< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 16:40, 11 August 2012 editKillerChihuahua (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users34,578 edits →Result of the appeal by The Devil's Advocate: support← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:46, 25 December 2024 edit undoWalter Tau (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,869 edits →Statement by Walter Tau: ~~~~
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<noinclude> {{pp-move-indef}}
	<noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:AE|the automated editing program|Misplaced Pages:AutoEd}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude>
			{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}}
	<includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly>
			__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!--
	<noinclude>{{editabuselinks|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}{{shortcut|WP:AE|WP:ARE}}
			--><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly>
	</noinclude>
			<noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!--
	{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}
			-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
	<noinclude>{{TOC limit}}</noinclude>
			|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
	{{User:MiszaBot/config
			|counter =346
	|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}
	|maxarchivesize = 200K
	|counter = 119
	|minthreadsleft = 0		|minthreadsleft = 0
	|minthreadstoarchive = 1		|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	|algo = old(4d)		|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}}
	}}
	== Plot Spoiler ==		==M.Bitton==
			{{hat|result=M.Bitton is warned against ] and reminded to abide by ]. ] (]) 06:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	{{hat|Editors involved are strongly cautioned that reverting but being unwilling to discuss the revert is unacceptable and disruptive behavior. If this continues to occur, we will not hesitate to formalize discussion of all reverts in the topic area as a requirement and/or issue sanctions. All involved are also reminded to approach such negotiations in good faith. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC) }}
	''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''		<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 Plot Spoiler===		===Request concerning M.Bitton===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : ] 04:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)		; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|XDanielx}} 07:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Plot Spoiler}}		; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|M.Bitton}}<p>{{ds/log|M.Bitton}}</p>
	<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]		;Sanction or remedy to be enforced:
			]
	<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
	; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :		; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
			I'll limit this to ] related issues for now, since they're easiest to evaluate with minimal context.
	<!-- 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. -->
	# long term edit warring without discussion, see below.
			# {{tq|xDanielx being disingenuous again (what they mean by "no explanation" is "no explanation that they agree with")}}
	; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :
			# {{tq|casting aspersions to justify your disruptive editing is about as low as it gets ... this is extremely disingenuous ... made-up rules and demands to satisfy you}}
	<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. -->
	# by {{admin|Sandstein}} on 6 April 2010		# {{tq|please don't make-up another rule ... maybe that's because you only see what you want to see}} (partly struck per admin request)
			# , {{tq|Misplaced Pages is not a collection of every piece of alleged garbage}}
			# {{tq|When someone keeps misrepresenting the sources (again and again), then I will rightly assume disingenuousness}}
			# {{tq|I'm starting to question your motives}}
			# {{tq|Please refrain from repeating your lies}} ( to {{tq|You're being extremely disingenuous. You misrepresented the sources (clearly to push a POV)}}
			# {{tq|I don't take lessons from those who misrepresent the sources and edit war over ]}}
			# {{tq|please don't attribute your nonsense to me (this is totally unacceptable)}}
			# {{tq|Bobfrombrockley is busy adding whatever garbage they can find}}
			# {{tq|you've been very busy adding whatever garbage you could find to the article}}
			# {{tq|Do you expect me to explain to you what "freedom of expression" is?}}
			# {{tq|I'm done wasting my time with this nonsense ... Your self-serving opinion is irrelevant}}
			# offensive humor
			; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
			I'm not aware of CTOP sanctions. The seems to show four blocks, but they're not that recent and I'm not sure how relevant they are.
			; If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
			* Was a subject of a previous ARBPIA AE ].
			* Made a couple other statements in ARBPIA AE requests: ,
	; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :		; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
			Another 15 diffs were (rightfully) removed by an admin for exceeding the diff limit as well as falling outside PIA scope; just mentioning for transparency. They might be relevant on a different forum but admittedly not here. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 16:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	Plot Spoiler has been, for several months now, repeatedly removing material from the lead of an article without making any comment on the talk page. He has removed this sentence the following times:
	#
	#: <s></s>
	#
	#
	And then again . The user has exactly 0 edits to the talk page ()
			{{yo|theleekycauldron}} I planned to file something after the "garbage" comments (about BobFromBrockley) on ]. I reconsidered after being surprised by M.Bitton's there. Admittedly M.Bitton's comments in the thread above prompted me to reconsider again, but that wasn't about the fact that I might receive a warning there (irrespective of M.Bitton's participation); it was just about me personally being on the receiving end of some personal attacks. I don't really follow why me being emotionally affected by the conduct would affect the legitimacy of the report. Most of the incivility was directed at other users, and letting this conduct continue wouldn't seem fair to them. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 16:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	The specific material was first added in June 2011, and discussed on the talk page at the time (see ]). The user was directed to that talk page discussion following one of his other reverts, also involving this same sentence (see edit summary). And there is in fact a discussion on the talk page '''right now''' that, among discussing the actual sentence, notes that the editor has '''yet''' to make a single comment on the talk page, despite repeated edit-warring. The material was unchallenged between June 2011 and this editors first revert at the end of December 2011. Since then, in what I can only describe as tag-team edit warring, it has been on occasion removed, with not one single editor having discussed its removal prior to my opening a section on the talk page on 23 July. It is unreasonable for people to have to debate the air as a user uses his 1 revert and leaves. At the very least, a restriction requiring the user explain and back up his reverts should be imposed, barring an article or topic ban. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 04:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)</small>
	:Ankh, the material you claim that somebody has "glossed" over is completely irrelevant to the topic of the article. Kindly try to stay on topic here. The use of "several" was discussed on the talk page at the time the material was added, something that you, up until making one glib comment yesterday, and Plot Spolier had never done. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 13:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)</small>
	@admins, I am sorry if you have ARBPIA fatigue. I dont know what you would have me do about that, other than not bringing such blatantly disruptive actions as long-term edit-warring and game playing to AE. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 14:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)</small>
	:Yall may be frustrated, but please trust me on this, your frustration pales in comparison to the frustration of people who deal with this crap. Since coming back from my last topic ban, I have done all that I can to correct any missteps I have taken in the past, and I have tried to be as accommodating to the complaints of "the other side" in articles. I have sought out compromise, and there have even been productive discussions with users that I am quite certain despise me, or at least did in the not too distant past. But things like this, if anybody is at all serious about correcting the problems with this topic area, cannot go unanswered. This material was in the article for 6 months, unchallenged, until Plot Spoiler first removed it without making a single comment on the talk page. Once returned it remained for another 6 months before Plot Spoiler, again without a single comment, attempted to remove it once more. At that point AnkhMorpork, who only even saw this article because he checked Nishidani's contributions, shows up to tag in, and, again without making a single comment on the talk page removed the material. After it was returned, AnkhMorpork waits for an opportunity in which the revert rules will favor him. After a revert was performed an an unrelated issue, AnkhMorpork steps in to immediately, once again, remove the material, knowing full well there is not anything near a consensus for such a removal. Two other users (Plot Spoiler and {{user|Noon}}, neither of whom have said one word on the talk page) join, in true tag-teaming fashion, to expunge this long-standing material, material for which there was a talk page consensus for inclusion when it was first added, and not even a hint of discussion coming out of any one of them up to that point. Yall talk about "GAMING" and "BATTLEGROUND" non-stop. This right here, this is the game. You play it with your pals and systematically remove whatever happens to be on the agenda for the day. No attempt at seeking consensus, no attempt at even discussing the issue or saying, beyond "its POV", what the problem is. Yall want to fix the topic area? Then fix things like this. Thatd be a start at least. Just look at the history of the article, look at the talk page, and tell me how exactly you would have somebody deal with things like this. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 04:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)</small>
	:Thank you. And if you want a suggestion on a discretionary sanction that will actually do something to fix most of the "behavioral" issues in the topic area, here's one. Any edit that reverted may not be re-reverted by anyone without a talk page consensus, with the standard BLP exemption. This is the most frustrating thing about the topic area, it plays out like a numbers game. The 1RR did not change the game, it just changed the math. If you want to fix something, change the formula. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 05:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)</small>
	Plot Spolier, AE is the board used for enforcing arbitration decisions. As you are well aware, the topic area is under discretionary sanctions as a result of an arbitration decision. Your actions violated that arbitration decision, and this nonsense about AE being my personal battleground is just that, nonsense. I have said, several times, that I do not want people who are said to be on "my side" to comment in these cases. I am not responsible for any of the comments in the section below (save for one short reply to NMMNG). You however have continued to disregard the requirement that editors justify their reverts. Days after this request was opened, months after you first attempts at revert-warring without consensus, and you '''still''' have yet to make a single comment on the article talk page. You have '''still''' yet to make even a token attempt at justifying your repeated reverts. Eluchil404 recommended an admonishment, and if thats how it is decided then fine. But the fact that even after being brought here you continue to refuse to justify your revert makes me believe that stronger action is required. The pattern of behavior of revert-warring without discussion is readily apparent to anybody who even briefly looks at your contributions. A useful exercise for any admin is to count the number of Twinke reverts shown ] and compare that to the number of comments on a talk page. You routinely revert-war without so much as saying a word on a talk page. It is unreasonable to allow people to use their 1 revert and vanish into the wind, waiting for the next time to tag back in. That such actions constitute the majority of your contributions in the topic area should not go unanswered. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)</small>
	; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :		; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	===Discussion concerning Plot Spoiler===		===Discussion concerning M.Bitton===
			<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 Plot Spoiler====		====Statement by M.Bitton====
			Not content with edit warring, assuming bad faith and casting aspersions (see ]), they now decided to ] and file a retaliatory report. ] (]) 09:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	Under no condition does this belong under ]. There are many other methods of recourse he could have pursued, like ]. This is just another manifestation of Nableezy using AE as his personal battleground. This is silly and I will only respond at the request of the administrators. ] (]) 14:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
			:{{re|Vanamonde93|Ealdgyth}} I just want to draw your attention to their aspersions casting {{tq|tag-team revert|q=yes}} (], while striking it, leaves no doubt about they believe) and the fact that they falsely accused me: of ignoring their ping (when I was logged out) and reverting without an explanation (when, in fact, I did provide one). ] (]) 18:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Nableezy once again plays the part of the righteous victim when he is in fact the problem. He believes that the louder he screams (by taking more and more cases to AE), the more sympathy he can elicit from the admins... which I expect they can see through. I also request he immediately strike this offensive statement that violates ] and ]: "You play it with your pals and systematically remove whatever happens to be on the agenda for the day." He's directly leveling the charge that certain editors are colluding offline to "game the system." That is a very serious charge without any merit whatsoever of course. It is just a part of his delusional fantasies that he's fighting some sort of dastardly cabal. ] (]) 14:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
			::{{re|Ealdgyth}} I agree and will make sure that doesn't happen in the future, regardless of what's coming the other way. I should know better than let myself take the bait, but lesson learnt nonetheless. ] (]) 18:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	::It seems clear that Nableezy should have never brought this complaint to AE. AE should be the ''last stop'' and not the first stop to resolve issues. There are many other forums he could have used, such as ], but he chose not to. The admins must warn and dissuade Nableezy from continuing to use AE as his personal battleground in which he knows all his counterparts will come and bandwagon with him. If Nableezy sees that AE is effective in aiding his battleground crusade, the admins should be aware that there will only be more and more cases that they will need to adjudicate on this board... and these insanely long threads of bitter acrimony. ] (]) 16:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
			:::{{re|Valereee}} sure. ] (]) 00:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Admins, I respectfully request you enforce ] and ] here. @OhioStandard's comments are malicious, false and out totally out of line (e.g. "radical Zionist, territorially expansionist POV"). @OhioStandard, I have barely interacted with you and I have not encountered you on Misplaced Pages for lord knows how long. Your comments about me reveal a lot more about you than they do about me. Please strike your malicious personal attacks against me. I edit far beyond the topic area if you bothered to look at my contributions or user page (]). The same goes for @BaliUltimate's conspiratorial musings. Please close this case as soon as expeditiously possible so we don't have to deal with any more of this battleground nonsense... ] (]) 15:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
			====Statement by (username)====
	====Comments by others about the request concerning Plot Spoiler====
			<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
	* Diff 1 and diff 3 removed the sentence "Several UN officials have said that Israel's actions are tantamount to apartheid and ethnic cleansing". This was agreed to be misrepresentative and Nishidani specified that in fact it referred "two UN human right consultants".
			===Result concerning M.Bitton===
	* Diff 2 is of no relevance and seems a 'padding' diff.
			:''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. -->
	* Diff 4 makes the valid point regarding well-poising and the stuffing in the lead of marginal views of two insignificant people to create an unbalanced picture. Currently the lead makes no mention of the EU's view, the UN's view but instead Nableezy is insistent that it specifically contains the view of these two human right consultants that are already mentioned later in the article. Despite my request for balance, he chooses to gloss over that the he cites also states,"
			*<!--
			-->
	''"Dugard was appointed in 2001 as an unpaid expert by the now-defunct UN Human Rights Commission to investigate only violations by the Israeli side, prompting Israel and the US to dismiss his reports as one-sided."'' and that ''"Israel's UN Ambassador in Geneva slammed Dugard's analysis."The common link between al-Qaeda and the Palestinian terrorists is that both intentionally target civilians with the mere purpose to kill,""''
			* This is shamelessly and obviously a retaliatory filing, and I'm leaning towards a one- or two-way interaction ban to stop the back-and-forth sniping. But I'd still draw uninvolved admins' attention to ] and ask what their thoughts are. That seems like pretty battleground-y behavior to me. ] (] • she/her) 14:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I see it as a bit retaliatory, but we do need to stop this sniping, especially at AE and other such venues. ] (]) 14:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	Can Nableezy please explain:
			*::Yeah, a logged warning sounds like enough to me, given their responses so far. ] (] • she/her) 00:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Yes, this is retaliatory, and at the same time, M. Bitton's language is not acceptable. Bad behavior should be addressed at an administrator noticeboard, or in a civil post to a user talk page, not with what SFR accurately describes as sniping. I would log a warning for casting aspersions. ] (]) 17:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	# Why the view of two UN human rights consultants are more lead worthy than the EU's or the official UN view?
			* I agree with SFR and Vanamonde93 that the language used does not help the topic area at all. I don't know if M.Bitton's had a long history of logged warnings before (I'm a bit busy trying to get the farm ready for an artic clipper coming in) but I'm fine with a logged warning. But the filer should be aware that they need to also try to avoid retaliatory-filing look in the future... ] (]) 17:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	# Does he thinks "several UN officials" accurately describes two human rights consultants?
			** I'm not happy about Daniel's behavior (but will try to find time to look at it in the earlier filing to avoid getting this one off track) but, M.Bitton, your comments are not just sub-par, but not at all what editors should be directing at others. An acknowledgment of that and working to avoid that in the future is something you need to seriously consider if you're not going to end up sanctioned in the future. ] (]) 18:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I also think a logged warning should be adequate here, particularly given the limited sanctions history and the . Personally I'm not bothered by the timing of this report in light of xDanielx's explanation, although it's wise to avoid even the appearance of retaliation when you're at AE. ] (]) 22:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	This is a serious breach in NPOV and an experienced editor should know that inserting sound bytes which mention the words "Israel", "apartheid" and "ethnic cleansing" into the lead of an article should be done in a very careful and balanced way and the presentation of the views of these two human right consultants was hardly that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 11:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
			*I don't disagree that this is retaliatory, but that doesn't moot the issue. M.Bitton does tend to approach editing in a battleground-y way, and their language often escalates rather than de-escalates. I'd very much like you to start using de-escalating language, {{u|M.Bitton}}. Can you discuss that? ] (]) 00:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
	*I'd prefer not to waste my time on being drawn into this. But you are making this into a content dispute. It is a behavioural dispute, and (to reply to TCanens) there is specifically a problem in the use of 1R as an entitlement without the burden of doing some work to explain one's behaviour on the relevant section of the talk pages. That is the crux ARBPIA hasn't resolved, and concerns the creation of workable conditions in a work-hostile area. Both Nableezy and I and some others collegially spend a perhaps inordinate amount of time on talk pages (48 edits building that page) endeavouring to find common ground, or justify edits (84 edits). In this case a rapid sequence of reverts by ], ], ] took place after a piece of information in the lead, and and named the two distinguished international jurists, ] and ], who held that view. Leads summarise sections, and they are in the sections, with others. The rapid mass reversion is commonplace, as is the fact that, save Brewcrewer, none of the reverters has deigned to explain their view on the talk page. This is not collegial. None of you appear to have contributed to the page either. You are all active in reverting on it. So please keep your comments, if any, focused not on the content you dispute, but the behavioural patterns, if any.] (]) 13:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
			*:I meant can you discuss it ''here'', but maybe I wasn't clear. ] (]) 15:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	:''"as is the fact that, save Brewcrewer, none of the reverters has deigned to explain their view on the talk page."'' False. I did my objection on the talk page. And as to your 'content dispute' obfuscation, the sentence in question was patently unbalanced and did not require a treatise to explain why that was the case. Neither of you have explained why your edit was not a gross breach of NPOV and
			*Have not read this but will note that {{u| xDanielx}} is at their word limit. Daniel if you want to post anything else please get an extension first from an uninvolved administrator. ] (]) 02:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Comment to stave off the bot. Looks like the proposed resolution here is a warning for battleground behavior, does that still seem the way to go? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 09:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	# Why you consider the views of two UN human rights consultants are more lead worthy than the EU's or the official UN view?
			*:A logged warning, sure. ] (]) 15:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	# Whether you think "several UN officials" accurately describes two human rights consultants?
			*::Agreed, and I also agree we should put this to bed. ] (]) 20:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 13:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
	*Am I missing something obvious or does the first diff point to simple removal of unsourced content? I believe that's allowed per ], specifically ]. ] (]) 14:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
	::It was sourced in the body of the article, as per ], and when it was restored sources were added to the lead. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)</small>
	=====Comment by ZScarpia=====
	According to AnkhMorpork, the professors of law and and are insignificant individuals and mere human rights consultants advising the UN rather than individuals with official positions in the UN. A rather swingeing, begrudging assessment I think. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;←&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 17:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
	:Not that it's relevant to this AE, or that you didn't bring it up for the sole purpose of mudslinging, but "human rights consultants" is Nishidani's wording , not AnkhMorpork's. ] (]) 18:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
	::My response to AnkhMorpork's comment is more relevant than your cynical speculation about my motives.
	::AnkhMorpork is responsible for the arguments he is presenting here. One of the arguments he/she is presenting is that the (and it's worth reading the Misplaced Pages article) are outside the UN (that is, it is incorrect to call them UN officials) so that, therefore, their opinion has no more value than its being their opinion. Although, in UN parlance, they may not be officials in a constitutional sense, the Rapporteurs are appointed and work for the UN, albeit in an unpaid capacity. They are very much part of the UN. Part of the confusion has arisen because of the use of the word 'independent' in a UN source used in the article. However, what the word 'independent' signifies, as the Misplaced Pages article on Rapporteurs explains, is not that the Rapporteurs are independent of the UN, but that they are independent of the governments of the countries constituting the UN.
	::<span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;←&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 21:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::Did you know that a definition of ''several'' : '''being more than two''' but fewer than many in number or kind. That you can continue arguing in this being an accurate description of the two rapporteurs is baffling. What is even more worrying is that this inaccuracy was being used to make highly controversial claims in the lead of an article and several editors chose to restore this edit.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 10:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
	::::Ankh. As I re-edited all ambiguity was removed. Since the point was stable, removing it required at least a minimal amount of discussion. If you consider that an edit brings controversial claims, normal civil practice is, (a) introduce an edit to balance that claim, a counter-claim (b) take it up on the talk page. Just sequential reverting gets us nowhere, except, unfortunately, to AE. Peremptory reverting without the courtesy of explaining it to editors perplexed by a vague editsummary is not helpful.] (]) 11:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::::And yet you understood the point I was making when I reverted and you set about rectifying it without the need for lengthy discourse. Some edits self-evidently require fixing and the removal of these gross NPOV violations in the lead should not have led to their prompt restoration. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 11:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
	::::::I corrected your objection to (and misapprehension about) it (UN personel) by naming the people as, in fact distinguished jurists in international law, not a bunch of POV-hawks bureaucrats in that disreputable organization. Had you disagreed with me, a word on the talk page was all you needed to do to find me receptive to discussion. Instead 3 different editors blow-in and revert it, without discussion. I think this peremptory, basically silent swooping to drag editors into revert wars is what we need rules for to avoid. ] (]) 12:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
	::::AnkhMorpork, with reference to your response to my last comment, you'll notice that the you linked to actually gives four '''separate''' definitions for the word 'several'. I should think Nableezy was using the third definition, separate or distinct, which corresponds with what seems to be the main definition of the word given in my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary. However, on Misplaced Pages it's best to be as precise as possible, so, if we mean two, it would be better to write two. From your point of view, what exactly is controversial? Are you trying to say that the comments by the two Rapporteurs aren't important enough to mention in the Lead? If that's the case, I've seen too many rent-a-bigots' comments being defacated onto articles to give you much sympathy. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;←&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 17:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
	Plot Spoiler wrote something very curious: "''The fact that neither you nor your counterparts here can even being to understand why the views of two extremely controversial and dubious UN figureheads should be in the lead clearly demonstrates that. Bear in mind that nobody is trying to excise their statements from the article. It simply doesn't belong in the lead. That simple.''" <br>
	The Lead, of course, is supposed to summarise the contents of the article. Plot Spoiler seems to think that if the body of the article contains a description of comments made by people who he finds disagreeable, that disagreeableness is enough to proscribe mentioning those comments in the Lead. Using weight as an argument for not mentioning the comments might be reasonable, but Plot Spoiler doesn't mention that. In any case, the comments he doesn't like do figure fairly prominently in the body of the article. A second curious feature of what Plot Spoiler wrote is that it shows no awareness that, to successfully make the changes he wants, he would have to engage on the talkpage as requested and argue a case to try and establish a consensus in his favour. Instead, he seems to be driven by a sense of certainty in the correctness of his cause, that certainty making it desirable to ignore all opposition in order to make the necessary changes. <br>
	<span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;←&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 01:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
	:When you say the comments "figure fairly prominently in the body of the article", you mean a whole 3 sentences in the last section. Or in other words, less than a 1/5th of a section that's less than a 1/5th of the article. Fairly prominently indeed. ] (]) 02:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
	::Then, that being so, you have a legitimate argument to bring to bear on the talkpage in favour of summarising the article differently. But, I think it's obvious, this is a dispute that should have been resolved on the talkpage rather than through edit warring. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;←&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 10:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
	=====Comment by Sean.hoyland=====
	No comment on this particular case but I'd like to say something about the admin comments regarding the number of AE reports and ARBPIA3. Compared to the number of events in the topic area that seem to me to violate the sanctions, I think the number of AE reports filed is very low. If you maintain a sufficiently large sample of the articles in the topic area and check them often enough you are pretty much guaranteed to see something AE report worthy everyday. I could have filed plenty of AE reports but it's tedious to prepare them. A large proportion of them would have been against editors who come and go, people who wouldn't be within scope of ARBPIA3. You could indef block everyone who edited an article in the topic area over the past month and it would probably be just as bad next month because there is a seemingly endless supply of people who shouldn't be editing in the topic area + socks (e.g. . The topic area is broken but I don't think less AE report filing or having ARBPIA3 would make it better. I don't know what would. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 19:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
	:I want to comment about socks I think new users without 500 non-minor contribs and one year of experience shouldn't edit this area at all or DS area in general.--] (])/] 19:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
	::Excellent suggestion, Shrike. Other practical things, any of us could give a list, as I've often suggested to Ed Johnson. One would be IR is not a right. (2)If you use IR you are obliged to '''add''' something uncontroversial and constructive to the article and (3) if your revert is questioned, you are obliged to explain it collegially on the talk page. It may look tough on admins, but check any talk page. The amount of work one has to do there is an enormous sacrifice of time better spent actually building this encyclopedia, and those who are writing stuff rather than engaging in unconstructive editwars by people using their revert rights and little else over numerous articles need some practical guidelines to at least make it a level playing field.] (]) 19:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
	=====Comment by Cla68=====
	Here are the relevant "discussions": . I put "discussions" in scare quotes, because none of the editors participating in those discussions or involved in the edit warring appear to have managed any civil, productive discussion on the talk page about that particular line of text. All I see is unhelpful acrimony. Administrators, I think you know what to do. ] (]) 05:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
	::I.e. permaban Nableezy, Nishidani and Tiamut? In link 3, Benwing argued his case fairly, and was answered fairly and civilly. There was no acrimony. On the other there was no 'discussion' because, when two pleas for discussion from the reverters were posted, only one of 4 reverters turned up (excluding Ankh who just repeated a claim/meme about 'well-poisoning' and exited). There was an edge of annoyance that unclear policy and misleading deductions were being raised by just one editor of the four, but you are effectively saying that people requesting that edit disputes be argued on the page, and that those who revert and disappear, actually return to help article construction, are being acrimonious and deserve banning. The one thing some appear to have learnt tactically from the earlier ARBPIA judgement is that the phenomenon of reverting will form the basis for banning people who are actively engaged on several talk pages. That can be gamed by only reverting and then disappearing so that your presence there is otherwise not noticeable when the talk page is reviewed by Admins engaged in arbitration, who will only see dispute, and link reverts to disputatiousness.] (]) 08:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::Benwing argued his case fairly, and you reverted him without participating in the discussion, in what you'd call "tagteaming" if it weren't you and Tiamut doing it.
	:::Then in the next section, other than making accusations, you didn't participate in any meaningful way in the discussion either.
	:::Also, somehow it seems that the fact Huldra reverted (to the version you like) without participating in the discussion either doesn't seem to bother you at all.
	:::Your accusations ring quite hollow. ] (]) 15:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
	::::Yes, it does look evil, doesn't it. As I've always said, you can insinuate anything from diffs, ignoring context. Benwing came in editing out material with edit summaries like I '''restored''' yes, the deleted text because it contained three RS removed by previous editors, Moshe Ma’oz (no wiki article, but a very strong authority if you are familiar with his background and books), the and the ], with the edit summary . Benwing and Tiamut were discussing the issues on the page quite adequately. Where reverters start talking to one another, and do not miss essential points evident to a third party, I generally try as a rule not to intervene, because it can't help but look like swarming the argument. When Benwing, turned up after 9 days silence on the talk page, and remarked that he found 'frustrating', to discuss the issues. He disappeared, and the others did not show up. Please examine however who is actually building the page there, as opposed to those who appear to cancel or revert without actually showing up on the page often. That is the gravamen at issue. restores well sourced information, with a plea that those who cancel it address their points on the talk page. That said, some way has to be found to avoid the mechanical use of 1R without due explanation if challenged. ] (]) 18:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Nishdani, yes, you've built the page in a certain manner and now you're clearly seeking to ] it to maintain a certain POV for a very biased article. The fact that neither you nor your counterparts here can even being to understand why the views of two extremely controversial and dubious UN figureheads should be in the lead clearly demonstrates that. Bear in mind that nobody is trying to excise their statements from the article. It simply doesn't belong in the lead. That simple. ] (]) 18:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::I won't reply to the 'own'. It's silly. The article is certainly on a touchy issue. But it is one that is widely examined in mainstream newspapers, books and UN reports. First it was immediately up for deletion, and survived. When this happens, what those who dislike it should do is roll up their sleeves, and work on it, using the usual policy grounds. Very little that is bad, poorly sourced or POV-tilted can survive a master editor (which I am not)'s scrutiny. If one has a complaint of structural bias, just sitting and reverting something in the lead is no solution to the complaint, and silent reverting only engenders edit-warring.
	:::::::(2) When now for the umpteenth time you join others in saying ] and ] (please read the links) are 'two '''extremely controversial''' and dubious '''UN figureheads''',' you should recall that John Dugard got banned under the Internal Security Act in South Africa in 1976 because of the government of the day regard his use of international law as not only 'extremely controversial' but subversive. You don't get to Princeton University (Falk) by being a 'controversible figurehead'. You get there by peer-review working your arse off in your chosen field. Rats, I've missed the opening of the Olympics.] (]) 19:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
	=====Comment by Nishidani=====
	Eluchil404. It is surely absolutely out of the question that ] be singled out for a ban or suspension type of sanction. I don't read much policy, but the 'discretionary' in discretionary sanctions I've always taken with the emphasis on 'discretion'. A general reminder to all editors, on whatever side, not to abuse the 1R by exercising it as a right devoid of an obligation to join the talk page, and respond to queries, is the maximum I would think any of the plaintiffs here would like to see expressed by admins. ] (]) 09:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
	::<blockquote>I have said, several times, that I do not want people who are said to be on "my side" to comment in these cases</blockquote>
	:::Since this may be doubted, Nableezy has my full permission to send a copy to any administrator of one of the few emails we have exchanged these past months, in which he more or less tells me to fuck off and keep clear of commenting on any AE dispute he is involved in. I probably owe him an apology as well.] (]) 17:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
	::::Im pretty sure Ive said the same on-wiki several times. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)</small>
	:::::Seraphimblade. Just a minor note on a nicety. There are a lot of I/P reverts we all do uncontroversally, and I think none of us challenge them because they are patent examples of abusive, mostly one-off IP editing. This note just to refine the point. I don't think anyone here asks that that sort of anonymous POV stuff requires more than an edit summary, rather than a talk page, explanation. ] (]) 18:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
	=====Comment by Tiamut=====
	Is anyone looking at Plot Spoiler's contribs here? While he has had time to revert twice (once since the opening of this case), and comment here four times, he has not made a single edit to the article talk page. That's part of the reason we end up here. There is no collaboration, only revert warring and then explaining why the revert warring is justified to admins.
	Also, any honest review of the article history shows that its not those removing material who open discussions, but those who revert to restore. And no discussion by those deleting takes place until after cases are filed here. again, part of the problem.
	As to NMMNG's allegations of tag teaming, I have made exactly one edit to this article, restoring material deleted Benwing (not the current material under discussion either). Throwing around false accusations isn't very collegial and prevents identification of the root problem. I think Nableezy's suggestion is a good one that might help change the formula. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
	:I have no issues with your behavior here. You made the first revert, which is fine. ] (]) 20:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
	::Above, you state differently, but all of that is really beside the point. The text should be retained until a real discussion can take place about whether or not it should be in the lead. It should not be revert warred out and then when editors restore it and open a discussion on the talk page continue to be revert warred out without participating in the discussion. I mean its amazing ... the section on edit warring on talk was opened by Nableezy, commented in by Nishidani and no one else bothered to write a thing there for two days. Random editors just kept popping in to delete the same text again, without explaining why '''until after this AE was opened'''. I find that very revealing. I would have restored the text myself, but have been busy and unable to respond to Benwing's comments and did not feel I should intervene on this dispute without addressing his earlier points first. Those restoring the text are doing the right thing. Until a new consensus is forged, the old version stays up, as it did have consensus from a previous discussion. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
	====Comment by Bali====
	Just a drive by comment. Strategic reverting, coordinated by email, to put the other "side" in the soup for naughty, naughty "reverts" has been taken to an art form in this topic area (by one "side" far more persistently than the other). This is plain as day to anyone who's been paying attention. A new approach is needed, but the senior editors ("admins") are reluctant to take an empirical look at the reality, and craft appropriate, grownup remedies. So what has been going on for years, will continue for years. Account names come and go. The game remains the same.] (]) 21:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
	Oh, dear. Yes, blade my good man, I have a solution. But you won't like it, and if you did, the rest of Misplaced Pages would not allow it. Evaluate the use of sources, the commitment to representing both majority views of this matter (as reflected by a literature review) and a fair consideration of minority ones. Observe behavior - who is more interested in engaging the literature and higher quality news sources, who relies on marginal ones. Look for patterns of reversions by groups of editors without discussion (as I said, private coordination). And then ding the editors who come up lacking. Completely ignore shows of temper and OMG! 1rr violations in isolation. You're welcome.] (]) 22:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
	:What evidence do you have to level such extreme claims that there is some cabal that is using "strategic reverting, coordinated by email"? Please strike those statements which constitute a violation of ] and ]. You've heard of a watchlist before, right? ] (]) 16:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
	:Why do you blindly revert without using the talk page ?
	==== Comment by Ohiostandard ====
	I used to be quite active in this topic area. I've stopped participating in it largely because of just the kind of aggressive, non-collaborative, anti-consensus-building behaviour Plot Spoiler has (yet again) demonstrated here.
	More broadly, the topic area operates like the opposing parties in the historical film, ]. The level of disrespect, contempt, and blatant aggression is utterly ridiculous. In addition, throwaway sock accounts abound: used for only a few days, or intermittently, every few months, they constitute something like 20% of edits in the area. When coupled with the 1rr restriction, that means that the effect of edits by would-be contributors who refuse to sock, like myself, can very easily be negated. In addition, tag-teaming is very much the rule rather than the exception.
	If admins are content with the status quo, and are willing to accept the continued domination of the topic area by what are, in effect, partisan gangs who care nothing for the goals of the encyclopaedia itself, and by the very aggressive behaviour Plot Spoiler and friends have demonstrated in this instance, then they should do nothing. The result will be that editors who have greater allegiance to the integrity of the encyclopaedia than to personal "pro" or "anti" POV re the Zionist cause will continue to shun the topic area in the mean time.
	Full disclosure: I disapprove of Plot Spoiler extremely, and think the project would be much better off without him, and without similarly zealous partisans: It's my personal opinion that his interest in Misplaced Pages is exclusively in the platform it allows him for promoting a radical Zionist, territorially expansionist POV. It's been my unfailing perception that when it comes down to a decision between the best interests of the encyclopaedia and the best interests of the current Zionist-dominated government of Israel, that he will ALWAYS choose the latter. He was a close confederate of one of our most disruptive editors, now permabanned, thank goodness, Mbz1, and once , albeit indirectly, for having objected to that a book depicting Israel as a marvel of entrepreneurial innovation, much against other non-partisan evidence, was written by an extremely active advocate for ], the Israel Lobby in the United States, often described as one of the top three most powerful in the country. In fairness, I should note that he quickly reverted that "psychotic" characterisation after Ed Johnston noticed it, and warned him that it could result in a block.
	If admins want to see the persistent problems in this topic finally resolved, and want to attract editors to it who are actually committed to the goals of project itself, instead of only being interested in the project as a platform to push their own POV, they'll need to exclude editors like Plot Spoiler, who lack one or more of the patience, collaborative ethic, or just the maturity to work collaboratively and respectfully with others of very different political perspective to develop mutually acceptable and balanced presentations of admittedly complex, controversial topics. And some effective measures to exclude day-use and sleeper socks will likewise need to be implemented. Otherwise, it's my opinion that our articles in this topic area will simply function as vehicles for propaganda, as so many of them do, at present.
	I conclude this with an expression of my great respect, and my very (!) great appreciation for those of you who've tried for so long to regulate this extremely contentious topic area, and who have used the very limited tools and measures you currently have available to try to exclude the unscrupulous, POV-driven editors who make most of its edits. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 07:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	PS - Except for admins, if you want to reply, do so in your own section, via an "@Ohiostandard" comment. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 07:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	==== Comment by The Devil's Advocate ====
	Perhaps the Golan Heights restriction should be considered? The main objection appears to be failure to engage in talk page discussion.--] (]) 15:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	===Result concerning Plot Spoiler===
	<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
	:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
	*Am I the only one who is rather disturbed that the vast majority of AE cases we have recently involves ARBPIA? ] (]) 05:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
	*:The thought crossed my mind as well. ] (]) 13:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
	*:And me three. I'm not overly fond of the thought of ] turning blue, but if this continues, it might be necessary nonetheless. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
	**:Make me four. And I am sure that the ArbCom itself is probably even less fond of the thought of ARBPIA3. But it is beginning to look kinda inevitable, isn't it? ] (]) 14:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
	*Nableezy et al, we're not saying you did something wrong by bringing a complaint or discussing it, and we'll address it once we've had a chance to carefully research what's been said. But given the amount of trouble in this area, it does seem some discussion of next steps is needed as well. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
	*@Bali ultimate; if you have a solution here, by all means say what it is, but don't snipe at everyone here. That's not helping anything. ] (]) 21:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
	*:That's more or less what I try to do already; that's why I haven't commented on the substance of this issue yet. I want to make sure I get the best solution; I can't guarantee success, but I strive for it. ] (]) 23:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
	*Reading the comments on this request, I notice that quite a few are addressed to the underlying content dispute (i.e what the appropriate wording and placement of the sentence in question might be). Please don't do this. It adds length to the request without adding useful context. AE will not decide the wording of the article lead, it will decide what of any sanctions to hand out to Plot Spoiler and perhaps other editors. On that note, my initial inclination, having reviewed the diffs is not to block but to admonish Plot Spoiler to discuss article wording on Talk pages rather than in edit summaries. ] (]) 07:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
	* In order to uphold good focus in this complaint, I suggest that discussion about ARBPIA3 be moved to ] or another appropriate venue. After this complaint is dispatched (which I hope will happen soon), more general discussions about long-term strategy will be easier to conduct. ] ]] 16:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
	*I'm not terribly impressed whenever I see a revert-and-run, and in this area it's just gasoline on the fire. I propose that we first, then, offer a crystal clear final warning here&mdash;if you revert, you're expected to (preferably without prompting, at the very least upon request) explain why you reverted, be willing to come to the table to discuss what you saw as the problem with the edit, and make a good faith effort toward finding a way to come to a wording that satisfies both sides (or at least to some reasonable extent satisfies both). Slo-mo edit warring combined with refusal to discuss is disruptive, and is grounds for an article or topic ban. That being said, it's expected that all parties involved will negotiate in good faith, and we won't tolerate "I didn't hear that" type behavior, nor veiled (or outright) nastiness. I'm still weighing whether any sanctions beyond that are needed here. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
	*On this particular request, I agree broadly with Eluchil404 and Seraphimblade. I can go with either a warning, or a formal restriction to explain all reverts on talk page. ] (]) 03:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
	**This has dragged on long enough. Unless any uninvolved admin vehemently objects, I'm going to close this with a warning per Eluchil404 and Seraphimblade in 24 hours. ] (]) 03:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	{{hab}}		{{hab}}
			==Ethiopian Epic==
	== FergusM1970 ==
			<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 Ethiopian Epic===
	''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|Tinynanorobots}} 11:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Ethiopian Epic}}<p>{{ds/log|Ethiopian Epic}}</p>
	===Request concerning FergusM1970===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|FergusM1970}}
	<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->		<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]		;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
	<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->		<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
	; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :		; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
	<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->		<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
			# created during the Yasuke case and went active when it ended. First 11 edits were to Government of Japan. In one case three edits were used to write one sentence.
	# Revert #1
	# Revert #2, within 24 hours (12 minutes to be exact) of revert #1		# Manually reverted the lead back to how it was in September.
			# Falsely Claimed cited material was OR. (G
	# Revert #3, within 24 hours of reverts #1 and #2 (revert due to re-addition of )
			# Falsely Claimed cited material was unsourced
	; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :
			# It took an ANI report to get him to use the article talk page. His defense was accusations and denial.
	<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. -->
	#Warned on by {{user|Mo ainm}}		# He reverted to a version that went against consensus established on the talk page and contained a falsely sourced quote.
	#Topic banned on by {{user|HJ Mitchell}}		# Engages in sealioning
			# Removes a well sourced line from Yasuke as well as reverted an edit that was the result of BRD. He has now started disputes with me on all three Yasuke related articles.
			# starts disputing a new section of
			# Brought again to ANI, he claims that I didn't get consensus for changes, even though I had discussed them on talk prior to making them.
			# He keeps mentioning ONUS, and asking me to discuss it, in response to me discussing.
			# Used a non-controversial revert to hide his edit warring.
			# did the same thing on List of foreign-born samurai in Japan.
			# He also repeatedly complains that he doesn't like the definition because it is vague and claims that his preferred version is "status quo"
			; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
	; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Today's edits are essentially repeating made by the same editor back in April, making it a revert. There's also obvious POV pushing with since they weren't in possession of a bomb at all. Editor was previously topic banned for disruptive editing in this area, as noted above. Comments on his of "Now get the fcuk off my talk page. I don't like Provos" suggest similar action may be needed.
			<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
	::It would appear FergusM1970 doesn't actually know what a ] is, and how it differs from an actual execution. His claim that there was bomb found in Marbella is also false. Bomb making components including explosives were found, but that isn't a bomb. Given Marbella is over 80km from Gibraltar and the components weren't found until afterwards, I struggle to see how any reasonable person could possibly consider that the presence of bomb making components in Marbella after the fact somehow doesn't make the three people killed in Gibraltar "unarmed"? <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
			# Explanation
	::::I know ''exactly'' what a summary execution is, and I don't just mean a war crime. It is an execution carried out without a full trial. Therefore it is a subset of executions, which are a state-conducted legal process. Therefore only a state can carry out summary executions, although of course they're prohibited by the Geneva Conventions which all real soldiers have to obey. If a non-state actor kills someone without a trial that isn't a summary execution; it's just an ordinary murder.--] (]) 19:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
			# Explanation
	:::Oops, just checked and it was actually a bomb not just components. However the car was only found due to keys in the handbag of one of the people who had been killed, so the larger point still remains. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
			;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):[
	:Flexdream this isn't a content issue, that's just included to show how part of the edit is obvious POV. The issue is disruptive edit warring by an editor previously topic banned for the exact same. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
			<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
			*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above).
	::I declined to answer your off-topic attempt to use your own ] to say it wasn't a summary execution when a reliable source (and more available) says it was. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::OK then. What crime were Howes and Wood accused of and which state carried out their "executions"? Answer please.--] (]) 19:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::I note that, in this instance, the complaining editor has made a seemingly malicious and false accusation of ] when in fact ] was quoting from the complaining editor's own source, namely the Misplaced Pages article on ]. There is clearly a group of editors intent on pushing their own POV by insisting that the term "summary execution" is inaccurately applied to this article, and as the defendant in this arbitration I request that this is taken into account in the solution to the complaint. Thanks.--] (]) 02:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
			; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
	:Is there no end to the revisionist waffle from Flexdream? FergusM1970 was blocked and topic banned for 3 months after a Troubles 1RR breach in December 2011. So quite where you get "I think in good faith they deserve the benefit of the doubt that they didn't realise at the time they were in breach of a rule" is anyone's guess.... <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
			<!-- Add any further comment here -->
	::Well, I'll put my hand up and admit to having forgotten about that; I don't edit WP all that much as a rule and don't keep track of what's allowed and what isn't. My sole concern was to revert the repeated insertion of an inaccurately used term, namely "summary execution" for two killings carried out by a non-state actor without any legal justification whatsoever.--] (]) 19:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
			I am not sure if this is actually a AE matter, but was told to go here by multiple admins. The biggest issue is the Editing against consensus on accompanied by bludgeoning. However, there are signs of bad faith editing on all three pages where I have interacted with EE. It could also be a CIR issue or it could be some sort of harassment. I don't know. I just know that EE first avoided providing clear reasons for reverting edits and has been trying to engage in Status Quo Stonewalling. He keeps citing Onus or Burden and asks me not to make a change until the discussion is over. Often, this doesn't make sense in context, because the change was in place. He has made false claims about sources and what they say. His editing on Yasuke is not so much a problem as the discussion which comes across as gaslighting.
			:@], I am not an expert on proxies or socks. All the IPs have only posted on the one article and have advocated an odd definition for samurai, that doesn't apply to the article. All except the first one have just reverted. It is possible that this is just laziness, or lack of confidence in writing skills etc. After all, the false citation was added by another user and was just kept. I found the latest one the most suspect, in part because of it first reverting to the incorrect definition, before restoring most of the text and second because of falsely citing policy. I am not sure if they are proxies, but I hoped that someone here would have the expertise to know. I don't think the proxy evidence is the most important. EE is either acting in bad faith or has CIR problems. The later is possible, because he thanked City of Silver during ANI, although City of Silver has been the harshest critic of EE's behaviour towards me.
	:Oh great, now we have . Could this be any more POV and misleading, since it was allgedly a which is obviously a different thing entirely. The sooner this editor is topic banned again the better in my opinion based on that. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	::What's misleading about it? The target was the band of the Royal Anglians and the plan was to spray them and their audience with shrapnel by detonating 140lb of Semtex in a car. You are attempting to gloss over the fact that this was an attempt to detonate a large bomb at a public event frequented by tourists.--] (]) 19:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
			:I think there should be some important context to the quote: {{tq|"those who serve in close attendance to the nobility"}}. The quote can be found in several books, on ] it is sourced to an article published in Black Belt Magazine in the 80s by ], where he describes the origin of the word samurai. He is describing the early phases of its meaning in that quote, before it became to have martial connotations. It also refers to the time before 900. The earliest foreign samurai on the list was in the late 1500s. It also doesn't apply to most of the persons on the list. Finally, it is not mentioned in Vaporis's book, which EE keeps adding as the source. He hasn't even made the effort to copy the citation from ].
	:FergusM1970 claims . The only source currently being referred to is Brits by Peter Taylor. I've got my copy in front of me right now and there's nothing in the source that says that as far as I can see. Exact quote please? Should you fail to provide the quote, I think we can draw our own conclusions.... <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 21:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	::False. The Taylor book is the reference currently numbered (2) in the article. Reference (3) is the ECHR report into the shootings. It clearly describes the terrorists carrying out reconnaisance and dry runs on the band assembly area.--] (]) 22:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::So what's the exact quote from the ECHR report that supports your comment of "the planned location of the attack was at the band assembly area which was right next to a large residential building, not at the steps of the Governor's residence where the guard would be changed, and that ''is'' in the source"? <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::Read Para 38-45. Here are some extracts:
	:::: ''"38. Detective Constable Viagas was on surveillance duty in a bank which had a view over the area in which the car driven in by the terrorists was expected to be parked. At about 12.30 hours, he heard a report over the surveillance net that a car had parked in a parking space in the assembly area under observation. A member of the Security Service commented that the driver had taken time to get out and fiddled with something between the seats... 39. Witness N of the Security Service team on surveillance in the car park in the assembly area recalled that at 12.45 hours a white Renault car drove up and parked, the driver getting out after two to three minutes and walking away.
			:@]
	::::''A young man resembling the suspect was spotted next at about 14.00 hours in the area. Witness H, who was sent to verify his identification, saw the suspect at about that time and recognised him as Savage without difficulty. Witness N also saw the suspect at the rear of John Mackintosh Hall and at 14.10 hours reported over the radio to the operations room that he identified him as Savage and also as the man who had earlier parked the car in the assembly area.... 45. At about 14.50 hours, it was reported to the operations room that the suspects McCann and Farrell had met with a second man identified as the suspect Savage and that the three were looking at a white Renault car in the car park in the assembly area.''
			Not only did I have a dispute with Symphony Regalia about samurai being "retainers to lords", but also on Yasuke about "As a samurai" and on ] EE made the same reverts as SR. EE had with his first edit in all three articles continued a dispute that I had already had with SR.
	::::''Witness H stated that the three suspects spent some considerable time staring across to where a car had been parked, as if, in his assessment, they were studying it to make sure it was absolutely right for the effect of the bomb."''
	::::Will that do?--] (]) 22:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Did you bother to read the question? It was - So what's the exact quote from the ECHR report that supports your comment of "the planned location of the attack was at the band assembly area which was right next to a large residential building, not at the steps of the Governor's residence where the guard would be changed, and that ''is'' in the source"? Would you like to answer that question, as opposed to an entirely different question that I didn't ask? <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::::I did answer your question. If you read the quotes I just provided you will see repeated mentions of the words "assembly area," correct? You will see a description of actions consistent with a reconnaisance and dry run, correct? On the other hand there is ''no'' surveillance reporting of similar PIRA preparations for an attack on Main Street at the Governor's residence, correct?--] (]) 22:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::As everyone can see, FergusM1907 is unable to provide a quote that supports his claim of "the planned location of the attack was at the band assembly area which was right next to a large residential building, not at the steps of the Governor's residence where the guard would be changed, and that ''is'' in the source", instead relying on the vague use of "assembly area". <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 06:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::What's vague about it? The area referred to "vaguely" as the assembly area is, duh, the ''assembly area.'' What's hard to understand about this? Do you see references to "Main Street" or "The Governor's residence" anywhere in the surveillance reports?--] (]) 10:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	:I see Flexdream is attempting to revise history again. He's ignoring (which was already in the report) which happened after FergusM1970 had supposedly accepted he couldn't revert further. 19:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	:In reply to Slp1's comment below. We are dealing with a previously topic banned editor who makes comments such as to an editor who he is in dispute with. And for the sake of transparency, "Provos" refers to the ] and in the context it was used can only be assumed to be referring to the editor concerned. So good faith doesn't really apply to this editor in my book, given the circumstances. I further note the claim that "1rr reports. In the first, concerning Flexdream, a fairly infrequent editor, who reverted as soon as the 1rr problem was brought to his/her attention" has been claimed. is the history of the page in question. Flexdream emphatically *did not* revert "as soon as the 1rr problem was brought to his/her attention". <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 13:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	::I really don't know about Fergus, but you are correct about Flexdream. He didn't revert. He immediately came here and acknowledged the 1RR problem , and 3 minutes later he was reverted by another editor (somebody who has also participated in this dispute with Fergus), which meant that he couldn't revert. But thanks for pointing out my error, I will correct my post below. --] (]) 13:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	:So on an entirely new article we have reverts at , and . That's in addition to a POINTY campaign on many other articles. For example after not getting his own way on piece of content where the whole point of the incident was that three unarmed IRA members were killed (and that being pointed out by dozens of reliable sources) he's adding unarmed to every article he can find where people were killed by the IRA. , really? Can nobody see we've got a serious problem here? <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 06:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	::That "the whole point of the incident was that three unarmed IRA members were killed" is very much ''your'' personal opinion. As far as I'm concerned the whole point of the incident is that a major terrorist bombing was prevented, and the fact that Savage, McCann and Farrell weren't carrying guns is not important. Clearly different people have different opinions, which is why Misplaced Pages depends on editors discussing their differences on the talk page in good faith rather than using tag-team reverts and manipulative 1RR complaints to get their own way.--] (]) 12:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	:I notice Jonchapple claims to be uninvolved and alleges I have "non-collegial, bad-faith attitude towards editing here". I would suggest his comments of suggest the former is untrue, and the latter is better applied to himself. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 09:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	::I've removed the uninvolved part, even though I'm not involved in this particular dispute. And how you choose to interpret comments made to other users on their personal talk pages is up to you, but even if there is some bad faith tucked in their somewhere, unlike you and your 14 frivolous AE reports a week I don't let it spill over into my editing. <font color="#004225">—</font> ]] 20:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
	:Cailil, could you explain how reverting some (, as that demonstrates) of the changes I disagreed with, including the addition of blatant original research and (something SonofSetanta didn't bother doing I notice when he reverted my edit ) about the OR is somehow topic ban worthy? <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 16:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
			:@] I actually don't have a problem with you discussing things. Your talk page posts aren't really discussion though. Your main argument on all three pages has been a shifting of the burden of proof. You don't really discuss content and continually ask me not to make changes without discussing first, and then make changes yourself. I understand that your position is that your preferred version is the status quo. However, my edits regarding the definition on ] , were discussed and consensus was clearly gotten. Similarly, my edits on Yasuke were discussed, and even though I didn't use the exact same version as Gitz said, Gitz had suggested using warrior instead of bushi, so I used samurai, because I thought it would be less controversial.
			; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->		<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	===Discussion concerning FergusM1970===		===Discussion concerning Ethiopian Epic===
			<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 FergusM1970====		====Statement by Ethiopian Epic====
			This is clear retaliatory filing because I recently didn't agree with Tinynanorobot's , and because I made talk page sections on some recent edits.
			@] That's not true and you are a very obvious alt account with only 26 edits. No one gave you a notification of this discussion and it's not on the Yasuke talk page. This suggests you are the sock puppet of someone here. Your post is also misleading and incorrect it wasn't an insertion. The line you are talking about in Samurai has been there for over 10 years and is normal. I know because I've read it before. Here is a version from 2017 . I don't understand why you are misrepresenting edits and using an alt account.
	The use of the term "summary execution" for the abduction, beating, stabbing and murder of Howes and Woods is straightforward POV pushing. An ] is a killing carried out with legal sanction by the state which PIRA, itself an illegal group, most certainly did not have. A killing carried out ''without'' legal sanction is murder, although I would accept "killing" in this article. I ''will not'' accept "summary execution." Ever. This is not because of my POV; it's because it's not accurate. Allowing it to be inserted is to give PIRA an implied level of legitimacy that they never in fact possessed and it has no place in an unbiased encyclopaedia. I request that this be made clear to everyone who edits this article in future to prevent further issues.
			@] I think he is just fishing. That's why he removed his IP claims. Even his other diffs are just mislabeled regular behavior. It's amusing because Eronymous is the likely alt of Tinynanorobots or someone posting here. I think the way Tinynanorobots edits against clear consensus, skips discussion, and then files frivolous ANI/AE reports with misleading narrative like above is disruptive. Discussion is an easy solution and benefits everyone. I hope he will respect RFC consensus.
	As for the three terrorists killed in Gibralter, they had a bomb. It contained 140lb of Semtex, it was in a car parked in Marbella and the car keys were in Farrell's handbag. To call them "unarmed" is as weaselly as a large bowl of weasels in weasel sauce. Their intent was to kill or injure several hundred innocent people and they had the means to do it.
			====Statement by Relm====
	As for my actual 1RR violation, I forgot about this rule and my previous sanction for it, and for that I apologise. When FlexDream reminded me of the rule I immediately accepted that and have carried out no further reverts to the article. Nor will I do so in future except in accordance with 1RR. However I request that, whatever the consequences of this complaint for me personally, a decision is reached that prevents the promotion of a pro-PIRA POV on this article and forbids the inaccurate use of the term "summary execution" to refer to these murders.--] (]) 18:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
			I am largely unfamiliar with the account in question, but I do frequently check ]. I believe that EthiopianEpic has displayed a clear slant and battleground mindset in their editing in regards to the topic of Yasuke, but that their conduct on the Yasuke page itself so far has generally been in the ballpark of good faith edits. The revert on December 9th was justified, and their topic on November 29th is well within bounds (though I acknowledge that the background of their prior disputes on other pages with Tinynanorobots shows it may be edit warring) given that the two things being reverted was a change that seemed to skirt the prior RFC with agreement being given in a very non-direct way, and the other portion being an addition which had not been discussed on the talk page prior to its implementation (though previous discussions ered on the side of not including it). I am ''not'' accusing Tinynanorobots of any misconduct in any part of that either.
	:@EdJohnston: The editors on the other side of this dispute, however, are systematically inserting false information into the article to advance their own POV and tag-teaming to make sure that nobody can revert it without breaking 1RR. Needless to say if they weren't doing that I wouldn't have violated 1RR...--] (]) 15:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	::@EdJohnston, ''somebody'' has to rule on it. Attempting to discuss it on the talk page appears to be futile, as the reply is always "You don't know what summary execution means." Luckily, for anyone who really ''doesn't'' know what it means, there's a handy online resource called Misplaced Pages that will ], and it bears no relation to what happened to Howes and Wood. The editors who want the wording to stay refuse to justify themselves or discuss alternatives - both Flexdream and I tried the NPOV "killed," but got reverted - and appear to be gaming WP rules to make sure it stays there. I realise that this doesn't grant an exception to 1RR and I shouldn't have violated it - although I genuinely did forget; I tend to edit WP in fits and starts, and don't keep up to date with the rules - but what's really more important here? That I was a bit naughty or that a blatantly POV and thoroughly inaccurate term is being repeatedly put back into an article?--] (]) 17:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::OK, this is what is happening here. The article in question hadn't been touched for five weeks. Then Flexdream changed "Summarily executed" to "killed." He was immediately reverted. He attempted to discuss it on the talk page and was brushed off. I changed it to "murdered" (which is accurate according to WP's definition of "murder," but may be wasn't the best choice.) I was immediately reverted. I then broke 1RR and changed it to "killed," which is NPOV. I was reverted. I also attempted to discuss it on the talk page and was brushed off. The editors in question are simply not willing to discuss the wording in good faith. The fact is that 1RR is being gamed to keep ''false'' and ''POV'' wording in the article, and any resolution through the talk page is impossible because the reply is just going to be "Please don't ask irrelevant questions. Reference for summary execution added, good day to you," "Why don't you try reading what a summary execution actually is?," "Simply reading what a summary execution actually is should have addressed this" and so on. In fact of course a summary execution is a type of ''execution'' and an execution is a killing carried out ''by a state'' and as ''punishment for a crime''. Neither of these applies to the abduction, torture and killing of two men by a banned paramilitary organisation. As I said, I put my hands up and admit to breaking 1RR. I forgot; my bad. However the rule is being used to prevent this article being improved and personally I think that's a more important issue.--] (]) 17:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::This is getting pathetic. ] is now arguing ] that a summary execution is not in fact an execution, although amazingly enough he won't explain why not and in fact has repeatedly cited a source which begins "]" His only aim appears to be to maintain a pro-PIRA POV on the article; he has shown no sign at all of being willing to look for a good-faith solution, which of course is why we're now in arbitration. If content issues aren't actually important then so be it, but I ''was'' under the impression that we were trying to edit an encyclopaedia here rather than simply attempting to be even more narrowly legalistic than a Haredi rabbi in a delicatessen that isn't ''quite'' kashrut enough for him. The current situation is just as Heimstern said; 1RR can be used to ensure that the side that wins the dispute is the one who can out-revert the other without breaking the rules, rather than the one that's actually trying to improve the article. Howes and Wood weren't executed, saying they were makes WP look about as reliable as Andy Schlafly's little toy wiki and I was attempting to fix the problem. Sorry that I had to break a rule in the process of trying to bring the article into line with WP's policy on POV, but what exactly was the alternative? Leave it ''wrong''? So fine, I violated 1RR. Block me if you must, but next time I see something that can be improved I may just not bother my hoop to do it. Frankly an encyclopaedia that thinks revert violations are worse than inaccurate and biased content has problems I can't even begin to fix.--] (]) 21:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
			What I will note is that in addition to the sockpuppet IP allegations made by Tinynanorobots, I wanted to lodge that the posting style of EthiopianEpic, as well as their knowledge of much of the previous discussions on the page deep in the archive, led me to suspect that they were an alt of ]. I never found anything conclusive. ] (]) 14:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	To add to my previous statement, what this issue boils down to is: Is 1RR more important than ]? I admit to having inadvertantly violated one in pursuit of the other, but attempts to resolve this issue on the article talk page were not exactly productive and the other side of the dispute continues to ignore the dispute resolution request I initiated. The article is now locked with a blatantly POV phrase still in place, which may prevent 1RR violations but isn't doing a whole lot to help remove POV-pushing. As I have already said, I accept my error and that I may be blocked for it, but the ''status quo'' where POV is preserved for at least the next three months looks a lot like cutting your nose off to spite your face.--] (]) 16:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
			====Statement by Simonm223====
	:@Cailil, if you check the article talk page you'll see that I asked for protection, with the intention of seeking a solution to the POV issue, before this complaint was even made against me. The reason I didn't go to DRN until last night was that until then I didn't know it existed.--] (]) 18:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
			These two editors have been tangling at WP:AN/I repeatedly. Last time they came there I said that this would likely continue until a third party intervened. And then the thread got archived with no action () so I'm not surprised that the two of them are still tangling. There is evidence that both editors have engaged in a slow-motion edit war.
	::Also, can you remind me what Troubles-related sanctions I received in 2009? I can't even seem to find any relevant edits I made that year, never mind sanctions for them. Of course I may have missed one, but I don't recall making any.--] (]) 18:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
			Both have claimed the other is editing against consensus. Here I will say that it appears TinyNanoRobots is more correct than Ethiopian Epic. Furthermore, while neither editors' comportment has been stellar, as other editors have pointed out, it appears more that EE is following TNR about and giving them a hard time than the alternate. . In the linked AN/I case (above) you'll note EE attempted a boomerang on TNR and was not well-received for the effort.
			Frankly my view is that both editors are not editing to the best standards of Misplaced Pages but there is definitely a ''more'' disruptive member of this duo and that is Ethiopian Epic. I think it would probably cut down on the noise considerably if they were encouraged to find somewhere to edit which was not a CTOP subject and if they were encouraged to leave TNR alone. ] (]) 18:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	Not that I'm implying tag-team reverting or anything, but an edit I recently made to ] was reverted by ]. I changed it back (once, in accordance with 1RR) and it was immediately reverted again by ]. Previously TheOldJacobite hadn't edited that article since 21 September 2009, when he and Hackney again carried out the same revert in the space of 39 minutes.--] (]) 21:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
			====Statement by Eronymous====
	@EdJohnson, Heimstar, Seraphimblade, Slp1 and The Blade of the Northern Lights - For my part I am perfectly willing to engage in the DRN process and will abide by its results; if it concludes that "summarily executed" is appropriate wording I will accept that and not change that wording again.--] (]) 22:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
			Similar to Relm I check on the ] page every so often, and it seems very likely given the evidence that ] is an alt of ] created to evade his recent ArbCom sanctions, having started editing the day prior to the case closure. Of note to this is the of Symphony_Regalia on ] was him attempting to insert the line "who served as retainers to lords (including '']'')" - curiously enough, Ethiopian Epic's on ] (and , having just prior made 11 minor ones in a short timeframe to reach autoconfirmed status) is him attempting to insert the same controversial line that was reverted before.
			Symphony_Regalia has a history of utilising socks to edit Yasuke/Samurai related topics and is indefinitely blocked from the .jp wiki for (plus multiple suspected IPs) for this.
	:::I know, I shouldn't be commenting here and I accept that you will move it, but I am doing so to make sure that it's noted as I'm sure you all have better things to do than continually re-read this page looking for changes. The DRN volunteers have closed the request due to ] and ]'s refusal to participate. I would prefer that the request remain open for at least a few days, but if not I'm willing to go to mediation and accept their ruling. Is this helpful?--] (]) 01:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
			Prior to being sanctioned Symphony Regalia frequently got into exactly the same arguments concerning wording/source material with ] that Ethiopian Epic is now. One could assume based on their relationship that he is aggrieved that Tinynanorobots was not sanctioned by ArbCom during the case and is now continuously feuding with him to change that through edit warring and multiple administrator incidents/arbitration requests in the past few weeks. ] (]) 22:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	====Comment from Son of Setanta====
	I have been uninvolved in this discussion until now but have read the DRN case and note that some parties involved in the discussion do not actually wish to discuss anything. I reverted the information to what I believe it should be here ] but it was immediately reverted by Domer48. Fergus reverted it back to his/my version and that was immediately reverted again by Hackney. What we have here is a numbers game folks. An edit war which will be won by the grouping with the greatest number of reverters and that's the version which wil stay unless there is some form of adjudication on this. My opinion is that one set of followers are determined to subvert the article to reflect the fact that a stateless, banned, terrorist organisation, had the authority within the United Kingdom to authorise ] and was exercising its own form of law. That also appears to be the case here. Supporters of that banned organisation (which is now defunct) are determined that their heroes be shown in the most romantic light possible and not as the murderers they were/are. It's POV pushing at the most extreme and enforced by a posse of minions. ] (]) 16:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
	====Request for Mediation====		====Statement by Nil Einne====
			I was ?one of the editors who suggested Tinynanorobots consider ARE in the future. I did this mostly because after three threads on ANI with no result, I felt a change of venue might be more productive especially since the more structured nature of ARE, as well as a likely greater concern over low level of misconduct meant that some outcome was more likely. (For clarity, when I suggested this I did feel nothing would happen from the third ANI thread but in any case my advice being taken onboard would likely mean the third thread had no result.) I did try to make clear that I wasn't saying there was definitely a problem requiring sanction and also it was possible Tinynanorobots might themselves end up sanctioned. Since a topic ban on both is being considered, I might have been right in a way. If a topic ban results, I'd like to suggest admins considered some guidance beyond broadly constructed on how any topic ban would apply. While the entirety of the Yasuke article and the list of foreign born samurai stuff seem clear enough, one concern I've had at ANI is how to handle the editing at ] and its talk page. A lot of the recent stuff involving these editors seems to relate to the definition of samurai. AFAIK, this is generally been a big part of the dispute of Yasuke (he can/can't be a samurai because it means A which was/wasn't true about him). ] (]) 12:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	I have now filed a request for mediation on the underlying content issue, which can be found .--] (]) 12:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
	:...and all the involved editors have now agreed to take part.--] (]) 16:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
			===Result concerning Ethiopian Epic===
	I have suggested a different form of wording on the mediation page, namely the NPOV "killed," and have asked the other involved editors to give their opinions and any objections to this wording. It seems that as a number of editors clearly object to "summarily executed," and if nobody provides any valid objections to "killed," this change (back to wording which was in the article for six years without controversy in any case) would be the most consensual way ahead.--FergusM1970<sup>Misplaced Pages policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.</sup> 23:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
			:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
			<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
			*I've never been very impressed with retaliatory filings, and the one below is no exception. I will also note that I'm never too impressed with "must be a sock" type accusations&mdash;either file at SPI or don't. In this case, though, I think ] would be better off if neither of these two were participating there. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:{{u|Red-tailed hawk}}, what are your thoughts after the responses to you? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I think that it would be declined if it were an ] report and the editor should be mindful not to throw sock accusations around willy-nilly going forward. But I typically don't see any sort of sanction imposed when someone makes a bad SPI report, particularly if they're newer or aren't quite ] yet. So I don't see much to do on that front other than tell them that we need more specific evidence of socking when reports are made than merely shared interest, particularly when the IPs are scattered across the world. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 02:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I'm still inclined to topic ban both these editors from ], but would be interested in hearing more thoughts on that if anyone has them. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I also generally don't like "might-be-a-sock"-style accusations; when we are accusing someone of ] we typically need evidence to substantiate it rather than just floating the possibility in a flimsy way. Filer has provided as possible socks, but each of those IPs geolocates to a different country (Germany, Norway, and Argentina respectively) and I don't see evidence that any of those IPs are proxies.{{pb}}{{yo|Tinynanorobots}} Can you explain what led you to note the IP edits? Is it merely shared interest and viewpoint, or is there something more?{{pb}}— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 02:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Looking at this .... mess... first, I'm not sure what actually was against the ArbCom decision - I don't see a 1RR violation being alleged, and the rest really appears to me to be "throw stuff at the wall and see if it sticks". But, like Seraphimblade, I'm not impressed with either of these editors actual conduct here or in general. I could be brought around to supporting a topic ban for both of these editors in the interests of clearing up the whole topic area. ] (]) 14:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			* {{re|Tinynanorobots}} you are well above the 500 word limit. Please request an extension before adding anything more. ] (]) 16:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			==Tinynanorobots==
	The request has now been accepted by the Mediation Committee, so hopefully progress should be made soon.--FergusM1970<sup>Misplaced Pages policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.</sup> 13:46, 8 August 2012 (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>
	:This is rather frustrating. I have proposed a solution to the content dispute , but Hackney, Domer and TheOldJacobite are refusing to discuss it or even to explain why they object to it. I think this illustrates the point that they are not interested in concensus-building.--FergusM1970<sup>Misplaced Pages policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.</sup> 20:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
	::Continued refusal. Both Hackney and Domer48 have expressed a concern that "killed" doesn't make clear that the killings were illegal, so I have proposed another solution that addresses this. They still won't discuss it. To me it is now absolutely clear that they have no interest in reaching concensus and want the words "summarily executed" in the article for other reasons which they are not willing to disclose. I suggest that these reasons involve giving a false impression of legitimacy to the killings by implying that a death sentence for a crime was being carried out, and ''that'' is POV-pushing. As for TheOldJacobite, he has taken no part at all in the discussions at the mediation request except to complain about the admins involved here. How is anyone supposed to reach concensus with <s>this editor</s> these editors when they aren't even willing to explain why they want their preferred wording or to discuss acceptable alternatives? Is it any wonder that, in frustration, I breached 1RR?--FergusM1970<sup>Misplaced Pages policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.</sup> 00:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
			===Request concerning Tinynanorobots===
	====Confession====
			; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : ] (]) 19:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	I have possibly just violated 1RR again. I did it because someone reverted my ''sourced'' edit stating that the casualties of PIRA's campaign included Irish security forces (six police and one army.) I raised this on the talk page when I made my edit, and got flannelled. PIRA murdered six Irish policemen and one Irish soldier. This is a matter of record. I confidently expect that one of about six Misplaced Pages <s>reverters</s> editors, who I will willingly name if asked, will shortly submit a 1RR complaint against me for this. I note, however, that nobody is disputing the fact that six Irish policemen and one Irish soldier were killed by PIRA. Therefore the reversion of my edit should itself be regarded as a breach of WP rules, namely ]. Thanks.--] (]) 04:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
			; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Tinynanorobots}}<p>{{ds/log|Tinynanorobots}}</p>
	:OK, apparently removing my edit was ''not'' a revert. Fine...--] (]) 04:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	====Further Allegations====
	] has now also raised a ] against me, apparently based on nothing more than the fact that other people disagree with his "stable concensus" to use a POV term. Given that concerns have been raised below about his use of 1RR to push his POV, I think some more concerns about his behaviour in general are warranted.--] (]) 13:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	@Cailil, actually I have initiated both a DRN and a mediation request in an attempt to resolve this. However despite being asked several times One_Night_In_Hackney refuses to explain why he insists on using the wording "summary execution," why he thinks it does not mean "execution" or why he will not consider the NPOV wording "killed." He also deleted information I added to the PIRA campaign article on the grounds that it was "policy violating" and "incorrect," whereas they were in fact sourced and I don't see what policy is violated by stating the level of public support for PIRA's aims.--FergusM1970<sup>Misplaced Pages policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.</sup> 19:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	@Cailil (again,) my apologies for canvassing, as I wasn't aware this was an offence. My belief was that admins who were already involved in my case would have a fuller understanding of the issues raised by Hackney's further complaint against SonOfSetanta and would be better able to judge the merits of it.--FergusM1970<sup>Misplaced Pages policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.</sup> 22:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	====Comments by others about the request concerning FergusM1970====
	====Statement by Flexdream====
	Before this AE was raised I reverted Fergus' edits and they have accepted that. That would seem to be that. Subsequently this AE has been raised over what is really a content dispute and can be discussed in the article. Is it really necessary for editors to raise an AE every time they can? Shouldn't some judgement be shown? --] (]) 19:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	"It would appear FergusM1970 doesn't actually know what a summary execution is" according to Hackney. According to that link a "summary execution" is where "a person is accused of a crime". Hackney has not been able to say what the crime was when asked . Is this really the forum to get into discussing content? Although it does explain why Fergus made their edit.--] (]) 19:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	Hackeny - I'm pleased you've now conceded that it was a 'bomb'. As for allegations of POV - they are easy to make but I don't see the relevance or helpfulness here. I thought my term in the article of 'killed' was less POV than your term of 'summarily executed'. But doesn't this discussion belong on the talk page? When I reverted Fergus' edits and told them about 1RR they didn't undo it or come back at me, they accepted it, so I think in good faith they deserve the benefit of the doubt that they didn't realise at the time they were in breach of a rule. I know I didn't when it was me.--] (]) 19:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	- how is it 'original research' to link to the very same wikipedia article ] that you do? Anyway, I think this is just clouding the issue now and getting verbose. Give the admins and others a chance to comment.--] (]) 19:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	So, Fergus breaks the 1RR rule. I revert the edit and inform Fergus they can't make a second edit. Fergus accepts that. However, Hackney then files a complaint. And now its being proposed that Fergus gets a 6 month topic ban? For a 1RR breach that I corrected, and they accepted, before the complaint? Have a look at the discussion between Hackney and Fergus, and the discussion between Sean Hoyland and Fergus for a contrast in how discussions can go.--] (]) 19:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	:@ Cailil. You seem to be saying that because Fergus is the subject of an AE claim, that because of that his attempt to resolve the issue by going for mediation is an attempt to avoid AE? Or have I misunderstood you? If I have then it would be helpful for me if you could rephrase it. Fergus has said that they did not know about DR at the time of the AE - and they have tried to discuss the issues previously. You can judge for yourself how they have tried to discuss the issues on talk pages, and how others have responded there and to his two attempts to get mediation. I also suspect that Fergus is not aware of the wikipedia rule on canvassing, as if they were aware it seems unlikely they would canvass the admins involved in a current AE raised against Fergus - that behaviour would be inexplicable.
	:I thought the whole point of AE is that it is a last resort for problems which undermine wikipedia. I also would hope that discussion is preferred to mediation, and mediation is preferred to arbitration but I don't know enough about how wikipedia works. Fortunately I suppose I have not had much experience of AE till recently, and I am learning how it operates. You say that "Processes of this site should not be used to undermine or otherwise attempt to evade policy or arbitration remedies" and I agree. I'd also say that this applies to the process of AE which should not be used to attempt to evade the policy of NPOV. Regards.--] (]) 20:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	:@ Cailil - I have misread you. You said Setanta has opened the DRN. But isn't it Fergus who opened the DRN ] and ]? Or are you and I at cross purposes? Regards. --] (]) 21:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	::Setanta has opened a separate DRN about a different issue (PIRA's illegal use of the name of the Irish Defence Forces) . I assume that's what Cailil is referring to rather than my attempted DRN about the Howes/Wood murders.--FergusM1970<sup>Misplaced Pages policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.</sup> 20:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::Fergus, thanks for that. I am puzzled by what relevance a DRN which Setanta has raised elsewhere has to the mediation which you have asked for in this case. I don't see the link. 'Your' DRN and mediation stands or falls on its own merits I'd have thought, I don't see why it should be judged based on someone else's DRN on another topic. I see we're both listed in the other DRN but I haven't looked at it and I see you haven't made any contribution to Setanta's DRN. So, as I say I'm baffled by what relevance it has. In fact, having now read a bit of Setata's DRN on IRA naming I'm even more puzzled than I was before about why Cailil has mentioned it here. In fact, I don't even see it's relevance to the AE case brought against Setanta, as that relates to interpreting whether the London 7/7 bombing article is Troubles related and subject to 1RR. I don't think any AE case involves the IRA naming issue.--] (]) 20:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::I have opened my own DRN about nthe Irish naming convention of PIRA because I would rather have calm discussion than be frustrated by constantly being reverted on articles when I put in what I consider to be truthful and accurate information. All it has earned me is bullying tactics by an experienced tag team who sit like vultures hoping you will make a 1RR mistake so they can get a complaint raised at the first opportunity to get you banned, off the scene, and unable to contribute to the articles they have established their POV on. The only way forward in all contentious zones is to identify the bullies and curb their intent. I don't believe Misplaced Pages has formulated the correct policy yet but I'm convinced they will when all the facts are tasken intyo consideration. In the meantime we seekers of truth have to be content with the procedures in existence and try and use them as they were intended. ] (]) 14:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
	====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
	Uninvolved comment - Regarding the edit that said that the IRA planned to bomb a "public music performance", the source actually cited in the article, Peter Taylor's ''Brits: The War against the IRA'', says that the intended target was the changing of the guard ceremony (as do many other sources), so the edit is inconsistent with the source and apparently deliberately so. I think it's exactly the kind of edit that in a topic area covered by sanctions should result in a sevesup>re warning or a temporary topic ban. Tampering with what sources say is far worse than a 1RR violation and the fact that the editor is trying to defend it suggests that they probably need a reminder that it's not okay. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 20:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	:Except the changing of the guard was right outside the entrance to the Governor's house and the planned location for the bomb was right beside where the band would be parading. This was a planned mass atrocity at a ''public event'' and would have resulted in heavy civilian casualties. They were planning to set off 140lb of Semtex wrapped in a ton of steel right beside a block of flats.--] (]) 21:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	::Yes, I know, and I've been close enough to IRA bombs to feel the blast wave twice and seen what they do plenty more times than that, so please don't try to lecture me about it. What you added isn't in the source. That is all that matters here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 21:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::No offence intended, I've been too close to a couple of CIRA bombs and a couple more Taliban ones myself. However the planned location of the attack was at the band assembly area which was right next to a large residential building, not at the steps of the Governor's residence where the guard would be changed, and that ''is'' in the source. The issue here is editors pushing a POV by trying to grant some sort of legal respectability to the murders of Howes and Wood and simultaneously trying to minimise the scale of the atrocity planned by Farrell, McCann and Savage. Unfortunately they're very good at using WP rules to push this agenda, but hopefully the admins will see through it and come to a ruling about terminology to be used in this article.--] (]) 21:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	]
	::::No problem. It's easy to find more details about the intended target. There's no reason for editors to put their editing privileges at risk by making unsourced edits, edit warring over stuff like this or having to spend time filing reports about it. It's all avoidable with a bit of searching and collaboration.
	::::* "They are reported to have planted a 500lb car bomb near the British Governor's residence. It was primed to go off tomorrow during a changing of the guard ceremony, which is popular with tourists." BBC -
	::::* "The target of the car bomb was apparently the band of the Royal Anglian Regiment, which was to have performed on March 8 to mark the changing of the guard outside the Governor's office on Main Street, an area surrounded by a school, a home for the elderly and a bank. If the bomb had exploded, there would have been many civilian casualties." - ''The New York Times'' . <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 21:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::::No problem, and thanks for the link. It's not actually relevant as the target of the bomb seems to have been the band assembly area, where Savage was seen making a dry run in a parked car, but either location would certainly have caused mass civilian casualties.--] (]) 22:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	====Statement by Domer48====
	That the violation of the restrictions is clear and unambiguous goes without saying. That the editor, despite this report continues to flout it is inexcusable. It also makes this statement by them at best misleading at worst completely dishonest. That they are deliberately provocative simultaneously on a number of articles is blatantly obvious. That Flexdream having just been placed on notice, could even suggest that this is simply a content dispute is quite inexplicable, having offered the same excuse in their case above. This needs to be addressed. I agree with Sean above, having the same sources. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	:The target of the bomb was the band, either during their performance on Main Street or more likely at their assembly area beside a residential block. This is made clear in a number of sources, including the ECHR report which is one of the sources listed. The repeated attempts to remove this information from the article and minimise the nature of the planned attack is the real provocation.--] (]) 22:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	:Having been warned, topic banned, and being reported again you then go and revert again despite this report dose not bode well. That I will not be entertaining you goes without saying. That ONIH has illustrated above that you have been deliberately miss quoting sources supports Sean's comments above, which leaves nothing more to be said. Bye. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	::Misquoting sources? Where? Please give examples of misquotes.--] (]) 22:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::It appears that since they have no excuse for their flouting of the editing restrictions, and attempting to suggest that it is a content dispute has been debunked with nothing else to lose they have decided to insert as much before sanctions are imposed which will have to be removed. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 15:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Let me get this straight: I'm being accused of inserting "POV claptrap" by someone who claims a lynching is a legal process and signs himself "Fenian"? Yes Domer48, your neutrality is on display for all of us to see.--] (]) 16:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::Domer is correct. Since the topic ban is still in place, all of Fergus's edits to Troubles-related articles should be reverted on sight, regardless of 1RR. By administrator decision, and with good reason, he has been banned from editing those articles, hence all of those edits should be regarded as vandalism. ---<font face="Georgia">''']</font><font face="Courier New">'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 16:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::::The topic ban isn't in place, the previous one expired. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 16:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Just to clarify, its the 1RR restrictions that are being blatantly flouted. That they are now seeing things that aren't there, such as me making "claims" of some sort, should be seen for what they are, delusional. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 16:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::I haven't reverted anything since Flexdream reminded me of the 1RR rule last night. It's a one REVERT rule, remember, not a one EDIT rule. Anyway, why the eagerness to rush straight to EA rather than try to find a form of words that's acceptable to everyone? Is anyone going to ''finally'' explain why they think "summarily executed" is the appropriate wording for what happened, or are you just going to keep on gaming WP rules to keep it in there despite the fact that it's embarrassingly POV? The rules are there to assist the WP project, not stifle any disagreement.
	:::::::As for me "seeing things that aren't there," your comment about me inserting "POV claptrap" is five comments up. Are you seriously arguing that your determination to describe this incident as "summary execution" isn't connected with the POV implied by the word "Fenian" in your signature?--] (]) 16:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	1RR prevents editwarring and invites editors to the talk page, promoting discussion. Ignoring the talk page discussion, using to get round the 1RR and then and then reverting with a misleading edit summary, can all be addressed here. Content disputes have no place here, and trying to conflate this into one dose not change the facts behind this report.--<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 14:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	:Except the editor in question has not discussed it on the talk page until now and has ignored the dispute resolution request I opened. To suggest that ''I'' have ignored the talk page discussion is frankly delusional. I removed my AE request against TheOldJacobite when I noticed that his reverts were in response to an anonymous editor's 1RR violation and were thus justified, EXACTLY as I said in my edit summary. Otherwise I'd have left it open, wouldn't I?--] (]) 14:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	I don't think it was the intension of Admin's when holding off closing this case, that the time would be used to extend the scope of whats described as . The editor their willingness to continue . The articles effected now are, all covered by the restrictions and what appears to me at least as . --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	:I find very offensive and acknowledged that all those who died were '''unarmed''' when they were killed by British soldiers saying "there was no point in trying to soften or equivocate" as "what happened should never, ever have happened". Cameron apologized on behalf of the British Government by saying he was "deeply sorry".--<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	::Whether or not you find it offensive is utterly irrelevant both to me and to Misplaced Pages's mission as an encyclopaedia; as the dead were all civilians it could reasonably be assumed that they were unarmed, and I see no reason why it is any more necessary to state it than it is to state that the victims of, say, the Harrods bombing were unarmed. Insisting on the use of "unarmed" in respect to victims of the British security forces - even ''when by PIRA's own admission'' they were terrorists in the process of carrying out a major bombing - while objecting every time it's applied to victims of PIRA, is POV-pushing.--] (]) 23:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	===='''Another violation of 1RR by the same editor:'''====
	''On Misplaced Pages, means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of any editors.''
	#1st Revert of John. John had reverted their edits.
	#2nd Revert of ONIH.
	#3rd Revert of DagosNavy
	#4th Revert
	#5th Revert
	Despite the good grace being shown here. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 23:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	:You're stretching the definition of "revert" a bit now. I left the flag in, as per ONIH's revert, but re-added the Garda as a belligerent. As they carried out operations against PIRA, and lost men in the process, I don't see a problem with that. I'll shortly be adding the Irish Army, as they fought PIRA and lost a man in the process too. I also initiated a discussion to sort out the flag issue with ONIH.--] (]) 23:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	Insulting the intelligence of editors by allowing blatant POV editing and violations of editing restrictions "While bright-line violations of restrictions like 1RR are easy to address" but are being ignored. That is what I find offensive!--<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 10:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	'''Another violation of 1RR by the same editor:'''
	====Statement by Mo ainm====
	It would appear Flexdream and Fergus are trying to make as much noise as possible to try and turn this into a content dispute on this noticeboard, when we should be just focussing on the 1RR breach from an editor with a documented history of problematic editing in this area. ]] 23:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	:I agree with ]. This seems like smoke and mirrors to distract from Fergus's disruptive editing, refusal to show good faith, and his all around nasty attitude in an area where he is already topic-banned. I really have to wonder what more needs to be said here. He claims to have forgotten the 1RR rule and that he was topic-banned in any articles related to the Troubles? That beggars both imagination and credulity. ---<font face="Georgia">''']</font><font face="Courier New">'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 01:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	::What seems like smoke and mirrors is the determined effort to use a narrow and legalistic interpretation of WP rules to stop anyone removing the ''inaccurate'' term ] from an article about the murder of two British citizens by a mob.--] (]) 01:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::You have invented a content dispute to distract from your problematic editing. And your repeated claims to both ignorance and innocence are laughable. Even as this discussion has been ongoing, you have continued to edit war and push your POV in the article. So, pull the other one. ---<font face="Georgia">''']</font><font face="Courier New">'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 03:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::I haven't invented ''anything''. This whole issue has come up because of the repeated insertion of inaccurate content.--] (]) 03:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::::To expand: This whole problem has arisen ''solely because'' of a content dispute. Multiple editors are repeatedly inserting the term "summary execution" into this article when it is quite clearly ''incorrect'' according to Misplaced Pages's ] ] on executions. This is being done solely to push a fringe, pro-IRA POV; the idea that torture and killing by a mob is an execution - "a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime" - is bizarre to say the least. All attempts to change this wording have been frustrated and the editors responsible have been extremely quick to resort to AE to preserve their POV, while refusing to discuss the wording or even explain the reasoning behind it. Any attempt to ask why they want this wording is brushed off with "You don't know what a summary execution is" - we do; it's right there in the relevant article - and any attempt to change it to anything else, even the neutral "killed," is immediately reverted. We can get caught up in the letter of 1RR here, but I think it also may be beneficial to look at the spirit of trying to create an accurate, unbiased reference source.--] (]) 16:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Or to expand properly: FergusM1970 has been edit warring to remove a long standing term from the article, one that he attempted to remove in April and was reverted at the time. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 16:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::Fallacy: Argument from antiquity. It doesn't matter how long-standing it is; it's still POV and wrong.--] (]) 16:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::As has already been identified "summary execution" was not a 'long standing term".]. It was added on 19 March ] and reverted by Fergus on 4 April ]. I make that 16 days later, and Hackney claims that is 'long standing'? I think from an experienced editor who can check these things that is misleading.--] (]) 14:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::I'd class April to August as long-standing. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 14:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::And I will repeat that that's irrelevant. It's only survived because ''you'' have been edit-warring to keep it there, and it is both POV and factually incorrect.--] (]) 14:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Hackeny, you said it was long standing at the time Fergus attempted to remove it in April i.e. "remove a long standing term from the article, one that he attempted to remove in April and was reverted at the time." It was not long standing in April. --] (]) 14:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::::And... *crickets* --] (]) 02:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	====Comment by uninvolved My very best wishes====
	I never edited in this subject area, but just looking at the by FergusM, one can easily see that it is ''his'' edit that complies with our basic NPOV policy, which is not negotiable. I believe the filer of this request is attempting ] WP:CONSENSUS to promote their personal POV. Worse, he is trying to use this noticeboard as a weapon against his content opponent. If anyone needs to be sanctioned here, this is filer of this request (and not FergusM) per "boomerang" rule. ] (]) 01:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	:Hackney is that the term "summary execution" gives more information to the reader than "killed" does. I agree that this is his intention. However the additional information it ''implies'' is that Howes and Wood were legtimately killed as punishment for a crime, which is in fact not the case. Therefore the repeated inclusion of this wording is POV-pushing.--] (]) 15:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	::I's not only "murdered" versus "summary execution", but also IRA "members" instead of IRA "volunteers" and the removed word "unarmed" ("unarmed IRA members preparing for a bomb attack") what makes your version obviously more neutral. This is not really a big deal, but the attempt to sanction an editor for following WP:NPOV policy makes this case <s>interesting</s> so common. Admins think they should not rule ''at all'' on the content. Let me politely disagree. I believe in ''the simplest cases like that'', they must rule if they ]. Of course they should not rule on the more complicated matters that require very good understanding of the subject. ] (]) 18:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::You'd have to explain how a bomb found in a car boot after the event (found due to keys on the body of one of the people killed) about 80km away doesn't make the three people killed "unarmed"? The whole point of the long controversy over the event is that they were indeed unarmed. As after all it's FergusM1970's contention that when the bomb was 80km away. Obviously that they were indeed unarmed is backed up by . <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::"Unarmed" means "not in control of a weapon," not the narrow definition you seem to mean of "not carrying a firearm on their persons." The dead terrorists ''were'' in control of a weapon, specifically a large IED. The exact location of the IED itself is not all that relevant; they had control of it. I suspect that you want "unarmed" in there to give the impression that they were somehow innocent victims. They were not. They were planning to detonate a large explosive device in a public location, and their decision to do this led directly to their deaths. If they hadn't taken a car bomb on holiday with them they would not have ended up dead on a Gibralter street, so the inclusion of "unarmed" is at best unnecessary and at worst misleading. --] (]) 19:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::::I refer you to the dozens, if not hundreds, of reliable sources that state they were unarmed. Your own opinion of whether they were unarmed or not is irrelevant, except for being evidence that you were not trying to adhere to NPOV at all but to push your own POV. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::::What POV was I pushing? I didn't edit the article to say that they ''were'' armed, after all. However I don't see what's gained by having "unarmed" in there. It gives an unwarranted impression of innocence to them. Unless you're OK with me adding the word "unarmed" to every one of the IRA's victims who didn't actually have a gun in their hands when they were killed? Of course as PIRA murdered over 2,000 people who fall into that category it might take me a while, so perhaps you'd like to help out.--] (]) 20:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::OK, I have edited ] to include the word "unarmed." I assume you're fine with that. --] (]) 21:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::Oh dear, apparently not.--] (]) 21:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	*They may or may not be armed at the moment, but insisting that a group of bombers ''must be described'' as "unarmed" is a POV of enormous proportion. I did not see that level of POV even in the subject areas related to Chechen wars. But this is not why I commented. This case clearly shows the problem with the system of discretionary sanctions. A group of editors with whatever ridiculous POV can easily ] of such areas and rule with an iron fist by (mis)using this noticeboard. That's why I am not really contributing in such areas any longer, just like many other editors better than me who were banned or stopped participation. ] (]) 13:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	:Is your account still inactive?--<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 14:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	====Statement by uninvolved Ebe123====
	I also think, as a DRN volunteer, not a sysop that we should wait for the result of the DRN discussion. ~~]]~~ → <small><span class="nowrap">]</span></small> 17:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	====Statement by Steven Zhang====
	Hi. I'm also a volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Given the fact that at least two out of the five listed participants have made their lack of intent to participate at DRN clear, either implicitly or explicitly, I don't think AE should wait any longer. Whether the decision to not participate in content dispute resolution should be seen as stonewalling and addressed by the AE admins here is another matter, but it probably should be considered. Regards, <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 22:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	:Hi Steven. I see your point, but seeing as I requested dispute resolution on a Friday night and it's now Saturday night, the editors in question may have social commitments that mean they don't have time to participate in WP beyond making a few more <s>reverts</s> edits to their favourite articles. Maybe we could leave the DRN open for another day or two, just to give them a chance to take part.--] (]) 22:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	:I was notified , are you seriously suggesting that I'm stonewalling? The discussion was closed by you . I have a RL, and was away from my PC. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	::Domer48, I don't think you were one of the editors he was referring to, but I tend to agree. It's too early to close the DRN. The other two were notified last night but apparently you didn't get the message for some reason. --] (]) 23:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::No, I don't think you were stonewalling - my point is that there were two people mentioned in the DRN thread that declined on their talk page to comment in the discussion. For DR to be worthwhile (especially in the face of AE) all need to participate. As this will not take place, there's not much alternative. Mediation could be tried, but if all don't agree to participate, then again, it's pointless. <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 23:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::I'm willing to go to mediation if there's a chance it can solve the issue. Obviously that is going to require that the other editors participate, and that's problematic. I think Domer48 would be willing to, but ONIH and TheOldJacobite are dubious. However ''anything'' has to be better than this stupid wikilawyering, and I'm sure most of the admins who've looked at this case would agree, so if they keep stonewalling DRN until, say, Tuesday I'll ask for mediation and see how it goes. My aim here is to improve the encyclopaedia, not score political points, so I'm happy to put in the effort if others are.--] (]) 23:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Obviously that depends on the DRN being open, so I'd be grateful if you could open it again. Thanks.--] (]) 00:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::::@all the admins. OK, both DRN volunteers now concur that DRN will not work due to the refusal of ONIH and TheOldJacobite to participate. While I personally think DRN should be given more time, I am willing to take this to mediation instead. Comments?--] (]) 01:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::I haven't declined to take part, I frequently clear my talk page. I was actually planning on adding something today, re-open the thread and I'll be happy to do so. I'll also add that I've continued discussing on the article's tslk page since the DRN thread was opened. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 06:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::Your "discussion" consists of repetitively saying "Read the summary execution article," over and over again. You declined to explain why you think your preferred wording is more appropriate than "killed," you declined to explain what additional information you think it gives the reader and you declined to explain why you think a summary execution is not in fact an execution. Not really helpful, I'm afraid.--] (]) 14:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	:@Domer - you may have been notified about the DRN at 19:55 but you were aware of it earlier when you replied to Fergus at 08:31 ]. I still think you should be given more time though. @Hackney - you're usually very quick to comment, but I think you should be given more time also. Similarily OldJacobite is welcome to change their mind and contribute.--] (]) 09:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	::I am quite aware that I am free to change my mind. But, frankly, I would consider this all laughable if it weren't so disgusting and offensive. We are to be lectured on NPOV and dispute resolution by Fergus, who has, without question, violated 1RR, who has repeatedly demanded that he be allowed to have his own way (his idea of a resolution, as suggested on the article talk page, was that we editors who disagree with him simply change our minds, or shut up, and allow him to make the changes he has called for since the beginning), who has moved from article to article making POV changes, and who has repeatedly displayed an arrogant attitude toward those he considers "Provos." We are to enter dispute resolution with this man, who has a track record of disruption in Troubles-related articles, who has been topic-banned in this area of Misplaced Pages, and who is currently being considered for another topic ban in this same area. And yet, the admins, in their wisdom, have decided that resolution of the "content dispute," invented out of whole cloth, should precede enforcement of the long-standing rules that resulted from the Arbcom. We are to take this seriously? We are to trust that dispute resolution will now solve this matter? And we are to believe that this man, who has shown no good faith in the last 96 hours, is going to engage in discussion with a straight face? And, if he does not, are we to trust that the admins are going to do their job, which they have shown no sign of doing up to this point? He violated 1RR, and now emboldened by their refusal to act, he has expanded his campaign to multiple Troubles-related articles, including deliberately ] edits. Yes, ], I am free to change my mind, but, given these facts, I'd say there isn't an ice cube's chance in hell of that happening. You will all have to forgive me for now regarding this entire process as a fucking joke. ---<font face="Georgia">''']</font><font face="Courier New">'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 15:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::Stephen, I don't know where this leaves the DRN process. I have a lot of sympathy for you and Ebe as volunteers trying to facilitate a discussion between editors with strongly contrasting views. I honestly don't know now who wants to contribute to the discussion but I think it's still worth a shot, but if you decide otherwise I'd understand. Personally I think it would be best if several editors just wrote less and calmed down a bit. --] (]) 15:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::Hopefully the DRN process can be salvaged, but if not we need to find some other way to get an impartial judgement about what is or is not NPOV on the article. This back and forth reverting and refusal to discuss the issue is just stupid.--] (]) 16:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	====Statement by Jon C.====
	As far as I'm concerned, the fact that One Night In Hackney filed two AE reports over a content dispute in quick succession and declined to participate in the DRN shows his own non-collegial, bad-faith attitude towards editing here. This should be taken into account when deciding the outcome of the request against FergusM1970. <font color="#004225">—</font> ]] 09:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	:Jon, in fact he ''doesn't'' edit here. All he does is revert any change made to Troubles-related articles which is intended to promote NPOV. The actual content he's added to Misplaced Pages is minimal if it isn't actually nil.--] (]) 13:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	====@Cailil====
	I must take issue with you regarding your claim that I am edit warring. I have removed POV material from the articles I have edited on. My most recent edits have a concensus here ] here ] and here ]. I have edited the Wiki in accordance with what has been accepted as fact that the assumption of the name ] by stateless, banned terrorist organisations is 'styling' and in no way an official representation of usage of a name which belongs to a body of the Irish state. If you, along with the others disagree with this or any of the other edits I have made I am more than willing to enter into dispute resolution and to abide by the concensus arrived at. As Steven Zhang has already pointed out on this page however there are parties who are refusing to enter into DR and appear to be "stonewalling". Their only objective can thus be seen as an attempt to manipulate adjudications on this page and to force a POV onto articles. ] (]) 16:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	:@Calil. Your note about my DRN discussion is unwarranted on this occasion in my opinion. The DRN does not discuss any of the subject matter on this page AFAIK but rather deals with a naming convention. ] (]) 11:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	===Result concerning FergusM1970===
	<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
	:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
	*FergusM1970 broke the Troubles 1RR restriction at ]. The question of how to describe the planned bomb attack in Gibraltar is a side issue. The editors on the other side of this dispute did not break 1RR. Meanwhile, since Fergus's last topic ban was for three months I suggest imposing a new topic ban for six months. ] (]) 15:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	::@FergusM1970: Do you believe that admins should rule on whether 'summary execution' can be used to describe killings by the IRA? I share your distaste for that language but it falls into the realm of content disputes, so far as I can tell. In any case, removing those words is not an exception to the 1RR. ] (]) 17:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::<small>@FergusM1970 this section is for uninvolved sysop discussion of the case *only*. PLease do not comment here.--] <sup>]</sup> 17:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)</small>
	*As Ed says above, content is not relevant to ArbCom enforcement. The diffs speak for themselves FergusM1970 has breached the WP:TROUBLES single revert restriction. Concur with Ed that ban of 6 months length for FergusM1970 is appropriate under the terms of WP:TROUBLES--] <sup>]</sup> 17:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	*This is the sort of thing arbitration, and Misplaced Pages in general, is terrible at. Things like 1RR can minimize disruptive edit warring but don't succeed at resolving the actual dispute; instead they result in the side with the numerical advantage winning by default. In a better Misplaced Pages, I would say "hold off on sanctions, let's find a way to resolve the content dispute via actual consensus first." But Misplaced Pages refuses to provide a method, so I guess sanctions it is. ] ] 17:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	:*The discussion above is already tl;dr for me, but you might have: do you see anything by any party that looks like it would be called poor editing (POV writing, misrepresenting sources, etc.) by ''any'' objective observer? Who knows, maybe we will actually get an agreement to go after that. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 23:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
	:*I'd tend to agree with NW (including that I just skimmed the above), but if there's clear POV editing, baiting, nastiness during discussions, or the like, we can certainly act on those things. I definitely do not want to open up the can of worms of arbitrating content disputes here, but just because bad behavior happens while editing content doesn't mean we can't address that. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	::*To answer, no, nothing is blatantly obvious. I'm a bit concerned about the use of "summary execution", but I haven't looked closely for fear of getting too involved, content-wise. As far as closing this, I think it's clear that, while sanctioning Fergus will deal with the specific problem of his edit warring, it won't solve the problem of content. And no, I haven't got any better ideas. I just think this is a really sucky weakness of our dispute resolution. ] ] 03:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	::*(edit conflict) It also won't solve the problem of the use RFAE and 1rr as a blunt instrument to "win" over opponents and remove them from the arena. I'm concerned that ] has used this board twice within 9 hours to open 1rr reports. In the first, concerning Flexdream, a fairly infrequent editor, who <s>reverted as soon as the 1rr problem</s> acknowledged that they had broken 1RR as soon as it was brought to his/her attention (and the report closed as a warning); and here we have FergusM1970 also acknowledging that he had erred too. I think Flexdream had a point that the collegial, WP:AGF thing to do would be to assume that breaking 1RR was an error, and remind them on their talkage, and only report them here if they refuse. I've seen this done by other editors in other dispute areas. It is clear that strictly speaking FergusM1970 has broken 1RR, but I am concerned that the 1RR rule as written and applied rewards editors who have the bigger group of allies to revert and who use battleground approaches to get their way in a topic area. ] (]) 13:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::*In this case Slp1 where FergusM1970 has already been topic-banned a breach of WP:TROUBLES is recidivism. I do see your point vis-a-vis gaming but don't see it here. FergusM has a history of bans and blocks over edit-warring <s>in the WP:TROUBLES area (going back to '09) </s> an "oops" is not going to cut it--] <sup>]</sup> 17:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::*I don't think Fergus' issues all have been Troubles related (in fact, I think only the last one was), but yes, he does have a history in this area, and yes, an "oops" doesn't cut it. I wasn't defending Fergus' actions but rather seeking to take a look at this whole situation. It seems like editors (on both sides) seem to prefer to revert and report rather engage with the evidence and with each other. The suggestion below seems a possible way forward. --] (]) 22:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::::*I'm just going to clarify my comment above. FergusM1970 has a long history of edit-warring blocks and bans going back to '09 in a number of national topic areas (Israel-Palestine 09-'11 & Britain-Ireland '11-present) but also at BLPs. Per my remarks below I, at this point see what you were concerned about Slp1 (ie gaming) but I also see a lot of gaming from the other side too--] <sup>]</sup> 12:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	*Although I agree with Heimstern that the underlying issue is deeper (I think perhaps fully protecting the page for a while might do some good, but that seems hamfisted at best) we can at least resolve this specific problem with this editor. I concur that a 6 month topic ban would be in the works here. ] (]) 13:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	*FergusM1970 has now opened a discussion at ]. Does anyone object if we hold off closing this AE request until we see if DRN can do something useful? My guess is that this report would have to kept open as much as five more days, if other admins agree with that idea. ] (]) 16:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	**I actually think that's quite a good idea, and would like to caution everyone involved there that for anyone who chooses to participate, negotiation in good faith and in compliance with our behavioral requirements is expected. While bright-line violations of restrictions like 1RR are easy to address, they are generally a symptom rather than a root cause, and we will in due course address patterns of misbehavior like stonewalling discussions, tag team reverting, or chronic incivility/sniping. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	**<small>Moved statement by Ebe123 to section above. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC) </small>
	**Also think it's a good idea; at the very least, worth a shot. ] ] 20:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	**I like it too; if everything goes well and we don't have to resort to sanctions, that'd be great. ] (]) 20:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	**So do I; I'd also like to emphasize that all the participants in this dispute are very strongly encouraged to participate. As Seraphimblade says, stonewalling behaviours are not appropriate or helpful when it comes to writing an encyclopedia --] (]) 22:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::<small>Comment moved to proper section. Please don't deliberately make work. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 09:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)</small>
	*With this cases referral back ] & Steven's comment above, I'd move that at this point we consider conduct of ALL parties. FergusM1970 has breached the WP:TROUBLES ruling but in light of the conduct of all parties at WP:DRN and here I must retract me above and agree with SLP1: there is stonewalling here and I'm concerned that there are ] by both sides, rather than attempts to find source based consensus--] <sup>]</sup> 15:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
	*:I think I more or less have to agree with Cailil here. Unfortunately, that leaves the editors here to determine what kind of sanctions to be levied, and which editors to levy them against. ] (]) 15:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
	*OK enough is enough. There are games being played on ] with a current edit war including FergusM1970 <small>(for clarity only the 2nd of these diffs is a revert the first is the original edit)</small>, DagosNavy, One Night In Hackney, a throw-away-account, Portugalpete (who's ONLY edit to WP is in this edit-war), OldJacobite, and Son of Setanta. I'm suggesting a topic-ban for all the above (except Portugalpete who is ]) from WP:TROUBLES related topics for a duration of 3 months (none of them heeded repeated urgings from a series of admins to engage in constructive discussion and have within the last 24 hours begun further disruptive behaviour), with a 6 month ban for FergusM1970. The reason for the higher sanction on FergusM1970 is recidivism (as well as numerous conduct issues including an attempt at canvassing) but I'd support a 3 month ban as minimum. However given that FergusM1970's dispute withDagosNavy (which I consider them equally at fault for) has spilled over from ] to ] (both of which began within the last 24 hours) and considering the level of caution he has recieved above his behaviour is showing ]--] <sup>]</sup> 16:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	:*I'll need to look into the edits further before commenting on the merits of the proposed sanctions, but if the situation is as you described, we might want to try importing ] into this topic and see how that works out. ] (]) 17:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	*I agree that this has become ridiculous. It is ironic that Tim comments that the only RFAE come from Palestine-Israel ArbCom and discuss whether it needs to go back, and here we are overrun with Troubles requests. I am starting to wonder if this whole thing doesn't need to go back to ArbCom, though possibly the ] would be worth a try.
	:As far as what to do with all these requests, I am learning towards Cailil's suggestion, as so many editors are behaving badly. ] which has been slow (and fast) edit warred over for 2 weeks now), with by ] of unsourced contentious material today, being particularly ridiculous and unhelpful. To add to Cailil's comments, I was appalled by FergusM1970's pointy editing about being "unarmed" (some egs ), but slightly mollified by the fact that he did take the point and initiate the two DR resolution attempts, and one of them actually seems like it might be a go. On the other hand, I find clear gaming and wikilawyering in One Night in Hackney's editing. , and , and , s/he, quite reasonably, asks for sources for edits which s/he opposes, but when an independent editor on the mediation page makes the same point about the absence of any good sourcing for a phrasing s/he supports (and lots of good sources for what s/he has opposed}, ONIH wants to argue on, based on the merits of the phrasing, rather that the clear ] and ] policy issues. --] (]) 19:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	*After the last negotiations breakdown, I've been doing a review of the major players involved here, and I agree with Cailil that all their behavior in the area has been, frankly, appalling. I was quite unimpressed with the canvassing message left on my talk page, and regardless, Fergus has pretty unequivocally breached 1RR. However, I don't think at this point that the further participation of any of the editors Cailil mentions is constructive in this area. I suggest a 3-month topic ban for all from Troubles articles, broadly construed, with a clear warning that next time is not likely to have an expiration date. I also have no objection to Cailil's suggestion of a longer sanction for Fergus, given the 1RR violations and further misbehavior. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	*Given that Son Of Setanta has opened a DRN discussion after 2 sysops have commented in the thread below that his edits have breached WP:TROUBLES and 3 of us here have highlighted their general misconduct in the topic I am inclined to look very wryly on the mediation. Processes of this site should not be used to undermine or otherwise attempt to evade policy or arbitration remedies--] <sup>]</sup> 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	== Slovenski Volk ==
	''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
	===Request concerning Slovenski Volk===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : ] (]) 09:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Slovenski Volk}}
	<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->		<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]		;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
	<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->		<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
			; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
			<!-- 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.-->
			#. Tinynanorobots removes {{tq|As a samurai}} from the lead text and replaces it with {{tq|signifying bushi status}} against ] ({{tq|There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification}}).
	# Brightline violation of 0RR restriction
			#. Tinynanorobots removes {{tq|who served as a samurai}} from the lead text and adds {{tq|who became a bushi or samurai}} against ] ({{tq|There exists a consensus against presenting Yasuke's samurai status as the object of debate}}).
	# Brightline violation of 0RR restriction
			#. On List of Foreign-born Samurai, Tinynanorobots removes the longstanding definition and adds {{tq|This list includes persons who ... may not have been considered a samurai}} against ] ({{tq|There exists a consensus against presenting Yasuke's samurai status as the object of debate}}).
	# Brightline violation of 0RR restriction, done as an IP.
			#. Tinynanorobots reverts to remove {{tq|As a samurai}} in the Yasuke article after Gitz6666 opposes at , again ignoring ].
			#. I restore and start a so that consensus can be formed.
			#. Tinynanorobots, when consensus fails to form for his position, becomes uncivil and engages in a sarcastic personal attack {{tq|What you are saying doesn't make sense. Perhaps there is a language issue here. Maybe your native language handles the future differently than English?}}
			#. Tinynanorobots removes "As a samurai" again, ignoring ] and BRD even though no consensus has formed for his position, and no consensus has formed to change existing consensus.
			#. Tinynanorobots explains their reasons, {{tq|I don't know if samurai is the right term}} which is against consensus.
			#. POV-pushing - With no edit summary Tinynanorobots tag bombs by adding {{tq|Slavery in Japan}}.
			; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
			# Explanation
			# Explanation
			<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
			;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
			<!-- 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 .
	; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :		; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
	Slovenski Volk is under a 0RR restriction in ] since January of 2011. He has violated that restriction several times since then, sometimes getting blocked for it , sometimes not, at one time coming close to being banned from the article . He again violated his revert restriction on July 2 2012, not once, but twice (the first time by editing unlogged). He again did so on August 5 . While I don't necessarily mind the content, what I find disturbing is a certain I-am-right-therefore-I-revert-as-much-whatever-I-want attitude. In addition, I am disturbed by the way he baits editors on the talkpage (the "deeply engrained nationalistic tendencies of certain editors" is clearly a dig at me), and especially this (a reference about the ongoing Greek economic crisis - really below the belt). ] (]) 22:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
			Tinynanorobots frequently edits against consensus, restores his edits when others revert, doesn't wait for consensus, and engages in feuding behavior. He seems to think ] or ] don't apply to him which is disruptive, and I don't know why.
	; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
			- Warning from other editor about repeated removal of content when multiple users are objecting.
	; New comments by editor filing request:
	To the admins: How about an (indef?) article ban instead of a block? I agree with Slovenski Volk that the problem is strictly localized to this article. ] (]) 22:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
			- Warning from yet another editor about not assuming good faith and making personal attacks
			It seems to be chronic which suggests behavior problems. Tinynanorobots also frequently fails to assume good faith in others. I don't know why as I don't have any issues with him.
	<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
			Their preferred edit for Yasuke against the RFC consensus is lead section.
			@] Sorry for the confusion. I think we talking about different edits, so I'll adjust that part. I am referring to Tinynanorobot's repeated removal of {{tq|As a samurai}} against RFC consensus, which states {{tq|There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification}}.
	===Discussion concerning Slovenski Volk===
			; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	====Statement by Slovenski Volk====
			<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	I cannot agree with Athenean's statements for several reasons. It is not I who has reverted, but I am the one who has 'been' reverted . I made a good-faith, well- referenced edit which was blanket reverted by another used (and collaborater of Athenean) for no good reason other than his own, dislike of the content, under the guise that it was a "pointy edit". Whilst his action is unjustified and counter to Misplaced Pages spirit, I made an effort to appease his concerns by modifying the sentence by adding the qualifiers ''"could be interpreted''" and adding further references (from another, excellent quality, specialist piece of literature). So this was not merely a re-reversion of his (blanket) revert, rather my actions clearly illustrate that I had recognized his concerns and addressed them by re-introducing the sentence in a modified way. I do not think this to be inappropriate action.
			===Discussion concerning Tinynanorobots===
			<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 Tinynanorobots====
			The accusations made by EE are so misleading as to be evidence against him. Most of what he is discussing is in reference to a successful BRD. I actually discussed the bold edit first on the talk, but didn't get much of a response. I decided a bold edit would get more feedback. The edits were reverted and then discussed. Gitz's main problem was OR, not a RfC violation. This was because he didn't read the cited source. {{tq|Anyway, since Atkin says "signifying bushi status", I have no objection to restoring this text.}}
			I never used any sarcasm, I know that some languages handle how they talk about time differently. It seems reasonable that a translation error could be the reason for EE asking me not to change the article, althoug my edit had already been restored by someone else and at the same time asking me to discuss that I had already discussed and was already discussing. I am disappointed that EE didn't point out that he felt attacked, so that I could apologize.
	With regard to Athenean's examples from 02/07/12, he has again misrepresented the evidence. The first edit (which he calls a revert) was in my mind a primary edit (done by me under IP 152.76.1.244 - I had forgotten to log in). What had happened was: someone had added a second (redundant) geographical qualifier for the openeing sentence of the lede ''at some point'' (who know's when, I certainly did not know), repeating exactly what was ''already included'' at the very start of the sentence (Ie "The Macedonians (Greek: Μακεδόνες, Makedónes) were a tribe from the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula, in the alluvial plain around the rivers Haliacmon and lower Axios, nowadays in the region of Macedonia, Greece".) This is tantamount to my saying "I live in western part of Australia, in what is now western Australia" Now, any native English speaker recognises that this is grammatically poor, containing a redundant second geographic adjective. So I , in good faith, amended it; to be reverted. So again, it was I who reverted by a different user (" A Macedonian"), with edit summary stating that he could not see the initial error (" Where is the second one (ie geographic adjective)?") . In my re-edit, I made him aware that what he wrote simply made no sense in the English language. Essentially, content was ''not'' removed, nor was the meaning of teh sentence changed in anyway, either. The sentence still stated what it had always stated, minus the circumlocution. This is not, as Athenean argues, a case of me arrogantly thinking I am right- the issue was not content or lay-out, but correction of frank grammatical redundancy. NB I have absolutely no issue with discussing otherwise more profound, complex content issues, as can be seen by the voluminous TP discussions here
			This was written in response to another user, and the whole thought is {{tq|I don't know if samurai is the right term. It is the term a fair amount of sources use, and the one that the RfC says should be used. It is also consistent with common usage in reference to other historical figures.}} In fact earlier in that post I said this: {{tq|I am not qualified to say whither or not Yasuke having a house meant that he was a samurai}} This is blatantly taking a quote out of context in order to prejudice the Admins against me.
	To re-iterate, I have ''not'' reverted any primary material added by the other editors, merely wish to be able to re-introduce material (which i modified to bridge an agreement) which had been unjustifiably blanket reverted without ''my'' being accused of reverting. Athenian seems to be unphased with the injustice and irony of his charge.
			:@] I filed here, because the last time I filed at ANI it was suggested that I bring things here if things continue by an Admin. I try to follow advice, although I keep getting conflicting signals from Admins. I am most concerned that you find my work on ] and ] not adding anything helpful. My suggestion to rewrite the way samurai was defined on the List in order to reduce OR and bring it in line with WP:LSC was meant with unanimous approval by those who responded. Samurai is a high importance article that has tags on it from years back, is unorganized and contains outdated information. I am not the best writer, but I have gotten some books, and am pretty much the only one working on it.
	As for his other concerns, they're just silly. He is offended by "Well, as I have stated earlier, that wording ("''generally considered''")sounds WEASALish and somewhat counter to what a sizable, even a majority of specialists currently conclude". What's wrong with that ?? I think his accusations are becoming desparate and really undignified. Rather it is Athenean's henchmen who makes personal accusations agains me, and blindly revert and decline ideas proposed by me on the TP based on their personal viewpoints without an academic leg to stand on (in fact, i doubt those chaps have even read 5% of the literature with which I am acquainted). They are ill-equipped to debate in any academic, meaningful, content-focussed way with me because (i) the volume of literature supports my edits (ii) they simply lack the capabilities / effort to even read any meaningful literature; so they're entire appraoch has been to mass-block any of my efforts and make it nigh impossible for me to continue making meanigful edits. The very reason I was placed on the 0RR in jan 2011 (for a probable 3 month period) was due to their tag-teaming efforts at edit-reverting. I was guilty for succumbing to their tactics, however, I feel that i am a competent, non-disruptive, and in fact , very positive editor, and should be able to make minor modifications of edits within good faith and reason without the threat of being accused of reverting; and (as above) I am more than happy to first go to TP for more potentially contentious issues ( as I have been doing)
			::I just thought that the Admins here should know about the ongoing SPI
	] (]) 02:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
			====Statement by Relm====
	:-> I wish to re-iterate, if I may, that in my view I do not see the action I performed a "revert". I made an edit, it was reverted. I then modified, changed and added extra references to my original edit to appease whatever original concerns were voiced in the revert notes, and re-submitted the contribution. Surely this action does not constitute a blind, malicious "revert" ? Moreover, if I might propose, I will happily take a break from editing the article in question, and related articles, for 3 months; yet my account be not blocked so I may be involved in other areas (I have had no 'issues' anywhere else except the article in question) ] (]) 07:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
			I am the editor alluded to and quoted as 'protesting' Tinynanorobots edit. When I originally made that topic, I was fixing a different edit which left the first sentence as a grammatically incomplete sentence. When I looked at it in the editing view, one of the quotes in the citation beforehand was quoting Atkins Vera, and I mistook this for the opening quote having been changed. When I closed the editing menu I saw 'signifying samurai status' in the second paragraph and confused the two for each other as I had not noticed the addition of the latter phrase a little under a month ago. I realized my mistake almost immediately after I posted the new topic, and made this () edit to clarify my mistake while also attempting to instead direct the topic towards making sure that the edit recieved sufficient assent from Gitz (it did) and to talk about improvements that could be made to the opening sentence. I further clarified and made clear that I was not accusing Tinynanorobots of having done anything wrong in a later response ().
			Though many of their earlier edits on the page may show some issues, as they grew more familiar with the past discussions I believe that Tinynanorobots has made valuable contributions to the page in good faith. ] (]) 03:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	::@T Canens- If it is acceptable to the admins: I will take a wiki break from ancient Macedonians (and related articles - incl language & kingdom) for these 3 months, but ask to be allowed to participate in other areas , eg medicine, genetics and other European history articles (many of which I have written, have had nonissue in , and am a respected editor with significant knowledge and often a 'moderator ' amongst parties ). The unfortunate events here , I maintain, are more the result of the attitude of a certain cartel of difficult editors. Nevertheless , I accept your feedback and will take leave of the subject matter for 3 months ] (]) 08:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
			====Statement by Barkeep49====
	::: T Canens: why have you now modified your suggestion from 3 month block to 6 month or indefinite article ban ? I can only, humbly, ask that you consider a block for the month-period of your consideration, and not an article ban. I give my word that I shall henceforth adhere to the 0RR ''religiously'', and not make my intepretations of what an 0RR might be. Lastly I would like you to take into consideration that my contrbutions to the article, and to Misplaced Pages in general, have been great. Through enormous effort I improved the article from this to this , and my other artilce and maps are featured not only on English Wiki and maps in Commons, but also other language Wikis. I'll let you be the judge, lest I finally re-iterate that I acknowledge to abide by 0RR no matter how superior I rate my knowledge and sources to be, and shall not 'rush' back into the article when the block is over. I only wish to periodociallly, in the more distant future, add further data and references to the article given the ever-growing quality of literature now devoted to the matter which 'deconstructs' "ethnic" questions and defuses questions of history in the region. That had always been my goal. ] (]) 10:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
			*:@] I think this misinterprets the ArbCom decision. So Yakuse is a contentious topic ''and'' it has a 1RR restriction, in the same way as say PIA. As in PIA administrators can sanction behavior that violates the ] besides 1RR. Beyond that, editing ] is a finding of fact from the case. ] (]) 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::I'd happily take the 3 - 6 month block rather than article ban. As stated, I ask for a final chance, and promise to abide by the 0RR stipulation scrupulously upon eventual return to Wiki. But I leave the judgement to you, and shall accept and abide by whatever is decided ] (]) 00:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
			====Statement by (username)====
	:::::Thanks for input, NW. Whether there is a restriction as to when I can appeal or not, I will nevertheless, not appeal and take a WIki break from the article for some time. ] (]) 07:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
			<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
	====Comments by others about the request concerning Slovenski Volk====		===Result concerning Tinynanorobots===
			:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
			* As above, I'm failing to see what exactly is against the ArbCom case rulings - I don't see a 1RR violation. But also as above, I'm coming to the view that neither of these editors are adding anything helpful to the topic area and am leaning towards a topic ban for both. ] (]) 14:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	===Result concerning Slovenski Volk===
			<!-- 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. -->
	<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
	:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
			*<!--
	*This appears to be a pretty straightforward 0RR violation, so I'm fine with either a 3 month block or an indef with the first year covered under ARBMAC. ] (]) 15:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
	*Since the last block was one month, three months would be appropriate. Not particularly sure that an indef is needed here. ] (]) 03:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
			-->
	**@Slovenski Volk: What other articles/topics do you have in mind? ] (]) 12:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	***I'm open to a six-month or indefinite article ban in lieu of a block. ] (]) 03:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
	<small>@Slovenski Volk: please note that this section (as it clearly states at its top) is for uninvolved admin comments ONLY. Please do not comment here--] <sup>]</sup> 11:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)</small>
			==Selfstudier==
	*There is clear violation (3 times) of 0RR within 5 weeks by SV and a clear ] re: reversion going on in their replies here so I'd concur with a 3 month block under the terms of ARBMAC--] <sup>]</sup> 12:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
			{{hat|1={{nobold|1=No evidence of misconduct was presented. Filer ] is informally warned against frivolous filings. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 02:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}}}}
	:*Concur with Tim, an article ban might be sufficient. Personally I'd favour an indefinite (but not infinite) ban that can be appealed after 6 months?--] <sup>]</sup> 11:30, 9 August 2012 (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>
	*::If no one objects in the next 24 hours, I'll implement that. ] (]) 01:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	*:::I object to the appeal restriction (see my comment ]) but have no objection to the topic ban (as I haven't looked into it that much). '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 05:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	*::::Fair enough NW - I see your point. I'd be happy leaving it at just the topic ban--] <sup>]</sup> 13:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
			===Request concerning Selfstudier===
	== Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount ==
			; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Allthemilescombined1}} 02:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Selfstudier}}<p>{{ds/log|Selfstudier}}</p>
	''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
	===Request concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : ] (]) 21:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Volunteer Marek}} and {{userlinks|MyMoloboaccount}}
	<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->		<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Discretionary sanctions ()		;Sanction or remedy to be enforced:
			]
	<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->		<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
	; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :		; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
	<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->		<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
			# Concern for ] violation when Selfstudier told me on my talk page: “enough now.This is a warning to cease and desist with the WP:ASPERSIONS and general unhelpfulness at the Zionism article.”
			# Selfstudier dismissed my source {{ISBN|9798888459683}}, with “Bernard-Henri Lévy is not an expert on Zionism or colonialism”.
			# Selfstudier dismissed my source Adam Kirsch {{ISBN|978-1324105343}} “does not appear to be an expert in Zionism or Settler colonial studies but is apparently well known for a pro Israel viewpoint". These dismissive comments are uncivil.
			# Concerning for possible ] and ] violations. Editors with one POV swarmed RM:6 December 2024 and closed it immediately for SNOW. Selfstudier immediately archived parts of this discussion, including my comments, while leaving the parts that supported their POV.
			; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
	====Summary====
			<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
	Volunteer Marek (VM) and Molobo have already been subject to many sanctions (sysop decisions, 3RR, ] arbitration remedies and AE) for disruptive behavior, including blocks, 1RRs, civility paroles, a topic ban (VM) and a permaban (Molobo). Some of these sanctions resulted from them harassing me, and/or offline coordination. I edit this project since 2007, my record is clean. From April to July this year, I was taking a wikibreak.
			;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
	When I returned, I received a wikimail from VM, calling me a shithead and making a reference to Molobo getting annoying when encouraged. I had not interacted with VM after returning from my break. Molobo was still taking a wikibreak. On the day I received the mail, me and another editor (HerkusMonte) who was harrassed by VM and Molobo before, edited the article "Königsberg."
			<!-- 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. -->
			*Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.
	VM then came to the article, reverted a lot (incl 3RR breach), assumed bad faith from the beginning, and insulted me on the talk page. Later, Molobo returned from his wikibreak to revert articles where I or HM had edited before to ultimatively arrive at the Königsberg article.
	====Details and diffs====
	Volunteer Marek (VM) has e-mailed me via wikipediamail on 28 Jul 2012 and called me a "shithead," said that he missed me, and that I'd encourage Molobo to get annoying. I am willing to forward this mail to a sysop, but I want to know first how this appropriately (i.e. legally) works. When I received this mail, I had not come across VM or Molobo for months, I haven't even edited between 5 April and 19 July at all, Molobo has not edited during the last months either. I had (?) however been a target of a subgroup of the ], where VM and Molobo were (?) active members.
	On the same day I received the e-mail, I edited the article ]. VM has only edited this article before to twice revert an IP and do a minor edit on , , and also , so I did not interfere with him at that point. A user had added a large, unsourced piece of text to the article , which three other users - Herkus Monte (HM), M.K. and an IP objected to because of WP:UNDUE and the lack of sources . My first edits were one minor c/e and adding a reference to a corrected sentence . Then HM made a few other edits.
	Thereafter, VM came to the article and already in the first 24 hours violated 3RR:
	# VM "joins" editing with a revert of HM ()
	# VM reverts HM ()
	# VM reverts HM and IP (), "battleground" accusation in e/s
	# VM reverts HM ()
	More reverts followed.
	''My'' further edits to the article were:
	* (reverted/altered by VM re-introducing , and , alterations not in source)
	*, , , ,
	* (reverted by VM , reintroducing wrong refs)
	* (reverted by VM )
	* (reverted by VM )
	* (reverted by VM ).
	That means that VM reverted half of my edits. I stopped editing the article.
	What triggered this AE request is the following talk page posting I read this morning, where VM attacks me as follows:
	#: "You're lying your ass off," "little fake-diff," "you engage in these kind of deceitful tactics regularly," "*YOU* are misrepresenting the Bock source," "you're mistaking 'UNDUE' with 'IDONTLIKEIT'," "it's the same nationalist little group that's been running rough shod over Misplaced Pages content policies for years," "tag teaming," "your knee-jerk mindless support of your fellow POV pusher," "ganging up on me just to gang up"
	I have not responded to that anymore and withdrew from the article.
	Examples from VM's first talk page contributions directed at various editors, showing that ABF was there from the beginning, are
	# VM's first post to talk page: attacks HM with "tendentious and battleground-y," "battleground" and motivated by "IDONTLIKEIT"
	# accusing HM of POV-pushing and double standard
	# accusing HM of bad faith and disruption
	# accusation of tag teaming
	# accusing M.K of "instead of mindlessly reverting and removing sourced text you actually try and do some constructive work"
	# accusation of "trying to sabotage good faithed attempts"
	# "Sorry to get all bad faith on you, but I know bait when I see it - this is just mindless tag-teamed reverts trying to draw me into a 3RR violation"
	#and so on
	Volunteer Marek has also assumed bad faith, insulted and accused other people recently (Jimbo got annoyed too ) so it is not ''just'' me but a general problem, as his block log and these random reactions indicate .
	I also can not accept the addition of references which do not support the sentences referenced to them: VM did look in the source again, as is obvious from the diff before, and still restored it after my removal, so that it is now in the protected version - making wp not only unreliable, but misleading.
	VM further engaged in a kind of retaliatory tagging: He announced that unsourced sentences of the newly added section could only be removed when all other sentences lacking references would be removed, too , and started to tag as cn various sentences throughout the article which did not have an inline ref , thereby overlooking the fact that there are a lot of references given, just not inline but in the section for sources, and that most (all?) of these sentences have been in there and stable for years. Just before the article was protected, he started to remove sentences tagged by him, e.g. .
	Molobo, VM's tag team partner from the EEML, who was mentioned in VM's e-mail (28 Jul) as getting annoying when "encouraged," has not edited since 7 April. Let's look at his first contributions upon returning one by one:
	# Molobo returned to editing on 4 Aug, reverting a move HM had made ()
	# Molobo reverted an edit of mine () (breaking the ref fmt btw)
	# then reverted some edits from an article where the EEML had attacked me before (was subject to the EEML arbcom and and of that case), last edit before Molobo was made by HM
	# Molobo returned to previous article and makes another edit to a talkpage
	# Molobo arrived at the Königsberg article
	I do not believe that Molobo returned from his break by coincidence just to revert HM, then revert me, then go straight to the Königsberg article, given the content of VM's email and the recorded history of VM's and Molobo's cooperation within the EEML.
	I do not want to have to put up with all that again and again. ] (]) 21:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :
	<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. -->
	both editors have been subject to EEML
	; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :		; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
			On I/P topics, my edits on numerous occasions have been reverted almost immediately, by Selfstudier and their fellow editors who seem to be always hanging around I/P, and "owning" the topic area. They are creating a hostile editing environment and are violating NPOV.
	<!-- Add any further comment here -->
			Concerns for possible ] and ] violations:
	The evidence submitted by me shows that
	*(1) '''VM's and Molobo's attitude towards me (and others) is ''confrontational'' and ''bad faithed''.'''
	*(2) '''The confrontation with me was ''unprovoked''.'''
	*(3) '''The confrontation with me was ''announced''.'''
	*(4) '''The confrontation with me goes along with ''massive insults''.'''
	Further, as the (largely off-wiki) evidence of the EEML case shows, this bullying of mine primarily by these persons (VM and Molobo) has been going on for a long long time, and I can not accept that my return from a break is answered by these two editors with an announced attack. I am an editor in perfectly good standing. I have created numerous articles for the benefit of the project. My block log is clean. The editors bullying me on the other hand have a long history of disruption.
			*Abo Yemen dismissed my reasoned arguments as “feelings”:
	This goes straight against the very idea of wikipedia and heavily impacts my ability to edit. I ask the sysops here to consider scenarios to change that. One scenario would be re-instating Molobo's permaban and VM's EE-topic ban, making it permanent this time. Another scenario would be to prohibit VM and Molobo from interacting with me (and possibly others, e.g. HM; M.K asked for that too, below) ''in any way,'' i.e. prohibit them from talking to me, editing the same articles, talking about me.
			*RolandR dismissed the author of "Saying No to Hate: Overcoming Antisemitism in America", {{ISBN|978-0827615236}}, as a “non-notable children’s writer”:
	====History of disruption by VM and Molobo====
			*Zero told me “We should stick to history books and not cite emotional polemics”.
	{{userlinks|Molobo}} aka {{userlinks|MyMoloboaccount}} was already in 2008 identified as the alter ego of the nationalist forumtroll Shade2 (IPs and behavioral evidence) (behavioral evidence) (confirmation by meanwhile retired sysop). He was identified as sockpuppeteer . He has an extensive block log . He was permabanned . The permaban was lifted only conditionally . He was active in the EEML, ''especially with respect to hounding and harassing me,'' but not blocked as he was at that time already blocked for socking (1 year for socking with a ''throw-away account used to harass me'' ). He is subject to the general remedies of the EEML case though , his contrary statement is false. (placeholder)
			Concerns for possible ] and ] violations:
	In response to VM's post below: This is not a content dispute, but a behavioral issue, and sysops should, in this respect, consider the ] case where Volunteer Marek aka Radeksz was subject to, ''especially with respect to hounding and harassing me'' (evidence is largely off-wiki, but part of it is accessible in the "Disruption"-FoF at ]), the conditions under which his remedies were eased, his block log, and previous AE requests where he was sanctioned:
	*] "Radeksz blocked 12 h"
	*] "Radeksz warned not to leave aggressive messages related to topics from which he is banned."
	*] "Radeksz blocked for 72 hours, all editors with Eastern Europe-related sanctions banned from the article at issue."
	*] Radeksz subject to voluntary 1RR, "and may also become subject to formal sanctions if he does not."
	*] Volunteer Marek "six months renaming ban as described below; warning for expressing what sounds like nationalist prejudice on this page"
	*] "Volunteer Marek warned for incivility."
	*] "Volunteer Marek blocked 2 weeks."
	*] "also warned Radeksz for edit-warring on the same article, Jan Dzierżon"
	*] "Volunteer Marek blocked for interaction ban violation."
	*] Radeksz "placed on 1RR" - later vacated in error (evidence in the EEML case)
	*] "warning Leidseplein to abide by the following principles enunciated by the Arbitration Committee. They apply, of course, to Volunteer Marek and others as well, and this warning is not to be construed as an endorsement of any inappropriate conduct by Volunteer Marek or others." (principles listed include "atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors." "Uncivil behavior by others should not be returned in kind." "Personal attacks are expressly prohibited." "Noncompliance with these principles and other rules of conduct may result in sanctions."
			*Smallangryplanet accused me of WP:SYNTH and reverted my edits as irrelevant to the article on Holocaust inversion: whereas the article, prior to vandalism, resembled:
	====Re: Misrepresentation of sources====
	I provide some response for that "misrepresentation of sources"-thing only for sysops to evaluate whether I actually did so or not, and whether my insistence is justified on the instance that VM's references were not actually sourcing what they were supposed to.
	*VM insists below that the references added by him were fine. I encourage sysops to evaluate the following analysis of mine to decide whether I am "lying my ass off" as VM said or not. Diffs, quotes and links to the sources are included:
	{{Collapse top|title=Response to VM, detailed analysis of his references not sourcing the sentences they had been added to}}
	lines sourced to Wodecki/Krasovec by you and removed by me (e/s "per failed verification for the most part") were
	*'''''quote 1st sentence:''' "<nowiki>In 1545 in Königsberg the first Polish catechism was printed by ].<ref name="bibel">{{cite book | title=Interpretation Der Bibel | publisher=Continuum International Publishing Group | author=Krašovec, Jože | year=1988 | pages=1223 |isbn=1850759693}}</ref></nowiki>"'':
	:'''failed verification:''' Given ref does not mention 1545 at all, neither does it say anything about the first Polish catechism.
	*'''''quote 2nd sentence:''' "<nowiki>In 1551 the first translation of the ] in ] came out, issued by ].<ref name="bibel"/></nowiki>"'':
	:'''failed verification:''' Given ref however says that ''" in 1551 published first the gospel of Matthew, some months later all four gospels, in 1552 other New Testament books, and finally in 1533 '''''' the whole new Testament in one volume."'' Either the 1533 date or the preceding dates are most certainly a typo, as the sentence makes no sense as it is > not a good source for these dates. Nonetheless, even though the source on the (not attributed!) page 1222 states that ''"the publishing of the first printed non-Catholic translation of the New Testament was procured by Jan Seklucjan"'' with M. ''"as translator"'' (ibid), the source does not say that happened in 1551, but as shown above gives the conflicting, not trustworthy date of 1533; and it does not say that M "issued" the NT. The source thus contradicts the sentence except for the rump where it says that the translation came out.
	*'''''quote 3rd and 4th senternces:''' <nowiki>Murzynowski's collections of sermons were delivered by ] and in 1574 by ]. The works of ] were printed here and ] announced here the publication of his ''Chronicle of Poland, Lithuania, Żmudz and all Rus''.<ref></ref></nowiki>"'':
	:'''failed verification:''' No reference to these sentences in the given ref at all: neither cited names nor cited dates are on that (or the next) page.
	Obviously, the source does not support what you sourced to it. <small>Apart from that, it was not published in 1988, the author was Wodecki not Krašovec, and bare urls are not recommended as refs.</small>
	Since you cited the source here, you should have noticed at least when you revisited the source that nothing in that source supports the sentences you sourced to it as I have shown in detail above. You failed to do so not only when you added the source in the first place, which is not good, but you also failed to do so when you went through the source again for your above post to quote the only line from the source referencing at least something from the text (rump of the 2nd sentence), which is far worse. And then you even accuse me of being "misleading" and "not true" in my e/s about that...
	{{Collapse bottom}}
	:::Note to VM's response, quote . The "section right above" referred to in VM's post is , titled "Illustrative example of Skapperod's misreprentations". This is however , not . The current version differs, VM is comparing apples and oranges here. Also, '''sysops need to closely examine this, as "the source" he used in his response here is not the one he used in the article!''' Please compare:
	:::quote VM : ''"The relevant current text of the article states: “ In 1545 in Königsberg a Polish catechism was printed by Jan Seklucjan” The source states: “In 1545 Seklucjan published a “Simple Text of the Catechism for the Simple People” "''
	:::Compare the source given here by VM (i.e. Frick) to the reference given in (i.e. Krasovec, ed.), it is a completely different one! The reference in the article is still the one I analyzed above and does not mention 1545 at all! In his quote from the source for the second sentence ''" and finally in 1553 the whole New Testament in one volume"'', he misquoted "15'''3'''3" (in the source) for "15'''5'''3," which was part of my criticism above. The rest of the paragraph was rewritten/got other sources in the meantime, so no comment on that.
			*Nableezy added that the only material that can be relevant to the aforementioned article is that which compares Israel to Nazi Germany, ignoring that such comparisons are antisemitic.
	*VM's accusation that I had misrepresented a source is also a serious PA. I encourage sysops to compare the source to that allegation:
	{{Collapse top|title="Comparison of VM's allegation to actual quotes from the source showing that I did not misrepresent the source"}}
	::quote VM below : ''"And the info itself added by Skapp is true enough, but what it fails to mention is that Weinrich was invited to Konigsberg with the specific purpose of printing Polish books and that the first translations of Luther Small Catechism were made by Jan Seklucjan, a Pole."''
	::source:
	::quotes regarding the reason for Weinreich to settle in Königsberg: ''" Die Einrichtung der ersten Druckerei im Deutschordensland und nachmaligen Herzogtum Preußen ist auf das Engagement Albrechts zurückzuführen. Die Dokumentation der Geschäftsbeziehungen zwischen Hans Weinreich und Albrecht von Brandenburg-Ansbach beschränkt sich allerdings nur auf die aktenmäßige Überlieferung der Zustimmung Albrechts zur Königsberger Druckerei bevor er 1524 den ersten nachweisbaren Druck in Königsberg publizierte. Ebenso wie viele andere Drucker seiner Zeit profitierte auch er von der Reformation, Weinreichs erster Königsberger Druck ist dementsprechend die Weihnachtspredigt des samländischen Bischofs Georg von Polentz, der mit dieser den religiösen Wandel in Preußen einleitete und legitimierte. Die Gründe für die Verlegung der Druckerei Weinreichs in die herzogliche Residenzstadt sind vielfältig, aufgrund fehlender Quellen jedoch auch Gegenstand von Spekulationen. Wann Weinreich nach Königsberg wechselte, ist nicht genau bekannt. Ausschlaggebend für seinen Umzug dürften sowohl seine bereits zuvor bestehenden Kontakte in das Umfeld Albrechts als auch die religiöse Entwicklung im Ordensland gewesen sein. Hans Weinreich entschloß sich jedoch erst nach einer ersten Absatzkrise um 1528, polnische Drucke zu fertigen."''
	::--> Weinreich was not "invited to Konigsberg with the specific purpose of printing Polish books" as VM says, but came there for multiple reasons, printed several German works, and only in 1528 decided for economic reasons to publish Polish prints in addition. I did not misrepresent the source.
	::quotes with regard to Seklucjan and the first catechism: ''" Als erstes verließ ein noch anonym verfaßter »Kleiner Katechismus« 1530 seine Königsberger Offizin."'' This first Polish translation of the small catechism is also listed on p. 144.
	::---> the first translation of Luther's Small Catechism were NOT made by Jan Seklucjan. I did not misrepresent the source.
	::quote regarding "Seklucjan, a Pole:" ''" Seklucjan war während seiner Tätigkeit als deutscher Pfarrer in Posen zum Luthertum konvertiert und mußte schließlich vor der Gegenreformation in das Herzogtum Preußen fliehen, wo er 1544 der erste Prediger der polnischen Gemeinde "''
	::---> Seklucjan was a German priest in Posen before he came to Kbg., and "failure to mention" him and that he was a "Pole" should not be an issue here. The quote however provides inside how dangerous it is to apply modern national categories to the 16th century. I did, however not misrepresent the source.
	{{Collapse bottom}}
	:--> Can a German-speaking sysop please evaluate and clear me from the accusation that I have misrepresented the source and take the accusation as what it really is, a PA. ] (]) 07:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
			*Levivich asked me “Why are these academic sources relevant to the discussion? How did you select them?” and added “I won’t bother reading the other two, I'll assume they also say the same thing that everybody else says.” (referring to Katz, Segev, and Goren)
	Regarding misrepresentation by omission"-allegation: . Numerous authors discuss numerous details of libraries and printeries in Königsberg. That I did not include the whole book in an overview about the history of Königsberg is not misrepresentation.
			*Valeree wrote “If you'll read this talk page rather thoroughly so that you can bring yourself up to speed, you'll probably find fewer editors making sarcastic remarks about your suggestions.”
	====Re: Cn-tags====
			Concerns for possible ] violations:
	*re VM below: ''"Herkus and M.K and also Skapp where at this point adding "citation needed" tags"'': I have to the best of my knowledge not added a single cn tag. Please provide a diff. ] (]) 07:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
			*Sean.hoyland accused me of “advocacy and the expression of your personal views about the real world” and told me to see MOS:TERRORIST and accused me of violating WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTADVOCACY:
	::Update: VM has now clarified below that I did not add a single cn tag and thus his assumption was false. To the contrary, I have added sources to previously unsourced sentences, responding to the justified "unreferenced" and "undue" comments of three other users. M.K has alo denied below that they had added cn tags. About VM's own retaliatory tagging - see above.
			*Sameboat wrote: "Please take extra attention to this recent ECU whose edits to I-P articles look rather deceptive to me".
	====Re: "Outing"/username====
			Concerns for possible ] violations:
	*re "outing:" . That Radeksz is VM's former username was also often mentioned at AE, and VM said just now on my talk that it is no secret .
			*Sameboat wrote on my talk page about Gaza genocide, though they were not involved in the earlier discussion, warning me about WP:NOTFORUM RM:6 December 2024.
			Selected examples of my edits which were reverted within hours or minutes (this list is far from comprehensive):
	What VM referred to below is an old discussion comment by NYB in an AN/I thread, my response to that comment still stands . I encourage sysops to follow that link and actually read ]. VM claimed there that using his former username was outing him, and NYB in good faith made a comment w/o investigating the issue (quote NYB: ''"I've accepted Volunteer Marek's statement of concerns on good faith at this time; I hope that it will not be necessary to delve more deeply into the matter."''). The thread however took a very different turn when I posted my response:
			* by Butterscotch Beluga claiming vandalism against a University of Michigan regent was irrelevant to pro-Palestine protests because it happened off campus;
			* by Zero arguing that an egregious antisemitic incident 'fails WP:WEIGHT by a mile'
			* by Abo Yemen removing my additions to Palestinian perspectives comparing Israel to Nazi Germany from a section on exactly that; along with and by Smallangryplanet;
			* by AlsoWukai removing the disappearance of the ]'s $31 million debt when South Africa accused Israel of genocide.
			In summary, I have experienced a pattern of consistent, and what appears to be organized, intimidation from a small group of editors.
	Actually, I had had a dispute with VM and had asked for a 3o that was provided by no other than Molobo. I protested, because I wanted an ''outside'' comment. I pointed out the on-wiki identity of VM and Molobo prior to their username changes (which happend during/after the EEML case) on my talk. Then VM ran to AN/I, called pointing to his former username "outing" and asked for an indef block of my account. If that story illustrates anything, then only that VM and Molobo have a long history of harassing me, which did not stop after the EEML case.
	That Shade2 and Molobo were identified as being the same person by on-wiki revealed IP-adresses and behavioral evidence is on-wiki since 2008, I just linked it here, the RL identity of the respective user is not revealed in any of these diffs .
	=====Even more "outing" allegations"=====
	re VM's comment below: ''""''
	*1st sentence - true, that happened while proxying for blocked Molobo, and revealed, in the final phase of the EEML case, that you continued offline coordinating with Molobo and others.
	*2nd sentence - true
	*3rd sentence - false. I took the '''diff''' (not the RL infos!) to '''arbcom''' (not "around wikipedia"), nowhere else!, and they oversighted it. '''Never''' have I ''"“captured” the info before it was oversighted and spread it around on Misplaced Pages."'' That is a very serious, completely unfounded charge.
	*4th sentence - false. There was nothing to oversight.
	I request that the allegation contained in the 3rd and 4th sentence is withdrawn at once.
	'''I also request that Volunteer Marek is forbidden to claim that I outed him.''' ] (]) 15:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
	====Re: previous "unfounded" AE====
	The AE VM referred to, concerned with what I perceived as ABF, insults etc at the Kołobrzeg article, was ]. It is true that the sysop then judged this as a content dispute requiring no action. What the sysop did not know then was that all this was part of a larger, coordinated attack by the EEML, i.e. by VM, Molobo and others, to expel me from that article (''note: it is the same article where Molobo reverted just after leaving his last wikibreak, diffs above''). The evidence is largely off-wiki, some on-wiki , part of it is accessible in the "Disruption"-FoF at ].
	Digging up that AE again and declare that my "standard modus operandi" does not reflect well on VM.
	; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :		; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
	*
	*
			===Discussion concerning Selfstudier===
	<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
			<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 Selfstudier====
	===Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount===
	====Statement by Volunteer Marek ====		====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
			I see I've been mentioned but not pinged. That's nice. I encourage anyone to look at the diffs and . Why are there editors in the topic area apparently ignoring ] and ]? It's a mystery. It is, and has always been, one of the root causes of instability in the topic area and wastes so much time. Assigning a cost to advocacy might reduce it. Either way, it needs to be actively suppressed by enforcement of the ] policy. It's a rule, not an aspiration. ] (]) 15:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			====Statement by Butterscotch Beluga====
	This statement by Skapperod consists of his usual tactic of "diff-padding" - of providing lots of "" which are either completely irrelevant (my argument with Jimbo over unrelated matters quite some time ago), or which simply don't support what he claims they show. I'm getting a little fed up with this behavior by Skapperod which happens in relation to '''both''' sources (sources don't support what he claims) '''and''' his perennially filed AE requests (diffs don't support what he claims.
			I didn't say it was ''"irrelevant to pro-Palestine protests"'' as a whole. The edit I reverted was specifically at ], so as I said, the ''"Incident did not occur at a university campus so is outside the scope of this article"''. We have other articles like ] & more specifically ] that are more in scope of your proposed edit. - ] (]) 20:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			====Statement by Huldra====
	'''My statement was a response to a direct nasty personal attack made by Skapperod'''
			I wish the filer would have wiki-linked names, then you would easily have seen that ] "is not an expert on Zionism or colonialism”, or that ] “does not appear to be an expert in Zionism or Settler colonial studies but is apparently well known for a pro Israel viewpoint", ] (]) 22:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			====Statement by RolandR====
	This , which Skapp gives above is in response to a statement by Skapperod where he said to me ''and remember that you first provided false sources''. This was a straight up, false, personal attack, as I had NOT provided any false sources. What happened was that ] was disruptively tagging <u>every other word</u> of a particular section of the article (one which he didn't like) with "citation needed" tags, while the remainder of the article sat there mostly unsourced and written like crap. As a result I was trying to get the sources he was asking for into the article. He kept moving and re-adding the "citation tags" which resulted in edit-conflicts and loss of a good time's worth of work, as I had to retype numerous citations again and again (anyone who's formatted citations knows what a pain in the ass that can be). As a result, I just started adding relevant diffs to end of paragraphs rather than particular sentences, standard practice for DYK articles, just to get them "down on paper".
			I too have been mentioned above, and complained about, but not been notified. If this is not a breach of Misplaced Pages regulations, then it ought to be.
			As for the substance, I see that I am accused of describing ] as a "non-notable children’s writer". Norman H. Finkelstein was indeed a children's writer, as described in most reports and obituaries. At the time of the original edit and my revert, he was not considered sufficiently notable to merit a Misplaced Pages article; it was only a week later that the OP created an article, of which they have effectively been the only editor. So I stand by my characterisation, which is an accurate and objective description of the author.
	What Skapperod is lying about is that just because a ref I provided was at the end of the paragraph and didn't support every single claim in that paragraph (I was still working on this), I "provided false sources". I explained to him <u>several</u> times what had happened, and he responded, ergo, he read the explanation (and seemingly understood it). Yet here again he makes this nonsense accusation, which is soooo bad faithed that yes, I referred to it as "lying your ass off". What is worse, lying your ass off in a dispute in order to win it, or, driven by frustration, to point this out?
			Further, I was concerned that a casual reader might be led to confuse this writer with the highly significant writer ]; in fact, I made my edit after ] had made this mistake and linked the cited author to the genuinely notable person.
	I take sources, and my reputation for integrity in using those very seriously, and it was clear that Skapperod's attack was completely unwarrented, bad faithed and false (false + bad faithed = ?)
			This whole report, and the sneaky complaints about me and other editors, is entirely worthless and should be thrown out.
	This is typical battleground behavior for Skapperod.
			<span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 22:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			====Statement by Zero0000====
			by OP is illustrative. It is just a presentation of personal belief with weak or irrelevant sources. I don't see evidence of an ability to contribute usefully. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			====Statement by Sameboat====
	'''Abuse of a source by Skapperod which prompted this exchange'''
			It is clear that the filer has failed to understand my message, which was a warning about repeated violations of the NotForum policy. Instead, they have misinterpreted my actions, as well as those of others, as part of a coordinated "tag team." I raised my concerns on ] after the filer's edit on the ] article regarding its controversy, which failed to properly attribute the information to its source—the Israeli government. This filing is a complete waste of time, and serious sanctions should be imposed on the filer if similar issues occur again in the future. -- ] (] · ]) 02:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			====Statement by AlsoWukai====
	Keep in mind that the section under dispute is "Poles in Konigsberg". Skapperod added German language source to the article, although in a completely different section. I went and retrieved the source and then spend some considerable time translating it from German. As it turns out the source itself is very reliable and high quality. Unfortunetly Skapperod's edits based on the source do not reflect what the source says or what it is about.
			Contrary to the filer's complaint, I never made an edit "removing the disappearance of the ANC's $31 million debt when South Africa accused Israel of genocide." I can only conclude that the filer misread the edit history. ] (]) 20:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			====Statement by Valereeee====
	Specifically, Skapperod's edit says ''Duke Albrecht thus called in a Danzig book printer, Weinrich, who was soon joined by other book printers, to publish Lutheran literature not only in German and (New) Latin, but also in Latvian, Lithuanian, Old Prussian and Polish. Königsberg thus became a center of printing German- and other language books: In 1530, the first Polish translation of ] was published by Weinrich''
			The diff allthemiles links to above is me responding to their post (in which they complained about a mildly sarcastic remark by another editor) where they said, "If respectful discussion is not possible, administrative involvement will be needed." I've been trying to keep up at that article talk, so I responded giving them my take on it.
			I tried to keep engaging, trying to help them understand the challenges for less experienced editors trying to work in the topic, offering advice on how they could get up to speed at that particular article, even offering to continue the discussion at their talk or mine. ] (]) 14:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	Note that in the citation provided Skapperod explicitly says '' pp. 127-155; esp. p. 127-131''. Pages 127 to 131 are the ones which I specifically translated. And the info itself added by Skapp is true enough, but what it fails to mention is that Weinrich was invited to Konigsberg with the specific purpose of printing Polish books and that the first translations of <s>Luther Small Catechism</s> New Testament (corected) were made by Jan Seklucjan, a Pole. In fact, Skapperod then edit warred to <u>remove</u> any mention of Seklucjan (or other Poles mentioned by his source) from the article, despite the fact that the very (German) source HE provided talks about him at length. More generally, pages 127 to 131 of the source he provided are all about Polish printing and religious life in the city at the time, but somehow he managed to pull out of all that just the fact that a print maker with a German name was invited (from Danzig/Gdansk, which was part of Poland at the time) to the city.
			:@], editors working in PIA are brought here often and bring other editors here often for various reasons, and it doesn't always mean a given editor is problematic. For instance, the particular appearance you're referring to was brought here by a suspected sock of an LTA. I've seen admins working here who don't work in PIA wonder if the fact someone is brought here often or brings others here often means that editor is a problem, and I get why it feels like some issue ''with that editor'' has to be a factor, but in my experience it isn't usually. Some of the best editors working in that area are brought here for spurious reasons, and also need to bring other editors here for valid reasons. And some of the worst offenders there avoid AE. ] (]) 11:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	I tried to point out similar problems with the mis-use of the Bock source (again, the source itself is perfectly reliable) on the talk page but Skapperod has not bothered to respond. ] 22:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
			===Result concerning Selfstudier===
	'''Extensive tag teaming by the same old group'''
			:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
			* While I'm on record as saying that the topic area could us more civility from editors, I'm failing to see anything actionable against the editor filed against here. There's an edit from Oct that isn't great but not even begining to get into my "not civil" category. Then there's a perfectly civil statement about a source from 3 Nov (Hint - "Bernard-Henri Lévy is not an expert on Zionism or colonialism" is exactly the type of discussion that SHOULD be taking place in a contentious topic - it's focused on the source and does not mention any editors at all. The full comment "There is nothing to suggest Bernard-Henri Lévy is an expert on Zionism or colonialism. As I said, it is rather simple to find a source saying what you want it to say, whether that's a WP:BESTSOURCE is another matter." is still quite civil and focused on the source - nothing in this is worth of sanctioning....) The other statement from 3 Nov is also focused on the merits of the source. The fact that it isn't agreeing with your source analysis does not make it dismissive nor uncivil. Frankly, it's quite civil and again, what is expected in a contentious topic - source-based discussion. The comment from 6 Dec is also not uncivil.
			* The rest of the filing is not about Selfstudier and is instead an excellent example of (1) throwing a whole bunch of diffs out hoping something will stick to someone and (2) an example of why filings in this area often turn into huge messess that can't reach resolution. This is supposed to be a filing about Selfstudier's behavior - instead most of it is about a grab-bag of other edits from many other editors, and frankly, seems to be motivated by the filer feeling that they aren't being taken seriously enough or something. I'm not going to read any of these diffs because they are not about the editor you filed against and my time is worth something and we should not reward abuse of this process by this sort of grab-bag-against-everyone-that-disagreed-with-an-editor filing.
			* The only reason I'm not going for a boomerang against the filer is that they have only been editing for about six months and this is the first AE filing they've done. Let me suggest that they do not file another one like this - it's a waste of admin time. ] (]) 14:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I second Ealdgyth's reading. The presented diffs against Selfstudier are not actionable, and a lot of the complaint is not about Selfstudier at all. I don't believe the filing alone is grounds for sanction on the filer, but if someone wishes to present more evidence against them I suggest they do so in a separate report. ] (]) 21:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I stumbled into this by accident and I don't do these requests anymore, but I wonder if filer should edit outside the subject area until they have much more experience in ] and dispute resolution.YMMV. Best] (]) 08:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Another case on this editor was just closed a week ago, is there any relation between this filing and issues brought up in ]? It seems like some editors are brought to AE on a weekly basis. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{hab}}
			==Rasteem==
	The users involved in this dispute, ], ], ] (only active on the talk page) and Skapperod himself have long history of supporting each other in POV disputes involving Polish and German topics. In this instance the first two, as well as an anon IP, tag-team edit warred on the article while simultaneous refusing to participate in meaningful discussion on the talk page, aside from empty "IDONTLIKEIT" statements or simple "I support the other guy" claims.
			<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 Rasteem===
	As this was going on, I repeatedly raised issues on talk and tried to add in references which HerkusMonte was demanding (for like every other word of the section) with his citation needed tags. As I mentioned above in several instances, Herkus would add a <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki> tag, I would spend a good chunk of time looking up a reference, go to the article to insert it, only to find that the text had been removed by one of the other tag teamers - how are you suppose to provide a reference, to a piece of text that has been removed?
			; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 03:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Rasteem}}<p>{{ds/log|Rasteem}}</p>
	But no, I did not break 3RR on the article (unless you count adding references after someone slaps in a "cn" tag "reverting"). So Skapperod is making stuff up again. Instead, extremely frustrated (especially for having my time wasted) I asked for advice at ].
			<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	The behavior of the above users, including Skapperod on the article has been extremely disruptive. In particular this practice of first adding a "citation needed" tag to a piece of text, then after another person (myself) spends considerable time finding citations, removing the text all together is very very very annoying. It is also obviously done in bad faithed - why are you even adding "citation needed" tags if your intent is to remove the text anyway? Unless you are *trying* to waste people's time?
			;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
	'''The ... "misrepresentative" diff padding by Skapperod'''
			<!--- 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 :
	- as my comment clearly states, HerkusMonte started removing several portions of the article <u>very shortly</u> after they've first been added, but well after I've began the work of providing sources (my first additions of sources were at 6:51 July 31, Herkus' comment was 15:12 July 31). It was clear that I was working on providing the sources so why was he trying to make my job harder by removing stuff in the middle of this work? Additionally, as I point out, ALMOST THE WHOLE article was unsourced at this point, yet Herkus chose to pick on just this one section - so yes, this is a ] kind of thing.
			<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
			# - removed wikilink of an Indian railway station thus violating his topic ban from India and Pakistan.
			This violation comes after he was already warned for his first violation of the topic ban.
	Actually, you know what, I don't want to make this any more ] then it already is. So here I am just going to relist the diffs Skapperod provides as "evidence". Please click them.
			Upon a closer look into his recent contribution, I found that he is simply ] the system by creating articles like ] which is overall only 5,400 bytes but he made nearly 50 edits here. This is clearly being done by Rasteem for passing the 500 edits mark to get his topic ban overturned.
	* - statement of fact, that Herkus is spamming {cn} tags into what at that point is the best sourced part of the article.
	* - me pointing out to Herkus that he just wasted a whole bunch of my time by causing edit conflicts by adding {cn} tags to every other word in the section <u>at the same time</u> as I was clearly busy finding and adding sources
	* - the anon IP involved in the tag team reverting responded to my comment with a comment which clearly indicated that s/he had not read the sources I provided. It was a knee-jerk denial by the anon IP. And yes at this point the tag-teaming was in full swing.
	* - again, my post just describes what has happened. M.K had not bothered to provide any sources, to participate in discussion, just kept hitting that revert button, as if it was a button on a game controller.
	* - yup, at this point I was extremely frustrated. Herkus and M.K and also Skapp where at this point adding "citation needed" tags, then when I would add the requested citations, just remove the now sourced text. Wouldn't you call that "disruptive"? Isn't it a bit like purposeful sabotage? At the same time, minimal to no participation in talk page discussion, except "I don't like it" stuff.
			I recommend increasing the topic ban to indefinite duration. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 03:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	'''Illustrative example of Skapperod's misreprentations'''
			; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : "topic banned from the subject of India and Pakistan, broadly construed, until both six months have elapsed and they have made 500 edits after being notified of this sanction."
	Skapperod says:
			;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
	''VM also added references he found on the web. I can not accept the addition of references which do not support the sentences referenced to them: In this post I compared in detail sources VM added to four sentences, and they do not match. VM did look in the source again, as is obvious from the diff before, and still restored it after my removal, so that it is now in the protected version - making wp not only unreliable, but misleading.''
			; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
	First, these were not "references found on the web" but rather academically published works. Skapp doesn't tell you that and instead insinuates that I ... I dunno added links to blogs or something.
			<!-- Add any further comment here -->
			*I agree that there are genuine CIR issues with Rasteem, for example while this ARE report is in progress they created ], which has promotional statements like: "The lake's stunning caluts, majestic desert topographies, and serene lakes produce a shifting destination. Its unique charm attracts a wide range of guests, from adventure contenders to nature suckers and beyond". ] <small><small>]</small></small> 03:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
	In his post he notes his objections, sure. But, as it has already been explained to him, there was a simple misunderstanding - the relevant diff was at the end of the paragraph rather than the end of the appropriate sentence.
			; 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. -->
	Now, let's look at this super-wrong-evil text that got protected into the ], which makes Misplaced Pages oh so unreliable and misleading.
			<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	The relevant current text of the article states:
	''“ In 1545 in Königsberg a Polish catechism was printed by Jan Seklucjan”''
			===Discussion concerning Rasteem===
	The source states: ''“In 1545 Seklucjan published a “Simple Text of the Catechism for the Simple People”''
			<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 Rasteem====
	The relevant current text of the article states:
			This approach seems to be a coordinated attack to abandon me from Misplaced Pages indefinitely. Indeed, after my ban for 6 months. I was banned on 6 December, and in just 7 days, this report is literally an attempt to make me leave Misplaced Pages.
	''“ In 1551 the first translation of the New Testament in Polish language came out, issued by Stanisław Murzynowski.”"
			1. I rolled back my own edit; it was last time made unintentionally. I was about to revert it, but my internet connection was lost, so when I logged in again, I regressed it.
	The source states: ''“(Seklucjan) used a very modest but talented humanist Stanisalw Murzynowski from Krolewiec as translator, and in 1551 published first the Gospel of Matthew, some months later all four Gospels, in 1552 other New Testament books, and finally in 1553 the whole New Testament in one volume”"
			The internet is constantly slow and sometimes goes down. I live in a hilly location and I had formerly mentioned it.
	The relevant current text of the article states:
	''“Murzynowski's collections of sermons were delivered by Eustace Trepka and in 1574 by Hieronim Malecki. The works of Mikolaj Rej were printed here by Seklucjan”''
			My edits on Arjan Lake isn't any ] factual number of edits I made; it is 45, not 50. Indeed, I made similar edits before in September and December months on the same articles within a single day or 2-3 days.
	The source states: ''"Source:”Seklucjan also published the works of Mikolaj Rej, the father of Polish literature”''
			2. ] on this article, I've added 5680 bytes & made 43 edits.
	Note the previous source also discusses Malecki and I was about to add a source for Trepka – part of the difficulty is that his name was misspelled – but the article got protected before I had a chance to do so
			3. ] on this article I've added 4000 bytes & made 49 edits.
	The relevant current text of the article states:
			====Statement by (username)====
	''“ Marcin Stryjkowski announced in Krolewiec the publication of his Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmudzka, i wszystkiej Rusi ("A Chronicle of Poland, Lithuania, Samogitia and all Rus")”''
			<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
			===Result concerning Rasteem===
	The source states: ''"Source: In 1582, Stryjkowski published his chronicle at Konigsberg (Krolewiec)"''
			:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
			<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
			* While I don't see a change in editing pattern that indicates gaming, the edits to ] indicate issues with competence, as the article is weirdly promotional and contains phrases such as "beast species", "emotional 263 proved species". ] (]) 20:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC) <!--
			-->
			*Adding to {{u|Femke}}'s point, {{tpq|magnific 70- cadence-high waterfalls in this area}} is not prose that inspires confidence in the editor's competence to edit the English Misplaced Pages. So, we have violations of a topic ban and questions about the editor's linguistic competence and performance. Perhaps an indefinite block appealable in six months with a recommendation to build English competency by editing the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and to build general Misplaced Pages skills by editing in the version of Misplaced Pages in the language they speak best during that minimum six month period. As for ], although the prose is poor, the references in the article make it clear to me that the topic is notable, so the editor deserves some credit for starting this article that did not exist for two decades plus. ] (]) 08:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			==שלומית ליר==
	So please, tell me, is there any truth to Skapperod's contention that I was using 'false source' (which I "found on the web") and that these references do not support the text referred to? Is Misplaced Pages really going to lose all credibility because this material is included in the ] that got protected?
			{{hat
			| result = ] is reminded to double-check edits before publishing, and to try to reply more promptly when asked about potential mistakes. ] (]) 20:21, 18 December 2024 (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 שלומית ליר===
	If not, then just keep in mind what's going on here and that this kind of ... mischaracterization, well, characterizes Skapperod's entire report.
			; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Nableezy}} 23:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	:--> Response to Skapperod's "Response to VM, detailed analysis of his references not sourcing the sentences they had been added to"
			; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|שלומית ליר}}<p>{{ds/log|שלומית ליר}}</p>
	:Look, it's not that hard. Compare the text of the article, to the text of the source as I've done in the section right above. Do they match up? Yes? Then your accusations that I was "presenting false sources" is ... well, "untrue".
			;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
	:What you are doing is very typical - you're picking on minor points, like the fact that I included the name of the editor of a work rather than the author originally, and hanging your whole "you're misrepresenting sources" on that very feeble peg. '''All''' the issues you raised were answered and addressed on the talk page '''and''' the section right above makes it clear that the sources do indeed align very well with the text. And since you acknowledged that by responding, why do you turn around and keep making this accusation that I "presented false sources". Since you know what is actually going on, yet you insist on making these accusations, is that not "lying"? ] 07:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
			; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
	::---> Response to Skapperod's latest
			#] claiming a source supports something it never mentions
			; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
	::''re VM below: "Herkus and M.K and also Skapp where at this point adding "citation needed" tags": I have to the best of my knowledge not added a single cn tag. Please provide a diff. '' - my bad, you weren't the one adding {cn} tags, you were just the one removing text that had first been {cn} tagged by Herkus, which I then apparently wasted my valuable time finding sources for
			N/A
			;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
	::'' Seklucjan was a German priest in Posen before he came to Kbg., and "failure to mention" him and that he was a "Pole" should not be an issue here.'' - nope, Seklucjan was a "German priest" only in the sense that he spoke German and was a priest for the German congregation in Poznan. Sources clearly call him a Pole (. He was born in ] deep within central Poland (not even in any of the "disputed" areas). So this is just more typical misrepresentation.
			*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on ] (see the system log linked to above).
	::The bottomline here is that the very source YOU added, Vanessa Bock, discusses Seklucjan at length, including his role in translating works into Polish, with help from Weinreich.
			; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
	::'' the first translation of Luther's Small Catechism were NOT made by Jan Seklucjan. I did not misrepresent the source.'' - a small mistake on my part, Seklucjan was the first to translate the New Testament not Luther's Small Catechism. Which I already explained on article's talk. The misrepresentation of the source involves '''completely omitting''' Seklucjan from the article (whether he was the first to translate NT or LSM) and additionally to mention the first translation by Liboriusz Schadlika. Yes, it is perfectly possible to misrepresent sources BY OMISSION.
			The user wrote that NATO had supported accusations against Hamas citing a titled Hamas and Human Rights in a book titled . They cited the entire chapter, pages 56–126. The source itself is a work of scholarship, and nobody would challenge it as a reliable source. Luckily, the full text of the book is available via the , and anybody with access to that can verify for themselves that the word "shield" appears nowhere in the book. Not human shield, or even NATO (nato appears in searches with the results being "expla'''nator'''y, twice and coordi'''nato'''r once, or Atlantic, or N.A.T.O. It is simply made up that this source supports that material. The user later, after being challenged but declining to answer what in the source supports it (see ]), added another source that supposedly supports the material, paper by NATO StratCom COE, however they themselves say they are , though that misunderstanding is certainly forgivable. However, completely making up that a source supports something, with a citation to 70 pages of a book, is less so. That is to me a purposeful attempt at obfuscating that the source offered does not support the material added, and the lack of any attempt of explaining such an edit on the talk page led me to file a report here. ''']''' - 23:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:It’s a matter for AE because violations in a CT topic are AE matters and I’ve previously been told to come here instead of AN(I). What sanction? I don’t think there’s any action more serious than making up something about a source, so I’d say it would be anywhere from a logged, and first only, warning to a topic ban. The second sourcing issue isn’t a huge deal, but the first one, the diff im reporting, is IMO such a severe violation that it merits a sanction. I don’t think this is simply misrepresentation, it is complete fabrication. They cited 70 pages of a book without a quote, to a link that doesn’t have the text. Without the Misplaced Pages Library this would have been much more difficult to check. This is going back a while, but ] was a similar situation reported here. If there had been some explanation given on the talk page I wouldn’t have reported this here, but the wholesale fabrication of claiming that a source that never mentions the topic supports some material was ignored there. ''']''' - 14:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Overall, here are the relevant passages from the source which are very relevant but which Skapperod just... "skipped" over (he did mention the Seindammer church):
			::I want to be clear, I am not claiming any sanctionable behavior in the second diff. I only brought it up to say that rather than address the fabrication in the first one they simply attempted to add some other source. They have as yet not addressed the diff I am reporting here. I am only claiming an issue in that diff citing the book chapter for a book that never even says the word shield in it. ''']''' - 19:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::''Die Kirchenordung legte zudem die Bereitstellung von Buchern zum Lesen und Singen fur die Gemeinden fest. Durch den Druck reformatorischer, religionspolitischer und fremdsprachiger Literatur wurde diese Forderung vom ersten Konigsberger Drucker erfullt. Fur die Wirksamkeit landesherrlicher Verwaltungs- und Kirchenordungen und die Verbreitung des neuen Glaubens war die Existenz dieser ersten Offizin unentbehrlich. Auch Herzog Albert selbst forderte die Predigt in der jeweiligen Muttersprache. Die Polen und Litauer, oftmals Glaubensfluchtlinge, hielten ihre Gottesdienste in Konigsberg in der Seindammer Kirche, spater auch in der Elisabeth kirche; zudem wurde vierzehntägig im Dom und in der altstadtischen Kirche eine polnische Mittagspredigt gehalten, wodurch die Reformierung des Gesindes gewahrleister werden sollte.''
			:::According to , the insertion of that source was ], the diff I've reported. As far as I can tell no other user has introduced that source on that page. The revision that the user below says has the sources they took from {{tq|in the article's edit history}} is ''after'' the insertion of that source by that user. If there is some prior revision showing that source being used for that statement then I'd withdraw my complaint, but that does not appear to be the case. ''']''' - 19:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::and:
			::::If that is indeed reproducible then I suggest this be closed with a reminder, not a logged warning, to check the output of any tool more thoroughly. And answer questions about your edits when raised on the talk page instead of ignoring them. ''']''' - 19:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::''Als erstes erliess ein noch anonym Kleiner Kathechismus 1530 seine Konigsberg Offizin. Die eiligst angefertige polnische Ubersetzung des Kathechismus wies jedoch sprachliche Mangel auf, die dem Herzog durch Liborius Schadlika, einen polnischen Philologen aufgezeigt wurden. Schadlika selbst nahm sich der Uberarbeitung an, so dass 1533 ein zweiter, sprachlich verbesserter polnischer Kathechismus in der Druckerei von Weinreich entstand. Zwar sind diese ersten polnischen Drucke auf Initiative Weinreichs (und somit durchaus auf Geschaftsinteresse) entstanden, sie erfullt jedoch zugleich die in der Kirchenordung geforderte und von Herzog Albert aktiv unterstutze Ubersetzung zentraler evangelischer Schriften in die jeweiligen Volkssprachen.''
			:::::Just noting that I verified the bug in the VE sandbox as well. Had I been told of that sequence when I asked about the edit I obviously would not have opened this request. ''']''' - 18:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::''1543 und 1544 wurden in Preussen erstmals staatliche Verordnungen ins Polnische ubersetz und ebenfalls von Weinreich gedruckt. Dem Herzog und seinen Beamten ging es zugleich mit der religiosen Unterweisung seiner polnischen Untertanen um deren Intagration in der preussischen Territorialstaat. Allerdings bleibt ungewiss, warum nicht bereits fruhere Landes -oder zumindest Kirchenordnungen ubersetz und gedruckt wurden. Die Notwendigkeit, liturgische und religiose Grundtexte in die Sprache des Volkes ubersetzen zu lassen und dafur zunachst Tolken einzusetzen, hatte bereits die Kirchenordnungen von 1525 betont, doch herrschte im sakularisierten Ordensland offensichtlich zunachst noch ein Mangel an sprachkompetenten Predigern.''
	:::''Herzog Albert personlichem Engagement war es zu verdanken, dass aus Polen viele Pfarrer, die sich dem Luthertum zugewandt hatten, nach Preussen ubersiedelten. Seit 1530 wirkten in Ostpreussen u.a. "seit 1537 Johann Maletius in Lyck, und seit 1544 Johann Seclutian an der Polnische Kirche auf dem Steindamm in Konigsberg als Pfarrer in herzoglich-preussischen Gemeinden" Ihre Berufungen waren fur die Entwicklung des polnischen Buchdrucks in Konigsberg ausserst folgenreich. Nach wie vor war die Zahl der polnischen Pfarrer jedoch unzureichend. Mit der Grundung der Universitat im Jahre 1544 wurde deshalb auch das Ziel verfolgt, die Versorgung v.a. der landlichen Bevolkerung mit polnischen - aber ebenso litauischen - Pfarren zu verbessern:''
			; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	:::''Herzog Albert hatten sieben Stipendien fur Studenten mit guten Polnisch - kenntnissen gestiftet und zugleich Universitatsbehorden angeordnet, solche Studenten desto eifriger zu suchen und aufzunehmen, weil solche Pastoren und Kirchenleute auch die Schule in preussischen Landen wegen Unkenntnis der deutschen Sprache besonders notig haben.''
			]
			===Discussion concerning שלומית ליר===
	:::''Die polnischen Pfarrer spielten die entscheidende Rolle in den Anfangsjahren des polnischen Buchdrucks in Konigsberg. Drei Jahre nach der Publikation der Ubersetzung von Schadlika verliess ein weitere Ausgabe des polnischen Katechismus die Presse Weinreichs. Ob dieser Druck eine zweite Auflage von der Schadlika bearbeiteten Ubersetzung war, ist nicht nachweisbar, doch wurde auf Veranlassung von Paul Speratus 1545 in eine Auflage von dreihundert Exemplaren diese Ubersatzung in Wittenberg erneut gedruckt.''
			<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====
	:::Again, this is misrepresentation by OMISSION, not your run of the mill pretend-source-says-something-it-doesn't kind that only newbie POV pushers engage in. How can you take source whose title is "Beginnings of Polish Printing in Konigsberg" and write about it so as to almost completely fail to mention anything to do with Poles?
			The article "Use of human shields by Hamas" is intended to address a well-documented phenomenon: Hamas’s deliberate use of civilian infrastructure — homes, hospitals, and mosques — as shields for its military operations. This includes hiding weapons, constructing military tunnels beneath civilian populations, and knowingly placing innocent lives in harm’s way. Yet, I found the article falls far short of adequately describing this phenomenon. It presents vague and generalized accusations while failing to reference the numerous credible organizations that have extensively documented these practices.
			During my review, I discovered that essential sources were available in the article's edit history (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Use_of_human_shields_by_Hamas&oldid=1262868174). I retrieved and restored these sources without reverting prior edits, including a source referenced by user Nableezy. When it was brought to my attention that an error had occurred, I acknowledged it, thanked the user, and corrected it by incorporating two reliable references. I had hoped this would resolve the issue, but apparently, it did not.
	:::Skapperod says ''This is however the current version, not the one that was debated by me above'' - yes, 1) you were complaining that the ] got protected so I discussed the current "wrong version" and 2) the first version was "debated" and I explained what was going on to you, then made corrections.
			Now, I find myself the subject of an arbitration enforcement hearing that feels not only unwarranted but intended to intimidate me from contributing further to this article.
	:::Skapperod says ''sysops need to closely examine this, as "the source" he used in his response here is not the one he used in the article!'' - let them examine, please! The source I gave is the one I suggested on the talk page, along with a statement about Trepka . Keep in mind that the article was protected shortly thereafter. Since you were participating in that discussion YOU KNOW THIS. Additionally that source was being used elsewhere in the article already. You know this as well. Does the source support the text? It does, which you are also well aware of. So why are you playing these games?
	] 08:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
			I would also like to point out that the responses to my edits raise serious concerns. For instance, an image depicting missiles hidden in a family home — an image used in other Wikipedias to illustrate this topic — was removed. This raises the question: why obscure such critical evidence? Similarly, a scholarly source with credible information that emphasizes the severity of this issue was reverted without clear justification.
	'''This is standard MO of Skapperod for which he has been warned before'''
			This article should serve as a thorough account of Hamas's war crimes, which have resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians. Instead, it seems that some editors are working to dilute its substance, resisting efforts to include vital context and documentation at the start of the article. This undermines the article’s purpose and risks distorting the public’s understanding of an issue of profound international importance.] (]) 19:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	This AE request bares an uncanny resemblance to filed a while back by Skapperod, (as well as numerous others of his). In that AE request Skapperod was trying to get me blocked for stating that Skapperod was behaving "disruptively" (he was). Here he is trying to get me sanctioned for pointing out that several users, himself included, were behaving badly on the Konigsberg article, by spamming {cn} tags (while remainder of the article was unreferenced), by removing text and making it hard to actually provide the citations they requested, and then by removing the text which was now sourced, as well as misrepresenting sources (Skapperod in particular with the Bock source, as outlined above). All the time not bothering to participate in talk page discussion.
			:I want to add that what Nableezy’s accusation is a complete misrepresentation (and, at times, distortion) of the sequence of events. A reference was mistakenly carried over from a previous editor, and once it was pointed out that it lacked the necessary supporting quotes, I removed it myself.
	In fact, ]'s closure of that AE request is worth quoting in full:
			:I find it difficult to accept that failing to respond immediately to an inquiry regarding a removed source (and good faith attempt to find a sufficient replacement) equates to misrepresentation. I strongly believe that using this forum to imply such a thing, based on the actual facts here, is a misuse of the process.
			:To the arbitrators: I want to ensure the sequence of events is clear, so I request permission to strike through extraneous elements in my initial response, if necessary, to include more technical evidence while staying within the 500-word limit ] (]) 21:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:: <small>(moved from V93's comment)</small> It’s simple. If you copy the reference from the previous version: ''<nowiki/>'Hamas' use of human shields in Gaza' (PDF), NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence,'' and add it using the automatic reference tool, it changes it to: Mukhimer, Tariq (2013), ''Hamas and Human Rights'', ''Hamas Rule in Gaza'', New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 56–126, ISBN 978-1-349-45658-1, retrieved 2024-12-17.
	''This looks like a misuse of WP:AE (by Skapperod - VM) in order to win the upper hand in a content dispute. The edits cited in the request are not objectionable; rather, they reflect routine disagreements about content. In particular, it is not disruptive to state one's opinion that "Removing a large chunk of text without discussing it first is generally seen as "disruptive"". Unless other administrators disagree, '''I will close this thread with a warning to Skäpperöd that AE is not a substitute for, or part of, proper dispute resolution, and that he may face sanctions if he files more unfounded enforcement requests.''' '' (my emphasis -VM)
			::This is an innocent error caused by the Wiki program itself. You can try it and see for yourself.
			::'''Where it led and what Nableezy allowed himself to do is a story by itself that demands investigation''' ] (]) 12:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:While I see your point, '''the issue here was indeed caused by a bug in the 'Add a Cite' tool on automatic mode.'''
			*:I suggest you take the time to verify this before jumping to far-reaching conclusions.
			*:. ] (]) 23:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Thanks for checking it out and confirming; I appreciate it. ] (]) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC) <small>Moved comment to own section. Please comment only in this section. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC) </small>
	and then this comment made by former arbitrator Shell Kinney
			*:::True, and I would most definitely will check next time. ] (]) 23:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	''I am in complete agreement with your reading of the situation Sandstein.'' (consequently Skapperod would attempt to get Shell in trouble, possibly in retaliation)
			====Statement by Supreme Deliciousness====
	and then Sandstein concluded:
			Valereee created the article ]. She is therefor involved in the topic area and shouldn't be editing in the uninvolved admin section.--] (]) 08:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	''No action. Skäpperöd is warned not to file more unfounded requests.''
			====Statement by (username)====
	That's all that is going on over here. Again. In fact, Skapperod has been trying to "get me" for quite awhile now. I had the hope that he turned a new leaf and was ready to participate in a constructive manner in improving the relevant articles, since he is somewhat knowledgeable about sources (how he uses them, is another matter). But I guess not. Same ol' same ol'.
			<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
			===Result concerning שלומית ליר===
	I have no comment on anything by MyMoloboaccount and I haven't even really looked at his edits. I did not ask him in any way what so ever to comment, edit or otherwise become involved in this article.
			:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
			* Please forgive my ignorance, but what specific sanction are you requesting and what exactly makes this possible interconnected source misrepresentation a matter that needs AE? Is the information removed (I'm assuming it is). Is this a long-term pattern? The filing even admits that the second instance is understandable given the name of the group putting out the source. I would be more concerned if this was a continuing problem - are there other recent instances of this editor possibly misrepresenting a source? And I'm still not sure that source misrepresntation is something that falls under AE's remit, rather than just something that could be dealt with at ANI or AN? Not saying no, but I'm not sure we need the big gun of AE for this just yet. ] (]) 13:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	'''@Devil's Advocate'''
			** I'm not sure I'm ready to (1) take a 2011 discussion as binding in 2024 and (2) decide unilaterally that "violations in a CT topic are AE matters". Sorry, but I'm not that much of a cowboy (despite the cowboy hat in my closet and the ] horses in my paddock). I'm not trying to be difficult and not at all trying to minimize the severity of source misrepresentation - but I do not see where this topic area has sanctions authorized for that specific behavior - civility and aspersions yeah, but I'd like to see what other admins think. I also would like to see if שלומית ליר has any statement to make (while noting that not replying here is a very bad look for them). ] (]) 14:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			**:I would agree with Nableezy's view regarding jurisdiction, and was under the impression that this was already standard practice. AE is intended to address disruptive editing in designated contentious topics--source misrepresentation is definitely disruptive editing even if it was not specifically a matter of issue for the parties to ARBPIA4. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	Actually, MyMoloboaccount's first edit since returning WAS NOT in support of any edit I have made. His first edit was to Konigsberg but it was not related to any issues I have been involved in . In fact, I disagree with him in this regard - he thinks the article should be moved/merged to "Kaliningrad", I'm ok with where it is.
			***: I'm perfectly happy to be shown that it's a matter for AE, I've just not seen it dealt with that I can remember (bearing in mind that I'm not as young as some other folks and can forget things) and I don't see it mentioned in the CT topics bits or in the case pages referred to. I prefer to err on the side of caution in these matters. ] (]) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			***::To my reading it would be directly justified by ] point 2: {{tq| ...requests for an individual enforcement action against aware editors who engage in misconduct in a contentious topic}} <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	His second or so edit was to the ] article (btw, Herkus is now move warring on that page). I actually have no strong opinion as to what name the article should be under either (though I find this tendentious insistence on German names for places/events in Poland annoying and a waste of time).
			***::] is a report where I ~recently sanctioned for source misrepresentation. ] (]) 15:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*: I'm sorry - but I find this explanation ... not quite believable. Nableezy is saying that the Mukhimer source was introduced ]. You claim that "If you copy the reference from the previous version: 'Hamas' use of human shields in Gaza' (PDF), NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, and add it using the automatic reference tool, it changes it to: Mukhimer, Tariq (2013), Hamas and Human Rights, Hamas Rule in Gaza, New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 56–126, ISBN 978-1-349-45658-1, retrieved 2024-12-17." What automatic reference tool? And even if the tool is malfunctioning - you are responsible for your edits - especially in such a fraught topic area. Looking at the ] its pretty clear that the first citation is listing the author as "Mukhimer" which should have clued you in (if indeed the automatic tool is a problem) that there was an issue. And when Nableezy raised this issue on the talk page - you didn't actually try this explanation or even any explanation, you just replied "I thought you noticed and understood that I had updated the references." which is deeply concerning that you did not consider the fact that you inserted references that did not support the material (and yes, I did do a rapid read/skim of the Mukhimer work's chapter that was in that citation - the chapter is mostly concerned with Hamas' internal governance and human rights record. I saw nothing discussing human shields or even the war with Israel in that chapter (the chapter does discuss Hamas' actions against Gazans that Hamas accuses of spying/etc for Israel, but nothing about actual military conflict)). The lack of collaborative explanation and the seeming unconcern about the issues brought up are making me lean towards a topic ban, frankly.
	So actually, two of MyMoloboaccount's first couple edits are not even ones with which I agree with. Skapperod is just paranoid/trying to use imaginary non-happenings as a way of winning a content dispute.
			*: I apologize that it took me a while to circle back to this - yesterday was a day of small things breaking and needing to be taken care of and I didn't have the time in the afternoon that I expected to revisit this. ] (]) 14:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:: And add yet one more reason to not use VE.... if its some weird bug, then yes, a warning is sufficient. But, really, you need to double check when you use tools to make sure that there are not bugs (and yes, Visual Editor is buggy...) ] (]) 20:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	Anyway. If you're involved in Polish-German topics, you come back from a four month absence and you look at your watchlist what are you gonna see? Well, people are discussing Konigsberg a lot, so you go there to check out what happens.
			*I've gone on record saying that I consider source misrepresentation to be some of the most disruptive conduct in a contentious topic - it is insidious in a way that calling another editor names is not. That does not mean I support sanctions by default, but I do think we need to take such a report seriously. A lot depends on the specific circumstances - the second instance above seems like a very easy mistake to make - but I would like to hear from שלומית ליר. ] (]) 19:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:שלומית ליר, I would like to see a specific response to Nableezy's evidence about where you got your source, so please go ahead and strike or collapse parts of your original statement (please don't remove anything entirely). NB; we are (mostly) administrators enforcing arbitration decisions here, not arbitrators ourselves. ] (]) 21:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	And seriously, don't you just see how dripping with bad faith statements like "where EEML attacked me before" by Skapperod are? Just because someone reverted him once somewhere. This is just the usual "oh noes they won't let me push my POV in peace" complainin'.
			*I agree with Vanamonde that source misrepresentation is disruptive on its face, and the first time I see it, AGF is pretty much gone. ] (]) 19:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I agree that if this was a bug -- which is really concerning -- then a logged warning is overkill, especially given this editor's inexperience. ] (]) 15:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	And with regard to this EEML well-poisoning (which Skapperod also has been warned about in the past) let me just point out a Principles from a recent ArbCom case:
			*I'm not sure what "automatic reference tool" is being referred to here, but I'm generally not impressed with "It was the tool's fault." Editors are responsible for the edits they make, and while of course there's no problem with using tools to help, the editor, not the tool, is still responsible for ensuring that the final result accurately represents the sources which are cited. Overall, I'd tend toward Ealdgyth's line of thinking; source misrepresentation is an extremely serious form of misconduct and must under no circumstances be tolerated. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 15:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:{{u|שלומית ליר}}, it has now been necessary on several occasions to move your comments to the proper section from other editors' sections or this one. '''Do not comment outside your own section again.''' ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 09:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	*''Editors are expected to comment on the substance of other's edits, and not attempt to use editors' affiliations in an ad hominem method to attempt to discredit their views. Attempts to do so may be considered a Personal Attack.'' . I assume that applies equally to some vague affiliations from almost three years ago.
			*:Above stuff out of the way, if this actually is reproducible, it may be wise to check Phabricator to see if such an issue has been reported&mdash;chances are pretty good this isn't the only time that bug will bite. I'm good with a logged warning to more carefully vet the output of automated editing tools before making the edit, given that. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 09:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:: Isn't a logged warning a bit too much for not catching a bug? I'd rather go for a reminder as Nableezy suggests. Will check Phab or open a new phab ticket when I've got a bit more time. ] (]) 11:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	Please also see my comment at DA's talk page . Bottomline is that if there's supposed to be some kind of tag-teaming by me and MMA then ... well, where is it?
			*:::I still don't ''love'' the whole thing, but it seems that most people want to just do an informal reminder, so I've got no strong objection (of course, as long as the bug actually does get reported, if it's not been already.) ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			* To my surprise, it's true that copying that text into VE's automatic citation formatter gives this output. Most absurd bug I've ever seen. Of course it's an editor's responsibility to check if the citation is correct, but this is not something you might think to check for, especially as a newer editor. While intentionally misrepresenting a source is highly disruptive, I don't think this weird error is sanctionable. I would like to give ] one piece of advice for editing a contentious topic like this: always use edit summaries (you can change your settings so that you're warned if you forget them). That can help reduce misunderstandings. ] (]) 19:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	'''Response to MK's post'''
			* I agree with Femke about how to resolve this request, including the advice to check things and to use edit summaries. I am also extremely concerned about the bug-created citation issue and wonder where is the best place to request that the error be investigated and fixed. ] (]) 14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
	All that M.K does is throw the at-this-point-ridiculous EEML boogeyman around (if there's an EEML around these days, which I seriously doubt, I am not part of it nor am I even aware of it) and then throw in some completely irrelevant diffs about how one time I told somebody who was harassing me on my talk page (whom I asked not to post there half a dozen times) to "fuck off". Note that none of these diffs resulted in any kind of sanction (though the harassment by the other user was discussed by admins). It's just tired old battleground mentality and poisoning the well.
			*<!--
			-->
	Again, M.K and others *were* behaving disruptively on the Konigsberg article - spamming {cn} tags, then after citations were provided, removing the relevant text altogether, and they were tag teaming to do so. To refer to that behavior as "disruptive" is perfectly valid.
			{{hab}}
	What exactly is this report about anyway? That MyMoloboaccount posted a short comment to the talk page (he did not make any edits to the article itself)? That I said the users were behaving disruptively? This is a content dispute which, as he has done numerous times before, Skapperod (and his friends) is trying to win via WP:AE instead of discussion on the article talk page.
	'''One more time @ Skapperod'''
	Skapperod, this is getting ridiculous. Your evidence doesn't show anything of the kind.
	*Your own attitude towards me (and yes, also MyMoloboaccount) is what is causing all the problems. I have tried numerous times to be friendly and nice towards you etc. And each time you have responded with completely out-of-the-left field battleground behavior, of which very report is an excellent example.
	*There was no "confrontation" with you - just discussion. Then '''you''' initiated a confrontation by accusing me of "presenting false source", which as I've shown was complete nonsense. If the atmosphere on the talk page deteriorated you only have yourself to blame.
	*There were no "massive insults" against you, nor anyone else. You're making stuff up. All I said is that some of you were behaving disruptively on the article. Adding {cn} tags, then removing text after the citations were provided *is* disruptive (and it wasted a whole bunch of my valuable time)
	*''Molobo aka MyMoloboaccount was already in 2008 identified as the alter ego of the '''nationalist forumtroll''' Shade2'' - thank you, thank you, thank you, for providing a clear example of your entrenched battleground mentality. In that one little sentence you manage to combine 1) an egregerious personal attack, which, if made anywhere else would get you immediately blocked, 2) an attempt at ] someone, which, should get you immediately blocked even if it is made here, and 3) more unsubstantiated accusations - your evidence is two posts by your former friends (one of them posting anonymously - gee, I wonder why? Online harassment is no fun when you put your name behind it?) which are just more accusations. There is no substance there.
	*As to my block log, since that keeps getting dredged up and misrepresented (yes, you are being dishonest again). I have ONE block for incivility (recent) which has nothing to do with any WP:AE areas, I just mouthed off to an admin for abusively blocking someone else. I have three blocks which were due to mutual violations of the interaction bans with Russavia (he got blocked much more than I did) which were due simply to the confusing wording of that interaction ban. And I have one, very very very old block for edit warring with Malik Shabazz, whom I am currently friends with. So don't make stuff up. And I have been on Misplaced Pages for seven years. If you really want to entertain yourself by dwelling on my block log - which has nothing to do with WP:DIGWUREN - then I suggest you bring this up on AN/I. Let's have a community wide discussion there. Of course your own hijinks might be examined as well.
	*'' Volunteer Marek aka Radeksz was subject to, especially with respect to hounding and harassing me, the conditions under which his remedies were eased'' - this is complete nonsense. Notice no diff. YOU however where reprimanded several times for engaging in disruptive commentary at WP:AE, and at ArbCom pages, as well as your continued attempts to WP:OUT me, for instance by ]. That one actually is worth looking at seperately:
	] (])'']
	You've violated this injunction at least several times on this request, including for no apparent reason except intentional harassment. And it is worth reminding everyone WHY you were required to not mention my former username (and hell, the main reason why I changed my username in the first place): '''you were one of the two users who posted my personal information, all over Misplaced Pages and spread it around''' (the info had to be oversighted later on).
	You seem to be stuck in the same entrenched, tendentious, win-at-all-cost, battleground mode just as when you used that tactic to mess with my real life, two years ago.
	'''Just one diff which speaks volumes'''
	] 05:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
	] 22:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	====A not short enough summary by Volunteer Marek====
	I'm sorry, it's hard to keep this short. This issue is both simple and complex. Please read the following carefully.
	The simple part is that this is just Skapperod’s special way of fighting a battleground action. He’s done this many many times before. The complex issue involves the associated details, the history of my interaction with Skapperod and the participation of other users.
	This AE report by Skapperod is a spurious attempt to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. Skapperod has been instructed in the past not to file these kinds of AE reports, specifically with regard to myself, and has been told that any such reports will result in sanctions against him .
	The essence of Skapperod’s report, once you strip away the irrelevant diffs and ranting, the innuendo, the scare mongering and conspiracy theories is that:
	#MyMoloboaccount posted a comment to the talk page of the article. Here it is . Ooohhh, scary, isn’t it? Seriously, MyMoloboaccount is not under any sanction, he can post comments to any talk page he pleases (or the article themselves) and I have not asked him to make any edit on this or any other article. How can you in good faith ask that somebody be sanctioned for making a single, simple, civil, constructive talk page comment? Where is the objectionable action? The fact that Skapperod reacts this insanely to a simple talk page comment is about as much evidence as is needed of Skapperod’s entrenched battleground mentality
	#That I replied to Skapperod’s repeated hounding and false accusations by saying that he was “lying his ass off”. He was. A citation was added to an end of a paragraph rather end of a sentence. Based on this Skapperod, despite numerous explanations, kept taunting me that I “presented false sources”. He knows what the actual situation was. He knows that his own sources support the text cited. Yet he continued casting false aspersions, and actually has continued doing this on this very report – the whole experience has been extremely frustrating to deal with. This is a cheap attempt to ], to intimidate and once again perfectly illustrates Skapperod’s battleground mentality.
	#Skapperod has a pretty extensive history of misrepresenting sources. See for another example (there are many more). Unfortunately this is the kind of ] that is hard to show unless someone is also familiar with the topic area and is willing to go to the trouble of acquiring and often translating, the relevant sources. The way he misrepresents sources parallels the way he misrepresents diffs and individuals he’s waging a crusade against in noticeboard discussions. These WP:AE reports of his ALWAYS are filed right after someone convincingly challenges him on his use of sources on some article’s talk page.
	Additionally
	#On the article HerkusMonte first tagged a section as “unsourced”, despite the fact that remainder of the article is mostly unsourced as well, then when I began adding sources tried to remove chunks of the section itself. When I kept adding sources he began spamming {{cn}} tags into every sentence of the section in some kind of “I can add {{cn}} tags faster than you can find references” game. This was disruptive, annoying (it led to much wasted time due to edit conflicts) and violation of ]. However, to his credit, he desisted after I raised the issue on another venue and warned him.
	#Other users, M.K, anon IP 93.220.172.210 and Skapperod began removing text which Herkus had previously tagged with {{cn}} per some kind of tag-team ]. This is the text that I spend a considerable amount of my time (I estimate about 20 hours overall) referencing. How frustrating is it when somebody asks you to do something (provide citations), you spend time doing it, only to have one of their friends come along and completely destroy your efforts anyway? A confounding factor is that Skapperod was removing text which his own sources supported, as he was well aware (he indicated “especially pg xx” in his citation).
	The history with Skapperod
	#Skapperod has been explicitly warned about filing spurious and battleground-y WP:AE reports, specifically with regard to myself, and was threatened with sanction for it.
	#In his report above Skapperod strings together a series of diffs where, supposedly, I was “incivil”. None of these resulted in any admin actions and some are outright false misrepresentations. For example, in one of them I made a joke, which was perfectly understood by the other party ( - I was made a mentor to a potentially problematic user), but Skapperod pretends that it was some serious offense. And all of them are completely irrelevant to this dispute, to the topic area and did not involve him in any way. Additionally he manages to even pull in obscure comments I made at Commons, on Jimbo’s talk page and other hard-to-find-and-irrelevant places. This is, frankly, super creepy –it’s obvious he keeps some kind of file on me, watches all my edits, even ones which don’t concern him in the least bit, looking for some “dirt”. This is explicit evidence of ‘’’long term, sustained, stalking’’’.
	#Skapperod has long “pursued” me, as well as Piotrus, across Misplaced Pages, having shown up to many discussions always trying to stir stuff up. His comments have generally been ignored by admins, by arbitrators and by uninvolved commentators, if he has not actually been explicitly warned about them. Some of the “funnier” instances include the time he tried to get me (or Piotrus) sanctioned because… Piotrus gave me a barnstar! Or when he tried to get Arbitrator Shell Kinney into trouble because she went to the same Wiki-meetup as Piotrus.
	#More seriously, during the EEML case (more than 2.5 years ago), I accidentally posted some personal real life info on wiki, including info about my family and friends (names, email addresses etc). This was oversighted. However, Skapperod “captured” the info before it was oversighted and spread it around on Misplaced Pages. This was oversighted as well. Due to some real life harassment resulting partly from these actions of his, I changed my username subsequently so that it would no longer be connected to my real life name. I asked a number of users I was familiar with, including Skapperod, to please use my current user name (VM) – all of them ‘’’except Skapperod’’’ said they had no problem with that.
	::Over the next months (years?) Skapperod made a ] of it to keep using my former username (the one connected to my real life identity). After repeatedly requesting him to desist, exasperated, I finally had to risk a Streisand Effect and raised the issue on ANI . As a result Arbitrator Newyorkbrad <u>specifically instructed</u> Skapperod to .
	::Skapperod responded belligerently then and now he has violated Newyorkbrad’s injunction by spamming my former username in this very report. I have asked him to refactor . He is now making crappy excuses about how it’s ok for him to keep up with the harassment because recently I used my former name myself (in an ArbCom appeal to change that username in ArbCom pages!).
	::This sorry story is yet another example of how seriously battleground minded Skapperod is on Misplaced Pages. Basically, any tactic appears to be fair game.
	Bottomline
	#This is just a disruptive use of WP:AE as a battleground. Skapperod has been warned about this before. In regard to myself and MyMoloboaccount there’s absolutely nothing here. Skapperod has a long history of weird obsession with myself. Skapperod has played a role in outing me in the past and has used my former username as an intimidation tactic. Skapperod has a history of misrepresenting sources and usually files WP:AE reports like this when he’s called on it.
	====Statement by MyMoloboaccount ====
	UPDATE:Only now I realized what trick Skapperod used. He flooded his request with so many links, that one crucial element is missing. What exactly should be enforced ? I am not DIGWUREN of sanctions nor was I subject to EEML sanctions. In fact Skapperod falsely claims: Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) ''both editors have been subject to EEML''. '''I haven't been placed on EEML sanctions'''. If Skapperod disagrees then he should give a link to the post where I am placed on any sanctions regarding EEML. In fact he failed to provide any diff for such thing. This is a typical shotgun shooting for sanctions, especially as the case open against VM, block wall of links which lead often to unrelated things provided then casually another user(me) thrown in, even when I am not on any sanctions mentioned, and no link is provided to any sanction to be enforced.
	Now to continue
	*First of all, this yet again another part of never ending saga regarding Skapperod's constant attempts to get me or VM blocked, and which probably started somewhere around when I discovered Skapperod was using Nazi propaganda as sources for Polish history. Since then he behaved aggressively towards me while occassionally repeating attempts to introduce sources of such nature into Misplaced Pages.
	*Second of all I was present at the article about Kaliningrad/Konigsberg since years ago, as the history of the city is part of my interests, any brief search of the history of the article will discover my edits there '''since at least 2008'''. And the topics discussed by VolunteerMarek were debated by me years ago on that page already
	In fact in 2008 I already wrote
	'In the meantime still gathering research to NPOV the article, extermination of Jews whose population count I added above, discrimination of Polish minority(classified as lower then animals by German state in WW2), use of slaves to develop a city within 1000 year planned Reich, local Nazi movement, and post war revanchist role the city played in contrast to other Germanised territories that underwent degermanisation after the war are interesting subjects which need expansion. --Molobo (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)''
	*Third of all the revert I did to HM was regarding a move of an page name to Germanised version of Polish location without end of Request for Move-perfectly in order as per Misplaced Pages rules.
	*Fourth of all my long absence is due to my sickness and stay at hospital, to which I am returning tomorrow, and won't be able to respond further this week and probably throughout the next month as well.
	--] (]) 22:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	PS:I love the title "Ex-leader of EEML". Actually we title ourselves Silver, Red Dragon. And the leader is titled the Golden Egg on Emerald Throne.
	--] (]) 22:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	BTW: What is exactly that I am accused of? Of editing articles that aren't even subject to any discussion between Skappoerod and VM?:" Molobo returned to previous article and makes another edit to a talkpage''? This is ridiculous, and seems just shotgun shooting of Enforcement request in hopes that somebody doesn't even follow the links that lead to nothing of substance or anything controversial.
	--] (]) 22:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
	*Devil's Advocate-I was present on the page for years and took part in many discussions there. The topic is close to my interests.I edited the page as Molobo before that account was hacked. Do feel free to see history of talk and page history-you will find me there debating those things before Skapperod arrived to that page,
	What Skapperod mislead here(among many other things) was ''both editors have been subject to EEML''-'''I haven't been subject to ANY sanctions in EEML case.''' This very typical-he usually throws numerous accusations that are baseless, eventually someone doesn't double check what he writes or doesn't follow the links, so something manages to go through. Note that he avoided giving link to support his statement-because there isn't any.
	In any case I performed all my edits on my own, and I haven't been in contact with VM or Piotrus in any way, either by email, or by any other means.
	''Molobo's first edit is to comment on the talk page of this article in support of Marek''.- Where? I commented on other issues. As far I remember I didn't comment on the issue VM was debating at all, can you provide a diff supporting this claim?
	--] (]) 06:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
	====Comments by others about the request concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount====
	===== Comment by The Devil's Advocate =====
	It is rather conspicuous that after nearly four months Molobo's first edit is to comment on the talk page of this article in support of Marek. To Molobo's query, the DIGWUREN case has since been renamed to be consistent with its function as an Eastern Europe arbitration case and that case allowed admins to issue sanctions at their own discretion against anyone editing in the topic area in violation of policy. The EEML mention appears to be referring to the admonishment to all members of the mailing list to avoid off-wiki collaboration. So there is nothing inappropriate about Skap's report in that respect.--] (]) 05:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
	===== Comment by HerkusMonte =====
	I don't have the time and the patience to go into detail, just a short comment
	1. Marek's claim:
	:''"The users involved in this dispute, User:M.K, User:HerkusMonte, User:Estlandia (only active on the talk page) and Skapperod himself have long history of supporting each other in POV disputes involving Polish and German topics. In this instance the first two, as well as an anon IP, tag-team edit warred on the article.."''
	This is absurd, I didn't even know M.K. before and we never made any edits on the same article. To call this ''"Extensive tag teaming by the same old group"'' leaves me speechless.
	The whole tag team allegation is completely absurd and just shows Marek's persistent assumption of bad faith.
	2. I (not Marek) tried to start a discussion about the lack of sources , however Marek's answer was extremely aggressive ("Tell you what Herkus..." followed by the ususal allegations of "disruptive","tendentious" and "battlegroundy" editing, hardly a constructive way to react). Honestly, I don't see a reason to discuss on such a level of bad faith.
	3. Maybe I missed something, but Marek doesn't deny he called Skäpperöd a "shithead" in his email, does he? ] (]) 15:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
	===== Comment by Piotrus =====
	I try to avoid getting involved in AE, but seeing as Skapperod mentioned me already "Piotrus, ex-(?)-leader of the EEML", I would like to point out that dragging an old (2009) ArbCom case is not only a case of poisoning the well, but of a personal attack; I do not enjoy seeing my name dragged through ancient mud, and I'd very much prefer if Skapperod would try to move on from the old battlegrounds. What's more, Skapperod uses a single diff to imply I am still a leader of EEML; this is a slanderous claim without any basis in fact, to say the least, and I request that it is refactored, and apologized for.
	Further, VM cites an example of an AE where Skapperod was warned not to abuse AE to win content disputes. It is worth noting that complaining about VM seems to be a popular pastime of Skapperod's: ; ], and others I don't have time to find. He has also been warned about outing VM (). Back in 2011, when the last of EEML remedies were amended and discarded by the Committee, he was very active in campaigning against them; see my comment , where I list close to a ten of examples of Skapperod either requesting sanctions against VM and other EEML members, or commenting in support. And almost always, his requests have been denied.
	I don't want to get too involved here; I'd suggest that both VM and Skapperod are asked to be more civil in his on-wiki comments, and that Skapperod's engagement with AE is scrutinized by the admins; I feel it may be a time that a restriction from filling AE requests is served here, or perhaps an interaction ban would do more good, as it seems clear to me that Skapperod still feels the need to drag out old incidents and relive old battlegrounds. As most of us have no wish to join him in those reenactions, some remedy is clearly needed. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 19:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
	:Update: Skapperod has refactored his comment to remove the comment about myself I complained above. This is commendable. Now, if only he and VM could see past their differences... they are both productive editors, but I don't see how they can be made to behave without some community sanctions. I wonder if the we don't need to do as follows: interaction ban on both, civility warning for VM, and ban from AE for Skapperod? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 22:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
	===== Comment by Lothar von Richthofen =====
	Few things here annoy me more than unwarranted resurrection of EEML (“curly quotes” and dynamic IPs might trump that). Really what I see here is the standard back-and-forth of two "national interest groups" which is typical of basically anywhere in the topic realm of Eastern Europe. The phantom mailing list stopped being spooky a long time ago, and invoking its name nowadays just comes off as petty mud-slinging. But neither side has clean hands here. A stern and final warning would be my prescription for this, given that both sides have a lot to contribute to the project in spite of their at-times problematic behaviour. I'm not too keen at all on an interaction ban, given that those have tended to compound problems in the past <small>*cough*Polandball*cough*</small>. ~~ ] (]) 19:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
	===== Comment by M.K =====
	Wherever VolunteerMarek goes there will be trouble. I don't like being dragged into these types of his quarrels, least of all involving him. Initially I decided not to comment here, however after noticing ] (aka ]) insinuations regarding my character I can’t be mute.
	'''VolunteerMarek’s claim of tag teaming is fiction'''
	It seems that I am only editor who edited Königsberg article , but still VolunteerMarek is filling various pages emphasizing that I am in some sort of tag team ending with various editors.
	Then Estlandia is actually , one of the former members of ]. Only ] now renamed user account to ]. This clear illustration how desperate this guy to mud other editors and fuel another battleground.
	'''VolunteerMarek’s actions are below any reasonable standard'''
	Just look into his block log and various reactions which this person had.
	I just scrolled down of the recent VolunteerMarek’s “contributions” and Königsberg article’s talk page is not exception . Behavior like is became a standard to this user:
	*
	*
	*. I could make even more comprehensive list however I am lack timing to searching those diffs.
	On the Königsberg article’s talk page past few days VolunteerMarek brought my name at least 9 times if I counted all, in negative context included, like in “disruption”, “tag teaming” etc. Then I brought this name ZERO times. And this is not the isolated article I am afraid. Mostly due to this type of harassment I limited my time on Misplaced Pages to minimum. Thus I requesting that VolunteerMarek would be placed on interaction ban towards me as I am disgust to see my name all over the place, spammed by this editor. Re-institution of his topic ban should be considered as well, which had only been lifted on the false expectancy that "any relapse is likely to be poorly received."
	''' Good standing editors should be protected '''
	My clean block log perfectly well shows that I am following good editorial practice from all my heart. Yet, I had to limit my time on WP as good standing editors are not protected from similar harassment and mistreatment (most Lithuanian editors departed unable to withstand such level of harassment). I understand that uninvolved administrators are sick and tired from EE conflicts, but failure to act or comparing the EEML to people targetted by them only bolsters such editors like VolunteerMarek. Action should be taken at least now that “knee-jerk mindless support” “you're an abusive asshole” “*real* nationalist edit warriors” harassment would never show up again.
	'''Old WP:EEML is not gone, at least the most of it '''
	I belive that no one can honestly say VolunteerMarek, Piotrus and other members have changed their ways. The same behavior which was stressed during WP:EEML arbitration. Everyone wanted to believe the EEML was gone immediately after the revelation in September 2009. In December new mails leaked again. When does that blind-believer crowd vanish? Apparently, Abd, who had joined the EEML, admitted only last year the EEML still exists. I say it is time to end this now. ] (]) 14:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	'''Response to VolunteerMarek misleading information'''
	I hoped that with my statement I could point to VolunteerMarek his pastern which is troubling me and hoped that he would knowledge his mistakes and distance himself from them. However after seeing his reply I have no even slightest hopes. As he continuously falsely accuses me of . In fact I applied no more no less then '''ZERO''' {cn} tags in that article. This is another example of desperate VolunteerMarek tactics, to make false claims towards various editors, in hope that neutral editors would not investigate those diffs and take drastic actions involving all parties at least. Not surprisingly that VolunteerMarek is already found to . I kindly suggest neutral editors to be very careful and disregard completely such insinuations. And this is only prove my previous request that I '''need''' to be protected form this editor, as his behavior would not change . ] (]) 19:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	===== Comment by Vecrumba =====
	I have some knowledge of Königsberg. All VM did was expand content on the role and contribution of Poles to Königsberg as a cultural and intellectual center, content which was all perfectly valid, and which VM kept in its own section, not to glorify Poles but simply to better manage working on expanding content. Rather than other editors expanding the contributions of other ethnic or religious groups, said other editors set upon VM mercilessly, culminating in the crap here.<p>Lastly, I am FUCKING TIRED of hearing about EEML. ]<small> ►]</small> 16:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
	===== Comment by Estlandia =====
	The mere length of the measures already implemented with regard to Volunteer Marek (listed by Skäpperöd under ''History of disruption by VM and Molobo'') reveal, that a more permanent solution is needed. In the light of this, the lifting of Volunteer Marek's topic ban in 2010 has not justified itself. I suggest considering an indefinite topic ban from Eastern European articles for this user, as he is constantly disruptive and edit warring (just on 25 July he broke 3RR, as explained , followed by a similar violation on 31 July, as explained by Skäpperöd above). Add to this his constant incivility , , , and the harassment of users with a clean blocklog and in good standing like Skäpperöd to get the full picture. Where battleground is, there's Volunteer Marek. Where Volunteer Marek is, there's incivility. Users like that we can do without. ] ] 14:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	===== Comment by Shrike(uninvolved) =====
	If he really abused Misplaced Pages email system then to avoid further disruption his email should be blocked.--] (])/] 14:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	===Result concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount===
	<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
	:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
	*Verbosity is not equivalent to correctness. If you really need to put that much forth to present your case, please provide a brief summary along with all the detail, so we know what to look for in the detail section. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 08:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	**Thanks to those who have provided summaries. There's a lot to look through here, I'll try to get to it over this weekend. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	== SonofSetanta ==		==KronosAlight==
			<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 KronosAlight===
	''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|Butterscotch Beluga}} 03:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|KronosAlight}}<p>{{ds/log|KronosAlight}}</p>
	===Request concerning SonofSetanta===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 16:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
	; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|SonofSetanta}}
	<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->		<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]		;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
	<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->		<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
	; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :		; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
	<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->		<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
	# Revert #1		#
			:*Adds "depiste being an ex-Muslim" to dismiss accusations of Islamophobia ].
	# Revert #2, within 24 hours of the first
			:*Adds ] around ‘promoted Islamophobia’ & ‘Islamophobia’ while removing the supporting context.
	# Revert #3, within 24 hours of the first
			:*Changed "interpreted that statement as a threat and incitement to violence" to "claimed was a threat and incitement to violence, though no threats or violence in fact occurred" ] & ]
	# Revert #1 on a different article
	# Revert #2 on that article, within 24 hours of the first		# - ]
			:*Changes "Israeli settlers" to "Israeli soldiers" despite
			# - ]
			# - ]
			:* Unnecessarily specific additions that may constitute ] such as adding "against civilians" & changing "prevent the assassinations of many Israelis" to "prevent the assassinations of many Israeli civilians and soldiers"
			# - ]
			; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
	; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :
			<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
	<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. -->
	#Previously blocked under this remedy.		# Warned to abide by the one-revert rule when making edits within the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.
			# Blocked from editing for 1 week for violating consensus required on the page ]
			;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
	; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Since I'm sure I'll get cries of "content dispute" from the usual suspects, I'd better explain this fully. Flexdream initially on 29 July, and was . Flexdream then decided to add on 31 July, and was . In the discussion at ] I made it clear the addition of the new content was problematic, as was the existing content, but that you don't solve problems with bad content by adding more bad content. I further made it clear why I hadn't removed the prior content at the same time, as the removal of that had already been reverted by Nick Cooper. Nick Cooper hadn't participated in the discussion and no sources have been produced as requested, so the existing problematic content was removed by me. SonofSetanta has restored the new problematic content in revert 1, and the existing problematic content in revert 2. Quite why he's doing this when my removal of the existing problematic content is supposed to solve the dispute is anyone's guess? <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 16:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
			*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|ScottishFinnishRadish}}.
	::No 1RR breach from me, since a self-reverted edit by JonChapple makes my edits consecutive. You'll find reverting content relating to the IRA is very much covered by the Troubles restrictions, try reading them. And there's no "harassment" inolved, you turn up again after months away and revert on two articles without any attempt to take part in the ongoing discussions. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 16:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
			*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on .
			; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
	:I can't be bothered to correct the laughable attacks and assumptions of bad faith below, except to point out the restriction is "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles" and if that information has got information in it relating to the IRA during the Troubles then, yes, edits to that information are covered by 1RR. That's a long-established principle of what "related" actually means. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 06:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
			All edits were made at ]. After I with an explanation, I , asking for their rationale.
			They replied that they were & asked if I "perhaps have a deeper bias that’s influencing decisions in this respect?"
			They then
	::The '''article''' is about a terrorist bombing carried out by islamists. It has nothing to do with the Troubles. This is blindingly obvious. The 1RR rule only applies to '''articles''' about the Troubles, not to any mention of the IRA anywhere on Misplaced Pages.--FergusM1970<sup>Misplaced Pages policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.</sup> 08:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
			: ] - While I can't find any comments where they were explicitly ''"warned for casting aspersions"'', they were to ] in the topic area.
	:::If it mentions the IRA, editing those parts of the article is covered by 1RR. That's what "related" means. Or are you suggesting the phrase is nothing to do with the Troubles at all? <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 12:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
			:Also, apologies for my ''"diffs of edits that violate this sanction"'' section, this is the first time I've filed a request here & I thought it'd be best to explain the ''preamble'' to my revert, but I understand now that I misunderstood the purpose of that section & will remember such for the future. - ] (]) 15:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:3rd revert added. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 12:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
			:@] I was able to find a copy of the opinion article being cited . ] (]) 20:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:1RR violation added for another article. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 12:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	::He has self-reverted that. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 12:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	:Further to SonofSetanta's spurious allegations below, it seems he is totally unaware of ] and the lengthy discussions on that page's talk page. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 12:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	::Make that lengthy and ''pointless'' discussions, seeing as you have refused to give any reason why you think your version of that article is superior to the suggested alternatives which are backed up by a majority of ]. I asked two days ago for any reason why "killed" is not a suitable NPOV wording for that article, and despite the fact that you've had plenty to say elsewhere your response to that request has been *]s*.--FergusM1970<sup>Misplaced Pages policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.</sup> 01:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
	My apologies for editing an article three hours within the time restriction for 1RR. As noted I have self reverted. It is nice to know my mistakes will be pointed out quickly. I feel quite privileged to have my own watchkeeper. ] (]) 12:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	<!-- Add any further comment here -->
	; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
			; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->		<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	===Discussion concerning SonofSetanta===		===Discussion concerning KronosAlight===
			<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 SonofSetanta====		====Statement by KronosAlight====
			This is a complete waste of the Arbitration Committee’s time.
	Firstly: the article ] is not covered by the 1RR restriction, it is under the 3RR rule. Secondly: If I am guilty of breaking 1RR so is the complainant for his reversions here ] and here ]. ] (]) 16:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
			1. That Yousef was born and raised a Muslim is important and neutral context for readers to be aware of when the article refers to claims of ‘Islamophobia’.
	'''Additional information:''' It needs to be noted that this complaint is part of a campaign of edit warring which the complainant and several others are part of and has resulted in the complainant making three separate cases on this page against me, FergusM1970 and Flexdream. What we are seeing here is gaming on a major scale with the intended result being the subversion of the Wiki. ] (]) 16:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
			2. The scarequotes indicate that the claim comes from the sources provided, rather than being an objective ‘fact’ determined by a few Misplaced Pages Editors with an axe to grind.
	====Comments by others about the request concerning SonofSetanta====
	====Statement by Domer48====
	''All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.''
			3. This was already addressed on the Talk page and I updated the sentence to say settlers/soldiers with a further label that it needed further clarification because the source does not in fact unambiguously say what Butterscotch Beluga claims.
	The editor is well aware of this.--<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 16:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
	:I assume he's also well aware that the 7/7 bombings had absolutely nothing to do with the Troubles, what with them being carried out in London by islamic terrorists rather than in London''derry'' by Irish ones. To apply the Troubles 1RR rule to this is simply ].--] (]) 20:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
			A few lines above what Butterscotch Beluga quotes is the following lines: “AMANPOUR: How did you take part in that? Were you one of the small children who threw rocks at Israeli soldiers?
	::'''Per both NW and Cailil''': The diffs presented here show clear and unambiguous breaches of the 1RR and therefor discretionary sanctions apply here. That SonofSetanta, is being discussed above in the thread about FergusM1970 as they have been involved with ongoing problems only compounds the violation. Application of 1RR would prevent the type of disruptive editing at articles such as . Were having reverted two editors, both of whom have used the talk page , they not only fail to respond on the talk, but cynically , and then what I consider to be canvassing support from like minded editors , bizarrely giving notice to two Arb's also two of whom have not edited the article? --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::Addition:The editor when filing their when asked: '''Have you discussed this on a talk page?''' They replied: '''Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.''' When asked: '''Have you tried to resolve this previously?''' they replied: '''I, and others, have made all editors aware through the talk page what the facts are and have tried to include the information in the article. This has sparked an edit war with several opposing editors.'''
			YOUSEF: The model for every Palestinian child is a mujahid (ph) or a fidahi (ph) or a fighter. So, of course, I wanted to be one at that point of my life. It wasn't -- it's not my only dream. It's every child's dream in that territory.”
	However, the editor has never used the talk page, ever and if they did it was not under their current user name? --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 21:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
			The updated Wiki page noted both settlers/soldiers and included a note that this requires further clarification, perhaps based on other sources, because it isn’t clear (contra Butterscotch Beluga) whether he is referring to soldiers or settlers.
	:Hi Domer. It's possible that Fergus and Setanta's apparent bizarre canvassing of Admins is because they don't know about the canvassing rule. Has anyone actually told Fergus or Setanta about it do you know? Regards --] (]) 21:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	::No Flexdream, I wasn't aware of it. Now that I am I won't do it again.--FergusM1970<sup>Misplaced Pages policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.</sup> 01:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::I had no idea. I didn't canvas however as instinctively I felt that would have been wrong. what I did do was place a notice on Calil's page that a discussion he was involved in had been raised at DRN, in case he wanted to provide input. It was an honest mistake, very much regretted and which won't be repeated. ] (]) 14:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
			4. It is not controversial to accurately describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation. It is simply a fact. To suggest otherwise is POV-pushing.
	'''@Cailil:''' This is will probably not endear me with Arbcom, but can I just say this: The 1RR is an Arbcom imposed sanction! Now Arbcom was not set up to police the articles that have editing restrictions, the editors do that. When like now we have editors who repeatedly violate Arbcom imposed sanctions, it is the editors of these articles who come here with a report and Arbcom do the rest. A simple rule for those who want to avoid snactions, is simple, don't violate them. I've engaged in the discussions with these editors, and its a lot more frustrating than anything on this page. If Arbcom had of addressed the first report, I seriously doubt that we would have had the continued disruption we have now. No offense! --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 15:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	@Cailil: RE: "boomerang" I've no problem with that, if in fact the report is frivolous and there was in fact no violation. But it would seem very arbitrary to sanction an editor who filed a 1rr Arbcom imposed sanction. If for example I was a returning editor, with a clean slate, fresh start an all that, and I acted the maggot, I could understand were your coming from. But my less than glowing record, most of which were reversed, is something I have not ran away from, and I've edited away without a report or any sanctions. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 16:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
			5. This is not POVPUSH; ‘assassinations’ against civilians during peacetime are usually called ‘murders’.
	====Statement by Jon C.====
	This is getting beyond a joke. You're a big boy, Mr Hackney, can't you settle your own disputes without constantly running to the admins? This is not what AE is supposed to be used for. <font color="#004225">—</font> ]] 19:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
	:Agreed. There is a clear pattern here. ONIH goes straight to AE without any attempt whatsoever to find a compromise. It's also obvious that every 1RR violation he complains about involves the same small group of editors who repeat his reverts. It's very hard to escape the conclusion that a tag-team is operating on anything that might cast Irish Republican terrorists in a bad light.--] (]) 20:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
			I in fact didn’t even remove the word ‘assassinations’, I merely broadened the description from ‘Israelis’ to ‘Israeli civilians and soldiers’ (as Butterscotch accepted) to indicate the breadth of the individuals in question included both civilians and combatants. This is not POVPUSH, it is simply additional information and context verified in the source itself.
	====Statement by FergusM1970====
			All in all, a vexatious claim and a waste of the Arbitration Committee’s time.
	This is the third time this editor has gone to AE in the past four days, all to do with 1RR violations and all to do with edits which have presented an image of the IRA which he happens not to like. On no occasion has he engaged in any attempt to find a compromise or discuss meaningfully on talk pages, preferring to accuse the other party of not knowing what they are talking about. When I raised a DRN in an attempt to solve a content dispute he ignored it, and only became involved in mediation after admins dealing with his complaint against me began expressing a desire for a resolution to the dispute rather than AE action. At the same time he contributes little or no content to Misplaced Pages himself; his consists almost entirely of reverts. It seems likely that his only aim is to push his own POV regarding the Troubles and that he is not above gaming WP rules to do so.--] (]) 21:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
	====Statement by Flexdream====		====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
			Regarding "I was correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors", it would be helpful if KronosAlight would explicitly identify the antisemitic editors and the edits they corrected so that they can be blocked for being antisemitic editors. ] (]) 08:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	Domer quotes that "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related."
	An article on the London 7/7 bombings, which has no Irish connection or dimension, cannot reasonably be construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland. 1RR does not apply. This rush to AE is an abuse of process and should be treated accordingly. --] (]) 23:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
	:I'm confused now. The complainant has removed from the London 7/7 article the references to the IRA ] and seems to now be agreeing with my making the same edit when I made the comment that the IRA was irrelevant. So the complainant seems to agree with me that the IRA is irrelevant. The London 7/7 article is not Troubles related for 1RR, and even the complainant seems to think that by the edit they have made which is a repeat of the edit I made. And now they raise an AE on the basis that the article is Troubles related for 1RR? I don't follow the reasoning. --] (]) 01:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	::@NW I find your analogy hard to follow. Your analogy seems to be taking two incidents in Japanese/American relations and comparing them. The attack on Pearl Harbour is obviously relevant to Japanes/American relations - but was the sinking of the USS Maine relevant? What if you had an editor trying to insert the sinking of the USS Maine into an article about Pearl Harbour? How does an article about an Islamic terrorist attack on London, relate to IRA attacks when there is no link of Irish or IRA involvement? I think its better to keep it simple. Whether the article is Troubles related determines whether it is subject to 1RR determines whether, which and on whom sanctions should be applied. I wouldn't preclude other admins expressing an opinion. Regards. --] (]) 22:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::Here's the simplified version: Pearl Harbor is of course relevant to US/Japan relations. 9/11 is not, normally. If someone is trying to push material about US/Japan relations into the 9/11 article, then their behavior is sanctionable per US/Japan discretionary sanctions. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter on which articles the edits were made; what matters is whether the edits themselves are related to the Troubles dispute. And here they clearly are. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 22:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	::::@NW Thanks, that's a much clearer explanation. I always thought the Troubles restriction applied to articles, not the edits which may have been inserted into articles. That's how I interpret "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland". I still don't see how the London 7/7 article can be reasonably construed as Troubles related because someone had inserted an IRA link into it. I doubt that I'm alone in my understanding. The complainant and I both agree the IRA link does not belong in this article. So I repeat, how can an article be Troubles related for this complaint, when the complainant does not think it should have an IRA reference? I'd welcome comments from others on what their interpretation is now that you and I have established what we think it is. Regards. --] (]) 23:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	:@Seraphimblade. It's an assumption to say of Setanta that they were "disingenuous to then claim they had no idea the restrictions applied there". Setanta thought 3RR restrictions applied, if you assume good faith. They were never made aware that 1RR applied and given a chance to accept that. Instead this AE was raised against them. I am not the only editor to have pointed out here that even the complainant, Hackney, has edited to remove all mention of the IRA from the London 7/7 article ]. I think Setanta's position is credible.--] (]) 09:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
			The editor has been here since 2012. It is reasonable to assume that they know the rules regarding aspersions. It is reasonable to assume they are intentionally violating them, presumably because they genuinely believe they are dealing with antisemitic editors. So, this report is somehow simultaneously a vexatious complete waste of time and the result of the someone interfering with their valiant efforts to correct errors made by antisemitic editors. Why do they have this belief? , a comment they had the good sense to revert. For me, this is an example of someone attempting to use propaganda that resembles antisemitic conspiracy theories about media control to undermine Misplaced Pages's processes and then changing their mind. But the very fact that they thought of it is disturbing. Their revert suggests that they are probably aware that there are things you can say about an editor and things you cannot say about an editor. From my perspective, what we have here is part of an emerging pattern in the topic area, a growing number of attacks on Misplaced Pages and editors with accusations of antisemitism, cabals etc. stemming in part from external partisan sources/influence operations. ] (]) 17:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	====Comment by Son of Setanta====
	I would call on adjudicating editors to be aware of the '''Statement by Steven Zhang''' above (under the FergusM1970 complaint) which states clearly that the editors in opposition here, including the complainant, have refused to take part in dispute resolution regarding the complaint against Fergus. With this knowledge it should be obvious to anyone that resolution is not the agenda of Hackney and his associates. Rather we are seeing attempts to subvert the Wiki to their own aim - the glorification of the Provisional IRA. This has been going on for years but so far the well intended volunteers who do their best to police the Wiki have been unable to find a solution to it. I would respectfully suggest a very long term ban on Hackney for a start and perhaps the same for Domer48. These two seem to be the main exponents of the bullying which stops other editors from removing POV from articles which contain references to the Provisional IRA. ] (]) 12:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
			====Statement by Zero0000====
			Aspersions:
			*
			*
			*
			*
			]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			====Statement by Vice regent====
	'''*''' I also respectfully submit that perhaps adjudicators might examine the number of 1RR complaints made by all particpiants in this discussion on articles relating to the Troubles. I believe the results would be quite interesting. ] (]) 12:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
			{{u|KronosAlight}}, you on 14 Dec 2024: "{{tq|An open letter signed by Christian and Muslim religious leaders interpreted that statement as a threat and incitement to violence}}" to "{{tq|An open letter signed by Christian and Muslim religious leaders claimed was a threat and incitement to violence, though no threats or violence in fact occurred}}".
			Can you show where either of the sources state "though no threats or violence in fact occurred"? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	====Comment by Crystalfile====
			====Statement by Smallangryplanet====
	How does this have anything to do with IRA? One night in Hackney claims this one sentence is the link - "More people were killed by the bombings than in any single Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) attack during The Troubles" and even he removes this from the article! http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=7_July_2005_London_bombings&diff=prev&oldid=506086508
			Wanted to add some pertinent evidence:
	He is trying to get editor in trouble unfairly.
			'''Talk:Zionism''':
	====@Calil====
	I have not breached 1RR. The London Bombings are a 3RR page. On the other occasion where I inadvertantly breached 1RR on another page I reverted myself with an apology. Could you outline please anywhere where you allege I have actually breached the protocol? ] (]) 16:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
			*
	Dispute resolution has now been requested by me here ] to try and resolve the issue I am involved in. I respectfully suggest that adjudication here be suspended pending the outcome of such resolution. ] (]) 17:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
			*
			*
			*
			'''Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon''':
	@Calil I honestly can't see how claiming the London Bombings page is wikilawering and request you withdraw such a spurious comment. The page is '''not''' about the Northern Ireland Troubles. Simple as that. The reference to PIRA was simply a bit of interest and I couldn't understand why it was continually deleted. I've lost interest in it now anyway. ] (]) 17:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
			*
	@Calil. I included your page on the DRN as a courtesy. You are involved in a discussion concerning the subject matter. No disrespect is intended, just courtesy. I am truly sorry you have misinterpreted my efforts. ] (]) 17:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
			'''Talk:Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world''':
	I would respectfully request comment from other sysops on this matter. I feel I am being corralled because I made one mistake which I immediately reverted. The other issue is abundantly clear. I made two or three edits on a 3RR page - nothing to do with the Irish troubles. ] (]) 17:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
			*
	@ Seraphimblade. I did not however bring a Troubles related item to a 3RR page. I reintroduced a fact which did not alter the status of the article in any way. We have to accept that the Troubles happened and there are statistics out there concerning the general British public which, while referring to the Troubles, do not make the article Troubles related. I could have used statistics from the Blitz but it wouldn't make the article Blitz-related. I feel that's a better analogy. The fact remains that this is, in my humble opinion, a spurious complaint by someone who regularly uses 1RR complaints to control editors whose prose he doesn't like. I request that the matter be closed and warnings issued. ] (]) 14:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
			'''Talk:2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks''':
	@Calil. I do not wish to appear disrespectful but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that you are an Irish editor and whilst I extend every good faith to you, as I hope you do to I, your input could be misconstrued, as mine is. I would also respectfully ask you to note that every case here has been made by a certain group of editors who have violation histories of their own. My own opinion is that I, Fergus and Flexdream should be guided through this difficult time in our editing history with Misplaced Pages. The people making the complaints should receive some guidance as well to avoid turning minor infringements into complaints in the future. ] (]) 15:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
			*
	@Calil. I have no wish to breach any Misplaced Pages etiquette but I would like my own edits to be taken in good faith. The people who are complaining about me here are the same people who hounded me on the ] page when I was a novice editor just six months ago. I have returned to edit in my areas of interest and whilst I may have made one or two silly mistakes my intentions are good but I have been set about by the same people, all of whom have long histories in edit warring on Troubles articles. As you can see by the way I've engaged recently my behaviour pattern is not the same as it was eight months ago. I have taken deep breaths and not become personally involved. I am less quick to react and taking on board every piece of advice given to me. I would appreciate your guidance too in adapting a style of editing which suits the more controversial articles. I can't do that however when my every move is watched and my every mistake reported as a misdemeanour. Have you looked at some of the articles I have written, or the ones where I have successfully edited without difficulty? That is the type of effort I am bringing to the table here - not an edit warring style. ] (]) 16:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
			'''Talk:Anti-Zionism''':
	===Result concerning SonofSetanta===
	<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
	:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
			*
	*I'm not going comment yet on whether I feel sanctions or 1RR is warranted. But here's my position on whether the article falls under sanctions or not in the form of a thought experiment:<p>Imagine that in 2050, relations between America and Japan have deteriorated significantly. The ] is no longer seen just as a surprise military attack in violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact but nothing less than ]. An anti-Japanese editor goes to ] and repeatedly inserts into the lead the phrase “while the attacks killed more people than any previous incident in American history, it was not as damaging as the Japanese ] (1941).” This edit is opposed by the normal editors of the page, who feel that comparisons with Pearl Harbor are too much of a stretch to include in the lead. But our anti-Japanese editor is insistent and opposed to all reason and is acting in a nationalistic fashion that we see today in Israel-Palestine or Eastern Europe disputes. I would hope that you would agree with me that the root cause of the dispute is not anything about September 11 but is instead about America-Japanese relations (broadly construed). If there were discretionary sanctions on that topic, I would not hesitate to apply them.<p>That’s my position anyway, that discretionary sanctions apply here. The rest of the analogy is not to be taken as stated; I haven’t more than glanced at SonofSetanta’s edits. But any further comments from other editors should focus on whether he should be sanctioned, not whether the article falls under ]. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 17:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
			*
			'''Talk:Gaza genocide''':
	*Just a procedural note. This editor, SonofSetanta, is being discussed above in the thread about FergusM1970 as they have been involved with ongoing problems being examined in that request. Besides that the diffs presented here show clear and unambiguous breaches of the 1RR - a 3 month ban for SonofSetanta is being mooted above taking in to account both the conduct presented here and other issues--] <sup>]</sup> 12:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
			*
	:*@SonofSetanta: NuclearWarfare has explain this above my comment. Putting it very simply: WP:TROUBLES and its remedies cover any and all edits relating to '''that topic''' (widely construed) in any article anywhere on en-wikipedia. Your edit referenced the ] - an event from ] and thus your edits are covered by the ruling. End of story.<br>Also please desist from wikilawyering it will not help your case - if other sysops disagree with me they will say so-] <sup>]</sup> 17:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
			*
	*I'm going to warn you SonofSetanta edits like this look a lot like you are trying to muddy the waters. I am commenting here as a sysop in determining wether you have breached an arbitration remedy. I am not in any way involved in any edits relating to this topic. You cannot use WP:DRN to evade sanctions and/or otherwise grief process--] <sup>]</sup> 17:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	*I agree with NW and Cailil that the Troubles restrictions clearly are intended to cover Troubles-related areas and edits, wherever those may lie. If an editor is ''bringing'' Troubles-related edits to a previously unrelated article, I think it's pretty disingenuous to then claim they had no idea the restrictions applied there. I fully endorse NW's 9-11 example as an analogy to the situation. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
	* Those who recall my (under topic ban sanction at the time) not to edit an article about a bird found in Ireland if they wanted to be absolutely certain not to edit ''Troubles'' related articles will not be surprised when I concur with NW et al; this falls under the Troubles and is subject to the sanctions therein. That said, I am willing to concede that it may not have been clear to the editor at the time that this article would fall under such sanctions, and advise applying limited 1RR moving forward, with no further sanctions. Should SonofSetanta or any of the other editors involved in this case appear here again, of course, we will have to consider stronger measures. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	:*KC just BTW Son of Stenata is being discussed above in the thread on FergusM1970, and below for further (borderline) violations. Given the full panoply of behaviour here the time for warnings is past. Furthermore they have once again been edit-warring. I am of a mind that Son of Setanta and all the parties listed above in the FergusM1970 thread should be topic banned for 3 months at a minimum. I'm not precluding boomerang for inappropriate reports either (in reference to the below). There is a morase of inappropriate behaviour in this topic by the 5 or 6 same editors for the last 10 days--] <sup>]</sup> 15:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	::*I'll add further that SoS was topic banned under WP:TROUBLES for 90 days ]--] <sup>]</sup> 16:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
			'''Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre''':
	@SoS: It is highly inappropriate to equate a person's place of birth with a point of view, that kind of '']'' has no place on this site as it is a breach both of our ] and ]. I will remind you that british sysops like HJ Mitchell also enforce WP:TROUBLEs because where any us come from has ZERO baring on the issues. None of us are ], our decisions are being made as a group and not individually. Anyone's place of birth has precisely zero baring on ''your'' conduct, and you are not helping yourself by engaging in such remarks. I will advise you that no matter how politely phrased ] is it remains incivil--] <sup>]</sup> 16:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
			*
	== Arbitration enforcement action appeal by GoodDay ==
			'''Talk:Al-Sardi school attack''':
	{{hat|Appeal declined. ] (]) 03:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)}}
	<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found ]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. <p>To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see ]).''</small>
			*
	; Appealing user : {{userlinks|GoodDay}} – ] (]) 17:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
			'''Talk:Eden Golan''':
	; Sanction being appealed : ], I've been banned from the topic of diacritics across Misplaced Pages, the ban apparently includes my own userspace. ] (]) 17:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
			*
	; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Coren}}
			'''Other sanctions''':
	; Notification of that administrator : ''The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a ] of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.''
			* March 2024: for ], ], etc
	===Statement by GoodDay===
			* June 2024: to abide by 1RR
			* October 2024: for a week
			====Statement by (username)====
	I wasn't fully aware of the extent of the topic ban, concerning my secondary page (since deleted). Imho, the block can be ended, as I wish only to make gnome edits. I was blocked (]) after ] was tabled. It concerned content on m (now deleted) ] page. I will not make anymore direct ''or'' indirect posts concerning diacritics - period. I will not praise or condem editors involved with the 'said' topic. Also note, along with deleting my secondary page, I've removed my ''2'' conditions for which posts I'll allow on my talkpage. Furthermore, I've added links to my Rfc/U, ANI case & Arbitration case, for easier access & study purposes - in order to change my ''behaviour''. ] (]) 17:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
			<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
	===Statement by Coren===		===Result concerning KronosAlight===
	Copied from GoodDay's talk page without comments on the substance. Given that I both expressed an opinion in the original AE request and closed that request, I'll recuse from further involvement. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
	===Statement by snowded===
	I was one of the editors in conflict with GD on UK related issues. Overall the pattern of behaviour over the years has been that when he gets involved in a subject he has no sense of proportion. Edit warring, provocation of talk pages and the like are all well documented. One suspects however that Misplaced Pages is his life. However a brief examination of his talk page indicates that there is no understanding on his part that he has in any way done anything wrong. The opposite if anything, he blames his woes on politically minded editors against whom he stands as a martyr to whichever cause he is advocating at the time. Even now his reason for wanting to be restored is that he didn't understand the nature of his ban, which to any reasonably minded editor was very very clear.
	My recommendation is that he should serve his time, it may be the only way he can start to understand the level to which the communities patience has been exhausted. As long as he claims martyrdom any readmission which just (as it has always done in the past) lead to a repetition of the same behaviour. To my mind the only reason he has escaped a permanent block is the mind numbingly trivial nature of his interventions. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
	===Statement by Djsasso===
	He says "I wasn't fully aware of the extent of the topic ban". However the first time he violated the ban he stated . Which indicates he was fully aware of the extent of his topic ban since he was specifically told in his first enforcement request that he wasn't allowed to discuss them on his user pages. This is him just pushing the boundaries yet again and wasting editors time yet again. I wouldn't be opposed to reupping this to arbcom for a full out arb case on his behaviour overall not just in the topic of diacritics per the comment by Br'er Rabbit below. -] (]) 11:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by GoodDay ===
	In the ] the led to this block ''two'' sitting arbs suggested that the issue be referred back to the AC for review. That's what should happen here. ] (]) 02:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	====Comment by A Quest for Knowledge====
	Good grief, didn't we just finish this a few days ago? GoodDay says, "''I wasn't fully aware of the extent of the topic ban.''" But shouldn't they have made themselves fully aware when they were originally topic-banned? Or when the first RfE was filed? Or the second RfE? Considering there was some support for a 6 month ban, I would say to let GoodDay complete the 30 day sanction. ] (]) 03:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	====Comment by One Night In Hackney====
	Suggest speedy decline as he was aware of the scope of the topic-ban per ], in particular . <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 06:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	====Statement from Resolute====
	I'm sorry my friend, but you knew the range of your prohibition after your first AE block. I myself tried to impress on you what it meant: , . Consensus at the ] supported that interpretation. You need to accept that you are banned from this topic. That you may not comment on it, ''anywhere'' in any way. Please, just take the summer off, then return with a fresh purpose. As I said in one of those comments, I can think of plenty of projects for you to gnome about that won't put you afoul of your topic bans. ]] 14:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	:I would also like to add, simply for the record but requesting no action, that I feel the four anti-diacritic editors on your talk page after you were blocked are doing you no favours by attempting to impress the martyr-complex on you. I think they would be well served to let you be as my impression is their comments led you into this appeal, which has no hope of success and can only further test the community's patience with you. If my impression is accurate, then they have done you a great disservice, even if their intentions were noble. ]] 14:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	===Result of the appeal by GoodDay===
	:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''		:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
			* Much of the "diffs of edits that violate this sanction" fail to explain "how these edits violate" the sanction - to me, much of these diffs look like a content dispute. However, the "additional comments" section DOES have a diff that is concerning and violates the CT by casting an aspersion that is not backed up by a diff - the "antisemitic editors" diff. Has KA been previously warned for casting aspersions? If they have, I'm inclined to issue a topic ban, but many other editors get a warning for this if they lack a previous warning. The diffs brought up by Zero (not all of which I necessarily see as aspersions, but the "Jew-hatred" one is definitely over the line - but it's from September so a bit late to sanction for just that) - did anyone point out that aspersions/incivility in this topic area is sanctionable? I see the warnings for 1RR and consensus required... ] (]) 13:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
			** {{ping|KronosAlight}} - can you address the fact that saying "correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors" and "Is there no limits you will not cross in order to seek to justify your Jew-hatred"? Neither of these are statements that should ever be made - and the fact that you seem to not to understand this is making me lean towards a topic ban. ] (]) 14:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	:For information: here is the that ended with GoodDay being blocked on August 3, 2012. There seem to be two possible reasons why a RFAE might be overturned after 3 days.
			*KronosAlight, can you please provide quotes from the references you cited for - for instance - "for his terrorist activities" in , showing that the sources explicitly supported the content you added? Calling a person or an organization is perfectly acceptable if you support that with reliable sources; if it is original research, or source misrepresentation, it isn't acceptable. I cannot access some of the sources in question. You may provide quotes inside a collapsed section if you wish to save space. ] (]) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:*One would be that it was an inappropriate sanction: a review of the discussion shows several editors suggested a 6 month block, and in a rare intervention at AE, two arbitrators suggested it be sent back to ArbCom for more serious review (and perhaps even more severe sanctions); so it actually seems that 1 month is a mild sanction indeed.
			*:I missed Zero's comments earlier. A lot of those comments, while concerning, are generic, not directed at a specific editor. , however, is beyond the pale. I would need some convincing that this user is able to edit this area constructively. ] (]) 20:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:*The second possible reason would be because GoodDay convinces the assembled populace of administrators that the message has been received nd that the block is not required to prevent disruption. Unfortunately, it is once bitten twice shy in this regard and there is a limit to how many epiphanies are convincing. After an editor has been told multiple times by arbitrators, administrators and other editors to leave a subject entirely alone, saying ''"the ban apparently includes my own userspace"'' seems the epitome of ].
	:In short, I don't see any reason to overturn the block. It's good that you have the links to various pages of arbcom etc on your talkpage, GoodDay, but I suggest you simply take a good break from Misplaced Pages and enjoy the all too short summer. Read them and then act on them when you come back in September. --] (]) 17:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)		*::@], can you please respond to this? I too am concerned...the quote you're objecting to wasn't from DrSmarty. It was a ''direct quote'', scare quotes and all, from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. You seem to have reacted to it as if it were DrSmarty. ] (]) 16:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I don't like to sanction ''in absentia'', and I'm not yet suggesting we do so, but I want to note that not choosing not to respond here, or going inactive to avoid responding, will not improve the outcome as far as I am concerned. ] (]) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:GoodDay, one month was about as ''short'' as it was going to be. You were about a whisker away from either a six month or indefinite sanction. I would strongly urge you to consider what Coren said when placing the block, and as Slp1 states, enjoy the rest of your summer. Hopefully when you come back, we won't need to see you here again. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
			*:They're a pretty sporadic editor...many edits over a period of a few days, then nothing for two weeks. Maybe we pin this until they edit again? ] (]) 17:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	*Concur with the admins above me. ] (]) 20:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
			*::I agree with Valereee that this editors contribution history shows a pattern of editing for a day or two at a time followed by several weeks of inactivity. So I don't think it's fair to say they went inactive here but also holding this open for multiple weeks waiting for a response places some burden on the other other interested editors. ] (]) 17:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
			<!-- 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. -->
			*<!--
			-->
	== Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Devil's Advocate ==		==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nicoljaus==
			<small>''Procedural notes: Per the ], a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>
	<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found ]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. <p>To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see ]).''</small>		<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections{{space}}but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see ]).''</small>
	; Appealing user : {{userlinks|The Devil's Advocate}} - 20:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)		; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Nicoljaus}} – ] (]) 13:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			; Sanction being appealed : To enforce an ],&nbsp;and for edit warring, and , you have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing Misplaced Pages.
	; Sanction being appealed :
	:Topic ban from the subject of the September 11 attacks, imposed at
	:], logged at
	:]
	; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|WGFinley}}		; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|ScottishFinnishRadish}}
	; Notification of that administrator :		; Notification of that administrator : I'm aware. ] (]) 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	===Statement by The Devil's Advocate===		===Statement by Nicoljaus===
			The circumstances of my blocking were:
	As this was a massive case I intend to focus on the substantive points raised about my conduct in the discussion as there was quite a bit of trivial commentary. For the sake of making things easier, as this is going to be long, I will summarize the main points and include evidence and commentary after that in sections. The main points of my appeal:
			*I was looking for a Misplaced Pages account for ] to add it to Wikidata. I couldn't find it, so I did a little research. The in the article indicated that she participated in some '''WikiWrites'''(?) project. I didn’t find such a project, but I found the '''WikiRights''' project: https://ar.wikipedia.org/ويكيبيديا:ويكي_رايتس. It was organized by a certain Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. I read the ] article and didn't see any outside perspective, "controversy" or anything like that, just self-representation. I surfed the Internet and instantly found information that must be in the article to comply with the NPOV. I started adding {{diff2|1220241573}}, everything went well for two days. Then:
			*12:53, 23 April 2024 - Zero0000 made a complete cancellation of all additions {{diff2|1220380219}}</br>
			*13:14, 23 April 2024 - (20 minutes later!) Selfstudier wrote on my TP {{diff2|1220382377}}</br>
			*14:20 - 14:22, 23 April 2024 -‎ With two edits ({{diff2|1220390536|first}}, {{diff2|1220390820|second}}) I partially took into account the comment of Zero0000 about "ethnic marking", but returned the last {{Diff||1220390820|1220380219}}.</br>
			*14:27, 23 April 2024 (7 minutes later!!) Selfstudier makes a second complete cancellation of all my edits, blaming POV editing {{diff2|1220391708}}</br>
			*14:45, 23 April 2024‎ - I’m returning the version where I partially took into account Zero0000’s comments (removed "ethnic marking"){{diff2|1220394447}}</br>
			*15:10, 23 April 2024 - Selfstudier accuses me of 1RR breach. In the dialogue, I explained that the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination. My first undo was part of a counter edit ]</br>
			*15:41, 23 April 2024 Selfstudier writes on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement {{diff2|1220403117}}</br>
			*16:10, 23 April 2024 (30 minutes later!) ScottishFinnishRadish issues an indefinite block {{diff2|1220407252}}. No opportunity to write my “statement”, as well as an extremely bad faith interpretation of my remark as "an intent to game 1rr".</br>
			Given that the both Selfstudier and Zero0000 are currently being discussed in Arbcom (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence), I humbly ask you to take a fresh look at my indefinite block and soften the restrictions in some way". ] (]) 19:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{yo|ScottishFinnishRadish}} - You {{diff2|1263932187||mean}}, I need to discuss my previous edit war blocks? Well, the last one was almost four years ago and that time I simply forgot that I was under 1RR (there was a big break in editing) and tried to get sources for a newly added map, and the opponent refused to do so {{diff2|983337359}}. As it turned out later, the true source was a book by a fringe author, which the RSN called "Usual nationalistic bullshit, no sign of reliability". Yes, it was a stupid forgetfulness on my part. ] (]) 16:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{yo|Aquillion}} {{tq| Even if you were correct that Selfstudier & Zero0000 were WP:TAGTEAMing (always a tricky accusation, because it's hard to separate that from just your edits being so obviously problematic that two people independently reverted them)}} -- That's why I wrote that my "so problematic edits" attracted attention only after two days, but two users appeared within 20 minutes. However, after months, a lot of data about the cooperation of these users appeared (and this is not my imagination): "While a single editor, Shane (a newbie), advocated for its inclusion, a trio of veterans including Zero0000, Nishidani and Selfstudier fought back. After Selfstudier accused Shane of being a troll for arguing for the photo’s inclusion, Zero0000, days later, “objected” to its inclusion, citing issues of provenance. Nishidani stepped in to back up Zero0000, prompting a response by Shane. The following day, Zero0000 pushed back against Shane, who responded. The day after, Nishidani returned with his own pushback. The tag-team effort proved too much for Shane, who simply gave up, and the effort succeeded: the photo remains absent" . I'll add that after Selfstudier accused Shane of trolling, Zero0000 appeared on Shane's page and said: "Kindly keep your insults to yourself I won't hesitate to propose you for blocking if you keep it up" {{diff2|1017316378}}. According to the table at the link , these two users cooperated like this 720 times. Probably hundreds of people were embittered, forced out of the project, or led to blocking like me.--] (]) 13:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish}} Hello, thank you very much for transferring my remarks, now I understand how it works. I would like to clarify the issue of meatpuppetry. You directly accused me of such intentions in justifying the block, and now this accusation has been repeated {{diff2|1264013557}}. Let's figure out whether that Selfstudier and Zero0000 are working too closely was so absurd? Was it really and remains so absurd that it could not be perceived as anything other than my self-exposure? I don't think so.</br>
			As for the "edit war" - I understand that edit wars are evil. In the spirit of cooperation, I tried to meet my opponents halfway, as in this case, taking into account their claim, which I could understand, in the counter edit. If such an action is also considered an edit war and a violation of the 1RR/3RR rule - I will of course avoid it in the future.--] (]) 16:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			@Valereee: Hello, I understand your point that edit wars can be disruptive, particularly in a CTOP context. However, I believe it is essential to recognize that not all reverts carry the same implications. While it is true that a revert is a revert, the context and intent behind the action should also be taken into account. In this instance, I made efforts to address the concerns of the other party involved, which reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue rather than simply reverting.
	*The alleged edit-warring on the September 11 attacks article was me attempting to undo a glaring error that resulted from another editor's manual revert of my changes.
			Furthermore, I acknowledge your reference to the 1RR/3RR rule and my history of blocks for edit-warring. However, given the amount of time that has passed, I believe I have gained valuable insights and learned a great deal. Moreover, given this topic, I think I actually learned something unlike the other side, whose history of blocks for edit-warring remains clean.--Nicoljaus (talk) 4:24 am, Today (UTC−5)
	*Claims of tendentious editing in favor of 9/11 conspiracy theories are based on edits I made that were actually less favorable to a conspiracist view.
	*The case I filed against ] was related to articles in the 9/11 topic area and did include serious conduct issues. It was not a frivolous request regarding any "personal dispute" between us nor an attempt to "silence an opponent" to my edits.
			{{re|Valereee}} In response to {{diff2|1264999031||this}}, I can say that I already know very well how carelessly admins impose blocks. If any further statements are needed from me, just ping me. With best regards.--] (]) 09:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	My reason for citing the ] is because ] cited the case as a reason for his position on the MONGO case (the one that resulted in my topic ban). In that respect I would ask that ], who made several comments on the DHeyward case, be considered involved as that case is related to the enforcement action.
			===Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish===
	==== Edit-warring ====
			Absent from the appeal is discussion of the five prior edit warring blocks and any indication that they will not resume edit warring. ] (]) 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	The first substantive allegation raised was by Tom harrison. He claimed that I was edit-warring over a "Warnings" section to the article on 9/11 to "force in" a rewrite I did of the section. This is the initial revert of my changes by A Quest For Knowledge:
			:I said {{tq|They have a long history of edit warring, so I'd like to see that addressed rather than blaming others}} above, twelve days ago. ] (]) 16:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{u|Nicoljaus}}, you should be focusing on convincing people that you won't edit war in the future rather than more ]. ] (]) 13:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Statement by (involved editor 1)===
			===Statement by (involved editor 2)===
			===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nicoljaus ===
	What should be noted about this revert is that it was a manual revert spread over that tried to preserve some of my changes while removing others. The unintentional result was that two of the paragraphs in the section were essentially identical and sourced material about a well-known August memo was removed entirely. Here is exactly what was in the article as a result of this revert with the exact duplication bolded:
			<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 Simonm223====
	{{quote|During the Bush Administration such warnings intensified due to an increase in intelligence from June to July of 2001, called "the threat spike" by ] ]. At a July meeting CIA counter-terrorism chief ] and CIA director ] informed Rice '''about communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. Rice listened but was unconvinced, having other priorities on which to focus. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld questioned the information suggesting it was a deception meant to gauge the U.S. response.'''<br/><br/>In July 2001, J. Cofer Black, CIA's couterterrorism chief and George Tenet, CIA's director, met with Condolezza Rice, the ], to inform her '''about communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. Rice listened but was unconvinced, having other priorities on which to focus. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld questioned the information suggesting it was a deception meant to gauge the U.S. response.'''}}
			looks like a bright-line ] violation via ] and ] - and removing BLP violations are generally somewhere where there is some latitude on ] which makes the actions of Zero0000 and Selfstudier more justified, not less. ] (]) 13:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			====Statement by Aquillion====
	Both paragraphs were clearly the same with minor alterations to the beginning. When I reverted this change I was very clear that I was reverting the duplication of this paragraph: . The editor responsible for the error stepped in to revert a second time by citing WP:BRD and restored the error: . Once more I reverted the error to note that it had also mistakenly removed the information about the August memo as I believe AQFK's revert was not meant to completely remove material about the memo: . At this point Tom harrison reverts it, citing BRD like AQFK did: . However, he quickly notices the duplication and removes it: . A few days later I restored the old structure of the August memo paragraph: . That change was not reverted, unlike the others, suggesting the main objection was simply to the changes I made to the section.
			{{tq|Selfstudier accuses me of 1RR breach. In the dialogue, I explained that the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination. My first undo was part of a counter edit}} - I feel like this is obvious enough that I probably don't have to point it out, but "counter edit" is not a ] / ] exception. Even if you were correct that Selfstudier & Zero0000 were ]ing (always a tricky accusation, because it's hard to separate that from just your edits being so obviously problematic that two people independently reverted them), it ''still'' would not justify your revert. The fact that they're parties to an ArbCom case (which hasn't even yet found any fault with them!) doesn't change any of this. You should probably read ]. --] (]) 14:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	Another note is ] immediately after my first revert that, despite me even suggesting possible problems in advance and seeking to address them, was up nearly four days with many comments from other editors about the need for discussion before anyone other than myself ''actually discussed'' any specific issues with the changes I made to the section.
			====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
	==== Tendentious-editing ====
			"the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination"...yet another conspiracy-minded evidence-free accusation against editors in the PIA topic area, the third one at AE in just a few days. ] (]) 14:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	In suggesting the ban WG claimed I was engaged in tendentious-editing, which is defined as editing that is "partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole" and this was the main allegation of many editors in the case. However, to demonstrate from the above dispute, it is clear these allegations are at best misunderstanding the evidence if not cherry-picking it. One of my to the Warnings section in the 9/11 article changed the characterization of Rumsfield's reaction to certain warnings from "dismissed the information thinking it was a deception" to "questioned the information suggesting it was a deception meant to gauge the U.S. response", which clearly put Rumsfield's reaction in a more favorable light. Then, after Tom an inaccurate quote from Rice, I the accurate quote, which once more put the situation in a far more favorable light. Ironically, a piece of information that was clearly a disservice to a conspiracist POV was actually removed by AQFK's manual revert, and re-added in my subsequent reverts. It is thus very hard to frame my edits regarding that section as tendentious.
			====Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)====
	During the case AQFK noted a separate dispute regarding the 9/11 CT article. Another editor, Ghostofnemo, added a section about the ] program, and AQFK by stating that it was not about 9/11 conspiracy theories. I re-added the section with a sourced sentence establishing the conspiracy theory connection (). Admittedly that was a lazy edit, but it did serve to address the objection. When AQFK reverted it a second time by arguing that this was not a major element of CT's, the matter began being discussed intensely on ]. After a few days of discussion where numerous additional sources were presented to establish this as prominent among conspiracy theorists, I a substantial rewrite regarding the material. While Nemo's version was argumentative regarding the original claims, mine described the original complaint as "claiming the U.S. government was negligent in not heeding the information about the hijackers for fear of the political fallout", which presents a very non-CT explanation for the issue and follows it with "A six-month investigation by the ] was concluded in December of 2006 without finding evidence to support the claims." It is very hard to regard those new additions as tendentiously pushing a CT POV and they were in direct response to concerns raised on the talk page. Contrary to AQFK's characterization of the dispute, that change was described by JoelWhy on the talk page as being "on the right track" though he said more needed to be done to satisfy his concerns.
			===Result of the appeal by Nicoljaus===
	==== DHeyward case ====
	To explain this one requires a bit of context. I had filed ] against Tom because of certain tendentious edits he made to the 9/11 CT article. All three admins that commented rapidly agreed the edits were so severe as to warrant an indefinite topic ban. Several editors, such as MONGO, were greatly displeased with that result and plainly expressed that I should have been sanctioned instead. During a discussion about that topic ban on MONGO's talk page is when MONGO insinuated that I might be a sockpuppet based on a misguided examination of my first edit, if he had looked that hard he would have noticed that all the templates were copy-pasted from a section directly above my edit. That is when DHeyward to suggest that I was a sock of Giovanni33.
	While we had interacted before, his comment at MONGO's talk was the first time his conduct stuck out. Soon after that was the random vexatious delete vote at the AfD mentioned in diff #3 of the case I filed, which on its own was nothing, but clearly set the tone for his later conduct. One thing I did not note in the case is at Timotheus Canens talk page a day prior to filing the AN report to have Tom's ban repealed. His motives for going after me, and its connection with the 9/11 articles were more than clear in that comment. It was my fault for not being clear enough about how DHey's conduct towards me was related to the 9/11 topic area, but there were still several serious issues that any admin should surely have noticed. Particularly, his when appealing for the removal of Tom's topic ban (diff #6 on the case) comparing me to ] should have been a giant red flag for any admin looking over the evidence in the case and I find the failure to notice or comment on it to be a gross lapse on the part of all three admins.
	As noted above, my reason for mentioning this case is because it was explicitly mentioned by Ed as part of his reason for supporting a ban, indeed it constituted most of his comment at the MONGO case. He described the case as being "almost frivolous" and suggested it was an "attempt to silence an opponent", something I think the above clearly illustrates as a gravely mistaken proposition. One of the other admins who commented at the DHeyward case, Timotheus Canens, also subsequently commented at the MONGO case to support the topic ban against me. Amazingly, on that same case pointed to yet another serious conduct issue where he described dealing with me as being "like trying to deal with someone with OCD, Asperberger, paranoia and infinite time on their hands to constantly disrupt the project."
	The conduct issues are all stale, so to be clear my point here is just that I was not trying to "silence an opponent" as Ed suggested. DHeyward's conduct was upsetting me quite a bit as it would reasonably upset anyone and the thought of having to deal with that conduct, not just in the 9/11 topic area, but anywhere I go on Misplaced Pages left me feeling like I had to request admin intervention to have any respite.
	==== Conclusion ====
	Given all the issues above I feel the admins who supported this topic ban were not very thorough in their examination of the situation and were too hasty in suggesting such an action. Honestly, I am not even particularly enthused about the idea of being able to edit in this topic area and will probably only be minimally or tangentially involved in the 9/11 CT dispute for some time should this be lifted, but I all the same would like to see some comment from uninvolved admins about the reasons given for this ban.
	==== Replies ====
	WG, as you were the first uninvolved admin to definitively suggest a topic ban and subsequently several other admins supported your suggestion with you then being the one to implement it, it is reasonable that I would name you above. Now, would you please provide a more substantive explanation of your reasons for suggesting a topic ban and why you think the above does not illustrate any issues with those reasons?--] (]) 05:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	:<s>NW, would you please put your comment in the involved editor section?</s>--] (]) 14:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	Cla, I would rather you not characterize it as a personal dispute. That is not what was happening.--] (]) 01:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	@Cailil, the man compared me to Jeffrey Dahmer. Jeffrey FUCKING Dahmer! A serial killer who murdered 17 people, including two 14 year-old boys, often after raping them and he would sometimes even fuck their corpse and then eat their flesh. To quote the article on this man he compared me to: "''As one officer subdued Dahmer, the other opened the refrigerator and found a human head. Further searching of the apartment revealed three more severed heads, multiple photographs of murdered victims and human remains, severed hands and penises, and photographs of dismembered victims and human remains in his refrigerator.''" DHeyward compared me filing a request for enforcement against another editor for ''repeatedly inserting material that suggested all 9/11 conspiracy theorists hate Jews'' to this serial killer complaining about not getting his preferred '''last meal'''. Any admin who even remotely tries to portray my desire to see a guy like that leave me alone when he keeps following me around on Misplaced Pages as an attempt to escalate a "personal dispute" without me having to hold their hand to show them the obvious has no business holding the bit. For fuck's sake! Once someone throws out the mass-murdering cannibal rapist comparison, I would think any half-decent admin would notice then immediately toss aside all procedural gobbledygook and act like a human being. It was harassment, not a personal dispute. You people have no credibility.--] (]) 14:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	:You just aren't getting it. When someone is being subject to repeated severe personal attacks by someone (being compared to a serial-killing rapist, likened to someone with Aspergers and paranoia, getting called a weasel, and all the other vitriol thrown my way) when the one subject to the attacks has done nothing in kind, that is not a personal dispute. At the top of this page it says, "Not all enforcement requests will show behavior restricted by ArbCom. It may, however, violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines which you may use administrative discretion to deal with." Even if the admins thought I put that case in the wrong place, that is not justification for accusing me of trying to "silence an opponent" and filing a "frivolous" request. You are not making me feel any better about this by endorsing that absurd characterization. --] (]) 16:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	Seraphim, if someone compared you to a mass-murdering cannibal rapist would you not think you had a legitimate reason to want that person to stop following you around and insulting you everywhere he went? How would you feel if that person wouldn't leave you alone and went to other articles you were working on to disrupt your work even when it had nothing to do with the cause of the editor's apparent grievance? I have tried really hard to be civil, but repeatedly treating my report to AE about that behavior like some great sin because it was in the wrong place while acting like the treatment I got was no big deal doesn't leave me feeling very accommodating. Stop obsessing over rules and authority for a moment and consider that the person on the other side of that screen actually has feelings. You shouldn't trample over those feelings with bureaucratic jargon.--] (]) 14:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
	===Statement by WGFinley===
	Not sure why I'm being specifically named here, I was the closing admin moving on a consensus of admins and not independently. That being said, I can't think of a single thing more to add to maintain this ban than TDA has said in his treatise himself. This is a signature case of someone who has a long way to go before contributing in a hot stove area like this. --] (]) 03:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	===Statement by MONGO===
	The Devil's Advocate (TDA, for short) is in his second topic ban on this subject. This second topic ban is only 6 months. The examples listed above by TDA as far as content, clearly demonstrate why he is so difficult to work with in this venue...for TDA, anyone making a slight alteration to his preferred version is then subjected to an endless, mind-numbing talkpage discussion...by the time the discussion is sort of concluded, an entire new archive page is needed. TDA and lots of other folks seem to think the September 11 attacks article is supposed to be a coatrack for every piece of only mildly related information. The primary reason the article is a long way from featured status is due to this issue...anyone trying to misuse the website to promote fringe material over the known facts should seek out a new hobby.] 13:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	===Statement by NuclearWarfare===
	*I would recommend rejection of this appeal. TDA ''is'' a tendentious editor in this topic area, despite his protestations otherwise, and basically every uninvolved administrator who has scanned his edits agrees on that. Discretionary sanctions are meant to allow administrators to use their judgment. While I am obviously ], I would posit that ours was not so totally incorrect that it merits reversal. Furthermore, I see no indication that anything has changed since the March request. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 14:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	===Statement by Toa Nidhiki05===
	Ultimately this boils down to the editor refusing to acknowledge the issues that led to his topic ban, namely, tendentious editing related to 9/11 and 9/11 CTs. There is no reason to believe that the editor would not return to the same editing behavior that got him topic banned in the first place, and there is no reason to believe that the topic ban was incorrect or improper. '''] ]''' 21:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	===Statement by Cla68===
	I don't know if I'm involved or not. I have participated on a few occasions on the talk page of the 9/11 articles, mainly because I was shocked at the hostility and nastiness present in the discussions taking place in those articles, plus the constant edit warring and WP:OWN issues. I have some of the regulars in those articles to tone down the adversarial behavior to some degree, without apparent success. From what I have observed, Devil's Advocate's (DA) behavior in those articles doesn't appear to have been any worse than several other editors, including Tom harrison who was also, albeit briefly, indef topic banned from that topic area.
	There appears to be two issues raised in this request: (1) that DA edit warred and (2) a personal dispute took place between DA and DHeyward. From what I have observed, since that time DA has done a good job at being productive in other areas of Misplaced Pages and has avoided repeats of the same behavior. No one so far during this request has presented any evidence to the contrary. If DA is promising not to revert war or engage in personal disputes, which he appears to be doing, then he should be given the same chance to show it that Tom Harrison was given after his indef topic ban. If DA revert wars or personalizes a dispute, then reinstate the ban. ] (]) 00:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	:Note that a couple of days ago DA to a personal, ad hominem attack. DA let it go without responding. This provides a good example that DA is able and willing not to personalize disputes. ] (]) 01:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	::Response to Mathsci's comment below...the request is , and, in my opinion is a good example of DA engaging in helpful efforts to resolve a situation that was disrupting Misplaced Pages. Mathsci's conduct is under examination in that clarification request, which may have influenced Mathsci's personal attack on DA which I linked to above. Again, note that DA did not respond to the personal baiting by Mathsci. ] (]) 01:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	===Statement by Mathsci===
	The Devil's Advocate's conduct has not been exemplary on wikipedia in the last month. During that time he has engaged in the same type of problematic conduct on RfA/CA pages as that cited when he was topic banned under ]. I had no familiarity with this user prior to July 2012 but there are several aspects of his conduct which do not benefit wikipedia, in particular the large amount of other people's time he wastes on wikipedia. In this particular case, he has wasted arbitrators' time and ignored warnings from individual arbitrators. Apart from enabling banned and topic banned editors, The Devil's Advocate removed a clerk's comments, placed on a user talk page on the instructions of an arbitrator, who later complained of The Devil's Advocate's attempt to "stage manage" events. That persistent kind of ] conduct does not benefit wikipedia. It appears to be a conduct issue: the topic under discussion is seemingly irrelevant. ] (]) 01:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by The Devil's Advocate ===
	===Result of the appeal by The Devil's Advocate===
	:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''		:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
			*I do not see any indication that Nicoljaus actually realizes the problem. The edit warring blocks were indeed some time ago, but one might think they would remember it after being blocked for it repeatedly, not to mention that being issued a CTOP notice might call a CTOP restriction to mind. And the remark in question sure looks to me like a threat to game 1RR via ], too. Given all that, I would decline this appeal. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
			* I see nothing in this appeal that makes me think they've taken on board the changes that they'd need to do to be a productive editor. It reads to me like "my block was bad, here's why", and that's not working as a reason for me to support unblocking. ] (]) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Nicoljaus, what we need to see is you demonstrating you understand edit-warring at a CTOP, which is what you were blocked for, and convincing us you won't do it again. Arguing the block should be lifted because other editors did something you thought looked suspicious isn't going to convince us. <small>Just FWIW, Nicoljaus, the source doesn't actually say {{xt|these two users cooperated like this 720 times}}. It says they edited the same articles 720 times, and that's not unusual. Most editors see the same other editors over and over again in articles about their primary interest. And edit by editor 1>2 days>revert by editor 2>revert by editor 1>20 minutes>revert by editor 3 is also not at all unusual anywhere on the encyclopedia and isn't evidence of tag-teaming. People read their watch lists. Any editor with that article on their watchlist, which is nearly fifty editors, might have investigated the large revert of an edit by an experienced editor at a contentious topic.</small> ] (]) 15:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:@], it's not that edit wars are evil. It's that they're disruptive, and particularly in a CTOP we really really don't need additional disruption and drama. A revert is a revert, even if you {{xt|tried to meet my opponents halfway, as in this case, taking into account their claim, which I could understand, in the counter edit}}. Re: {{xt|If such an action is also considered an edit war and a violation of the 1RR/3RR rule}}: a revert is a revert and is covered in the policy around reversions. And you have a history of blocks for edit-warring, including at other CTOPs.
			*:It's been seven months since the block. I'm trying to come around to a way to at least allow this editor a ''chance'' to show us they've taken this stuff on board...maybe a 0RR at all CTOPs? ] (]) 17:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::@], re {{xt|I believe it is essential to recognize that not all reverts carry the same implications. While it is true that a revert is a revert, the context and intent behind the action should also be taken into account. In this instance, I made efforts to address the concerns of the other party involved, which reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue rather than simply reverting}}. Some editors at talk pages will take your apparent intentions into account. Some will just take you to ANEW. Some admins at ANEW will take your apparent intentions into account. Some will just reblock you.
			*::''No one anywhere is promising that your intentions will be taken into account'' -- or even that they'll try to figure out what your intentions are -- and therefore it's ''completely your responsibility'' to read the situation you're in correctly. If you read it wrong, you're likely to be blocked again, and honestly another block for edit-warring at a CTOP is likely to be another indef, and it would absolutely not surprise me for the blocking admin to require 12 months to appeal. ] (]) 15:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::No need to reply, but I'll tell you plainly I've been trying to give you opportunities to convince other admins here, and you keep wanting to dig the hole deeper. I'd support an unblock with an editing restriction of 0RR at any article with a CTOPs designation on the talk page. ] (]) 13:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
			==PerspicazHistorian==
	*As a sysop who has commented on neither of the cases cited by The Devil's Advocate (TDA) I'll have a look at this. I've gone through the appeal and the previous case (but haven't finished the Dheyward case yet) and at this point I see no grounds for over-turning. I'll have a couple more run throughs before commenting further, but as TDA has based this appeal on the legitimacy of the sanction alone (not any change of his behaviour since it) the grounds are quite narrow--] <sup>]</sup> 14:58, 7 August 2012 (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===
	*I've gone through the whole panoply of this case (including diffs) 3 times now. I will address the substantive matters individually.<br> First, WRT to the Dheyward case, there is nothing in the result and sysop decision relating to that case that is incorrect, inaccurate or in anyway wrong footed. In fact ElenoftheRoads went to lengths to explain why the case had nothing to do with WP:ARB911 and Edjohnston's comment that it was an attempt to use WP:AE as a weapon is a fair reflection of an outside view of the case. <br>Secondly, on the matter of the User:Mongo AE thread, the crux of the ban that was imposed upon TDA was for repeated & long-term ] - this decision was evidenced and had consensus. The ban length was due to its escalation from previous sanction and thus the conduct was viewed as recidivism, in such instances 6 months is reasonable, and again this decision had active consensus. On review I see the imposing sysops' decisions as reasonable. <br>Your conduct got you into this position TDA, the impositions of such bans is reasonable and is covered by the ] in ]. Furthermore this page has a big red box stating very clearly that inappropriate conduct here can and will result in sanction. Your use of WP:AE and by extension arbitration rulings to ''escalate'' the personal dispute between yourself and DHeyward was highly inappropriate, and on review a sanction was the appropriate action. This is a forum for dispute resolution not dispute escalation. <br>Under the terms of this appeal, as requested by TDA on the basis of the legitimacy and probity of the topic ban, I see no grounds to overturn it, and for this reason, and after examination, I'm '''rejecting this appeal'''--] <sup>]</sup> 13:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
			; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|PerspicazHistorian}}<p>{{ds/log|PerspicazHistorian}}</p>
	:*@TDA: Please calm down. Throwing around further insults and ] to the singular point about the DHeyward AE thread isn't helping you, and may make things worse. What DHeyward did is not being exonerated - bringing it all to AE ''is (for the 3rd time) being'' explained to be utterly inappropriate. That is an interpersonal dispute not covered by ARB911 and not a matter for WP:AE. Your refusal to get the point WRT this is only repeating and compounding the behaviour that led to your ban--] <sup>]</sup> 15:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	::*@TDA: If other sysops see it differently they will say so--] <sup>]</sup> 17:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	*TDA, I agree with Cailil, and will add that if you keep heaping abuse on Cailil or anyone else, we won't hesitate to take action regarding that either. You're of course allowed to disagree and to say why, but it's expected you'll do so civilly. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 08:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
	* Support Calil's decision, and suggest TDA take Sreaphimblade's advice to heart. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	== POVbrigand ==
	{{hat|Blocked for a week. ] (]) 21:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)}}
	''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
	===Request concerning POVbrigand===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : ] (]) 23:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|POVbrigand}}
	<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->		<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]		;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
	<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->		<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
	The Arbitration enforcement decision can be found in this diff:
	; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :		; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
	<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->		<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
	#		# - removed "discrimination" sidebar from the page of ] (fascist ideology) even though the sidebar was inserted inside a section, not even the lead.
			# - tag bombed the highly vetted ] article without any discussion or reason
			# - attributing castes to people withhout any sources
	POVbrigand was "indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions related to cold fusion or fringe sciences".
			# - edit warring to impose the above edits after getting
			# - just like above, but this time he also added unreliable sources
	Briefly, POVbrigand's edit to the article on ] violates his or her ban because the page edited is related to the topic of ], and because the reference added is about cold fusion.
			# - 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.}}"
	The article about ] is related to cold fusion because Martin Fleischmann was the senior member of the pair who kicked off the cold fusion furor in 1989, and because much of the article is about cold fusion.
	The source added is about cold fusion because “cold fusion” is part of its title, because most of it is about cold fusion and other supposed free-energy technologies, and because it is non-neutral enough (it takes the point of view that cold fusion is real) that adding it could be considered POV pushing. (There are more neutral articles available such as this and this , which also say much more about Martin Fleischmann.) ] (]) 23:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
	; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :
	<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. -->
	#Informed of ban here , by ], on June 25, 2012.
	#Warned on by ] Here, I warned POVbrigand and suggested that s/he self-revert.
	#Warned on by ] after POVbrigand rejected my warning, I explained in detail why his or her edit violated of his or her ban.
			; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
			<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
			*Already 2 blocks in last 4 months for edit warring.
			;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
	; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :		; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
	<!-- Add any further comment here -->		<!-- Add any further comment here -->
	The discussion at ], shows that POVbrigand does not recognize that s/he violated his or her ban from cold-fusion related topics. ] (]) 23:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
			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)
	; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
			: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)
	Notification is .
			; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
			<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
	<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->		<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	===Discussion concerning POVbrigand===
			===Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian ===
	====Statement by POVbrigand====
			<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 ====
	My motives were only to help by providing a source that was explicitly requested .
			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>
			====Statement by LukeEmily====
	I understand that this is technically an edit of an article under my topic ban.
			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====
	It was explained to me that I should have presented the source I found at the talk page of the editor so s/he could edit it in. I could have done that, it would have saved us this enforcement action. I would use that approach in future, but I am not sure if I am allowed to even talk about "cold fusion" topics on user pages. Can somebody explain if I am allowed to use this proposed flow in future ?
			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)
	I was asked to self revert my edit, but at that time the edit was already edited further by other users. So self reverting would have been "destructive" / disrupitve (cure worse than the illness) and therefore it didn't seem a good approach to me.
			===Result concerning PerspicazHistorian ===
	It was highlighted here that I only made 2 edits since the topic ban. I would like to highlight that that is very much in line with my normal frequency of editing in the years before I stumbled upon cold fusion early 2011. I do not see any relevance in bringing that up here.
			:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
			{{u|PerspicazHistorian}}, can you explain your understanding of ] and the ] rule? I'd like you to read thoroughly enough to also explain wny someone may be edit warring ''even if they aren't breaking 3RR''. ] (]) 21:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	I am sorry for the disturbance. I have no problem to accept with whatever Arbcom will sanction.
			<!-- 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)
			*<!--
	However, I would kindly ask Arbcom to define how serious this violation was, because I expect that many editors will use this forfeit in their argumentation to keep me topic banned in case I would like to ask for a lift of the ban in the future. --] (]) 12:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
			-->
			==Walter Tau==
	@EdJohnston "my explanation makes no sense" - did you actually look at the edit I made ? After Cardamon suggested I self revert and I got back to the article this had happened in the mean time - How can I self revert when all these editors build upon this edit ? Tell me why my explanation "doesn't make sense" --] (]) 15:52, 8 August 2012 (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 Walter Tau===
			; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Bobby Cohn}} 20:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Walter Tau}}<p>{{ds/log|Walter Tau}}</p>
	WOW - I just realized that the comment from Cardamon above makes absolutely no sense ''"(There are more neutral articles available such as this and this , which also say much more about Martin Fleischmann.)"'' Those articles where not yet available when I found and provided the source.
	To finalize my comment:
	*I acknowledge that it was a violation of my topic ban
	*I regret that I did it
	*I did not want to self revert because many edits had happened in the mean time, otherwise I would have taken that deescalation step.
	*I will strickly adhere to the topic ban from now on.
	*I am truly sorry that it caused this enforcement request. I apologize.
	*I meant no harm, I only wanted to provide help.
	--] (]) 17:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	====Comments by others about the request concerning POVbrigand====
	A clear violation of the topic ban. It does not matter what POVbrigand added or deleted from the ] biography; the whole thing was off limits to him. Fleischmann is, you know, the godfather of cold fusion. ] (]) 00:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	The edit was unambiguously a violation of the topic ban, wherein POVbrigand was "'' indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions related to cold fusion or fringe sciences''". The biography in question was ]'s (one of two scientists who started the whole cold-fusion kerfuffle in 1989), the edit added a source with the title ''The State of the Cold Fusion Market''. Instead of immediately proceeding with enforcement of the topic ban, Cardamon generously offered POVbrigand the opportunity to self-revert, and Cardamon (and Gaijin42, and SteveBaker) made good-faith efforts to explain to POVbrigand why his edits were inappropriate. After close to two days of POVbrigand continuing to fail to 'get it', Cardamon brought the matter here.
	I will note, in passing, that POVbrigand has made only two edits to article space since his ban was enacted on 25 June: one to the article of financier , and the current topic-ban-violating . This wasn't an inadvertent slip by an otherwise-productive editor; in the roughly six weeks since his ban was imposed, he was only able to make ''one'' constructive edit outside the topic of his ban.
	At this point, POVbrigand has received ample &ndash; indeed, extensive &ndash; opportunity to avoid sanction for his edit. While in many circumstances this board tends towards lenient, short blocks for 'first offenses', it is apparent that in ''this'' case POVbrigand either truly does not understand the scope of his topic ban, or he is deliberately ignoring it. In the former case, POVbrigand just isn't ] to edit here; in the latter, strong measures should be taken to discourage further disregard for the community's decision on this case. Either way, a substantial block would be appropriate. ](]) 02:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	General agreement with the above, although I will note that I think the original ban was overbroad, not allowing him to discuss the topic even on user talk pages. However, if that is the general standard for such bans then I guess its normal. ] (]) 17:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	:That is the general coverage of a topic ban. Considering how many articles there are on wikipedia, it should be easy to avoid breaking a topic ban. ] (]) 21:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	I think clarification is also needed if possible: Is POVbrigands comments on the MfD of his own subpage which is about Cold Fusion, covered by the topic ban? i.e here ]. ] (]) 21:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	Errrr, I am one of the editors who changed his edit, thus preventing him from self-reverting. Lesson learned. Next time I'll revert the editor, then make a new edit with my edits, making clear the text is now my sole responsibility.
	POVBrigand has already said that he won't do it anymore. Next time he sees a problem, he can leave a note to Blade of the Northern Light, or send me an email. At this point, I think that there is nothing that a block would prevent, so it's getting into "punitive" territory. This time the rules have been set much more clearly. If he breaks them again, just block him then. --] (]) 20:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
	===Result concerning POVbrigand===
	<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
	:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
	*A week, perhaps? ] (]) 03:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	*I agree that a one-week block is reasonable. Someone whose conduct has been sufficient to earn a topic ban at ] ought to be careful. The editor declined to self-revert. In answer to his question above, he is banned from the topic of cold fusion on talk pages also. So unfortunately there was no way he could have got that reference into the article except by leaving a note for the admin who imposed the sanction, ]. He should be aware that he is free to appeal any time he is willing to reveal his previous accounts. ] (]) 15:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	== Pristino ==
	''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
	===Request concerning Pristino===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : ] ] 14:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Pristino}}
	<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->		<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	;Sanction or remedy to be enforced:		;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
			<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
	] - ] was banned from editing certain articles (like ]), was reminded to provide adequate edit summaries, is limited to one revert per article or other page per 30-day period, and an admin may ban him for up to a month if found using a verifiable sockpuppet. There were also 2 prior cases ] & ]. Some additional known ban-evading sockpuppets are ], ], ], ] and ].
	<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
	; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :		; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
	<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->		<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
			# Creation (and subsequent editing and AfC submission) of ]. See it's page history, there's no need to supply the entirety of the diffs here.
	* Establishing Pristino as the current sockpuppet of Cantus (and CieloEstrellado as interim sockpuppet)
			#* For context on how this subject falls under the purview, see the context given by the news article as shared on the talk page: Russia using adoption of Ukranian children during the Russo-Ukranian war.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Bruce |first1=Camdyn |title=Ukrainian official rips Russia for 'kidnapping' more than 13,000 children |url=https://thehill.com/policy/international/3775681-ukrainian-official-rips-russia-for-kidnapping-more-than-13000-children/ |work=The Hill |date=14 December 2022}}</ref> Then note how this state program directly discusses adoption support, which was adapted by Putin following the start of the war. A citation given in the draft article.<ref>{{cite news |title=Путин подписал закон, уточняющий условия выплаты материнского капитала |url=https://www.interfax.ru/russia/937864 |work=interfax.ru|trans-title=Putin signs law clarifying conditions for payment of maternity capital}}</ref> The version specifically notes the changes "At the same time, residents of the '''''new regions''''' will receive maternity capital '''''regardless of the basis and timing of their acquisition of Russian citizenship'''''" (emphasis mine).
	*# {{User-full|Cantus}} edited almost exclusively on articles related to Chile and various lists related to country populations and economies. Here are examples of some articles that are highly edited by Cantus, Pristino, and CieloEstrellado (notice how their first and last edits dovetail): , , , , to name only a few.
			#:This draft, as it is written, is extremely promotional in areas and could basically be hosted on a state-sponsored website. Given the context, I believe this falls under the topic ban.
	*#] - Cantus "leaves" Misplaced Pages after recieving a for being found using a sock puppet to evade other editing restrictions.
			{{reflist-talk}}
	*# - {{User-full|CieloEstrellado}} begins editing on the same topics as Cantus.
	*# - CieloEstrellado is blocked for edit warring on ] and posts a "]" message. CieloEstrellado's actual final edit is later on ] to revert ].
			; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
	*# - {{User-full|Pristino}} begins editing on the same topics as Cantus, CieloEstrellado, and other known sockpuppets.
			<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
	*# - Pristino updates ] which was created by Cantus.
	*# - Pristino updates ] which was created by Cantus and also updated by CieloEstrellado while he was active.		# Notice given by {{admin|Rosguill}} that they were now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
			# Blocked by {{admin|Swatjester}} for violating the sanction based on the edits to a project page.
	*Pristino (Cantus) has violated specific page ban on ] (and ).
	*Pristino (Cantus) continues to ], especially for major changes.
	*Pristino (Cantus) maintains his hawklike vigilance over the pages that interest him, reverting without explanation, and often reverting multiple times per month in violation of prior ArbCom remedy. Citing only a couple very recent examples:
	*# ] was reverted by Pristino 3 times in August: , , . This page has also had a couple of move wars (, ) which he and then to "win".
	*#] was reverted by Pristino 3 times in July: , ,
	*#] was reverted by Pristino 6 times in July: , , , , ,
	*#] was reverted by Pristino ~10 times in July/June over the entry for Hong Kong in the list ().
			;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
	; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :
			<!-- 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. -->
	<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. -->
			*Has been made aware, see the diffs in the above section.
	This is (I think) the first time that its being revealed that Pristino is Cantus, there've been no warnings related to his specific Arb Com restrictions. Creating a new sock puppet to evade bans and those ArbCom remedies is a flagrant act in itself.
	#Warned on about edit summaries by {{user|Diego Grez}}		*Alerted about contentious topics as it applies to this specific draft, on by {{admin|Asilvering}}, given a warning about this specific draft and how it falls under the above purview.
	#Warned on about edit summaries by {{user|Chzz}}
	#Warned on about edit summaries by {{user|Neon Sky}}
	#Warned on about revert warring by {{user|Neon Sky}}
	; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :		; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
	<!-- Add any further comment here -->		<!-- Add any further comment here -->
			It has been repeatedly pointed out to Walter Tau that they are skirting the line of the their topic ban by specifically not mentioning the "elephant in the room", see the diff by Asilvering above. They have also repeatedly chosen to ignore advice that they stop editing in the subject area and have repeatedly claimed to fail to see how their editing is problematic. As such, I have opened this discussion here so as to get an answer for Walter Tau on their editing, see They claim to continuously be unaware of the ban, see also their talk page discussions.
	Pristino is the latest name in a long series belonging to the editor Cantus, who was the subject of 3 prior arbitration cases. Every time one of the harsher bans is imposed, this person creates a new account and begins to do precisely the same activity they were banned for. In exposing this, it is my hope that his status as a sockpuppet becomes documented and well known, that he be held to the same restrictions and remedies of the previous cases, or perhaps that his disregard for those previous cases by creating new sockpuppets will result in an even more permanent remedy. ] ] 14:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
	; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :		; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	I have about this. ] ] 14:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)		Notified .
	<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->		<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	===Discussion concerning Pristino===
	====Statement by Pristino====		===Discussion concerning Walter Tau===
			<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 Walter Tau====
	====Comments by others about the request concerning Pristino====
			I feel, that the decision by ] regarding my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Maternity_capital, is "arbitrary and capriciuos" to use US legal terms : ], for the following reasons:
			1) nowhere my draft mentions the words "Ukraine" or "Ukrainian".
	===Result concerning Pristino===
	<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
	:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
			2) this draft ] is a translation of the original Russian wiki- article : https://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB . I have heard the argument, that different languages in Misplaced Pages use different standards for articles' notability etc. Can someone please provide a web-link to Misplaced Pages rules, that actually confirms, that different standards for different languages is the currently accepted policy. I have been unable to find such statement.
	==Alssa1==
	''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
			3) In fact, my draft focuses mostly on the policies before 24 February 2022, i.e. before full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine.
	===Request concerning Alssa1===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 13:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
			4) Please correct me, if I am wrong, by it seems that ]'s only argument of my ban violation is the following statement in my draft of ].
	; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Alssa1}}
			"Residents of new regions are paid maternity capital regardless of the time and basis for obtaining Russian citizenship." In my defense: I did not write that statement- it is a Google translation from the Russian wiki, actually a small part of the translated text. And with all honesty, when I was reading the translated text, it did not cross my mind, that someone may interpret so broadly. Also, this sentence-in-question does not really add much to the main subject to the article, and I do not object to its deletion.
	<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
			5) