Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:20, 16 June 2018 editיניב הורון (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,309 edits →Talatastan← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:16, 11 January 2025 edit undoSeraphimblade (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,255 edits →Result concerning Lemabeta: Comment and proposed closure 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}} <noinclude> {{pp-move-indef}}
{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}}
{{Redirect|WP:AE|the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae|MOS:LIGATURE|the automated editing program|WP:AutoEd}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude> __NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!--
<includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly> --><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly>
<noinclude>{{editabuselinks|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}} <noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!--
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
</noinclude>
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K |archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 235 |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}}


==PerspicazHistorian==
==François Robere==
{{hat|{{u|PerspicazHistorian}} is blocked indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC) }}
{{hat|More editing restrictions on the article applied. Editors need to adhere to all of them CLOSELY as the next step will be topic bans or blocks. Future reports need not delve into past history. Diffs and a clear statement for admins on how the edits violated a restriction will suffice. Essentially, editors should be ''very'' hesitant to make unilateral edits to the article if they suspect their edits will be opposed. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:08, 12 June 2018 (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> <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 François Robere=== ===Request concerning PerspicazHistorian===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|E-960}} 17:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC) ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


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

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Article under "consensus-required" sanctions for any changes: ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->

; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# 14:53, 2 June 2018 — changes made without gaining consensus first
# 14:55, 2 June 2018 — changes made without gaining consensus first
# 15:47, 2 June 2018 — changes made without gaining consensus first

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
#—12:03, April 22, 2018, previous attempt at making same changes
#— 12:21, April 22, 2018, previous attempt at making same changes
#—17:58, April 23, 2018, previous attempt at making same changes
#— 09:38, May 13, 2018, previous attempt at making same changes

;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. -->
*Article discretionary sanction in for conduct in the area of conflict placed here and by {{admin|NeilN}}.

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
User François Robere has made these three changes, even though the article is under '''strict consensus-required prior to any changes sanctions'''. This follows a pattern of editing by François Robere, where he continues to BLANK-OUT entire sections of text even though many of the statements have been agreed to on the talk page, such as this example here: ], yet user François Robere goes in and blanks the text as in this edit listed above , or REMOVES text, which was restored after he removed it previously, several days back. In short, these three edits were made without gaining a CONSENSUS on the talk page first, as required by the '''discretionary sanctions''', and follow an pattern of disruptive editing.

{{Collapse top}}
::*One quick note in response to user Icewhiz's comments below regarding me — the talk page comments Icewhiz listed in his statement below, have NOTHING to do with the edits made by François Robere on 2 June 2018, and are simply a ]. They do not pertain to the same text and are UNRELATED, so I'm a bit perplexed as to why user Icewhiz is bringing them up. Also, it is not breaking the rule to revert edit which was made without consensus, pls see here: '''Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.''' and '''Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.''' --] (]) 23:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
::*A second note regarding ] statement, it is NOT TRUE that the article statement in question contains ''"self-published and non-mainstream"'' references as she states, and most certainly not the text that user François Robere REMOVED in the three edits above, as a matter of fact here (below) are the two sources which backed up the statement that François Robere REMOVED , this statement was also agreed on in a discussion ]:
:::{{tq2|''Winstone, Martin (2014). The Dark Heart of Hitler's Europe: Nazi rule in Poland under the General Government. London: Tauris. pp. 181–186. ISBN 978-1-78076-477-1'' and ''Winson, Chu (24 July 2015). "Review of M. Winstone: The Dark Heart of Hitler's Europe". H-Soz-Kult. Retrieved 2 June 2018''}}
:::So, if this statement had RELIABLE SOURCES, why did François Robere just REMOVE it, without initiating a discussion on the talk page first, and without gaining a consensus. The comment by Ealdgyth, is a ], because it distracts from the fact that user François Robere just BLANKS-OUT text without initiating a DISCUSSION and gaining CONSENSUS as the article '''discretionary sanctions''' now require. --] (]) 12:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
::*Note to ], there is only ONE editor who BLANKS-OUT text and it is François Robere, the '''discretionary sanctions''' are clear you DO NOT remove text unless you initiate a discussion and get CONSENSUS. So, to argue that this AE is only singling out one editor is an unfair statement, because it is François Robere, who continues to remove text without getting consensus.--] (]) 13:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
{{Collapse bottom}}
*], all sounds reasonable and no objections on my part. --] (]) 17:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

:''Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action).'' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:53, 4 June 2018 (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. -->

User François Robere was notified of the AE here:
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

===Discussion concerning François Robere===
====Statement by François Robere====
Few points:
# Several days ago ] reverted a series of edits of mine en masse . The edit summary made a false claim about removed material, which leads me to believe that, once more, the user reverted someone's changes without actually reading them.
# I started a discussion about the reversal . The user made no policy-backed claims, and at some point stopped replying. Now, eleven days later, they file this AE request.
# was never out of consensus. It looks like someone's linguistic mistake, and a petty, petty thing to bring here.
# isn't something I changed before, as I just today finished reading the relevant material. Again a false claim, which suggests the user is more preoccupied with ''making a claim'' than with its accuracy - ].
# isn't a ''new'' edit, it's a reversal to an ''old'' revision that was not challenged, as much as "cheated away" by a third user (This goes all the way back to March, where the same user changed quotes of sources to suit their POV . Note the edit summaries).
# I'm not sure what the user is citing under "relevant sanctions". It's not "sanctions", and it's all from ''before'' the page policy was changed.
# We're left with one edit that supposedly violates the policy. If it does - my apology. I would RFC more of these changes, but there are already 2 RFCs open on the page.
# An important question on the application of this policy is whether an editor is allowed to refuse consensus by performing a ''mass reversal'', or whether they must reverse ''specific revisions''? If an editor reverses multiple changes in one go, then there's no way to tell which change/s they object and which just got "caught up" with the others; the policy seems to require the reversals to be self-explanatory.

{{re|GizzyCatBella}} First of all, drop the lingo. This isn't a trial. Second, since May 13th the page went through 150~ revisions. Am I supposed to keep up with a ''minor linguistic change''? ] (]) 21:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
: Apparently Bella thinks restoring an RS to an article and correcting a source quote she changed is a "massive assault" mandating a retaliation . ], anyone? ] (]) 22:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

{{re|Ealdgyth|p=}}, {{re|Beyond My Ken}} I would very much appreciate more administerial involvement on that topic, and I said and asked as much in several ANI/AE cases. That topic is ''toxic'', and Misplaced Pages doesn't seem to have a solution. And no - a global block that will indiscriminately punish editors, and leave dozens of articles damaged, is not the way to do it. We have over 500 active admins - surely there's one who's willing to take that up? ] (]) 14:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

On '''sourcing''' (I'm not collecting {{t|diff}}s, so these should suffice):
* The Winstone book ] is referring to above seems to have been included based on a reading of a review . The reasons I removed are explained in thread, where the user twice accuses me of "forum shopping" because I opened the thread.
* Point #5 above refers to a blatant distortion of a source, performed by ] several times .
* a list of sources brought to one discussion, where I marked the sentences that were quoted by the editor along with their surrounding text, to demonstrate "cherry-picking" (in some cases in blatant contradiction to what the source actually says). It's followed by some short notes on misattribution and unreliability of sources follow.
* a discussion on whether Facebook posts by the Polish ambassador to Switzerland are RS on WWII history.
* a discussion on a source that's so bad, it has only two reviews on Google Books: from the subject's children, urging readers not to believe it.
Just a few recent examples (plus one not so recent, but major). How many hours have we spent on these discussions? ] (]) 17:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

:''Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action).'' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

{{re|NeilN}} Two questions:
# What's considered "consensus" for the purpose of this restriction? I would usually think a discussion is enough, but you previously expressed the position that a formal procedure like an RfC is required. If that's the case, then we'll be seeing a lot of RfCs - which can itself result in a "disruptive editing" complaint.
# Would massive reverts count for this purpose? In other words - if I make a series of small changes and someone reverts all of them at once, do I have to assume they object ''all'' of them? I suggest requiring editors who perform a mass reversal to explain their reasoning on the TP in addition to the edit summary.
One final note: This is not a common restriction on Misplaced Pages, so I suggest making clear that editors new to the page are to be warned before having sanctions imposed on them. ] (]) 15:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

====Statement by GizzyCatBella====
I would like to clarify - “3 Change #1" FR is using as an excuse. In that past I did dispute the word “fighters" replacing it with word "soldiers" that had been reverted today by FR. here It is not a “linguistic mistake,” but a fundamental change and accused is well aware of that. ] (]) 20:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
::In response to Icewhiz comment below --->
This:
*“Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating '''any''' edits that have been challenged (via reversion) If in doubt, don’t make the edit."
Does '''NOT''' say:
*“Consensus required: all editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits '''made after May 26''' that have been challenged (via reversion) If in doubt, don’t make the edit."

So no, your line of defending FR is wrong.] (]) 21:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@] We have to stick to the new rule, so what makes you unique? And also, it just "happened" that you used the exact word "fighters" again? Having the alternatives such as combatants for example or partisans or even belligerents/warriors? No, it seems to me that you knew precisely what you are doing.] (]) 21:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
---------------------------------------------------
{{re|NeilN}},{{re|Ealdgyth|p=}},{{re|Sandstein}} please take your time to read this, it may help you correctly assess the situation and help to understand what VM meant by saying "''blatant misrepresentation and manipulation''". I'll stick to very latest interactions with ] but comparable circumstances go back 2-3 months.
A quick background first: In occupied Poland, the Nazis imposed a death penalty for every Pole helping Jews, including the family of the helper. This information is universally acknowledged by anyone familiar with Polish WW2 history and easily referenced.
Data about the death penalty imposed on Poles in the article about Nobel peace prize nominee ] was there for years and read like this:

* "''This work was done at huge risk (helping Jews), —since October 1941—giving any kind of assistance to Jews in German-occupied Poland was punishable by death, not just for the person who was providing the help but also for their entire family or household''"

On June 3rd, I noticed a tag requesting reference for that statement so I went ahead and inserted the citations trying to match the exact wording. ,, (I have read one of these books)
So what happened next? ] removed not only the sources I supplied but also the entire information with edit this summary:

*"''POV pushing. SYNTH - coverage not on Sendler. First source is cited twice (duplicate) and doesn't mention Sendler in this context. The second source is about the death penalty for printing newspapers, not helping Jews.''"

] then commented on talk page :

*"''Misuse of sources - In what appears as a POVish hagiography, the following , the google-books search term rather betraying the intent. The first source, cited twice for some reason, is not about Sendler - so it is ]. The second source mentions the death penalty for printing newspapers, not for helping Jews, and is thus not connected to the sentence at all''."

Well, so I restored the information and attached 5 further references ,,,, plus an image of an actual German poster from 1941 announcing such policy. All in English, all published books by historians, clearly backing the information.


*Give me some hours {{re|NeilN}} to think about it please, I'm not as swift as you are fellows. Thanks. ] (]) 00:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
*:I think it’s clear to me.] (]) 02:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


:''Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action).'' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

====Statement by Icewhiz====
As presented, not a violation, as the prior diffs presented (some over a month ago) were prior to the "consensus required" provision being added. FR's edits were not challenged by reversion since the consensus required provision was enacted on 26 May following an filed against E-960.] (]) 21:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
: Further note, following being challenged by reversion, FR .] (]) 21:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
:: I will also note, that E-960 has -
::# Supported content () about Jewish actions against Poles sourced to a blog by Jan Bodakowski - a fellow who has "interesting" views on and who has received some coverage in research literature in regards to a blog post on "Jewish Nazism" .
::# - suggests inserting content based on a ] ] (described as propagating a myth and anti-Jewish tract in RSes who mentioned this briefly) - of an example of " Jewish agent provocateurs, and simple snitches" - based on the words of a Polish policeman, who collaborated with the Nazis, who was convicted for murder - and who attempted to justify his act murder with this claim regarding the victim prior to being convicted.
:: Repeatedly suggesting/promoting such sources raises serious NPOV/CIR questions.] (]) 21:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
::: In regards to GCB stmt above - if FR broke the consensus required provision on material that was apparently disputed between the two of them over a month ago (prior to this provision being enacted) - then E-960 broke the consensus required provision when he reverted FR today - and - as the content was challenged by reversion by FR.] (]) 21:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
:::: Some examples of the use of ] / blogs / questionable sources by GizzyCatBella:
::::# - opinion piece or blog on defunct web site (but is available on personal website of author) - connecting a BLP to Russian agents, and communist secret police collaborators. No engagement on ].] (]) 16:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
::::# - letter published on Glaukopis website after History refused to publish it. Challenged as BLPSOURCES, and reverted. See .
::::# - Use of self-published documents by Mark Paul. See , and .
::::# - iUniverse book by Ewa Kurek. See . The statement (Poland being the only country with...), incidentally, is false and has been demonstrated (refutation by examples from other sources) as such in discussions with GCB going back to April at least - , in the RSN discussion linked, in , following attempts to insert this on , - the same content (more or less), the same false claim - was inserted into three different articles (], ], and ]). over a space of a month - each time necessitating a new discussion on why the sources weren't appropriate (self published, or other reasons) and a refutation of the content itself.
::::# - restoring references to personal website of Anna Poray. See (for Zegota), and .
::::# - restored copy-pasted content from Mark Paul's ].
::::# - use of "Haf Books" - a young company founded in 2017 that doesn't seem to have done much else. The book itself is very heavy on graphics and illustrations.
:::: ] (]) 16:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

:''Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action).'' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
* {{ping|NeilN}} the page level restriction is mostly clear to me - though it is unclear to me (having avoided for the most part any editing on AP2 consensus required pages) - just how far back ''challenged (via reversion)'' goes (Obviously if I made the edit, it gets reverted, then I can't put it back in.... Does this apply to edits made over a month ago, possibly by someone else (that I might not be aware of - this page had a lot of back and forth I was not involved with))? I haven't edited the article itself since the restriction, I did on the issue that was disputed late May.] (]) 14:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
* RE comments below by VM on 12 June - ] applies when there are better or equal quality sources in English for a particular topic - this is Misplaced Pages policy - I have not advocated for wholesale removal of Polish sources (though there have been issues with such sources being misrepresented) - merely for their replacement when English sources are available.
*: An AfD of a scholar that doesn't meet NPROF is not an "attack". VM calling ] a "mainstream scholar" is quite out of line of the reception of Kurek in RS,() and as for ] - I will refer to VM referring to content sourced to Psychology Press (Taylor and Francis) edited by ] with the chapter authored by ] as or calling a work by ] "garbage" - - all works by well established academics specializing in the Holocaust in Poland - is displaying a clear NPOV problem in regards to the Poland and the Holocaust.] (]) 15:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

====Statement by Beyond My Ken====
Is anyone keeping count of the AE actions brought related to Germany and Poland in WWII, generally with the same cast of characters? And this is despite the fact that '''''there are already discretionary sanctions in place which cover this subject area''''' (i.e. ARBEE). Is it possible that the number of AE complaints would be lessened if administrators started to take advantage of the additional powers they have under discretionary sanctions to help quell disruption? I am in general a supporter of the work done by our admins, but I think that they need to step up their games in this area, and do so quickly. ] (]) 05:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

