin tools could you please check the archives for the history of this user: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Atsme She (Atsme) was involved in two ANI discussions in quick succession, in which several Admins and editors were asking that she be blocked (perhaps indeffed). I had participated in those ANI discussions as had {{u|DrChrissy}} who has participated in this discussion also. The reason for why it was being demanded that Atsme be blocked, from what i recall, were similar to the reason being given for blocking {{u|SageRad}}. As per my recollection, it had to do with how she was interacting with other editors, and also the allegation that she was pushing her own agenda, and that she was a disruptive editor. I think she escaped getting indeffed narrowly. I've forgotten details of the case, but perhaps you could take a look at the archives to see if it could help with the present case. Its worth investigating that case because Atsme is now a very prolific WP editor; her WP user page says she currently has rollback rights, auto patrolled rights, and pending changing reviewer rights.

I'd like to know if DrChrissy also sees parallels between this case and the case involving Atsme. I'd also like to ask {{u|Jytdog}} if he sees parallels between this case and the case involving Atsme, since he was involved in the Atsme case as well. ] (]) 07:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

*{{u|Black Kite}}, how about imposing a one year topic ban on Sage for all WP pages he has currently edited till date?
*{{u|SageRad}}, could you demonstrate to us in a few paragraphs that you are capable of self-criticism? Do not do any finger pointing at others, do not blame or criticize anyone else. Just write a few paragraphs criticizing yourself based on the criticism you have received so far from the other editors and Admins here. ] (]) 19:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by DrChrissy====
I am writing here only because I was pinged by Soham321. I'm afraid I can not comment on the details of this case. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 19:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by My very best wishes====
I interacted with SageRad on a few occasions. I am not sure he does anything bad on purpose (although this is entirely possible), but his comments and behavior are highly counterproductive and lead to significant waste of time by other contributors. Does it warrant a one year block? Well, simply the length of the discussion above shows that the problem probably reached the tipping point, so it possibly does, although I do not have time to check it more carefully. ] (]) 14:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement after re-opening by Capeo====
For someone who stated they had neither the time nor inclination to deal with this AE, SageRad has managed thousands of words since on WP. Most with same hyperbolic claims of oppression and victim-hood that some of the Admins here thought was the result of unusual stress. As I said in my statement above, this is SageRad's MO and isn't unusual.] (]) 22:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I just want to note again, since SageRad has harped on it here and at Jimbo's talk page as some kind of defense, that they were wrong about the misophonia review. Is it MEDRS? Yup. Is a single paper, that admits it is against the majority scientific consensus that misophonia is a symptom of an underlying compulsive disorder, sufficient to state the researcher's opinion in WP's voice? In the lede no less? Nope. ] (]) 00:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

{{u|SageRad}}, I read the papers. I read every source provided and did some of my own research. The overriding consensus is that misophonia is a symptom of OCD and similar disorders. The newest papers are about as equivocal as can be and merely suggest that it may be a standalone condition despite evidence to the contrary. The existing lede expressed the current science well. You tried to make an unequivocal claim in WP's voice. Hence why you were reverted by multiple editors. Your response was to ignore consensus, harp on a single word without examining what the sources in question actually conclude, throw a NPOV tag on the article and claim synth and OR because nobody agreed with you. Also... please stop with the integrity bullshit. As though everyone who disagrees with an edit of yours lacks integrity. ] (]) 05:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

{{u|SageRad}}, when your edit is reverted multiple times by different editors it is clear your edit is against consensus. Slapping a NPOV tag on an article over one edit is pointy at best. Those tags are generally for protracted issues that effect large portions of the article. How should you have proceeded differently? Stop trying to make an edit that was just going to be reverted. Try to come up with a compromise edit that satisfies all parties. Or simply just drop it. Wait for new research that fully solidifies your edit. Science, and science based articles, tend to move slowly as scientific consensus itself does.] (]) 14:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by isaacl====
Regarding the proposal to limit edits on article talk pages: this would essentially throttle discussion by everyone to the same limit, or the restricted editor will not be able to engage fully. Neither of these outcomes would serve to achieve the objective of imposing a limit, compared with a topic ban. ] (]) 04:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Starke Hathaway====
No comment on the substance of this complaint, but if the consensus is to block I wish someone would just do it already. Leaving this open is not doing SageRad or anyone else any favors. ] (]) 20:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Bob K31416====
FWIW, I looked at the Misophonia Talk page regarding SageRad's discussion with Jytdog about the issue of using the term "condition" vs "disorder" in the first sentence of the article, and it looks like there was a considerable miscommunication between the two of them. They both seem to think that "condition" is the correct term but Jytdog seems to be disputing something else and didn't seem to be aware that the term "disorder" was being used incorrectly in the first sentence of the article, which was SageRad's point, and seemed to think that the term "condition" was being used there instead.

I wanted to see for myself what would happen if I tried to change the term from "disorder" to "condition" in the first sentence so I made the following edit . It was reverted with a somewhat reasonable edit summary , which I addressed when I made my next edit there . This time it was reverted with an edit summary that I thought was irrational . Considering the situation, I wasn't inclined to spend more time over there so I stopped and just wrote it off as a part of Misplaced Pages that contains misinformation. --] (]) 21:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: After my message here, Jytdog made the change "disorder" to "condition" in the first sentence of the Misophonia article . --] (]) 00:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

====New statement by Robert McClenon====
I see that several of the commenting editors here say that they personally like ]. I don’t, and perhaps that should get my remarks discounted. However, eighteen months ago I tried to caution ], and he characterized my cautions and those of other editors as bullying and even as “punches to the face”. This is an editor who has shown for a very long time that he is unwilling to heed advice. I still don’t know why he wants to edit Misplaced Pages, given that he has decided that it is such an ugly corrupt place. A month ago I said that if any other editor than ] had filed this, I would recommend a '''Site Ban'''. A month has lapsed, and SageRad is just as combative as ever. Unfortunately, I think that a full ] is the only plausible option. ] (]) 16:17, 1 December 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 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).
*I hope I'll have time to return to this request — it requires a daunting amount of reading for someone not already familiar with the relevant discussions — but I have a couple of initial points:


==Alex 19041==
:'''A'''. I don't see a problem with SageRad's posts on Jimbo's page. They're the kind of thing that page is for. But it's another matter to keep "adding his meta-issue to whatever the local issues are", as Jytdog puts it, to various article talkpages. I agree that is disruptive and time-wasting. To get the flavour, I've read through the ], that Jytdog referred to and I see exactly what he means by timesink. (I admit I didn't read quite all of the archive, but a good chunk, maybe half, and it was one of my worst hours on Misplaced Pages.) SageRad's bandying of phrases like "witch hunt" and his assumptions of bad faith of editors like ] and ] are just depressing. ("Thanks sir, who I have encountered before in a rather bullying fashion"... "another editor who has used bullying tactics against me in the past... the gang shows up.") The best thing might be a topic ban from going on about meta-issues on article talkpages, as well as the persistent accusations of people "ganging up" on and "bullying" him as soon as they disagree with him. But formulating such a ban properly and usefully is no doubt impossible. I see JzG too has a problem with what a ban might cover.
<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 ===
:'''B'''. SageRad's comment "Didn't even read the long diatribe by Jytdog" in his response here is really unpromising. SageRad, I have read the "diatribe" carefully and found it full of interesting stuff and food for thought. Well, I would guess you have read it too by now, but for you to start by blowing off your opponent like that looks ''just'' like an unfortunate illustration of what JzG said above about a lack of ability to accept that any conclusion differing from your own might be grounded in truth. I hear what you say about real life busyness, but there's always the option of requesting more time to reply.
; 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>
:Oh, and '''C''', just a PS to Jytdog: updating the link just now was fine, but for goodness sake don't otherwise fiddle with your initial statement any more. Fluidity in that makes it much harder for others to evaluate and respond. If you must make new points, please do so below your main signed and dated filing, with a new sig and datestamp. ] &#124; ] 16:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC).
::'''Note''': {{ping|SageRad}} I see you ask above how much time you may have, and saying you don't have time to dedicate to finding diffs and being a lawyer. I suggest you put a request above, at the end of your statement, something on the lines of "I'm busy in real life, can I please have a week (or whatever specific time span would fit your circumstances) to supply a responsive and factual statement?" I'm sure the admins would agree to put this on hold for the time you need. However, if what you mean is that you will ''never'' have time to make a reasonable defense, or supply any evidential diffs, then we might as well deal with this as speedily as possible. Please let us know. ] &#124; ] 15:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC).
:::'''Continued note''': I see {{ping|SageRad}} says he wants a month. (Please stop adding stuff for a minute, as that's making it rather hard to respond.) Of course that seems a lot. When I wrote my original note, I hadn't seen your latest edits ("This place is damned.. This place is gone..This place is captured by an ideological crew..." etc), which strongly supports Jytdog's complaint. If you stand by that, we may IMO as well siteban you and be done with it. But if what you need is some cooling-off time and then a new statement, it's fine by me. A month of ''not editing'' (since you're busy IRL. and will also be busy writing up a statement here) would work for me. '''What do other people think of a one-month moratorium, please'''? We could archive this request temporarily and bring it back on 25 November. ] &#124; ] 16:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC).
*'''Comment''' I'm still reading through the copious amounts of content presented as evidence. I think there is probably a need for some sort of action here, though I'm not quite sure what the best course is yet. As a point of order, however, I would like to note that this board and its administrators do not have the power to issue a topic ban from "health content"; that would be something to be brought up at one of the conventional noticeboards. The most severe topic ban available to us would be "pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine" or some narrower subset of that. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 14:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
::Reading SageRad's latest postings, I think the assessment that he is in some sort of meltdown is essentially correct. Given that he is also dealing with a newborn child, I think compassion ought to reign here. Provided Sage agrees to take some voluntary time off editing, I would have no problem with putting the request on hold for a month or so. If he returns to editing, it can be resumed with cooler heads all around. Getting some sleep and adjusting to his new family situation might help the behavior problem on its own. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 17:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
* We are empowered to implement any conventional sanction even though it is here at AE, treating it as a non-Arb issue without moving it to another board. OID raises some interesting points, and I have to admit only going through part of the evidence, yet this looks like one form of ], albeit not a textbook example. He seems to be taking a singular position on a general theme (skepticism) and ] multiple pages and refusing to listen to consensus, to the point that it is disruptive to other editors that are simply trying to build an encyclopedia. It does seem to be a pattern of behavior that extends beyond a single venue, which has gone well beyond spirited debate and to the point that it is hindering the building of the encyclopedia. Again, WP:TE. I would like to read more and will later today, but this is how it is shaping up in my eyes. ] - ] 15:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
*:I'm was about to propose something else, something not as palatable as {{u|Bishonen}}'s idea, but would entertain Bish's idea. What I don't want to happen is for {{u|SageRad}} to say he is leaving Misplaced Pages forever, then come back in a month or two and we have the same problem. I would only accept if we continue this in one month, even if it is ''in absentia''. What I would have proposed is a 6 month block and 12 month ban on pseudoscience/medicine (to include skepticism, which is a stretch), to run concurrently. That would allow a long enough period of time as to prevent disruption for 6 months at least, and perhaps past that knowing the next block is indef. ] - ] 16:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
*:If I've learned anything in my decade plus experience here, SageRad, it is that people often say things in the heat of the moment they regret. A sanction doesn't require consent by the sanctioned. My first concern is all the other editors that are affected by your behavior. People leave Misplaced Pages because they get frustrated by people doing things like what you are doing, because they can't edit in a normal fashion and the frustration is too much. That is the purpose of a sanction, not to benefit you, but to benefit them, and by extension, Misplaced Pages. ] - ] 17:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
*"If you let this happen, you have blood on your hands." Oh dear. If that was a statement made under what we can call extenuating circumstances, it's probably best if this editor stays away from Misplaced Pages for a while. ] (]) 17:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


*'''Proposal''': What I suggested above was that we put this on hold for a month with SageRad voluntarily abstaining from editing during that period, which is apparently The Wordsmith's opinion also. Having watched SR continue to "flail around" (per DrChrissy) makes me a bit dubious about the voluntary part; is he in a state where he can and will comply with a voluntary restriction? A one-month block for recent and ongoing disruption might technically be better. But I don't like to consider it, because people generally take blocks as humiliating. (Not me, I'm proud of mine, but it took me a few years to attain such block zen.) Humiliation is very bad and goes counter to the compassion principle. Therefore, I suggest a one-month moratorium with SageRad taking a wikibreak that has nothing to do with blocks and block logs. (Please briefly indicate if you agree to do that, {{ping|SageRad}}.) If he edits anywhere ''in a disruptive way'' during the moratorium, he will then be blocked, and I advise against editing at all. And we collapse this until 25 November, but it can be re-opened earlier by SR himself, if he feels ready for it. He will be free to remove all his own posts here and start afresh, if desired. And I agree emphatically with Dennis that we must avoid a situation where we close without action, SR leaves, and then returns in a month or two, unsanctioned. We need to protect Misplaced Pages and other users from the bludgeoning that has been going on. The case should be discussed again in a month at the latest, even if ''in absentia''. Is this acceptable to other admins? ] &#124; ] 20:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC).
::For the record, that's more or less what I was suggesting. I'm not a fan of ] blocks when not absolutely necessary, and I'm not convinced this case warrants it. His conduct needs to be dealt with, but letting cooler heads prevail is a much better path for everyone involved. I '''endorse''' this proposal. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 20:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
*I'm fine with that. Can't hurt to try as long as we don't forget it. ] - ] 01:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
*OK, thanks, all. Sigh... let's focus on the edit summary and first sentence of SageRad's statement , that he is actually, now, taking a wikibreak, and put this on hold for a month. I hope he means it, because if there should be further ABF harangues in the coming month, I believe he should be blocked. Closing. ] &#124; ] 08:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC).

