| Revision as of 00:24, 2 February 2008 editChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs)43,032 edits →User:Jaakobou: - reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:08, 11 January 2025 edit undoArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,326 edits fixing display error on parent page | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}} | |||
| <!--NOTE to Armenians and Azeris: you are banned from this page for 4 days for wasting so much of everyone's time by tendentious time-wasting and pointless argument. If something urgent comes up try User talk:Moreschi--> | |||
| __NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!-- | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Header}} | |||
| --><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly> | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| <noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!-- | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
| -->{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |counter = 13 | |||
| |archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
| |algo = old(3d) | |||
| |counter =347 | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive%(counter)d | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| }} | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| ] | |||
| |algo = old(14d) | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d | |||
| __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | |||
| }}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}} | |||
| ==PerspicazHistorian== | |||
| =Edit this section for new requests= | |||
| {{hat|{{u|PerspicazHistorian}} is blocked indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC) }} | |||
| <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
| ===Request concerning PerspicazHistorian=== | |||
| :''Add new requests to the top of the page. Old requests will be automatically archived off the bottom three days after the last time stamp''. | |||
| ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ; 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: ] | |||
| The ] case imposes stricter requirements regarding civility and behavior on Balkan related articles. | |||
| <!--- 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 : | |||
| User ] was recently blocked for "repeated incivility, disruption" on the ] page. Despite this recent block he is now becoming quite aggressive and rude again on the same talk page. Two examples within the last 24 hours: and . I would appreciate if you could apply whatever remedies you find appropriate. Regards] (]) 23:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- 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. | |||
| # - tag bombed the highly vetted ] article without any discussion or reason | |||
| # - attributing castes to people withhout any sources | |||
| # - edit warring to impose the above edits after getting | |||
| # - just like above, but this time he also added unreliable sources | |||
| # - still edit warring and using edit summaries instead of talk page for conversation | |||
| # - filed an outrageous report on WP:ANI without notifying any editors. This report was closed by Bbb23 as "{{tq|This is nothing but a malplaced, frivolous personal attack by the OP.}}" | |||
| ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
| == ] == | |||
| <!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
| *Already 2 blocks in last 4 months for edit warring. | |||
| ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
| ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
| <!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
| I do not see any positive signs that this editor will ever improve. So far he has only regressed. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I am filing this request as per the decisions made in the arbitration case ]. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ], who's editing behaviour was the initial cause for the RfArb, is back at his usual ], ], ] and ]. | |||
| *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) | |||
| I must admit, I am currently an involved party in two disputes with him, namely | |||
| *], where after two RfCs ( and ) it was agreed that we would use the term "occupied territories" when referring to the ] and ] in the context of them being occupied, ] ignored the consent and re-inserted the "disputed territories" . During the ensuing discussion he then unilaterally changed the text to use neither of the terms. This is a clear case of ] because he ] the term used. | |||
| *], which is still ongoing. | |||
| But this is just disclosure. | |||
| ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
| What this request is about are a series of edits to relatively quiet, low-traffic articles | |||
| <!-- 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. --> | |||
| *: removal of the word ], claiming that it was not the name used at that time, whereas the article on Palestine ] states otherwise. | |||
| *: removal of any mention of ], replaced with ] or ], which makes little sense since the context is pre-1948, thus pre-Israeli. | |||
| *: replaced ] with ] when the location, following the coordinates in the top-right corner of the page, is smack in the middle of the ]. | |||
| All three edits involve articles in which ] had not been involved in during the past 6 months or so and they all involve only the removal of the word ], even when ''clearly'' not warranted. | |||
| <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
| All three edits also represent a clear pattern of singling-out articles containing words or phrases that ] ]. This is ], ] and ] in their purest form. | |||
| ===Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian === | |||
| After the first two, I contacted ]'s mentor, ] () who discussed this with ], yet to no avail, since the third edit came shortly thereafter. | |||
| <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 PerspicazHistorian ==== | |||
| Despite previous bans, the whole ] and mentorship, ] has shown little or no insight and they have had no effect on his behaviour, I would suggest a long, healthy topic ban. | |||
| *By far I am also concerned how my edits were forcefully reverted without a proper reason despite providing enough references. Please check how I am getting attacked by them on ] Page. | |||
| I didn't know about the three-revert-rule before ] told me about this: ]. | |||
| Please grant me one more chance, I will make sure not to edit war.<br> | |||
| *In the below statement by LukeEmily, As a reply I just want to say that I was just making obvious edit on ] by adding a list of notable people with proper references. And according to ] it is clearly said: "Edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism." It was a good faith edit but others reverted it. I accept my mistake of not raising it on talk page as a part of ].<br> | |||
| *As a clarification to my edit on ], it can be clearly seen that I provided enough reference to prove its a terrorist organisation as seen in this . I don't know why is there a discussion to this obvious edit? Admins please correct me if I am wrong. | |||
| :@], Yes I read about 1RR and 0RR revert rules in ]. I now understand the importance of raising the topic on talk page whenever a consensus is needed. Thank You ! ] (]) 07:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I will commit to that. ] (]) 13:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) <small>Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC) </small> | |||
| :At that time I was new to how AFD discussions worked. Later on when ] was marked for deletion, I respected the consensus by not interfering in it. The article was later deleted. ] (]) 11:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Hi @] , I just checked your user page. You have 16 years (I am 19) of experience on wiki, you must be right about me. I agree that my start on Misplaced Pages has been horrible, but I am learning a lot from you all. I promise that I will do better, get more neutral here and contribute to the platform to my best. Please don't block me. | |||
| ::''<small>P.S.- I don't know If I will be blocked or what , according to this enforcement rules, I just want to personally wish good luck to you for your ongoing cancer treatments, You will surely win this battle of Life. Regards.</small>'' ] (]) 12:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)<small>Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section.] (]) 15:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *1) I just asked an user @] if the page move is possible. What's wrong with it? I still have not considered putting a move request on talk page of article. | |||
| Cheers and kind regards, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 01.02.2008 09:25</small> | |||
| :2) Many of other sources are not raj era. Moreover I myself have deleted the content way before you pointing this out. Thank You ! ] (]) 06:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::even @] is seen engaged in edit wars before on contentious Indian topics. ] (]) 06:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::as mentioned by @] before, <sub>Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here</sub>. You can discuss content related topics on talk pages of articles rather than personally targeting a user here in enforcement. ] (]) 06:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] I once filed a to find it @] is a sock (out of a misunderstanding, as all were teamed up similarly on various pages). I think he felt it as a personal attack by me and filed this request for enforcement. Please interfere. ] (]) 06:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC) <small>moving to correct section ] (]) 13:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *Hi @] @], In my defense I just want to say that | |||
| :Its a basic content misunderstanding. Pedro has not made discussion attempts to understand why I believe one thing and he believes another. ] family used a ] source using the word Gaza and not using the word Palestine (I verified this by contacting a Turkish speaking wiki editor). Palestine is a term not used to refer to Gaza by the Ottomans at the early 1800s - the used term was '] ]' and ''] ]'. | |||
| :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. | |||
| :I am more than puzzled at the (unreferenced) edit warring accusation since Pedro made an edit on Gilad shalit which was not agreed upon in the mediation but I have not reverted him and continued discussions. | |||
| :2) My main interest in editing is ] and ] topics. | |||
| :Also, me and Pedro are currently discussing issues on a , and Pedro's assertions have been less than accurate there and here also. He has a clear mis-perception of rules (Sample: asking a page be reverted to his version and protected ) and is attempting to silence others rather than discuss. | |||
| :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. | |||
| :If anything, Pedro has been in violation of the with some of his comments and actions. Most notably the "assumptions of bad faith" and "incivility". | |||
| :Please do not block me. ] (]) 14:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :p.s. Pedro, if you believe I've made an error, please explain your position on the article's talk page using relevant sources, not the AE noticeboard. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:59, 1 February 2008 (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==== | |||
| ::I've reviewed the three edits cited by Pedro and I don't believe this merits a topic ban. In response to this discussion, I've looked into the issue of the Ottoman terminology for Palestine and it isn't a simple matter to determine what territories were regarded as part of Palestine at that time (see my edit ). I think some confusion can be excused here. On the second issue, this edit is certainly sloppy work by Jaakobou - it's plainly anachronistic to refer to Napoleon trying to conquer "the land of Israel" - but by itself it doesn't merit a block or topic ban. On the third issue, is plainly wrong; as shows (see top right), the location is well outside even the territory that Israel claims. Assuming ], this error shows that Jaakobou needs to take more care with sourcing - if you're going to put something in an article, you need to be sure that it's right, so the lesson is always check your facts first. -- ] (]) 20:42, 1 February 2008 (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==== | |||
| :::I admit to my error on the Mar Saba article; Not knowing its accurate location, assuming that "Palestine" is not an actual recognized country and replacing it with Israel, who if I'm not mistaken is internationally responsible for the area. Considering the now known location, I think the edit made by ChrisO is well and neutral. Hoping this is a sign that we're leaving our old disputes in the past. | |||
| 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) | |||
| :::p.s. I've started discussions for the ] article, and you're invited to participate. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 23:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::p.p.s. we can all be wrong at times. Chris, I've added a reference and reinserted your removal of the Kidron Valley from the Mar Saba article. I promise that you won't see your error on the WP:AE noticeboard with any tendentious editing charges. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 23:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Glad to hear it. :-) I'm still confused though, could you address my query on ]? (And since further discussion on that topic isn't germane to this page, I'd suggest that this thread be closed.) -- ] (]) 00:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I won't be involved in the decision. No more treatments for me, just coast until... ] ] 12:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ====Statement by Toddy1==== | |||
| This article, subject of the ArbCom case ] has had to have been full protected due to edit wars three times in less then two weeks. | |||
| This is another editor who appears to have pro-] (RSS) and pro-] (BJP) views. I dislike those views, but find it rather alarming that Misplaced Pages should seek to censor those views, but not the views of the political opponents. Imagine the outrage if we sought to topic-ban anyone who expressed pro-] views, but allowed ] to say whatever they liked. | |||
| A lot of pro-RSS/BJP editors turn out to be sock-puppets, so please can we do a checkuser on this account. And to be even-handed, why not checkuser NXcrypto too. | |||
| # 10:38, 30 January 2008 SirFozzie (Talk | contribs | block) protected Free Republic (Another edit war between participants of the Waterboarding ArbCom case (expires 15:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC))) (Change) | |||
| # 16:39, 22 January 2008 Jj137 (Talk | contribs | block) protected Free Republic (Full protection: Dispute, Edit wars. using TW (expires 21:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC))) (Change) | |||
| # 11:48, 18 January 2008 Prodego (Talk | contribs | block) protected Free Republic (edit warring, short cool down period (expires 00:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC))) (Change) | |||
| 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 . | |||
| The parties involved in this edit war are familiar to those who remember the past ArbCom case. | |||
| 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. | |||
| ], an outspoken critic of Free Republic, who has had a real life COI with Free Republic due to legal issues initiated by Free Republic. | |||
| 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) | |||
| And a group of users widely believed to be reincarnations or meatpuppets of banned user ]. (there is evidence in the ongoing ] | |||
| ====Statement by Capitals00==== | |||
| ] | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| ] | |||
| ] (who emailed me to ask me to watch over/supervise the article despite never having edited in at least the last 500 edits to the page, going back to May, 2007). | |||
| 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) | |||
| I request the following enforcement following on to the Free Republic article: | |||
| ====Statement by Vanamonde93==== | |||
| A) That Eschoir be placed either on a strict, 1 Revert/Week probation with regards to Free Republic, or a full scale topic ban. It is very doubtful that having been such an outspoken critic of the site, he can edit with regards to WP's NPOV policy with this page. | |||
| {{U|Toddy1}}: I, too, am baffled by your comment. We don't ban editors based on their POV; but we do ban editors who fail to follow our PAGs, and we certainly don't make excuses for editors who fail to follow our guidelines based on their POV. You seem to be suggesting we cut PH some slack because of their political position, and I find that deeply inappropriate. Among other things, I don't believe they have publicly stated anywhere that they support the BJP or the RSS, and we cannot make assumptions about them. | |||
| That said, the fact that this was still open prompted me to spot-check PH's contributions, and I find a lot to be concerned about. is from 29 December, and appears to be entirely original research; I cannot access all of the sources, but snippet search does not bear out the content added, and the Raj era source for the first sentence certainly does not support the content it was used for. ], entirely authored by PH, is full of puffery ({{tq|"first to sacrifice his life for the cause of Swarajya"}}, and poor sources (like , and , whose blurb I leave you to judge), from which most of the article appears to be drawn. ], also entirely authored by PH, has original research in its very first sentence; the sources that I can access give passing mention to people whose names include the suffix "appa", and thus could perhaps be examples of usage, but the sources most certainly do not bear out the claim. | |||
| B) That the three users above, '''and any other account or IP reasonably believed to be related in any way to ]''' be topic-banned from the article until ArbCom decides if they are sock/meatpuppets of a banned user. I am willing to monitor the Free Republic article for a while if need be to enforce this. ] (]) 05:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::I point out that there has been no evidence taken about whether I can edit with an NPOV, and I sugggest that the record shows a long history of neutral edits of the article in question. From the time Dino was bannned (was that April?) to when Shibumi2 returned channelling Bryan reverts (in December?), the article was balanced, there were no edit wars. I personally cleared all the fact tags. I am the source of the O'reilley "planted" quote so relied upon by Bryanpuppets. I added the first Huckabee ball section. I removed the unsourced "messicans" section. I supplied the Appendix 4 Memogate quote. Are these facts less worthy of consideration than the insistant ululation of the puppet-mob? | |||
| ::With all due respect, would it be appropriate due process to take some evidence before rendering judgment? ] (]) 06:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| *The ] in the case of Free Republic is worded in such a way as to make it unenforceable except by Arbcom. BryanfromPalatine is a community-banned user and any admin may block any account he believes is a sockpuppet, subject to review by other admins, of course. If the situation at Free Republic is really obviously unacceptable, you could try asking at ] for community-imposed article probation, as was done today for ]. (If the case for probation is so obvious that no admin seriously disagrees, the community can impose it rather than Arbcom.) I'm not sure this board can play a role in this dispute at this time. ] 08:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by UtherSRG==== | |||
| ::There's a current arbitration case (]) where there are allegations that various accounts are sock/meatpuppets of BryanFromPalatine. If an admin blocks these accounts, would that be short-circuiting the arbitration case? (I'm involved, so I won't be blocking in any case.) ] (]) 17:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :::That is one of the reasons I brought this case to AE, instead of going ahead and placing the blocks myself already. With the words above from Thatcher, I am looking into which actions I may take myself, unilaterally, (posting those actions for review, of course) to resolve this. As reincarnations of banned users, they would not have the right to contribute to the ArbCom case (they can send info into the clerks or arbitrators via email), so that is an option, as well as keeping them unblocked only to contribute to the ArbCom case until their situation is resolved. ] (]) 19:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::They now indicate they believe the article they edited was copied from one of the websites they used as a reference, when in reality the website is a mirror/scrape of the Misplaced Pages article. I believe we are firmly in ] territory here. - ] ] 14:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: is a mirror of the Misplaced Pages article. - ] ] 16:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Result concerning PerspicazHistorian === | |||