====Statement by Ealdgyth====
Unfortunately, I'm too involved in the area to take admin action (even though my editing has been very minor), but I'd like to note that there is a lot of usage of self-published and non-mainstream sources that definitely needs looking into. There is also quite a lot of personalizing of disputes and casting aspersions against other editors. While it probably isn't yet to the point of "ban them all" ... it's rapidly approaching that point. Certainly, there is little incentive for non-involved editors or admins to wade into this to give opinions, because the tone of editing by those most heavily involved is so poor. ] - ] 12:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
: E-960 - my statement was in general across the entire editing area, in response to Beyond My Ken's statement above. And, as an aside, I'm a she. I'll just note that this sort of instant-accusation/jump on the other editor is an excellent illustration of why third party uninvolved editors and admins are likely avoiding the area of German, Polish, and Jewish interactions in World War II. ] - ] 12:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
::{{ping|NeilN}} - I'd prefer not to say "sides", but rather there are some users definitely using too many SPSs and they do tend to edit from one viewpoint at times. But, not all of the editors from that viewpoint necessarily are trying to use SPSs, but all sides tend to be doing entirely too much "editing by google search", if you know what I mean. There's also a lot of ] and ] happening, where one incident in history is being used to generalize about an entire aspect of history, without actually having sources that make that generalization. There's a lot of hyperbole, a lot of aspersions, and, yes, it's toxic. The whole topic is complex and subject to a lot of real world angst, so it behooves us to be especially careful and discuss from the best sources, rather than internet web sites, self-published sources, and sources that are generally not in the mainstream of academic thought. ] - ] 15:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
::: I'll point out I don't read Polish so I've stayed out of evaluating Polish language web sources - no matter who has brought them to the table. Yeah, I can use Google Translate, but too much nuance is lost so I've stayed away from those sources ... which all editors seem to use a bit too much instead of academic sources. We really should be avoiding news reports in any language as a source in this area - there is so much academic writing on the topic that it's hard enough to master that. And I'll reiterate - the ideal method of editing should be to ... read the foundational academic sources. Even a Google Scholar search is no substitute for reading entire sources, so that the background isn't lost. I'm afraid that too many folks editing in this area do not appear to be even trying to do that background reading. (And I'll freely admit I'm still working on it... just got in several more books on the subject area ... am trying to get through them in my copious free time.) ] - ] 17:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

:''Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action).'' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

====Statement by slatersteven====
As an involved ed I agree with the above. It is becoming very toxic over there. It is not just one ed or one side, and I feel at this state that any action that singles out one ed it what is a content dispute will be unfair. I think therefore (I cannot remember where it was said to be take last time AE I thunk) this needs to be looked as a general issue now. It is getting to the stage where it is hard to tell what is being argued over, and DS have not really solved the problem.] (]) 13:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

====Statement by Volunteer Marek====
To answer NeilN's question: the issue is not the use of questionable sources, as it is '''blatant misrepresentation and manipulation of sources'''. The source may be reliable. But Icewhiz in particular, just keeps claiming that they say what they don't say.

Here's one example, which is straight up, serious BLP violation. This is on ]:

In March 21, 2018, Icewhiz added the text:

''In 2018, Chodakiewicz warned that the 50 year anniversary of ] would be '''used by American Jews''' to "launch another anti-Polish campaign of hatred". ''

He provided four sources: , , and .

Two of these sources are right/far-right publications (fronda.pl and prawy.pl). I don't know what the other two are. This is strange, since Icewhiz keeps insisting that he only wants to remove "fringe" and "far right" and "nationalist" sources. Yet here he is ADDING exactly these kinds of sources. To a BLP. Why? Because he wants to make the BLP subject look bad, so he's got no qualms about using obviously non-RS, ideologically suspect sources that he claims to abhor.

Two of these sources (fronda.pl and tysol.pl) are really the same text, an article written by Chodakiewicz. The third (pch24.pl) is mostly also a reprint of this article.

'''NONE of these sources say ANYTHING about "American Jews"'''. I expect AE admis don't read Polish, but this can be verified by searching the articles for "Ameri" or "USA". It doesn't appear. What Chodakiewicz says is that "western media run by neo-Stalinists" and Polish "post-communists" will launch this campaign. Yeah, Chodakiewicz is right wing, and thinks western and Polish leftists unfairly attack Poland. But that's a far cry from saying that "American Jews will attack Poland", which is what Icewhiz put into the article.

This claim does appear in the fourth source, prawy.pl in the headline. But this is a far-right, anti-semitic, publication which misuses Chodakiewicz's article for its own ends. Why is Icewhiz using a far-right, anti-semitic, clearly unreliable source - while at the same time claiming hypocritically in other places that his goal is only to remove such sources - in a BLP?????? Because it helps him push his POV and attack this particular living person.

So we have a combination of the use of blatantly unreliable sources by Icewhiz, with a misrepresentation of sources. To be perfectly clear, I have no love for Chodakiewicz, he's a right wing Trump supporter and ideologically very far from myself. But just the sheer obnoxiousness, dishonesty and hypocrisy, not to mention the violation of Misplaced Pages policies, with which Icewhiz approaches this subject pisses me off and gets my Misplaced Pages panties in a twist. Nobody who thinks that these kinds of tricks and stunts are ok should be editing Misplaced Pages, and certainly not a controversial topic such as this one.

This is an obnoxious BLP violation and the fact that Icewhiz calls it a "mild form of OR" (cuz you know, falsely accusing someone of anti-semitism is just "mild OR"!) aggravates the violation of policies.

-------------------------------------
500 words, I know I know. But this has been sitting here for week+ and hasn't been addressed. In particular I really want admins to look at Icewhiz's behavior that I describe above. It's a gross BLP violation on an article under discretionary sanctions. Icewhiz misrepresented sources to falsely accuse a subject of a BLP of anti-semitism, (by changing "western neostalinists and Polish post-communists" to "American Jews"). He also tried to use a blatantly anti-semitic, far-right source to bolster that claim, despite his claims elsewhere that his purpose is to remove such sources. When he was called out on it here, he described it as "a mild form of OR". Because apparently lying with sources to smear a living person as an anti-semitism is just "mild form of OR". This shows he does not see his actions as problematic and has no intention to act differently in the future.

He's also going around now and claiming Polish sources should be removed per ] but he had no qualms using Polish sources as a way of attacking a BLP . It's pure hypocrisy and cynicism. After I posted this here, he chilled out for a couple of days, but once it started to look like the admins here were not going to do anything he resumed his attacks on BLPs of historians that disagree with his extremist views. ] (and ), ], and also ]. Now some of his edits on these articles may be justifiable. But there are plenty that aren't and taken as a whole it's one obvious attack by Icewhiz on multiple mainstream scholars (Polish, Swedish, British) whom he decided should be attacked because what they wrote doesn't let him push his POV.

At the very least we need a topic ban from BLPs related to this topic for Icewhiz, or this is just going to get worse.] (]) 15:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

:''Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action).'' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

====Statement by K.e.coffman====
I've been involved in these disputes, specifically around the use of works by Mark Paul, whose academic credentials are unknown. He seems to be exclusively published by "KPK - Toronto", which is the Polish Educational Foundation in Canada, an advocacy group. There was an RSN discussion about Paul (]), but certain editors, such as {{U|GizzyCatBella}} and {{U|Tatzref}} were not convinced. To the point that
*I inquired with Tatzref about his affiliation with KPK, to which he did not respond: .
*I asked GCB to elaborate on the and of Mark Paul. The response to the first question was not convincing ("Some think he is a monk") & there was no answer to the second question.

My conclusion is that Paul's views are borderline fringe, yet his works are aggressively promoted throughout Misplaced Pages. I support the suggestion by {{U|NeilN}} . For example, some of the disputes have been around ], the Polish underground organisation to aid Jews. There's an English-language source available, by ], ''Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw, 1940-1945'', which . And that's just from a cursory search.

In addition, the works of many Polish scholars have been translated into English by this point, such as ''The Warsaw Ghetto: A Guide to the Perished City'', ], 2009 by ] and ] (800 pages). The bottom line is that many high-quality sources on these topics are available. Why not use them, instead of arguing about questionable, self-published and / or fringe sources? ] (]) 20:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
*{{ping|NeilN}} there's an essay that may be helpful: ], specifically the section: ] If this guidance were implemented in this area, it would cut down on much of the conflict and time-consuming discussions / RfCs. ] (]) 01:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

====Statement by Tatzref====
Since Tatzref's name has been invoked, one must look carefully at and assess the activities of the invokers. There appears to be concerted, in tandem, ideologically driven enforcement activity going on involving the issue of Polish-Jewish relations. For example, the “Bielski partisans” article, where Icewhiz, K.e.coffman and Pinkbeast keep removing an acclaimed book by Bogdan Musial, a professional historian with academic credentials, yet retain books by journalists (Duffy) and freelance historians (Levine). Why? According to Icewhiz Musial's book is a “fringe work”. According to Pinkbeast, "it's part of the same POV-pushing exercise”. The impugned book is Sowjetische Partisanen 1941–1941: Mythos und Wirklichkeit published by Ferdinand Schöningh (2009), a highly regarded German publishing house. According to Yehuda Bauer, Musial's book is “a most important contribution” to the history of the war, the Soviet partisans, and Polish-Jewish partisan relations in Belorussia. (Yad Vashem Studies, vol. 38, no. 2). Dutch historian Karel Berkhoff stated that the book will likely remain a comprehensive description of partisan warfare in Belarus due to its large source base. This is “fringe”? Similar deletions of references to information found in Marek Chodakiewicz's The Massacre in Jedwabne, of primary sources, and of an authorized statement by prosecutor Radoslaw Ignatiew occurred in the Jedwabne pogrom article. Chodakiewicz's book is one of a very few (of very many publications on the topic) that was mentioned by Peter Longerich, a leading German Holocaust historian, in his 2010 book Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews (Oxford University Press). In the article Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944-1946, text referring to the findings of a pioneering recent study property reclaiming under the 1945 law on abandoned property, Klucze i Kasa: O mieniu żydowskim w Polsce pod okupacją niemiecką i we wczesnych latach powojennych 1939–1950, published by the Polish Center for Holocaust Research and edited by Jan Grabowski and Dariusz Libionka, was also removed. Do such comments and activities have any validity or credibility? Are they supposed to dictate the content of Misplaced Pages? What is the affiliation of these users? How are they connected? They appear to be pushing the same agenda. As Misplaced Pages points out: "Citing WP:FRINGE in discussions and edit summaries is often done by POV pushers in an attempt to demonize viewpoints which contradict their own."] (]) 16:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

===Result concerning François Robere===
:''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. -->
*Pinging {{u|NeilN}} as the admin who decided on these restrictions. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
:*{{ping|Icewhiz}} Please comment about {{u|Volunteer Marek}}{{'}}s allegations of you using unreliable sources and misrepresenting sources. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
::*Just noting that I am not reading the "Additional comments" by the filer because the combination of an aggressive tone with ALL-CAPS SCREAMING and a wall of text gives me a headache. The request is borderline disruptive. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
::*Taking into considerations recent submissions I am of the view that the whole complex of issues involving POV and sourcing in Poland-related articles is too complicated to address at the editor level here. This seems to be a mixture of good-faith content disputes and possible conduct problems on the part of several editors. I'd support a page-level restriction as outlined by NeilN below. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
*{{ping|Ealdgyth}} With respect to article content, is it your opinion that both sides are using questionable sourcing or is it mainly limited to one side? --] <sup>]</sup> 14:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
::Before I read ] latest post on the subject I was mulling over adding restrictions analagous to ]. That is, '''requiring''' the use of higher quality sources. This and related articles document decades-old past history. There's no reason why editors need to go to glorified blog posts or questionable partisan publications. I'm aware of ] sometimes problematic editing in this area but as seen from past AE reports, they're not alone. So, two proposed restrictions:
::*Only the highest quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers.
::Independent of this:
::*Anyone found to be misrepresenting a source, either in the article or on the talk page, will be subject to escalating topic bans.
::--] <sup>]</sup> 18:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
:::*I agree and would consider limiting this to English-language academic sources. A recurring problem in this topic area seems to be a reliance on fringe sources. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC) – To be clear, I don't think that Polish-language sources are inherently unreliable, but they can't be evaluated by most admins here, including me. That impedes arbitration enforcement insofar as source reliability is concerned. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
::::*{{ping|Sandstein}} I am sympathetic to your sentiments and share them, along with the concern that source misrepresentations will try to be passed off as "differences in translations". However I won't personally impose a restriction that supersedes a policy, guideline, or BRD (as opposed the strengthening them) without prior evidence that it's needed and I don't think we're there yet. I think we should just reiterate ] ("English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance") and stipulate that we will go to Google Translate if we really have to if source misrepresentation is alleged. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

*I've cut down all the statements to the allowed maximum of 500 words because this is not the forum in which to address all the possible sourcing and conduct problems in this topic area. That would probably need a full ArbCom case. Limited to the specific conduct at issue, I myself would take '''no action''' but leave it to NeilN whether he considers his restriction violated and wants to take action, and whether he wants to impose an additional sourcing restriction such as the one proposed above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

{{ping|François Robere|E-960|GizzyCatBella|Icewhiz}} and other editors: Is there anything about you find unclear? That is, an edit (new addition, removal of long-standing material, change to existing material) can be done once and if it's challenged, no one can make the same or similar edit without gaining consensus? Also, you understand the more extensive your edit, the greater the likelihood someone will take issue with part of it and revert the whole thing? --] <sup>]</sup> 14:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

* {{u|Icewhiz}} Per my note, if anyone adds something then anyone else can challenge it before four to six weeks are up and require consensus for the addition. After that time period, if anyone removes it then anyone else can challenge it and require consensus for the deletion. Yes, this places an extra burden on editors but it also prevents tag team edit wars and promotes article stability and discussion.
* {{u|François Robere}} 1) A formal RFC is not always required but two editors agreeing and one editor disagreeing in a conversation spanning two hours isn't going to be accepted as consensus either. Listen to each other and I suggest you find an editor most of you trust to be neutral ({{u|MelanieN}} seems to play that part on Trump articles) that can help guide you as to how consensus can be found (not what consensus is, but what level of discussion is needed to find it). 2) If someone has done a "massive" revert then you've done a "massive" change. In this case, you can open discussion with, "X, you've reverted all my changes. Do you object to all of them or only specific ones?" and go from there.
* As to warnings, the standard discretionary sanctions notifications should suffice. I hope editors will be kind to each other and give an editor who has a good or empty record a chance to self-revert before reporting them. The American Politics editors, while disagreeing vehemently on many, many things, usually extend this courtesy to each other if the editor hasn't abused this courtesy in the past. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
{{hab}}

==Calton==
<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 Calton===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|D.Creish}} 20:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Calton}}<p>{{ds/log|Calton}}
<!--- 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. 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.--> <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# - removed "discrimination" sidebar from the page of ] (fascist ideology) even though the sidebar was inserted inside a section, not even the lead.
Repeated personal attacks in edits to American Politics articles:
# - tag bombed the highly vetted ] article without any discussion or reason
* ] "Your inability -- or pretense thereof -- to understand plain English is not my problem."
# - attributing castes to people withhout any sources
* ] Personal attack in edit summary: "No, genius, I said nothing -- zip, zero, nada -- about the source. Pay attention: WP:DUE for the purpose of insuation which, again, has fuck-all to do with reliable sources. Any more non sequitors?"
* ] He restores an unsourced "white supremacist" label in a BLP ( uses "white nationalist.") Personal attack in edit summary: "Far left? Cool, way to out yourself." # - edit warring to impose the above edits after getting
# - just like above, but this time he also added unreliable sources
* He continues the edit war. Personal attack in edit summary: "Please don't make shit up about VOX. The talk page awaits you."
# - still edit warring and using edit summaries instead of talk page for conversation
* Continues. Personal attack in edit summary: "Your link doesn't say what you claim, so yep, making shit up. Talk page? Have you heard of them?)"
# - filed an outrageous report on WP:ANI without notifying any editors. This report was closed by Bbb23 as "{{tq|This is nothing but a malplaced, frivolous personal attack by the OP.}}"
* Continues. Personal attack in edit summary:"I DID prove it: you pretended not to understand it."
* ] Personal attack in edit summary: "Get over yourself and your persecution complex. Repeat: per&nbsp;WP:UNDUE"
* Continues attacks on editor's talk page with Section title "Your garbage edits"; "Making shit up about other editors's motivations for basic quality control isn't go to fool anyone, son."
* ] Personal attack in edit summary: "Thought you could sneak out the Russian-contact mention, eh?"
* ] Removes content sourced to thehill.com with edit summary "Save this insinuating crap for Breitbart News.
* ] Personal attack in edit summary: "You've got an ax to grind? Find a blacksmith."