====Post-break discussion of result concerning SageRad by uninvolved admins, from 26 November 2016====
*I'll kick it off. Most people above seem to agree that the encyclopedia needs to be protected from SageRad's ], ] and bludgeoning. I'm distressed that we have so long been squandering the energy and enthusiasm of the many editors who are affected by it, and I don't see much of a change in his new statement, either. (I figured it was hopeless when I saw the mention of flies and a pile of rotting fruit in the new statement, and the new attacks on Jytdog.) But finding the best scope is a problem, since SageRad's wide-ranging anti-skeptic agenda doesn't fit very well into the way our discretionary sanctions are constructed. I've been trying to figure out a tailormade topic ban, as you can see others doing above before the break, and if somebody has an even slightly watertight idea along those lines, I'll support it. But till then, I propose a one-year block. A request for unblock in six month's time should be regarded favorably, provided he has done some constructive editing of other Wikimedia projects in the meantime. ] &#124; ] 16:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC).
:*{{ping|Littleolive oil}} you criticize Jytdog for coming to SageRad's page: {{tq|"SageRad is understandably upset. Why during an AE that Jytdog opened is Jytdog on SageRad's talk page reprimanding SageRad. If I assume good faith, that Jytdog was trying to help, this is at best poorly judged and shows an ongoing propensity to push editors too far."}} If people are interested in your charges, I hope they check out for themselves how and in what context Jytdog posted on ]. He did so twice, both times to answer pings from SageRad with suggestions and accusations: "Jytdog, what do you say...", "Jytdog: Are you saying..." Would you have liked Jytdog to ignore the pings, Olive, or to withdraw his case so as not to "reprimand"? Who did the pushing? ] &#124; ] 16:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC).
:*{{ping|SageRad}} re the anonymous post you're complaining I removed from this board, thereby evincing my "many layers of suppression and chilling of speech", you may find ] interesting. I and other users frequently remove trolling IPs from arbitration-related discussions, because people who log out to avoid scrutiny aren't welcome there. (Compare .) But if you genuinely believe the IP's post would help your case, please feel free to restore it. ] &#124; ] 21:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC).
:*{{ping|SashiRolls}}, re 'sending you to study someone's talk page': Study? study? Look at it for five seconds and you will be enlightened, if you're capable of it. No, I will not dignify "charges" such as "JzG and Bishonen routinely appear on the offsite complaint boards for blocking political opponents" with any denials. It may be perfectly true for all I know; I don't follow Wikipediocracy. It strikes me that I'm myself foolish for responding to stuff on this level from SageRad and SashiRolls. I'm done. ] &#124; ] 22:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC).
* After reading the conflict on SageRad's talk page, I see that nothing has changed. I was pinged here as I participated in the previous discussion but that plays no part in my opinion, demonstrated by the fact that I'm maintaining my previous position. As for a solution, I think Bishonen's idea above is satisfactory. If they are that busy in the real world, being here is a distraction and likely leading to the bad behavior here. Regardless, being here is a burden that outweighs the benefits at this time. ] - ] 17:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
**To be perfectly clear now, since I'm not very active, no one is suggesting a sympathy block and I'm not swayed by promises to retire. It is a simple matter of what is best for the English Misplaced Pages. Without picking apart individual elements, it is my opinion that SageRad has lost perspective, lost clue, and his recent entries only reinforce this belief. ] - ] 02:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
*I agree with ]'s proposal of a one-year block. Discretionary sanctions allow for a block and they would also allow a topic ban, but it seems too difficult to find a ban that addresses the complete set of areas where SageRad has been disruptive. SageRad's new statement of November 28 is over 2,700 words and it greatly exceeds the 500-word limit. I mention this because Jytdog and MjolnirPants have both revised their statements to make them shorter. (]'s change was ). ] (]) 04:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
*I'm hesitant about the one year block, but at the moment I'm not going to explicitly oppose it. SageRad has had positive content contributions, and losing that is obviously undesirable. SageRad's biggest problem is how he interacts with others, which is something that many content contributors (including Jytdog) also struggle with, though not to the same degree. My first preference would be for some sort of I-ban or Civility Parole that restricts casting aspersions and allegations of fascism/Stalinism/etc. Does anyone have any ideas? I'm trying to dig deep into archives to look for a similar case where a restriction fixed the problem, but not immediately coming up with anything. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 15:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
**Count Iblis's suggestion is compelling, though I think two or three talk page edits per week might be more efficient for holding a conversation. {{ping|Bishonen|Dennis Brown|EdJohnston}} any thoughts on the idea? <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 15:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
***{{ping|The Wordsmith}} as I've already said, I will happily support a suitable topic ban if somebody can come up with one. But not this kind of editing restriction, because Sage's posts after he got a month's moratorium (for the explicit purpose of writing a reasonable defense here) have remained spectacularly unpromising. He said if only he could still have another 20 hours, he could write up an irrefutable defense ( ellipsis in original), but when I told him he ''could'', he went on to post without waiting very long. Take a look at it: he proposes a boomerang for Jytdog "for wasting everyone's time with drama and disrupting my ability to edit for a month now" . He promises to be "more careful about not ever imputing motives to other editors in content discussions", states in passing that others should promise the same but probably won't, and are ten times worse than him in this regard. And promises to be more brief. That was on November 26, and he has done little else other than "impute motives" ever since, and not briefly. Count Iblis suggests that getting to make only one edit per week per talkpage might focus Sage's mind and make him automatically tend to stay away from invoking things like "Stalinism". I don't see it. I believe, rather, that any restriction, whether of one edit or three or more per week, would be more likely to push that single edit or those few edits in the direction of really long harangues about Stalinism and the Reign of Terror on Misplaced Pages, and we'd be back here yet again, and yet a little more exhausted. Miles of ] has already been extended and a lot of time has been spent. Again, I'm not insisting on a block, I'll be happy with a workable topic ban — workable in the sense of not generating reams on discussion at every turn as to whether the user has violated it or not. ] &#124; ] 18:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC). Adding after {{ec}} with Dennis: essentially, I'm in sympathy with ]'s recent comment , especially the question in the edit summary. ] &#124; ] 18:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC).
***I still think the only solution is a long break. I can wind on and on about it, but I'm not likely to be persuaded after seeing the way he makes excuses and such. This is more complicated than a behavioral problem. And let me add, this isn't saying anyone else is innocent of anything, I'm simply saying it is in Misplaced Pages's best interest if SageRad took a long break. As a side note, it probably wouldn't hurt him either. ] - ] 18:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
***After listening to my fellow admins, I've come to the regrettable conclusion that the only way we don't end up back here in a month is to '''endorse''' the proposed block. Unless someone has something else substantial to add or wants to conclude things sooner, I'll close this request sometime tomorrow. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 19:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
* I was wondering if a topic from anything covered by ] might be a start, but looking through the list of articles that SageRad has been disruptive on, many (i.e. ]) aren't covered. Unless someone can come up with a cunning idea that could adequately cover SR's range of disruption, unfortunately I have to agree that a long break is the only option. We can't allow such a time-sink to continue indefinitely. ] 18:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
:* And today's comments at Jimbotalk describing such proceses as this as , , and (oh dear) just back the point up, I think. ] 23:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
*It's unfortunate, because I do think SageRad means well. Unfortunately, we can only keep giving so many chances to improve. I just don't think Misplaced Pages and SageRad are a good fit. Misplaced Pages can be rough and tumble; SageRad seems to take disagreements very personally. Misplaced Pages reflects the consensus of the most reputable sources; SageRad seems to think that this is a conspiracy to suppress The Truth&trade; rather than just the normal way editing gets done. Wikipedians tend to prefer discussion of content; SageRad focuses on people. At some point, even with good intentions, we have to prevent disruption. Topic bans aren't doing that, and I don't see a way to formulate a topic ban to do that. And I certainly have doubts about SageRad's judgment, when ''while this is ongoing'', he's railing about how everyone but him is wrong and at fault. So, SageRad&mdash;I wish you nothing but the best, and I mean that, but I don't see any alternative to the lengthy block proposed above. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
{{hab}}

==Doc9871==
<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 Doc9871===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Volunteer Marek}} 04:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Doc9871}}<p>{{ds/log|Doc9871}}
<!--- 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.-->
#
# Telling other editors (in particular me) to "shut up" (misspelling it doesn't make it better). Compare it to this which is what led to Doc's original topic ban, and statement by {{user|Bishonen}}
# Discussing other editors instead of content, speculating about other editors motives and making groundless accusations. Making some kind of threat. Note that this is *exactly* the kind of comment that led to Doc9871's initial topic ban. He is just repeating it.
# Discussing other editors instead of content. Doc seems to be more interested in insulting other editors than actually discussing article improvements. Note the edit summary.
# More insults and incivility. Completely pointless and gratuitous too. Like, what's the point of this?


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
More minor, but indicative of the fact that the editor is ]
* ]
* ]


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
# Taunting other editors in edit summary
* ]
# Taunting other editors (wasn't aware I lost any elections)


===Discussion concerning Alex 19041===
And for good measure
<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 Alex 19041====
#. It's on his talk page, so by itself wouldn't be a big deal. But part of a pattern.


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
# Doc9871 was topic banned for 1 month from all pages related to Donald Trump. Furthermore, the closing admin, ] stated, reflecting admin consensus on that report, ''"(Doc9871) is further warned that any disruption in the topic areas covered under Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 will lead to an extension and/or broadening of the ban"''. The diffs above show that such an extension and broadening are needed.


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

*Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|The Blade of the Northern Lights}} which was originally imposed by {{admin|Bishonen}} .


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->

Exactly the same problem as the one which led to his original topic ban. Almost like reading from a script. Doc9871 is incapable of discussing this topic without immediately resorting to insults and abusive language. This behavior derails productive discussion. It's also completely pointless as it offers no suggestions for article improvements. It's just gratuitous insults made for their own sake.

@Lankiveil - what "plea bargain" are you talking about? I just left a message on his talk page asking him to remove the personal attacks (like telling me to "shut up"). I actually dislike having to report people to WP:AE and try to give them plenty of opportunity to correct/revise/strike/undo. Is there something wrong with that? Hell, I get messages like that on my talk from admins once in awhile too ("you might want to reword that") ] (]) 18:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
*

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

===Discussion concerning Doc9871===
<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 Doc9871====
*It's not a "personal attack" to say that Volunteer Marek (VM) is heavily biased against the subject. There is absolutely no question about his anti-Trump bias. So how is it a personal attack to point this out? It's just a simple fact.
*Statements like this{{diff|Talk:Donald Trump|750926716}} show how VM, a very ardent anti-Trump editor, has been holding the article hostage for months, and abusing the process quite severely. It's '''not''' a "personal attack" to point this out. He claims that only things "central to the life of Donald Trump" can be included{{diff|Talk:Donald Trump|750926892}}, yet when challenged on what is "central"{{diff|Talk:Donald Trump|750927164}} he not only can't explain what that means, but instead suggests more, '''only negative''', info that should be included.{{diff|Talk:Donald Trump|750929019}} Please read VM's very pointed response more than once for traces of "incivility".
*His assertion in the diff above that adding very reliably sourced material in the bios of the "goofy" celebrities who took to the media to announce they were leaving the U.S. would somehow automatically violate BLP should be of grave concern to every responsible editor here.
*VM offered to let certain "personal attacks"... "slide" if I removed some statements (that were not personal attacks) to his satisfaction. Specifically: ''"All the insults and personal attacks"''{{diff|User talk:Doc9871|750932864|750838060}}. Nothing specific was mentioned that could have been reasonably ] were there a concrete issue. As a reward, I would not be reported here. I don't do "plea bargains" when they are not warranted.
*There's been absolutely no "disruption"; rather just a bruised ego. I've done some good work on the article recently; decent enough that I have been thanked for those edits by multiple editors, including admins.{{diff|User talk:Robotic3498298502525|748785536}} It's all there in the article history. This is a meritless, spiteful report. VM's claim that I am NOTHERE after nearly 9 years and 23,000 edits is similarly meritless.
*{{u|Future Perfect at Sunrise}}: I did not come up with the "goofy" thing. That's why I keep putting it in "scare quotes". ''"The answer is that this is an article about Donald Trump. Not about some goofy celebrities."''{{diff|Talk:Donald Trump|750929019}} Those were his words, not mine. First he tried to dismiss it all as "textbook trivia", then we discredit the sources, then the celebrities themselves.
*An indefinite ban as recommended by {{u|EdJohnston}} seems heavy-handed, as bans are to prevent disruption and not meant to be punitive. The last ban was for a month, and there's been no "disruption" until I dared to question VM's iron-clad notion of exactly what is UNDUE and "allowed" at the article. This has morphed from allegations of personal attacks into something else. I haven't done anything to any of the "goofy" celebrities' articles, gleefully or otherwise. The true disruption is that I'm a little too sarcastic for some at times, and I am supporting an unpopular subject. I admit I am biased for Trump, as that's obvious. I've not broken the rules here, but I expect to be punished for it anyway.
*{{u|My very best wishes}} - I wouldn't exactly say that we "talked". It was more like you jumped in and took over a conversation to deliver several scathing lectures on a page that had absolutely nothing to do with you at all. You, who are not an admin and have never made an edit to that talk page before, decided to "set me straight". Any length of sanction is appropriate, yes? ] ] 09:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
*:{{u|My very best wishes}} - I’m surprised and extremely disappointed at the theory that I am basically incorrigible, needing a permanent ban on all things Trump because I had a little argument with a user on the talk page. I’ve been very insulted being told here that I’m a dishonest, unreasonable, irrational editor. That my "political sensibilities” have clouded my judgement so severely that I must be banned; that I am incapable of editing peacefully; and, most insultingly, that I am incapable of avoiding disruption in this topic area "even if they want to". We’ve gone straight from ''“Take back the insults, or else!”'' to excommunication for disruption. I expected a little better faith, for certain. ] ] 08:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
*::{{u|My very best wishes}} - I definitely do not “dislike” VM, or anyone else commenting here. We all must agree to disagree. If we didn’t disagree on things there’d only be one “correct” political party or religion. The only editors I dislike are the trolls and the socks and the vandals. I’ve had various disagreements with many editors over the years, including more than a few watching this page. It’s all business, nothing personal. ] ] 09:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
*{{u|Laser brain}} - What is editing "peacefully"? ] ] 12:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
*:{{u|Laser brain}} - I'm incapable of editing peacefully... but only in this area, correct? ] ] 14:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by ]====
(Just happened to stumble on this thread since, ahem, this page recently came onto my watchlist...) I think it's important to bear in mind that ''editors'' need not be neutral, and it's OK -- even desirable, when you think about it -- that they reveal any biases in discussions. It's only their ''edits'' that need to be neutral.

If we only allowed editors free of bias, we'd have no editors at all, literally. ''']]''' 08:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by (uninvolved) Calton====
Doc needs to read ] at some point. --] | ] 10:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

====Question by Cas Liber====
{{ping|Doc9871}}, why did you change sources ? From reading it, both sources can support the statement, but (a) why swap and (b) the edit summary? ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
:I guess I can comment in this section, right? That diff, I believe, I was already punished for. I'm sure it was because the Breitbart source was unilaterally declared to be a non-RS, despite lengthy discussions on the RSN that didn't fully conclude that it is a non-RS that must be removed. I'll note that the actual reliability of the source doesn't always apply.{{diff|Debbie Wasserman Schultz|732919954}} ] ] 11:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
::My question was, why did you replace the source with the Breitbart one in the first place? ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
:The Breitbart source already was there - I didn't insert it. I re-inserted it because it was declared a non-RS. It actually was inserted back on July 17{{diff|Donald Trump|730234981}} by {{u|MelanieN}}. VM tried to declare it a non-RS here{{diff|Donald Trump|732481090}}, and I reverted him. ] ] 12:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
::Both sources support the sentence. Hence the edit summary was wrong. And you'd have to agree that a definite RS is better than an arguable one. So it was a real ] edit, wasn't it? ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
:I don't believe it was a real battleground edit on my part. An admin put that source in in good faith. One user gets to declare it a non-RS all on their own? On what basis? ] ] 13:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
::No-one is declaring Breitbart a non-RS all on their own. There is a hierarchy of sources, some better than others. Easier to use more widely accepted ones rather than pushing it borderline ones. ] (] '''·''' ]) 11:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
:VM's edit summary is unambiguous: "replace non-RS with RS".{{diff|Donald Trump|732481090}} It occurred to me that removing Breitbart sources in favor of more widely accepted sources was a factor in the swap, but the reason for the swap from Breitbart to CBS was due to it being declared to be a non-RS by VM in that edit summary. ] ] 11:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by John====
I see enough here to concern me, and I was taken aback to discover this was the behaviour of someone coming back from a shorter ban.
* a perfectly valid and referenced statement from the article, with the edit summary ""Non-scientist". Not a word. Do better, please."
* me at my talk for using the term "non-scientist":
* that different standards apply to descriptions of people with different political views.
* is either consciously dishonest or the user has allowed his political sensibilities to cloud his judgement. As has been pointed out, could not reasonably be characterized as an attempt to plea bargain.
* contains the highly disingenuous "I admit I am biased for Trump, as that's obvious. '''I've not broken the rules here, but I expect to be punished for it anyway'''" (my emphasis) Given the problematic behaviours preceding this complaint I would have been more reassured to see a more insightful and self-reflective statement than this.
There is enough here to make ]'s suggestion of an indefinite topic ban seem like a reasonable one. This user seems to have been overwhelmed by his political zeal in this one area and to therefore be unable to edit objectively. --] (]) 11:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
:As I pointed out, I'm involved in 3 additional currently active threads on the very same talk page.{{diff|Talk:Donald Trump|751415561}},{{diff|Talk:Donald Trump|750954086}},{{diff|Talk:Donald Trump|750920606}} I'm not surprised at seeing the same old enemies pile on here. I guess I'm just completely out of control and must be stopped. ] ] 11:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
:And the "disingenuous" statement? I said I '''am''' biased for Trump! How is that highly disingenuous?! It would be disingenuous to say I am not biased for Trump when I am. I don't let that bias get in the way of NPOV. Big difference there. ] ] 11:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by My very best wishes====
I talked with Doc9871 . Based on their responses, he does not see his behavior as problematic and will continue doing exactly the same. Therefore, the sanctions are warranted. ] (]) 14:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

:@Doc9871. Let's be rational. You have been banned already for making very similar comments. What else can you possibly expect this time? ] (]) 21:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
::@Doc9871. I am only telling that your recent comments are exactly of the same kind as comments which led to your previous t-ban. Therefore, they are not OK, and you know it. You do not behave rationally, even though you are definitely a rational person. Why? I do not really know, but my best guess is that you do not like people who disagree with you and therefore want to make their life on-wiki miserable. ] (]) 13:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
:::@Doc9871. You tell: this is strictly business, nothing personal. OK. But your comments were not about improvement of content, but negative remarks about other contributors made on article talk pages. So, that is your ]? OK. But I do not think that business is profitable, or serves any useful purpose. ] (]) 15:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


