Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:15, 2 November 2020

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 WP:AE WP:ARE 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: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and 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: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or 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: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. 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: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and 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-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or 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: 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. 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. 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. 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.

Heba Aisha

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 Heba Aisha

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Heba Aisha (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. 20:45, 17 October 2020 "According to media report in the meantime ... assassinated Bhartiya Janata Party leader Satyanarayan Sinha" introduced in a BLP with a purported attribution to an unspecified "media report".
2. 20:50, 17 October 2020 "According to media reports he assassinated his rival Chunnu Singh at Chhath ghat in Neura" introduced in the same BLP with a purported attribution to an unspecified "media reports".
3. 21:16, 17 October 2020 "... faced Asha Devi, the wife of Satyanarayan Sinha who was murdered by him. After the conviction of ..." introduced in the same BLP cited on 21:19, 17 October 2020 to a source which states "... is the main accused in the murder of former BJP leader Satyanarayan Sinha".
4. 10:11, 18 October 2020 Removal of a DS alert on BLPs with the edit summary of "I m aware of this and this is put to create a negative image of mine by the user who is not agreed to me on other article".
5. 10:19, 18 October 2020 Re-introduction of the same BLP violations after being warned on 09:20, 18 October 2020.
6. 11:43, 18 October 2020 Bans me from their talk page with the claim that it is for their peace of mind.
7. 00:02, 19 October 2020 Re-introduction of the same BLP violation, but this time followed up with a number of edits which add "was accused" or some variation of that but leaves out the line stating "After the conviction of ..." still unsupported by any source and which still gives the impression that the subject of the article was convicted (obviously).
8. 00:20, 19 October 2020 Follow up comment on the talk page stating "I have made edits to change the words and put those words which presents him as accused not convicted.This shouldn't be reverted as of now." There are still a number NPOV violations which were introduced on the page but the above is the most apparent instance.

Similar instance of gaming behavior in a previous dispute.

1. 17:30, 11 October 2020 Restores disputed content with a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of policy in the edit summary.
2. 17:39, 11 October 2020 Immediately opens up an RfC on the talk page without any proper formatting.
3. 17:41, 11 October 2020 Leaves this comment on my talk page stating "Untill discussion is over the editing of content under discussion amount to WP:Vandalism...discussion can go for 30 days.Plz be aware with rules of WP:Rfc".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

1. 21:03, 18 August 2020

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

1. 21:05, 18 August 2020

• They claim to be aware of the sanctions as well.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Mostly appears to be WP:CIR issue along with some WP:GAMING behavior. I have tried my best to make them understand policies but to little avail. Date and time of the diffs are in IST. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Heba Aisha, I don't have a WP:COI with main parties, this is a mainstream encyclopedia which is reliant on the coverage of mainstream newspapers on current affairs and not a place to promote minor viewpoints or formations. I nominated that article for deletion because it isn't notable enough for a separate article, imv.

You still don't seem to understanding that the lines you left even after your "fixes" still imply that he was convicted for murder.

In the 2020 elections to Bihar Assembly Ritlal faced Asha Devi, the wife of Satyanarayan Sinha who was allegedly murdered by his men. After the conviction of Yadav she had been winning Danapur seat for three consecutive terms on the ticket of Bhartiya Janata Party.

Whereas the source that you yourself cited very explicitly states that "Yadav was released from Patna’s Beur jail in August this year, after being granted bail by the Patna High Court in a money laundering case." In comparison the slanted article that you quoted from here uses an ambiguous "in connection" to refer to his incarceration which makes me wonder if this is just a CIR issue. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Regarding that "provocation", I'll stand by what I said as in it's not my job to clean up after their violations of wikipedia policies which is what they "virtually begged for" (Special:Diff/984103289) after being asked to provide a source (Special:Diff/984103134). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

There's also this inappropriate canvassing of sorts (see Special:Diff/984241297 and Special:Diff/984090635) which I suppose is an example of gaming as well, they also don't seem to understand that they can't !vote twice in an AfD (see Special:Diff/984097633). Frankly, there's too much of these little CIR issues which ultimately build ups into disruption especially with the amount of resistance they provide towards changing their behavior. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Since they banned me from their talk page, which I agreed to on 12:04, 18 October 2020, I'd be glad if someone else notifies them.

• Seems unnecessary now that they have responded. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Heba Aisha

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 Heba Aisha

plz check properly now I have made the edits and changed the sentences into accusation as no conviction was mentioned in the source. It means I undid the lines with which Tayi Arajakate had problems and now nothing libelous is left.The user has lodged this complaint without properly observing my recent edits. Heba Aisha (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

So the new sentences after my recent edits goes like. 1.According to media report; in the meantime Ritlal was made an accused in the assassination of Bhartiya Janata Party leader Satyanarayan Sinha at Jamaluddin chowk near Khagaul.

2.According to media reports he is also accused in assassination of his rival Chunnu Singh at Chhath ghat in Neura

3.In the 2020 elections to Bihar Assembly Ritlal faced Asha Devi, the wife of Satyanarayan Sinha who was allegedly murdered by his men.

After that I also talked to a very senior editor Fylindfotberserk according to his advice the article just needed minor edits to remove libelous words.User talk:Fylindfotberserk#Ritlal Yadav That's what I did and I don't think something more could be done as all sources talk only of subjects crime history. Heba Aisha (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually this is a sort of personal attack by this user who is not liking my steps like opening up WP:RFC on Talk: 2020 Bihar Legislative Assembly election#Rfc about keeping RLSP and its alliance as a seperate front in tabular form and not representing candidates in constituency list? as amidst the edits by many users he is repeatedly removing the Grand Democratic Secular Front from the article.It seems he has some WP:COI with main parties.A support for this lies in his delition nomination for Grand Democratic Secular Front where I m also keeping my views against him. So to derail my works and made me blocked he is on personal attack mode.Heba Aisha (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

In a nutshell if someone have decided to target other nothing could be done to change his mind. I even ask him to do minor copyediting here after the advice of senior editor and I was very calm virtually "begging" politely to him but he was on attack mode trying to provoke me.here.So according to him I turned accusation into conviction.....but in my recent edits I did what he wanted ....It means problem solved....then why he is here????? Certainly he knows admins don't gonna read article if they are not aware of the subject area and invoking a number of policies(which actually not applies here) he gonna give them belief that he is trying to save wikipedia......and block me. That's all I have to say.Thanks

Heba Aisha (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I told you already that if you have problem in reading hindi ask for translation rather than resorting to blatant vandalism.The 2nd source says this. "बिहार चुनाव: पति के कत्ल के आरोपी डॉन से है पत्नी का मुक़ाबला, रीतलाल पर हैं 33 केस". Jansatta. Retrieved 2020-10-17.