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> <!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
Many previous blocks for personal attacks and incivility *Already 2 blocks in last 4 months for edit warring.
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):

* Blocked in August 2006 for "repeated personal attacks"
* Blocked in September 2007 for "Persistent incivility and taunting of other users"
* Blocked in November 2007 for "Continued incivility and taunting after previous block"
* Blocked in August 2008 for "Incivility"
* Blocked in September 2009 for "Personal attacks&nbsp;or&nbsp;harassment"
* Blocked '''indefinitely''' in March 2013 for "Personal attacks&nbsp;or&nbsp;harassment: racist edit sumamries & general awful attitude to others"
* Unblocked after "Assurances given that offensive epithets will not be repeated"
* Days later "Per ANI discussion. The consensus on ANI is any further use of edit summaries to make any sort of disparaging comments about other editors will lead to another block"
* Blocked in April 2015 "'''Further use of edit summaries to make disparaging comments about other editors''', after being clearly infomred that doing so would lead to another block."
* Blocked in January 2016 "Personal attacks&nbsp;or&nbsp;harassment"


;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. -->
*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 -->
Despite many warnings and blocks editor is unwilling to refrain from personal attacks.


I do not see any positive signs that this editor will ever improve. So far he has only regressed. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:In suggesting they won't consider this report, Black Kite and Seraphimblade do a disservice to the editors against whom these PAs were directed which includes established wikipedians {{ping|HiLo48}}


:While going through this report, PerspicazHistorian has made another highly problematic edit by edit warring and misrepresenting the sources to label the organisation as "terrorist". This primary source only provides a list of organisations termed by the Indian government as "terrorist" contrary to ]. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 03:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:As far as my own comments and edit summaries, I'm not concerned as long as they're evaluated objectively - PA on talk page vs PA on article page under discretionary sanctions; pattern of PAs vs a single example; unblock on the condition that further PAs would result a block vs clean block record; and so on.


*PerspicazHistorian is still using sources (see ]) and wishing to move ] to ] which is a blatant POV. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 04:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:Maybe an excess of good faith but I can't imagine a single offensive response to an editor who ignored my request to stay off my talk page will be judged more harshly than continuous incivility across the project. ] (]) 17:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
{{cot}}
<!-- 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. -->
::I saw the one PA and checked recent edits then his block log but given the IP's list of complaints and number of editors complaining it's mind boggling that he's still editing and continues as if nothing's wrong.

{{redacted}}

::I'm at a loss. Pinging {{ping|RegentsPark}} who was the last admin to unblock. ] (]) 18:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

::: NeilN: I don't know procedure so please collapse those excerpts if necessary but I think it's relevant that the problem continued for "more than ten years." I'm not asking admins to address the earlier behavior but the current behavior in the context of earlier behavior that suggests the editor has no intention of stopping. Their only response (below) is to argue the PAs were appropriate. ] (]) 19:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
{{cob}}

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


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


*1) I just asked an user @] if the page move is possible. What's wrong with it? I still have not considered putting a move request on talk page of article.
*] involved a brand-new account (], with 5 edits, and their previous ]) edit-warring to remove "white supremacist", despite sources -- a constant problem on this and other pages about alt-right and white-supremacist pages. Amusingly, the editor proclaimed one source as invalid because it was from a "far-left" website (VOX), despite the fact that their own "proof" of this didn't say what they claimed. I '''did''' make a mistake: I didn't notice that the VOX source wasn't attached directly to the lede, so I have fixed that. My apologies for not noticing.
:2) Many of other sources are not raj era. Moreover I myself have deleted the content way before you pointing this out. Thank You ! ] (]) 06:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*] involved yet-another brand-new account (], with 29 edits) edit-warring to remove "Neo-Nazi", despite sources and the talk page, with wikilawyering demands that I show where in policy the term "whitewashing" appears. I don't play that game, where someone establishes a false framework and demands that I justify it.
::even @] is seen engaged in edit wars before on contentious Indian topics. ] (]) 06:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*''Continues attacks on editor's talk page with Section title "Your garbage edits"'': that was from indef-blocked {{User|Miacek}} -- whom you may remember from ], odd how D.Creish leaves off the name -- who left :
:::as mentioned by @] before, <sub>Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here</sub>. You can discuss content related topics on talk pages of articles rather than personally targeting a user here in enforcement. ] (]) 06:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::'''''Eager to just pick up a fight, yes?'''''
::::@] I once filed a to find it @] is a sock (out of a misunderstanding, as all were teamed up similarly on various pages). I think he felt it as a personal attack by me and filed this request for enforcement. Please interfere. ] (]) 06:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC) <small>moving to correct section ] (]) 13:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
::''A pretty much a textbook case of ] I guess . What next? ? ]? ] ] 03:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)''


*Hi @] @], In my defense I just want to say that
This is all I care to respond to unless necessary. --] | ] 02:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
:1)Yes I usually edit on RSS related topics, but to ensure a democratic view is maintained as many socks try to disrupt such articles. Even on ] page, I just edited on request of talk page and added a graph. I don't think its a POV push.
:2) My main interest in editing is ] and ] topics.
:3)There have been certain cases in past where I was blocked but if studied carefully they were result of me edit warring with socks(although, through guidance of various experienced editors and admins I learnt a SPI should be filed first). I have learnt a lot in my journey and there have been nearly zero case of me of edit warring this month.
:Please do not block me. ] (]) 14:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*@] I beg apologies for the inconvenience caused, thanks for correcting me. I will now reply in my own statement section. @] I am a quick learner and professionally competent to edit in this encyclopedic space. Please consider reviewing this enforcement if its an counter-attack on me as mentioned in my previous replies. You all are experienced editors and I have good faith in your decision-making capability.] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*@]@] I have edited content marked as "original research" and "mess" by you, I am ready to help removing any content that might be considered "poorly sourced" by the community. Please don't block me.] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*@] This enforcement started for edit-warring and now I feel its more concerned to my edited content(which I agree to cooperate and change wherever needed). After learning about edit wars, there has been no instance of me edit-warring, Please consider my request.--] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@] I am not a slow learner, I understand the concerns of all admins here. I will try my best to add only reliable sources, and discuss content in all talk pages, as I already mentioned ]. ] (]) 12:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@]@] I think admins should focus more on encouraging editors when they do good and correct when mistaken. I have made many edits, added many citations and created much articles which use fine citations. The enforcement started out of retaliation by nxcrypto, now moving towards banning me anyways. I started editing out of passion, and doing it here on wiki unlike those who come here just for pov pushes and disrupt article space(talking about socks and vandalizers on contentious Indian topics).
*::The article ] doesn't only has issue on citations, but the whole article is copypasted from the citations I added. I just wanted to point that out. Remaining about ], I am currently pursuing Btech in cs from IIT delhi, idt I am a slow learner by any means. Still, happy new year to all ! ] (]) 14:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::@] You mean to say, "<sub>The ''prasada'' is to be consumed by attendees as a holy offering. The offerings may include cooked food, ] and confectionery sweets. Vegetarian food is usually offered and later distributed to the devotees who are present in the ]. Sometimes this vegetarian offering will exclude prohibited items such as garlic, onion, mushroom, etc. "</sub> is not copy pasted by website? Is this also a wiki mirror website? How would you feel if I doubt your competence now? ] (]) 14:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::@ ] I just asked others to share their opinion in the enforcement. With all due respect, I don't think its wrong in any sense. ] (]) 15:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::To all the admins involved here,
*:::::* I agree to keep learning and apologize if my previous edits/replies have annoyed the admins.
*:::::* I have not edit warred since a month and please see it as my willingness to keep learning and getting better.
*:::::*Please give me a chance, I understand concern of you all and respect your opinion in the matter. But please don't block me from editing from main article space. I promise that I will abide by all the rules and will learn from other editors.
*:::::] (]) 15:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by LukeEmily====
Maybe it's not directly a matter for this page and maybe it's just me, but does anyone else find ] just a tad suspicious? --] | ] 06:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
PerspicazHistorian also violated ] by engaging in an edit war with {{u|Ratnahastin}} who reverted his edits and restored an article to a stable version by admin. Also, I want to assume good faith but it is surprising that PerspicazHistorian claims that he did not know the three revert rule given that he has more than 800 edits.] (])


====Statement by Doug Weller====
'''Addendum''': Given {{ping|Sandstein}}'s comments, I'd again urge him to take a look at ]. --] | ] 13:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm involved so just commenting. I don't think this editor is competent. I had to give them a community sanction caste warning as they were making a mess of castes. See this earlier version of their talk page.]https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:PerspicazHistorian&oldid=1262289249] and ]'s comment that "It was very unwise of you to keep moving ] to article space when it has not passed review. As a direct result of your actions, a deletion discussion is taking place, and when this is complete and the article is deleted, you will be prevented from recreating it. ] (]) 14:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)" There have also been copyright issues. I strongly support a topic ban. ] ] 11:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


:::I won't be involved in the decision. No more treatments for me, just coast until... ] ] 12:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{ping|GoldenRing}}: ''I'm also not seeing the equivalence between an account with a clean block log who has made one uncivil remark and an account with a log as long as your arm covering 10+ years with 10+ diffs of recent incivility that would lead to equal sanctions.'' If the block log is your only measure, then you really really haven't been paying attention to the conversation. Look above your comments for some context. --] | ] 13:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


====Statement by Dave Dial==== ====Statement by Toddy1====
This is another editor who appears to have pro-] (RSS) and pro-] (BJP) views. I dislike those views, but find it rather alarming that Misplaced Pages should seek to censor those views, but not the views of the political opponents. Imagine the outrage if we sought to topic-ban anyone who expressed pro-] views, but allowed ] to say whatever they liked.
Most of the links given by D.Creish are of Calton rightly making sure some of the articles concerning or about white supremacists/neo-nazis/racists remain ], without obvious whitewashing. Some edits reverted were ips, obvious sock accounts or throw aways. If anything, D.Creish should be topic banned. One of his examples he writes:<blockquote>] He restores an unsourced "white supremacist" label in a BLP ( uses "white nationalist.") Personal attack in edit summary: "Far left? Cool, way to out yourself." </blockquote>In the NPR source it states:<blockquote>Asked how she would pitch the alt-right to conservative white women who voted for Trump, but are also wary of being labeled a white supremacist, Lokteff told her, "we have a joke in the alt-right: How do you red-pill someone? ("Red-pill" is their word for converting someone to the cause.) And the punch line was: Have them live in a diverse neighborhood for a while," Darby says. "She also said that when she is talking to women she reminds them that '''white women are under threat from black men, brown men, emigrants, and really uses this concept of a rape scourge to bring them in'''."</blockquote>The edits of D.Creish and the editors he is defending really speak for themselves. This is absolutely an attempt to rid these articles of editors that know the subject so they can more easily be whitewashed. ] (]) 23:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


A lot of pro-RSS/BJP editors turn out to be sock-puppets, so please can we do a checkuser on this account. And to be even-handed, why not checkuser NXcrypto too.
====Statement by SPECIFICO====
I urge Admins here to take a close look at the DCreish account's history and behavior on Misplaced Pages. Here is his editing history profile This ID has few edits, but an extraordinarily high proportion of aggressive AE, AN, and other noticeboard complaints, and what I evaluate as aggressive and uncivil POV editing and wikilawyering. This is a NOTHERE account, in my opinion. ]] 12:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


If we want to talk about ] when editors make mistakes, look at the diff given by NXcrypto for "Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested" - it is the wrong diff. He/she did notify PerspicazHistorian - but the correct diff is .
===Result concerning Calton===
:''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. -->
* One of the first things I always do when looking at an AE request is check the contribution history of the editor filing the complaint. On this case, I don't think there's any reason to even go further than that. ] 21:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
*Per Black Kite's suggestion to check contrib history, without even looking at any diffs, I straightaway see this: , with the edit summary of "Didn't I already tell you to fuck off? If not, consider yourself notified." If D.Creish is advocating that sanctions be placed for uncivil comments, I think they might want to carefully consider who that might cover. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
*{{u|D.Creish}}, providing a long list of diffs, some from more than ten years ago and others having nothing to do with the topic area, is not helpful. This is ], not ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
:*I've removed submissions not pertaining to the AE request at hand. If you want to present general and old editing history then open an ANI discussion '''separate''' from an AE request. We are focused on specific topics covered by discretionary sanction here. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
* I am minded to turn this around and TBan D.Creish instead. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
* Since I've been pinged. The unblock referred to by D.Creish was back in 2013 and is way too long ago to be germane to this discussion. --] <small>(])</small> 20:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
* I think I missed a memo somewhere. Can someone explain the enthusiasm for a boomerang against {{u|D.Creish}}? Yes, that one diff provided by {{u|Seraphimblade}} is not good but it's one diff. If everyone who reported here had to have a clean history, we could almost mark this page as historical and focus our energies elsewhere. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
:* We could, but seriously, look at the history. D.Creish involves themselves at one contentious article or another (], ], ], ] ]), gets involved in various AE and ANI shenanigans around those articles, then disappears again. A while later, they pop up again, find another article ... rinse and repeat. Their very first edit was , with an edit-summary invoking ]. Hmmmm. No, I don't expect people bringing AEs to be sparkling clean, but this report is a waste of time; let them bring it to ANI, and let's see what happens there. ] 20:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
:*I'm not necessarily suggesting a boomerang. More just how frustrating I find it when people will happily dish it out, but run straight to AN-(insert letter here) when they get a bit of their own medicine in return. It's rather like when someone reports to the edit warring noticeboard, and ''both'' of them are well past 3RR. And realistically, I find Calton's comments to be somewhat abrasive, but not really what I'd consider attacks. But if the level of discourse you practice is "fuck off", you'd probably best not be too surprised when people in turn speak that way to you. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
* I've blocked {{user|Hansnarf}} for 48 hours making accusations of racism against Calton after warnings and several opportunities to just stop. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 02:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
*Calton's edits reported here fail ], particularly in a contested area, and they have a relevant sanctions record. On the other hand, Seraphimblade above cites an edit by D.Creish that is at least as problematic, and D.Creish seems generally to be here to engage in political drama. I'd either topic-ban both for a month or take no action, depending on what other admins here prefer. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
*I agree with Sandstein that Calton's edits are not acceptable. This is from an editor who has been repeatedly, over a period of years, unblocked on the basis of assurances that "offensive epithets will not be repeated" and "any further use of edit summaries to make any sort of disparaging comments about other editors will lead to another block" (quotes from the block log). The message has clearly not gotten through. I appreciate that the objective of their recent editing has been good, but ]. I'm also not seeing the equivalence between an account with a clean block log who has made one uncivil remark and an account with a log as long as your arm covering 10+ years with 10+ diffs of recent incivility that would lead to equal sanctions. I'm sorely tempted to simple block Calton indefinitely as a normal admin action; the history more than warrants it. If other admins object to this, please say so here. ] (]) 09:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
:*As Misplaced Pages's resident civility enforcement fundamentalist, I can hardly disagree with this argument, but my experience has shown that lengthy civility blocks, particularly against long-established editors, are among the most controversial admin actions and can generate an inordinate amount of drama, perhaps because it signals to very many editors that Misplaced Pages is not in fact their private playground but a work environment - a collegial, collaborative project among adult professionals. That's not to say that the drama isn't occasionally worth it. So feel free to go ahead as far as I'm concerned. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
:* No, don't do that, for goodness' sake. I think I'm on pretty safe ground when I say that indeffing someone for an incident in which they were not even the worst behaving party would go very, very, badly indeed - especially given the existence of ] and similar. I agree with Sandstein's original point. above - either topic-ban both for a month or take no action. ] 14:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