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 JFG====
I have had moderate interaction with Doc on contentious political pages, and I don't understand the pile-on against him. OK, he's a bit sarcastic and rough around the edges, but so are many many many editors (especially those willing to engage into editing such topics, you do need nerves of steel and a good dose of humour); it's no problem at all. Our friend VM reporting Doc today can be quite abrasive himself, but has never been sanctioned for that. I see Doc as a good-faith contributor who shouldn't be t-banned for such peccadillas as reported here. This sounds more like a personal vendetta than a genuine attempt to quell disruptive behaviour. I would personally let him go with an admonishment to smoothen his talk page comments, that's all there is to it. That being said, let the wisdom of the admins fall where it may… — ] <sup>]</sup> 19:04, 30 November 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 Doc9871=== ===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. -->
<!--
*If it doesn't sound too pretentious, I'll "recuse" from this complaint, since I was deeply involved in the previous complaint against and sanction of Doc in August. ] &#124; ] 16:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC).
--><span id="Est._2021:1737475502593:WikipediaFTTCLNArbitration/Requests/Enforcement" class="FTTCmt"></span>
*I'm looking less at the diffs about Doc's talk interactions with VM, but more at Doc's initial posting on the talkpage that sparked this latest altercation. His tone in gleefully proposing to stamp several BLP subjects ("bigtime celebrities") as "liars" (for not immediately following through with their declared intention of leaving the US if Trump won), combined with the way he's been speaking about them here ("goofy celebrities"), shows that his interest is not in creating fair coverage of the Trump campaign but in systematically discrediting his opponents. I'm not particularly impressed with VM's tit-for-tat counter-proposal of adding more coverage of Trump's misuse of Twitter either, but maybe that's another issue. ] ] 17:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
*After reviewing , seeing the new complaint and noting the warnings issued by the other admins last time (], ], ] and ]), I propose an indef ban of ] from the domain of ]. It seems that Doc9871 behaves quite badly on talk pages and that behavior hasn't changed since the last time around. ] (]) 17:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
*], do you have any diffs or other evidence that VM tried to make a "plea bargain" with you? If these events took place as you described them, I'd consider that a very serious matter indeed. ] <sup>(])</sup> 12:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC).
:*If I'm reading the diffs right, is supposed to be the evidence for the "plea bargain" claim. I don't remotely read that as an attempted plea bargain, nor do I see how any reasonable observer could do so; it's clearly a notification by VM that if matters aren't resolved he's going to consider requesting formal action, not an attempt at a bargain.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 18:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
::*I'll AGF that VM didn't mean it that way, but I can definitely see how that would be interpreted as a threat, especially in a charged atmosphere. Bravo for giving them a chance, just be a bit more mindful of the chosen wording next time. On the other hand, Doc9871's behaviour is problematic and most worryingly I don't see that they understand ''why'' it is a problem; without understanding the issue I don't see how they can improve even if they want to. ] <sup>(])</sup> 01:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC).
* I don't see any reason not to permanently remove Doc9871 from this topic area, as they have proven repeatedly they cannot edit in it peacefully. Endorse an indefinite topic ban from ARBAP2. --] ] 12:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
:* {{ping|Doc9871}} Broadly, I'd say focusing on content and not personalizing issues, focusing on being civil and professional rather than making posts dripping with sarcasm and invective, and focusing on logic rather than behavior coming from an emotional response and designed to produce an emotional response. It's been well-documented in this filing that you are incapable of editing peacefully. --] ] 14:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


*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)
==TheTimesAreAChanging==
*(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 TheTimesAreAChanging===
<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|MelanieN}} 02:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


===Request concerning ]-related pages===
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|TheTimesAreAChanging}}<p>{{ds/log|TheTimesAreAChanging}}
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Beeblebrox}} 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


; Pages about which enforcement is requested : ]-related pages
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]


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


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
<!-- 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. -->
# Added a sentence to the article ].
# Re-added the sentence after it was deleted as controversial. They quickly reverted themselves, but then
# added it back, describing the removal as "vandalism". This violated the prohibition against restoring controversial material.
# removed longstanding material from ] as a "hoax"; not supposed to remove longstanding material without consensus.


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".
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


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)


:Yeah, just checked Gulf of Mexico. 28 new talk page sections in the past day, was already ECP protected two weeks ago per ].
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
: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)
<!-- 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. -->
::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)

*Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here --> <!-- Add any further comment here -->
See their talk page for recent previous incidents/warnings:
*] from Nov. 5-7
*] (which refers to edit of Nov. 22)


Reply to ]: You argue that it is better to warn a person than to threaten sanctions, and that a warning can allow the situation to be "easily resolved". I agree, and that is what I do, for a first offense. See the link just above in this section, where I did just that. The reason for this report is that the problematic behavior recurred after that warning. --] (]) 16:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

], I hadn't noticed previously your "clarification" of items #1-3, which you seem to feel exonerates TheTimes. It was not necessary to cite here, although it may have been necessary at the time to clear things up for BullRangifer. Your explanation of what happened tallies exactly with mine. #1, he added something to the article: good faith, no violation. #2, he re-added it but immediately self-reverted, so again, no violation. #3, he then re-added it knowing it was controversial, and for good measure he described the previous removal of it as "vandalism", even though there had been a content-based edit summary with the deletion. Restoring content which had been challenged was a violation; arguably so was calling the removal "vandalism". Only after restoring the material (Nov 23, 00:16) did he start a talk-page discussion (Nov. 23, 00:55). (That discussion in itself is a piece of work, misquoting/distorting the edit summary that had been given for the deletion, and adding that the whole article would not exist "If it were not for the fact that women are extraordinarily privileged in modern American society." ) --] (]) 23:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning TheTimesAreAChanging=== ===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> <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 TheTimesAreAChanging====
I will respond to Melanie's statements in reverse. The child rape lawsuit against a living person was indeed a hoax and dropped prior to the election, hence why it was largely ignored by the media and not currently included (for lack of consensus) in the main ] article. Clearly, the mention of that lawsuit in ] (which is already far too long and COATRACKY) reflected no "longstanding" consensus, but was merely an oversight. With regard to the "contentious" material I twice added to ]: If it had lasted longer than one day before being removed, would it then have gained the presumption of "consensus"? At least with regard to the content, it is quite clear that SPECIFICO and BullRangifer are gaming the system: '''Every single source''' on the topic notes that of the fifteen girls to comment on the matter, ''eleven''—the clear majority—"''were doubtful or dismissed the possibility that Trump violated their changing room privacy''" because, e.g., they were surrounded by chaperones at all times. By declaring it uncontroversial to quote the four girls that accused Trump, but "contentious" to mention the other eleven ''from the same source'', SPECIFICO, BullRangifer, and now Melanie are in effect arguing that Misplaced Pages policy actually ''requires'' us to intentionally misrepresent our own sources and mislead readers. That is an absurd and untenable position: If "consensus" dictates that the former recollections are within the scope of the article, '''by definition''' the same must be true of the latter. Moreover, if that is not the case—''if there is no reasonable limit to obstructionism''—then why can't I simply refuse to assent to the very existence of an article on ], per ]/]/ect.—or blanket delete the "Miss Teen USA" subsection, given that no sources describe Trump's alleged actions as "sexual misconduct" and the whole paragraph thus contravenes ] and ]? (If I were to do so, would the ] then switch to my opponents, or would I be immediately reverted?) In sum, if a source or claim is included in an article, then I don't see how it could possibly violate the spirit of any Misplaced Pages policy to accurately quote the source and disclose all of the viewpoints it deems credible; in fact, ''that'' is exactly what ] demands.] (]) 04:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


====Statement by ]-related pages====
Prior to her latest collection of accusations, SPECIFICO reported me directly to and filed urging that I be topic banned (which failed to gain any traction with the community because it was obviously retaliation for an ANI report I filed against one of her comrades, since indeffed): She should really stop forum shopping. SPECIFICO purports to monitor and police every aspect of my behavior, including the ideas I express on my userpage, but she still tends to leap to conclusions unsupported by the diffs in question. For example, the "battle cry" in which I supposedly "boasted" about "besting" my "opponents" actually read: In the same way, Doug Weller warned me not to refer to another editor as a "Nazi," but when I pointed out that the editor in question ''was'' an actual unironic Nazi with a userpage devoted to Holocaust denial, he conceded: Ect. Ect. Ect. Of special interest is SPECIFICO's version of the ] conflict documented in the ANI report: "''He tries to enlist @Oshwah to assist him in continuing his edit war&nbsp;... supposedly because 'his' version was 'stable'.''" (Why is "his" in quotes?) The notion that I advocated restoration to "my" version is simply an absurd caricature of ; in fact, I urged Oshwah to consider reverting back to a version predating ''any'' edits by yours truly! SPECIFICO should be very careful before she accuses ''anyone'' of "straw man arguments" or "misrepresentation of other editors."] (]) 00:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


====Statement by Isabelle====
{{Ping|Soham321}} Yes, I am aware that my penchant for colorful, even vituperative language has gone too far and gotten me into trouble on occasion. Sometimes I have treated Misplaced Pages talk pages more like an online forum; now and then, I have even I have always tried to draw a sharp distinction between talk page rhetoric (or edit summaries, or my userpage—which SPECIFICO has mined for oppo-research) and edits to actual articles—hence the "''I take my responsibility to edit in a neutral manner seriously''" message SPECIFICO cites as evidence of the opposite—but I can see how my combative persona can be more of a liability than an asset, particularly when editing articles related to American Politics (where, I have now learned, content disputes are usually resolved by gaming and drama boards rather than substantive discussion). As a character witness, I point to the following comment by Guccisamsclub—an editor with politics well to the Left of my own, and whose opinion of me has fluctuated over time and may well continue to fluctuate, but with whom I have been able to collaborate constructively despite our disagreements: (In my defense, ] considered ] sufficiently Left-wing to invite her on a guided tour of Democratic Kampuchea, so referring to her as a "far-Left author" on my talk page—while poor form—is not much worse than ].) {{Ping|Bishonen}} Edit summaries are necessarily snappy and may not include room for nuanced discussion. See for my detailed thoughts on the "Founder of ISIS" soundbite:
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)
<blockquote>
"To be fair to the peoples of the Middle East, there have been many real conspiracies by Western powers in that part of the world (see, e.g., ]), and there is obviously some element of truth underlying even the more outlandish allegations (such as the claim that Baghdadi is secretly an Israeli actor named Simon Elliot). Israel, after all, in return for quiet along the Syria-Israel border; there may also be some military assistance and intelligence-sharing—and there is no doubt jihadists have benefited from Israeli largess. Meanwhile, there is far more evidence that than there is to support the theory that Assad is somehow to blame for the Syrian uprising turning Islamist. When we include ridiculous claims such as John Kerry's assertion that Assad "purposely ced some territory to them in order to make them more of a problem so he can make the argument that he is somehow the protector against them," it's worth considering that the Western press may be more sophisticated than the Arab press but both can be guilty of propaganda."
</blockquote>
Why did I allude to Trump's inflammatory quote? Because, despite all of the "fact checkers" that tow the government line with one voice, nothing I wrote above is controversial to experts on Syria: I urge those laughing at Trump's crude rhetoric (or all the "backward Arabs" that think ISIS is a CIA-Mossad conspiracy) to consider first whether ''the official U.S. government position they are defending'' has any more factual merit.


====Statement by Valereee====
I never suggested SPECIFICO is "a paid Democratic party shill"—don't put words in my mouth. I have profound problems with the way SPECIFICO conducted herself during a recent edit war at ], and my description of her as a "hack" cannot be divorced from conduct such as :
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)
<blockquote>
Case in point: SPECIFICO's "''good faith''" ally ] leaves comments such as and ; SPECIFICO does nothing. I write —and SPECIFICO as a "personal attack." Can you say '''double standard'''?
</blockquote>
This should tell you two things: 1. I don't attack editors because I am "angry," but because when I am attacked I have found it expedient to hit back twice as hard. (Given that that's no longer true with SPECIFICO stalking my contributions, I promise to cut it out.) 2. SPECIFICO is not a neutral arbiter. More importantly, SPECIFICO already brought these same diffs to another forum in a failed effort to topic ban me from ]; this thread has devolved from analyzing a specific DS violation that caused minor disruption into a witchhunt and personal attack on me, based on every unpopular idea I so much as expressed on my userpage. (Of course, my userpage also makes clear that I would be considered Left-of-center on issues like gay marriage, abortion, ect., but that's neither here nor there.) No editor would hold up perfectly under such scrutiny by a dedicated stalker and forum shopper.] (]) 00:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


:100+ edits today on the article, which is EC protected. I feel like that's a lot. ] (]) 23:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*I'm absolutely floored by SPECIFICO's behavior, to the point where I have no idea how to respond. As documented above, SPECIFICO brought her list of diffs directly to before trying her luck at and now AE—yet she accuses ''me'' of "stalking" her? It's simply surreal! I made a mistake and called her a "hack" because she wouldn't leave me alone on my own talk page, mostly out of frustration because I don't know how to deal with such an unpleasant editor. I wish I could take it back, but compare that to her vicious personal attacks just '''here at AE''': In full view of the community, SPECIFICO has accused me of promoting (over of all things!) and (She has made far worse personal attacks elsewhere, such as accusing me of —of course, I '''never''' suggested "that it's OK to punch a woman in the face," and am deeply offended that SPECIFICO would portray me in such terms!) Combined with the BLP violations and threats against other editors noted by Soham321, I submit that while I am guilty of violating DS one time with the revert mentioned by Melanie, SPECIFICO's conduct here should ]. I now realize just what an enormous mistake it was to allow her to bait me with a seemingly never-ending series of drama boards and personal attacks, and will do my best to avoid her.] (]) 02:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)====
*<small>SPECIFICO recently ; rather than admitting error, she added a link to in which she claims I admitted to being "paranoid," as if that makes me an open target for abuse. Of course, this is very misleading: ] was indeffed as a result of the socking I exposed, so it obviously wasn't a figment of my imagination. The conversation in question involved me pointing out a suspicious IP to an admin, then deciding based on the evidence that it wasn't another Oneshot sock: If SPECIFICO wishes to imply that I file SPIs lightly, this is actually very strong evidence of the ''reverse''. Finally, my self-deprecating comment was clearly not meant to be taken seriously, nor did I admit to promulgating "''conspiracies theories''." (Does one person abusing multiple accounts even constitute a "conspiracy"?) Context matters; SPECIFICO's personal attacks are uncalled for.] (]) 04:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)</small>
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning ]-related pages===
*And BTW, for the record: Did none of you notice that, in the the very next edit following my now-infamous "''vandalism''" quote, I was reverted by BullRangifer, ''who in turn implied I was guilty of vandalism''?: It's not exactly unheard of to refer to large deletions of content with vague edit summaries as "vandalism," though the term '''should''' be reserved for the clear-cut cases. But is that really more serious than SPECIFICO Soham321 of violating DS, then refusing to explain how Soham had done so and moving on to when she failed to elicit the desired self-revert by means of threats alone?] (]) 03:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

*If the innumerable personal attacks above aren't bad enough, SPECIFICO's assertion that I am merely because I responded to anonymous allegations against me is '''way over the line'''. ] has a specific meaning; accusing someone of "canvassing" is accusing them of a serious violation of WP policy—it's not just an insult to throw around indiscriminately at editors you personally dislike.] (]) 04:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

*{{ping|SPECIFICO}} We've clearly gone beyond the realm of legitimate criticism into blatant misrepresentation. There are technical reasons why CU could not be performed. In the SPI, however, DoRD confirmed that the IPs So I was right! Maybe you've never filed an SPI before, but was no "''battleground taunt''" (in fact, I have no reason to suspect Oneshot ever saw it): If you file an SPI against a user, you '''must''' notify them on their talk page. I've provided similar notifications to everyone I've ever accused of socking, and no-one has ever suggested it was somehow inappropriate until now. Moreover, I would not have bothered commenting on the talk page of an indeffed user who would likely never see the message if it were not for the fact that I was required to do so. Between this and your continued insistence that should be read as a POV battle cry, it is apparent that you are not honestly representing my edits. Maybe you should take a step back and ask why that is.] (]) 19:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
<small>I've just been informed that unlike ANI, there is no rule saying you must notify someone of an SPI. In fact, I thought it was courteous to give those accused a chance to defend themselves, but if an admin feels it is "''counterproductive''," who am I to argue?] (]) 19:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)</small>
*P.S. Later in the I refer to "''Guccisamsclub—a Leftie that not infrequently gets the better of our exchanges''." Allow me to break that down, so I'm not misrepresented again: While I do call Gucci a "''Leftie''," there is no implication that I'm "''obsessed with animus and revenge''" against him; to the contrary, I acknowledge areas where he has corrected me, noting that he "''not infrequently gets the better of our exchanges''." Sorry—that's just how I talk! (Although not how I write articles.) Now, I can fully understand how an editor digging through my userpage for dirt with which to indiscriminately attack me might latch onto that and say it is "uncivil" to call another editor a "''Leftie''." To that I ask: '''Have we lost our collective mind'''?] (]) 19:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

*Before she edited as an IP. One of her first edits was to ask me because I disagreed with an edit she made to ]. That was a bad first impression; I am terribly disappointed that after four years editing under a named account, she is ''still'' resorting to these kinds of personal attacks—only on a much larger scale, as documented above.] (]) 21:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by AlexEng====
I am entirely uninvolved in this matter, but I am the author of the ''Friendly Reminder'' banner on TheTimesAreAChanging's talk page. I just want to be clear that this was in fact a friendly reminder and not an indictment of the user's behavior. ]<sup><small style="font-size:50%;">(])</small></sup> 03:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Kingsindian====
I don't see why this is at AE. There's little or no disruption and plainly looks like a content dispute.

