Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:51, 18 March 2010 editHodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers31,217 edits →Statement by Biophys: correct diff← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:29, 14 January 2025 edit undoTamzin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators69,376 edits rv topic ban violationTag: Manual revert 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}}
<includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}Requests for enforcement=</includeonly>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!--
<noinclude>{{editabuselinks|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}</noinclude>
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}} --><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly>
<noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!--
<noinclude>{{TOC limit}}</noinclude>
{{User:MiszaBot/config -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}} |archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter =347
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|minthreadsleft = 0
|counter = 57
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(2d)
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}
}}
<!--PLEASE PLACE NEW REQUESTS BELOW THIS NOTICE -->


==PerspicazHistorian==
== Biophys ==
{{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===
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
===Request concerning Biophys===
; User requesting enforcement : --] <sup>]</sup> 19:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Biophys}} ; 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 that this user violated :
: ]
: ]
: ]


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : Despite several prior sanctions and warnings, Biophys has in recent months massively conducted edit warring and POV-pushing. When he has a spare minute he now proxies for an indefinitely banned editor. In the most tenacious revert war, Biophys's only source, which he aggressively tries to enforce as the truth, is a known propaganda website of Islamist anti-Russian extremists, in spite of protests by several users.
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
'''Background'''


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
{{userlinks|Biophys}} is a persistent POV-pusher and edit-warrior who has been blocked several times and whose disruptive behaviour has been discussed in several reports on admin noticeboards:
<!-- 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.-->
*At ]:
# - removed "discrimination" sidebar from the page of ] (fascist ideology) even though the sidebar was inserted inside a section, not even the lead.
*At ]:
# - tag bombed the highly vetted ] article without any discussion or reason
*At ]:
# - attributing castes to people withhout any sources
*At ]:
# - 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 :
Many of these reports resulted in Biophys being sanctioned and warned, yet Biophys has chosen to ignore all these warnings and has continued his heavy disruption. In addition, Biophys has already been sanctioned with a 1RR per the ] sanctions. . However, the 1RR sanction was later lifted for the technical reason that "no prior warning was given." According to a June 2009 finding by now arbitrator ], Biophys is a regular edit warrior. He is also listed as one of the warned editors at ]. Biophys has also been discovered as a member of the ], and participated in the cabal's campaign of disruption.. Further evidence of disruption caused by Biophys can be found at ]. Several members of the EEML were found by ArbCom to have proxied for banned users, so Biophys knows that proxying is not allowed. Biophys has been proxying for the community banned ] in several articles (see evidence below).
<!-- 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)
'''Edit warring'''
'''Massive edit warring at ]'''


: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)
Biophys has already been blocked twice for edit warring on this article.,


*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)
Nevertheless, Biophys continues his persistent and massive edit warring.


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
Revert wars of Biophys in 2010:
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
*,,, (3 reverts in 24 hours),,, (again 3 reverts in 24 hours),,,,,,,,,,,,,


===Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian ===
'''Edit warring at ]'''
<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 ====
Here Biophys is edit warring heavily to keep a known Islamist propaganda source (http://www.kavkazcenter.net) in the article.
*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.
This is a terrorist website similar to the illegal Al-Qaeda websites the United States keeps closing down around the world. Their fact-checking is not just zero but they enjoy publishing politically-motivated false rumours like against Gordon Brown and the "European Union's elite pedophile commissioners in Brussels" or the story about Israel trying to harvest organs in Haiti. They continue the episode with their own lies and report about "the fact that "Israel" has brought some 25,000 Ukrainian children into the occupied entity over the past two years in order to harvest their organs."
: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
Russians are always insulted as "invaders", "minions", "infidels" , "apostates", "the enemy", "hirelings", "puppets", especially in reports about bombings and other violence against them. Russian victims are purposefully dehumanized. The web site's original affiliation was with Shamil Basayev,
: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.
who Washington too declared a terrorist and a threat to the United states.
:2) My main interest in editing is ] and ] topics.
:3)There have been certain cases in past where I was blocked but if studied carefully they were result of me edit warring with socks(although, through guidance of various experienced editors and admins I learnt a SPI should be filed first). I have learnt a lot in my journey and there have been nearly zero case of me of edit warring this month.
:Please do not block me. ] (]) 14:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*@] I beg apologies for the inconvenience caused, thanks for correcting me. I will now reply in my own statement section. @] I am a quick learner and professionally competent to edit in this encyclopedic space. Please consider reviewing this enforcement if its an counter-attack on me as mentioned in my previous replies. You all are experienced editors and I have good faith in your decision-making capability.] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*@]@] I have edited content marked as "original research" and "mess" by you, I am ready to help removing any content that might be considered "poorly sourced" by the community. Please don't block me.] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*@] This enforcement started for edit-warring and now I feel its more concerned to my edited content(which I agree to cooperate and change wherever needed). After learning about edit wars, there has been no instance of me edit-warring, Please consider my request.--] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@] I am not a slow learner, I understand the concerns of all admins here. I will try my best to add only reliable sources, and discuss content in all talk pages, as I already mentioned ]. ] (]) 12:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@]@] I think admins should focus more on encouraging editors when they do good and correct when mistaken. I have made many edits, added many citations and created much articles which use fine citations. The enforcement started out of retaliation by nxcrypto, now moving towards banning me anyways. I started editing out of passion, and doing it here on wiki unlike those who come here just for pov pushes and disrupt article space(talking about socks and vandalizers on contentious Indian topics).
*::The article ] doesn't only has issue on citations, but the whole article is copypasted from the citations I added. I just wanted to point that out. Remaining about ], I am currently pursuing Btech in cs from IIT delhi, idt I am a slow learner by any means. Still, happy new year to all ! ] (]) 14:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::@] You mean to say, "<sub>The ''prasada'' is to be consumed by attendees as a holy offering. The offerings may include cooked food, ] and confectionery sweets. Vegetarian food is usually offered and later distributed to the devotees who are present in the ]. Sometimes this vegetarian offering will exclude prohibited items such as garlic, onion, mushroom, etc. "</sub> is not copy pasted by website? Is this also a wiki mirror website? How would you feel if I doubt your competence now? ] (]) 14:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::@ ] I just asked others to share their opinion in the enforcement. With all due respect, I don't think its wrong in any sense. ] (]) 15:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::To all the admins involved here,
*:::::* I agree to keep learning and apologize if my previous edits/replies have annoyed the admins.
*:::::* I have not edit warred since a month and please see it as my willingness to keep learning and getting better.
*:::::*Please give me a chance, I understand concern of you all and respect your opinion in the matter. But please don't block me from editing from main article space. I promise that I will abide by all the rules and will learn from other editors.
*:::::] (]) 15:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by LukeEmily====
All this is known by Biophys, who has backed the Kavkaz writer ] since the early days of his account, yet he keeps edit warring to keep this terrorist source in the article to push his POV. After users complained about it, he just accused them all falsely of sockpuppetry.
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====
*,,,,,,,,,,,, (3 reverts in 26 hours),
I'm involved so just commenting. I don't think this editor is competent. I had to give them a community sanction caste warning as they were making a mess of castes. See this earlier version of their talk page.]https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:PerspicazHistorian&oldid=1262289249] and ]'s comment that "It was very unwise of you to keep moving ] to article space when it has not passed review. As a direct result of your actions, a deletion discussion is taking place, and when this is complete and the article is deleted, you will be prevented from recreating it. ] (]) 14:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)" There have also been copyright issues. I strongly support a topic ban. ] ] 11:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


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


====Statement by Toddy1====
*,,,,,,
This is another editor who appears to have pro-] (RSS) and pro-] (BJP) views. I dislike those views, but find it rather alarming that Misplaced Pages should seek to censor those views, but not the views of the political opponents. Imagine the outrage if we sought to topic-ban anyone who expressed pro-] views, but allowed ] to say whatever they liked.


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.
Again, this is not the first time Biophys has edit warred on this article (see ).


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 .
''']'''


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.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 13:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
''']'''


====Statement by Capitals00====
*,,,, (the last 4 reverts are a 3RR violation),
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 ].


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)


====Statement by Vanamonde93====
''']'''
{{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.
*,,,,


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)
'''Proxying for banned editor HanzoHattori'''


: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)
{{userlinks|HanzoHattori}} is an indefinitely banned POV-warrior and sockpuppeteer. His main interest was terrorism and warfare in the Caucasus.


====Statement by UtherSRG====
List of HanzoHattori sockpuppets, based on ]:
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)
*{{userlinks|RamboKadyrov}}
*{{userlinks|Putinjugend}}
*{{userlinks|Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog}}
*{{userlinks|84.234.60.154}}
*{{userlinks|94.246.154.130}}
*{{userlinks|Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji}}
*{{userlinks|Mjr Edit}}


:Based on , I'm more strongly leaning towards indef. - ] ] 12:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Biophys had tried to help the sockpuppet RamboKadyrov by a warning how to avoid getting CheckUsered. Biophys was also already suspected of proxying for HanzoHattori half a year ago. He answered with a ], stressing that he checked the sources. Biophys said that he finds the banned HanzoHattori "the best WP editor" and "a fantastic expert": On the mailing list he revealed previous mail contact with HanzoHattori (20090624-0311) and, moreover, tried to protect a sockpuppet of HanzoHattori and prevent it from being detected:
::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)
Biophys and his EEML friends then tried to organize a comeback for HanzoHattori:


===Result concerning PerspicazHistorian ===
In recent months, Biophys has visited several little known Caucasus-related articles previously edited by HanzoHattori and his socks, and performed massive edits on HanzoHattori's behalf.
:''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)
For example:
<!-- 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. ] &#124; ] 16:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC).
*:{{u|Vanamonde93}}, no, I don't really think PH can usefully help clean up their mess; I was following Valereee, who has been going into this in some depth, in attempting to keep some way of editing Misplaced Pages open for PH. It's a bit of a counsel of desperation, though; there is very little daylight between an indef and a p-block from article space. Yes, we ''are'' in CIR territory; just look at PH's ] for NXcrypto being "engaged in edit wars before on contentious Indian topics": one diff of an opponent complaining on NXcrypto's page, and one diff of somebody reverting NXcrypto. What do those actually prove? That NXcrypto has opponents (big surprise). So, yes, as you suggest, I'll support an indef as well. ] &#124; ] 20:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC).
*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}}
*This article was created in 2008 by HanzoHattori sock RamboKadyrov.
*No other editor had made major edits on this article.
*Biophys then arrives to do a massive edit:


==Lemabeta==
Between 7 March and 9 March, Biophys performed several edits on behalf on HanzoHattori. All these articles were previously edited by HanzoHattori and his socks. Biophys did not do any edits of his own during this period.
{{hat|{{u|Lemabeta}} has acknowledged the warnings here to take more care and stay well clear of articles from which they are restricted from editing. Further violations are very likely to lead to sanctions, up to and including an indefinite block. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC) }}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning Lemabeta===
* ]
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|EF5}} 20:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
* Previously heavily edited by HanzoHattori, who has the 80 edits on this article.
* Also edited by the socks Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (13 edits) and Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (3).
* Other editors do not even come close to HanzoHattori and his socks (and now the proxy Biophys).


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Lemabeta}}<p>{{ds/log|Lemabeta}}</p>
* ]
* Chief editor is the HanzoHattori sock Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
* ]
* Chief editor is HanzoHattori. Together with the socks ] and Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji they have over 150 edits. No other editors come even close.
* Biophys never edited this article before.


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
* ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
* HanzoHattori has 4 edits on this article.
* Biophys has never before been interested in Turkish history.
* Biophys never edited this article before.


; ] 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.-->
* A little known article heavily edited by HanzoHattori socks RamboKadyrov and Captain obvious and his crime-fighting dog.
# - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing.
* Biophys has never shown much interest in World War II history of Germany and Poland.
# - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist.
* Biophys never edited this article before.


* ]
* Previously edited by HanzoHattori.
* Biophys has never shown much interest in German history. His edit is a massive change which requires knowledge of the subject. It is highly unlikely this edit was written by Biophys himself.
* Biophys never edited this article before.


;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. -->
* Created by HanzoHattori sock Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog in 2008.
*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
* No other editor has made major edits in this article.
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
* Biophys has never before displayed any interest in Japan or Japanese people - one of Hanzo's main interests
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)
* Biophys never edited this article before.
:On the bullet point, I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:(Not sure if I’m allowed to reply here) I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:: <small>Response to Bishonen. Moved from results section. ] (]/]) 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
::(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)
; 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 Lemabeta===
Please note, that Biophys edited all these articles '''sequentially'''. It is highly unlikely he would suddenly get interested in all these articles edited or created by HanzoHattori. It is unlikely that Biophys would suddenly (after performing sequential edits on several HanzoHattori articles), get interested in a little known Japanese person (whose article just happens to have been created by HanzoHattori.)
<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====
There is ''yet another'' sequential row of proxy edits by Biophys on the evening of 5 March.
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)
* ]
* Heavily edited by HanzoHattori and his socks.
* Biophys never edited this article before.


: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)
* HanzoHattori & socks are the main editors of this article.
::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)
* Biophys never edited this article before
:::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. -->
* Familiar story: HanzoHattori and socks are the main editors.
* HanzoHattori also created this article in 2007.


===Result concerning Lemabeta===
* ]
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
* HanzoHattori is the most active editor. The socks have also edited.
<!-- 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. -->
* Biophys never edited this article before.
*<!--
-->
* I don't see Lemabeta mentioned in the case itself, but they're currently under ] from "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed". ] (] • she/her) 20:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:To be fair, when you click above to add a new enforcement request, the template states:<br><nowiki>;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]</nowiki><br><nowiki><!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---></nowiki> ] (]/]) 20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{tq| Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed"}} @]: what did you think "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage" meant? I think it's pretty obvious that that an article on an ethnic group from the Caucasus and about an ethnologist who writes about that region is covered by your topic ban. ] (]/]) 20:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Note that I've deleted ] as a clear G5 violation. I think ] is a bit more of a questionable G5. ] (]/]) 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Your definition of "ethnographic group" includes the phrases "shared ancestry" (i.e., history), and "shared&nbsp;... traditions" and "shared&nbsp;... cultural identity" (i.e., cultural heritage). Your attempt to exclude "ethnographic group" from either of the two categories in your topic ban is entirely unpersuasive, particularly since your topic ban is to be "broadly construed". ] (]/]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: this doesn't seem like a mistake to me, but I'm okay with a logged warning here. ] (]/]) 21:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: This is about violating the TBAN. Per my response to leek, I think the issue is with the AE request template, which is a bit unclear. ] (]/]) 22:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: I don't think a block is needed here, but the next violation, definitely. ] (]/]) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: They were "reviously given&nbsp;... contentious topic restriction", the topic ban at issue. ] (]/]) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{re|Lemabeta}} Not every single thing you could write about an ethnic group would fall under cultural history, but that's not really relevant on the Rachvelians page, where the History section was entirely about their cultural history, even containing the words {{tqq| highlighting their ethnographic and cultural identity}}. There's a reason we use the words "]" on most TBANs, and a reason we encourage people to act like they're TBANned from a broader area than they are. (Consider: Would you feel safe driving under a bridge where clearance is exactly the same height as your vehicle? Or would you need a few inches' gap to feel safe doing it?){{pb}}This does seem like a good-faith misunderstanding, so if you will commit to not making it again in the future, I think this can be closed with a clarification/warning. But that's an important "if". If you want to argue semantics, then the message that sends to admins is that you don't intend to comply with the TBAN, in which case the next step would be a siteblock. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{u|EF5}}, I don't understand your {{tq|"Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above"}} statement, can you please explain what it refers to? ]? Lemabeta's block log is blank.
:That said, I'm unimpressed by Lemabeta's lawyerly distinctions above, and also by ]. I'll AGF that they ''were'' accidental, but OTOH, they surely ''ought'' to have taken enough care to realize they were violations; compare Voorts' examples. I suggest a block, not sure of what length. A couple of weeks? ] &#124; ] 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
::{{u|EF5}}, OK, I see. Blocks and bans are ], and the block log only logs blocks. ] &#124; ] 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
*It seems that the general consensus here is to treat this as a final warning, and Lemabeta has acknowledged it as such. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as such. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}


== 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) }}
* This article was created on 5 March by Biophys.
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)
* It is unlikely the text was written by Biophys himself. The English is almost perfect, while Biophys usually makes many mistakes.
:{{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)
* The structure is similar to what HanzoHattori used: just a single chapter. (Compare to this HanzoHattori-created article:
: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)
* Ref formatting is similar to what HanzoHattori used. Please compare this to or to any other HanzoHattori edits.
{{hab}}


==Boy shekhar==
''Yet another'' row of proxy edits in the early hours of 7 March:
{{hat
| result = Blocked by Rosguill as a regular administrative action. ] (]) 23:57, 12 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 Boy shekhar===
* ]
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Daniel Quinlan}} 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* A HanzoHattori socks has 100 edits on this article; next most active editor has only 6.
* Biophys never edited this article before.