| ::::I think the question is not one of blocks per se. Can we ask (or insist) that the accounts listed by SirFozzie above refrain from editing the page until ArbCom has reached a final decision on the case? That is, a topic ban? I would say yes for the 3 potential BryanFromPalatine socks. As to Eschoir, a 1RR probation would make more sense - he seems to have made some good edits to the article, overlapping with edit-warring. These sorts of restrictions could be appealed to ]; they wouldn't really be an issue until the protection expires anyway, but they seem very reasonable given the situation. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
| {{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) | |||
| * I blocked {{user5|Samurai Commuter}} as a disruptive single purpose account. No opinion on the others here. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:17, 1 February 2008 (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. --> | |||
| :@], that explanation of edit warring is a bit wanting. An edit war is when two or more editors revert content additions/removals repeatedly. Even a second reversion by the same editor can be considered edit warring. Best practice -- and what I highly recommend, especially for any inexperienced editor -- is ''the first time'' someone reverts an edit of yours, go to the talk page, open a section, ping the editor who reverted you, and discuss. Do you think you can commit to that? | |||
| :<small>Re: your question on why your "obvious edit" was reverted: we don't deal with content issues here, only with behavior issues, but from a very quick look, the source is 50 years old, and using a list headed "TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS LISTED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967" that includes a certain organization as a source that the organization should be described as a terrorist organization is ]; in their ] NXcrypto provided an edit summary of "Not a reliable source for such a contentious label. See WP:LABEL." Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here.</small> ] (]) 11:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm seeing this as a CIR issue. I'd like input from other admins, if possible. I'm a little concerned that setting a tban from IPA is just setting a trap. Maybe a p-block from article space would be a kinder way to allow them to gain some experience? ] (]) 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@], have you seen how many times I or others have had to move your comments to your own section? This is an example of not having enough experience to edit productively. Please do not post in anyone else's section again. ] (]) 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I do agree we're in CIR territory, and the concerns expressed are completely valid. I don't think this editor is ill-intentioned. They just don't seem very motivated to learn quickly. Well-intentioned-but-a-slow-learner is something that can only be fixed by actually practicing what you're bad at. I'd prefer an indef from article space which gives them one more chance to learn here before we send them off to mr.wiki or Simple English to try to learn. Not a hill I'm going to die on, though. ] (]) 11:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@], like Uther I have major concerns about the edit you made yesterday, which included replacing a citation needed tag with these sources.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Significance of Different Type of Prasad in Hinduism For God |url=https://www.ganeshaspeaks.com/predictions/astrology/prasad-food-for-god/ |access-date=2024-12-30 |website=GaneshaSpeaks |language=en-GB}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=What Is Prashad |url=https://www.swaminarayan.faith/articles/what-is-prashad |access-date=2024-12-30 |website=Shree Swaminarayan Mandir Bhuj |language=en}}</ref> The first is a company that markets astrology services. The second is the site for a religious sect. Neither is a reliable source for explaining the concept of prasada in Wikivoice. You made this edit ''yesterday'', after you'd confirmed here and on my talk that you understood sourcing policy. | |||
| :::::The reason for an indef from article space is to allow you to learn this policy: You would go into article talk and suggest sources to fix citation needed tags. Another editor would have to agree with you that the sources are reliable before they'd add them. ] (]) 12:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *A tban from IPA for PerspicazHistorian would be a relief to many editors trying to keep this difficult area in reasonable shape. However, Valereee makes a good point about 'setting a trap': it's doubtful that PH would be able to keep to a tban even if they tried in good faith. I would therefore support a p-block from article space. ] | ] 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. ] | ] 20:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC). | |||
| *Is there a length of time proposed for the p-ban or would it be indefinite? ] (]) 17:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I would say indefinite; not infinite, but I'd be wary about letting them back into articlespace without some kind of preclearance. ] (] • she/her) 18:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *It looks to me like there is a consensus for an indefinite partial block for PerspicazHistorian from article space. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within a day or so, I will close as such. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Given PH's recent slew of requests on multiple admin talk pages, yes, please do. - ] ] 12:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *<!-- | |||
| --> | |||
| {{reflist talk}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{ |
{{hab}} | ||
| '''Just do what Thatcher says. ] <sup> ]</sup> 15:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)''' | |||
| ==LaylaCares== | |||
| {{hat|There is consensus to remove LaylaCares's EC flag. ] (]) 17:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
| ===Request concerning LaylaCares=== | |||
| Meowy has been placed on revert parole and other restrictions in accordance with ] ruling: which limited him to 1 rv per week. Recently he violated his parole by reverting ] using both his username and IP, for which he was officially warned: Since that time he violated his parole at least 3 times on the same article. This edit removed the fact about Armenian revolt in the city, supported by 4 third party sources: Following ]’s advice with regard to my previous report, I duly warned Meowy about the consequences of his actions on talk of the article: But it had no effect, after that Meowy reverted the article twice more: | |||
| ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Vice regent}} 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Note that the last rv is accompanied by an incivil comment, claiming that the other editor is engaged in vandalism. It is also of interest that Meowy makes clear in his edit summary that he is aware of violation, but does not consider his action to be a revert. Even if we consider first removal of sourced info by Meowy to be just an edit, the last two diffs cited by me are clear self-admitted reverts in violation of his parole. ] (]) 16:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|LaylaCares}}<p>{{ds/log|LaylaCares}}</p> | |||
| :Both times Meowy just reverted what can be considered as a editwarring with the elements of obvious vandalism (according to ]: "Vandalism is any ''addition'', removal, or change of content made in a ''deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages''") by two users (] and ]) who never show any interest to the topic reseach or didnt any significant addings, just reverting to Grandmaster's POV version with only purpose to support dubious and propagandist view of porgoms' denial. They even didnt previewing what they're adding, so Meowy have no any other way to return the article to a correct form except to delete the elements of vandalism (the double-addings of the same propagandist text to the lead). Will Atabek and Parishan be warned for their behaviour? ] (]) 16:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Please mind ] and do not accuse other editors of vandalism. Content disputes are not vandalism, and there's no justification for repeated deletion of sources that Meowy happened to dislike and for which he was officially warned just recently. ] (]) 17:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Its not a content dispute, but a fact of technical (factual) ''bad'' edit repeating the same denialist text twice (and without any real discussion or consensus) and if Im calling these reverts "editwarrings with the elements of obvious vandalism" its because of my tolerance (Im discussing only edit's not users despite at least one of them, Atabek, didnt look what is he reverting: is it good?)! After this you're going to support these edits and oppose Meowy's corrections: what about the same ]? Let other users look on and and consider what are these? ] (]) 18:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I don't mind if someone looks at it. Meowy introduced a strong POV into the intro, and his edit was not acceptable. But more than that, he removed 4 third party sources, and Atabek was absolutely right by restoring them. But most importantly, Meowy made at least 2 clear reverts after being officially warned, and his comments leave no doubt that he was aware of consequences. Admin attention to this issue will be much appreciated. ] (]) 18:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: And here's another content deletion by this user without any discussion at talk: ] (]) 19:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
| I hope, and expect, any administrators will look carefully at the activities that have being going on both the article and talk page for ]. As I fully explained on the talk page, I removed Atabek's edit because I considered that it fell under the category of vandalism. That editor has simply copypasted in a previous edit, complete with its error (the error being that two thirds of it just repeated what was contained in the paragraph that followed on from it). Atabek's edit resulted in the article's introduction appearing amateurish and silly-looking (thus compromising Misplaced Pages’s integrity as a credible source of information) and that is why I removed it. <br /> | |||
| Grandmaster's complaint, as usual, contains more wind than truth. The time-period between my first revert and the second one is more than a week, so I have not broken any revert parole. I would also argue that the second edit is not a revert anyway because it was also done to remove vandalism (though I accept that Parishan's edit was probably not a deliberate attempt to vandalise the article, and the error just arose due to a mistake in his edit). Atabek does not have that "made a mistake" excuse because I had already pointed out the error in the talk page: Atabek appears to have ignored that, suggesting a disinterest in both accuracy and discussion by that editor. ] 22:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
| :Meowy, your calling of my edit a vandalism in this case is a violation of ] and ], especially given the fact that you, and not me, removed a large portion of material sourced with references in your edit. Thanks. ] (]) 23:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
| ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
| ::I consider the ''result'' of your edit to be vandalism. Whether the ''aim'' of your edit was vandalism will depend on how you answer this question. Can you explain why, when it was clearly pointed out by me in the Talk page, you reverted to an edit of which 2/3rds was simply duplicated material, duplicating almost word for the content of the paragraph that folowed on from it? I did not remove "a large portion of material": the text you removed contained 72 words, and links to other Misplaced Pages articles, the text you replaced it with contained only 46 words, and three less internal links, when the duplicated words are discounted. ] 23:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- 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 | |||
| Grandmaster has claimed in one of his above postings that I ''"introduced a strong POV into the intro".'' Admins can decide for themselves which version is more encyclopaedic and neutral, and more suitable for the introduction section of an article. Is it Grandmaster's the pogrom occurred ''"when Azerbaijani soldiers suppressed an Armenian revolt"'', or is it my ''"had as its background a conflict over competing claims of ownership of the region by Armenia and Azerbaijan"'' complete with links to Misplaced Pages articles on the wider conflict and the republics of Azerbaijan and Armenia. "Revolt" is clearly a POV word, used by Grandmaster because it implies rebellion against an established authority (i.e. Azerbaijan), However, Azerbaijan had no such authority over Shusha in 1920 - ownership of the territory had yet to be finalised. ] 00:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
| : "Revolt" is the word used even by Armenian sources with a strong bias, such as nkr.am. You had no problems using that source in the article, but did it very selectively. But I do not refer to any sources representing sides of the conflict, I used 4 perfectly neutral sources, which you deleted. However this is not about content dispute, which is not dealt with here, this is about the fact that you reverted the article at least twice within the last 3 days, and made personal attacks on other editors calling their actions "vandalism". This is a repeated violation of your parole, which occurred soon after you were officially warned for similar actions on the same article. ] (]) 05:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Grandmaster, this is not a good place for content dispute, and your misinterpretation of Armenian sources is already proved at article's talk page so pls stop represent your denialist view as something recognized by Armenian sources. That's not true and have no deal with ''bad'' editwarrings by Parishan and Atabek!] (]) 16:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
| ::Meowy, the vandalism has a specific definition, so your comments are not appropriate. I haven't removed any material but only added back large portion with references which you removed without agreement and in violation of parole! AE is not a place for content discussion but for specific reports of ArbCom violations. There is also a talk page of AE, where your points could be presented. I personally see no reason why contributors are given opportunity to open lengthy discussion threads on formal AE or RFCU reports to distract attention from the report of disruption but concentrate on time consuming content disputes, which obviously lead no where in terms of AE. It seems though as a result AE became dysfunctional enough to the point of not enforcing even the ArbCom paroles. ] (]) 05:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Pretty obvious case of EC gaming. Account created on Nov 17, 2024, then about 500 mostly minor edits followed by the first substantial edit ever was the creation of on Dec 17 (subsequently moved to draftspace).''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
| :::No, Atabek, adding of nonsence text (see the ]) is surely a violation of Wiki policies. So I see no any justification for your "addings", and as you even dont want to recognize it was a mistake by you and Parishan, an admin opinion on your "edit's" welcomed!] (]) 16:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Meowy blocked for 31 hours for violation of revert parole. ] <sup> ]</sup> 17:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
| ::Moreschi, User Meowy asked the same question, which I already posted here: "I would be grateful if you would pose the following questions to Moreschi. Has he looked at the edit which I removed, and if so does he think that the removed edit was an acceptable edit given that most of it repeated verbatim the content of the following-on paragraph? Also, does removing vandalism, even if it is inadvertant vandalism, count as a revert? My understanding was that it did not." My understanding is the same. So Ill be glad if you represent your opinion on Parishan's and Atabek's reverts. ] (]) 20:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, I have looked at this. No, he was not reverting vandalism. Vandalism is stuff like "WE ALL HATE KURDS" or "LOL PENIS", or adding gratuitous links to hawtlesbiansex.com in the middle of ]. This is quite a strict definition: it is one you would be best off sticking to. ] <sup> ]</sup> 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Emphatically endorsed. Disputes over content are not vandalism no matter how much you disagree with it. ] 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::?? Im asking about repeated part in the lead, not content disputed! If I readd the lead of ] once again to have 2 leads at same time (a double lead), will you call it a content dispute, not an obvious idiotism? According to you if anyone copies "NKR is a de-facto independent republic" from the lead of NKR and readdes to the same lead once again, its nothing but... disputes over content. ] (]) 22:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion concerning LaylaCares=== | |||
| '''History review''' | |||
| <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> | |||
| # The background is that there is a long-running dispute over sources, particularly a source by Waal. The worst offenders seem to be Andranikpasha, Atabek and Grandmaster. | |||
| # Meowy made several edits including rewriting the intro. | |||
| # Parishan added back part of the old introduction . By adding back text copied from a prior version, Parishan actually duplicated the content of Meowy's rewrite. The text is almost identical, and every reference and footnote is identical: | |||
| #:''500 to 30,000 Armenian and 15,000 Azerbaijani deaths, and destruction of many buildings in Shusha. The Parliament in Baku refused even condemn the accomplishers of the massacres in Shusha and the war was started in Karabakh. Historian Giovanni Guaita wrote, the Azerbaijani and Soviet authorities "during the decades will deny and try to hush up the mass killings of about 30,000 Armenians"'' | |||
| # Meowy reverted, | |||
| # Atabek readded the extra paragraph | |||
| # Meowy reverted, . | |||
| # On the talk page, Atabek and Grandmaster criticize Meowy for removing a source by Waal and for removing "the mention of the fact that the events started with the Armenian revolt in the city along with 4 third party sources supporting the fact." This is true but the edits in which Meowy did that were #1 in this series on 25 Jan and the addition by Parishan and the revert by Atabek did not fix it because they were adding back '''the wrong section'''. | |||
| ====Statement by LaylaCares==== | |||
| '''Analysis''' | |||
| # This is not vandalism. It is incredibly sloppy, and bad editing, but it is not vandalism. Meowy's edit summary referencing vandalism was misleading and needlessly provocative. A neutral edit summary about removing a duplicated section would have been better. | |||
| # Parishan's first addition of the duplicate paragraph is an excusable mistake. | |||
| # Atabek's second addition of the paragraph and Grandmaster's comment on the talk page shows that they ''were not actually reading what they were editing.'' | |||
| ====Statement by Aquillion==== | |||
| '''Results''' | |||
| 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) | |||
| # Meowy is unblocked but warned not to characterize content disputes as vandalism. Even sloppy edits can be well-intended. | |||
| # For persistent edit-warring over the Waal source, Andranikpasha is banned from editing ] for two weeks. He may make suggestions on the talk page. | |||
| # For persistent edit-warring over the Waal source and for failing to actually read either their own edits or Meowy's talk page comments about the duplicated paragraphs, Atabek and Grandmaster are banned from editing ] for 3 weeks and banned from commenting on the talk page for one week. (Since they won't actually take the time to read and comprehend others' comments, their own privilege to comment is temporarily suspended.) | |||
| # Andranikpasha, Grandmaster and Atabek are reminded that during their bans they are not to instruct other editors to edit on their behalf, called proxy editing. Evidence of proxy editing will result in blocking for both the editor directing the edits and the proxy making them. ] 02:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Dan Murphy=== | |||
| : Hi Thatcher. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. The entire point of Meowy's rewrite was to remove any mention of the fact that there was a revolt of Armenian militants in the city, which led to the clashes. This is supported by all sources, including the Armenian ones. In particular, I added 4 third party sources that supported that fact. Meowy in his rewrite removed all of them and any mention of the revolt. I don't understand why I was edit warring and Meowy was not? Last week he was deleting Hutchinson encyclopedia, violated his parole and got warned, this time he was deleting references supporting the fact of the Armenian revolt, any mention of which he removed. How this is not edit warring and why do you think his rewrite of intro without any consensus on talk was acceptable? I do not agree that I did not read the other party's comments, I read them, but I was making a different point. I told him to not to remove sourced info and discuss his changes with other involved contributors first. Now Meowy achieved his goal, he got to remove the info that he did not like and escaped any punishment for violating his parole (twice already). I think what is actually needed is some sort of mediation. Would you like to help us out to resolve the problems with the sources and content disputes on that article? You've done that before, and I would appreciate if you would help us again. ] (]) 05:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Please look at ], written by the account under discussion. It's a hit job, originally placed in mainspace by this account. Anyone who wrote that shouldn't be allowed with 1 million miles of the topic.] (]) 23:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Despite Im banned too, I think this decision is justified and we all need to calm down a little:) And Grandmaster, Meowy is known as a neutral user at ] and what he done is rather a NPOVing than a radical POV pushing (you know the Armenians supported the first version with only 20,000 and anti-Armenianism at the lead, and Azeris support "revolt, +500 of Armenians, and 15,000 for Azeris" so what he done is NPOVing. Mind that another Azeri user who actively reverts is Parishan, a person who's edits Im sure need admin attention. And I'll also be glad if Thatcher help us resolve the problems at ], so he is always welcomed! ] (]) 06:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Grandmaster, I have commented on the Hutchinson Encyclopedia. This '''whole''' answer was on the entry from that encyclopedia about Karabakh from where the quote came from. Neither you nor Atabek replied to that. As long as I do not edit the namespace or revert you, everything is OK. Because when I actually comment in the talkpage, I am totally ignored until I go on and do as I said, remove it. Did you actually read my comment? If yes, don't you see that this entry from the Hutchinson has made obvious mistakes which you also know they're mistakes? As far as inverting the figures of casualties for the NK war(recognized figures). Should I go on and use its mistakes in the NK war article and others? Meowy's edits were accurate, what you are doing there amounts to revisionism. Shushi pogrom is part of the Ottoman backed policy of destruction of the Armenians in Transcaucasia, recognized as majority position. De Waal is not a credible source there, his work compares the Armenian Genocide (which he considers as ''claims'') to a claim of 2.5 million Azeri having allegedly being killed by Armenians. It is a matter of fact that De Waal has used the lowest ever estimates he could find for Shushi. We've been telling you all this time that De Waal is a political source NOT a historical, his Institute for war and peace reporting receives financial supports from such pleces as the US Department of States. De Waal has been used as a sole source for claims on several articles and several users have already told you that you need a better source then a modern journalist writing about history. ] (]) 07:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Meowy introduced strong POV into the intro, at the same time removing 4 neutral sources about the Armenian revolt in the city, which started the events. He did that 3 times within the last 4 days, despite his parole. I don't see how this is acceptable and why he is allowed to edit the article, while others are accused of edit warring. I never violated my parole, and Meowy violated it twice within the last 2 weeks on that article. Still somehow he is not edit warring? I think the admins need to check thoroughly what was going on there. And whether you like ] or not, it is a neutral and critically acclaimed source on the history of Karabakh conflict, which cannot be removed. Same with other sources. I explained that countless times on talk, and I cannot repeat the same thing over and over again. And de Waal is not the only source providing that figure, Armenian scholar ] provides the same number. The article can be edited by anyone, but removal of sourced info is not acceptable. Whether you like a particular source or not, it is there to stay as long as it fits the criteria of ]. My sources are a lot better than Cox, Zubov, nkr.am (?) etc, used by Andranikpasha and Meowy as references. ] (]) 08:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by starship.paint==== | |||
| :No any Wiki rules support that a "view" what happened before a topic needs to be included to the article's lead. You can have that dubious "supressed revolt" at the article's text, but not directly in the lead! All this time you want only 100% Azerbaijani denialist view to be represented, despite this tragic event is rather related to Armenians (it was an anti-Armenian pogrom, its a tragic calendar date for Armenia and Karabakh, not Azerbaijan, the only Stone of Memory is made by Armenians) but after this all you're the only side who protests all the NPOVings happened untill now and support unconsensused lead as a reliable one. You're calling Meowy's corrections "removal of sourced info which is not acceptable" then how you accept undiscussed removal of sourced info by you? why did you delete this source (Samuel Lussac, Le Haut-Karabakh, un «processus de paix gelé»? // Regard sur l'Est, 01/01/2008(in French)) without any explanations? ] (]) 08:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I've edited Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations, so Dan Murphy's link is inaccurate for the purposes of this discussion. For the version of Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations with content only written by LaylaCares, . '''] (] / ])''' 10:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by (username)==== | |||
| Thatchers analysis covers the recent events fairly well, but doesnt address the diff that Grandmaster pointed out. The way I see it, this diff is Meowy's second revert on this article within a week (the first being on the Jan 22 - see ] - a stern warning by ]) | |||
| <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
| To help see the revert, I have recreated (Meowy "I've rewritten the top half of the introduction...") in my userspace as revision 188329706. Note that there are no differences between revs . I then remove the additional blank line that Meowy added, and then if we diff between the revision (which preceeds the Meowy "rewrite") and my revised edition of his "rewrite", we end up with ''''''''''. In essense, Meowy removes "when Azerbaijani soldiers suppressed an Armenian revolt", with the references "Tim Potier", "Benjamin Lieberman"(ISBN 1566636469), "Croissant" (ISBN 0275962415), and . This phrase has recently been by Andranikpasha, by Grandmaster, and now removed by Meowy. Meowy's removal of this phrase, and the sources, is what sparked this recent edit war. Note that while the Tim Potier source does appear further down in Meowy's edition, the phrase and the other three sources do not appear anywhere. When others tried to restore this phrase and sources, Meowy removes them again twice(&) which makes it four reverts within 8 days. ] (]) 09:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :John, common rewriting is not a revert, and we have no rules... for 8 days. The editwarrings during the mounts are took part there particularly by your obvious and open support to Azerbiajani side, when you made some dubious edits and an unconsensused moving you done just ''as an user'' (that are your words), supported Grandmaster to keep the "POV-title" tag there, and after that all you collected an irrelevant "evidence" on me for being used by Azeri users against me . So if you're asking for an attention to Meowy's activities at ], your too much biased edits (a reliable source deletion), etc. need an attention (temporary banning?) too, as you was the person who started the real editwarrings. ] (]) 10:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree that one effect of was to remove the claim that the pogrom started as a revolt along with its 4 sources. As far as I could tell this was the first time Meowy had done this (although several other editors had done so before, as you note). Has Meowy previously removed this part of the intro? ] 12:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Meowy hasnt removed it, but it has been removed once by Andranikpasha since Meowy joined the fray on January 17. Meowy's efforts on this article have caused editing to heat up quite a bit, but the resulting progress has been reasonable; it is the display of disregard for the parole restrictions that is causing the unnecessary angst. ] (]) 12:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Result concerning LaylaCares=== | |||
| I even dont sure if Meowy knows that I previously removed that sources as he removed (rather rewrote the whole lead while I simply deleted them as a denialist misinterpretation for the lead) them with a different purpose to have less disputted, more neutral (for the both sides, as Im not a supporter of de Waal and Hunchington to be keeped) lead. but will the users who call these events ''clashes'' be satisfied? ] (]) 12:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
| <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
| *I agree that this looks like EC-gaming. Absent evidence that the edits themselves were problematic, I would either TBAN from ARBPIA or pull the EC flag until the user has made 500 edits that aren't rapidfire possibly LLM-assisted gnomish edits. ] (]) 17:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree on the gaming piece and would suggest mainspace edits+time for restoration of EC. I will throw out 3 months + 500 (substantive) main space edits. ] (]) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree with Barkeep but I'd up it to 4 months. I don't believe that a TBAN is necessary at this point. ] (]/]) 04:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *@]: I agree that the draft should be G5'd, but will wait for consensus to develop here. ] (]/]) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *: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">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 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. ] <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) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ==AstroGuy0== | |||
| :I'm inclined to leave things as they stand, then, at least for now. I would point make some additional comments, for the benefit of the parties. First, an article intro that says "either 500 Armenians and 15,000 Azeris '''or''' 20,000 Armenians were killed" is bad writing, and a sign that the editorial process has broken down. If the only sources are partisan you state, "partisan Armenian sources claim A while partisan Azeri sources claim B" and then analyze it in the main body. Preferably you discard partisan sources and report whatever neutral historians agree, and if you can't agree on who the neutral sources are, you file an RFC. (Constant bickering that A or B are not ''really'' neutral sources leads nowhere except to more bans at this point, frankly.) Finally, if the editorial process is broken down and can't be reconstituted by the current editors, we can ban them all and start fresh. Let's avoid that. ] 13:07, 1 February 2008 (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> | |||
| ===Request concerning AstroGuy0=== | |||
| :: One question. Me and Atabek are banned from the article for 3 weeks for restoring the quote from Thomas de Waal to the article, right? I checked the history of the article. Both me and Atabek restored it twice each over the period of 2 months, last time over 2 weeks ago. At the same time, Andranikpasha deleted that source from the article about a dozen times (!). However for the same action done almost 5 fold Andranikpasha is banned from the article for 2 weeks, i.e. 1 week less than me and Atabek. Why is such different treatment for different users, and why the user who did more reverts than the other two combined gets shorter ban? I would appreciate a clarification on that. Also note that I never reverted Meowy, while Meowy reverted the article 3 times in violation of his parole. ] (]) 13:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}} 03:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: As for the sources, is it OK that Meowy deleted the fact that there was a revolt in the city along with all the sources and does he get to keep the article the way he likes? The way I see it, nothing stops him from deleting any other info that he does not like now. ] (]) 13:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's a ''content'' dispute. Content disputes are meant to be addressed by discussion, not reversion. Based on the fact that Meowy has not previously removed the revolt information, I am holding him to a lesser standard than editors who have removed it several times. Obviously he will not be held to the same lesser standard next time. ] 13:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Dear Thatcher, previous report on Meowy was closed with "stern warning" to Meowy. This violation also results in a warning. How many warnings does one person get and why no one else gets away with a warning? ] (]) 14:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Indeed, Thatcher, may I know why myself and Grandmaster are being banned from article for 3 weeks, while Andranikpasha reverted the article multitude more times than myself and Grandmaster combined, Meowy removes the reference that does not fit his POV many times. And what justifies Meowy is claiming my edit as vandalism, when I did NOT remove any material but added sourced material removed by him? Given that you claimed above that it's not appropriate to call my edit vandalism and then blocking me and unblocking Meowy, you simply contradict yourself. And with imposition of ban to even comment on talk page while leaving Andranik with permission to do so, it seems to me that your action is essentially taking a stance to simply have one-sided POV to be reflected at ]. I have known and appreciated you as neutral admin on these and other topics in general, but this action is far from being NPOV. Thanks. ] (]) 13:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|AstroGuy0}}<p>{{ds/log|AstroGuy0}}</p> | |||
| :See result #3 above. Not only were you edit warring over Waal, it is obvious that when trying to revert Meowy, you did not actually read the edit you were reverting, or the comments on the talk page. You simply reverted to Parishan's version without realizing that Parishan had mistakenly added back the wrong text. In fact, it looks like a coordinated effort, which would be bad. If you aren't reading your own edits, why should you be privileged to edit at all? Meowy's 3RR last week has been dealt with. He has been warned about characterizing content disputes as "vandalism" and blocked for half a day, but, given the sloppy duplication of text, I would probably have given him a pass on that second revert anyway. ] 13:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
| Thatcher, what do you mean by "wrong text" in Parishan's edit ? Is that wrong text per Meowy's POV on talk page? I believe I have a right to revert to any text within my 1RR parole as long as I do provide a justification for the edit. It's impossible to revert war with 2 edits in 2 MONTHS! on a page. And what do you mean by coordinated effort? How would I be tag team editing if I only edited the page on January 8th and January 30th. But even ignoring all these facts, check the history of ] - and who has most reverts per this page. Yet the top reverter is getting 2 weeks ban with permission to edit talk page, while I get ban for 3 weeks without permission even to express my view. Plus you have already given Meowy a pass on prior instance of parole violation, this is a second time. Any reason for dichotomy? ] (]) 14:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
| <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
| (Even though this isn't the usual R&I fare, I consider the intersection of "Race/ethnicity and sex offending", to come under "the intersection of '''race/ethnicity''' and human abilities '''and behaviour'''") | |||
| ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
| :: How about Andranikpasha and why does he get better treatment despite reverting the article more than anyone else? ] (]) 13:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- 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.--> | |||
| :::Because I'm not counting reversions. The editors most involved in the edit war over Waal get two weeks. You and Atabek get an extra week for your absurd failure to actually read what Meowy had written and what Parishan's edit had actually done. ] 14:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| # 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. | |||
| :::: But I did not even revert Meowy. ] (]) 14:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| # 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 : | |||
| === The "wrong" version === | |||
| It is apparent that Atabek and Grandmaster still have not read the edit that Atabek reverted and Grandmaster criticized on the talk page and reported here. I will quote the entire opening paragraph from Parishan's edit . | |||
| ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
| ::The Shusha pogrom of 1920 were pogroms during the Armenian-Azerbaijani War in 1920, when Azerbaijani soldiers suppressed an Armenian revolt in the town of Shusha (named Shushi by Armenians) in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. These events took place from March 22, 1920 to March 26, 1920, and resulted according to various estimates in <font color=green>500 to 30,000 Armenian and 15,000 Azerbaijani deaths, and destruction of many buildings in Shusha. The Parliament in Baku refused even condemn the accomplishers of the massacres in Shusha and the war was started in Karabakh. Historian Giovanni Guaita wrote, the Azerbaijani and Soviet authorities "during the decades will deny and try to hush up the mass killings of about 30,000 Armenians"</font color><br> | |||
| ::Estimates of casualty figures are uncertain and varied: <font color=red>500 to 30,000 Armenian and 15,000 Azerbaijani deaths, and destruction of many buildings in Shusha. The Parliament in Baku refused even condemn the accomplishers of the massacres in Shusha and the war was started in Karabakh. Historian Giovanni Guaita wrote, the Azerbaijani and Soviet authorities "during the decades will deny and try to hush up the mass killings of about 30,000 Armenians"</font color> | |||
| : Made aware of contentious topics criterion: | |||
| The duplicated text is green in the first appearance and red in the duplication. Do you still fail to comprehend? You may have disputed the removal of Waal and the reference to revolt, '''but that is not what you added back.''' Parishan '''made a mistake''' and added '''duplicate text''' instead of restoring the disputed text. Atabek reverted to Parishan's mistake. Grandmaster criticized Meowy and reported a 1RR violation here. Neither of you seems to have actually '''read''' what you were fighting about. '''Article ban extended to 4 weeks.''' ] 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
| ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
| :Thatcher, I am not disputing the erroneous duplication in my edit reverting to Parishan's version, however, , '''where is Benjamin Lieberman reference removed in Meowy's edit? Where is Conciliation Resources reference?''' What was Meowy fixing in his edit?? I read exactly removal of these references while reverting. So instead of reverting me calling my edit vandalism, Meowy could have just removed duplication and restored references! | |||
| :Also I asked you to answer as to why Andranikpasha edit warring on the page is restricted for 2 weeks, while I am restricted for 3 and now 4 without permission to post on talk page, and being called "persistent" edit warrior with only 2 edits on January 8th and January 30th. Extension of uneven handed article bans is not a constructive and neutral way of dealing with this conflict. ] (]) 15:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
| ::So you disputed the removal of 4 references by Meowy, reverted to a version ''that did not contain'' the references you wanted, and then expected Meowy to fix your mistake? Amazing. ] 16:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{discussion bottom}} | |||
| <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Additional comments by editor filing complaint: | |||
| There seems to be an edit war going on here, in violation of ], where it seems users are edit warring. It seems tag-team reverting may be being used in this case. '''] ]''' 05:41, 29 January 2008 (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) | |||
| :Some diffs please? ] 13:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::my bad. The following users are tag team- edit warring largly seems to be against ]. | |||
| :::]: | |||
| :::]: | |||
| :::]: | |||
| :::]: '''] ]''' 01:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *With the exception of a logged out editor using a public terminal to avoid scrutiny (possibly), the article seems to have calmed down for now. Please report if it flares up again. ] 12:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion concerning AstroGuy0=== | |||
| :::Could someone explain how this could be construed as tag-team edit warring? I made exactly one revert, which I discussed extensively before making and afterward. Additionally, Michael Safyan, Bless Sins and Al Ameer Son were all engaged in discussion over the issues as well. How is this tag-team edit-warring rather than colloborative editing exactly? I need to understand what it is that is wrong about the behaviour of editors here (specifically) so as to avoid repeating similar mistakes (if any) in the future. Thanks. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
| ====Statement by AstroGuy0==== | |||
| == Space Cadet == | |||
| ====Statement by Iskandar323==== | |||
| See all under . The answer of the user for the notice was a accusation of racism or nazism against the admin. .--] (]) 18:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| This rather dated "Asian/Muslim grooming gangs" malarkey from the UK has recently been pushed on social media by a certain US tech billionaire and is now recirculating in right-wing social media and the blogosphere, partly in connection with UK politics, so this trend could flare before it dims. ] (]) 03:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :people often lash out when informed of blocks or other restrictions, and admins are expected to have thicker skins. I would be much more concerned about his behavior on articles and talk pages. ] 04:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by (username)==== | |||
| == Another Eastern European flamer == | |||
| <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
| ===Result concerning AstroGuy0=== | |||
| {{report top}} | |||
| :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
| Copied what too here is appropriate of . | |||
| <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
| *<!-- | |||
| --> | |||
| :The second diff was before AG0 received a CTOP alert. I've alerted AG0 to other CTOPs that they've edited in, and I am going to warn them for their conduct in diff #1 without prejudice to other admins determining that further action is warranted. ] (]/]) 04:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I also looked at the source, and it indeed does not in any way support the claim made; it does not mention "Pakistani" even once. This is a fairly new editor, but I think we need to make it very clear to them that misrepresentation of sources is not something we will tolerate. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Given that AstroGuy0 has already been issued a warning, I don't think anything further is necessary, and will close as such unless any uninvolved admin shortly objects. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ==Lemabeta== | |||
| {{Vandal|Space Cadet}} he is a highly ucivil editor active in discussions related to various Eastern European topics, an area which has been subject to a series of recent ArbCom rulings noting the tendency for discussions and articles involving those subjects to deteriorate into wiki-battles, and the resulting need for civility enforcement. To be more specific: in the Piotrus case (closed on 19 August 2007), editors were ]. In Digwuren's case (closed on 21 October 2007), several editors were banned, and the rest were ] and ] ("'''<u>should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below</u>'''"). | |||
| <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=== | |||
| I believe that Space Cadet has constantly - for well over a year - crossed boundaries we expect our editors to keep. Below I will present a sample of his uncivil and disruptive edits that occurred since 17 November. I would argue that he need to be placed under the same restrictions specified at] ]" (technical note: there is even a dedicated template for this, see {{tl|Digwuren enforcement}}). | |||
| ; 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> | |||
| *November 17: | |||
| *November 18: | |||
| <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
| *November 18: / "Because it is only your truth, fanatic vandal!" | |||
| *November 19: | |||
| ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
| *November 25: | |||
| <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
| *November 25: | |||
| *November 25: | |||
| ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
| *November 30: | |||
| <!-- 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.--> | |||
| *December 11: | |||
| # - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing. | |||
| # - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist. | |||
| *January 13: | |||
| *January 17: | |||
| ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
| *January 18: | |||
| <!-- 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. --> | |||
| *January 18: | |||
| *Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. | |||
| *January 18: | |||
| ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
| *January 19: | |||
| 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) | |||
| *January 27: | |||
| :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) | |||
| *January 27: | |||
| :(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) | |||
| *January 27: | |||
| :: <small>Response to Bishonen. Moved from results section. ] (]/]) 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *January 27: | |||
| ::(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) | |||
| --] (]) 09:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
| : Given that evidence, I don't think there can be any argument. The restriction has been duly applied. ] (]) 10:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{report bottom}} | |||
| <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
| ===Discussion concerning Lemabeta=== | |||
| <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
| ====Statement by Lemabeta==== | |||
| Yeah, my bad. Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed" I recognize my mistake. --] (]) 20:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Ethnographic groups and cultural heritage are '''related but distinct concepts'''. An ''ethnographic group'' refers to a '''community of people''' defined by shared ancestry, language, traditions, and cultural identity. In contrast, ''cultural heritage'' refers to the *''practices, artifacts, knowledge, and traditions preserved or inherited from the past''. But cultural heritage is indeed a component of ethnographic groups. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::In my opinion, cultural heritage (both tangible and intangible) '''emerges from''' ethnographic groups but '''does not define the group itself'''. ] (]) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think ethnographic groups fall under the category of Ethnography, or even socio-cultural antropology but for sure not cultural heritage. ] (]) 21:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I understand, i already apologized on my talk page for this accident. I will not repeat this mistake again. ] (]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by (username)==== | |||
| <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
| ===Result concerning Lemabeta=== | |||
| :''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 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 ... 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". ] (]/]) 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 ... 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">[]]</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? ] | ] 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| ::{{u|EF5}}, OK, I see. Blocks and bans are ], and the block log only logs blocks. ] | ] 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}} | |||
| ==Boy shekhar== | |||
| <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 Boy shekhar=== | |||
| ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Daniel Quinlan}} 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Boy shekhar}}<p>{{ds/log|Boy shekhar}}</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: ] | |||
| <!--- 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.--> | |||
| *{{diff2|1268704307|This edit}} violates the topic ban because it is in the topic area. It's also based on an unreliable source and the section header includes a derogatory term. | |||
| ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
| <!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
| *{{diff2|972891251|Here}} is the topic ban for {{tpq|persistent insertion of ], use of unreliable sources or no sources at all, and ]}}. | |||
| ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
| <!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | |||
| *Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|Doug Weller}}. | |||
| *Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above). | |||
| ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
| <!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
| *I've edited the article so I am involved. ] (]) 06:34, 11 January 2025 (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 Boy shekhar=== | |||
| <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 Boy shekhar==== | |||
| ====Statement by (username)==== | |||
| <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
| ===Result concerning Boy shekhar=== | |||
| :''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. --> | |||
| *<!-- | |||
| --> | |||
| ==שלומית ליר== | |||
| <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
| ===Request concerning שלומית ליר=== | |||
| ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Smallangryplanet}} 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|שלומית ליר}}<p>{{ds/log|שלומית ליר}}</p> | |||
| <!--- 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 of ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
| ShlomitLir (שלומית ליר) created their account back in 2014. The breakdown of their edits is as follows: | |||
| *2014 to 2016: no edits. | |||
| *2017 to 2019: 1 edit per year. None related to PIA. | |||
| *2022: 7 edits. Mostly in their userspace. | |||
| *2023: 21 edits. Again, mostly in their userspace. Made two edits in the talk page of ] complaining about its content and calling it . | |||
| * 2024: Started editing after a 10 month break at the end of October. | |||
| **Made 51 edits in October and 81 edits in November (copyedits, adding links, minor edits). | |||
| **In December, that number rose up to almost 400, including 116 in December 6 alone and 98 in December 7. Became ECR that day. | |||
| **Immediately switched to editing in PIA, namely in the ] article where they with an unclear image with a dubious caption, and without providing a reason why. | |||
| **They also edited the ] article, with a caption not supported by the source (replaced by yet with a contextless caption when the previous image was removed) and WP:UNDUE content . | |||
| **they also in the second AfD for ] despite never having interacted with that article or its previous AfD. They have barely surpassed 500 edits, but the gaming is obvious, highlighted by the sudden switch to editing in PIA. | |||
| More importantly, there's the issue of POV pushing. I came across authored by them on Ynet, once again complaining about what they perceive as an anti Israeli bias on Misplaced Pages. They have also authored a report for the World Jewish Congress covering the same topic. The report can be seen in full . I think that someone with this clear POV agenda shouldn't be near the topic. | |||
| ;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 or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on and re-iterated on (see the system log linked to above). | |||
| *Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|Femke}}. | |||
| ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
| <!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
| ; 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 שלומית ליר=== | |||
| <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
| ====Statement by שלומית ליר==== | |||
| ====Statement by (username)==== | |||
| <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
| ===Result concerning שלומית ליר=== | |||
| :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
| <!-- 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. --> | |||
| *<!-- | |||
| --> | |||
Latest revision as of 19:08, 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:
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}}.
|
wikimedia.org).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. Request concerning PerspicazHistorian
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)
Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorianStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by PerspicazHistorian
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.
Statement by LukeEmilyPerspicazHistorian 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 WellerI'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)
Statement by Toddy1This 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 Capitals00I find the comment from Toddy1 to be entirely outrageous. What are you trying to tell by saying " 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 " Statement by Vanamonde93Toddy1: 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 ( 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)
Statement by UtherSRGI'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)
Result concerning PerspicazHistorian
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)
References
|
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. Request concerning LaylaCares
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)
Discussion concerning LaylaCaresStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by LaylaCaresStatement by AquillionQuestion: 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 MurphyPlease 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.paintI'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
|
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. Request concerning AstroGuy0
(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")
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 AstroGuy0Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AstroGuy0Statement by Iskandar323This 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
|
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
- 5 Jan 2025 - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing.
- 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
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- To be fair, when you click above to add a new enforcement request, the template states:
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)
|
Boy shekhar
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 Boy shekhar
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Daniel Quinlan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Boy shekhar (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/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- This edit violates the topic ban because it is in the topic area. It's also based on an unreliable source and the section header includes a derogatory term.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- Here is the topic ban for
persistent insertion of original research, use of unreliable sources or no sources at all, and tendentious editing
.
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 14 August 2020 by Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 15 March 2020 (see the system log linked to above).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- I've edited the article so I am involved. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Boy shekhar
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 Boy shekhar
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Boy shekhar
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
שלומית ליר
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning שלומית ליר
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- שלומית ליר (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBPIA
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation of how these edits violate it
ShlomitLir (שלומית ליר) created their account back in 2014. The breakdown of their edits is as follows:
- 2014 to 2016: no edits.
- 2017 to 2019: 1 edit per year. None related to PIA.
- 2022: 7 edits. Mostly in their userspace.
- 2023: 21 edits. Again, mostly in their userspace. Made two edits in the talk page of Palestinian genocide accusation complaining about its content and calling it “blatant pro-Hamas propaganda”.
- 2024: Started editing after a 10 month break at the end of October.
- Made 51 edits in October and 81 edits in November (copyedits, adding links, minor edits).
- In December, that number rose up to almost 400, including 116 in December 6 alone and 98 in December 7. Became ECR that day.
- Immediately switched to editing in PIA, namely in the Battle of Sderot article where they changed the infobox picture with an unclear image with a dubious caption, and removed a template without providing a reason why.
- They also edited the Use of human shields by Hamas article, adding another image with a caption not supported by the source (replaced by yet another image with a contextless caption when the previous image was removed) and WP:UNDUE content in the lead.
- they also voted in the second AfD for Calls for the destruction of Israel despite never having interacted with that article or its previous AfD. They have barely surpassed 500 edits, but the gaming is obvious, highlighted by the sudden switch to editing in PIA.
More importantly, there's the issue of POV pushing. I came across this article authored by them on Ynet, once again complaining about what they perceive as an anti Israeli bias on Misplaced Pages. They have also authored a report for the World Jewish Congress covering the same topic. The report can be seen in full here. I think that someone with this clear POV agenda shouldn't be near the topic.
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 2023-04-05 and re-iterated on 2024-11-25 (see the system log linked to above).
- Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 2024-12-18 by Femke (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- Notification diff
Discussion concerning שלומית ליר
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by שלומית ליר
Statement by (username)
Result concerning שלומית ליר
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.