FWIW, I think TTAAC is making a good case here and on the for their edits. However, "vandalism" has a specific meaning on Misplaced Pages: good-faith but wrong-headed edits aren't vandalism - so the term should be avoided. "Hoax" is also imprecisely used; there are questions about the case, but it has not been definitely ruled a hoax AFAIK. We all have opinions about political matters, but it's usually best to make arguments and keep the normative opinions out of discussions. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 10:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
: I am rather surprised by the reaction in the admin section. The focus should be on disruption; apparently, one revert is now considered sufficiently disruptive to take action now? If such standards were applied uniformly, I wonder how many of the people working in politics areas will remain? I only give the example of another case on this very page, concerning My very best wishes (). Please tell me what would have been the result if one re-insertion before clear consensus means that admins should take action.<p> I know this: I certainly won't be able to work in the I/P area using these standards. There has been no refusal to discuss the matter on the talkpage by the parties, so why are the admins getting involved? Are we now children that we can't work out such minor things among ourselves and need to go running to mommy?</p><p> For the record, I have yet to find a single edit which I have agreed on with TTAAC in my time here, or with MvBW. So this is not about content; it is about using common sense and fair standards. A tight leash is sometimes appropriate, but Misplaced Pages has a thousand policies and a million ways of running afoul of them. The election is over; most of the disputes have already, or will cool down significantly.</p> I reiterate my solution above. TTAAC should tone down their language, avoid commenting on editors and avoid using imprecise terms. No other action should be taken. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 08:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
:: {{u|Bishonen}}'s latest comment is about TTAAC's general conduct, not the points raised in the OP (which is fine, if one is looking to establish a broad pattern). I will try to disentangle the valid from the invalid points. I suggest that the focus be firmly on ''disruption''. <p>Bishonen gives three diffs and says that they demonstrate an unwillingness to collaborate, a battleground mentality and attacks upon other users. Of these, only the third diff is to an article. As far as I can see, the third diff displays no attacks on any editor. It cites an article by ] in ] for the content. (I don't like the thesis advanced by Hersh, but it is definitely a notable viewpoint.) The edit summary is not helpful, to put it mildly, but the edit itself is defensible. The other two diffs are from TTAAC's own talkpage. It is clear that TTAAC does not like SPECIFICO.<p></p> Now I will evaluate the diffs and people can decide whether my evaluation makes sense. Spend some time in any political topic on Misplaced Pages and you will encounter editors who you think are fools or worse. I certainly do not like many editors here and probably the sentiment is reciprocated. But one does not need to broadcast one's thoughts to the world; nobody cares whether you like editor X or not. In the same vein, keep your brilliant insight about Obama and ISIS to yourself. Again, nobody cares; just make the edit and give a reasonable edit summary. So, as I said before, TTAAC should avoid this behaviour. However, and this is the main point, I do not see any evidence of ''disruption'', either on article pages, or on talk pages. To the contrary, I see reasonable arguments made in defence of reasonable edits, mixed together with some heat which should not be present but commonly is present all over political topics in Misplaced Pages. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 07:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

====Suggestions by My very best wishes====
This subject area is going to be very difficult, and for a good reason. I have two practical suggestions.
#Please cancel editing restriction about "reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". That restriction has been heavily misused by some contributors to unilaterally remove well-sourced materials they do not like, which goes ''against'' consensus. If someone edit war against consensus or without talking, this is sanctionable ''per se''. One does not need additional editing restrictions.
#Please enforce guidelines on article talk pages. If anyone is talking not about improvement of the corresponding article on ''these'' pages, this is already a violation, and especially if one is talking about another contributor (request just above). ] (]) 15:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Based on the original request and diffs, this ''might'' be a 3-month t-ban from subjects related to D. Trump, but I do not see editing by TTAAC as something highly problematic in the area of US politics in general. Yes, he is not too friendly, but no more than some other contributors in the same subject area. Yes, he apparently has a conflict with SPECIFICO (and the diffs by Bishonen are probably related to this), but this seems to be a different issue, although some diffs by SPECIFICO below indicate difficult interactions with other users. Therefore, I would suggest no action. ] (]) 19:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Soham321====
Agree completely with Kingsindian. This is a content dispute, nothing more. Specifically, with respect to Melanie's four points, i see nothing wrong in the first edit of {{u|TheTimesAreAChanging}}. With respect to the second and third points of Melanie, i have offered a clarification here: . TheTimesAreAChanging has agreed that my assessment about his edits was correct. With respect to the fourth point of Melanie, note that there is an ongoing RfC about the Jane Doe allegations taking place at this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations and any material pertaining to the Jane Doe allegations is not being permitted to be inserted into the main article. I see nothing wrong in removing material pertaining to the Jane Doe allegations from a different WP page pertaining to Trump until this RfC has been resolved. ] (]) 20:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

it is inevitable that some 'heat' will be generated when editing contentious WP pages. The way to deal with this, almost always, is to tolerate it rather than to seek sanctions on editors one has content disputes with. At the top of the page it says that if you post a comment here then your own behavior can also be scrutinized. So let me scrutinize {{u|SPECIFICO}}'s behavior for edits pertaining to the same Trump page from which Melanie has given three out of her four diffs. SPECIFICO warns me on my talk page (TP) and again on the TP of the main article that i am liable to face Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions (DS). What had i done? I had only added a sentence to the butler's testimony from a reference already present in the main article, and given another reference which was corroborating what the reference already present said. Diffs of her 'threats': and . When i tell her on the TP that i do not believe i am in violation of Arbcom sanctions she responds by claiming the butler is 'biased' and liable to be senile: . Since the butler is still alive i believe this is a violation of ] and i point it out to her. And giving frivolous threats to another editor about facing Arbcom sanctions is disruptive behavior, plain and simple. I am mentioning all this not because i seek sanctions against SPECIFICO but because i believe the threshold for giving sanctions has to be considerably higher than some of us seem to imagine. ] (]) 01:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

There is an interesting discussion taking place here: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Hidden_Tempo (be sure to check the edit history of the page to see a recent edit of Melanie that has been reverted by {{u|Hidden Tempo}}). The relevance of this discussion is that this is again stemming from a content dispute related to the 2016 US Elections which can easily be resolved by giving a warning to the editor to tone down their language; instead we are seeing the editor being threatened with sanctions. ] (]) 15:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

{{u|MelanieN}} I have seen the two links you gave to the previous warnings. The one where he called the editor who had introduced an edit in the lead of the ] page, from a self-published blog, an 'idiot' is mitigated by two things. First, removing that edit from the lead of the Reagan page contributed to improving the quality of the article. Second, when he called the person 'idiot' he did not name anyone and it seemed he did not even know who the person who introduced this edit was (probably the edit had not been introduced recently) and this makes his comment less inflammatory than it would otherwise have been. Still he appropriately received a warning about using the word 'idiot'. The person who gave this warning has clarified in this discussion that this was only a friendly warning, not an indictment of the user's behavior. He did not protest against being given the warning, and we have to give him the benefit of doubt and accept that he agreed he had made a mistake by using the word 'idiot'.

With respect to the first link you gave, he explained he introduced the disputed edit back into the main article on the basis of a 4-2 consensus, since he had seen disputed edits placed back in main articles on even weaker consensus. Of course, he is wrong and Bull rightly pointed out to him on his talk page why he is wrong. But i don't see him protesting when Bull tells him he is wrong meaning, again giving him the benefit of doubt, that he agrees with Bull.

Nothing here deserves sanctions. Not his previous edits, because of which he was warned, and not his more recent edits because of which sanctions have been sought against him. This much said, i think we can ask him to tone down his language, specifically in edit summaries. I agree with Kingsindian's suggestion: "TTAAC should tone down their language, avoid commenting on editors and avoid using imprecise terms." The problematic words used by {{u|TheTimesAreAChanging}}, in my opinion, were 'idiot', 'hoax', and 'vandalism'. TTAAC, do you agree with the assessment of Kingsindian and myself? Do you agree to do what we are suggesting? ] (]) 21:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by (SPECIFICO)====
{{ping|Soham321}} {{ping|Kingsindian}} -- Most Arbcom violations arise from "content disputes". The issue here is whether this user violated ARBAP2 Sanctions that have been put in place to ensure orderly and respectful discussions and resolutions of those content disputes. TheTimesTheyAreAChanging had been editing disruptively on politics-related articles for some time now. He narrowly avoided a block at a recent AN3. Instead of discussion, he launches into straw man arguments, equivocation, misrepresentation of other editors, and personal attacks. Until recently, His user page read like a battle cry, starting with boast that he which he removed after I referred to it at his AN3 thread. His entire user page is a bizarre political rant of the sort I've not seen on any other user's page. This user seems to work constructively on articles relating to video games and other innocuous topics, but he lacks the ] to work on these difficult politics-related articles. I recommend a topic ban from American Politics. Let's see whether this user can refrain from yet another round of personal attacks on me here. ]] 20:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Starting to collect some diffs on this editor:
Here is a long talk page thread in which he launches into repeated personal attacks on editor {{ping|NYCJosh}} '
Some of the many battleground edit comments -- and these are just from the past few weeks! etc. etc. ]] 21:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

he removed a DS notice from his talk page with the edit comment "not interested, pal" He subsequently denied that he edits articles related to American Politics! He's been warned repeatedly by various users,and recently by Admins: {{ping|DoRD}} . Then, , he tries to enlist {{ping|Oshwah}} to assist him in continuing his edit war after Oshwah protected a page on which TheTimesAreAChanging was edit warring, supposedly because "his" version was "stable." {{ping|Doug Weller}} warned him and the attacks and disruption have only gotten worse. ]] 22:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi {{Ping|Bishonen}} Sorry, I forgot the link. It's and {{Ping|Oshwah}} observes that TheTimesAreAChanging has violated 3RR that he's received the DS notice, and that he will be blocked for further edit-warring. ]] 00:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I sure hope that y'all are reading all the comments and links before commenting. 4 Admins warned this user. Other editors politely asked him to stop edit warring on numerous American Politics articles (the ones he claims, in one of the links that he does not edit). Ad hominems, mansplaining, personal attacks and disparagement should not be OK in any article. Under DS users should know that such behavior will surely lead to a block. Actions have consequences. ]] 17:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I just happened to notice as a co-conspirator of one of TTAAC's "opponents." I had posted on this user's talk page before he was banned, so TTAAC's message came up on my watchlist. I also had TTAAC's talk page on my watchlist for the same reason, and I saw him straightforwardly tell an editor that -- a mind-boggling statement, considering that when I checked I found two articles on which we'd both edited that year. On one, ] he was page-banned for disruption. On the other he was edit warring unsourced content into an article with typical disparaging and accusatory edit comments and talk page notes. Of the thousands of editors with whom I've shared various pages over the years, I cannot imagine being obsessed with animus and revenge like that. I would like to request, in addition to a TBAN from American Politics, that the Admins also impose a one-way interaction ban so that TTAAC will stop stalking and harassing me. ]] 01:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

, TTAAC is tendentiously canvassing Admin {{ping|Hut 8.5}} about another piece of TTAAC's conspiracy theories about one of his "opponents." Then, another battleground taunt on the target's talk page is removed (see edit comment) by Admin {{ping|DoRD}} after a TTAAC's second Checkuser request against his "opponent" was declined at . Then, , he goes to DoRD's talk page to misrepresent the taunt as a "notification." Another example of hostile misrepresentation is found here: , he casually refers to "SPECIFICO's forum-shopping" -- which apparently refers to my having commented on this AE and on his AN3 thread, neither of which I initiated, and which related to two distinct infractions. ]] 01:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be ample evidence for enforcement here, so this thread may be ripe for closure. Sadly, however, there's a fresh post on another AE thread at this page that shows TTAAC first denying the evidence here, saying that his own linked contributions have been "used to caricature me as some sort of POV warrior, which couldn't be further from the truth". This is followed by yet more of his political soapboxing, in this case about "Misplaced Pages's predominant liberal thesis" and lack of "pro-Trump Admins". This was accoompanied by some window dressing to his user page so that the current version contains somewhat less of the battleground and soapbox stuff railing against Misplaced Pages's mainstream representation of history. See . I hope this editor grows out of his behavioral issues, but at this time, it's clear that a substantial TBAN from American Politics is called for, to prevent ongoing drag that poisons the efforts of the vast majority of editors who are trying to stick to NPOV, engage in rational discussion of editing and policy application, and are dedicated to observing the restrictions of ARBAP2 for the good of the Encyclopedia. ]] 17:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by shrike====
I never edited this topic area (as far as I can remember) and I don't see here anything beyond content dispute.--] (]) 12:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

===Result concerning TheTimesAreAChanging===
:''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 does look like inappropriate behaviour to me. TheTimesAreAChanging which was by another editor who didn't think it was appropriate. At that point the issue should have been taken to the talk page, both per ] and more importantly the active sanction requiring that "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". Instead TheTimesAreAChanging chose to calling the removal "vandalism" (which it ]). This is a pretty clear breach of the active sanction. ''''']''''' 12:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
-->
:*{{ping|TheTimesAreAChanging}}: you really aren't doing yourself any favours with your responses here. If you do have a "combative persona", perceive other editors as "attacking" you and try to "hit back twice as hard" then you really shouldn't be editing in this topic area. ] and you should be working together with other editors rather than spending your time here fighting with them. This is particularly important in articles involving very divisive issues some editors care deeply about, such as this one. I can see how this style of conduct would explain your behaviour in regards to the edits which prompted this request - when one of your edits was reverted you perceived that as an attack and retaliated by reverting again, disparaging the earlier revert as "vandalism" and leaving rather aggressive talk page comment. If that is the kind of thing you do habitually when editing articles about recent American politics then I suggest you try editing somewhere else. ''''']''''' 20:47, 26 November 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)
*This looks like a straightforward violation of the discretionary page restrictions on ]. A few weeks ago, Melanie specifically pointed out on the user's page that they needed to be careful about editing U.S. politics articles under page restrictions. This was in regard to TheTimes' reinstating challenged edits on another article (]), but you'd think they'd be able to keep the general, and specifically Trump-related, warning in mind. Also I think it's pretty egregious for an experienced editor to play the tired "vandalism" card in order to justify their revert. New users can be excused for claiming anything they disagree with is vandalism, as they often do, but it won't fly in this case. ] &#124; ] 17:16, 24 November 2016 (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)
:*Adding note: ], do you have a link to the ANI discussion you mention, where you say TheTimesAreAChanging narrowly avoided a block? (Minor point: you refer to him as "TheTimes'''They'''AreAChanging", but that isn't his name. It could be argued that it ought to be — that your version does more justice to Bob Dylan, and to rhythm — but that's the user's business.) ] &#124; ] 00:17, 25 November 2016 (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)
:*More: Thank you, ]. (That's an AN3 thread, not ANI; you may want to change that in your post). I was aware before in a general way of TheTimesAreAChanging being embattled on Am Pol pages, and I had even looked at his userpage — it reminded me of ]'s, mutatis mutandis and without the wit. But I hesitated to act, even to warn, simply because there's so much unpleasantness on those article talkpages overall that it takes much study to be sure one person sinks below the general level. Anyway, I'm interested in your diffs, and note from them especially TheTimesAreAChanging's tendency to put personal attacks and BLP violations in edit summaries. Examples: <br>
:::13 Oct 2016: Not sure what a "hack editor" is. In the context, perhaps a paid Democratic party shill? <br>
:::27 Oct 2016: That's like taking every opportunity for a battleground stance, even for something as anodyne as removing his own archive links from his own page. <br>
:::19 Nov 2016: Calling Obama the "Founder of ISIS". It has quotes round it, and yes, we all know it's a quote and from where, but why is it there at all?