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Boy shekhar}}<p>{{ds/log|Boy shekhar}}</p>
* ]
* HanzoHattori has 111 edits and a sock as 25 edits. Next most active editor has only 33 edits.


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
* ]
* Also edited by HanzoHattori in the past.


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
*]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
* HanzoHattori and socks have done nearly all edits on this article.
* Biophys never edited this article before.


; ] 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.-->
* A HanzoHattori sock has the most edits in this article.
*{{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 :
Other evidence:
<!-- 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. -->
* Again heavily edited by HanzoHattori socks in the past.
*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|Doug Weller}}.
* Biophys never edited this article before.
*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 -->
* Heavily edited by many different HanzoHattori socks.
*I've edited the article so I am involved. ] (]) 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Vanamonde93}} No, I don't think you're being too harsh. I think you're right. My thinking was that if I was uninvolved, I would have blocked them under ] so I sleepily submitted it here last night instead of ANI, which is what I should have done. ] (])


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
* There are also many other articles where Biophys obviously proxied for HanzoHattori, but the evidence presented above should be more than enough.
*


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : The infamous ] case resulted in several highly disruptive users being topic banned from Eastern European articles by ArbCom. These topic bans have worked well and have helped to pacify the topic area. For some reason (perhaps due to his "retirement" tactic), Biophys managed to escape sanctions even though he was one of the chief disruptors of the EEML cabal. Massive edit warring and proxying for an infamous banned POV-warrior cannot be allowed to go on. Biophys has already received multiple sanctions and warnings, yet he has learned nothing, has only accelerated his disruptive behaviour after the closure of the EEML case.
===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====
A 1RR restriction is '''not enough'''. Biophys has already promised to follow 1RR: ("I will also try to stick to 1RR").] replied: "in particular, I expect Biophys to adhere to his promise to "try to stick to 1RR"." In September 2009, Biophys still had a userbox "this user follows 1RR" on his now-deleted userpage. The above diffs of edit warring show how well Biophys kept his "promise."


====Statement by Vanamonde====
The necessity of topic banning Biophys from Eastern European articles in line with the other EEML sanctions should be self-evident. However, since Biophys has also proxied for HanzoHattori in other articles (such as ]), this topic ban is not enough. I request a one-year block followed by a EE topic ban for continued heavy disruption despite several sanctions and warnings.
This user hasn't edited for 4.5 years since they were TBANned, and none of their 31 edits show any ability to follow our PAGs. At the risk of sounding harsh, an extended AE discussion is a waste of time; a passing admin should indef them (I cannot, I am INVOLVED on most of the content they have edited). ] (]) 23:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


:{{re|Daniel Quinlan}} Apologies if that sounded like a criticism of you, it wasn't intended as such: I'm just advocating for the first uninvolved admin who sees this to block and close. ] (]) 00:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
This is what admins had to say during the last AE report about Biophys:
*"The involved editors have been warned extensively. Let's try to make a decision here, or else we should go to arbitration." -- Jehochman
*"I generally support some sort of restriction on Biophys, as I have warned them previously, and they appear to be continuing with battleground behavior." -- Jehochman
*"I am beginning to warm to Shell's suggestion that if we continue to see reports and discussions like this (including some recently at ANI, I think), topic bans all around may be the best way to prevent continued conflict." -- Sandstein
*"...but I would not want to impose a full topic or specific article ban for issues that were more than a month old" -- Thatcher


===Result concerning Boy shekhar===
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Having been "involved" in the ] case, I have been actively watching participants in the EEML for evidence of continued disruption, and all of the above is very recent evidence which seems to demonstrate that the user in question still does not get "it".
:''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. -->
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
*<!--

-->
===Discussion concerning Biophys===
*Vanamonde93's assessment is spot on, the edit in question is the kind of gross violation of ] we indef people for on the spot even when it's not a TBAN violation. Blocked as a regular admin action. Although I will say, without knowing how exactly Vanamonde93 is involved here, this is so far beyond the pale that they could have gone ahead and blocked on an "any reasonable admin" basis. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 04:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

====Statement by Biophys====
Let's start from the "proxying". I had an email exchange with another person who suggested to make specific changes in a number of articles. Since I am well familiar with Chechen subjects, I agreed to look at the matter (I previously edited the same articles as Hanzo , contrary to claims by Russavia). I looked at the suggested changes, agreed with some of them, rejected others, and modified whatever was necessary. But I did not act as "meatpuppet". All edits were made by me and I checked the sources. Everyone is welcome to examine each my single edit (see evidence by Russavia above) to see that they improve the content. I honestly believe these my actions were fully consistent with ] and other policies, such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. And I am ready to answer any specific questions about these my edits:
.

]. Here, I had extensive discussions with ], and it was me who started a number of topics that needed discussion (please take a look): ,
,,
,
.
I was also looking for the 3rd opinion from ], who is not "on my side": , , but unfortunately he was not there. Yes, I believe the mediation by someone like him is the way to go. If you look at my actual edits, I mostly tried to develop a compromise version. I hardly made even a couple of "blind reverts" in this article.

]. That was mostly a struggle with a vandal who did such edits: ,,. Vandal or not, but I fully explained everything to him at article talk page: . Yes, "Russian invaders" are insulted at the Islamist web site, kavkaz.org, exactly as Russavia tells. However, they are ''not'' insulted in the wikipedia article. The article is written in full compliance with our NPOV policy, as one can see from the diff . Kavkaz.org was only used to source the statements by Chechen fighters, exactly as in hundreds published books . You may also look at the entire editing history of {{User|saiga12}}.

]. Everything was explained several times at talk page
. I agree with last version by ]: , who modified my version as follows: .

] We had some heated debates, but finally came to consensus, including the new title (I did not even edit there for a long time).

]. Here is the discussion.
. ] does OR by claiming that something is "geographically impossible", although tons of publications claim that very much possible.

]. I discussed and tried to find some compromise here, but ] repeatedly removed a lot of text sourced to books , and the discussion went confrontational . I asked an advice from ]: , and he was really helpful, but we did not resolve our differences with YMB29. I finally stopped editing this article a couple of weeks ago. You may look at the contributions of {{User|YMB29}}. If you think he can do the job better than me, I have no problem leaving this article to him.

''The decision is yours''. If you want articles to be forged by {{User|Saiga12}} , or "fixed" by {{User|YMB29}}, then issue me an editing restriction.

*Altenmann: I do not have any anti-Russian, anti-Chechen, anti-Polish or other "anti-national" attitude. That is why I had good relations with Ukrainian, Polish ''and Russian'' (like Colchicum or Muscovite99) users.] (]) 00:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

*LokiiT: I do not have any current content disagreements with you. You made a big story from two my edits in one article by coming at my talk page and claiming me to be a "terrorist supporter" . You did the same previously with regard to another user . The entire conversation can be found at my talk page: . See also links given by FPS. I did not stalk you at all, but simply went through a large number of Chechnya-related pages (see the examples by Russavia), and certainly could not miss the article about their current separatist leader.

*To Skäpperöd: I had no email communications with any members of EEML list. OK, I see what you mean in Arbcom decision. But I did not act as his "proxy". What I did was like editing on wiki, but with one important difference: when I said him: "I accept ''none'' of your changes in such and such articles", there was nothing he could do. No, I am not familiar with any policies that prohibit ''productive collaboration'' by email. The problem in EEML case was not the email communication ''per se'', but the alleged cooperation against other users and inappropriate canvassing. There was nothing of that kind here. No one asked me to vote or revert anyone.

*'''To Skäpperöd (since you want to dig out everything)''': Yes indeed, I had an intention to abandon my current account and edit only science. Hence I marked my current accout as "Retired" and opened an alternative account, ]. However, after making several edits , I realized that doing so is deception, no matter what my reasons might be. So, I marked this new account as my account , fixed some of the old edits like this: and ''left a notice about this to Arbcom'' .
:''Why I am not editing science?'' One of the reasons: ''I feel uncomfortable editing anything related to my work because of the ] and ] accusations by Russavia on-wiki and similar accusations off-wiki'' (I can not provide links to off-wiki sites because that would lead to outing of several other users).

*Re to Grey Fox-9589. ''"I'm pretty amazed Biophys is actually still editing since he endured...".'' True. I am surprised myself. Perhaps it's time for me to go, and receiving the sanctions will make the choice much easier. Thank you, Russavia for making this happen!

====Proposed conflict resolution====
*Offer to Russavia. Russavia, I voted to lift all your sanctions. But you ask sanctions for me. I think the problem is article ], the only one where we have serious disagreements. You just reverted it to , immediately after coming from your editing restriction. I suggest the following. 1. We start from last stable version. 2. We create a list of our disagreements if any. 3. We ask Alex, Ezhiki or any other administrator ''of your choosing'' (or any established member of Mediation Committee) to be our ''judge'' rather than mediator. 4. He/she looks at the list and decides each disagreement one way or another. I agree in advance with any his/her decisions. Would that be working for you? Would you agree to withdraw this AE request? ] (]) 13:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

*Offer to ]. Same as to Russavia. Would you agree?] (]) 13:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

*Offer to ]. The only thing you did was reverting my edits in ], ] and ]. I will never edit these articles again. You can ] them. But you do not follow my edits in other articles. Agree? ] (]) 13:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

*Offer to ]. We keep last most complete version but indicate strength and losses as follows: ... per Russian side and ... per Chechen side. And let's discuss any other specific issues.] (]) 13:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

*I do not have any other disputes with other editors.] (]) 13:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

==== Comments by others about the request concerning Biophys ====

===== user:Altenmann : disclaimer =====
I amware of severe anti-Russian attitude of Biophys. I have no problem with this: everyone is entitled to their position. I see no problem it promoting this anti-Russia attitude into wikipedia articles as long as it is clear who is the bearer of this attitude (and this bearer is notable enough for their opinion to be reported) and it iss not presented as ''truth'' about Russia.

At the same time I disagree with usage of my name by Biophys as any kind of validation of his actions. For example, his phrase "I agree with version by User:Altenmann" does not mean that this version was somehow endorsed by me: it just randomly happened that I was the last one to edit this page.

I do remember finding a number of Boiphys's editing habits as problematic, but I have bad memory and don't really care about modern East-European political issues to waste my time on editing/personal conflicts. - Altenmann ] 23:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

===== user:Celasson : just thoughts =====

We are not a debating society. We are Misplaced Pages which is based upon WP:FIVE; one of those being WP:NPOV. And the title is NOT NPOV. --Russavia Dialogue 01:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

People,we can not tolerate phrases such as '''We are not a debating society''' it is horrible that somebody dare he? I think lot of guys here have to learn that various points of view can be integrated in a particular Wiki article.And you can say it about Biophys and about his opponents.But '''We are not a debating society''' is unacceptable.] (]) 00:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

===== user:DonaldDuck : objection =====
I object to use of my name and our limited recent interaction by Biophys as any kind of justification for his actions. After my indefinite block (which was result of coordinated efforts by EEML cabal to remove me from Misplaced Pages, and Biophys was member of the EEML group), I avoid articles on controversial topics such as terrorism/Chechnya, so we just edit in different topic areas with Biophys.] (]) 05:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

===== Comment by Fut.Perf. =====
I'll just point out that Biophys and two of his opponents, {{user|LokiiT}} and {{user|Ellol}}, were recently on my talkpage bitterly complaining about each other, about issues related to the ones raised here. The threads are at ] and ]. I also observed him edit-warring persistently against {{user|HistoricWarrior007}} on ], in a situation where my impression was that both editors were behaving in a heavily tendentious way. For various reasons I couldn't muster the energy to judge the situation and take action at the time, and so I think it will be better if I abstain from such action now too; however, it appears to me that the time may be ripe for at least a revert limitation, possibly not just on him but also some of the editors on the other side. ] ] 07:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

===== Comment by # Grey Fox-9589 =====
I'm pretty amazed Biophys is actually still editing since hes endured some of the worst stalking and herassment himself. If I recall correctly, he got outed and threatened even outside wikipedia. Users who are after him are always extremely nationalistically orientated users who would get a fine pay as lawyers of ]. With users who aren't as nationalistaclly orientated he never really had problems. Biophys doesn't edit "anti-russian" (a wrong term considering that he's Russian himself), in contrary he sometimes protects articles from those who are trying to turn wikipedia in the new ]. He was never alone in this, but because of the EEML case many of those are temporarely topic banned at the moment and probably aren't allowed to voice their support right now. Note that Biophys himself survived EEML even though some users posted large lists of supposed "evidence". EEML wasn't long ago. This file for arbitration is an obvious attempt to get him sanctioned at a time when he would get outvoted.
:As for the edits by Hanzohattori. This users was actually a good editor, he created a lot of new articles, collected a lot of new sources and updated them regularely. Eventually he got banned for insulting an administrator and went on to become a sockpuppeteer. This of course doesn't mean that all the articles he created in the past are wrong. I became an editor too at the articles he created, after he got banned (but now I've become inactive too). Why would Biophys not be allowed to edit the articles? I've got to know both users a little and they both had the same interests. Biophys isn't even editing the articles so much, they're mostly small edits or votes.
:As a conclusion I would like to ask whatever administrator judging this request to look through the history of the complainers. Most of them will have an extremely obvious pro-Putin bias and a lot of them have a lot of disruption as well (some of them almost having been permabanned). ] (]) 13:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the further comments that Russavia has made below. It's another attempt at trying to demonise Biophys as someone promoting extremism, a pretex under which many journalists are banned from working in Russia. The source was already discussed at wp:rs several times. I explained the use of such sources here and there's no bad intention whatsoever. Several users have gone after biophys labeling him a 'terrorist lover' or other ridiculous accusations which together with calling him 'anti-russian' means they view him as ]. Ironically articles like ] are brought up. It's indeed quite so that articles like ] are often the setting of edit wars because the pro-Putin editors mostly target such articles. It's sad really, journalists and human rights activists reporting on crimes by the current Russian government are assassinated in Russia every few months. Afterwards their wikipedia pages are targeted by groups of Putin lobbyists attempting to discredit these activists. Anyone who tries to prevent this gets labeled "anti-Russian". ] (]) 20:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

=====Further comments by Russavia=====
that his use of a terrorist website to source articles is not a problem and is always done from a NPOV stance. This is false, as can be attested by his persistent reinsertion of an external link (albeit from January 2009) to a terrorist website showing what the terrorist claim are the bodies of killed Russian soldiers, whom are described as "Russian invaders" right there on the page., . This is not NPOV; far from it. Biophys also claims that his other edits are always NPOV, however, this again is false. After I was topic banned last year, Biophys took the opportunity to - one which many editors had struggled to edit due to extreme ownership issues which Biophys seems to have with such articles. He mentions my recent edits to the article above, but what he fails to mention is what I have mentioned at ] - that is, Biophys continually reverts to his favoured version, whilst at the same time ignoring issues raised by other editors, and which '''always''' involves the removal of sourced information of the article by Biophys; ostensibly because it does not fit in with Biophys' own POV. Such things have been experienced in the past on other articles, such as ], where Biophys' edits allowed conspiracy theories to have "centre stage", whilst pushing information from aviation experts out of sight. The same thing was experience at ], where accusations by ] were allowed to appear in the article, but criticism of those claims were not ,, etc. As one can see, Biophys clearly has a history of edit warring over information which does not fit his own POV on the ways of the world, and it is being continued as per the reported articles above. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

=====Comments/Evidence by YMB29=====
I was also going to post a similar complaint about Biophys. I reported him before at the edit warring noticeboard , but the request was declined as not being posted in the right place.