Now the contest between the two leaders on this seat is going to be quite interesting. Ritlal is the main accused in the murder of Satyanarayana Sinha, the husband of Asha Devi, who was in the year 2002.

other hindi sources also say this ...plz stop proving me a policy violator I have made more contribution than you and 98% of them are undisputed. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Heba Aisha (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 Yes I realized but the problem occurred due to a hindi source depending upon which I wrote this article.(I am reading daily edition of Dainik Bhaskar i got it there).The language was fancy and it didn't cleared in which case he was jailed for 10 yrs.(he has 33 cases against him) It seemed that he was jailed for that murder only. But as soon as I realized I made necessary edits.Its not fair to bring me here for a single mistake given until now 98% of my edits are undisputed. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 yes but confusion occurred due to sources(case of murder is on trial....I researched now) but it was a minor error and I don't liked user who reported me here to revert whole article to stub version.something he is doing across numerous articles. Actually if any other editor had been there he must have corrected that minor mistake but since I was against him at many other forum example delition discussion of Grand Democratic Secular Front he saw it as a pretext to book me for that and ban me.Sorry for inconvenience.Heba Aisha (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

see example this sentence Ritalal, who is at present lodged in the Beur Central Jail in connection with multiple criminal cases, including murder charges,. It creates confusion.... Source is above.Heba Aisha (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Special:Diff/984241297 and Special:Diff/984090635) regarding these. The user is a newbee and he has created a number of thread on the talk page of Bihar legislative assembly elections 2020....helping him to keep comment at right place and not making many thread is not a Gaming behavior. Also I do not believe in vandaling pages liks Tayi Arajakate if small issue is present.It is seen that many people added about GSDF in the article but he reverted it expressing WP:OWN behavior. See and This is blatant vandalism. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

an admin relisted the article and asked for more comments for thorough discussion.And he is presenting it as an incompetency of mine that I voted twice.Heba Aisha (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

Heba Aisha The addition of the claim that Yadav murdered Sinha when the source only says he stands accused, is an extreme BLP violation. Can you please address that specific edit? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Heba Aisha: Okay, so you recognize that it wasn't supported by the source, and that you need to stick very carefully to what the sources say? Also, please keep responses to your own section. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Heba Aisha

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

• There's a fair bit to go through here, but I don't want to see this go without attention just because a couple other cases sucked so much air out of the room. I will try to take a look at it over the next couple days. Seraphimblade 11:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur

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 Beshogur

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Beshogur (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:AA2 :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 25 October "keep your bias to yourself"
2. 25 October Doubles down at Diyarbakir but this time removes native names in a form of a note. Disingenouous edit-summary: "pure aesthetic purpose".
3. 24 October Removes Kurdish, Armenian, Assyrian, and other native names from the Diyarbakir article. Diyarbakir has historically and continues to be a multi-cultural city. Such removals have gotten various users banned before.
4. 22 October. Insists on using Azeri names instead of the much more common Armenian names of villages in Karabakh. He then slow edit-wars to maintain this over the course of this month: 20 October, 20 October, 10 October. Even goes so far as to remove the fact that there's an Armenian school in the village . It is still questionable whether Azeri forces are in control of this part of NK. Nevertheless, this is against WP:COMMONNAME and the user has been told several times already to stop doing this, let alone edit-war for it.
5. 20 October Blanket removal of loads of reliably sourced information pertaining to Azerbaijani nationalism and the Armenian Genocide on Pan-Turkism article with an edit-summary that is entirely false and misleading.
6. 20 October Consistenly refers to Artsakh forces as occupiers, the official language of the Azeri government. The long-standing consensus in AA2 articles has always been to use more netural terms like control and/or more legal terms like de facto. Beshogur has been on a spree to call the Armenian forces occupiers in many instances since the flareup of the conflict. Some other examples: 24 October, 24 October, 24 October, 22 October, 22 October.
7. 2 October Uses very questionable sources to justify military changes on the battlefield. The NK war is very fluid and to rush to judgement on the capturing of one village is disruptive, let alone edit-warring to maintain it is doubly so. Edit-warring diffs: October 3, October 3, October 3 (WP:GAME with this one as it's only 8 minutes over the 24 hour mark of the initial revert). Beshogur's edit-warring lead to him getting immediately blocked. Even after the block and another reminder of AA2, the user continues to disrupt the project and it appears that is not willing to revise his approach towards it.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 3 October blocked for disruptive edit-warring by admin Rosguill (talk · contribs)

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Warned about AA2 sanctions:

1. 25 October
2. 1 October

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Misplaced Pages is not a venue to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, nor is it a WP:BATTLEGROUND. The removal of native names and the insistence with calling Armenians occupiers coupled with the edit-warring and a disruptive pattern of editing should raise alarm bells. The user has a history of edit-warring and was just recently blocked a couple of weeks ago for it.

Beshogur (talk · contribs) makes several claims in his rebuttal that must be answered. For one, he refuses to acknowledge the importance of WP:NCGN by removing anything pertaining to Armenia or Armenians in these villages as the war continues. He goes so far as to point to an ongoing discussion that he started (might I add, the WP:VOTESTACKING is quite obvious there) to which no consensus has been reached. Yet, even as the discussion continues and no consensus has been reached, he continues using the term occupation. Another fallacy in his argument is that not only did he do this before he opened that discussion, he did it after. In other words, gaining consensus does not phase him in this regard.

He then states that he only calls these villages occupied if they're outside of the NK Republic. This is false. In the 20 October diff, for example, he added this phrase to the article: "When it was under Armenian occupation, Hadrut was twinned with:" Hadrut lies plainly in NK boundaries. With that said, the term occupation is still used by him whether or not these territories are in NK boundaries.

His response for the Madagiz issue is misleading. The issue with Madagiz is not the infobox, but rather the first sentence of the article to which he changed the first sentence to the official name rather than the WP:COMMONNAME even as he was told several times to avoid doing so. The slow edit-warring of this is also a recurring problem given that he has been blocked several times for edit-warring. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Beshogur

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 Beshogur

About occupation. Literally every international source, including OSCE minsk group mentions this as an occupation. Both Zengilan and Fuzuli cities were outside the former NKAO, and those cities had predominantly Azerbaijani majority. If you knew it, both cities' Armenian names are not its native names, but had been renamed after the Armenian occupation. (discussion about the term)

Additional note:

• Füzuli (city)'s old names: Qarabulak, Karyagin, and Varanda, named after 1993 when the city actually became a ghost town after NK war, and outside NKAO.