==Callmehelper==
::If ] has some explanation of these edit summaries that will make them sound remotely decent, collaborative, etc, I'll be interested to hear it. If he doesn't, I'm not sure he should be editing American politics at all, when it makes him so angry. I see him editing computer games and related pages in a pleasant and constructive manner (AFAICS); stick to that, perhaps? ] &#124; ] 22:31, 25 November 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 Callmehelper===
==Kamel Tebaast==
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Srijanx22}} 18:30, 23 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|Callmehelper}}<p>{{ds/log|Callmehelper}}</p>
===Request concerning Kamel Tebaast===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Nableezy}} 18:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Kamel Tebaast}}<p>{{ds/log|Kamel Tebaast}}
<!--- 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.-->
# first revert # - 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."
# second revert
# - 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 :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
# Indefinitely blocked and topic-banned
# topic banned

;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
*Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see above for previous sanctions
*Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, through email with The Wordsmith


;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 -->
This editor has already been topic banned twice in less than 6 months. This is his second 1RR violation since having the last topic ban lifted. There is a much larger report covering all of his recent "contributions" to this encyclopedia, and the pettiness and bad faith exercises in those edits, but that will take a bit to compile. For now, here's a fairly clear 1RR violation. This user has proved himself incapable of abiding by the rules to edit in this topic area, and I really hope an admin doesnt indefinitely block and lift that block 2 days later after an off-wiki private discussion that they refuse to release any details about, and then lift the topic ban and allow this person to continue wasting our time.
:Putting scare quotes around the right of return is not "solid editing". KTs edits since returning from his topic ban have ranged from mildly bad to outrageous. Id like to say more about this here but I think the more substantive complaint requires an email to the arbitration committee for privacy reasons. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 20:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)</small>
{{ping|The Wordsmith}}, the users very first edit coming off the topic ban was to a wikilink because it said the word "Palestine". He then, without ever once disputing that the agency in question was actually part of the British government of Palestine, proceeded to continue playing ] on the talk page for a week. Along with that, he was arguing on the same talk page that the village in question was named after an ancient site that wasnt even discovered until several years after the village had been established and named. All because he did not want to include the well sourced fact that the name was taken from a nearby Arab settlement. See ]. Following that, KT proceeded to attempt to overwhelm the biography of a computer scientist and mathematician with irrelevant material, turning it into a proxy battle between Ephraim Karsh and Tom Segev, neither of whom are the subject of that BLP (. The rest of this cant really be discussed here. But, in sum, this person has repeatedly demonstrated that the agenda driven motives in his edits and the distinct lack of respect for Misplaced Pages policies, content and behavioral. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)</small>

Yall should really institute a rule that involved editors may not comment on an enforcement request. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 19:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)</small>

{{ping|Lankiveil}} yes, this itself is minor. And maybe Im being lazy in seeing yet another minor violation and reporting it instead of actually putting together a more comprehensive report. But Kamel Tebaast is a terrible editor, an uninformed hyper-partisan who has contributed nothing of any substance to a single article in this topic area and has instead spent his time engaged in full out battle on behalf of his cause. He has personalized disputes beyond anything I have seen in however close to the decade Ive been here. He has been petty and vindictive, disinterested in abiding by even WP:BLP, willing to turn completely unrelated topics into proxy battlegrounds on either the topic or against editors he holds to be his antagonists. So yes, this is minor. But in the five months since this person has been allowed to edit in this topic area, a month after he began editing in topics since abandoned because his aim of being a warrior for the cause of Israel on Misplaced Pages is fairly clear, he has been topic banned twice for two of those months, and since returning has proceeded to demonstrate just how bad this person is for any project purporting to have the aim of creating reliably sourced neutral encyclopedia articles. As you have oversight Id be happy to email you regarding the private information that made me more willing to report a minor violation.


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


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


====Statement by Callmehelper====
===Discussion concerning Kamel Tebaast===
This is my side ;
<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>
# '''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.
====Statement by Kamel Tebaast====
<br>
Nableezy is correct about one thing: I did violate the 1RR. I wish I could self-revert, which I would, but it is obviously too late.
# '''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>
They should place warnings: '''DON'T EDIT WHILE ON MEDS'''. My only excuse is that I'm on heavy medications prior to a surgery tomorrow. I mistakenly thought that I had made a revert on another article. In any case, the revert in discussion was solid and should not to be construed as disruptive editing. If my intent was disruptive in nature or aimed at violating policy it would be one thing. This wasn't.
'''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)====
:{{ping|The Wordsmith}} I made a technical mistake. As noted, I would have immediately self-reverted had someone pointed it out to me. However the 10 minutes between my edit, the revert, and the filing at AE did not allow. I did not revert the same text, so I was obviously not edit waring. I don't understand why I shouldn't be given the same opportunity everyone receives to correct such a minor technical error. <span style="font-size:smaller;:'arial bold',;border:1px solid Black;">]]</span> 16:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Shrike====
Usually users that violate 1RR given chance to self revert.The Kemal was not given such chance and he does accept it as mistake I think warning about being careful in the future will suffice--] (]) 18:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
<!-- 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 Callmehelper===
====Statement by Monochrome Monitor====
It's unfair that he was reported without getting a chance to self-revert. This is contrary to the spirit of wikipedia, where rules are preventative and not punitive. This is simply a "gotcha!" complaint, catching KT (drugged or not) in the act breaking the 1RR rule. Well, from my experience the 1RR rule is easy to break, and nableezy has reported me similarly for doing so without letting me self-revert even though I expressed intent to. But this isn't about me, I'm just saying this because I don't think nableezy understands what 1RR is for. It is not to punish your enemies but to encourage healthy debate, and these vexatious AE reports have a chilling effect.--]<big>_</big>] 21:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

{{ping|Nableezy}} Why revert completely if there are parts you dont object to? Why not just remove the scare quotes as you describe them?--]<big>_</big>] 22:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

{{ping|Malik Shabazz}} Can we keep this civil?--]<big>_</big>] 22:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

{{ping|Zero0000}} If they revert themselves, what's the problem? There is no "impunity" if they self-revert, and even you call it a "mistake". It's a fact that the vast majority of 1RR violations are accidental. Alerting users to their mistake doesn't mean you can't report them, it just means waiting a bit before doing so. The result is the same, their edit is removed, just without getting AE involved. Making people less likely to go to AE is a GOOD thing. The fact is that many users, like myself, never go to AE, and others, like Nableezy, go whenever an "enemy" slips up. (I will gladly take that back if someone can produce an example of Nableezy reporting an editor with his POV for a 1RR violation) If anything we rely too much on 3RR and 1RR violations as "hard indicators" of misconduct, warranting punishment regardless of the circumstances. But ] is a thing and if anything we should be more reliant on what are currently "soft indicators", namely, being a jackass. The worst offenders who act against the spirit of[REDACTED] by gaming revert restrictions would fall under that category, but those who politely apologize and self-revert do not.--]<big>_</big>] 23:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

{{ping|Zero0000}} I'm not familiar with his baggage but the vast majority of editors (and things in the universe) are not "useless".--]<big>_</big>] 04:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Malik Shabazz====
Boo hoo! I was drunk, so I'm not responsible for my umpteenth violation of the rules. I'm on the side of the angels, so I deserve a <s>second</s> <s>third</s> fourth chance. I only broke the rules because the evil nableezy caught me, so it really doesn't count. What a bunch of pitiful whiners! —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by John Carter====
I don't know that I've ever seen someone say they may have been temporarily impaired as a result of medications for surgery. If it is true, and I assume it is up to the AE enforcers to determine how much credit they give it, that it was due to such a unique set of circumstances, having myself been in a similar spot in the past, I can see how it might not be unreasonable to maybe allow a single instance of misconduct related to that slide, provided that there is no recurrence. If there ever is recurrence, throw the book or computer at him. The fact that the editor apparently wasn't given a chance to self-revert might also be considered in the decision. FWIW, I edited a wikisource page on a treaty when I was in the same situation, not here, but that was under probably different circumstances. ] (]) 22:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
:My thanks to {{user|Irondome}} for his offer of mentorship below, which seems to me to be one of the better options available here. ] (]) 16:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Debresser====
To me it is clear that Kamel Tebaast made one edit in the evening and a completely different one in the morning, and probably just forgot that he had made an edit the previous evening. In addition, the edits are sound, and I see nothing contentious about them. Nableezy's post here seems like his umpteenth attempt to get an editor from the "other camp" blocked for no real violation. I think this report should be dismissed and that's it. ] (]) 22:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
====Statement by Sir Joseph====
I echo what Debresser wrote and what I would like perhaps added to the rulebooks is that if you are bringing an AE action for a 1RR you also need to show that the user had notification of the 1RR and time to revert. There is a huge chill in the air in certain areas and it's just not nice to be around anymore. We need to bring back the "fun" of editing and not harp on every edit. 🔯 ] <sup><font color="Green">🍸]</font></sup> 00:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
:I think to settle this matter, the mentoring offer should be looked into as a valid option. 🔯 ] <sup><font color="Green">🍸]</font></sup> 20:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Zero0000====
A lot of nonsense is being written here. Editors who are known for editing in good faith are frequently given a chance to revert their mistakes before getting reported, but bad faith editors like Kamel Tebaast do not deserve such a courtesy. Establishing this as a "right" would fundamentally alter application of policy and would allow bad editors to violate 1RR/3RR with impunity, knowing that they can back out safely if they are challenged. As for my charge of bad faith, one can mention his edit-warring and bad faith argumentation at ], immediately after {{u|The Wordsmith}} removed his topic ban. At the talk page there you can see him trying to argue that this location was named after an ancient site not known to exist at the time, and refusing to accept multiple sources that clearly identify a government department. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

{{Re|Monochrome Monitor}} What we must not allow is an environment where a bad editor can violate 1RR with the knowledge that they will get a chance to back off if the the edit is challenged. There is no such right, and if someone is reported for a 1RR violation it is their own fault alone. Nableezy already allowed KT to revert himself once recently; how many chances should he get? The admins who work here are capable of seeing the difference between a good editor who made an innocent mistake and a bad editor whose violation was not innocent. Note that "not innocent" is different from "deliberate"; someone who breaks 1RR without intending to during a pov-push is also not innocent. However, I personally think that 1RR is the least of KT's sins since he came off his topic ban. He should be re-banned because he is a disruptive useless editor. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

====Statement by Irondome====
I am willing to mentor, as a last resort. This entirely depends on whether KT gets the fact that they need help before community patience is collectively exhausted, and community consensus would support such a move. I have in the past briefly mentored one member of the community who is now positively contributing to this discussion. POV is irrelevant if one sticks by the rules, is intellectually honest and is capable of self-reflection. The medical issue I am keeping an open mind about, and am inclined to be understanding. Even so, it was a terribly ill-timed co-incidence of events. Now, <span style="font-size:smaller;:'arial bold',;border:1px solid Black;">]]</span>, would you accept mentoring? My terms are strict, and I would not hesitate to hand over to admin action if you broke a mutually accepted mentoring agreement. I have watched this issue from the sidelines for some months, and am aware of the overriding problems to an extent. What does the community say? If agreed by all parties, I will present my conditions here. ] (]) 01:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

===Result concerning Kamel Tebaast===
:''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'm holding off on judgment for the moment, but suffice to say I'm not happy about this case. I had hoped (perhaps naively) that KT would stay out of trouble for the near future. {{Ping|Nableezy}} You say you have additional evidence. I would like to see it, at least the portion that does not have privacy concerns. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 15:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
-->
**KT has indicated that he's going to be offline for roughly a week to recover from his medical procedure. Unless there is some compelling reason, I intend to hold this request open until then. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 16:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
*This seems to be on the extremely minor side of things, and I don't see any reason not to AGF where the explanation is concerned; the user should be aware that using similar excuses in the future will probably not elicit a very sympathetic response. ] <sup>(])</sup> 09:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC).


== AE updates (two party limit, balanced editing restriction, and thanks from ArbCom) ==
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Hidden Tempo==


This post should probably go on the talk page, but I am posting here for visibility. In ], the Arbitration Committee ] to <strong>limit all reports at AE to two parties: the filer and the reported party.</strong> To reiterate, this is <strong>not</strong> limited to the PIA topic area. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
<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>


<strong>In the PIA area, a ]</strong> (shortcut: {{-r|WP:BER}}) has been added to your toolbox, as part of ]. The details of the restriction can be found at the link, but the short version is it requires editors to make no more than a third of their edits in mainspace, draftspace, and their respective talk spaces in the PIA5 area. Editors subject to BER are also topic banned from PIA outside of those namespaces.
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Hidden Tempo}} – ] (]) 05:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


Finally, the Committee has unanimously decided to ] for volunteering at AE, especially in the PIA topic area. Keep being awesome :)
; Sanction being appealed : 6 month TBAN from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed. Imposed , logged .

; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Bishonen}}

; Notification of that administrator : ''The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a ] of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.''

===Statement by Hidden Tempo===

Regarding the reasoning that I deserve a ban because I called Volunteer Marek's edit "filth" () this user has been harassing me for over a month, following me from article to article, violating ] and ] almost every time.. I also asked him to stop harassing me , which he ignored and continued to reply to my talk page edits and proceeded to continue ]. I submit that I do not deserve a ban on the grounds that I removed a harassing editor's message from my talk page, or that I used the word "filth" to characterize said harassing message.

Bishonen's second point is that I should be banned because I apparently violated ] (as Volunteer Marek, the harassing editor alleged multiple times) with . However, my edit does not fit any of the requirements outlined in that policy. I have never voiced support for any political candidate or revealed my own political views, and yet have been accused of doing so by Bishonen and Volunteer Marek. In that edit, I provided links to RS for each statement. Was my frustration with the lack of neutrality on the ] talk page apparent? Undoubtedly. Did this fit any of the 5 requirements for ] to be violated? Absolutely not. I submit that no violation of this policy took place, and strenuously object to a topic ban on these grounds. Bishonen also claims that my comments are disruptive and "foment strife," but is this not what this project is based upon? Healthy discussion and the melding of a variety of opinions are how articles are improved. I welcome (civil) conflict, and challenging the status quo brings about positive change. Whether or not I am viciously attacked by other editors is out of my hands, and therefore provides no justification for a topic ban.

Bishonen's final reason for my topic ban is that I violated ] violations with the aforementioned edit: ''"Plus, you phrased wholesale attacks on Clinton and her family members ("Chelsea Clinton using Foundation funds to pay for her wedding") in a way that's not supported by the sources you linked to."'' With this accusation, Bishonen submits that my statement(s) (oddly characterized as an "attack" by Bishonen, therefore violating ]), meets the standards for a BLP violation. In actuality, whether or not an edit is reflected accurately in the source material is entirely subjective, and is in fact the very reason we have talk pages in the first place! While providing insight to another user as to why his edit has been reverted, I used the discussion as an opportunity to provide him with clarity as to why he is unlikely to succeed. I pointed to the pervasive and ingrained <nowiki>{{neutrality}}</nowiki> issues with the ] and ] pages. The source material ( ) clearly alleges that ] used Clinton Foundation funds to pay for her wedding. If Bishonen doesn't agree, that is her right, but a six month topic ban to voice that disagreement is not the proper course of action. I submit that I committed no BLP violations with the edit that she cited on my talk page, and thus should not be subjected to an extraordinarily lengthy TBAN on these grounds.

Lastly, the banning administrator, BIshonen, has admitted to being unable to comprehend "a good deal" of American politics, since she pejoratively describes our political system as "strange.". This self-admitted lack of understanding calls into question her ability to accurately interpret complex American political issues, such as the ] and other issues I raised that she feels are BLP violations, especially if English is not her native language (note that this is in no way designed to be insulting or an attack, rather a legitimate concern of detecting nuance). For these reasons, I am appealing the 6-month TBAN, and requesting for a modification of this ban (reduction) to a 48-hour TBAN. While I vehemently maintain that I have done nothing wrong, I may benefit from a break from editing this weekend. Thank you for the consideration, and I apologize if I have violated any rules of etiquette or protocol, as this is my first banning and first appeal.