I can confirm that Biophys has continued edit warring and also tag teaming after the EEML case. He just pretended to retire and kept quite during the case and for some time after it.

Since the end of January Biophys has resumed edit warring in the ] article, trying to reinsert his edits from September without any discussion. Even attempts by admin ] to get a discussion going on the issues were eventually ignored by Biophys, as he failed to respond.

But more importantly he continues tag teaming like in the EEML days. He got a user who never edited the article before to revert for him:
He basically admitted it when I asked him about it.

In the ] article he tried to insert his POVed jokes , even after all the users told him that they are inappropriate.
Then he simply goes over to the ] article to insert those same jokes there, because he knew that not nearly as much people edit that article. He does not give evidence of the jokes' notability and continues to edit war. It is like he is on a mission to sneak in his POVed edits anyway he can and does not care what others have to say...

Obviously he was lucky to escape a ban in the EEML case, but his behavior shows that he learned nothing.

-] (]) 01:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

=====Comments/Evidence by LokiiT=====
Biophys seems to have gone back to all his old disruptive ways again following a short calm after the EEML case. Just in the past couple of weeks he's engaged in stalking, edit warring and sock fishing, all issues that I had brought up in my EEML evidence page, and that I hoped would have come to an end after that.

It started (with me) in late February when he stalked me to the ] article. This was an article he had never edited in before, and his first edit was a revert of my edit (something he has a long history of doing). (I'm beginning to think he's somehow connected to the POV pushing IP who I had reverted there in the first place). He then continued to edit war in that article without discussing things in talk until after, and ignoring everything I was saying, which forced me to take it off my watched list out of frustration. (Also note in that last revert, he used a provocation "trick" I described in my EEML evidence where he does a giant revert-edit while saying something minor/irrelevant in the edit summary.)

I made a somewhat hot-headed response to those provocations of his (given our history, I do believe they were provocations), and he proceeded to report me at an admin's talk page. In his report, he made a bold faced lie about my real life identity, claiming that I had actually said myself that I was "related to" (ie. a sock of) the inactive user , a name I had all but forgotten about since 2008 when he first accused me and ] of being this person's sock along with working for the Russian government (this government accusation was made on a subpage that he deleted, but was confirmed by ]).

So then, after FPaS had understandably given up on our dispute, Biophys proceeded to report me for sockpuppeting. I made it clear on the page that I believed this was simply a personal attack/revenge tactic and that he was just fishing to see if I had any active socks, since the similarities between myself and the other accused parties are nonexistent; not even so much as back to back reverts or identical edits, and only two or three similar articles. The result of that investigation, involving five users and four IPs, was that they were unrelated. This gives more evidence that he was just fishing and wasting everyone's time on top of it. (Again, puppet fishing was yet another issue I had brought up in my EEML evidence page. The tally of wrongful accusations he's made against me has to be exceeding 10-15 if you include IPs.)

Basically I feel that he's blatantly harassing me, and has been since I first created this account . If stalking me isn't enough, surely the continuous baseless accusations and lies/prying about my real life identity which have nothing to do with wikipedia content are. ] (]) 03:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

====Comment by Skäpperöd====
===== Re: Biophys' proxying for banned users =====
It is disturbing to see Biophys continuing the EEML habit of proxying for blocked users (compare the compelling evidence by Russavia above to ). Already in December, that this is not OK, and has included proxying for blocked users in the respective user-specific EEML-FoFs as evidence for disruption. ] (]) 18:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

===== Re: Don't ban me, I will withdraw from the area of conflict =====

The arbcom case had just started when Biophys announced "". When the case was in its final stage (2 months ago), Biophys again stated "," and the "last word" after he previously had announced "" ] (]) 20:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

===Result concerning Biophys===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.-->

== Cs32en ==

{{hat|Appears to be mainly a content dispute; no action.}}
===Request concerning Cs32en===
; User requesting enforcement : –]&nbsp;] 19:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Cs32en}}

;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ]

; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
# "''Cinnamon Stillwell is a neo-conservative political activist, not an independent observer, and the text is an opinion piece.''" More anti-conservative push (reverting for the sake of reverting a conservative).
# "''Her writing is not based on journalistic independence, but on a political agenda.''" More disagreements with conservative views. (Hell, I'm as liberal as they come and I see no issue with her.)
# "''This article is not the place to promote the agenda of neo-conservative activists''"... clear intentions provided here. Beliefs do not constitute verifiability nor does it disparage them.
# More defending of conspiracies.
# "''The reaction of "some" Palestinians and Serbians in not notable in the context of this article.''" Anything that differs from his opinion goes, apparently.
# See above.
# See above.
# "''Therefore, arguing that Ahmadinejad does not know anything about 9/11, and ''for this reason'' we don't include his statement in the article, misses the point.''" Eh, weak argument.
# <small>(Added post-initial filing 07:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC))</small>
# <small>(Added post-initial filing 07:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC))</small> I normally wouldn't do something like this, but I have employed the option multiple times on this page, with it typically closing the argument and preventing further attacks/surges of conspiracy. We do not censor or even try to censor the viewpoint, as we often direct them to the conspiracy article.
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
#
# Warning by {{user|Turian}}
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : A one week block alongside an indefinite topic ban on anything related to September 11th.

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : He has been given multiple chances to adhere to the ruling of the arbitration case, yet has not followed through with the ruling or the ruling of the enforcement case. He is one of the problems in the constant push for NPOV fringe theories relating to 9/11. –]&nbsp;] 19:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

===Discussion concerning Cs32en===

====Statement by Cs32en====

All of the edits that {{user|Turian}} enumerates are based on Misplaced Pages policies.

# Per ], opinion-based articles must not be used "for statements of fact without attribution". I have removed the source, because it was an opinion piece that was used without attribution. Furthermore, the section summarizes the sub-article ] (see ]), and all relevant sources can be found in this article. The sub-article also includes high-quality sources for the information that was sourced to the opinion piece. Therefore, I left the information in the article and removed only the source that was used in an inappropriate way.
# The specific political position of the writer of the opinion piece is indeed irrelevant. I have pointed out that the article was not based on journalistic independence, i.e. with the aim of building a reputation based on reliability and fact checking. That's exactly the reason why there is a specific guideline on opinion pieces.
# In this edit, I explained that Cinnamon Stillwell is not an editor of a journal who writes an opinion piece, but that she identifies herself as a representative of a political organization that is actively engaged in the controversies related to the information in the article. Therefore, ] is even more relevant than if it would be an opinion piece written by an independent observer.
# The specific information I have removed from the article was unsourced, and it contained the word "claim", which is, or course, a word that should normally be ].
# I think that the mention of the reaction of "some Palestinians" to the September 11 attacks is undue in the main article on 9/11. This, of course, is an editorial decision, and I am very open to debate if another editor brings up the issue at the talk page or reverts my edit.
# This is also undue in the main 9/11 article. The assertion that a murder in Britain perpetrated by three Muslims would have been the "most notable" is completely unsourced. The source only says the perpetrators were "found guilty ... at a time when tensions were high following the September 11 attacks". There is no indication that this event was motivated by or otherwise connected to the September 11 attacks.
# I don't see a reason why the information that "the Serbian Liberation Front claimed responsibility for the bombing" of the World Trade Center in 1993 (!) is relevant for the article. But again, I'm open to discuss this point.
# I have stated on the talk page before that I would not support including Ahmadinejad's views in the article, as long as there is not a notable political controversy about them. In this edit, I clarified that, in my view, the relevant question that a decision on the inclusion of his opinion should be based on is notability in the context of the article's topic, not whether Ahmadinejad has specific knowledge about the September 11 attacks. Again, a statement that is based on our policies.

I hope that I have clarified the issues that {{user|Turian}} has raised, and I suggest to dismiss this request. (I'll be away for about 24 hours.)&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 21:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
:Then how do you explain your constant push for fringe conspiracies despite being told many times to stop? –]&nbsp;] 21:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

;My edits at ]

As {{user|Turian}} is claiming that my editing on Misplaced Pages is about pushing conspiracies, I'd like to provide my edits at ] during the last few months (the edits mentioned by Turian above, i.e. #1, #5, #6, and #7, are not included):

* Adjusting piped link.
* Reducing overlinking. Direct link to ] and to ]. CNN does not need to be singled out.
*
* the ], the meeting place of the ], or the ]
* Islamic extremism has its own article. (Removing link from "Islamist extremists" to "Islam".)
* Removing "as a false flag in order to gain popular support for military and police expansion". This is only one of the motives that have been suggested.
* "Due to lack of results" is unsourced speculation. Antagonism surfaced due to the predominantly military response, the Iraq War that was seen an unrelated to 9/11, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo etc.
* (Undid revision 347151625 by Jonund (talk) User:Jonund incorrectly implied existing consensus on the talk page for his edit. Undoing the edit to encourage consensus-based solution. ] for the removal of this content.]
* {{tl|Undue-section}} . Broad talk page consensus on this as well.]

In early January, I have created the article ], which appeared on ] on January 10. As I have written almost all of the content of this article, it may be a useful example to assess my editing.&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 16:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

:Since when does having good edits give you the right to push fringe theories? I am sure we can do without your "good" edits as long as your fringe edits are no longer allowed. –]&nbsp;] 17:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

::You have raised concerns about specific edits in your request above. I have provided a specific explanation for each of these edits. Then, you have stated that my edits overall were somehow problematic. I then have listed all my edits to the ] article in the last few months to provide a basis for others to evaluate them. Which are the fringe edits that you are referring to?&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 17:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
:::Everything I listed and your talk page obstruction of process. And your explanations were hardly sound at all. You have caused too much trouble in the past, and yet you continue to do it even though people have told you to stop. –]&nbsp;] 18:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

====Comments by others about the request concerning Cs32en ====

=====Comment by Mbz1=====
I find the differences that were presented to be of a big concern, and believe Cs32en should be topic banned in accordance with the request.--] (]) 21:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

=====Comment by Sandstein=====
Could the requesting editor please annotate the request so as to explain how, specifically, each of the diffs provided violates "the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" (])? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
:Done. –]&nbsp;] 20:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
:::Thanks. After some review, I am inclined to agree with Wildbear below and to decline enforcement action. This appears to be an attempt to win a content dispute via AE. ] is not part of ]. The edits are not ] disruptive, they are reasonably well explained by Cs32en above in terms of relevant editing policies, and the arguments made against them in the terms of these policies are weak, and often assume bad faith ("anti-conservative push", "defending of conspiracies"). That is not to say that these edits are correct either as a matter of content or conduct (I take no position on that), only that they are not misconduct warranting sanctions. Rather, they are indicative of content disagreements that ought to be worked out through normal channels. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
::::I assume you failed to read the entire mess that is made on the September 11 attacks talk page? –]&nbsp;] 06:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::Yes. That talk page is not cited in your request. I normally only read what the editor requesting enforcement asks me to. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, I have added two more diffs as evidence of his misbehavior. –]&nbsp;] 07:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

=====Comment by Rklawton=====
Cs32en edits 9/11 as if his and only his view is correct. He removed a well researched, well considered, well sourced commentary published in a reliable source on the grounds that the author was a neo-conservative and immediately launched into an edit war to defend his actions. As far as I know, both liberals and conservatives believe 9/11 conspiracy theorists are whack-jobs. But Cs32en insisted the author was pushing a political agenda. The only agenda I saw in her article was one against conspiracy theorists - the very point of the section in which the source had been included. The bottom line is, unless we want to hand the article over to this one editor, he needs to be topic banned. ] (]) 03:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
:I did not "launch into an edit war". Actually, I did not edit war at all. I have removed the opinion piece in and removed the unnecessary fact tag in (no edits in between), and I haven't edited that section of the article since then.
:I did not argue that the author of the article would push a political agenda ''because she argues against conspiracy theories''. Indeed, many people do this, including many journalists. The author of this opinion piece, however, identifies herself as "the West Coast Representative for ], a project of the foreign policy think tank directed by ], the ]" and, according to her website, is the "founder of the 9/11 Neocons, an online discussion group" (see the author's ).&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 16:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
::...which does not detract from her work to discredit conspiracy theorists. The fact is, you deleted this reference from a non-political article because of her political affiliations, and that's blatantly wrong. ] (]) 19:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

=====Comment by Wildbear=====
The preceding reads like a content dispute, rather than a pattern of abuse calling for arbitration enforcement. Approaching a polarized topic from a particular angle does not in itself constitute abuse; it is how one behaves while editing and discussing. If Cs32en had been engaging in edit warring, or unreasonable behavior on the talk page, then action might be warranted; but it doesn't look to me like that is occurring. ] (]) 04:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
:This is not a content dispute. The push for conspiracy theories is a ''clear'' violation of the arbitration guidelines/sanctions. If nothing is done here, then I will report the problem directly to the Committee. –]&nbsp;] 06:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
:Also, please read the ] that the arbitration entails. This goes beyond any mere content dispute. –]&nbsp;] 07:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

=====Comment by ClovisPt=====
After reading/re-reading the edits provided above as examples of Cs32en's supposedly problematic editing style, I don't see a clear attempt to push an agenda. Several of these edits are judgment calls about the relative notability of various items in the September 11 attacks article, which is always difficult when one is dealing with the main page of a complicated subject that spans many items. I especially don't see evidence of conspiracy pushing here. Regards, ] (]) 20:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
:Did you read the prior enforcement guidelines? –]&nbsp;] 00:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
::You mean ], right? I did read it. ] (]) 02:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
:::No, . –]&nbsp;] 02:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
::::Alright, thanks for that link. ] (]) 00:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

===Result concerning Cs32en===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''

The submitter has unarchived this section because it was not closed. Unless other admins disagree, I intend to close it without action. The edits at issue are not obviously problematic, at least not to an extent that would merit sanctions. Whether or not they violate ] or ] is principally an editorial matter that needs to be resolved through editorial channels. Like the main arbitration process, arbitration enforcement is not for mediating content disagreements, and this request appears to be mainly a content rather than a conduct issue. If a user were to engage in aggressive fringe POV-pushing over extended periods of time in this area, AE sanctions would be warranted, but the diffs submitted in this request do not convince me that this is the case here. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:This is ridiculous. So now, we have to deal with all of this conspiracy crap until arbitration gets involved? If nothing is done, then I will be requesting a new arbitration case, since the administrators are currently unable to handle/enforce the prior arbitration. –]&nbsp;] 09:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
::Absent opposition, closing per above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
{{hab}} {{hab}}


==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>

Not looking for a full case or anything, but this seems to be heating up again, and if some Arbs could peek in on it from time to time that would be great. (because we all know how much free time you guys have...) ] (]) 20:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:Specifically ]. ] (]) 20:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
::Hi, Beeblebrox. This board is not normally frequented by arbitrators, but by admins who do arbitration enforcement, such as I. Your request is a bit short on details - if you would like enforcement action taken against specific editors, I recommend the use of the form {{tl|Arbitration enforcement request}}. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I'm (deliberately) not really up to speed on the ins and outs of arbcom. There's a notice on the article's talk page that says "After a suitable grace period, the state of the article may be evaluated on the motion of any member of the Arbitration Committee and further remedies applied to those editors who continue to edit in an inappropriate manner. Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee." So I guess that's what I'm looking for, I don't have any specific user or users in mind just looking for that re-evaluation. Should I email them or something? ] (]) 22:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
::::In that case, I think the page you could use is either ] or the talk pages of individual arbitrators. An e-mail (]) should also work. In any such request, I recommend that you provide a brief description of what the current problem is, some relevant diffs, and a recommendation about what should be done. That is likely to result in faster action than if arbitrators have to dig through histories just to find out whether there is a problem in the first place. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


===Request concerning שלומית ליר===
== Sulmues ==
; 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>
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
===Request concerning Sulmues===
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 20:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Sulmues}}
;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:
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ]


*2014 to 2016: no edits.
Back in December, this user was placed under the following 3 month civility supervision per ] by ] for outbursts such as these . Following continuing trolling and incivility, he was blocked for 1 week per the terms of his civility parole, which was reset so as to expire April 27, 2010 . Since then, he has continued trolling and breaching the terms of his civility parole. Specifically:
*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.
* Calling another editor's edit "vandalism" , though he was ''explicitly'' told not to do so , was told it it was blockable, and was blocked for it last time at AE. Not to mention that his participation in that article is a breach of his ] topic ban. He also seems to think that because Tadija is not a member of the Albania TF, that he shouldn't be allowed to edit the TF page.