• Zəngilan: Pirchivan, Zengilan, and later renamed to Kovsakan after Armenian occupation, another place outside NKAO.

• Jabrayil: renamed to Jrakan after NKR war, another ghost town, and outside NKAO.

These are not traditional names used by Armenians but later renamed by an occupying state.

To clarify Madagiz yet again, I am not against that name, the problem is, you are changing "official_name=" into Madagiz. @Rosguill:, an admin, even realized that he was also wrong about that. See talk of that page. And I didn't move that page at the first place, stop putting the blame on my.

About Diyarbakir, I found a note better for an excessive name section. For the first edit, I removed it because it was already on the name section below. That's the main reason. If that was wrong, my apologizes, that was not my intention. Also I noticed that I did the same thing for Sultanate of Rum and Anatolia articles. I really don't understand how this is equal to removing the names.

For Iranian Azerbaijan. That article had been under scope of WP Azerbaijan. Removing is ok, but restoring it not?

Also I don't think it's ok to judge me of my block which is already passed. Regards.

For his second statement: Before accusing me of Votestacking, administrators are free to check my editing or mail history. I did not sent any user, nor did notify about that requested move. Beside that, I do not call only places outside NKAO occupied, I call them all. I was clarifying the name issues, these cities not being majority Armenian at the first place, and the names being changed after Armenian occupation. To clarify Madagiz yet again. I didn't move the article at the first place. I thought that it was looking weird when you had two different names. As I explained, I am not against its old name, and that had been solved on the talk page, why do you bring this up every time?

Additional note: UN: "Demands the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan;"

About the status of Madagiz. AJ report about Azerbaijan building road to Madagiz. Another by Euronews from inside of Madagiz. Beshogur (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

References

1. "A/RES/62/243". undocs.org. 14 March 2008. Retrieved 2020-09-28.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

@Doug Weller: what's the reason of topic ban? Rosguill seems to agree with me on the term occupied. I have never seen those users discussing this term on the talk page. Reporting is an easy way of course. Also I am keeping my good faith, apologising if I did something wrong, but topic ban wouldn't be fair. I explained my edits. Beshogur (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (Wikaviani)

Beshogur is not assuming good faith when they interact with fellow Wikipedians and the compelling evidences provided by EtienneDolet make me wonder if Beshogur is here to build an encyclopedia, or rather, to be on a mission of Turkification.---Wikaviani 01:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

How could you explain your edit. Mine is not disruptive, you're is. And what kind of conspiracy is that?

I explained my edit thoroughly in my edit-summary, just take the time to read it instead of attacking fellow Wikipedians. Your above answer alone is enough to show that you are not assuming good faith when you interact with others, and judging by EtienneDolet and HistoryofIran's comments, you have been behaving like that for a while here, on Misplaced Pages ...---Wikaviani 11:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Well your edit was wrong then. Again I apologize for my text. Beshogur (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, it's not up to you to decide what is wrong or right, it's a matter of reliable sources and consensus.---Wikaviani 19:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

You alone, isn't a "consensus", removing WP Azerbaijan from that page. You do not have any reliable source that shows Azerbaijan Republic isn't related to Iranian Azerbaijan. Pure original research. Beshogur (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I never said that i alone am a consensus, again, you better read what people say instead of attacking them. Also, i would be interested to understand how a 102 years old country (Republic of Azerbaijan) can be related to a historic region that predates the Republic by centuries ? I suggest you to answer this question on the Azerbaijan (Iran) talk page.---Wikaviani 12:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Because R of Azerbaijan is populated by same people, speaking the same tongue? Beshogur (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I will answer on the article talk page, but your argument is clearly irrelevant.---Wikaviani 17:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment : Topic ban sounds ok, since Beshogur's editing profile appears to be biased when it comes to Turkey and surrounding areas ...---Wikaviani 23:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (HistoryofIran)

Beshogur has a tendency to not assume WP:GF of his fellow editors. These are two of my recent experiences with him:

1. I was removing information from Turkestan which was not WP:RS, which then led to him create a whole section just to say this:

you will almost claim that such a region does not even exist.

2. Because I was arguing that the President "Library" of Azerbaijan was not RS, because it is a country without freedom of press, (I did also say that the source cited Misplaced Pages and Tourism Az amongst others, which was ignored), clearly without any bad intention, my own background for some reason became involved in his following comment:

Ah throwing bait and saying that you are going to be accused of racism. And again(?) But Iran does not have freedom of press either. Considering, a lot of Iranian sources are used here. Do you have anything where it states you can not use state sources? Plus the source only states that Khankendi means City of Khan, do you really oppose that? Or didn't you like it?

--HistoryofIran (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The "source", published by a country without freedom of press, cites Misplaced Pages and Tourism. Az amongst others. Before I get accused of racism (again) by someone, people might wanna google what freedom of press means. --HistoryofIran

First of all, don't play the victim. And you do not have any proof that source is not reliable and the info being wrong. I did not further edit to avoid any dispute. Since it's usual people reporting eachother from such small things. Beshogur (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I rest my case. HistoryofIran (talk)

Statement by (Mr.User200)

(Beshogur) editing behaviour adjoins disruptive editing in many issues (All regarding Turkey). He likes edit warring 1 2 3 4 5 6Especially those regarding modern historical events related to Turkey. Most editors that have experienced editing disputes with him cannot asumme good faith because of their particular POV editing and peculiar way of expressing.

He also reverts other users edits calling them jokes and making non civil edit summaries that turn WP into a Battleground.1 2 3 4 56 7 8 9

Most of his edits are reverts on other users edits, by the way.

He uses minor errors on edits to revert the whole content, only because "He dont like" 1.

He have a very particular POV when editing Armenian related articles and Armenian Genocide (I.E "Nothing to do with Turkey") 1 2

Calls Amnesty International reports on Right abuses by Turkish forces "Propaganda". 1

He canvasses Admins when there is no need to 1.

When his wrongdoing is discovered or faced with diff, he just use the "racism card". Something he have done times before. August 2016 October 2020.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Konli17

This user does great work with some historical and cultural articles, but I have to agree about the Turkish nationalist POV I've also seen, e.g. rewriting history, and refusing to allow the placenames of the enemy, in defiance of WP:COMMONNAME: Konli17 (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning Beshogur

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

• Looks like the only solution here is a topic ban from the area. Doug Weller talk 12:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO (3)

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 SPECIFICO

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Darouet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

SPECIFICO (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:ARBAPDS :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 15:20, 27 October 2020 Removes longstanding text whose removal days earlier was contested.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 23:58, 12 May 2020: "sanctioned for violation of the 1RR and enforced BRD sanctions at Joe Biden."