EDIT: Just another note, I would also like to take this opportunity to request an IBAN for myself and Volunteer Marek to help keep talk page discussions copasetic, whatever the result may be of this appeal. Also, in light of Bishonen's apparent distaste for American politics (see above edit), I believe this poses a natural ] problem and adds to the notion that this lengthy TBAN should be either nullified or at least drastically reduced as I previously suggested. Thank you again.
] (]) 05:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@{{u|Johnuniq}} Forgive me, I'm new at this. Do I reply here? I absolutely oppose the inclusion of "Frigidaire" as a nickname of Hillary Clinton. I feel it's undue, as I know a great deal about Hillary Clinton and have never heard this nickname. In addition, I believe the user provided one flimsy source. I've developed a bit of a reputation on the talk pages for being a "Hillary hater" and/or "Trump supporter," but I've always strived for neutrality, regardless of my own personal feelings about the former candidates. I had hoped that never revealing my own political views would help lend credence to my status as an objective editor, but it seems I've failed miserably. To answer your other question, if I could do it again, I would've started a new section regarding these topics, rather than bundled the issues in the "Frigidaire" subsection. I attribute my penchant for long responses to the repeated "soapboxing" allegations, and maybe if I could find a way to trim and/or better compartmentalize my suggestions to improve articles, my responses wouldn't be confused with soapboxing. However, I maintain that the issues I raised were well-backed by the sources that I cited within the response, thereby avoiding any BLP violations. In retrospect, I should have used the phrases "alleged" and "accused of" to make it perfectly clear that I was not convicting anyone of any crimes on the Misplaced Pages talk pages, but instead stating the facts that the Clinton Foundation was in fact accused of ethics violations. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to respond. ] (]) 06:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
:@{{u|Johnuniq}} The Frigidaire nickname wasn't well-sourced, and as I stated in the comment, even if the nickname should be included, it's academic for me. The main problem I have is that there is a Clinton Foundation subsection, but absolutely no mention of the ongoing FBI investigation into the Foundation and (possibly) multiple ethics violations reported on by multiple reliable sources, and likely even admitted by the Clinton campaign itself in the WikiLeaks email that I sourced. I used the analogy that trying to get such a minute detail into the article when there are other monumental issues with the article is like trying to get a stain out of the carpet when the house is on fire. I'm also unsure which source I provided that was partisan. Is ] not a reliable source? ] is very frequently used as a citation on political pages, despite many conflicts of interest (financial and otherwise) with the Clinton campaign that I've discussed previously, but do not particularly want to bring up here as I don't want to be accused of more BLP violations. ] (]) 07:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
::@{{u|Johnuniq}} @{{u|Bishonen}} @{{u|JFG}} @{{u|Soham321}} Am I able to reply to @{{u|MelanieN}}'s statement here? I would just like to point out that not a single political view was stated by myself in any of those diffs. I never voiced my support for a former candidate, or any opinions concerning, economics, illegal immigration, social issues, healthcare, foreign policy, taxes, energy, entitlement spending, or any other political issues. According to the , politics concerns affairs associated with running a "government, organization, or movement." Therefore, voicing my thoughts about the state of American journalism is not a political view, even if I use the words "liberal" or "conservative." Additionally, I am offended at the accusation that I propagated any "conspiracy theory." At the time of that edit, I was unaware that I was required to use sources (even on the talk pages) for every statement that may not be immediately obvious to an outsider. However, after I became aware of this, I began using sources on the talk pages. I am more than willing and eager to share a plethora of sources backing each and every single statement (re: ], ], ], Hillary's trustworthiness poll numbers that I referred to as "feeble") etc., thereby more than disproving any misuse of the phrase "conspiracy theory." Lastly, I would like to point out that using the word "mountainous" to describe the number and severity of a presidential candidate's alleged ethical and legal struggles is not a policy violation. This is entirely subjective, and that is the exact reason that I raised these issues on the talk page instead of taking the liberty of adding content directly to the article before reaching consensus. MelanieN may disagree with my opinion, but a disagreement is not a BLP violation or in breach of any other Misplaced Pages policies that I am aware of, nor is raising the concern of . ] (]) 23:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
:::@{{u|RexxS}} I'm sorry you feel that your intelligence was insulted, but that was not my intention at all. I am simply disagreeing with @{{u|MelanieN}}'s thesis that I am voicing political views, when in fact I am not (by the Wiktionary definition of "politics"). I also do not agree that my edits are biased. As I discussed with @{{u|Bishonen}}, the reason that my edits may appear to favor Donald Trump and somehow denigrate Hillary Clinton is due to the status of the articles. My opinion is that Donald Trump's article is currently burdened with the "too long" template because every minute negative detail of his campaign has been crammed onto the page. My opinion is that Hillary Clinton's article, in contrast, is very readable (albeit skeletal), but oddly vacant of some of her career-defining moments and events that many would view as negative. Every possible proud moment of her life and positive attribute is thoroughly documented and discussed in detail. Therefore, I do not argue for potentially negative material to be added to Trump's page simply because there is nothing left to add. It's all there. For the same reason, I do not advocate for positive material to be added to Hillary Clinton's pages - every last bit is represented, including UNDUE material. I truly think that's why I have been unfairly accused of having a "pro-Trump/anti-Clinton" bias. But as {{u|JFG}} pointed out, we all have inherent bias as contributors, here.<br></br><br></br>
:::I take great exception to your statement that I committed a BLP violation by referring to Hillary's trustworthiness poll numbers as "feeble." It's an that found that just 11% of America trusts Hillary Clinton (as of August, 2016). Is 11% not worthy of the word "feeble"? There's no BLP violation there. There just isn't - it's a factual statement, echoed in the source material, which has direct pertinence to the subject matter of the article. That goes for my concern of ] issues on political articles, as well. I cited Time Magazine as reference, so I fail to see how that qualifies as "step too far." My statement is backed by an extremely reliable source (in a non-partisan article), and qualifies as more than "a shred of evidence." Thanks for reading and I apologize for the lengthy edit. ] (]) 02:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
::@{{u|RexxS}} I think we have both made our views on this topic abundantly clear at this point. I would just like to note that I have read ] several times to better familiarize myself with the criteria for a violation to have occurred. As you said, "unsourced and poorly sourced" material should not be added. Both statements in question were well-sourced, and I never edited the article's subject matter to include the sourced material. Instead, I visited the talk pages in an attempt to reach consensus, and offered a nicely written (in my biased opinion, of course) proposal to say a few words about the ]. I invited other editors to take part in improving my draft, and was instead met with accusations of POV, tendentious editing, and being "snide." Only @{{u|MelanieN}} was kind enough to offer constructive feedback. Hopefully that exchange provides a better idea of who I am and how I'm treated by a select group of contributors. In any case, as {{u|Soham321}} stated, I am relatively new to the project, but still cannot reconcile your description of my talk page edits as a "BLP violation" after reading the page multiple times. They don't appear to fit any of the requirements outlined on that project page, but please correct me if I'm wrong with the exact passage (remember, my allegedly "contentious" edits are well-sourced) that makes even ''mentioning'' Secretary Clinton's trustworthiness poll numbers a BLP violation, rather than just a normal disagreement of ] on a talk page.<br></br><br></br>One more thing - despite the obvious tense nature of a TBAN appeal, I would appreciate it if we could be a bit more civil. I don't think it's very appropriate to threaten and appear to relish the opportunity to block me with language like "I'll see you at ANI" and accuse me of feigning indignation. I believe I've been exceptionally polite throughout this process thus far, and don't believe my prior actions in question should be reason to deny me the same courtesy. Thank you.] (]) 04:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

:@{{u|My very best wishes}}, what "unsubstantiated complaint" that created "disruption" are you talking about, here? I'm really confused, now. I will acknowledge that we seem to be deviating from the basis of my appeal, though. I was banned for three reasons according to Bishonen (1) referring to Volunteer Marek's harassing message as "filth," 2)violating ], and 3) violating ]. I believe I have sufficiently refuted all three of these claims against me, so maybe we could get back to the main meat of this TBAN. My proposal for an edit on the talk page of the ] article is still open, and I would very much like to have my TBAN rescinded soon and rejoin the collaborative effort while it is still active. This would of course be done with the understanding that I must always source any potentially contentious material that I propose (including on the talk pages), adopt a less combative attitude, take the suggestions of @{{u|JFG}} and @{{u|Soham321}} to heart, and focus on improving articles piecemeal rather than engaging in long diatribes to voice my frustration with my perceived neutrality issues. Many thanks. ] (]) 06:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

===Statement by Bishonen===
I don't think Hidden Tempo's analysis above does justice to my reasons for banning them. But I've already dialogued with them on these matters, so I suggest reviewers read their user talkpage, especially and , and form their own opinion.

Another thing: I've started to think a narrower scope might have worked, such as "topic banned from all pages related to either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, both broadly construed". I hadn't quite realized how narrowly focused this user has been on promoting Trump and attacking Clinton (IMO) ever since they started editing, and on really very little else in American politics. On the other hand, there might be a risk of the disruption simply moving to other political areas. What do people think? ] &#124; ] 10:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC).

===Statement by JFG===
Having edited quite a bit in contentious political pages, I noticed Hidden Tempo sometimes behaving in not-so-civil ways, but aside from getting impatient, I don't see anything illegitimate in HT's contributions. He makes cogent and reasoned arguments about existing contents or noting lack thereof. He appropriately refrains from making controversial edits to articles without discussing them on talk pages; in fact he seems to be criticized here for posting lengthy arguments on talk pages. He discusses systemic bias in some mainstream sources, while proposing other sources for different viewpoints; what's wrong with that? A 6-month ban is absolutely overkill, perhaps a week would help him cool off and study some of our neutrality and civility policies. The suggested i-ban with VM might help keep things civil too, maybe that would be useful for a couple months. Banning this contributor for 6 months could be construed as censorship, and God knows WP doesn't need more accusations of bias one way or the other. My personal advice to HT: rather than ranting about your perceived imbalance of coverage, do make concrete and small proposals to restore balance one edit at a time. ]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 11:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is a followup to {{u|MelanieN}}'s comments and {{u|Hidden Tempo}}'s response. Admitting to one's own POV on talk pages should be ''encouraged'' in the spirit of full disclosure and ]. I have zero problem working constructively with editors harboring strong personal opinions on both sides of any political issue: such discussions, when conducted in good faith, tend to result in stronger, precise, neutral and more defensible consensus wording. Melanie: you and I have done this a few times during the campaign season, although I suspect we did not agree politically on which candidate would be the best fit for the country at this time. What irks me are editors who keep crying NPOV at every turn while harboring a transparently obvious POV of their own and forcefully denying it; I much prefer to deal with straightforward opinionated people.

Speaking of opinionated editors, I would like to quote {{u|EEng}}'s cogent remark in {{u|Doc9871}}'s case above: {{tq|If we only allowed editors free of bias, we'd have no editors at all, literally}}. — ] <sup>]</sup> 00:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

===Statement by MelanieN===
Disclaimer: I am ] at the Clinton and Trump pages, so I am commenting here only as a regular editor who is familiar with HT's work. (I am going to refer to HT as "he" because I have seen him identify himself as a "man" or a "guy" in several posts.) Regarding talk pages, HT claims: "I have never voiced support for any political candidate or revealed my own political views." In fact he reveals his political views all the time. His POV against Clinton, against mainstream media, and against Misplaced Pages is clearly in evidence.
* Against Clinton: "mountainous scandals" "HRC feverishly resisted releasing the transcripts" Here's a post in which he (without irony) simultaneously attacks Clinton ("dealt a massive blow to her already feeble trustworthiness numbers") and requests others to "keep our own personal politics out of it, as some of the POV I've seen here by viciously (and at times, defamatory) attacking a presidential candidate and his supporters is downright disgusting and has no place on this page".
* Against media: "Whether or not the San Francisco-based Misplaced Pages organization regards a liberal newspaper as 'reputable' is of no consequence to me."" At an AfD for the article ]: "Creating articles based on whatever topics that a bunch of radical left blogs and newspapers deem newsworthy sets a dangerous precedent." On his own talk page, he complains that Misplaced Pages accepts as sources Slate and Huffington Post - "some of the most disgusting, profane, unapologetically openly left-wing websites…run by the most alarmingly radical liberal bloggers "working" today" - while not allowing Breitbart and the Drudge Report. At an article talk page: "this page and countless others are littered with citations from CNN. CNN is owned by Time Warner, Hillary's 7th largest campaign donor. They were also caught feeding debate questions to the Hillary campaign in order to help her cheat, and fired Donna Brazile for it. We count Washington Post as a "RS," despite the fact that they admitted to hiring a special "Trump Unit" composed of 20 reporters whose sole job it was to dig up dirt on Trump. We use CBS as a reputable source, despite the fact that John Harwood was caught colluding with the Hillary campaign, brainstorming questions to ask the Republican candidates in the primary debates. POLITICO is regularly cited, despite the fact that Glenn Thrush, the editor, was caught sending articles to the Hillary campaign for pre-approval before publishing. Something doesn't add up here." (He later denied this was intended to suggest any "conspiracy theories.")

:A particular target is the New York Times, "a far-left wing newspaper". "The overwhelming majority of the American media and populace (as well as various sets of data) agree that the NYT is an avowed liberal newspaper, providing a leftist ideological perspective from the front page to the editorial page." "The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican candidate for POTUS since Eisenhower. Sixty years ago. The headlines throughout the campaign have been ludicrous, and at times disgusting." They also mischaracterized a New York Times's letter to subscribers as "apologizing for dishonest coverage of Trump."

*Against other Misplaced Pages editors: "This article has obviously been heavily contaminated by editing from Hillary supporters, and possibly paid operatives from the DNC." "There seems to be a handful of activist editors who are sanitizing all pages related to the DNC and the corruption of Hillary Clinton, and it appears something needs to be done to bar these users from editing and violating WP:POV and WP:DUE until their emotions cool down." "As far as fighting the uber-liberal Misplaced Pages leadership and highly active DNC representatives combing political articles, working diligently to revise history and scrub news that reflects poorly on Democrats from their pages, I have neither the time nor the resources to take on such a monumental task."

*Against Misplaced Pages itself: He repeatedly cites the fact that "Misplaced Pages is based in San Francisco" as the reason why Misplaced Pages pages have a "liberal" slant. When it was explained to him that it's the WikiMedia Foundation that is based in SF, and that enwiki content comes from worldwide Misplaced Pages volunteers and not the WMF, he replied "whether or not I can prove that Misplaced Pages has bought into the Silicon Valley Facebook/Microsoft/Google/Apple, etc. long and storied tradition of devout liberalism is beside the point."

In my opinion his POV is so strong that he is unable to be neutral. In particular his attitude toward Reliable Sources (that a "liberal" source, which in his opinion includes most of the mainstream media, should not be considered reliable) is completely out of line with Misplaced Pages's definition (reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). Also, his repeated attacks on the good faith and neutrality of other editors (always generic and collective, never individually targeted as far as I have seen) are a problem. For these reasons his Clinton and Trump talk page contributions are, at best, unhelpful. I apologize for the length of this post, but I think quotes and diffs are helpful in this kind of review.

: Additional comment: Since I am involved, I did not intend to recommend outcomes here. But I must disagree with the hints from ] and ] about a possible block. I can't see that HT has done anything to deserve a block. I also disagree with bringing ] or ] into the discussion. To my mind the SPA tag describes a person who from day 1 focuses entirely on one article, often with promotional intent. Many of us focus on one general area of interest to us, especially during our first few hundred edits; that does not make us SPAs. And I don't see any BLP violations in his negative comments about Clinton. Negative comments about aspects of a politician's campaign may be POV, but IMO they do not violate BLP.

: BTW I wasn't the one who brought up "conspiracy theories". Another editor, ], commented (a few posts after the HT link that I cited), "This page is taking on the tone of a conspiracy site," to which HT replied "Is it? In what way? I did a quick scan of the talk page and haven't found a single conspiracy theory raised, as of yet." And that was the end of that thread.