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
* Trolling and removing another user's comments , taunting him , edit warring over it . Here he is removing another user's comments again .
<!-- 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 :
* Here he is again removing comments, calling them trolling .
<!-- Add any further comment here -->


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
* More trolling: .


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
* Shouting at other users not to remove maps .
===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====
* Here he is making all sorts of off-topic wild accusation while defending himself in an SPI .
I believe contents of this filing to be in clear policy violation and have reached out to the arbitration committee for further clarification before commenting further.] (]) 14:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by Thebiguglyalien====
* Here is trolling on WP:RSN, using it as a platform to rant against "the Greek editors" and make all sorts of wild accusations and bad-faith assumptions .
This is the first ARBPIA report since the proposed decision ] and it's specifically a matter of POV pushing, responding admins should be aware of the "]" remedy. The committee is discussing whether to implement a remedy stating that admins at AE are "empowered and encouraged to consider a topic ban" purely for biased editing. So far, the argument against is that it's redundant because AE admins are already supposed to do this. ] (]) 05:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-29/Special_report


====Statement by Selfstudier====
* Here he is doing the same thing on WP:ANI , making all sorts of wild accusations about the supposed "Greek ancestry" of ], hidden "agendas" of "the Greek editors" (again). Bad faith assumptions and conspiracy theories designed to make other editors look bad galore. Like he claims in the last diff, he did everything in his power to try and derail the ANI thread, always trying to have the last word.
To the extent that it is relevant, the WJC report was discussed at ]. ] (]) 11:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by starship.paint (2)====
* Here he is taunting another editor for being recently blocked .


I would to like to raise at ], where there had been an existing unsourced paragraph ({{tq|On the morning of October 7, a tour minibus...}}) that שלומית ליר added to ( / ) from the ]. '''The reference is relevant, but I believe it may not verify every detail in the Battle of Sderot paragraph''' (e.g. "Netivot", "Holocaust survivors"). The reference contains a short paragraph of text and a video that is 4:21 long. I can't watch the video in the reference, but I believe it is this same video that is 4:20 long which contains the same screenshot as the reference, on the same topic. Most of the video is an interview of the daughter of a dead victim who was on the bus (the daughter had been on the phone with the victim), except for 1:58 to 2:13 which appears to be a quote from the bus driver. The publisher themselves do not have too much reporting in their own voice (on the video), yet this reference was used to cite a paragraph entirely stated in Wikivoice. No attribution was made to the relative or the bus driver, or to the publisher. I can't be totally sure though, due to unfamiliarity with Hebrew. '''] (] / ])''' 13:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* Here he filed a bogus 3RR report against me , when I only had 2 reverts in the entire history of the article. He then goes on and on ad nauseam, not letting go and always trying to have the last word.


====Statement by xDanielx====
* Striking through another user's words because he doesn't like what he says . It's as if he thinks he can go around and censor other users.
{{yo|Arcticocean}} I don't really see how NPOV can be read as requiring edits which support both sides of a controversy. Our content policies don't impose any positive duties; they only tell us what not to do. The text of the policy doesn't support the notion that a ''pattern'' of edits could be in violation, even if no particular edit is in violation.


In principle, such a pattern of edits could violate the , but I don't believe this board has ever enforced it. If it were to be enforced, I think it should be for more serious violations like the double standards that e.g. ] attempted to demonstrate, rather than mere opinion-driven editing which applies to the vast majority of CTOP editors. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 03:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
* Here he is making a deliberately provocative edit , while mendaciously writing "hope no one gets offended" on the talkpage , when it is quite clear he is trying to do ''just that''.


====Statement by (username)====
* Here he is going around giving barnstars while using it as an opportunity to call other editors "extremists" and "vandals". Since this editor has a history of pretty much nothing but conflict with myself and ], it's pretty clear who the "vandals" and "extremists" he has in mind are. He is basically using the barnstars as a backhanded way of insulting me and Alexikoua. I was extremely irritated by this, and came very close to filing here, but decided to let it slide at the time.
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning שלומית ליר===
* The final straw however, was when he restored a trolling comment by ] ("greekification", that's a good one) and took it upon himself to cleanse another one of my comments . By restoring Piasoft's trolling, he is in effect endorsing it, and calls it a "warning" I "should take very seriously" on top of that. Sulmues has in general a very bad habit of restoring trolling comments by other Albanian users, as he did here when he restored this TOV by ] , saying that the guy "welcomed" me and I responded by "banning" him.
:''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 decided to wait 24 hours before doing anything, but today, I see Sulmues using a 3RR report as a platform for yet ''more'' trolling against me , falsely accusing me of filing an SPI against him, calling me "arrogant" , accusing me of edit-warring. The guy can't stop himself from using ''every single opportunity'' available to rant about me accusing him of being a sockpuppet and whatnot. Here he is calling for me to get blocked for daring to think that Kushtrim is a sock .
*Users are allowed to have a POV - it's a rare user indeed who edits a contentious topic without having some strong opinions about it. For conduct to be actionable at AE it needs to be an actual policy violation. The misleading use of images doesn't rise to the level of AE action in my view, and judging whether an addition like is UNDUE is not within AE's purview, as long as it is supported by the source. ] (]) 23:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:The PIA5 remedy hasn't passed yet, and its interpretation is as yet unclear to me: but in my view we are already empowered to deal with biased editing, in the sense of editing that violates NPOV. What I'm not willing to do is sanction on the basis of someone's opinions alone; they have to be shown to have let their opinions get in the way of following our PAGs. ] (]) 07:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I see some evidence - based on Arcticocean's digging below - that שלומית ליר is using images without sufficient care, but I don't see that rising to the level of a sanction. As to the rest, xDanielx is correct - nowhere do our policies require treating both sides of a conflict equally - indeed our PAGs discourage false balance. Those diffs could be actionable if they individually or collectively violate policy, but I have yet to see evidence of that. ] (]) 03:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
* While I understand {{u|Vanamonde93}}'s concerns, I think that we are required to assess the totality of the user's contributions. Contentious topic editors are required to uphold NPOV. ] places an obligation to {{xtn|Within contentious topics,… edit carefully and constructively… and… adhere to the ]}}. The linked page provides that {{xtn|Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view… We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence}}. If an editor is ''only'' adding content that significantly favours one or the other side to the conflict, this is incompatible with their contentious topic obligation. That is because an editor making ''only'' one-sided edits will simply not be taking the necessary steps to ensure that the ''whole article'' is written from a neutral point of view. As their number of one-sided edits increases, the likelihood decreases that the editor is ensuring our content is neutral and impartial. Once we reach the point of being sure that they are not attempting to ensure neutrality of content, we can conclude the editor is not meeting their contentious topics obligations and we can issue a sanction. This can only be assessed with hindsight and by looking at the editor's contributions as a whole. ] 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Assessing the topic area contributions of the respondent (שלומית ליר) since they became extended-confirmed {{logid|166341641|at 17:33, 8 December 2024}}, there is cause for concern. I counted 19 edits to the area conflict. Taken together, they significantly skew the articles negatively against the opposing side of the conflict:
::* ].
::* ].
::* ] which was perhaps casting doubt on the relevant section, ''Massacre of pensioners'', and ].
::* ], therefore giving greater weight to the claims, in a context where the claims were already described at considerable length; ]; ].
::* ], then ], both to the first line of the article.
::* ] and ].
::* On the talk pages, there has been a ] although I would be prepared to look past that (it was like meeting like). I am skipping a few further and insignificant talk page comments.
::* There are then edits to ]: ]; ]. At ], there is then an expansion, again of the article lead, ] (]).
:: Assessing the edits as a whole, it is difficult not to conclude that the respondent user is failing to meet their contentious topics obligation to edit neutrally in this topic area. As the number of edits is so far limited, if a sanction is imposed, it could justifiably be light-touch. ] 20:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::: {{re|xDanielx}} Thanks for commenting. Most of the edits do not have a neutral, encyclopedic POV. There is an effort to influence our articles away from neutrally describing the subject without taking sides, contrary to ]. Even if each edit in isolation is insufficient for sanctioning, taken ''as a whole'' the edits show an inability or unwillingness to edit neutrally. One non-neutral edit shouldn't be sanctioned; twenty is a different story. This is not about the ''percentage'' of biased edits but about the weight or amount of them. Therefore, the assessment wouldn't really change even had the editor made some 'neutral' edits along the way. I'm happy to concede that editors cannot be compelled to balance edits of one bias with edits of another, but I don't think that comes into it. In a nutshell, this is about ]. ] 08:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


==Luganchanka==
; ] of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
<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>
# warned by me at his bogus 3rr report.
# warned by me after the PIGS stunt.
# warned by ] to stop removing other editors comments, which he continued doing afterwards.
# warned by ] to cease and desist from restoring Piasoft's trolling comment.


===Request concerning Luganchanka===
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : 1 week block per the terms of his civility parole, which should be reset so as to expire another 3 months from now.
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}} 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Luganchanka}}<p>{{ds/log|Luganchanka}}</p>
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : I have generally tried to avoid interaction with this editor as much as possible, however, considering the articles in question, it is not possible to completely avoid him. He follows me around and uses every opportunity available to engage in wikidrama and accuse me of all sorts of things, particularly at noticeboards such as WP:ANI, WP:RSN, etc...I also note that Sulmues is calling me a troll on this ''very page'', in reference to this comment of mine which he took it upon himself to remove it. Is my comment really trolling, or did Sulmues remove it because he did not want any of the other participants to find out about the map that I was proposing? A map that shows Kosovo in the early 20th century as mostly inhabited by Serbs. ] (]) 20:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


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


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
Ok, I'm ready. They are all false accusations and this is a really bad report. I reject the accusations as follows:
BLP CTOP warning given


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
*Calling another editor's edit "vandalism" , though he was ''explicitly'' told not to do so , was told it it was blockable, and was blocked for it last time at AE. Not to mention that his participation in that article is a breach of his ] topic ban.
At BLPN, there has been consensus that the version of the article describing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the second sentence of the article is problematic, as he did not actually have sexual contact with a child, only a police officer impersonating one. ]. Luganchanka has been persistently edit warring against this apparent consensus. For which he has been warned by {{Ping|NatGertler}} , which he subequently blanked There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article going back to at least August ], but Luganchanka persistently cites a "consensus" for its inclusion that as far as I can tell does not seem to exist, with Luganchanka aggressively editing to enforce its inclusion. ] (]) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
: Luganchanka's response is disingenuous and misleading. Look at the ] discussion I linked above. Nobody other than Luganchanka thinks that Ritter should be described as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article. The dispute isn't about whether or not the convictions should be mentioned in the lead at all or not, it's specifically about the use of the phrase "child sex offender", and there is no consensus to include that as far as I can tell, despite Luganchanka's vociferous claims to the contrary. ] (]) 20:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


===Discussion concerning Luganchanka===
:This edit was made in february 11 2010. It concerns something that is done in the Albanian task force of which I am a member: putting articles that regard Albania in the "track the related changes list" from the ]. The ] article in its version of 11 february () included ], hence it was to be included in the list. As back then I was the only member of the Albania task force I had to do it because it specifically regarded Albania. I am respecting my Kosovo ban religiously. ] vandalized the page because he is not a member of the Albania task force and removed the article from the Albania publicwatchlist. I duly reverted his vandalism. --] (]) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>


====Statement by Luganchanka====
*Trolling and removing another user's comments , taunting him , edit warring over it . Here he is removing another user's comments again .


The intro on the ] page had remained largely the same for several months, as you will see on the talkpage it is an intro approved, and reverted to, by multiple senior editors. There has been a recent flurry of activity / edits. While I ], it does look like those edits are attempting to downplay / whitewash Ritter's sexual offence conviction(s). I have not been 'aggressive' at all, rather I have simply referred contentious edits to the talkpage to build consensus, attempting to do my duty as a good Misplaced Pages editor.] (]) 20:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:The first and second edits take out the trolling comment on ]'s page regarding Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon Bonaparte has nothing to do with ] and it's a trolling comment to be removed per wiki policies.
:The third and fourth edits are to remove again incivil comments made by ]. Per wiki policies it is Ok to remove uncivil comments (see ])--] (]) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


Please see the ], where there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior wikipedia editors, that Ritter's sexual offence conviction should be included in the lead to the article. My edits have simply been aimed at ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article.] (]) 20:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*Here he is again removing comments, calling them trolling .
:Yes, this is a trolling comment as ] is clearly provoking with an extremist map. I try not to answer the comment, so that I don't feed the troll.


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


====Statement by (username)====
:The first comment is an answer to an editor in the talk page. The ] has way too many issues and is being patrolled by the Greek editors. The Albanian TF members have been banned or blocked, mostly reported by ].
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
:The second comment is perfectly civil and allowed per ]. I did not say that they were tag teaming, but that they were working in tandem. Perfectly fine with wiki policies.
:The third edit is not trolling. I really can't see how that's a trolling comment in the talk page.
:The fourth edit regards my opinion clearly stated in the talk page. No trolling made whatsoever.--] (]) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


===Result concerning Luganchanka===
*Shouting at other users not to remove maps .
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
:The first edit is a typo mistake, I'm not shouting at anyone. 5.5k edits and no shouting from my keyboard.
<!-- 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 edit is to have editors avoid edit-warring but use the talk page. ] has too many times deleted in fact that RS. Unfortunately. --] (]) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
*<!--
-->
:@]: whether you're correct or not, you were edit warring. I believe an indef block from the article and/or a temporary site block would be an appropriate sanction here. ] (]/]) 20:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::I've blocked the user for 48h for violating 3RR based on the report at ].--] (]) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* @], edit-warring ''to remove'' negative content at a BLP is an exemption to 3RR. I see that NatGertler mentioned this in their edit summaries and at talk. As voorts points out, it doesn't matter whether you're right when you're reverting an edit that is being claimed as an exemption, even if you believe you are "ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article". The solution is to go to talk, discuss, and get consensus. If you'd like to respond, ping me to your response at your talk and I'll post it here. ] (]) 16:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


==BabbleOnto==
*Here he is making all sorts of off-topic wild accusation while defending himself in an SPI .
<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>
:Both edits refer to my defense when I was unjustly accused to be a sock puppet of Sarandioti and ] was endorsing that false accusation. To mention that ] had already falsely accused me of being a sock puppet of Guildenrich ]. Note that Athenean was accusing me of collaborating off wiki with Sarandioti () and was asking for a check on patterns and not on IP only so I was under very heavy accusations. I am continually harassed by Athenean.
*Here is trolling on WP:RSN, using it as a platform to rant against "the Greek editors" and make all sorts of wild accusations and bad-faith assumptions .
:There is no trolling here. I am clearly stating my position and I am not being incivil at all. Per ] I am flawless.--] (]) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


===Request concerning BabbleOnto===
* Here he is doing the same thing on WP:ANI , making all sorts of wild accusations about Greek ancestry, hidden agendas, "the Greek editors" (again). Bad faith assumptions and conspiracy theories designed to make other editors look bad galore.
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|ජපස}} 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:In these two edits there is no Greek ancestry accusation, there is no "hidden agenda accusation". And I am allowed to say "Greek editor". Actually I am referring to Alexikoua that is trying to remind everybody that I have gotten some blocks. Again I see no flaws.--] (]) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|BabbleOnto}}<p>{{ds/log|BabbleOnto}}</p>
* Here he is taunting another editor for being recently blocked .
:No taunting. I have a friendship with Alexikoua and I welcomed him back, but I reminded him that he should not throw empty accusations when he is doing the same thing. Read carefully. --] (]) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
* Here he filed a bogus 3RR report against me , when I only had 2 reverts in the entire history of the article. He then goes on and on ad nauseam, not letting go and always trying to have the last word.
:This report is about you edit-warring. And you had three reverts. Edit warring includes but is not limited to the 3RR. I clearly specified that even though it's not a 3RR violation, you were edit-warring. As a matter of fact you recently got blocked for that. --] (]) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
* Striking through another user's word because he doesn't like the implication .
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
:And it's the right thing to do when you see your country's history shortened by 600 years. Megistias, in particular, knows that Albanians were mentioned since the 2nd century BC (see ]. In addition is allowed by ] when you see an insult of that nature.--] (]) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
* Here he is making a deliberately provocative edit , while mendaciously writing "hope no one gets offended" on the talkpage ], when it is quite clear he trying to do just that.
<!-- 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.-->
:You might get provoked but it's a very well sourced name. PIGS countries are well known in the Economics of EU. However there are many short-tempered wikipedians that might get offended by it, because they know little about Political Economics on EU. As a matter of fact a whole article might be written on PIGS countries. --] (]) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
# Sealioning
# Refusal to ]
# Personalizing an argument.
# Railroading the discussion.


This is all after I warned them about ] sanctions, and . Very nearly a ] on the subject. I see no reason to continue tolerating this kind of obstinate ]. Additional diffs available on request from admins, but looking at the user history should suffice to indicate the problem is obvious, I hope.
* Here he is going around giving barnstars , using it as an opportunity to call other editors "extremists" and "vandals". Since this editor has a history of pretty much nothing but conflict with myself and ], it's pretty clear who he has in mind here. I was extremely irritated by this, and came very close to filing here, but decided to let it slide at the time.
:Since when is giving barnstars a crime??? These users are part of the Albania TF and deal of course with vandalism every day. Are you really thinking that I indirectly insulting you? This is unbelievable and I think will remain in the history of Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
* The final straw however, was when he restored a trolling comment by ] ("greekification", that's a good one) and took it upon himself to cleanse another one of my comments . By restoring Piasoft's trolling, he is in effect endorsing it, and calls it a "warning" I should take very seriously on top of that. Sulmues has in general a very bad habit of restoring trolling by other users, as he did here when he restored this TOV by ] , saying that the guy "welcomed" me and I responded by "banning" him.
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
:Yes, you removed someone else's comment and called it trolling (the same thing you accuse me above anyways). He is warning you to not make any controversial anti-Albanian edits. You should not, as a general rule take out other people's comments.
:In regards to the edit related to Lceliku: Should I defend myself about this? You already reported me on it in February when I did not time to answer and I got blocked for it. Gotta use something new: Can't get blocked twice for the same thing. --] (]) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
* I decided to wait 24 hours before doing anything, but today, I see Sulmues using a 3RR report as a platform for yet ''more'' trolling against me , falsely accusing me of filing an SPI against him, calling me "arrogant" , accusing me of edit-warring. The guy can't stop himself from using ''every single opportunity'' available to rant about me accusing of being a sockpuppet . Here he is calling for me to get blocked for daring to think that Kushtrim is a sock .
<!-- 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. -->
:First edit: You falsely accused me at Moreschi (] falsely to be the sock of Guildenrich. You were also endorsing Alexikoua's accusation of being the sock of Sarandioti while accusing me of collaborating off wiki with Sarandioti ()
:Second edit: I talked you in your own talk page and all I got was this aggressive answer (). You should not revert 11 edits massively with a derogatory "POV pushing" comment. *Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above).
:Third edit: I think you are getting it wrong: I am not accusing you of being a sock. I am reminding other people that I am continuously accused of being a sock.
:Fourth edit: Kushtrim123 reported you for edit-warring, something you have been recently blocked for. I think you should also get blocked for making continuous bad faith accusations to people of being sock puppets and harassing them like you did with Kushtrim123. It is my right to do so. --] (]) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : 1 week block per the terms of his civility parole, which should be reset so as to expire another 3 months from now.
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
::I am in complete disagreement and this is a bad faith report. I am respecting my civilty parole religiously and making very good edits within the Albania TF. I have addressed every single accusation above and I reject them with disdain. I am being harassed by ] and I just want to be left in peace to edit my Albania TF topics.--] (]) 22:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a ] with respect to the topic and their ] surrounding it has been subject to at least one ] thread that remains active: ]. The hope was that they would ] and move on from this, but it seems they either will not or cannot. ] (]) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
Response to further accusations from ]: ] clearly explained that the report DID NOT CLAIM that I am "possibly a meatpuppet" like you repeat (see ). This is a heavy accusation that you have done several times even in the recent report that ] has just filed against you and we are still waiting for a response on it. You have been edit-warring in many articles recently using forum sources and you just got out of the block for edit-warring! I still need your public apologies for filing a bogus SPI report that I am possibly a sock. It seems like you still are not convinced that I am a sock () and this is pitiful. --] (]) 07:28, 17 March 2010 (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. -->
:Regarding ], yes, that's the Albanian name: he was born in Albania and respected there. He left Albania when he was 30 and his bones are still there per his wish. I redirected the name towards your article: I stopped the discussion after having provided many sources that he was indeed Albanian (please read talk page), but eventually was not responded by you, instead was told "you are so desperate you need to recruit a Greek patriot and hero in to your cause" () by another user and quit editing there because that other user was being incivil. I just swam away from that article to respect my civility parole. --] (]) 07:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
::Regarding ]: ] is your work, isn't it? Albania's national hero won't be an Albanian according to you? You are tendentiously offering 41 bogus sources to claim that he is Greek. Bad luck there, so you tried with the Serbian origin after that. Now you are claiming half-Serbian, and soon you'll realize that all Skanderbeg's halfs will be Albanian. Those were tendentious edits that I did not expect from an experienced user with proper knowledge of the Balkans like yours.--] (]) 07:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
:::What to say about '''Bonaparte's accusations''': I just addressed in Moreschi's page the concerns of an Albanian newbie user and told him to find sources before claiming any Albanian origin of Bonaparte. This () is the only edit that I had in Moreschi's page on Bonaparte in my history of 5.5k edits in Misplaced Pages. You are mentioning it several times now as if I want to do anything with the article on Bonaparte, but I have never touched the article or the talk page for that matter.--]
::::Regarding your participation in ]. I had already corrected myself on that ()(]) 07:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::Response to Michael the White: The only time that I saw your edits were in ] talkpage, where you had written in a paragraph that was already exhausted and the discussion was in another one. If I were not available for talking like you claim, why didn't you write to me in the talk page? Remember that both ] and ] got blocked for edit warring me there. I take it that you also are a Greek editor: I am sure that we will have future collaborative work in wikipedia like I have had with other decent and honest Greek editors like ].--] (]) 07:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


===Discussion concerning BabbleOnto===
@Sandstein: I really don't see how you concluded that I am disruptive. I addressed every single accusation. You are not addressing the issues clearly and are taking little time to see things in particular. How can things "on the whole" be that I am disruptive if, in particular, they are not disruptive? Your conclusion just doesn't make any sense. The only accusation that you seem to endorse is that I gave barnstars to people who fight vandalism. How is that an incivil way? ] fights vandalism every day and keeps the Albania articles clean. Doesn't he deserve a barnstar? In addition to ] I awarded the barnstar because he is fighting "EXTREMIST editors". How's that a battleground behavior?
<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>
Let me understand: you are deciding to topic ban me because I gave out barnstars?
Let me also understand: How am I being unpersuasive after addressing every single accusation?
I would gently ask that you analyze my response to the other users: which it seems you have not seen yet, because I wrote them after you wrote your thoughts. Speedy topic banning me goes even beyond what's asked by ]. In addition, even though I was continuously harassed even in an incivil way, I never was incivil, in addition I never used Misplaced Pages as a battleground. Thank you for your attention! --] (]) 07:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


====Statement by BabbleOnto====
====Comments by others about the request concerning Sulmues ====
I would first like to begin by point out the person filing this complaint . They have frequently left "warnings" which read more like threats on and for people who disagree with them. Nor would I be the .
From what I've seen of this user in the few discussions we've both participated, is the persistence on a certain version of one article (ex. in ]), which is usually motivated by dogmatism. There is also the lack of will for discussion, and the absence of arguments and usually also absence sources, to the point that discussion is not only fruitless but useless and intervention becomes extremely important, if not vital, when normally the users should be able to reach a consensus via discussion and not need intervention unless an issue is extremely controversial or an attitude is problematic.--] (]) 21:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


To be honest I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm being charged with doing.
I want to say that ] in the days I have been here in wikipedia has been cooperative and hasn't created any "problems". On the other hand ] keeps following other users like myself and keeps accusing them about things that have been proven not to be true. If he wants to award stuff to people it's his right, and if you think that "hope no one gets offended" is provocative that's just meaningless. How can a sentence like that be provocative?--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


I think in general the user is alleging I've been uncivil, unhelpful, and, in their words, obstinate and tendentious. I know when someone disagrees with you it may feel like they're getting in your way and acting in bad-faith, but that's not always true. I've never tried to be disruptive or uncivil. I've , I've that were clarified to be wrong, I've , at times and work together. And when those editors , I didn't provoke any further.
Wow, yet another report against ]. It's clear that ] wants him to get banned (at least blocked) by any means, although the accusations have always been proven not to be true. Thank you. <small style="background:#000">''']<span style="color:#fff;background:#f00">al</span>'''</small> 23:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


I now address the specific edits in the complaint:
::I have advised Sulmues multiple times to respect his civility parole ] but unfortunately without any result. Today, he participated in a mysterious and combined report ] against me, with two other recently created accounts (ZjarriRrethues, Kruschtim) proving that he is also responsible for provoking meatpuppet activity. No wonder that both spi cases against Sulmues concluded that we have 'possibly meatpuppet activity' ]]. Sulmues was searching for co-ethnics in wiki ], but unfortunately not to improve the quality of this encyclopedia but to initiate a national crusade, as his last days contribution proves. Additionally:


1. I don't see how this is sea-lioning. The user misquoted the article. I pointed out the misquotation, then addressed a accusation against me that I was second-guessing the sources (A claim which was never substantiated). I then said any source would have to support that actual claim which was in the article. I don't know what this violates.
*When he breached his topic ban in Kosovo articles, I've kindly asked him to cancel the afd he filled ], but he ignored me, with the excuse that he can virtually evade his topic ban because he is the only active account in TF:Albania ]. Finally he canceled his afd proposal only after being warned by admin ], seeing that a block would become inevitable that way.


2. I don't see how this is refusing to get the message (IDHT). The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it. I replied with what I actually said. What part of that interaction is saying "I didn't hear that?"
*Obsession that various personalities are Albanians, like ] (he calls him with the Albanian translation of this name: Vanghel Zappa), while the entire bibliography is completely contradicting him ]. I've asked to support his view with rs material but without direct answer. Same situation in wp:blp article ] ] trying to prove that he is Albanian. Similar situation with Napoleon, but without being agressive in this case.


3. Admittedly probably the strongest of the four allegations. I'm not pretending I was perfect in all of my comments. I should have kept my criticism strictly to their argument. I ask you to read it in context and keep in mind you're viewing a hand-picked assortment of my worst edits, and this is the worst they could find. Also consider that conversation accused me of , perhaps you can see I lose my cool sometimes too.
*This ] is called taunting. Actually Sulmues is hypocritical when pretending a friendship with me: apart from the friendly advice I've gave him in his talk page, nothing else would I call friendly. His contribution was highly disruptive and hostile towards, following me around on several articles like]].


4. I'm not even really sure what "railroading the discussion" means. Thus, to keep this section short and to save words, I don't know what I'm being accused of doing wrong here.
*Obsession on trying to keep Skanderbegs' origin purely Albanian, after I've provided more than 18 sources ]] (mostly pointing to a semi-serbian origin) suggesting a small addition in the article. Apart from his sarcasm ]], he mysteriously accused me that I'm trying to make him... Greek ].


All of this has stemmed out of arguments over two sources. I have tried to find compromise, I have tried to negotiate, I have tried to build consensus. I've been going through the proper channels, I've been participating in the RfC, I've been discussing it on the ANI, I source every claim I make, for a month now I've been trying to constructively explain my side and defend my argument against challenges. It's incredibly frustrating to now be facing an Arbitration Enforcement on grounds that '''I'm''' not working with others. ] (]) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:*On the other hand Sulmues has made some good edits in football and sport topics in general. But with this extreme aggressive nationalistic pattern (sarcasm, taunting, personal attacks, meatpuppetry). I'm afraid that any kind of supervision isn't enough. I believe a 3 months 1rr restriction on related articles might be a solution. ] (]) 00:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
*:Edited. ] (]) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by ProcrastinatingReader====
::Moreover, I see that Sulmues launched another 'mystirious' accusation against me about Vjose ], however I never participated in this topic ].] (]) 09:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I've interacted with BabbleOnto in several threads. There's a few problems, but ultimately, I think they have a certain opinion on what the article should say, and will debate endlessly to get the article changed to their position. I mean, sure, reasonable people disagree on how to interpret sources and apply policy, but I don't think BabbleOnto is actually interested in faithful application of policies to write high quality articles based on good sources.


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


====Statement by Newimpartial====
The edits cited in this request are not sanctionable misconduct individually, but in aggregate they represent a pattern of ] behavior, as seen especially in Sulmues awarding barnstars for "fighting" against other editors. This, rather than incivility, is the main problem here in my eyes. The statements made by Sulmues in his defense are unpersuasive; they mostly amount to "yes but I am right and the others are wrong and/or disruptive". That is not what matters here: you may well be right in your content disputes and your opponents may well be disruptive too, but that still does not justify you engaging in disruptive conduct. Per WP:BATTLE: "If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind."
As the editor to whom BabbleOnto was responding in the diffs of the filing, I feel compelled to comment now that they have defended (to varying degrees) their first three diffs. I will reply as briefly as I know how to their defense of the diffs, .


1. BabbleOnto is now doubling down on the claim that I {{tq|misquoted the article}}. I didn't "misquote" the article - I didn't quote the article, and I explained what my comment meant in the rest of the (now collapsed) thread that ends . Also, I provided a clear explanation of why I thought they were second-guessing sources later in the thread, but BabbleOnto never responded to that explanation. They are now responding to the accusation of ] with pure ].
For these reasons, I intend to sanction Sulmues with a time-limited ban from topics related to ] and the ], which appears to be the area of conflict, unless other admins disagree. However, as a formality, the reporting editor will need to first complement the request with a diff of the prior {{tl|uw-sanctions}}-style warning as required by ]. This should not be considered an endorsement of anything done by the editors Sulmues is in conflict with; indeed, these may very well have engaged in similar sanctionable conduct, but that would need to be examined in a separate AE request. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


2. On this they say, now, that {{tq|The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it.}} This is repeating a misreading they made in the original thread, where they mistook a statement I made about another editor's comment as if it were about theirs. In this "defense", I see no attempt to read thoughtfully what other editors say in reply to them and revise their understanding accordingly; all I see is zero-sum mentality and ].
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.-->


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


4. They don't bother defending themselves on this one, but just to point out the actual issue with the diff, they doubled down on their accusations that I {{tq|said a material lie}}, and that I {{tq|lied when said that quoted the article out of context. Pointing out being caught lying}} and then proceeded to STRAWMAN the rest of my comment to which they were replying. If they had read my prior comment with a reasonable level of attention, they would have understood that there were no "lies", just a misunderstanding or two in each direction. But ] again; even in responding to this filing BabbleOnto is still insisting I did things that I quite obviously didn't do.
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
===Request concerning Abd===
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 08:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


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


====Statement by (username)====
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ]
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning BabbleOnto===
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : :
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
# Removes from Ghost the lead paragraph that has been heavily disputed, and claims himself the arbiter of how much consensus is needed to place it on the lead.
<!-- 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. -->
# Removes the pseudoscience arbitration case notice from ]. (unlogged edit) He wasn't an originating party from either the "does Ghost belong to pseudoscience category" dispute, or the "should we place the pseudoscience arbitration notice here" dispute
*<!--
## Removes it again, saying that the argument should count even if it was made by an IP.
-->
# Comments out of the RfC section, in a topic that was not covered by the RfC
*{{u|BabbleOnto}}, please edit your statement down further to fit within the restriction. This also serves as an opportunity to rephrase your defense, which currently is not convincing at first glance. ProcrastinatingReader's description of the situation seems quite apt, particularly {{tq|BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible}}, which is currently a pretty fitting description of your response to them here, given that you zeroed in on the "superficially reasonable" part and ignored the much more serious parts of the testimony. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
# Removes the NSF commentary from the pseudoscience case notice in ] (directly relevant to the Ghost dispute)
*:Ok, having read through nearly every edit that BabbleOnto has made, I agree with the complainants that not only does BabbleOnto engage in sealioning, it appears to be almost exclusively what they do. The discussion at ] exhibits perhaps even more concerning argumentation than the diffs provided in the initial report. Throughout these discussions, BabbleOnto tends to demand a standard of stating the obvious (with respect to the context of said sources) that is absurd, and continues to lawyer for such standards even when the situation becomes ]. When criticizing sources' ability to account for basic claims, I can find no examples of BabbleOnto themselves attempting to find sources that would resolve the issues they identify--this is uncollaborative behavior. There is a clear pattern of engaging in this behavior across recent US politics topics consistent with the scope of ]. The only saving grace to BabbleOnto's track record is that none of this has translated into disruptive editing of actual articles, just unproductive engagement on talk pages. I am currently in favor of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics; if they are actually here to build an encyclopedia and not to provide a punching bag for debate club, they can use this opportunity to learn more constructive patterns of editing in topics that they are less personally invested in. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
# Uses the whitelist page to comment on a lot of requests where he is not an originating party. Notice that the meaning of "originating party" was further clarified two weeks ago and this is a clear violation.
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): # Warning by {{user|Enric Naval}}
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : One week block, as the restriction says.


==Marlarkey==
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Ghost-related violations: Abd is not an originating party of the already-existing dispute that was going on ]. He has commented on the dispute outside of the context of the RfC, and he has extended the already-existing dispute about the NSF source into the Pseudoscience talk page.
<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 Marlarkey===
:Whitelist-related violations: Abd held a discussion ] about improving the whitelist, but he has implemented it in a way that allows him to comment in any already-existing dispute that involves a whitelisting request, independently of whether he was an originating party or not. In , he advises an editor about COI, and this sort of advice is what caused the problems with LirazSiri, with those problems leading to his last AE block.
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|WeatherWriter}} 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Marlarkey}}<p>{{ds/log|Marlarkey}}</p>
:He made two additional diffs that are not so clear-cut, so I sent those to requests for clarification. The diffs listed above are the clear-cut ones, and they are by themselves a clear violation. --] (]) 08:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


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


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
====Statement by Abd====
<!-- 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.-->
See also ] filed by Enric Naval. When Enric first complained about my Ghost edits, I placed a request on my Talk page noting that I would respect any clarification by a neutral administrator covering this new interpretation, pending resolution. Absent such, since Enric Naval was highly involved in the subject RfAr and has consistently presented himself as an adverse party, with a number of complaints that were not sustained, I do not consider his interpretation binding. This request, however, reaches even beyond that. I respond in detail in collapse, if anyone needs detail. The collapse summaries should be adequate as non-evidenced response.
{{collapse top|1. Single edit to ], not a participation in discussion of a dispute}}
The existing dispute was over the use of an NSF report in an attempt to establish a scientific consensus that belief in ghosts was a pseudoscientific belief. The edit did not weigh in on this, but rather on a different issue, whether or not the NSF comment was sufficiently notable and required by balance ''in the lede.'' One does not make oneself the "sole arbiter" of some text by asserting a single edit. Nor did this edit "discuss" an extant controversy, which was over an RS issue, not lede characteristics as such. The comment about consensus was my understanding of our guidelines.
{{collapse top|about the lede and why this was inappropriate, not relevant to ban interpretation issue}}
Ledes should enjoy the highest level of consensus, more difficult issues should be covered in the text. That lede text is considered to require references is a sign that it may not reflect high consensus; generally everything in the lede should be established in the article, so references are redundant, and the lede should be a summary of the most notable and clear aspects of a topic. If Misplaced Pages had a Summary of Knowledge publication, consisting only of ledes from articles, would this text be in it? I didn't think so, hence I removed it. That removal did not take a position on the raging debate over the National Science Foundation reference, and I did not touch the later section in the article where it was used (the section on the situation in the United States); that usage, in fact, shows the narrowness of the NSF issue and why it doesn't belong in the lede. "Ghosts" are a global concept, and the situation in one nation is a small part of the topic.
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|2. Pseudoscience arbitration case notice: not a participation in discussion of a dispute}}
At the time, ] was not in the pseudoscience category. It is now, but only as a result of protection of the "wrong version" in the middle of an edit war over it. Further, that notice was being used to insert an unsigned personal opinion, under color of an ArbComm finding. The simplest way to deal with it was to remove it. Ordinarily, I'd have made a single edit, as I initially did, and then left final disposition to the community. But autologout had struck, so it was IP. And then an editor removed it as if it had been vandalism, not appearing to read the edit summary. So I restored it logged-in, and noted that edits by IP editors should receive the same respect as edits by logged-in editors, generally. The edit was again reverted and I did not continue. There is serious disruption going on at ] and in the pseudoscience area, with edit warring at ], ], and ], such that the two articles have been full protected. I am not the cause of this disruption, not even close. I have only asserted, simply, normal editorial positions, without discussion (except for the inadvertent post mentioned outside collapse and allowed RfC comment). This kind of activity is not what the sanction was designed to address.


''''''
I was not aware of a "should we place the arbitration notice here" dispute. Perhaps Enric Naval could point out where it was. It became a dispute later, may still be in dispute, I don't know. If it started with the original placement and my removal, am I then an "originating party"? It doesn't matter, in fact, because I don't intend to discuss it. I took an action, a permitted one, not "discussion" but ordinary editing (with the minimal encouraged "discussion" of edit summary explaining the edit).
# - Mainspace PIA edit prior to EC status.
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request and acknowledgement of aforementioned edit.
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request.
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Accused another editor of vandalism.
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Says, "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration."
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary.
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary.


''''''
The edit was a completely independent judgment and not relevant to the original dispute, on the face. That my edit appeared to support one side of a dispute does not mean that it was a comment on the dispute. I was asserting a Talk page content issue, and that assertion did not address the standing dispute, which was not over the Talk page notice itself, even though those arguing might preferentially have one position or another. My work is not defined by several editors arguing, and was not a "comment" on their dispute. It was my action, as a member of the community who attempts to anticipate consensus, acting to express it. In the end, whether I'm correct or not will be up to the community, and these brief and quickly reversible actions, easily ignored if they are improper and find no support, are not disruptive. The raging debate, with three RfCs and counting, edit warring and repetition and multiplication of arguments, is. If I express my specific opinion about this, as to the factions, I'd be violating my ban, though it might leak through sometimes.
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
{{collapse bottom}}
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request.
{{collapse top|3. Discussion in ], inadvertent ban violation, now struck}}. I struck , as soon as I realized, it being pointed out by SamJohnston, in the RfAr/Clarification, that this was discussion, not a comment in an RfC, and related to a dispute in which I was not an originating party. I'd have deleted it if it had been immediately pointed out. The edit was unsigned and probably inadvertent. I put great effort into complying with the ban, while remaining engaged in permitted activity. I occasionally write a response, then dump it as it becomes clear to me that it would push the edge of the ban. I am attempting to interpret the ban very strictly, as I agreed to do. Had I been blocked for this edit, I'd have had no response but "Oops! Sorry!" At this point, I really don't understand why I'd even write the thing, all I can imagine is that I became confused as to where I was, given that I was also commenting, around the same time, in two different RfCs over the basic issue. So, at this point, I'd request one thing relevant to enforcement. If not for the ban, would that edit have been harmful? It is expressing what will probably be community consensus when the smoke clears, and, if not, at least it was a reasonable expression of what will become part of the consensus. I consider that edit crossed into doubtful territory, at least, so it is not a toe in the door, and I request that I not be blocked as a result of it. Repetition of such edits would appropriately see response with a block, even if inadvertent. I would also not object to a short block or a block log annotation, so that there is a ready record of violation history. However, this does not apply to the rest of what Enric Naval has alleged. --] (]) 17:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request..."''Someone has reverted my removal of Israel - Hamas *AGAIN* so I've taken it out *AGAIN*.''"
{{collapse bottom}}
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
{{collapse top|4. Alleged removal of NSF commentary: Not a removal and not discussion.}}
# - Self-revert of direct previous mainspace reversion that was prior to EC status.
Since the removal of the notice, an RfAr ruling on pseudoscience placed on a Talk page for an article not in the pseudoscience category, the topic not being covered in the definition of pseudoscience in the ruling itself, was reverted, I then so that it was clear that it was separate, addressing the most serious problem. I did not, as claimed by Enric Naval, remove it. I think he didn't read the whole diff. This is all normal editorial process whereby some compromise is made that preserves the critical values of all sides. I was disputing the Talk page notice and how it was presented, and working this out quickly and efficiently without tendentious discussion. That, it seems, is what ArbComm wanted me to do. I was not intervening in someone else's dispute, even though my actions might have an effect on that dispute.
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status...Made while this enforcement request was being typed up. This reversion by Marlarkey is of an edit with the direct edit summary of "Per ]". User is 100% disregarding CT requirements.


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : N/A. No previous blocks or topic bans.
Note that the entire ruling was again later as misleading or confusing. That may or may not stand. I do not necessarily support the removal, in fact, because I do not support arguing over trivialities, and especially not revert warring over them. I am not taking a side in the dispute between editors, on-wiki. (Off-wiki, I certainly have my opinions.) If one faction wants it in, and it is on a Talk page and does not do serious harm, why not leave it for a while? I simply took action, based on project welfare, and the sanction only covers certain kinds of discussion. I was personally content with separating out the most contentious part so that it was attributed, and possibly, if it were still considered disruptive (as argued in the latest removal) might have added some more qualifying text that would avoid misinterpretation. But I'm probably done with that issue, and I'm discussing it here only because of this AE request. In general, enforcement efforts over the sanction have caused far more waste of time than any disruption resulting from my alleged violations, most of which have not been sustained where examined.
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|5. Whitelist activity: Not a dispute and not discussion of a dispute}}
I'm flabbergasted by this one. Whitelist requests have been sitting for as long as two months with no response, or there is a single comment that is ambiguous and makes no decision. I've been in extensive discussion with Beetstra over this for a very long time, up to a year, and the case RfAr/Abd and JzG was originally about an improper blacklisting by an involved admin, and ArbComm confirmed there that blacklisting should not be based on admins making content decisions. However, content issues are not completely irrelevant, either, for if it is true that there is no possible legitimate usage, or that such usage would be the exception rather than the rule, this can be a factor in deciding how serious spam should be before blacklisting and then requiring whitelisting of individual pages. Big problem, though, is a lack of volunteer support at the whitelist page, and there are very few administrators working on blacklisting issues. So, after , I offered to help at the whitelist page, trying to pioneer a way for non-administrators to help, and my intention would be to solicit other editors to do the same, and to develop clearer guidelines for whitelisting requests. To do that, I need experience making whitelist judgments. So I've started doing that. These are simply expressed opinions on a whitelisting request. They are completely independent, though I do consider any comments that exist already. None of these would be at the level of dispute as contemplated in the sanction, though it's possible that someone will dispute my comments. There is no assertion that any comment is improper. There is no dispute at all until there is a decision, though if I come across a request where there is serious dispute, I might consider that and recuse because of the ban. Someone else can look at them, and I'll try to facilitate that happening.


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): at 15:29, 21 November 2024.
I'm trying to make it quick and efficient to get a page whitelisted if there is an adequate ''possibility'' of legitimacy, and in doing this, there is a lot of flexibility. I can recommend "no action," but suggest to the requestor that they obtain support from other editors at an article Talk page, for example, or perhaps at a WikiProject. And if they do, then I can change my recommendation. Blacklist admins very obviously don't have time for this, and that is not their fault at all.


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
My work there also will be of no effect, a waste of time, if no blacklist admin respects it. I have no coercive power, nor would I want it. But this is an opportunity for blacklist admins to stop making content decisions when they deny a request (or, for that matter, grant it, though a whitelisting does ''not'' make a decision that a link is to be used). As I see it, admins would never deny a request, they would let the community do that, and the community can make content decisions. Then, if an admin participates in a whitelist discussion, it's only as a member of the community. A close as "whitelist," however, requires an admin, because it's an edit to a protected page. I'm proceeding with sensitivity and cooperation, I hope.
User has been on Misplaced Pages (on and off) since at least January 2010. It seems there is a ]-related issue on ArbCom PIA/Contentious topics, given the very clear lack of ignorance of the ArbCom Notification and subsequent edit summary arguments. I do not necessarily believe a block will be of use in this case, due to this editor's on-and-off Misplaced Pages editing status (less than 500 edits since January 2010). Either a topic ban and/or a 1,000 EC status requirement (i.e. EC-status requirement is something higher than 500 edits) is being requested. '''The ]''' (] 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*One of the edits by Marlarkey listed above from 13 January 2025 has been by {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} for Marlarkey not being ECR logged. '''The ]''' (] 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:*{{ping|Marlarkey}} I want to ], so I wanted to let you know that ] is what we call "broadly constructed". If you read ], it says, "{{tq|These are the current arbitration remedies applicable to any pages and edits that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.}}" The edit you are attempting to me is ''related'' to the Arab-Israel conflict. The page itself does not have to be entirely about the war to be covered under the restrictions. Any edit that is at least, even slightly related to the conflict is covered under the restrictions. While the page is about declarations of war throughout history, the specific edit is related to whether the Israel-Hamas war was a declaration of war. That is obviously related to the conflict, given it specifically is in regard to the ]. That is why the edits were reverted and why this violation report was filed. Hopefully that makes sense. Also, just a quick side-note, accusing other editors of vandalism is ] and is not really how Misplaced Pages operates. You should always ]. '''The ]''' (] 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::*{{ping|Marlarkey}} We are all working together to create a better encyclopedia. No one is against you and we do wish for all to edit Misplaced Pages. The ArbCom restrictions require that you have (1) at least an account of 30 days old and (2) at least 500 edits, to be able to edit content anywhere on Misplaced Pages regarding the Israel-Hamas war. At the time of all the edits linked above, you did not have 500 edits on Misplaced Pages. You were roughly at 490. At the time of this, you now have over 500 edits, which means you could now edit content regarding the Israel-Hamas war. That said, this report was made because of the several edits you made prior to reaching the 500 edit requirement.


:::Please understand this is for the edits that you made which were in clear violation of the policy, which requires you to have 500 edits prior to editing anything even remotely related to the conflict. This report was not that you are incorrect with your removal of the content. Not at all. This report is because you removed the content before you were allowed to (i.e. the 500-edit mark). Please understand we all are on the same-side here and no one is vandalizing anything. Once this is resolved, I would be more than happy to calmly discuss the content changes with you. I hope you can understand that this report is specifically because you made the changes before you were allowed to and not at all regarding the content in those changes. '''The ]''' (] 00:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Enric Naval clearly considers the project a battleground, so that any discussion of a proposal becomes a "dispute." I don't think so. I have no intention of becoming embroiled in other people's disputes, either on the whitelist page or elsewhere. I'm just trying to help clear up the backlog, and to help make the ArbComm ruling on blacklisting a reality, while fully respecting the needs of the administrators working on antispam process. I may be uniquely placed to accomplish this, given a great deal of time spent studying blacklist issues, and quite a bit of successful work with blacklist admins. (Don't mistake the occasional flare-ups for a lack of cooperation, blacklist admins are faced with a flood of spam and it is very hard to distinguish that, sometimes, from legitimate content additions, and they get faced with charges of "censorship!" all the time. They need help and support that, at the same time, respects the goal: a functional editorial community which also needs assistance and support, necessary for the project.)
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|Enric Naval's warning: not about the only actual violation (number 3)}}
Enric Naval warned me only about the first item in his list. I responded adequately there, soliciting clarification from any neutral admin, should any agree with him. None did. The only violation here is his item 3, which was inadvertent, I was slow to recognize it when SamJohnston pointed it out, because of the noise about "violations" that weren't. You can see in my edits to RfAr/Clarification that at first I thought he was pointing to RfC text, I was astonished to find that he was right, so sure was I that I'd confined discussion to comment in RfC. Perfect and error-free, I am not.
{{collapse bottom}}
*'''@Verbal''' Please do not bring an open content dispute here, there is an RfC on the very position you are asserting, and your position is not the majority one, so far. That may change. It's moot for AE, because my sanction does not prohibit me from making errors about content. As to length of comment, my essential response is all visible outside of collapse, each collapse having a descriptive title that says it. There is no obligation to read the "details." Is there harm in them being made available? --] (]) 19:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
*'''@TS''' ''Continually injecting these thousand-word essays into discussions on Misplaced Pages.'' '''Have I done this anywhere recently, even once, let alone "continually"?''' I assume I'm allowed freedom on my own Talk page, and to present evidence and argument as needed when I'm hauled before ArbComm or AE. If I'm being "continually" hauled before ArbComm or AE, maybe some attention should be paid to that, and to who is doing it. You do realize it's the same people, don't you? --] (]) 19:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
*'''@Hans Adler.''' While I appreciate your support, the question here is my right to make the edits, not whether they were "correct" or not. While your view, if accepted, might be an ameliorating factor in ban enforcement, that's about it. Thanks. --] (]) 19:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
{{collapse top|@JzG and One Night in Hackney: I disputed an unopposed extreme claim by an editor on the blacklist page, thus originating a "dispute" as allowed.}}
*'''@JzG and One Night in Hackney.''' These editors raise as a new problem. Whether songfacts.com is RS or not is not the issue in itself, the issue for blacklisting is spamming, and thus there may be some dispute between an alleged spammer and someone demanding the spam stop. However, that isn't a dispute, per se, usually, on the blacklist page. (there is no practice of notifying "spammers" of blacklist discussions, and they normally don't see these and comment). It may be relevant, however, that discussion exists, because if there is a possibility of cooperative behavior from the "spammer," blacklisting is not to be used, by policy. Because I'd been discussing songfacts.com, off-wiki, with an administrator, and had investigated the site and found that it does appear to be, even, reliable source, in spite of the legal disclaimer ONIH found, it was important to note that possibility, since otherwise had been claimed. In other words, I was not intervening in the dispute between the spammer and the other editor (from which I explicitly have refrained, precisely because of my ban, even though I think I could be useful there, as I've been in the past with such offenders, they listen to sympathetic advice much better than "go away, dirty spammer!" which is, too often, the text or subtext, even if unintended), but '''I was disputing a claim by an editor on the blacklist page. Before that, there was no dispute on that page.''' So, for this "dispute," if we want to call it that, I'm an '''originating party,''' sorry to have to wikilawyer to that extent. My ban does not prohibit me from originating disputes. That someone somewhere else might be involved in some similar or related dispute doesn't make my independent comment an intervention in that other dispute. It stands apart from it, and does not resolve it or attempt to resolve it, though a resulting community consensus might have an effect.


*{{ping|Rosguill}} After my last reply, I realized I went 105 words over the 500-word limit. I would like to request that 105-word extension (so I do not have to reword or remove the last reply I made). I do not plan to reply again as I think everything I needed to say and link to has been said and linked to. '''The ]''' (] 00:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Whether or not songfacts.com is RS or not is not the issue here, and it wastes all our time for irrelevant issues to be brought here. I am not under a sanction to never make an error in an argument, even if I did that. These AE requests have, however, often been an occasion for editors to scour my contributions looking for anything they disagree with, which they toss in the hopper, making it look like I'm being massively disruptive, challenging the edges, etc. I have extensive experience with blacklisting issues, having brought an RfAr over blacklist abuse by JzG, confirmed as such by ArbComm, but I did far more work with the blacklist than was about JzG, with quite a bit of success, and with successful cooperation with blacklist admins. And now this is being threatened, not because I'm disruptive at the blacklist/whitelist, -- that's preposterous if you look at the pages -- but because a long-term agenda to ban me from the site (I've documented this before, it's been openly expressed) sees opportunities. If this is not noticed and stopped, it will continue until I'm banned again, or spike my password, and when I'm gone, the same editors will continue to do this with others, as they did before I ever became involved, while I was site-banned, and in matters that involve me not at all.


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
I made an additional comment on the blacklist talk page in response to comment from Beetstra, which could be seen as a closer approach to the ban edge, because Beetstra had referred to the IP editor's behavior, though I was still trying to avoid comment on the dispute (on the IP editor Talk page), as can be seen, so, since nobody has replied to that edit, I have , even though it has not been mentioned here. --] (]) 18:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
*'''@Enric Naval:''' The is very specific as to this '''3.3) Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes . He may, however, vote or comment at polls.''' I am prohibited from discussing the disputes of others on Misplaced Pages pages. I am not prohibited from non-discussion action, such as editing an article. I may not enter an existing dispute ''discussion.'' While I could start a new section and discuss my own independent issue, I'm not aware of taking advantage of this anywhere that an existing dispute is involved, and usually it is not needed. I may watch and comment in RfCs that appear, though, and I am under no 0RR restriction or the like. Thus the original intention of the ban, probably about "tomes" considered offensive, is not violated by ordinary article space edits, which are not "discussion," unless I made them so, nor by other edits which do not ''discuss'' a standing dispute, and especially if the length is restrained. --] (]) 19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
*'''@SamJohnston''' beats dead horse. Response to charge (3) above discusses that edit and acknowledges ban violation and discusses response. Generally, Misplaced Pages does not punish, but acts to prevent damage. I made an edit, inadvertent or not, and it's up to enforcing administrators as to what is best for the wiki, and I only ask that such be neutral, as policy requires. --] (]) 19:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
*'''General comment on enforcement.''' In reviewing this, if block response (and there was one violating edit) is found appropriate, I ask that the block record be considered. Please notice that the two blocks began with one week (excessive for first ban block), were placed by a single admin, already in dispute with me over a serious issue (recusal failure re prior threat to block another, made on my Talk page), and were not based on any of the AE reports or RfAr/Clarifications, with respect to actions that were not covered by the ban as understood at that time. To avoid disruption, I accepted a much tighter definition of the ban, and then, second incident in particular, was blocked for something that I never dreamed would be covered, that already existed during the tightening clarification, and that hadn't been considered to be a violation previously, and without warning, other than uselessly general ones. --] (]) 19:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
====Comments by others about the request concerning Abd ====
=====Comment by Verbal=====
Two quick points, having not read all of Abd's wall-o-text. 1, is there/shouldn't there be a limit on the length of Abd's response? Collapsing bits isn't a substitute. 2, Ghost '''is''' in the pseudoscience category, via the paranormal category, so his reasoning on that whole point is faulty (this doesn't preclude other instances of his reasoning being faulty). <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 18:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
: Could we impose a community remedy requiring Abd to communicate normally? Five or six brief sentences should be enough for anybody. Continually injecting these thousand-word essays into discussions on Misplaced Pages is perhaps the most destructive of Abd's activities. --] 19:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
::I believe this was a restriction or similar (recommendation?) placed on him at the close of a previous arbcom case. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 19:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
'''@Abd''' I haven't brought a dispute here, that Ghost is in the PS category (whether that category is on the page or not) is an easily verifiable fact, and a fact that no one has disputed - or can without being shown to be wrong. And yes, there is a harm especially when they contain incorrect statements that at first blush appear true - such as saying Ghost isn't in the PS cat, or that this is disputed. The level of it's inclusion has been a topic of minor dispute, but it's still there (Cat Ghosts -> cat paranormal -> cat pseudoscience). Also, there is a simple way of ending Abd's attachment to AE and ArbCom, which would be a net positive for the project. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 19:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


===Discussion concerning Marlarkey===
'''Hans''' On ghost I feel it is justified, on witches I'm not really interested, and I don't know of any other article where this has been pushed, and it's not relevant either. As for Ghost, I honestly disagree with you there. Please calm down - I'm not part of any gang (not even one of abd's famous cabals). <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 19:57, 17 March 2010 (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>


=====Comment by Hans Adler===== ====Statement by Marlarkey====
Concerning Enric's diffs and :


{{userlinks|WeatherWriter}} is repeatedly reverting edits which are removing information outside the scope of the page in question. My edits are validly citated within the scope of the page. {{userlinks|WeatherWriter}} has cited WP:ARBPIA but that is not relevant to THIS article which is not a Palestine-Israel article. This article is not a contentious topic - it is factual.
Abd removed two passages based on crass misrepresentations of an NSF paper. Every editor with a bit of experience with scientific or scholarly work (such as having written and refereed scientific publications) can see immediately that these paragraphs were quote-mined and quoted out of context. #1 was worse than #4 in that it appeared in article space. The passage would have been somewhat defensible (although still problematic) if it had appeared in the body of the article. But putting it in the lead is simply not reasonable and makes it a misquotation. #4 was worse than #1 in that it contained a ''lie''. A lie that was put at the head of the article talk page in order to intimidate other editors and make them believe ] is without any doubt a pseudoscience topic, because: "The ], as expressed by the ], has identified belief in ten subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. They are: ]s, ]es, ], ." Yes, that's what it claimed, with reference to a section "Belief in Pseudoscience" of Chapter 7 ("Public Attitudes and Understanding") of the 2006 edition (only) of a biannual NSF publication on "Science and Engineering Indicators".


My edits are WP:NPOV. This article is about declarations of war - the opening statement states "A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state announces existing or impending war activity against another."
The front matter of the paper is broken (404 error), so we don't even know who wrote that section. It certainly doesn't speak about "scientific consensus", that's all BullRangifer's original research. It doesn't claim to "identify" any beliefs in any way. It just looks at Americans' belief in pseudoscience by considering a Gallup study that examines belief in paranormal. In this context, the paper is written under the tacit assumption that paranormal implies pseudoscience to the extent necessary for the discussion, but never says so explicitly. What makes this really fishy is that the paragraph that ''suggests'' that belief in ghosts and (via a footnote) witchcraft is (sometimes? usually? always?) belief in pseudoscience is preceded by a paragraph with a correct definition of pseudoscience ("claims presented so that they appear scientific even though "), but nothing is said about the obvious contradiction.
1. Hamas is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hamas should not be included in the article
2. Hezbollah is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hezbollah should not be included in the article
3. Russia vs Ukraine are both nation states - the question then is whether there has been a declaration of war.


In the case 1 & 2, the removal of these two entries is WP:NPOV and the inclusion or otherwise in this article is in no way a comment on the conflict in question - only whether they constitute a declaration of war by one nation state on another. Which they do not because they are nation states.
To me, Abd does not seem to be a big problem at the moment. BullRangifer and Verbal are currently creating disruption over more and more articles and policy pages with their attempts to apply the "pseudoscience" label to everything and the kitchen sink, making liberal use of unethical methods in the process. Please take that into account. ] ] 19:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


In the case of 3, the inclusion of Russia vs Ukraine only relies on whether there has been a declaration of war. The citation I gave is documented evidence of Russia announcing that a state of war exists between Russia and Ukraine.
:<small>@Abd: The ameliorating factor is precisely what I am driving at. There is a danger that some people make up their minds too quickly about the ] situation, allow that to influence their opinion about this request, and are reluctant to revise their position when ] comes up later elsewhere, because they have already acted on their original position. ] ] 10:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)</small>


I suggest that by taking the action they have that the complainant is the one acting in a that asserts a political opinion about the conflict
=====Comment by JzG=====
The edit to Ghost and involvement in the dispute there is an unambiguous violation of the restriction on becoming involved in disputes in which Abd is not an originating party. Claiming that it was not related to pseudoscience because the category was not in the article at the time is both false and blatant Wikilawyering since the entire dispute is about the categorisation of this subject as pseudoscience.


Hans is arguing that the content of the edits was right. This is irrelevant. It was a dispute and Abd piled in to make a controversial edit taking one side of an existing dispute. Sure, Hans likes the result, Hans is one of those on the side of removing all references to the NST's categorisation of belief in ghosts as pseudoscience, but that is not the point at issue, the point at issue is: did Abd violate his ban on becoming involved in pre-existing disputes? It is unarguably true that this is precisely what he did.