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 23:58, 12 May 2020 by Wugapodes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Jack Upland has been engaged in a longstanding and understandable effort to trim page length at Julian Assange. I restored one removed sentence , a NYT paraphrase of the Obama Administration's views on the constitutional implications of indicting Assange; the text had been in the article for over a year . SPECIFICO reverted my restoration of the sentence , and I informed SPECIFICO their action violated DS (see discussion here ). While SPECIFICO has continued to edit at Talk:Julian Assange and elsewhere, they have not self-reverted, nor participated in the ongoing talk page discussion that appears to favor keeping the sentence.

At Talk:Julian Assange, SPECIFICO has previously acknowledged that removing longstanding text, if the removal is contested, is a violation of discretionary sanctions on the page: , .

Awilley recently confirmed at Talk:Julian Assange that re-removing longstanding content is a violation of the DS on the page . Guy, who originally placed the sanctions on the page , has responded , "that might apply in another article, but this one has been WP:OWNed by a small cabal of fans and Mueller denialists for a long time." Needless to say, this is offensive, untrue, suggests a battleground mentality, and also creates a situation where DS has opposite meanings depending on Guy's views. Guy has expressed very strong opinions on Assange previously , and I'm unsure if someone with such charged attitudes regarding Assange should be acting as an admin on Assange's BLP. -Darouet (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Guy

I strongly dispute Guy's description of conflicts on the page, and ask that any characterization of my or others' edits there be supported by diffs and sources.

• In this edit , Guy refers to Assange as an established "Kremlin asset"; I don't recall that I have made any similar comment on Assange, and I don't think anyone should, either for or against him.
• In this edit Guy opposes the inclusion of even one sentence in the body of the article that would report a German political appeal on Assange's behalf, a letter covered by every large newspaper in Germany. Guy writes, For all the fervour with which this is promoted off-wiki by Assange cultists, it was one letter that was not, as far as I can tell, covered after its original release. Cult leaders are very good at exploiting what Lenin termed "useful idiots". Do the phrases "Assange cultists" and "useful idiots" refer to to journalists for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Welt, or the Süddeutsche Zeitung? Or is this a reference to signers of the letter including journalist Günter Wallraff or the former Vice-Chancellor of Germany, Sigmar Gabriel? I'm not sure, but this is not about the "consensus view of independent sources": Guy is frequently arguing against them.

I think Guy is a great editor and agree with them about plenty of things, but this attitude towards the topic is not neutral, and is contributing to rather than resolving disputes. -Darouet (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy, anybody can check to see if I've ever suggested you can't disagree. Otherwise, your repeated suggestion that all editors at Julian Assange be topic banned after SPECIFICO is alleged to have violated DS comes across a clever way of punishing other editors for SPECIFICO's editing, and reversing both the letter and the spirit of the sanctions you added to this page. -Darouet (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Reply to @Awilley, Doug Weller, and Bishonen:

• In this case I've documented a single clear instance of a violation of DS, according to metrics that SPECIFICO understands . Apparently DS is very important to SPECIFICO: in the past month, they have repeatedly threatened DS at Talk:Julian Assange using an interpretion of DS exactly opposite their earlier reasoning, and contrary to the understanding of admins here . In SPECIFICO's 22 edits currently found at Talk:Julian Assange and its most recent archive, SPECIFICO references WP:DS four times in various forms (e.g. "Per the page restriction Discretionary Sanction" and "you will... face sanctions"). A brief perusal of their editing elsewhere on Misplaced Pages shows that they are frequently warning other editors about discretionary sanctions and possible blocks or bans.
• SPECIFICO's violation here is not an anomaly: I asked them to please revert and participate in the "discussion" portion of BRD, and they will not do so. Further examination of their editing at Talk:Julian Assange shows that this incident is consistent with SPECIFICO's behavior overall. In those 22 edits I mentioned, SPECIFICO never links to a single reliable source or even bothers to quote from one. Instead, they invoke WP:ONUS 5x, WP:FRINGE 3x, WP:UNDUE 2x, WP:CONSENSUS 2x, WP:NPOVN, WP:WEASEL and WP:POV. How is this alphabet soup of WP:WIKILAWYERING supposed to be supported without references to reliable sources? SPECIFICO sums up their attitude here : "policy, fact, sourcing, whatever."
• All this amounts to textbook WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. If you would like to remove the BRD consensus required portion of the DS, I humbly suggest we take this to WP:ARBCOM, which as far as I understand it, is the body that drafted these measures. I have also believed these sanctions are designed to address exactly this kind of behavior. Is that correct? The diffs and quotes above show we have strong evidence that if the sanction were actually enforced, the editing environment at Talk:Julian Assange would improve dramatically, and it's within ARBCOM's mandate to represent the community in putting a stop to disruptive editing. -Darouet (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Struck "BRD" and replaced with "consensus required" (bolded) per Awilley. -Darouet (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I have notified SPECIFICO here , and also left a comment at Guy's talk page. -Darouet (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion concerning SPECIFICO

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 SPECIFICO

@Swarm:: I see that you feel I should respond to this complaint. Please be assured my silence was not, as you apparently felt, out of disrespect for AE. I had nothing to say in rebuttal because I did not see any Admin sentiment favoring the complaint.

As has been stated below, Darouet escalated this to AE in record time -- less than 24 hours -- without the customary courtesy of a warning message on my talk page or of allowing a reasonable time for an article talk page response. This minimal content disagreement could easily have been resolved on talk in short order, much better than the immediate escalation. My edit summary explained -- too tersely I now see -- what I meant by SYNTH. In hindsight, it would have been clearer to say UNDUE WEIGHT because the SYNTH depends on the larger narrative of the article. My concern was that the repeated and excessive mentions of First Amendment press freedoms reinforces Assange apologists' narrative that he remains a journalist rather than an accused felon. This has been a longstanding matter of contention on that article. As you'll see on the talk page after my removal, I am not the only editor who was concerned about this. Sources' reporting on Assange has changed a lot in recent years, but the article has clung to some now deprecated narratives about him.

In a previous talk page thread, the interpretation of the DS page restriction was discussed and appeared to support the removal of disputed text pending talk page consensus to include. See here. I don't see anything in the sequence of events to suggest that I willfully flouted that page restriction.