::Well, now I see that ] disagrees with me about whether the comments were BLP, and did in fact issue a short block. I guess that's why ] administrators (like me) do not make this kind of decision. --] (]) 21:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

===Statement by Johnuniq===
:<small>''Taking the hint from the sections above, I have moved my comments from the discussion below, without the pings to ensure they don't provide another notification. ] (]) 07:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)''</small>
@Hidden Tempo: I'm wondering about ] at ]. Would you write that differently if redoing it? Why or why not? Do you think "Frigidaire" should be listed as a nickname at ]? ] (]) 06:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
:@Hidden Tempo: Yes, I believe you reply there. I don't think we need to discuss this at length but I will register my surprise that someone who so emphatically opposes "Frigidaire" would post that comment. Re inserting "alleged"—that is not relevant for ]. No page at Misplaced Pages can be used to insert dubious claims on the basis that "alleged" was used and a partisan source provided. My comment is generic as I have not examined the claims/sources beyond noting the confrontational tone of the overal comment. ] (]) 06:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

===Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging===
<small>''NB'': This comment is in part informed by a similar AE request against myself; unlike Hidden Tempo, I committed a revert that might well merit some sanction (it's much too late to self-revert), but—as with Hidden Tempo—the thread rapidly devolved into scouring my userpage and user talk for political opinions or mildly uncivil rejoinders that could be used to caricature me as some sort of POV warrior, which couldn't be further from the truth—and came from one particular critic whose hands were far from clean.</small> In response to MelanieN, I caution against expanding the definition of "''conspiracy theory''" to include documented facts such as Brazile's collusion with the Clinton campaign, as well as speculation that ''CNN''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s coverage might be skewed by the political donations of its parent company. (Is every Marxist media criticism now considered "''conspiracy theory''," too?) I checked every diff provided by Bishonen and MelanieN, and it seems they neglected to provide even a single example of Hidden Tempo making a non-neutral edit to any article. Despite this, MelanieN is convinced "''his POV is so strong that he is unable to be neutral''." Perhaps, but a 6 month topic ban should not be handed out lightly or as a ''preemptive'' measure. It would be impractical and impossible to ban everyone with a political opinion from editing in American Politics, and yet having an opinion seems to be the crux of the rationale for sanctioning Hidden Tempo. (If you want to go down the rabbit hole of declaring ''everything''—even sourced, attributed claims from Wikileaks—related to the ] a ] violation, one might say that accusing Hidden Tempo of "''conspiracy theory''" violates ]. ''Why not focus on article improvement and consensus building rather than the alphabet soup of Wiki-policies?'') Furthermore, if we are serious about ] it might even be helpful to have a rare voice of dissent from Misplaced Pages's predominant liberal thesis. (''Or do you know of any Trump-supporting admins?'') To be fair, it does seem that Hidden Tempo (still a very inexperienced user) has a problem with tl;dr screeds, but the fact that the vast majority (over '''60%''') of his edits have been relegated to talk pages also begs the question as to how much disruption he could possibly have been causing to merit such a strong punishment. Finally, while I question the wisdom of the topic ban, I recommend that Hidden Tempo voluntarily spend some time learning the ropes on less controversial, heavily-patrolled, and stressful areas of the encyclopedia—for his own good.] (]) 10:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Hidden Tempo ===
I am sympathetic towards the points raised by {{u|Hidden Tempo}} with one exception. I find edit summaries on his talk page like "Removed slanderous personal attacks and out-of-context POV remarks.", "Deleted repeated harassment and false accusations from User: Volunteer Marek", and "Removed more filth from the well-known tendentious editor "Volunteer Marek." to be unnecessarily inflammatory and overly aggressive. Two wrongs don't make one right. Even if he believes the other party is being unreasonable, the WP best practice is to continue adopting restraint when it comes to any kind of content dispute. I am willing to be lenient because this is a relatively new editor who is probably unfamiliar with the rules of WP editing. I would recommend to Hidden Tempo to start reading the material in ] ] (]) 06:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

{{u|MelanieN}} gives a lot of diffs which she argues reveal HT's strong POV, but none of these diffs seem to refer to edits in article space. Does this mean that HT's edits in article space are neutral? Everyone has a strong POV when it comes to individuals like Trump or Clinton. When HT slams the NY Times, he is not making a fringe argument; he is making an argument which the President Elect has made. Finally, i have not scrutinized Melanie's edits in detail for her POV but in the ] page, she has made exactly one edit and this consisted of undermining the credibility of a person who was supporting Trump: ] (]) 23:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

*Looking at Hidden Tempo's contributions and his comments on this page, he gives the impression of being interested only in US Politics (over 90% of his contributions), and with a strong bias toward toward Trump and against Clinton. I can find no edit where he has found criticism of the former and none where he has anything positive to say about the latter. That in itself would not be so bad, as there are likely other editors with diametrically opposite viewpoints, but his inability to understand how sources are used on Misplaced Pages – "{{tq|Is Fox News not a reliable source?}}" with no clue about the fact that context determines reliability – or to listen to the advice given, tells me that the encyclopedia would be better off without his presence in the field of US politics for a while longer. In a similar way to the ], I'd want to see evidence that he has learned how to contribute positively in other areas before letting him back into a controversial area. And before he turns to ''ad hominem'' attacks on my opinion, as he has to Bishonen - whose English is perfect, by the way - I live in the UK and view US Politics as an dispassionate outsider. English is indeed my first language. --] (]) 13:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
** Having seen {{diff2|752887740|Hidden Tempo's recent post }}, I'm now completely convinced he shouldn't be editing US politics, and arguably shouldn't be editing Misplaced Pages at all. Does he not realise that wikilawyering that "not a single political view was stated by myself" in the face of the obvious bias in his contributions simply insults our intelligence? If he ''were'' simply voicing his thoughts about the state of American journalism, we could just direct him to ], but he has regularly labelled reliable sources as "left wing" in a systematic attempt to discredit them as sources. There is no acceptance on his part of the fact that mainstream newspapers which have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy meet our requirements for reliable sourcing. Similarly, repeating in this very thread a BLP violation like {{tq|Hillary's trustworthiness poll numbers that I referred to as "feeble"}} and thinking that including the word "alleged" is a get-out-of-jail card for other violations is indicative of a contempt for other editors' ability to see past words and scrutinise actions. Finally, repeating the calumny of {{tq|politicians paying people to scrub/protect their Misplaced Pages pages}} in this context without a shred of evidence to support the allegation is really a step too far. I see no likelihood that he recognises the legitimate concerns that Bishonen expressed prior to imposing the topic ban. --] (]) 01:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
*** {{reply to |Hidden Tempo}} do you really think that more wikilawyering about definitions of "politics" is going to strengthen your case? It isn't. Your edits convey a political view and a clear bias. No amount of denial is going to alter that fact, especially when other editors can simply look through ] and the and see for themselves. Your edit summaries are particularly enlightening. Your edits don't just '''appear''' to favour Trump and denigrate Clinton, they '''actually do''' just that, against a background of you claiming that you're "neutral". Who do you think you're kidding? You take "great exception" to my statement that you committed a BLP violation? Really? You'd better read our ] policy, with particular reference to its scope, which includes talk pages and pages such as this, and pay particular attention to this: {{tq|"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."}} I take it you understand what "contentious" means? If you think that you repeatedly calling a person's trustworthiness poll numbers feeble isn't a BLP violation, then I'll see you at ANI where I'll be asking for a block for you to prevent further disruption. Remove it or suffer the consequences. Next, your extremely reliable source, Time magazine, in 2015 and before, but says nothing about editors being paid to edit in the arena of 2016 US politics that you chose to work in. When you bring up that accusation during your disputes there, we can all see that you are attempting to tar your opponents with the "paid editor" brush, despite not having a ''shred of evidence'' (as I accurately pointed out first time) that any of them are receiving payment. Your faux indignation at being caught out using such disreputable tactics merely serves to highlight your continued poor behaviour. --] (]) 03:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
**** {{reply to |Hidden Tempo}} Your source never once mentions the word "feeble". That's your choice of adjective and is not "allegedly" contentious, it is contentious. If you can't or won't understand after being told so many times that it's a BLP violation on a talk page and on this very page, then you've no business editing Misplaced Pages. I've seen far too many ] to be impressed by niceties, so don't plead that one. --] (]) 16:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{re|RexxS}} I have trouble following your reasoning. Apparently HT was paraphrasing a reliable source mentioning 11% support for the candidate's perceived trustworthiness. Quote: {{tq| Just 16 percent of voters say that Trump is honest and trustworthy, but only 11 percent believe the same about Clinton. }} Calling that a "feeble" score is now an insult? What if he used "low", "weak", "very low", "historically low", "unprecedented"? He didn't use "pathetic", "ridiculous", "abysmal", "daunting" or "miserable". "Feeble" is quite a feeble term; how low shall we set the bar on acceptable vocabulary now? And 6 months is not a feeble ban! — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::: ] is a "]" policy. There's no gradation like "slightly contentious"; a term is either contentious or it isn't. In this case it is. Again, this is clear wikilawyering, attempting to push the boundaries of what is acceptable comment on another living person. The bar is set at zero: we allow no contentious terms at all. Hidden Tempo has made a habit out of creating his own negative descriptions of a BLP subject without a single source to justify the choice. Now it needs to stop. If you also don't understand how our BLP policy works, then I suggest you refrain from commenting on it. --] (]) 18:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

:::::::Comment: Un faible taux de participation = a low participation rate. faible = low, weak, etc. Wow! ] (]) 18:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

::::::: {{re|RexxS}} I understand BLP rather well, thank you very much. And I maintain that this particular case is in no way a BLP violation. First, "feeble" is not an insult, it's not even derogatory. Second, this adjective was not qualifying Ms. Clinton but her trustworthiness score in some reliably-sourced poll. An 11% score of anything can be called "feeble", "weak", "low" without passing judgment; this is just a statement of fact. Were this score 89%, it could be called "strong", "high", "commanding". Were this score 45% it could be called "average", "passable", "unimpressive". Were this score 23% it could be called "weak", "mediocre", "disappointing". And no matter how HT qualified the given score, that was not derogatory towards Ms. Clinton. As you said, BLP is a bright-line policy, and this edit does not touch the line because it does not touch the person. That HT needs to stop editorializing and ] on fellow editors, I wholeheartedly agree, and I have given him relevant advice in my statements above. That he should be t-banned for 6 months is utterly disproportionate.
::::::: Shall we examine the jurisprudence? In a recent case, {{u|Scjessey}} was censored for {{diff||750790280||calling Mr. Sanders a "dick" on a talk page}}. That's both a clearly insulting word and unambiguously addressed at a notable living person, so the BLP violation is patent. Nevertheless, the offending editor {{diff||750978409||wrote in his defense}}: {{tq|The phrase "being a dick" is not a BLPVIO.}} Was he t-banned? No. Was he even admonished? Slightly. Was there further action and drama? No. His edit was erased and the world moved on. (Funnily this happened as Scjessey was replying to an argument by Hidden Tempo. Then, unable to call Sanders a dick any longer, Scjessey called him a "{{diff||751003601||petulant, power-crazy candidate who fanned the flames of hate against Clinton and depressed her vote}}". Wow, BLPVIO much?) So let's discuss Hidden Tempo's problematic behaviour here, but let's not judge him by a much stricter standard than more experienced editors or apply drastic sanctions indiscriminately; lest we be accused of ]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::::If I may, as a semi-involved editor, the first definition of "feeble" is: "lacking physical strength, especially as a result of age or illness." This has been a long-running claimed characteristic of HRC by DJT and has an added meaning here. As far as the non-action against Scjessey, perhaps that wasn't handled correctly. It's not relevant. ] (]) 00:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
*User Hidden Tempo made only 275 edits in the project so far. Most of their recent edits were made in a highly contested political area under discretionary sanctions. Many of these edits, including ones in article space are arguably POV-pushing. I do not think anyone should even consider appeals by such users on WP:AE. ] (]) 23:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
::Dear {{u|My very best wishes}}, every editor is free to edit in only their preferred domain without being accused of ]. Every editor is free to admitting their own POV and discussing systemic bias honestly on Talk pages without being accused of POV-pushing. You have been accused of such in the past but you should not deserve a lengthy ban for that. As long as an editor knows to distinguish his personal opinion from what is acceptable to write in Misplaced Pages's voice, they are a valued contributor. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
::: Well, no. An editor who only edits in one "preferred domain" is by definition a ] – with all the concerns that raises – and should not be surprised if that's pointed out to them. Your other point, that editors who know how to distinguish their personal opinions from their contributions to articles are valued contributors, is likely true. Unfortunately, Hidden Tempo has shown no such self-awareness in a contentious area subject to discretionary sanctions, which has inevitably led to his current topic ban. --] (]) 01:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
::::], HT has so far made less than 300 edits on WP. Why should it be so strange that he has not edited in diverse areas of WP? Many if not most editors on WP would be branded as SPA accounts if only the first 300 edits of an editor are used to call him or her an SPA. This is now coming across as ] to me. ] (]) 01:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
::::: Now, you're really insulting my intelligence. In my first 300 edits, I edited dozens of articles on different topics and even created a new article. If you make all 300 of your first edits in one narrow area, of course you're a SPA. If you have any evidence of me BITEing new users, let's hear it. Your transparent attempts to smear me is a familiar tactic to discredit those you disagree with. I'll treat your baseless accusation with with the contempt it deserves. --] (]) 02:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::{{u|RexxS}}, i went and examined your first 500 edits on WP. With respect to your edits in article space, they seem to have a narrow focus on anything related to diving. This apples even to the algorithm whose WP page your edited. ] (]) 03:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::: That's odd, because I think they have a very ''broad'' focus on ''everything'' to do with diving from Ambient pressure to Zippers on drysuits. But then there's ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], as well as loads of talk pages. I'm not seeing your point. --] (]) 04:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::::The WP articles on ] and ] refer to diving in the article content. You did make a few edits to some non-diving articles (usually 1-2 minor or non-lengthy edits in any such articles), but the vast majority of your first 500 edits in article space--including all your major/lengthy edits-- were in articles having anything to do with diving. ] (]) 04:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::*Did you, me or RexxS receive a topic ban after making our first 250 edits and did we complain about this on WP:AE? No. So, please stop wikilawyering. ] (]) 05:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
**This is someone who made very few content edits, but already managed to receive a topic ban, and for a very good reason (there was nothing "out of process" here). What she/he suppose to do? Edit quietly something that does not cause anyone's objections in another subject area, gain a lot more experience and politely ask ''later'' to remove the t-ban, after proving that they can constructively contribute. But what they actually do? They brought an unsubstantiated complaint here, which creates even more disruption. Do they create disruption on purpose? I do not know, but they soon can be indeffed. ] (]) 05:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

===Result of the appeal by Hidden Tempo===
:''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. -->
*Please note that I have issued a short block for ] for continuing the BLP violations here in this AE appeal (in the form of repeating the use of derogatory adjectives which are not used by any supporting sources, and trying to justify that use even when personal editorializing is clearly forbidden by BLP policy). So I would ask that any consideration for closing this be delayed until either the block expires or Hidden Tempo agrees to stop repeating the BLP violations. ] (]) 18:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
::To update, after discussion on Hidden Tempo's talk page in which the problem seems to have been understood, I have unblocked. ] (]) 22:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Peeta Singh==

<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>

; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Peeta Singh}} – ] (]) 07:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

; Sanction being appealed : ] related articles based on allegedly tendentious editing, pushing a nationalist agenda, and ignoring information about Misplaced Pages's policies from experienced editors and administrators. <br />
Discussion prior to ban: ]<br />
Discussion regarding the ban: ]<br />

; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Bishonen}}

; Notification of that administrator : ''The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a ] of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.''

===Statement by Peeta Singh===

Since day one, I have been targeted by users: @Apuldram, @Utcursch, @Uanfala, @Sarah Welch, @RegentsPark, @Kautilya3 and @Salma Mahmoud. They have attempted to get me blocked neumorus times because I improve Punjab and Sikh-related articles. After many attempts, they've falsely alleged me of POV-pushing and got me topic banned. In my defence, I would like to emphasis, that i'm not POV-pushing, but only editing information based on reliable sources.

I don't understand how contributing towards improving Misplaced Pages is being construed. I've followed the rules, improved articles and spent countless hours expanding Misplaced Pages.

Before I edited the ] article
At ] after I edited the article. Was I construed for adding information with reliable sources?

Before I edited the ] article
At ] after I edited the article. Was I construed for adding information with reliable sources?

Before I edited the ] page
At ] after I edited the article. Was I construed for improving the Wikiproject Punjab page?

Was I construed for creating template such as ] and ] so it improves the standard of the ] article?

Was I construed for following the guidelines and considering ]? ,

They're bullies that challenge almost all my edits on Misplaced Pages , . They have tried getting me blocked since I've began. They've made all sort of false allegations. They've accuse me of ] but continue to add the term India at any and every article where it's not relevant, even sometimes with irreverent sources ? They push the ] theory? Why don't the guidelines apply to them?

Here is the comment of an IP regarding @Uanfala ]

Here are the comments of ] regarding @Ms Sarah Welch

] (]) 07:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
====Appeal by Peeta Singh====

Being new here, I've made mistakes and who doesn't? However, seeing my contribution I would like to be allowed to edit Punjab and Sikh-related articles under the supervision of ] or some other admin (except: @Apuldram, @Utcursch, @Uanfala, @Sarah Welch, @RegentsPark, @Kautilya3 and @Salma Mahmoud). They're POV pushing, but i'm being targeted. I might not be as skilled with quoting the guidelines or even as experienced, but I haven't gone against the guideline so much that I should be imposed with an '''indefinite''' topic ban.

My proposal is that I be sanctioned to edit Punjab and Sikh related articles but with the condition of asking permission from ] or some other admin before editing every Punjab and Sikh-related article. That way I won't make the mistakes i'm being accused of.

] (]) 00:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

===Statement by Bishonen===
. ] &#124; ] 13:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC).

===Statement by Ms Sarah Welch===
My name appears twice in @Peeta Singh's appeal, but @Peeta Singh and I have not been in any edit disputes in recent weeks. The user has not offered any edit-diffs, therefore I do not understand the grounds for "since day one" allegations. @Peeta Singh is a relatively new account, one with first edit on October 15 2016. The admins and editors mentioned by @Peeta Singh have been rightfully concerned with copyvio, OR, POV-y edits etc. They have been welcoming and helpful, in good faith, despite the disruption by @Peeta Singh. I say disruption, so I must provide some evidence. Here is some:

was the state of Template:Punjabis before @Peeta Singh's first edit to it. Since then, @Peeta Singh has edited this template between November 11 to December 2, and edit warred with @Filpro, without a trace of discussion effort on its talk page. @Peeta Singh has that Template to "Culture of the Panjab" with link to . This insertion of "Panjab nationalism / Khalistan" POV-y by @Peeta Singh is not isolated or rare. It has been noted with concern by other editors such as on October 22 2016 by @Apuldram, on December 2 2016, etc. This pattern of WP:TE has not subsided after those caution and requests, rather continued.

@Peeta Singh alleges "I improve Punjab and Sikh-related articles". But consider ], an article about the third of ten Gurus of Sikhism. The article is a stub. @Peeta Singh has edited it, but did not attempt to improve content or cite new reliable sources, but edited it with the "was not India at the time of the Guru". You see this in many edits by this user. Again in the ] article, this editor "Indian subcontinent" to "South Asia", without explanation. That edit was by @RegentsPark, but @Peeta Singh (without citing any reliable source or discussing it on the talk page). Then some more. In other words, @Peeta Singh's editing history suggest the intent is not content improvement of important articles related to Sikhism or Punjab that are currently a stub, it is persistent removal of relevant encyclopedic content from current articles, removal of any connection of Sikhism with India or Indian subcontinent, and then placement of a certain POV without adequately citing any scholarly reliable sources. This suggests WP:NOTHERE.

See @Utcursch's note to @Peeta Singh on OR, Battleground and more . I also share @Utcursch's concerns about @Peeta Singh's WP:TE on Gurmukhi script article.

Based on evidence such as the above, and more can be found by wading through the edit history of @Peeta Singh, I support @Bishonen's sanctions. ] (]) 17:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

:@Dennis Brown: Indeed. Please see '''statement by @Salma Mahmoud''' on @Bishonen's talk page today, on @Peeta Singh, because it is relevant to this AE case. I support uninvolved admins expanding the ban, as @Peeta Singh's edits elsewhere such as that plugged in Khalistan as an alias for Punjab, on December 1 2016, suggests that the disruption by @Peeta Singh is systematic, has been on-going and has continued through very recently, the CIR and other concerns seem much broader. ] (]) 22:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

===Statement by utcursch===

I have not "targeted" the Peeta Singh, and as far as I can tell, neither have others whom he calls "bullies": ], ], ], ], ], ]. All these users edit a wide range of articles, and presumably happened to notice Peeta Singh's controversial edits on their watch list.

I noticed Peeta Singh's changes to the article ] and ], which were on my watchlist. First, some background for the uninitiated: According to a colonial-era theory, some of the Indian "]s" are of "]n" descent, because unlike the other Indian castes, they are supposedly tall, fair, strong etc. Although no longer tenable in mainstream scholarship, this theory remains popular among some people whose ancestors were classified among the "martial races" by the British administrators. For example, some Sikh nationalists claim that ]/] Sikhs are "Scythian", and therefore, different from other Indians (who are ], ] etc.) This apparently bolsters their demand that these people need their own independent nation-state.

I'm not sure to what level Peeta Singh believes in these things, but he sure seems obsessed with removing the term "Indian"/"Indo-Aryan" from Punjab-related articles, and in some cases, adding wildly inaccurate claims of their "Scythian" association.

I'm not concerned about anyone's personal feelings about Sikh/Punjabi nationhood, but the user's repetitive addition of erroneous information is what bothered me:

* Peeta Singh insisted that Punjabi is a "Scytho-Punjabi" language. In addition, he insisted that Punjabi is an official language of Canada. When opposed, he claimed that "there's an hidden agenda to Indianize the article" .

* He claimed that that Gurmukhi was a "Scythian script". When countered, he came up with with his own original research (he had already been advised to read ] by 3 different users by this time). He also claimed that the "users of Indian origin" were "deceiving the public".

By the time I posted my first message about ] / ] on his talk page, Peeta Singh had already received 5+ notices from ''other'' users. I've not interacted much with him after our last debate on Punjabi and Gurmukhi articles two weeks back, so I cannot say whether the topic ban is justified or not. But a look at his talk page history suggests that he has received multiple warnings by other users (he recently several warnings). A cursory look at his contributions since our last interaction indicates that he has not given up contentious editing:

* He has again attempted to remove the term "Indo-Aryan" from the ].

* He insists that the Sikh religious symbol ] is an emblem of Punjab and that it "represents the people of Punjab". He has also added Khanda to the newly-created templates {{tl|PartofWPPUNJAB}} and {{tl|Punjabi quick links}}, which he has transcluded into several Wikiproject Punjab related pages that have nothing to do with Sikhism.

* On 12 November, I had explicitly told Peeta Singh about the ] guideline. Despite this, he has continued to remove the term "Indian" from lead sections of biographies, replacing it with "Punjabi". He has also created empty categories, such as ]. Earlier, he has updated Wikidata descriptions to replace "Indian" with "Panjabi".

By the way, the user has already been ] for ignoring warnings. ] &#124; ] 00:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

:I have previously apologized from my use of the term "Indianize" at ] The incident ] has mentioned is from when I had just joined Misplaced Pages and had no knowledge of the guidelines. I have learnt since and not furthered the "Scytho-Punjabi" and "Scythian script" theory. After this episode I started referencing my content with reliable sources. My agenda has not been to promote the Punjab nation/Khalistan theory but to improve Punjab-related topics. If the term Punjab nation/Khalistan was relevant I added it. ]? If there's a problem with me using the terms Khalistan, Scythian and Punjab nation then topic block me from them.

:The Misplaced Pages guidelines clearly says "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead '''unless it is relevant to the subject's notability'''." Example ] (Punjabi politician and actor) or ] (Punjabi actor). Aren't they POV pushing here or don't they have an agenda? Rather than following the guidelines and considering ] they reverted my edits numerous times and without a reason. , , , , Are the guidelines only for me?

:I explained to @Filpro why I added the Khanda and requested @Filpro and @Salma to follow the ] and discuss this issue. , But it seems they had other plans.

:Everyone sees my contribution as POV pushing but why not theirs who act as the ]. ], why only target me?

] (]) 04:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Uanfala ===
I was pinged in this discussion but I'm afraid I don't have much to say as my interaction with Peeta Singh has been limited. I'm a bit surprised that they think I've been targeting them – our exchanges have so far been amicable. However, I have had to revert most of their edits to ] and ]. I can't say there's been any agenda behind them as the issues mostly had to do with being unaware of the subject matter and how it is generally treated on[REDACTED] (for Punjabi), or with not being careful when checking an online source (for Saraiki). Here Peeta Singh hasn't been disruptive (or at least not nearly as much as half of the users who edit in this area), but they certainly need to spend some time learning how things work before making any bold edits. – ] 14:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Peeta Singh ===
I'm sorry, but {{user5|Peeta Singh}}'s command of the English language is so weak that I don't believe he understands when he improving an article and when he is making it worse. Could somebody please explain to him the meaning of "construed", as I don't believe it exists in the first person passive. Looking at his ], it is clear that he has not taken on-board any advice he's been given, even from clearly uninvolved experienced editors such as {{u|Doug Weller}}. His contributions reveal a lack of awareness of Misplaced Pages policies from simple mistakes like to edit-warring his preferred version into an article against two other editors , (note the edit summary!). Of most concern, though is his attempts to replace the word "Indian" with "Sikh" and to add {{para|nationality|Sikh}} to infoboxes. That does indicate an attempt to push a Sikh-nationalist POV, and Misplaced Pages isn't the place to be doing it. His appeal is riddled with grammatical, spelling and comprehension errors, not to mention his inability to distinguish between ] and ] in his first question here. If nothing else, surely ]? --] (]) 14:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
:
: I followed {{u|Ms Sarah Welch}}'s link to Wikidata and was dismayed. I've just spent half an hour ] by confusing {{Q|Q22424}} (Indian state), {{Q|Q4478}} (province of Pakistan) and {{Q|Q169132}}, (geographic region divided between Pakistan and India). The problems he caused on Wikidata are not directly relevant to his topic ban here, but they are indicative of the difficulty he has in separating the three concepts and his fixation with ]. --] (]) 00:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

===Result of the appeal by Peeta Singh===
:''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. -->
*Peeta Singh, I believe the ban is justified. You've been warned repeatedly about the Sikh nation idea yet you apparently continue to push it. Everyone is welcome to edit Misplaced Pages but you need to demonstrate that you're not here merely to push a POV. Edit articles on other subjects. Demonstrate a broader commitment to the project. Then you will have some standing asking for the ban to be lifted. (Note: Though I'm mentioned in the list of 'targeted by users', to the best of my knowledge the only interactions I've had with Peeta Singh are two warnings I placed on their talk page ,. Which, unfortunately, they chose to ignore.)--] <small>(])</small> 14:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


Best, <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 01:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
*Taken at face value, the actions by Bishonen seem reasonable and within our policies as there clearly was a problem. The appeal itself gives no indication that problematic behavior will stop, nor does it provide a path forward. With these two facts in mind, it is my opinion that the appeal should be declined. I would not oppose stronger sanctions due to CIR and other concerns. ] - ] 20:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
*Looking at the discussion above and the user contributions, it is obvious that this action is necessary and the appeal declined. If anything, I'm not entirely sure that the sanctions will be sufficient and I echo Dennis Brown's sentiments on stronger sanctions if they can be worked within the purview of AE action. &mdash;]''']''' 07:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:05, 24 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 an editor 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 an editor who engages 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 fewer 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.

    Reports are limited to two individuals: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.

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

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

    Standard of review
    On community review

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

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

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

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

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Important notes:

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

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

    A couple of reminders:

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

    Closing a thread:

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

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

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

    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 section — Red-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)
      If we think that the user has been explained WP:BLPPRIMARY to the extent that a reasonable person would conclude that they are either (a) intentionally ignoring it, or (b) unable to grasp the concept, then I do not object to a p-block from that article. Either such case here might warrant something wider, particularly if this behavior pattern appears elsewhere.
      But if they haven’t ever been explained the primary source rules, it might make sense to do that in clear and explicit terms before giving them an indef p-block. People who do research for a living, or work with primary sources in other contexts, often find our guidance a bit non-obvious since they are used to writing secondary sources instead of tertiary sources.
      My apologies for the delay on this; I have been very busy.
      — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 14:05, 24 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)

    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)

    1. So, do you still stand by your aspersions in the edit summary and restoration of disputed content contrary to WP:ONUS?
    2. Were you wishing to ensure WP:NPOV by poisoning the well against an editor? How does that even help the discussion? Read WP:FOC.
    3. So, do you believe you have the right to cast aspersions without accompanying it with required diffs? "Admins are aware how you had kept the term 'Kshatriya' in the article on Mahishya in spite of knowing that it is an agrarian caste! " - Which admins are aware of this "edit" that you accuse CharlesWain of pushing? In fact you made a similar accusation before too but it was a different good faith editor that made that edit not, CharlesWain.
    4. So you think the onus to achieve consensus depends not on the people who want to include the content but on those who dispute it?
    5. It's only you who considered it a WIP version contrary to these comments that indicates that there was a consensus at the talkpage , secondly why did you perform a blanket revert only because your previous edit was reverted, isn't that a very WP:POINTY behaviour?
    6. Why did you have to start a heated edit war? You could instead asked them for clarification to know what exactly they meant when they said that content needs to be "revisited". You state that the editor has been warned for "teaming up with Nobita", when did that happen?
    7. Knowing someone on wiki doesn't mean you get to attack them also what do you mean by "behaving like Nobita"?
    8. Do you really think the attack you made at the editor and saying that you don't need to achieve consensus with them just because they were blocked for edit warring was the "truth"?
    9. Same as above, that restoration combined with your assertion here proves that you think it's appropriate to poison the well.
    10. Read WP:VANDTYPES and WP:NOTVANDAL, vandalism and disruptive editing are not the same, the only thing being discussed here is that diff which you still assert as vandalism, not the account. Nxcrypto Message 13:46, 24 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)
    • Thanks LukeEmily for commenting here! I don't think I have to explain every diff provided here since Bishonen has already mentioned 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. But as LukeEmily suggested, let me answer each point briefly:
      1. My edit summary explains why I reverted.
      2. I wanted to ensure that NPOV is maintained.
      3. I am not filing anything anywhere against the user; why shall I provide evidence? The concerned user understands what I mean!
      4. Again, my edit summary explains why I reverted.
      5. No, this is not the last consensus version, it represents a WIP version; explained today on Talk: Bengali Kayastha!
      6. LukeEmily has already accepted the lapse in communication for point numbers 5 and 6.
      7. It was a request since I know the user (interacted in Misplaced Pages for years) and I expect rational behavior from him! I have used the word 'please'.
      8. Saying the truth in order to ensure NPOV; repetition (refer to point number 2)!
      9. Same as above! The editor should not have reverted my edits on the article talk page!
      10. If the filer cannot understand what is vandalism/disruptive editing, I have nothing to say. The user has already been blocked for vandalism! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 09:46, 24 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 LukeEmily

    I came across this by accident(don't have any email address associated with my account for private communication). I was not pinged here although my name was mentioned. In general, I agree with @Bishonen:. Bishonen and other Admins, please may I request a couple of days to review/comment on each point in more detail? @Ekdalian:, please could you change your response to be very specific for each of the 10 points made? Also, please be less emotional("are you God?" is an emotional response):-). Please could you respond in terms of diffs(facts) for each point instead of subjective statements that are difficult to confirm without diffs? (5) and (6) were not Ekdalian's fault. Yes, it is true that I disagreed with Ekdalian about the content/consensus. But Ekdalian's good faith misunderstanding about my position was due to my faulty communication, I did in fact say "revisit" and apologized later and took responsibility for my unclear statements hereLukeEmily (talk) 01:53, 24 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.

    AE updates (two party limit, balanced editing restriction, and thanks from ArbCom)

    This post should probably go on the talk page, but I am posting here for visibility. In WP:PIA5, the Arbitration Committee has decided to limit all reports at AE to two parties: the filer and the reported party. To reiterate, this is not limited to the PIA topic area. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.

    In the PIA area, a balanced editing restriction (shortcut: WP:BER) has been added to your toolbox, as part of the standard set of restrictions. The details of the restriction can be found at the link, but the short version is it requires editors to make no more than a third of their edits in mainspace, draftspace, and their respective talk spaces in the PIA5 area. Editors subject to BER are also topic banned from PIA outside of those namespaces.

    Finally, the Committee has unanimously decided to formally thank administrators for volunteering at AE, especially in the PIA topic area. Keep being awesome :)

    Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions Add topic