The reference by Weatherwriter to 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Is only a partial quote - what I actually said was "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration. I care about whether it is in the scope of this page."
The spam blacklist discussions are also violations of the restriction on becoming involved in disputes in which Abd is not an originating party. Asserting that there is no problem because people can ignore him is blatant Wikilawyering against the clear intent of the restriction, the context of which includes Abd's involvement in spam blacklist / whitelist discussions. Songfacts is a dispute involving an IP editor who has been spamming the site, that is not Abd's battle.
The key is the final point - the scope of this article and whether the edits are validly cited in accordance with the topic of the article...namely a list of declarations of war.


Weatherwriter reversions of my edits serve to support a political opinion on a page which is about facts.
The comments by Abd above are unambiguous violations of the requirement not to continually rake over the coals of past disputes - in effect "whatever you say, I was still right".


'''I'm pretty angry about being accused in this way when MY edits were factually based and neutral point of view, whereas by reverting my edits it does precisely the opposite, allowing contentious and politically biased information to infect the page.''' GRRRRRRrrr
Enforcement, please. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


] (]) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
=====Comment by One Night In Hackney=====
Following on from what JzG says, the songfacts intervention is decidedly unhelpful. When he states "It appears that this is not a site with pure user-generated content. Users may submit content but it is reviewed and fact-checked before being published" this has no basis in reality. songfacts.com/legal.php (no direct link to avoid cocking up the blacklisting) says "Songfacts, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy of the information posted, as it may contain technical and factual errors", so there is no reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Abd is simply attempting to crusade against the use of the blacklist in cases he doesn't think it appropriate, regardless of the actual facts of the situation. I would agree wholeheartedly with enforcement, the constant pushing of the limits of his editing restriction need to be dealt with firmly. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 14:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


===== Additional comment by Enric Naval =====
Abd keeps making edits related to the pseudoscience dispute, in which he is not an originating party. He has removed the pseudoscience category from another article he had never edited before. --] (]) 10:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


On another point, following me reviewing the information in this complaint by WeatherWriter...
===== Additional comment by SamJohnston =====
"If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)" The complainant cites a link to information which I have JUST accessed and have never seen before just now. I was NOT aware of this information so it is false to suggest that this constitutes evidence that I was aware.
As I in the clarification, if you break it down this appears to be fairly straightforward:
* Was there an existing dispute?
* Did Abd discuss the dispute? (unsigned)
* Was Abd an originating party? No.
I don't believe that confining commentary to edit summaries and/or new threads evades the restriction because it ''includes, '''but is not limited to''''' talk pages et al. That said, the editing restriction is intended to avoid inflaming disputes, not prevent Abd from editing altogether (we have blocks for that). With this interpretation Abd would be able to edit provided he avoided hotspots and raised his own new issues as required.


Again this makes me angry at the accusations being made against me. If you don't want people editing and contributing to wikipedia then please just say so. GRRR
While Abd claims above that this edit was "unsigned and probably inadvertent", it is still a clear violation and should result in a block - even a short one - particularly in light of subsequent editing relating to the same controversial topic. Future violations should be similarly punished, ideally with minimal time-wasting, navel-gazing discussion. If I were Abd I'd be focusing on uncontroversial edits with a view to having my restriction reviewed. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 15:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
] (]) 00:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I give up... I'm being accused and being told off for responding to the accusation. I don't know anything about this procedure, have never seen this page before and know nothing about how this works because its new to me.
*:But I get it - I'm not part of the club that decides things... so I'll let you get on with that. ] (]) 00:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::<small>(Moved from WeatherWriter's section</small> I get it - you'd rather call me out by this procedure than have an accurate encyclopaedia article. You've made accusations against me and put me through this over restrictions that I knew nothing about and policies I knew nothing about. I simply came across something inaccurate and followed what I understood to be WP principles and made an objectively accurate edit.
::::So now the end result is that an inaccurate article containing a politically biased assertion is going to stay live. ] (]) 02:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
===Result concerning Marlarkey===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
-->
{{u|Marlarkey}}, you have gone a bit over your 500 word allotment for responses. Please do not comment further unless directly asked to. I will remove an additional reply that was both over your limit and in the wrong section. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 00:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{u|Weather Event Writer}}, extension granted as that's essentially what Marlarkey has already taken. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 01:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


: How is pointing out a of your ] ""? While we're at it, how does a 350 word interjection into an existing debate "inadvertently" appear, without a signature no less? Is this too? You broke the restriction so you should be blocked and if you break it again you should be blocked again - sounds fair enough to me. If you don't want to be blocked then don't constantly test the limits. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 21:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


Ok, having now reviewed ]'s page history, its talk page discussion, and Marlarkey's contributions more generally, I find that:
===Result concerning Abd===
:* Marlarkey has repeatedly violated ] at ] since having received a CTOP notice
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
:*Irrespective of whether it is correct or not to include the Israel-Hamas war, Israel-Hezbollah war, or wars between states and non-state entities more broadly, WeatherWriter's edits to the page are plainly not ], which has a specific (and serious) meaning on Misplaced Pages
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
:*It appears to be a long-term status quo to include non-state entities provided that there is a citation to some sort of formal declaration of war, and the page's inclusion of conflicts involving non-states ] and ] do not appear to have been challenged at any point.
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.-->
:*Marlarkey is incorrect to assert that their edit is {{tq|objectively accurate}}. Whether the edit is accurate is subject to community consensus, and the talk page arguments in favor of inclusion base themselves on RS reporting which is a valid, policy-compliant argument. Marlarkey's arguments that a declaration of war can only occur be between two states do not make any reference to a reliable source stating this; while that text is currently in the lead of the article, it does not have a citation nor is it clear that any citation in the article directly backs this.
:*In light of discussion at ], which at this point shows multiple editors in favor of keeping the Hamas and Hezbollah wars, only Marlarkey firmly for removing them, and one other editor calling for discussion as of December 31st, Marlarkey's edits to unilaterally remove the entries in January amount to slow-motion edit warring
:*Given that Marlarkey has had an account for well over a decade, has edited a wide variety of topics, hit 500 edits while this was happening, does not appear to have otherwise shown interest in Israel/Palestine topics, and that the edits at Declaration of war don't fit into any clear POV-warrior pattern, I don't think that pulling extended-confirmed or issuing a PIA topic ban would help.
I'm thus inclined to suggest an indefinite partial block from ] (but not its talk page) as a regular admin action for edit warring, and a logged warning to be mindful of CTOP standards. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC

Latest revision as of 08:29, 14 January 2025

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

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

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

    Standard of review
    On community review

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

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

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

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

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Important notes:

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

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

    A couple of reminders:

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

    Closing a thread:

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

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

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

    PerspicazHistorian

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

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

    Request concerning PerspicazHistorian

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

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


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

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

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


    Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian

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

    Statement by PerspicazHistorian

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

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

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

    Statement by LukeEmily

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

    Statement by Doug Weller

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

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

    Statement by Toddy1

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

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

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

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

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

    Statement by Capitals00

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

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

    Statement by Vanamonde93

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

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

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

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

    Statement by UtherSRG

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

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

    Result concerning PerspicazHistorian

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

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

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

    References

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

    Lemabeta

    Lemabeta has acknowledged the warnings here to take more care and stay well clear of articles from which they are restricted from editing. Further violations are very likely to lead to sanctions, up to and including an indefinite block. Seraphimblade 12:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Lemabeta

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

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


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


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

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

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

    Here

    Discussion concerning Lemabeta

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

    Statement by Lemabeta

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

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Lemabeta

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

    GokuEltit

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

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

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

    Boy shekhar

    Blocked by Rosguill as a regular administrative action. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning 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
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    @Vanamonde93: No, I don't think you're being too harsh. I think you're right. My thinking was that if I was uninvolved, I would have blocked them under WP:CT/IPA so I sleepily submitted it here last night instead of ANI, which is what I should have done. Daniel Quinlan (talk)
    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 Vanamonde

    This user hasn't edited for 4.5 years since they were TBANned, and none of their 31 edits show any ability to follow our PAGs. At the risk of sounding harsh, an extended AE discussion is a waste of time; a passing admin should indef them (I cannot, I am INVOLVED on most of the content they have edited). Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Daniel Quinlan: Apologies if that sounded like a criticism of you, it wasn't intended as such: I'm just advocating for the first uninvolved admin who sees this to block and close. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Result concerning Boy shekhar

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Vanamonde93's assessment is spot on, the edit in question is the kind of gross violation of WP:NPA we indef people for on the spot even when it's not a TBAN violation. Blocked as a regular admin action. Although I will say, without knowing how exactly Vanamonde93 is involved here, this is so far beyond the pale that they could have gone ahead and blocked on an "any reasonable admin" basis. signed, Rosguill 04:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    שלומית ליר

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

    Request concerning שלומית ליר

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    שלומית ליר (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBPIA
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation of how these edits violate it

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

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

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

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

    Discussion concerning שלומית ליר

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

    Statement by שלומית ליר

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

    Statement by Thebiguglyalien

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

    Statement by Selfstudier

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

    Statement by starship.paint (2)

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

    Statement by xDanielx

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

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning שלומית ליר

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Users are allowed to have a POV - it's a rare user indeed who edits a contentious topic without having some strong opinions about it. For conduct to be actionable at AE it needs to be an actual policy violation. The misleading use of images doesn't rise to the level of AE action in my view, and judging whether an addition like this is UNDUE is not within AE's purview, as long as it is supported by the source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      The PIA5 remedy hasn't passed yet, and its interpretation is as yet unclear to me: but in my view we are already empowered to deal with biased editing, in the sense of editing that violates NPOV. What I'm not willing to do is sanction on the basis of someone's opinions alone; they have to be shown to have let their opinions get in the way of following our PAGs. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      I see some evidence - based on Arcticocean's digging below - that שלומית ליר is using images without sufficient care, but I don't see that rising to the level of a sanction. As to the rest, xDanielx is correct - nowhere do our policies require treating both sides of a conflict equally - indeed our PAGs discourage false balance. Those diffs could be actionable if they individually or collectively violate policy, but I have yet to see evidence of that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • While I understand Vanamonde93's concerns, I think that we are required to assess the totality of the user's contributions. Contentious topic editors are required to uphold NPOV. Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics#Guidance for editors places an obligation to Within contentious topics,… edit carefully and constructively… and… adhere to the purposes of Misplaced Pages. The linked page provides that Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view… We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. If an editor is only adding content that significantly favours one or the other side to the conflict, this is incompatible with their contentious topic obligation. That is because an editor making only one-sided edits will simply not be taking the necessary steps to ensure that the whole article is written from a neutral point of view. As their number of one-sided edits increases, the likelihood decreases that the editor is ensuring our content is neutral and impartial. Once we reach the point of being sure that they are not attempting to ensure neutrality of content, we can conclude the editor is not meeting their contentious topics obligations and we can issue a sanction. This can only be assessed with hindsight and by looking at the editor's contributions as a whole. arcticocean ■ 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Assessing the topic area contributions of the respondent (שלומית ליר) since they became extended-confirmed at 17:33, 8 December 2024, there is cause for concern. I counted 19 edits to the area conflict. Taken together, they significantly skew the articles negatively against the opposing side of the conflict:
    Assessing the edits as a whole, it is difficult not to conclude that the respondent user is failing to meet their contentious topics obligation to edit neutrally in this topic area. As the number of edits is so far limited, if a sanction is imposed, it could justifiably be light-touch. arcticocean ■ 20:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    @XDanielx: Thanks for commenting. Most of the edits do not have a neutral, encyclopedic POV. There is an effort to influence our articles away from neutrally describing the subject without taking sides, contrary to WP:NPOV. Even if each edit in isolation is insufficient for sanctioning, taken as a whole the edits show an inability or unwillingness to edit neutrally. One non-neutral edit shouldn't be sanctioned; twenty is a different story. This is not about the percentage of biased edits but about the weight or amount of them. Therefore, the assessment wouldn't really change even had the editor made some 'neutral' edits along the way. I'm happy to concede that editors cannot be compelled to balance edits of one bias with edits of another, but I don't think that comes into it. In a nutshell, this is about Misplaced Pages:Advocacy. arcticocean ■ 08:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Luganchanka

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

    Request concerning Luganchanka

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Luganchanka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 19:55, 12 January 2025 Reversion to version of article where the article says "He is a child sex offender" in the second sentence despite consensus at BLPN discussion that this is problematic because Ritter never actually interacted with a real child.
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

    18:28, 12 January 2025 BLP CTOP warning given

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

    20:27, 12 January 2025

    Discussion concerning Luganchanka

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

    Statement by Luganchanka

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

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

    Statement by NatGertler

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Luganchanka

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    @Luganchanka: whether you're correct or not, you were edit warring. I believe an indef block from the article and/or a temporary site block would be an appropriate sanction here. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've blocked the user for 48h for violating 3RR based on the report at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    • @Luganchanka, edit-warring to remove negative content at a BLP is an exemption to 3RR. I see that NatGertler mentioned this in their edit summaries and at talk. As voorts points out, it doesn't matter whether you're right when you're reverting an edit that is being claimed as an exemption, even if you believe you are "ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article". The solution is to go to talk, discuss, and get consensus. If you'd like to respond, ping me to your response at your talk and I'll post it here. Valereee (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    BabbleOnto

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

    Request concerning BabbleOnto

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    BabbleOnto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Contentious_topic_designation
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 11 January 2025 Sealioning
    2. 11 January 2025 Refusal to get the message
    3. 11 January 2025 Personalizing an argument.
    4. 11 January 2025 Railroading the discussion.

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

    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 9 Dec 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    diff

    Discussion concerning BabbleOnto

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

    Statement by BabbleOnto

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

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

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

    I now address the specific edits in the complaint:

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

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

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

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

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

    Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

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

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

    Statement by Newimpartial

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning BabbleOnto

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • BabbleOnto, please edit your statement down further to fit within the restriction. This also serves as an opportunity to rephrase your defense, which currently is not convincing at first glance. ProcrastinatingReader's description of the situation seems quite apt, particularly BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible, which is currently a pretty fitting description of your response to them here, given that you zeroed in on the "superficially reasonable" part and ignored the much more serious parts of the testimony. signed, Rosguill 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Ok, having read through nearly every edit that BabbleOnto has made, I agree with the complainants that not only does BabbleOnto engage in sealioning, it appears to be almost exclusively what they do. The discussion at Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman)/Archive 2 exhibits perhaps even more concerning argumentation than the diffs provided in the initial report. Throughout these discussions, BabbleOnto tends to demand a standard of stating the obvious (with respect to the context of said sources) that is absurd, and continues to lawyer for such standards even when the situation becomes WP:1AM. When criticizing sources' ability to account for basic claims, I can find no examples of BabbleOnto themselves attempting to find sources that would resolve the issues they identify--this is uncollaborative behavior. There is a clear pattern of engaging in this behavior across recent US politics topics consistent with the scope of Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/American politics. The only saving grace to BabbleOnto's track record is that none of this has translated into disruptive editing of actual articles, just unproductive engagement on talk pages. I am currently in favor of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics; if they are actually here to build an encyclopedia and not to provide a punching bag for debate club, they can use this opportunity to learn more constructive patterns of editing in topics that they are less personally invested in. signed, Rosguill 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Marlarkey

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

    Request concerning Marlarkey

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Marlarkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBPIA
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

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

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

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

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


    Discussion concerning Marlarkey

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

    Statement by Marlarkey

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

    Result concerning Marlarkey

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

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

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


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

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

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