Why didn't I immediately give a detailed substantive reply on the article talk page after my removal? I am busy with community responsibilities IRL during the pandemic and my history shows that I currently edit sporadically while I am not at my desk. But you'll note that Darouet launched a talk thread with a personalized title naming SPECIFICO rather than the content issue to be discussed. When I asked him to correct this he was not immediately responsive, and this didn't make me eager to hasten my reply about the edit. Darouet then continued to personalize his concern in that thread and the following thread wherein I don't think it's appropriate to refer to a violation that had not yet been adjudicated.

Given that the restriction has now not only been removed from that page, but deprecated as fundamentally flawed and unworkable, it's hard to understand any rationale for a sanction at this time. I edit in AP2 and BLP areas where disagreements are common and I do not edit war or push the limits of DS or consensus processes. What is the preventive purpose of a sanction at this time? It would appear to be more a case of rules for rules' sake, and not the way I have ever seen AE or WP operate. SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG (SPECIFICO eleventy)

I applied the DS in November 2019, but since then I have become involved with discussions on the Talk page so as noted a previous time someone dragged SPECIFICO here I consider myself involved on that article and don't take any administrative role in this endless ongoing dispute. My opinion as an editor expressed on Talk has no more or less weight than anyone else's and I would hope would not be interpreted any other way.

It mainly just frustrates me, for exactly the reason noted above: in my view (and in my admittedly limited experience there) the article is WP:OWNed by a small group of people whose view of Assange appears to be almost Messianic, and at odds with the consensus view of independent sources. My view of Assange is ambivalent. I think that's also a fair summary of the RS, but not the current state of the article. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, the idea that Assange was a Kremlin asset is taken directly from the exceptionally conservative findings of Robert S Mueller III. And yes, I think that letters full of special pleading are of no encyclopaedic merit, but, on point here, your rather obvious failure to get over the fact that I disagreed with you on that is a point against you, not for you. People are allowed to disagree. If you want to raise the issue of bludgeoning and stonewalling on that article's talk page, I will chip in with a resounding "hell yeah!" and encourage any uninvolved admin to TBAN every editor who has engaged in this, including me if they think it's justified. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000

Frankly, I think the characterizations of SPECIFICO not engaging in discussion and the talk page discussion appearing to favor keeping the sentence are premature since you filed this 18 hours after starting the discussion. I also think perhaps it may have made sense for you to go to the TP before restoring text that appears redundant in an overly long article, particularly in a consensus required article; no matter the letter of the law. Just my humble opinions about collaboration. O3000 (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Guy's description of conflicts on the page; but think it's irrelevant to this discussion and should not have been brought up by the filer in the first place. O3000 (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the edit summary was incorrect -- it was not synth. Not a reason to file at AE. I suggest that this kind of content dispute is not why AE was created and could easily have been handled elsewhere (ATP or UTP) instead of jumping to a board of near, last resort with less than a day of discussion. O3000 (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: Instead of suggesting admins agree with her politics, so she is above the rules, consider the possibility that AE is being weaponized and this particular rule enables such. O3000 (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

It's really simple, do all editors need to abide by DS? And if so, was this violated, "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit."? Sir Joseph 16:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

The text that Specifico removed: The Obama administration had debated charging Assange under the Espionage Act, but decided against it out of fear that it would have a negative effect on investigative journalism and could be unconstitutional.

Specifico's edit summary for the removal: SYNTH insinuation Assange is on par with journalists.

What the source (NYTimes) wrote: The Obama administration had also weighed charging Mr. Assange, but rejected that step out of fears that it would chill investigative journalism and could be struck down as unconstitutional.

It is not WP:SYNTH, it is directly stated by the source. Lev!vich 18:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

So far, we've tried doing nothing, and it hasn't worked. I know it sounds crazy and it's not what the AE admin are used to doing, but how about we try actually enforcing a rule this time? I know what you're thinking: "it's a clear violation, we don't know what to do", or perhaps, "she's an AP2 regular, and I agree with her politics, so she is above the rules", but consensus required just might work if admin actually enforced it, you know, equally, as if everyone were held to the same rules. You may have noticed that AE is not getting inundated with reports of editors breaking consensus required left and right, it's just getting inundated with reports about Specifico. So maybe, just maybe, doing something more than issuing a fifth warning (or throwing up our hands in defeat), who knows, actually might make a difference. After five reports in two months, maybe we can give doing something a try, mmm? Lev!vich 14:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@O3: I've considered whether AE has been weaponized by three different editors bringing four valid complaints with diffs of clear PAG/DS violations, and rejected the theory as implausible. Now please consider whether the diff in this case is or is not a violation of the consensus required restriction, and whether the edit summary did or did not state a valid reason for the edit. Lev!vich 15:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: Seriously with that question? Because no one wants to get sanctioned; because it's pending at AE; because the last person to complain about this was sanctioned. Let's not fault editors for reporting things to a noticeboard instead of edit warring. So, I've restored it now. Let's see what happens next. Lev!vich 03:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Jack Upland

The text is a paraphrase of NYT and not "SYNTH". By the way, I am not a fan of Assange, still less a cultist, and I have made extensive edits to the page, so I reject the claim of "ownership" by a cabal. Yes, there is a small group of editors who are clearly pro-Assange, just as there is a small group who are anti-Assange...--Jack Upland (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

This is another example of why blanket "consensus required" DSes are a terrible idea. This one should not be enforced and should be removed from the article.

Consider: There is no indication that the text under dispute has ever had any discussion. Yes, it has a degree of implicit consensus due to its age; that would be worth considering in any discussions, and would matter if an RFC failed to reach consensus otherwise. But that is not a strong consensus, certainly not enough to try and shut down editing or to substitute discussions with a pointless digression in an effort to win a content dispute, followed by a near-immediate leap to AE in an effort to remove the other editor. Is that the sort of "discussion" and consensus-building we want to encourage on controversial articles? Is that supposed to represent the first step in our consensus-building process on the articles that most sorely need it?

Consensus is an important part of how Misplaced Pages operates, but it is always required - and reaching it, in any sort of constructive long-term sense, requires discussion of the actual issue under dispute; when editors are sharply at odds, that discussion only happens because both sides feel a pressure that brings them to the table to hammer things out. It's clear (and has been for a long, long time) that so-called consensus required DSes are actively harmful to such discussion; putting too much force behind one default outcome encourages people who prefer that outcome in any particular dispute to stonewall and contribute minimally to discussions outside of insisting that policy backs their version. A situation where any editor can, at any time, via a single revert, demand that any change to an article go through a full consensus-building process before any changes at all can be made to the relevant text is simply not viable, especially when so much of our process depends on lightweight "implicit" consensus and a willingness to compromise or back down without going to such lengths every time.

Even Donald Trump, the article which (if I recall correctly) was the genesis of the Consensus Required restriction, is now under the much more reasonable If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit one, which slows things down enough to encourage discussion and avert revert wars without allowing endless, easy stonewalling and red tape. I would argue that the fact that any articles exist which have not been updated to that restriction yet is merely an error stemming from way DSes are mostly under the discretion of the applying administrator (which makes it difficult to update them all at once); while Julian Assange is a controversial topic, it makes no sense to argue that it is more controversial than Donald Trump at the height of an election. Why on earth does it still have a vastly more draconian restriction? --Aquillion (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Thucydides411

The question here is simple: will an editor who intentionally and repeatedly violates a DS restriction be sanctioned in any way? SPECIFICO is perfectly aware of the "consensus required" DS restriction. SPECIFICO simply thinks they don't have to abide by it. At the same time, SPECIFICO asks others to abide by it at Julian Assange, and even threatens to go to AE to enforce it ( ).

Just a few weeks ago, SPECIFICO violated the "consensus required" DS restriction at Julian Assange, by re-removing longstanding content from the lede: . The only reason SPECIFICO was not sanctioned was because some (but not all) admins reasoned that SPECIFICO's edit could be interpreted as falling into a BLP exception. I found this argument absurd, since SPECIFICO was removing material that WP:BLP requires to be included (a living person's denial of accusations made against them - per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported.), and because SPECIFICO's edit summary completely needlessly insulted the living person in question: Typical nonsense conspiracy theory pandering to his fans and the ignorant (). Interpreting SPECIFICO's last DS violation as falling into a BLP exception was extremely generous. Now, SPECIFICO has again violated this restriction, on the exact same page, and nobody is claiming that it falls into any exception this time.

The DS rules are supposed to prevent disruptive behavior, such as removing longstanding content from an article and then demanding long-winded discussions in order to re-insert it. It would be one thing if a normally collaborative editor inadvertently violated the DS restriction. That's not the case here. Last time SPECIFICO violated the DS restriction at Julian Assange, they barely attempted to justify their removal of the material in question. They repeatedly asserted that the material was WP:UNDUE, without any explanation. When I and other editors provided a long list of reliable sources that backed up the material in question, SPECIFICO again simply asserted that the material was undue, again without explanation. When asked to provide any justification for the assertion that the material in question was undue, SPECIFICO just asserted that they had already done so - despite the fact that they hadn't (as I detailed here). They were just stone-walling. You can see the full conversation here, and verify that my summary is accurate: .

In this case, SPECIFICO has again justified their edit with a nonsense reference to a Misplaced Pages acronym that doesn't apply. They assert that the material is WP:SYNTH, despite the fact that it's quite obviously an accurate paraphrase of the source (see Levivich's statement above). Again, we are not dealing with a collaborative editor who has inadvertently run afoul of a technical rule. We're dealing with someone who needlessly insults the subject of the BLP, who refuses to justify their edits (and when they do, throws out obviously non-applicable Misplaced Pages acronyms), and who threatens others with this very same DS restriction, while at the same time violating it themselves.

SPECIFICO has not commented in this case, just as they didn't comment in the last case about their violation of "consensus required" at Julian Assange: . They apparently don't think they have to answer here, because there won't be any consequences for their violations of the restrictions. Last time, Awilley stated, As for the violation of the DS rule, this is about as clear-cut as it gets. I'm surprised SPECIFICO didn't self-revert when asked. The reason is clear: while SPECIFICO is not shy about threatening others with this very same DS restriction at the very same page, SPECIFICO feels empowered to violate the rule, and doesn't believe they will face any consequences. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Any thoughts on the disruptive behavior I've detailed above? -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: SPECIFICO intentionally violated a DS restriction here. They were asked to undo their violation and given time to do so: . SPECIFICO acknowledged this request by commenting in response to it (), but chose not to undo their edit. If this is weaponization, it's the softest, most considerate weaponization I've ever seen. SPECIFICO could simply decide to abide by the rules, and none of this would happen. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Mandruss

As far as I'm concerned, Donald Trump is as close as we have ever come to peace in political areas – that's even more remarkable given the article's subject – and could serve as something of a model for the best we can expect. We use fairly strict BRD there (consensus required for any change that has been disputed by reversion), and a rule that prior consensus is required to change something backed by consensus. The article's consensus list, now at 38 active items, embodies the response to Doug Weller's comment, Coffee added consensus required to a number of articles but he also kept track of the consensus.

When this system doesn't work, it's an editor behavior problem, and no system will work very well without enforcement of some degree of good editor behavior. That means more than blocking disruptive IPs and newbies.

Recipe for chaos: Decline to enforce standing rules because we (still) can't agree they are good rules. Work toward rule improvements all you like; in the meantime enforce the rules we have. That's how civilization has worked for at least eight centuries, and it was good enough to get us to the Moon.

I'll offer my standard challenge: Show me a system that is proven to work better over some amount of time in areas of politics, and point me to said proof.

I am responding to previous comments, but I otherwise consider this area of discussion to be off topic on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SPECIFICO

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

• Responding to the "Consensus required" portion of this report: I did a little analysis of my own and I find a technical violation of the rule.
  • 26 September 2019 The sentence beginning The Obama administration had debated charging Assange under the Espionage Act... is first added to the article. It sits there for a year, enough to be considered "longstanding".
  • 21 October 2020 The sentence is WP:BOLDly removed by Jack Upland (no edit summary)
  • 27 October 2020 The sentence is restored by Darouet (edit summary: Restoring this one sentence, as the Obama administration's view (according to the NYT) is relevant to this section)
  • 27 October 2020 SPECIFICO reverts without having obtained consensus for the re-removal. (Edit summary: SYNTH insinuation Assange is on par with journalists)

A couple other points:

• This is almost exactly the same thing that happened last month at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive272#SPECIFICO. Same article, same user, same sanction. We didn't find a consensus there to enforce the sanction then.
• I personally oppose enforcing this sanction because I think it's a stupid rule. The above scenario illustrates some of its problems. I shouldn't have to use Wikiblame to figure out if the rule was broken. And this is SPECIFICO's first edit to the article in nearly a month. Do we want to be blocking users for making 1 revert per month?
• The admin who placed the sanction is now involved in the article and it's debatable whether he should be able to modify or remove it even if he wanted to.

Bottom line: I think we should either enforce the rule or get rid of it. My vote is to get rid of it. ~Awilley (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've looked at Awilley's analysis above and can't fault it. I really dislike this rule and think it causes more problems than it's worth. We need to get rid of it from this and all articles. I also don't see how enforcing it here will improve Misplaced Pages. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I dislike BRD as much as a restriction. Coffee added consensus required to a number of articles but he also kept track of the consensus. BRD, meh. Outside of AE it's just an essay that people sometimes throw around as though it's policy, and many times not practical. Like Bish, I hate it. Doug Weller talk 10:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've never enforced BRD and I never would, I hate it. Let's get rid of it. Can we do that here? Bishonen | tålk 15:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC).
  • Ugh, please let's not muddle the terminology here, Bishonen. "Consensus required" and "BRD" are apples and oranges. "Consensus required" is the DS rule we're discussing here that was added to tons of American Politics articles in 2016. "BRD" is short for WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, the behavioral guideline that's been around since 2005. And "Enforced BRD" or "24-hr BRD" is the DS rule I came up with in 2018 to replace the "Consensus required" rule, because at that time the community was opposed to removing the rule entirely. The sanction at Talk:Falun Gong mentioned by User:Guerillero is something new I've never seen before, but is most similar in practice to the "Consensus required" rule. At this point it would take a consensus of admins to retire any or all of those rules everywhere. And I think it would need to be done in a dedicated thread that's not mixed up with an individual editor. ~Awilley (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

    Minor point: BRD is an "explanatory supplement", not a guideline. And it's first sentence, which says that BRD "is an optional method of reaching consensus" (emphasis added) should make it clear that this is never something to be "enforced".

    See also BRD is best used by experienced Misplaced Pages editors. It may require more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure. Using BRD in volatile situations is discouraged. and BRD is not mandatory and BRD doesn't work well in all situations. It is ideally suited to disputes that involve only a small number of people, all of whom are interested in making progress. There are many other options, and some may be more suitable for other situations.

    If you want to enforce something, 1RR or even Misplaced Pages:CRP might work, but BRD is not the right approach to every dispute and should never be mandatory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• It helped control things at Falun Gong, so I am not 100% opposed to BRD. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• User:JzG has now clarified on his talk page that he is OK with admins here revising the 1RR that he originally imposed if they think a different kind of restriction is better. His 1RR was simply {{American politics AE}}. This is the 1RR that requires consensus before reverting. My impression from the admin comments above is that the proposal on the table is to abolish 'Consensus required' and make this be a 'BRD' type of 1RR. It appears that both Awilley and Dougweller are opposed to 'Consensus required'. Not sure what they think about BRD, though I see that at least Bishonen is opposed to BRD. Personally I think that 'consensus required' is not a bright-line rule which makes it hard to enforce. With BRD, you can at least check if somebody *tried* to discuss. (that is the 'D' in 'BRD'). The sanction at Talk:Falun Gong looks like a hybrid of 'Consensus required' and 'BRD':

"You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article. All edits to the article need … a clear consensus on this talk page for the change if challenged"

where the 'clear consensus … challenged' phrase is made into a wikilink to WP:BRD. The exact wording of BRD seems to say that you must not revert again if you have not reached consensus. So perhaps the two rules are in act requiring the same behavior. The weak link in both is that the admin needs to figure out whether consensus has been reached. This could be a matter of opinion, and might be as hard as closing an RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to ask me twice. I've removed the "consensus required" sanction and left just normal WP:1RR. I'd rather not add the "24-hr BRD" sanction at this time...that rule is currently confined to the American Politics topic area, and I'd rather keep it that way unless the rule gains widespread acceptance, which it has not. ~Awilley (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• My view remains that enforced BRD is, in most cases, inferior to Consensus required. I disagree with Awilley for having supplanted CR with enforced BRD on multiple pages in the past, and I am opposed to them continuing to do so in the future. Calling CR "stupid" does not make it so, nor does it make enforced BRD smarter. Just because there apparently is neither the will to observe nor is there the will to enforce CR on that particular page, does not mean enforced BRD would work better for it. So, while Awilley's framing above reinforces enforced BRD's would-be superiority to CR, I, myself, (still) am just not seeing it how that is even remotely so. Anyway, if AE is at the point right now where these beyond-1RR enhancements, in general, are proving too nuanced to enforce, then abolish both and stick to 1RR only. That's fine. CR is not hopelessly complex. Often, when a dispute proves intractable, at some point WP:ONUS may be needed to be enforced by an admin for the remainder of the consensus building process. That happens all the time. That is what CR is — a strict version of ONUS that does so as page-level restriction. But, again, the argument that enforced BRD is the solution to its shortcomings, that it is better than CR in resolving disputes... I have never seen evidence (even of the loosest variety) to support that assertion. El_C 01:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• What El C said. Consensus required is in essence a way that ONUS can be enforced. El C has accurately expressed my views on EBRD as well, so I don’t have much more to add. No comment on removing CR, but oppose supplanting it with EBRD. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with the above. Enforced BRD is just the "consensus required" sanction with the actual requirement to resolve the dispute removed, and replaced with a procedural 24 hour hold on reverting. It's essentially a more lenient version of both 1RR and consensus required, and it doesn't work well in practice since it allows for edit warring to continue and I have seen it do so in practice. No offense, but Awilley is hardly the authority on "consensus required" being a stupid rule when he made up "BRD enforced" and went about trying to systematically replace it with his new rule, and then it went to AN and no one supported him. That was a massive gaffe on his part. I don't see anything wrong with "consensus required" in general, it just says you can't edit war over a disputed edit until a consensus has decided the dispute. That is in line with the basic principle from which this whole project is governed. Now, I'm not saying we should ignore context and blindly enforce sanctions either, so what's the context? SPECIFICO seems to have removed longstanding content per WP:SYNTH. Per @Levivich:'s comment, it wasn't SYNTH, but a rather straightforward paraphrase of a single source. So there's no real justification for SPECIFICO having violated the sanction here, and no convincing reason not to enforce the sanction. I'm fine with a short block, or even a warning, but I'm a bit baffled that some admins are leaning towards just turning a blind eye here as if this is just some "gotcha" technicality that we should overlook. And even if SPECIFICO was like "my bad, it was a mistake, I'll be more careful", fine, but SPECIFICO is apparently at the point of not even taking AE enough seriously to comment at all at this point. Why are we giving special treatment? ~Swarm~ 05:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Swarm: The fact that this is SPECIFICO (3) is a sign that they are either engaged in misconduct or being hounded --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Uh...yeah. I literally explained in my comment that they engaged in misconduct here. They literally violated the editing restriction. People have repeatedly explained this. ~Swarm~ 00:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Setting aside the discussion of the sanction and focusing on the user, I wouldn't be opposed to something like a short (couple of weeks?) topic ban. As people have pointed out it's not really fair to have one person repeatedly flaunting a rule that everybody else is following. ~Awilley (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for saying so, I think that's very reasonable. Any objections, not involving meta-commentary about the editing restriction itself? ~Swarm~ 01:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

With SPECIFICO's comment, we now see that your rush to remove the sanction, was not only arguably abusive as an INVOLVED admin, but it has backfired spectacularly, with SPECIFICO now hiding behind it as "deprecated as fundamentally flawed and unworkable", rather than acknowledging that they committed a straightforward violation of an editing restriction which had no consensus to be removed, and which you removed because you thought it was "stupid", and they are now misrepresenting the removal as evidence that they cannot be sanctioned. Your removal was apparently based on the fact that you don't like the restriction and simply removed it because you could. It's uncontentious that SPECIFICO committed a clear-cut violation here and was on the path to receiving a sanction unless they responded in good faith, and now we have them arrogantly responding in bad faith, and at this point it is actually, genuinely unclear, whether they can be technically sanctioned, when the sanctions have been lifted in the middle of the AE discussion, whether your removal itself can be overturned per WP:WHEEL, and whether there's any recourse for SPECIFICO's violation and your extremely dubious lifting of a sanction that you were biased against. This has already gone to the community and no one supported your approach of procedurally removing "consensus required" because you personally don't like it. Now you've done it again and it's apparently given a free pass to a user who committed a violation, and hamstrung the AE process, even though even here there's certainly no consensus for you to have lifted the editing restriction. You did it because you personally oppose that restriction in general. That is patently inappropriate. I'm not sure where we go from here, but next time you arbitrarily lift a "consensus required" editing restriction without a consensus because you have deemed it to be "stupid", and in doing so give a free pass to a user who has violated a clear-cut rule, I will be bringing it to Arbcom. As for SPECIFICO, I'm not sure where we go from here, they deserve to be sanctioned, they're not claiming we can't sanction them since someone has lifted the restriction, it's a proper mess. However I can certainly say that based on their arrogant comment here I will have no inclination to cut them a break if I see another violation from them. Shame on everyone involved here for botching this report so completely and utterly. I apologize to @Darouet:. ~Swarm~ 03:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• If Specifico's removal of this content was so disruptive as to warrant consideration of a sanction, why has it still not been restored to the page? – bradv🍁 02:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Levivich, the point of this wasn't to say it should be restored – it was to suggest that if an edit has consensus it can't be at the same time considered disruptive enough to warrant sanctions. "Consensus required" is a reasonably effective article restriction, but it doesn't work if we enforce it blindly. – bradv🍁 03:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Requesting page restrictions for Margot (activist)

Request concerning Margot (activist)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBGG

​Margot (activist) is the article for a Polish non-binary LGBTQIA activist and co-founder of the Stop Bzdurom collective. An RfC recently concluded on the article's talk page arrived at the consensus that, absent direct communication from Margot specifying her wishes, Misplaced Pages should refrain from deadnaming her in the article's lead and infobox.

The question of whether deadnaming should occur in the rest of the article was left unresolved at the closure of the recent RfC, but several editors expressed criticism of the article section Margot (activist)‎ § Naming controversies, with Gleeanon409 remarking, The naming controversy section should also be removed as it’s a magnet for misgendering trolling.

Today an editor has been repeatedly inserting Margot's deadname into the article, diffs: 1, 2, 3. It seems that MOS:DEADNAME has recently been updated to support complete exclusion of the deadname from the article as usual practice; but if I understand how everything works properly with Arbitration Enforcement, it seems like this combination of circumstances may still warrant placing page restrictions on the Margot (activist)‎ article under WP:ARBGG as a person related to any gender-related dispute or controversy. Cheers, ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 16:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Margot (activist)

Statement by complainer

As the infamous author of the three edits, I have now read MOS:DEADNAME five times without finding any "has recently been updated to support complete exclusion of the deadname from the article as usual practice". In fact, it says "In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name; it should then appear in the lead, and may be used elsewhere in the article where contextually appropriate." As the use of her deadname is the subject of a whole paragraph of the article, I would say it is contextually appropriate; the only argument that could be put forward from MOS:DEADNAME is one of privacy, which is preposterous here, as the information is present several times in the talk page as well as in multiple quoted sources. The RfC clearly concluded that the deadname should be removed from the lead and infobox (which is not in the article), with a single commenter asking for it to be removed from the "Naming controversy" section. I edited the first and second time without reading any of the material, as no man knows all wikipedia policies, including me. The third time, I had; while my edits are being used to ask for protection of the article, and I am being subtly threatened with disciplinary action, my understanding of the RfC and MOS:DEADNAME is that my second edit was correctly reverted, while the first and third were reverted without merit. I will furthermore add that I have no political agenda in the matter and that, if I had one, it would be to annoy Polish conservatives in general, and Catholics, in particular, as much as possible, and that I would wholeheartedly support a bill to only allow attendance to the Sejm in drags. complainer 16:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Gleeanon409

The article needs long-term semi protection, and likely ongoing vigilance for confirmed accounts misgendering Margot. The controversy section, the only place the deadnaming was still done, had the name removed by me. There was still a lot of questionable sources used there. Subsequently the entire section was removed and summarized in one sentence elsewhere in the article which I fully support.

The consensus on the page has been that her birth name, although prominent in right-wing sources, was a deadname to Margot, and never notable on its own. Glee 16:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Struthious Bandersnatch

@Complainer: I apologize if you feel threatened that I pinged you, but I don't think you should. I brought your edits up in this request because you essentially acted out the behavior described by Gleeanon409 in the RfC; then, since I was mentioning you in passing, I felt it appropriate that you at least be notified of this discussion by ping.

An operative part of MOS:DEADNAME which you quote is only if the person was notable under that name; the most salient part which was updated since the RfC began says, If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article, even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name.

1. ⅆ A "deadname" from a pre-notability period of the subject's life should not appear in that person's bio, in other articles (including lists and disambiguation pages), category names, templates, etc.

One of the conclusions arrived at by the RfC in the article's talk page was that Margot was not notable under her birth name. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 17:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Juliett Tango Papa

The deadnaming and misgendering by User:Niemajużnazwy, 5.184.34.193, 85.222.96.146, User:GizzyCatBella, and User:Complainer is awful. Deadnaming makes people die inside, please just make it stop. Juliett Tango Papa (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella

Please note - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning Margot (activist)

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

• Seems reasonable. I semied the page for a year and I am waiting for more comments about what we need to do --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Doggy54321