A topic ban from Indian topics would be unhelpful, unless given to both parties. Misplaced Pages is meant to be a mainstream encyclopaedia, and BJP and RSS are mainstream in India. Loading the dice against BJP and RSS editors will turn Misplaced Pages into a fringe encyclopaedia on Indian topics.
==My Lord==
{{hat|1=No action. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:07, 13 June 2018 (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 can see a good case for restricting PerspicazHistorian to draft articles and talk pages for a month, and suggesting that he/she seeks advice from more experienced editors. Another solution would be a one-revert rule to last six months.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 13:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
===Request concerning My Lord===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Farhan Khurram}} 19:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


====Statement by Capitals00====
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|My Lord}}<p>{{ds/log|My Lord}}
I find the comment from {{U|Toddy1}} to be entirely outrageous. What are you trying to tell by saying "{{tq|Misplaced Pages is meant to be a mainstream encyclopaedia, and BJP and RSS are mainstream in India}}"? If you want us to entertain those who are in power, then we could never have an article like ].
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


You cannot ask topic ban for both editors without having any evidence of misconduct. Same way, you cannot ask CU on either user ]. It is a high time that you should strike your comment, since you are falsely accusing others that they "{{tq|seek to censor}}" this editor due to his "{{tq| pro-Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and pro-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) views}}". You should strike your comment. If you cannot do that, then I am sure ] is coming for you. ] (]) 15:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] :
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->


====Statement by Vanamonde93====
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
{{U|Toddy1}}: I, too, am baffled by your comment. We don't ban editors based on their POV; but we do ban editors who fail to follow our PAGs, and we certainly don't make excuses for editors who fail to follow our guidelines based on their POV. You seem to be suggesting we cut PH some slack because of their political position, and I find that deeply inappropriate. Among other things, I don't believe they have publicly stated anywhere that they support the BJP or the RSS, and we cannot make assumptions about them.
<!-- 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.-->
I am finding his editing style to be too aggressive. His reverts are accompanied with attack terminology on other users' edits, words in the edit summaries include "useless", "irrelevant", "pov", "pseudo".
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
He is also too ready to assume bad faith of others. He makes unsubstantiated accusation of socking on another user and accuses another of edit war.
#
#


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


I will note in fairness that I cannot access all the sources for the content I checked. But after spotchecking a dozen examples I have yet to find content PH wrote that was borne out by a reliable source, so I believe skepticism is justified. We are in territory where other editors may need to spend days cleaning up some of this writing. {{U|Bishonen}} If we're in CIR territory, just a normal indefinite block seems cleanest, surely? Or were you hoping that PH would help clean up their mess, perhaps by providing quotes from sources? That could be a pathway to contributing productively, but I'm not holding my breath. ] (]) 18:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
#My Lord (previously called Anmolbhat) added this content on ] but was reverted and told by administrators to get consensus for it because it was contested by other users. He has now restored that content without consensus and has even cited this talkpage discussion in his edit summary as a justification for his mass revert even though the talkpage discussion shows no consensus in favour of his content. This is a '''deliberate misrepresentation''', which I think is disruption.
#This is by no means the only article where he has behaved disruptively like this. On ] he made a contentious edit with an edit summary saying "see talkpage for consensus" even though there was no consensus on the talkpage in favour of that edit.
#There are other examples too of this disruption which in my view amount to tendentious editing. On Kashmiris he removes content with a similarly fictious edit summary, citing a talkpage discussion which does not actually support his version.


:Thanks Bish: I agree, as my exchanges with PH today, in response to my first post here, have not inspired confidence. . ] (]) 20:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
# User was blocked for violating the copyright policies.


====Statement by UtherSRG====
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
I've mostly dealt with PH around ]. They do not seem to have the ability to read and understand our policies and processes. As such, a t-ban is too weak. The minimum I would support is a p-block as suggested below, though a full indef is also acceptable. They could then ask for the ] when they can demonstrate they no longer have ] issues. - ] ] 20:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


:Based on , I'm more strongly leaning towards indef. - ] ] 12:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
::They now indicate they believe the article they edited was copied from one of the websites they used as a reference, when in reality the website is a mirror/scrape of the Misplaced Pages article. I believe we are firmly in ] territory here. - ] ] 14:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I am finding that this user's editing behaviour in relation to other users is just too confrontational. This "you lose buddy" edit summary is just symptomatic of their battleground mentality. They also recently filed two groundless enforcement requests against two users.
::: is a mirror of the Misplaced Pages article. - ] ] 16:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


===Result concerning PerspicazHistorian ===
This user has already received multiple warnings for unconstructive editing, disruption, and for pov deletions.

I would like the administrators to stop this user's disruption on ], ], ] and ]. In the last one he unilaterally removed a section which was originally merged into the article per a '''community discussion''' at AfD. ] (]) 19:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:My_Lord&diff=prev&oldid=845151250


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

===Discussion concerning My Lord===
<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 My Lord====

====Statement by Danish.mehraj26====
{{U|Sandstein}} may be right that the first batch of diffs is not actionable but the third batch is very concerning. He has been falsifying consensus and misrepresenting talkpage discussions to do reverts. He has also removed content from Cow vilgilante article even though it was added there after a community discussion.

For someone who has already been warned not to do POV deletions and disruption, the kind of disruptive behaviour Farhan Khurram has reported of My Lord doing reverts and falsification of talkpage consensus to support those reverts is disconcerting.

Here is additional evidence of this user's battleground attitude, in addition to this edit summary. Danish Mehraj 03:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
===Discussion by uninvolved editors===
====Statement by WBG====
*As Sandstein notes, the first seven diffs are '''non-actionable'''.If anything, Anmol shall be commended for some of the edits.Also, see ] and ].Period.
*As to unsubstantiated accusation of socking, I'm curious as to whether the OP has missed Anmol's dummy-edit-summary, just 15 minutes after the aspersion.
*As to the case of edit warring at ], Anmol was acting ''against'' the established consensus and I've reverted him.But, I fail to see any shred of evidence where either of the editor(s) has raised the issue at either's t/p or the article t/p and that does ''not'' speak good, for ''either'' of them.
*His restoration of content at ] is problematic.And, it's a sad state of affairs (overall), where wild accusations occupy a majority of any t/p discourse. I tried to mediate but both the sides seemingly dropped the issue, before Anmol came back, out of nowhere, with an illusion of a consensus.(It might be noted that the recently imposed mass-T-bans don't vacate the absence of consensus......)
*No idea as to the happenings at ].No comments.
*I'm curious as to how a ''copyvio block'' is a tangentially-''relevant'' sanction but I'll let it go.......
*It may be noted that the warnings for ''un-constructive editing'', ''POV edits'' are way too old, (when he was a newbie) and I've not even looked at the merits of the issuing of the warnings.
*Danish's diffs for battleground mentality aren't much actionable either, esp. given that the parties at the other end have earned a much deserved T-Ban from the Indo-Pak arena.
*The last two enforcement request(s), filed by him, though partially frivolous, had aspects of faults from the other parties.
*As to the case at ], Anmol was perfect to trim the sections (per the general style of the article) and it's a content dispute, which predictably will snow in his favor, if RFC-ed.
**'''Overall''', I don't see anything sanction-able, in this report, based on point(s):- ''3'' and ''4'' alone.At best, a warning to Anmol to be more careful and a warning to the OP to not use AE as a tool against fellow opposing editors.
**And, going by the substance of this filing, I would echo {{noping|Sitush}} who stated of a tendency to:--{{tq|run to the drama boards at any opportunity, however tenuous, that might result in an "opponent" being sanctioned}}.]<sup>]</sup> 07:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


====Statement by DarSahab====
I have just checked {{U|Winged Blades of Godric}}'s statement. His statement says that the first two batch of diffs showen are non-actionable. Agreed.

But the meat of the problem is in the third batch of diffs. {{U|Winged Blades of Godric}} accepts that the behaviour on ] is problematic. But WBG is silent on the fact that this is a part of {{U|My Lord}}'s general trend of disruption on pages such as ] and ] where he reverts with false claims of consensus and talkpage support in his edit summaries.

The removal of content on ] is also a problematic because that content was merged into the aticle per a community discussion on AfD. That in my view is '''disruptive'''.

The warnings cited of POV edits and unconstructive editing are still relevant because they give an idea of the kind of disruption this user has done before and its even more relevant now because he is still doing similar disruption.

These diffs for battleground mentality are actionable because it shows that he has the same, even worse, behavioural issues as the T-Banned parties.

I wonder why does WBG on one hand think that its okay for {{U|My Lord}} to say stuff like "You lose buddy" and "That's clear ] from you. I had explained it in edit summary as well as here, but you have no concerns about using a weak source for your POV pushing. And when you are telling that others are "censoring" removing content cause they "]" as defense for clear POV content, it is just not gonna help", but on the other hand argue that if others respond in kind they deserve to be T-Banned? Why not just be fair? ] (]) 12:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I am adding {{U|RaviC}} to the category of users involved in this style of disruption. He chimed into ] to repeat {{U|My Lord}}'s behaviour with the same misleading edit summary which basically '''falsifies consensus'''. There is nothing on the cited talkpage thread indicating any consensus for that version (actually it shows the opposite). Not just {{U|My Lord}} but {{U|RaviC}} is also actively practising this deception and this I believe is '''disruption'''.


====Statement by Spasage====

The diffs shown of this user's conduct are enough to convince me that this user is not helping the project. User writes incorrect statements in edit summaries across several articles is not only disruption but also ]. Not just by this reported user but by RaviC as well.
I have seen My Lord's talkpage disputes, which he conveniently only began after this AE was filed for being deceptive while doing reverts on the mainspace articles, and having know how of these topics what I have read from these discussions has reaffirmed my feeling that My Lord is bludgeoning. Instead of refuting valid arguments he starts to nitpick and raise red herrings. I feel sorry for the users who are debating him because they are just going to get frustrated with all this. I am also going to add Kautilya3 and Joshua Jonathan here for incivility and ] of other users. The former accuses a user of ] even when that user referred to scholarly sources/historians such as Gulshan Majeed and Abdul Lone.
====Statement by Obaid Raza====
My Lord's talkpage interactions were highly uncivil. He was let off for this in his last AE due to the intervention of the same sympathetic admin, WBG. Sadly, My Lord has not improved since. There is what other users have reported of his recent and constant lying in his edit summaries. He is still lying and using diversionary tactics, an example is his posting a link to a very recent discussion as an answer to a question about locating support for his version in an older discussion. Its a shame that English Misplaced Pages administrators choose not to act on such disruptive users until the water is over our heads and these users have infuriated everybody else. In a similar case, WBG came to my talkpage to ask for already posted evidence about Kautilya3's disruption. Sadly, Kautilya3's own incivility is continuing in the same places as My Lord. He recently commented at ] like this, {{tq|"So this division you imagine seems to be in your own imagination."}} These two, My Lord and Kautilya3, are users who repeatedly comment on other users and not solely on the content in their content disputes. When I see such disruption and incivility on Urdu Misplaced Pages I block such accounts as a normal admin action. I would suggest the same approach with both here. ] (]) 12:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

===Result concerning My Lord===
:''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. -->
*I've looked at the first seven diffs and don't find them actionable. They contain judgments about content, yes, but this is what we do as editors. Criticizing content is ok, it's criticizing editors personally that we disapprove of. Given that the first batch of diffs is completely non-actionable, I've not examined the rest of the request and would close this without action. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
:*Given that no other admin has expressed interest in taking action, I am closing this accordingly. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
{{hab}}


{{u|PerspicazHistorian}}, can you explain your understanding of ] and the ] rule? I'd like you to read thoroughly enough to also explain wny someone may be edit warring ''even if they aren't breaking 3RR''. ] (]) 21:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
==‎Netoholic==
{{hat|1=No action. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:09, 13 June 2018 (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 ‎Netoholic===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Tryptofish}} 23:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

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

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]

; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
*Pretty much all of this is at ].
# Just after the recent previous AE, does a massive revert while ] is on the page. Another editor comments to him about it: .
# Another massive revert, edit summary is misleading.
# "Begin"s to restore material that had been deleted by consensus.
# Battleground-y comments, disregard for actual policies.
# Ditto.
# Ditto.
# Ditto, with me replying.
# Ditto. ("Careful what you ask for.")
# Uses "throw anything at the wall and see what sticks" argument to say that the page should not include what the author of a study says about her own study.

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

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
Just days ago, another AE complaint was raised about Netoholic: . I suggested cutting him some slack, : "In the next several days, I plan to do a top-to-bottom rewrite of that page. In the past, that would likely have led to edit warring. But let's wait a couple of days, and see whether that happens now. I'm crossing my fingers that it won't." On that basis, {{u|TonyBallioni}} closed the thread: (sorry Tony!). Unfortunately, exactly what Netoholic was supposed ''not'' to do is what he did, and repeatedly. He had every reason to be aware that DS were in effect. And please note that there was overwhelming support from other editors for the revisions that I had made: , , , , . And before anyone gets the idea to go boomerang-y, I've been trying very hard to be fair to him: , , , . When he added material that I thought should not be there: , I nonetheless made edits to try to improve it: , , , , , , , . (Looking at ], it looks like this may be happening at other pages too.)

At the very least, you need to topic-ban him from American Politics, explicitly including "political bias". --] (]) 23:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

:I want to make it clear that what I am raising here is ''not'' about asking AE to resolve a content dispute. Lionelt says that there is not a consensus (''cf'' , ), but there really '''is a consensus'''. The page was moved, , on the ''consensus'' that it was a POV violation to write it as a stated fact that there is a liberal bias. When Sandstein closed ], most of the "keep" arguments (of which I was one) were conditional on the page being significantly rewritten to address the "delete" concerns that the page was pushing a "liberal bias" POV. And, with the sole exception of Lionelt, every other editor strongly endorsed the revisions that Netoholic is nonetheless working to undo: , , , , . So it most definitely is ''not'' just a two-editor disagreement that could use a 3O. This is a situation of a single editor working ''against a consensus'' in a manner that is tendentious. Don't decide it on content. Decide it on conduct. If it's OK for Netoholic to revert the edits that all those editors endorsed, when I for the most part am not reverting him, and for him to say of me "Frankly, dishonest writing", , that's not the way I understand DS. --] (]) 17:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
:''Note'': To make it abundantly clear that I am not filing this to get my way in a content dispute, I just completely self-reverted all of my edits back to where the page was before I started revising it: . --] (]) 17:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

As of today, multiple other editors have arrived at the page, and all have disagreed with Netoholic. Nonetheless, he is engaging in reverts against consensus at that page and others: , , and made the bizarre assertion that the self-stated opinions of a BLP subject (with whom Netoholic disagrees) should be removed on the basis of supposedly violating BLP: . --] (]) 23:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
:And is edit warring over ''that'', too: . --] (]) 23:36, 12 June 2018 (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 ‎Netoholic===
<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 ‎Netoholic====

====Statement by Lionelt====
I do not see a consensus. I just see Tryp and Netoholic going back and forth on the Talk page and at the article. Occasionally another editor will chime in with "Good" or "Not good" but I would not call that consensus. I, for one, have voiced concern with Tryp's efforts at the article.

It's extremely difficult to completely re-write a controversial article from "top-to-bottom." Perhaps even ill-advised. It severely limits the ability to compromise over fine points. Imagine if an editor attempted to re-write Presidency of Donald Trump from "top-to-bottom"?

Yes, there does appear to be frustration at the page. However I do not see any violations which rise to the level of sanctioning. Our normal dispute resolution process should be adequate. Since this appears to be a content dispute primarily between Tryp and Netoholic, perhaps ] is the solution.

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

===Result concerning ‎Netoholic===
:''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. -->
:@], that explanation of edit warring is a bit wanting. An edit war is when two or more editors revert content additions/removals repeatedly. Even a second reversion by the same editor can be considered edit warring. Best practice -- and what I highly recommend, especially for any inexperienced editor -- is ''the first time'' someone reverts an edit of yours, go to the talk page, open a section, ping the editor who reverted you, and discuss. Do you think you can commit to that?
*I'm not seeing actions worthy of sanctions here. Editors are allowed to criticize the writing of others as long as they remain civil in doing so and do not personally attack others. Netoholic's comments here touch but do not cross that line. The other diffs being reported here reflect content disputes, which AE does not decide. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
:<small>Re: your question on why your "obvious edit" was reverted: we don't deal with content issues here, only with behavior issues, but from a very quick look, the source is 50 years old, and using a list headed "TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS LISTED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967" that includes a certain organization as a source that the organization should be described as a terrorist organization is ]; in their ] NXcrypto provided an edit summary of "Not a reliable source for such a contentious label. See WP:LABEL." Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here.</small> ] (]) 11:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:* Given that no other admin has expressed interest in taking action, I am closing this accordingly. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
::I'm seeing this as a CIR issue. I'd like input from other admins, if possible. I'm a little concerned that setting a tban from IPA is just setting a trap. Maybe a p-block from article space would be a kinder way to allow them to gain some experience? ] (]) 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
:::@], have you seen how many times I or others have had to move your comments to your own section? This is an example of not having enough experience to edit productively. Please do not post in anyone else's section again. ] (]) 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

::::I do agree we're in CIR territory, and the concerns expressed are completely valid. I don't think this editor is ill-intentioned. They just don't seem very motivated to learn quickly. Well-intentioned-but-a-slow-learner is something that can only be fixed by actually practicing what you're bad at. I'd prefer an indef from article space which gives them one more chance to learn here before we send them off to mr.wiki or Simple English to try to learn. Not a hill I'm going to die on, though. ] (]) 11:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Factchecker_atyourservice==
:::::@], like Uther I have major concerns about the edit you made yesterday, which included replacing a citation needed tag with these sources.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Significance of Different Type of Prasad in Hinduism For God |url=https://www.ganeshaspeaks.com/predictions/astrology/prasad-food-for-god/ |access-date=2024-12-30 |website=GaneshaSpeaks |language=en-GB}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=What Is Prashad |url=https://www.swaminarayan.faith/articles/what-is-prashad |access-date=2024-12-30 |website=Shree Swaminarayan Mandir Bhuj |language=en}}</ref> The first is a company that markets astrology services. The second is the site for a religious sect. Neither is a reliable source for explaining the concept of prasada in Wikivoice. You made this edit ''yesterday'', after you'd confirmed here and on my talk that you understood sourcing policy.
{{hat|1=Procedural closure. Not an appeal of an AE action, therefore out of scope of this board. Factchecker_atyourservice blocked for topic ban violation. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)}}
:::::The reason for an indef from article space is to allow you to learn this policy: You would go into article talk and suggest sources to fix citation needed tags. Another editor would have to agree with you that the sources are reliable before they'd add them. ] (]) 12:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
<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>
*A tban from IPA for PerspicazHistorian would be a relief to many editors trying to keep this difficult area in reasonable shape. However, Valereee makes a good point about 'setting a trap': it's doubtful that PH would be able to keep to a tban even if they tried in good faith. I would therefore support a p-block from article space. ] &#124; ] 16:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC).

*:{{u|Vanamonde93}}, no, I don't really think PH can usefully help clean up their mess; I was following Valereee, who has been going into this in some depth, in attempting to keep some way of editing Misplaced Pages open for PH. It's a bit of a counsel of desperation, though; there is very little daylight between an indef and a p-block from article space. Yes, we ''are'' in CIR territory; just look at PH's ] for NXcrypto being "engaged in edit wars before on contentious Indian topics": one diff of an opponent complaining on NXcrypto's page, and one diff of somebody reverting NXcrypto. What do those actually prove? That NXcrypto has opponents (big surprise). So, yes, as you suggest, I'll support an indef as well. ] &#124; ] 20:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC).
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Factchecker_atyourservice}} – ] 14:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
*Is there a length of time proposed for the p-ban or would it be indefinite? ] (]) 17:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

*:I would say indefinite; not infinite, but I'd be wary about letting them back into articlespace without some kind of preclearance. ] (] • she/her) 18:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
; Sanction being appealed : by ] in which resulted in the sanction against me logged at .
*It looks to me like there is a consensus for an indefinite partial block for PerspicazHistorian from article space. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within a day or so, I will close as such. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

*:Given PH's recent slew of requests on multiple admin talk pages, yes, please do. - ] ] 12:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|NeilN}}
*<!--

-->
; Notification of that administrator : Done .

===Statement by Factchecker_atyourservice===

Request for the comments by ] to be struck out (struck out <s>like this</s>, not removed) in the record of my AE case

In a recent successfully seeking an AP topic ban against me, by ] which grossly mischaracterized my editing history, without evidence, while giving a misleading impression of being accompanied by evidence. I seek the striking of these comments, either in whole or in part, from the record of the proceeding. I feel this is appropriate because of the persuasive force of posting a long, convincing-looking takedown with a bunch of links in a top-level administrative proceeding.

Jytdog does not appear to have looked closely or at all at the subject matters he refers to, and thus the compilation of diffs and statistics is misleading. It's one thing for someone to make an off-the-cuff remark without diffs simply claiming someone has a pattern of abuse, but it's another when a deeply established user shows up to comment on a topic ban case, posts something that looks like a comprehensive overview of an editor's conduct, purporting to offer {{tq|"review with a solid foundation of context"}}, and '''then claims he can't find any edits upholding a left-wing POV.''' This puts me in the position of having to prove a negative by coming up with '''a long post with a big pile of diffs''' contradicting the claim of right-wing POV push.

{{hat|Outline of complaint}}
The general premise of the claim is that I joined Misplaced Pages to combat left wing bias and have never done anything else. He cites as evidence for this that my very first edit was to a statement in Wiki voice reading that "The government fabricated evidence documented in the January 16, 2002 search warrant and affidavit issued by the FBI."

This was indeed my first article-space edit, but I didn't arrive at this point because I said, ''I want to combat left wing bias on Misplaced Pages, let's go find some, here it is''. Rather it was because I was reading a Misplaced Pages article and it told me that the FBI had fabricated evidence in referring an American citizen for prosecution on terrorism-related charges, which I found shocking and outlandish.

Indeed, although Jytdog presents my original username of "Factcheck_4uwingnuts" as further evidence of an ''ab initio'' purpose of combating left-wing bias, he doesn't seem to realize that is usually interpreted as a reference to ''right-wing'' nuts, not left-wing nuts. Rather, the left-wing counterpart is ''']'''.

This is further explained by another reason I was motivated to edit WP, which was the second article I edited, ]. While Jytdog correctly notes that my edits changed prose saying the guy being arrested was "apparently restrained" to prose that indicated he was "struggl to prevent the police from handcuffing him" and that the cops were "trying to force his hands together". This was simply replacing one WP editor's editorializing with another's. Neither was sourced. (Watch the video for yourself to see if you think the guy was "apparently restrained" or whether the cops were struggling to restrain him.) But going back to the tie-in to the "wingnuts" in my original name, I had seen the WP article but also an external website called , which seemed to be an extreme militant right-wing anti-authority website, with a lot of virulent anti-police rhetoric that sounded like Waco type stuff, including, for whatever reason, a lot of stuff about the guy from the other article, ]. I edited both these articles on Day 1. That was why I had "wingnuts" in my name.

In any event, Jytdog then goes on to talk about my time at ] and, while presenting diffs that look like they are supposed to be supporting evidence—but without explaining why he thinks my editing was indicative of a right-wing bias—he goes on to conclude {{tq|"They seem to have come here specifically to address what they perceive as left-wing bias, from what i have seen. There may be diffs of them tamping down POV editing from the right, but I haven't seen that...."}}

When another editor that the diffs he cited were mostly "]", Jytdog made no effort to validate his accusations, but , saying {{tq|"If you have significant diffs of this person serving as a 'Factcheck 4uwingnuts' with respect to anything ring-wingish that would be somewhat exculpatory. It is hard for me to see past the glare coming from the very shiny ax that this person has carried into WP and the sparks that are flying from grinding it."}}

Indeed, he seems to have been blinded, because if he had looked past his analysis-free tables and edit counts, or his 90-second "deep dive" of my first couple-hundred edits, he would have noticed that <big>'''my next 1000 edits were spent being the most ardent anti-Sarah Palin content hawk that ever existed on WP'''.</big> Indeed, I am present in about ''30 talk-page archives'' and while I have only combed through the first 7 of those for diffs here, I'm confident they're representative of the rest:

{{hat|"Moratorium on article material about Palin controversies until after the election?" '''OH HAIL NO'''}}

* as {{tq|a uniformly promotional text (perhaps even ghostwritten) and it's hard to see how it could have any reliability at all. Could anybody help me understand this?"}} To his credit, Jytdog actually gave credit for this being a "good question", but then this turns to ashes when he persists in claiming he didn't see any sign of me combating right-wing bias.

Indeed, in the below debates I did virtually ''nothing'' but ensure that well-sourced criticisms of Palin made it into the article:

*

*. {{tq|Palin is being held out to the nation as a "reformer" who "opposed pork". The conceivably biased view of her as a reformer is handily balanced by the massive amount of Federal pork funding she sought for such a tiny town and tiny number of people. I think the Federal-dollars-per-person tally comes to about $17,000. If such an extravagant level of spending were insisted upon for all US citizens, we'd have $5 trillion worth of Bridges to Nowhere each year. To put that in perspective, the Federal budget submitted by Pres. Bush for 2009 totals just over $3 trillion and includes all expenditures by the government, including paying down interest on the national debt. Another way to put it in perspective? Obama has pursued similar amounts of Federal pork funding ... but his state contains 18 times as many people as Alaska does.}}

*It's often celebrated how much I talk(!) so here's an of one of the endless arguments why the "Bridge" controversy was supposedly not worth mentioning.

*

* {{tq|Nobody has included a claim that she "would ban abortion", "has tried to ban abortion", or "as VPOTUS/POTUS, would have the power to ban abortion." However, her statements on the record clearly confirm that she opposes abortion, supports banning it, and thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned, thus allowing it to be banned. This is all perfectly accurate; you are arguing what the meaning of the word "is" is. The language used in the article is that she "believes abortion should be banned in nearly all cases" and this is substantiated both by direct quotations and analysis by reporters working for reliable sources. And it's quite relevant to her VPOTUS candidacy as that inherently carries the possibility of appointing Federal judges... and possibly SC justices... both of whom hold power over the issue. The likely inference is simple: she opposes abortion in nearly all cases, thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned, supports the rights of states to ban abortion, and, if elected, may be put in a position to influence the judicial handling of the issue all the way up to the Supreme Court level. Hence the serious and direct relevance to the campaign.}}

*. {{tq|Biden has given 90 interviews. Palin has given 3, and they were tightly controlled. Without suggesting any specific guideline for how much press access is "adequate", I still feel pretty comfortable saying Biden's level of press access has been adequate and Palin's has definitely not. I don't really think it's relevant, though, except insofar as it may be the subject of on-the-record commentary by reliable sources. In Palin's case, her unwillingness to be interviewed has sparked protests by some of the most established and reputable news organizations in existence. Given the current scope of this article it should definitely be included in my opinion.}} I also called for a repeat of a failed RFC.

*. Later in a debate about AGF'ing: {{tq|I mentioned the issue of good faith only the highlight that editors who appear sympathetic to Palin have repeatedly questioned the good faith of editors who appear unsympathetic to Palin. This is merely to remind everyone of the context in which these claims are being made. Speck in neighbor's eye, boulder in own, and all that.}}

*

*

* regarding a bureaucratic investigation of Palin because I felt that {{tq|the wording of this section is carefully chosen to distort its cited references and undermine the apparent credibility of the investigative probe while upholding Palin's actions}}.

*. {{tq|Why this is all troubling is not because of Palin's faith or beliefs; it's to do with the apparently special status she places on religious beliefs, religious people, and religious organizations.}}

* Again, at very great length. {{tq|According to Time, according to Stein, the attempt to ban books was an example of her injecting religious beliefs into her policy. Perfectly legitimate, primary-sourced, analysis/synthesis which has been published by a reliable source and is therefore fit for inclusion in appropriate format.}}

* When somebody proposed a "moratorium" on any further controversies about Palin until after the election day, I strongly pushed back: {{tq| Actually, it would do a lot of harm. If there's a moratorium on including material about controversies until after the election, anybody reading this article before the election (which will probably be the majority of people that ever look at this article) will be wrongly getting the impression that there are no controversies. Meanwhile, all manner of positive and supportive material would be fair game, '''and the article would take on a promotional tone.'''}}

*

* {{tq|Probably deleted because somebody felt it made Palin look bad.}}

*. While doing so I complained: {{tq|The constant effort to turn this article into promotional campaign literature is equally annoying.}}

* {{tq|I'm not sure anyone here is intent on including any scurrilous or merit-free allegations.}}

*

* {{tq| I'm nearly positive that there was no consensus for the wholesale deletion of any mention of the rape kit controversy. Threeafterthree deleted the section all by his lonesome after not participating in (and ignoring) the ongoing discussion. I restored the deleted material and added additional material reflecting both criticism and defense of Palin with respect to the issue.}} This also involved a very about {{tq|how much of a shameless, POV-pushing, original-research-laden, blatantly promotional article it was thanks to a flurry of effort by at least one McCain staffer in the hours leading up to the announcement of her selection as McCain's running mate}}

*


{{reflist talk}}
I also at some point wrote an of an argument I had had with a pro-Palin editor. Looking back on this I'm not especially proud of it, but it is evident that I was arguing at exhaustive length for inclusion of a piece of anti-Palin commentary despite arguments that the source itself was "conjectural" and supposedly thus prohibited by BLP.
{{hab}} {{hab}}
Again, these are just from the first 7 talk page archives in which I appear (28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36). There are something like ''23 more''. On the eve of the presidential election I was hashing out disputes and putting to bed any last doubts that the instead of having the police department pay for them (as was previously done) was RS-documented extensively enough for detailed discussion.


==LaylaCares==
If there is a criticism here, it's that I was ''too hard on Palin''.
{{hat|There is consensus to remove LaylaCares's EC flag. ] (]) 17:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}

<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
;Other topics
The Sarah Palin article wasn't the only one where Jytdog's superficial presentation is misleading.

*For example, he lists the fact that I edited the article on ] as evidence of trying to oppose left-wing bias, but my time at ] was spent arguing against editors who disputed Fascism being described as a ''right-wing'' ideology.

*Jytdog also cites at the article on ] removing a comment claiming NOTFORUM, and racks this up with the "right wing troll" evidence because I was removing a statement complaining of "certain media outlets" attempting to "criminalize" Michael Brown. But he neglects other edits such as this similar Of course there are other edits that you might describe as "right wing", but which were emphatically legitimate, such as of a saying a police sniper had his "weapon trained in the direction of the camera at protests"—a very inflammatory phrasing not used by any RS—with the adding editor arguing on the talk page that the police sniper was , when in reality he is sitting on a rooftop aiming up in the air and comparable RS descriptions said things like "A police sniper looks over the crowds"

*Jytdog cites my editing at OWS, but this was not a cleanly left/right issue. If anything it had to do with many of the same competing visions for the Democratic party, i.e. Classical Secular Liberal vs. Progressive, that are tearing it apart today. Moreover, I spent a very great deal of my time trying to compartmentalize material about a splinter group ] that grew out of a arising out of the efforts of a later-indeffed sock, ]—and as interesting side note, this series of events led to .

*Jydog cites my of as a "shameful advocacy tract rife with innuendo and unsubstantiated criminal accusations", again as part of a list of supposed efforts to "oppose left-wing bias". But this whole incident, wherein a girl essentially accused a guy of rape via an art project and attempted to hound him off campus instead of cooperating with a police investigation, was ''hugely'' controversial and generated a great deal of . Again, not a cleanly left/right issue.

These seem to be the bulk of the subject areas he raises, besides the issues I addressed , but since he doesn't present a clearly diff'd claim of POV pushing, I'm reluctant to go digging around further in my edit history looking for evidence of ''not'' being a right wing troll.

In any event these comments are deeply misleading, and since they were posted with such apparent authority at a top level administrative proceeding, I think it is a reasonable request to ask they be stricken.
{{hab}}
Thank you. ] 14:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

===Statement by NeilN===

===Statement by (involved editor 1)===

===Statement by (involved editor 2)===

===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Factchecker_atyourservice ===
*Two things, one: there is almost no chance of getting an evidence statement from a closed discussion removed. The closed discussion is a record of comments that may/may not have influenced the discussion. As such removing one section would be falsifying the record. Two: when you are topic banned, the exceptions for discussion the topic are for appealing the ban itself. Not for discussing your past editing. So a good portion of your comments are technically a violation. I suggest you withdraw this. ] (]) 15:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
::I am asking the comments to be struck out, not removed.
::Moreover, the idea of a hypertechnical "violation" that heaps additional punishment on me for disputing false statements in a permanent record of a case lodged against me seems extremely unreasonable, and I respectfully decline to withdraw the request. ] 15:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

===Result of the appeal by Factchecker_atyourservice===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
*I'm closing this because it is not an appeal of an AE action, and therefore out of scope of this board. Continued discussion will yield nothing but drama. Factchecker_atyourservice violates their topic ban by making this request because it concerns a dispute that bears on US politics. It is not covered by the ] exception because this is not an appeal or request for clarification of the ban, as {{u|NeilN}} noted . I am blocking Factchecker_atyourservice for a week. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
<!-- 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. -->
{{hab}}


===Request concerning LaylaCares===
==Calton==
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Vice regent}} 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hat|General agreement that the block was controversial in that the BLP issues were unclear enough to be sanctionable, and has been reversed. ] 22:12, 12 June 2018 (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|LaylaCares}}<p>{{ds/log|LaylaCares}}</p>
===Request concerning Calton===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|DrFleischman}} 19:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Calton}}<p>{{ds/log|Calton}}
<!--- 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. 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.--> <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# EC gaming


diff showing content Calton reverted:
# 1st revert
# 2nd revert


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
I don't know if Calton has been subject to previous sanctions. I'm not interested in litigating past disputes.

;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. -->
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
*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 :
Pretty obvious case of EC gaming. Account created on Nov 17, 2024, then about 500 mostly minor edits followed by the first substantial edit ever was the creation of on Dec 17 (subsequently moved to draftspace).''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
These reverts were not only in violation the 1RR restriction but also BLP violations. I had stated my good faith belief and in talk page discussion that this content violated BLP because the sources did not expressly support the content. Calton called this and repeatedly restored content calling the subject a neo-Nazi based in part on an . Calton has never exactly been a scion of civil discourse. {{nw}} --] (]) 19:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
* I'm a little shocked that admins are criticizing my conduct when this was a clear-cut 1RR violation and everyone is in agreement on that. I am more than willing to explain my behavior. This is a 100% clear-cut BLP violation despite the averments to the contrary. --] (]) 05:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
* Would it help if I laid out the BLP vios here, or is this report already too stale for that? --] (]) 20:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
* {{u|GoldenRing}}, what diffs aren't working? They're working for me. --] (]) 20:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
::Oh sorry {{u|GoldenRing}}, that question was meant for {{u|Sandstein}}. --] (]) 20:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
* {{u|Sandstein}}, when derogatory content is added that isn't supported by reliable sources, that's a textbook BLP vio. How did my reverts not fall squarely into ]? --] (]) 22:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
; Examples of how Calton's edits were BLP violations:


===Discussion concerning LaylaCares===
Multiple admins have suggested that I explain the BLP problems with Calton's edits, and how I was enforcing BLP by reverting. As {{u|NeilN}} notes there have been some tweaks and changes during the course of this multi-editor dispute so for the sake of clarity I'll focus solely on Calton's two identical edits, diffs above.
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>


====Statement by LaylaCares====
# Content: {{tq|"In 2014 he was banned from Hungary and mocked by the Hungarian press for his call to supplant a distinct Hungarian racial identity with a Pan-European white identity."}} Cited source: (English translation: ) The source doesn't say anything about Spencer being mocked, it doesn't say anything about the Hungarian press, and it doesn't say anything about Hungarian racial identity. It does say, "Spencer erre felvázolja álmát, aminek lényege a Római Birodalom egyfajta felélesztése, az európai egység lenne," which translates to, {{tq|"Spencer outlines his dream, the essence of which is the revival of the Roman Empire, a European unity."}} It was explained later on the talk page (after my reverts) that the added content was based on this sentence. But the added content wasn't even close to a fair paraphrase.
# Content: {{tq|"Spencer ... has publicly engaged in neo-Nazi rhetoric on multiple occasions.}} Cited sources: First off, this content was redundant as it already said that Spencer is a neo-Nazi, so why do we need to say that he's also engaged in neo-Nazi rhetoric on multiple occasions as well? That aside, the sources don't bear out the "on multiple occasions" bit which seems like the reason this content was added. The SFGate and Independent sources say Spencer is a neo-Nazi but don't say anything about his rhetoric. The Daily Beast source says Spencer gave a neo-Nazi speech in Florida. The University of Michigan source (a student newspaper of questionable reliability) says he engaged in neo-Nazi rhetoric during a campus visit. Finally, the San Diego State University source is an opinion piece in a student newspaper defending people who punch Nazis--a funny piece I actually kind of agree with, but so blatantly unreliable I don't think any longstanding editor should can reasonably support using it as a secondary source. So we have one reliable source saying he engaged in neo-Nazi rhetoric on one occasion and a second, questionable source saying he engaged in neo-Nazi rhetoric on another occasion. This isn't the exceptional sourcing needed to justify a blanket statement about "neo-Nazi rhetoric on multiple occasions." As I in the talk page discussion, why not just say the guy has engaged in neo-Nazi rhetoric (citing the Daily Beast source) and leave out the unnecessary and synthy "on multiple occasions"? I got no substantive response, but I ''was'' of "obvious whitewashing." Huh?
# Content: {{tq|"Spencer has been banned from entering most countries in Europe, including countries whose governments are described as nationalist or ethno-nationalist."}} Cited source: none. This was the least egregious BLP vio, but a vio nonetheless. The sentence was probably meant as a rough introductory summary of the remainder of the paragraph, but like the above, the sourcing was lacking for its key parts. The paragraph didn't bear out the most important bit about "most countries." This part was a relatively minor a ] problem as I believe sources cited further down in the paragraph did bear out the "most countries" bit, but the sourcing was opaque. The "including countries whose governments are described as nationalist or ethno-nationalist" part traced to a statement further into the paragraph that Poland banned Spencer and is "often labeled a nationalist or ethnic nationalist state," citing . The source said that "Poland has been a surge in nationalist activity" but didn't describe the Poland's government as nationalist or ethno-nationalist. The sentence that Calton added also referred to ''countries'' plural whose governments were described as nationalist or ethno-nationalist, and that was unsourced.


====Statement by Aquillion====
There you have it. A whole lot of derogatory content that didn't reflect the cited sources. That's not to say that this content was false, just that it wasn't adequately sourced. And just to be clear I'm no defender of Spencer, despite the ridiculous accusations. --] (]) 21:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Question: Assuming it's determined that they gamed the extended-confirmed restriction, would the page they created be ]-able? I've asked the relevant question in more detail ], since it is likely to come up again as long as we have such a broad restriction on effect, but I figured it was worth mentioning the issue here as well. --] (]) 14:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


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


====Statement by starship.paint====
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
I've edited Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations, so Dan Murphy's link is inaccurate for the purposes of this discussion. For the version of Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations with content only written by LaylaCares, . '''] (] / ])''' 10:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- 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. -->


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


===Discussion concerning Calton===
<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 Calton====
Thank you for the unblock. First, I'd like to apologize for breaking 1RR. No, I didn't realize I was doing so when I did it, but it's not a good excuse. I'll be more careful -- and patient -- next time, even in the face of what I thought was a straight Sun-rises-in-the-East no-brainer edit. --] | ] 04:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

{{ping|DrFleischman}} ''This is a 100% clear-cut BLP violation despite the averments to the contrary.''
Perhaps you could point to all the editors -- here or at ] -- who agree with that characterization. --] | ] 05:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

''his was a clear-cut 1RR violation''. So were your multiple reverts. Care to own those? --] | ] 05:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

====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 Calton=== ===Result concerning LaylaCares===
:''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 agree that this looks like EC-gaming. Absent evidence that the edits themselves were problematic, I would either TBAN from ARBPIA or pull the EC flag until the user has made 500 edits that aren't rapidfire possibly LLM-assisted gnomish edits. ] (]) 17:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
* Clear violation of the 1RR restriction on that article. Blocked for 72 hours. ]<sub>(])</sub> 19:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
*I agree on the gaming piece and would suggest mainspace edits+time for restoration of EC. I will throw out 3 months + 500 (substantive) main space edits. ] (]) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
**], just to make one thing clear: DrFleischman wasn't blocked because of a BLP exemption? Thanks, ] (]) 01:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
*I agree with Barkeep but I'd up it to 4 months. I don't believe that a TBAN is necessary at this point. ] (]/]) 04:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
***{{yo|Drmies}} That was my original reasoning, yes. However, discussion on ] since the block has me second-guessing that. ]<sub>(])</sub> 01:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
*@]: I agree that the draft should be G5'd, but will wait for consensus to develop here. ] (]/]) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
****Hmm, yes, ]--Dr. Fleischman is not doing himself any favors there. Actually nothing in that discussion, regardless of which side one believes, points to serious BLP violations that would exempt one from 1R. I think Calton made a mistake, and I am not going to argue against the block, but I also think that Fleischman's revert seems more like CRYBLP to me than a justified overruling of 1R; Steeletrap makes a decent argument and Fleischman is remaining vague and general. Thanks, ] (]) 02:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
*:I don't think the wording of ] allows for deletion of a page that was created by an EC user. <small>(ECR also seems to forget that anything other than articles and talkpages exists, but I think the most reasonable reading of provision A still allows for G5ing drafts at admins' discretion if the criteria are met.)</small> That said, a consensus at AE can delete a page as a "reasonable measure that necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project". Deleting under that provision is not something to be done lightly, but I think for a case where a page's existence violates the spirit of an ArbCom restriction but not the letter, it'd be a fair time to do it. And/or this could make for a good ARCA question, probably after PIA5 wraps. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*I'm not happy about Dr. Fleischman's conduct in this, nor about the block of only one of the combatants. ], not only discussion on talk but also the editing of the article since the block tends to vindicate Calton with regard to the BLP issues. Yes, Calton made a mistake, and should have read the edit notice. But a block of both would have been fairer. In lieu of that, considering that both editors surely acted in good faith as far as editing the article, please consider unblocking Calton. The reason I say good faith "as far as editing the article" is because I don't like Dr. Fleischman's action in immediately bringing the issue here. Surely the normal principle, and best practice, is to warn a user who violates the 1RR restriction and give them a chance to self-revert, before running to AE? ] &#124; ] 03:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC).
*I tend to agree with {{u|Bishonen}} here. Calton did violate 1RR, and shouldn't have done that, but if you're going to claim a BLP exemption for reverting, it better indeed be rock-solid. That's not the case here. So we can block both or neither. I would agree that we should just unblock Calton, and caution all parties to use more care in their conduct going forward. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC) *I would just pull EC and require the editor to apply via AE appeal for its restoration. They should be very clearly aware that receiving such restoration will require both substantial time and making ''real'', substantive edits outside the area, as well as an understanding of what is expected of editors working in a CTOP area. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*I see a clear consensus here to remove the EC flag. For clarity, when I proposed a TBAN above it was because removing this flag ''is'' an ARBPIA TBAN as long as the ECR remedy remains in place; it's simply a question of whether the editor get the other privileges of EC or not. I don't see a consensus on what to do with the draft, but given that other editors have now made substantive contributions to it, I don't believe it's a good use of AE time to discuss the hypothetical further. ] (]) 17:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*I've unblocked Calton per the discussion above and issued an apology for not taking enough care in looking at this case. ]<sub>(])</sub> 04:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
*I've not looked at all the sourcing in detail, but I agree that in any case this is not the sort of BLP violation the edit-warring exemption is designed for. If the choice is between calling someone a Nazi or not, then the sources had better be solid or the exemption can be claimed; if the difference is between someone engaging in neo-Nazi rhetoric and engaging in neo-Nazi rhetoric ''on numerous occasions'' then sort it out on the talk page or BLPN. The other BLP problems identified are on a similar level or even more minor. To my mind, the question about European governments doesn't come close to the "contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced" language of 3RRNO; nobody disputes that the governments in question are nationalist or that they have banned him and the only question is whether there is a source that expressly connects these facts. I propose closing this with a warning to Dr Fleischman to use the edit warring exemption for clear-cut cases. ] (]) 09:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
*I would take no action. DrFleischman alleges that the diffs violate ], but they do not establish in their complaint why an 1RR restriction is supposed to apply to the article at issue. DrFleischman also alleges a ] violation, but the diffs they provide do not work and therefore I cannot evaluate them. A very poorly made report and a waste of our time. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
:*{{re|Sandstein}} The page does have a 1RR editnotice placed by ], though the sanction was not logged in the DSLOG. ] (]) 14:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
::*{{ping|GoldenRing}} ]. Search on "Spencer". --] <sup>]</sup> 14:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
:::*I stand corrected. ] (]) 14:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
:The diffs now work after NeilN fixed them. I leave the 1RR issue to NeilN as the admin imposing the sanction, although it seems to me that DrFleischman also made multiple reverts if one counts the initial removal of the contested content. As to the BLP issues, I agree with NeilN that any BLP violation by Calton is not clear enough to warrant either multiple reverts or sanctions. Although I understand the argument DrFleischman makes, this is in my view primarily a content dispute, which AE does not address. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
*There's something to the BLP claims, but I don't see enough meat to claim a BLP exemption. What ''should'' have happened was talk page discussion resulting in agreed-upon wording, instead of making wording tweaks in the article itself. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
{{hab}} {{hab}}


==Rafe87== ==AstroGuy0==
{{hat|Closing as no action. If people feel that the Yaniv's actions merit further looking into at AE, they can file a new request. ] (]) 13:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)}} {{hat|{{u|AstroGuy0}} has been issued a warning for source misrepresentation by {{u|Voorts}}. No other reviewers have expressed any wish for further action. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) }}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> <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 Rafe87===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|יניב הורון}} 04:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Rafe87}}<p>{{ds/log|Rafe87}}
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] :
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->

; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# revert of
# Removal of previous content
# Third revert in less than 24 hours, again replacing content and restoring controversial source by middleeasteye.

;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. -->

; 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. --->
===Discussion concerning Rafe87===
<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 Rafe87====

====Statement by power~enwiki====

Procedurally, as the first two diffs are consecutive, they only count as a single diff for 1RR purposes. While a gap of 23.5 hours between reverts does violate 1RR here, if there's no larger pattern here a warning should be sufficient. Largely thanks to {{u|Rafe87}}'s lack of edit summaries, it's not immediately obvious whether these edits are reverts. The first diff is clearly a revert based on {{noping|יניב הורון}}'s evidence (and the second diff can be considered part of that); but the last one does not add the middleeasteye reference, and in fact removes an addition by {{noping|Erictheenquirer}}. It's hard for me to see how two reverts, 23.5 hours apart, one adding a source and another removing that same source, should justify anything other than a warning to be extremely conscientious editing in this controversial area. ] (], ]) 04:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

====Statement by Nableezy====
The reverts by {{user3|יניב הורון}} across a range of articles should be looked at. But at this article Ill just note that the complainant here has made four edits at this article, all reverts, and exactly zero edits at the talk page. A look at their contributions will quickly demonstrate this user is strictly a revert warrior. Would be happy to expand on that if invited to do so. But at this article specifically an admin should look at who is drive-by edit-warring without even attempting to collaborate on the talk page. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 04:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)</small>
:{{ping|RegentsPark}} I was thinking more of the reverts where the user while simultaneously, and hypocritically, . <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)</small>
::{{ping|RegentsPark}} honestly I am unsure how one could report such editing. You can look at each of those edits and say on their own they are justified, but taken together they demonstrate somebody who is here playing the rules against each other. Either this editor believes that to restore challenged material (which is a challenge when the user is never on the talk page), or they believe , and that is completely leaving aside whether or not the material in question even appears in the source. But you cannot seriously make those two edits that are wholly philosophically opposite Misplaced Pages editing-wise. You cannot and then . But the position at this board seems to be that a strict adherence to the 24 hour shot clock is sufficient to escape any sanctions. I get that admins do not want to be accused of judging content. But there are users who are gaming the rules against each other in blatant ways with nobody seeming to be willing to look at it beyond "not a 1RR violation". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 05:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)</small>

===Statement by TheGracefulSlick===

The filer not-so-ironically has been ''more'' disruptive at the article. he removed the '']'' source; he was reverted and could have contributed to a ]. Instead, he waited and without discussion, this time calling it "propaganda". As Nableezy said, this editor is strictly a revert warrior and has not learned from past reports against himself. At ] for instance, he has replaced a long-standing image without consensus three times , oddly citing an ongoing discussion that has ''no consensus''. In a small twist, he actually engaged in discussion, but wrote a heinous, in my opinion, blockable personal attack: . If ] can be applied to AE, there is no better time than now.] (]) 15:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
:{{u|TonyBallioni}} the reverts without discussion by the filer are against the spirit of 1RR, but do not actually violate it, correct? So would, say Nableezy or I, be wasting community time with a seperate case? Or can a pattern be established and genuinely evaluated? In my opinion, the attack I mentioned above crosses the line ''extremely'' and the past history is enough to consider a than or something similar.] (]) 18:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

====Statement by Icewhiz====
I want to note that the ] is a very borderline source, and probably not a RS (see ). It is definitely not a source that should be used on a contentious subject that has been widely covered by mainstream media - removing this source was entirely within policy, and frankly adding (or reverting by Rafe87 - ) material based on a such source is quite questionable.] (]) 15:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

====Statement by יניב הורון====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
{{ping|TonyBallioni}} Sorry for the off-topic, but what {{u|TheGracefulSlick}} apparently "forgot" to mention is that was a response to a by {{u|Expectant of Light}} (quote: ''...It's not Israel here where you have your opponents either shut up or shot up!''). My contributions speek for themselves. As for my previous mistakes, I was already sanctioned for them, despite some editors keep talking about them (while trying to invent new reports based on spurious reasons). I'm confident that you are an honest administrator who can investigate the matter by yourself without being influenced by users who are obsessed with banning me for political reasons. Thanks.--] (]) 20:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

{{ping|Zero0000}} This was a "mistake" or intentional? That's one example of many. You are the least appropriate to judge my edits.--] (]) 03:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

====Statement by Expectant of Light regarding -יניב הורון ====

I was notified on this talk by -יניב הורון but I want to confirm a complaint by Nabzeely that -יניב הורון engages in revert wars on other pages, often citing irrelevant reasons in his explanations or reverting many edits while citing only one truly problematic edit. A recent example can be found on the . He claiming the source is a blog, then when explaining that the source is not a blog but a very reliable source , then this time claiming it's an opinion whereas the author is an high ranking expert named ] {{strike|who also happens to be from this user's own ethnicity and nationality (citing this since he seems to be driven by his strong political inclinations).}} In short, he keeps shooting in the dark until his/her counter-party backs down and accepts his desired version. That's not constructive editing. --] (]) 05:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

====Statement by Zero0000====
In ] less than a week ago, יניב_הורון was "warned to be extremely careful with their reverts. Any future violations may result in more severe sanctions than usual given the editor's past history in this area." Mention was made of יניב_הורון's habit of making repeated "mistakes" that always seemed to match his POV. I'd like to mention only a day ago in which יניב_הורון removed text on the grounds "not supported by source" even though it consisted of direct quotations from the sources. As other people have written here, יניב_הורון is the paradigm edit warrior with no redeeming features. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup>

===Result concerning Rafe87===
:''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. -->
*While a technical violation of 1RR (23.5, rather than 24 hours), I don't see this is worth acting on. From what I can see, the editor has been discussing their views and this particular edit on the talk page and generally editing responsibly. Perhaps a warning that, sometimes, care in observing bureaucratic requirements is the sensible course of action, but not much more than that. I'm also loathe to see a boomerang here. The way discretionary sanctions are set up, following the letter of the sanctions without being overly tendentious or disruptive (and I don't see a revert only policy as being any of those), is a sufficient condition for avoiding admin action. --] <small>(])</small> 15:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
::{{ping|nableezy}}, purely administratively, the examples given by you don't seem actionable. The editor is sticking to the page sanctions (albeit barely) and, looking at the sequence of edits, they look like a tit-for-tat revert war. Of course, none of this takes into account the content, consensus, and source fidelity involved in those reverts. Perhaps, as TonyBallioni suggests, it would be best to file a separate report with more details and, if that's the case, evidence of the broader problem that Tony alludes to but I'm not familiar with.--] <small>(])</small> 18:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
*I’m inclined to close as a warning. {{replyto|Nableezy|TheGracefulSlick}} As I’m familiar with Yaniv’s editing, and given his history here, I’m more open to a boomerang, I also don’t want to discourage the filing of good faith reports (which I think this is.) If someone thinks sanctions are needed against them, it would be best to open a new report rather than deal with it here. ] (]) 18:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
**{{replyto|TheGracefulSlick}} Yaniv had somewhat of a baptism of fire into ARBPIA by being blocked for 30/500 violations (by me). They’re one of the few editors who gets blocked for that who actusllu stuck around. I’m willing to cut them ''some'' slack because they basically dived right into AE without getting acquainted with other areas first (partially their own fault, but our behavioral norms in this area are tough to follow sometimes).{{pb}}Re: your diff as a personal attack, yes, I think it’s agrigous and if I had seen it two days ago I would have blocked then as a regular admin action. That and some other things he’s been involved in of late especially after the last AE makes me think that there might be cause for a deeper look ({{u|Doug Weller}}, I know arbs tend to stay away from AE, but you might be interested in these ones.) That being said, I believe in being fair to people and I think that in an area as complex as ARBPIA, the best way to handle it would be through a new report if someone thinks it is merited rather than a boomerang. ] (]) 18:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
**{{replyto|יניב הורון}} I think I’ve been fair to you generally (or I’ve tried to be). You can be a bit like a bull in the china shop in these areas, but I get that it’s a highly contentious area. Like I said, I don’t think a boomerang should happen here, but if people think it should there may be grounds for opening a new AE (I haven’t looked in depth at any of your recent edits outside of the ], which didn’t have any banners at the time.){{pb}}All that being said ''please'' be more cautious in this area and with how you interact with others. ] (]) 20:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
*I'd agree with TonyBallioni's assessment here. ] (] 13:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
{{hatb}}


===Request concerning AstroGuy0===
==TheGracefulSlick ‎ ==
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}} 03:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hat|Apparent honest mistake, immediately corrected. No action necessary.--] <small>(])</small> 19:22, 13 June 2018 (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|AstroGuy0}}<p>{{ds/log|AstroGuy0}}</p>
===Request concerning TheGracefulSlick ‎ ===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Shrike}} 19:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|TheGracefulSlick ‎ }}<p>{{ds/log|TheGracefulSlick ‎ }}
<!--- 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 --->
(Even though this isn't the usual R&I fare, I consider the intersection of "Race/ethnicity and sex offending", to come under "the intersection of '''race/ethnicity''' and human abilities '''and behaviour'''")


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# Revert after not waiting 24 hours from this revert # Asserts that "A majority of the perpetrators were Pakistani men" despite the cited source (freely accessible at ) does not mention the word "Pakistani" or any variant once.
# Describes the sex offender ring as "Pakistani" in the opening sentence when the cited source in the body says that they were only "mainly Pakistani"
# 1 revert
# Explanation
# Explanation


; 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.-->
# Explanation
# Explanation


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
<!-- 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 policy is quite clear on this ". If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit."--] (]) 19:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
*Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on .


: Made aware of contentious topics criterion:

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


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


<!--- 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 TheGracefulSlick ‎ ===
<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 TheGracefulSlick ‎ ====


Additional comments by editor filing complaint:
Sigh, I outlined my edits and, according to my time stamps, I was six minutes past 24 hours. I asked Shrike if I was understanding this correctly; if I was wrong, I will gladly revert my mistake. Instead we are here, wasting time.] (]) 19:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
:On second thought, I will just self-revert and revert. Better than wasting any time here.] (]) 19:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
::{{u|RegentsPark}} it is .] (]) 19:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


This new user seems intent on POVPUSHING regarding "Asian/Muslim grooming gangs" and making contentious claims that are not backed up by sources. ] (]) 03:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning TheGracefulSlick ‎ === ===Discussion concerning AstroGuy0===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
:''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. -->
*{{ping|TheGracefulSlick }} It does appear to be a violation since you're supposed to wait 24 hours after the first revert (21:48 EDT) of your edit (or your revert, in this case). Basing this on your talk page comment to Shrike, easiest if you just revert again and we can move on. --] <small>(])</small> 19:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
{{hab}}


====Statement by AstroGuy0====
==SPECIFICO==
{{hat|No action taken, but SPECIFICO is advised to use more caution going forward. Awilley's advice to everyone below is also sound. ] (] 13:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


====Statement by Iskandar323====
===Request concerning SPECIFICO===
This rather dated "Asian/Muslim grooming gangs" malarkey from the UK has recently been pushed on social media by a certain US tech billionaire and is now recirculating in right-wing social media and the blogosphere, partly in connection with UK politics, so this trend could flare before it dims. ] (]) 03:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|JFG}} 13:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

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

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ], DS/1RR :
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->

; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# First revert
# Second revert, bright-line 1RR breach

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
*Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the AP2 area on by {{admin|NeilN}}.
*Previously given a DS warning for conduct in the AP2 area on by {{admin|TonyBallioni}}.
*Received a "two strikes" warning for edit-warring in the AP2 area, on by {{admin|NeilN}}.

;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. -->
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict
*Gave alerts about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict
*Participated in several arbitration request or enforcement procedures about the area of conflict in the last twelve months:

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
In normal circumstances, I would have given SPECIFICO a chance to self-revert, but given the numerous warnings she recently received in the AP2 area, a closer examination by the DS/AE board is warranted. — ] <sup>]</sup> 13:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
:{{re|Awilley}} Again, in normal circumstances I would have given SPECIFICO a chance to self-revert, but as other editors mentioned, she often asked for tougher AE enforcement, and several admins warned her that she might fall victim to that. In the thread ], she wrote: {{tq|Overall, what I think would help is 3-5 times the number of Admins keeping an eye on these Politics articles and willing to hand out sanctions. I've said this repeatedly for a couple of years now.}} And indeed she was admonished in 2017 for calling for sanctions all over the place.
:I do believe that SPECIFICO mistakenly overlooked her earlier revert here, but admins should decide what is their standard for DS enforcement. When an editor has been toeing the line so many times despite warnings from several admins, what should be done to prevent further disruption and restore a collegial editing atmosphere? — ] <sup>]</sup> 08:51, 15 June 2018 (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. -->

===Discussion concerning SPECIFICO===
<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 SPECIFICO====
Simple error. We generally don't file such AE complaints about an obvious error before posting a friendly warning on the perp's talk page. At any rate I self-reverted and replied to OP on my talk page. .]] 15:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

====Statement by Nomoskedasticity====
JGF apparently missed the bit where Specifico already self-reverted: . Hard to fathom, no? ] (]) 14:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

====Statement by Winkelvi====
While SPECIFICO did revert herself, the revert didn't occur until '''more than an hour after her original reversion''' (that went over 1RR) '''and a half hour after this report was filed'''. That doesn't seem like an "Oops, I forgot about 1RR" error to me where she would try to honestly correct her error on her own volition. An hour later seems like damage control to me. It should also be pointed out that she didn't revert and then leave her computer or Misplaced Pages to do something else, then return to see the notice JFG left on her talk page; she performed two edits after the 2RR . All this considered, she absolutely ''did'' violate the 1RR rule for that article, the bright line was crossed, and I believe she knew it and didn't act until she was caught. It's not as if she's not well aware of the 1RR restriction at that article. Anyone who regularly edits there knows it. SPECIFICO is a regular editor at the article (116 edits since 10/3/16) and at the article's talk page (684 edits since 12/11/16). '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 01:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

====Statement by Objective3000====
Winkelvi: {{tq|the revert didn't occur until more than an hour after her original reversion (that went over 1RR) and a half hour after this report was filed}} (undue emphasis removed). OMG, an entire hour. You must have a direct feed into your brain to edit here. I’m not saying Specifico (and numerous other editors) aren’t too quick on edits in DS articles. Long ago, the filer (JFG) was brought to a noticeboard and was probably about to receive a 0RR. Much as I disliked the editor’s quick trigger finger, and rather often disagreed, I thought the editor was valuable and argued that a 0RR would be too restrictive. We need good editors – including some that may have strong opinions (who doesn’t). But, the number of noticeboard efforts to sanction other editors over, basically, content disputes has been rapidly expanding. This is not only a time-sink, but has a chilling effect. As the edit was quickly self-reverted, I suggest the filer withdraw. I also think some warnings on bringing content disputes to noticeboards might be of value. Just my opinion. ] (]) 01:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
====Statement by Netoholic====
In SPECIFICO's own words:
* ""
* ""

I am uninvolved with the Trump article. -- ] ] 04:11, 15 June 2018 (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 SPECIFICO=== ===Result concerning AstroGuy0===
:''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. -->
*<!--
*The self-revert was made after this report, but it does seem to obviate the need for action. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
-->
*A few comments:
:The second diff was before AG0 received a CTOP alert. I've alerted AG0 to other CTOPs that they've edited in, and I am going to warn them for their conduct in diff #1 without prejudice to other admins determining that further action is warranted. ] (]/]) 04:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
**@SPECIFICO: Please be more careful in your reverts. I'm getting tired of seeing your name here.
:I also looked at the source, and it indeed does not in any way support the claim made; it does not mention "Pakistani" even once. This is a fairly new editor, but I think we need to make it very clear to them that misrepresentation of sources is not something we will tolerate. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
**@JFG: Please consider asking people to self-revert before jumping to an admin board. And @SPECIFICO, you'd better be sure to offer others the same courtesy you expect from them.
::Given that AstroGuy0 has already been issued a warning, I don't think anything further is necessary, and will close as such unless any uninvolved admin shortly objects. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
**@Nomoskedasticity, apparently you missed the bit where this report was made ''before'' SPECIFICO self-reverted.
**@Winkelvi, what Objective3000 said.
**@Netoholic, please don't try to pretend you're "uninvolved". You may not be editing the Trump article but it was only three weeks that ago you got an official warning not to use this noticeboard to further your disputes with SPECIFICO.
:<span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 04:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
{{hab}} {{hab}}


==Lemabeta==
==TheGracefulSlick==
<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|Withdrawn}}

<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
===Request concerning Lemabeta===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|EF5}} 20:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Lemabeta}}<p>{{ds/log|Lemabeta}}</p>
===Request concerning TheGracefulSlick===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Shrike}} 19:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|TheGracefulSlick}}<p>{{ds/log|TheGracefulSlick}}
<!--- 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. 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.--> <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing.
# Restoring word terrorist in his edit that was reverted
# - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist.
# Explanation
# Explanation
# Explanation


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
Only today he have broke 1RR


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

*Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
I likely filed this improperly, but to sum it up they continue to make pages in a scope they were banned from. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 20:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
:On the bullet point, I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:(Not sure if I’m allowed to reply here) I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
User today created the article and used the word "terrorist" his orignal edit was reverted and he restored the usage of "terrorist" once again
:: <small>Response to Bishonen. Moved from results section. ] (]/]) 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
The policy is quite clear on this ". If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit."
::(RES to Bishonen) That's fair. When starting the AE, it only gave me nine options, none of which seemed to fit right. The third bullet ("Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on DIFF by _____") didn't seem to fit, as the sanction wasn't for verbal conduct. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 22:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
As he original author of the article he have to wait 24 hours especially if it was created today.
Also the user seem can't grasp 1RR he have history of not adhering to the rule for example:

@TGS Becouse you doesn't seem to grasp 1RR.--] (]) 20:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
<!--- 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 TheGracefulSlick===
<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 TheGracefulSlick====


===Discussion concerning Lemabeta===
I did not realize the creation of the article counted as the "first" edit. Why could you not discuss this at my talk page, {{u|Shrike}}?] (]) 19:51, 14 June 2018 (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>
:. I appreciate your close observation of my edits {{u|Shrike}}, and you will find my talk page always open to discussing them.] (]) 20:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
::{{u|Shrike}} editors with tenures much longer than mine still make similar mistakes. I am not going to shy away from the area, creating articles and content, simply because you wait to pounce on those mistakes without discussing them. I "grasp" 1RR just fine, have reverted, and encourage you to find ''anything'' better to do.] (]) 20:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)==== ====Statement by Lemabeta====
Yeah, my bad. Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed" I recognize my mistake. --] (]) 20:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


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

==Talatastan==
<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 Talatastan===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|יניב הורון}} 22:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

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

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] :
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->

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

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
#
#

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
User doesn't care about ARBPIA restrictions. As soon as the sanction expires, he comes back to edit the same articles. An indefinite block might be necessary.--] (]) 22:18, 16 June 2018 (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. --->
===Discussion concerning Talatastan===
<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 Talatastan====


====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 Talatastan=== ===Result concerning Lemabeta===
:''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 don't see Lemabeta mentioned in the case itself, but they're currently under ] from "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed". ] (] • she/her) 20:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:To be fair, when you click above to add a new enforcement request, the template states:<br><nowiki>;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]</nowiki><br><nowiki><!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---></nowiki> ] (]/]) 20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{tq| Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed"}} @]: what did you think "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage" meant? I think it's pretty obvious that that an article on an ethnic group from the Caucasus and about an ethnologist who writes about that region is covered by your topic ban. ] (]/]) 20:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Note that I've deleted ] as a clear G5 violation. I think ] is a bit more of a questionable G5. ] (]/]) 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Your definition of "ethnographic group" includes the phrases "shared ancestry" (i.e., history), and "shared&nbsp;... traditions" and "shared&nbsp;... cultural identity" (i.e., cultural heritage). Your attempt to exclude "ethnographic group" from either of the two categories in your topic ban is entirely unpersuasive, particularly since your topic ban is to be "broadly construed". ] (]/]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: this doesn't seem like a mistake to me, but I'm okay with a logged warning here. ] (]/]) 21:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: This is about violating the TBAN. Per my response to leek, I think the issue is with the AE request template, which is a bit unclear. ] (]/]) 22:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: I don't think a block is needed here, but the next violation, definitely. ] (]/]) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: They were "reviously given&nbsp;... contentious topic restriction", the topic ban at issue. ] (]/]) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{re|Lemabeta}} Not every single thing you could write about an ethnic group would fall under cultural history, but that's not really relevant on the Rachvelians page, where the History section was entirely about their cultural history, even containing the words {{tqq| highlighting their ethnographic and cultural identity}}. There's a reason we use the words "]" on most TBANs, and a reason we encourage people to act like they're TBANned from a broader area than they are. (Consider: Would you feel safe driving under a bridge where clearance is exactly the same height as your vehicle? Or would you need a few inches' gap to feel safe doing it?){{pb}}This does seem like a good-faith misunderstanding, so if you will commit to not making it again in the future, I think this can be closed with a clarification/warning. But that's an important "if". If you want to argue semantics, then the message that sends to admins is that you don't intend to comply with the TBAN, in which case the next step would be a siteblock. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{u|EF5}}, I don't understand your {{tq|"Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above"}} statement, can you please explain what it refers to? ]? Lemabeta's block log is blank.
:That said, I'm unimpressed by Lemabeta's lawyerly distinctions above, and also by ]. I'll AGF that they ''were'' accidental, but OTOH, they surely ''ought'' to have taken enough care to realize they were violations; compare Voorts' examples. I suggest a block, not sure of what length. A couple of weeks? ] &#124; ] 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
::{{u|EF5}}, OK, I see. Blocks and bans are ], and the block log only logs blocks. ] &#124; ] 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
*It seems that the general consensus here is to treat this as a final warning, and Lemabeta has acknowledged it as such. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as such. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

== GokuEltit ==
{{hat|Issues on the Spanish Misplaced Pages will need to be handled there; the English Misplaced Pages has no authority or control over what happens on the Spanish project. This noticeboard is only for requesting enforcement of English Misplaced Pages arbitration decisions. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC) }}
I was blocked from Misplaced Pages for ignoring the formatting of a table, I edited an article wrong, Bajii banned me for 2 weeks, but it didn't even take 1 and Hasley changed it to permanent, I tried to make an unban request, they deleted it and blocked my talk page. I asked for help on irc, an admin tried to help me make another unblock request, but the admin jem appeared and told me that I was playing the victim and banned me and expelled me from irc. I just want to contribute to the platform ] (]) 20:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|GokuEltit}} This is a complaint about Spanish Misplaced Pages - see ], where you have (). Your block affects Spanish-language Misplaced Pages - it does not affect English-language Misplaced Pages.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 20:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:You also had some blocks on Commons, but they have expired.<sup></sup><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 20:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}

Latest revision as of 01:16, 11 January 2025

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

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

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

    Standard of review
    On community review

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

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

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

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

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Important notes:

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

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

    A couple of reminders:

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

    Closing a thread:

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

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

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

    PerspicazHistorian

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

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

    Request concerning PerspicazHistorian

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

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


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

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

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


    Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian

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

    Statement by PerspicazHistorian

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

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

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

    Statement by LukeEmily

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

    Statement by Doug Weller

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

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

    Statement by Toddy1

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

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

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

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

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

    Statement by Capitals00

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

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

    Statement by Vanamonde93

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

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

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

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

    Statement by UtherSRG

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

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

    Result concerning PerspicazHistorian

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

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

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

    References

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

    LaylaCares

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

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

    Request concerning LaylaCares

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

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


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


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

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

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning LaylaCares

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

    Statement by LaylaCares

    Statement by Aquillion

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

    Statement by Dan Murphy

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

    Statement by starship.paint

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning LaylaCares

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

    AstroGuy0

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

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

    Request concerning AstroGuy0

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

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


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

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

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


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint:

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

    Discussion concerning AstroGuy0

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

    Statement by AstroGuy0

    Statement by Iskandar323

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning AstroGuy0

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

    Lemabeta

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

    Request concerning Lemabeta

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

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


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


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

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

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

    Here

    Discussion concerning Lemabeta

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

    Statement by Lemabeta

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

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Lemabeta

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I don't see Lemabeta mentioned in the case itself, but they're currently under a topic ban imposed by a consensus of AE admins from "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      To be fair, when you click above to add a new enforcement request, the template states:
      ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
      <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> voorts (talk/contributions) 20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed" @Lemabeta: what did you think "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage" meant? I think it's pretty obvious that that an article on an ethnic group from the Caucasus and about an ethnologist who writes about that region is covered by your topic ban. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      Note that I've deleted Draft:Rachvelians as a clear G5 violation. I think Mate Albutashvili is a bit more of a questionable G5. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      Your definition of "ethnographic group" includes the phrases "shared ancestry" (i.e., history), and "shared ... traditions" and "shared ... cultural identity" (i.e., cultural heritage). Your attempt to exclude "ethnographic group" from either of the two categories in your topic ban is entirely unpersuasive, particularly since your topic ban is to be "broadly construed". voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Tamzin: this doesn't seem like a mistake to me, but I'm okay with a logged warning here. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Bishonen: This is about violating the TBAN. Per my response to leek, I think the issue is with the AE request template, which is a bit unclear. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Bishonen: I don't think a block is needed here, but the next violation, definitely. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      @EF5: They were "reviously given ... contentious topic restriction", the topic ban at issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • @Lemabeta: Not every single thing you could write about an ethnic group would fall under cultural history, but that's not really relevant on the Rachvelians page, where the History section was entirely about their cultural history, even containing the words highlighting their ethnographic and cultural identity. There's a reason we use the words "broadly construed" on most TBANs, and a reason we encourage people to act like they're TBANned from a broader area than they are. (Consider: Would you feel safe driving under a bridge where clearance is exactly the same height as your vehicle? Or would you need a few inches' gap to feel safe doing it?)This does seem like a good-faith misunderstanding, so if you will commit to not making it again in the future, I think this can be closed with a clarification/warning. But that's an important "if". If you want to argue semantics, then the message that sends to admins is that you don't intend to comply with the TBAN, in which case the next step would be a siteblock. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • EF5, I don't understand your "Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above" statement, can you please explain what it refers to? This T-ban? Lemabeta's block log is blank.
    That said, I'm unimpressed by Lemabeta's lawyerly distinctions above, and also by their apology for "accidental violations". I'll AGF that they were accidental, but OTOH, they surely ought to have taken enough care to realize they were violations; compare Voorts' examples. I suggest a block, not sure of what length. A couple of weeks? Bishonen | tålk 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
    EF5, OK, I see. Blocks and bans are very different, and the block log only logs blocks. Bishonen | tålk 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
    • It seems that the general consensus here is to treat this as a final warning, and Lemabeta has acknowledged it as such. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as such. Seraphimblade 01:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    GokuEltit

    Issues on the Spanish Misplaced Pages will need to be handled there; the English Misplaced Pages has no authority or control over what happens on the Spanish project. This noticeboard is only for requesting enforcement of English Misplaced Pages arbitration decisions. Seraphimblade 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    I was blocked from Misplaced Pages for ignoring the formatting of a table, I edited an article wrong, Bajii banned me for 2 weeks, but it didn't even take 1 and Hasley changed it to permanent, I tried to make an unban request, they deleted it and blocked my talk page. I asked for help on irc, an admin tried to help me make another unblock request, but the admin jem appeared and told me that I was playing the victim and banned me and expelled me from irc. I just want to contribute to the platform GokuJuan (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    @GokuEltit: This is a complaint about Spanish Misplaced Pages - see es:Especial:Contribuciones/GokuJuan, where you have a block history from August 2023 to September 2024 (machine translation). Your block affects Spanish-language Misplaced Pages - it does not affect English-language Misplaced Pages.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    You also had some blocks on Commons, but they have expired.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)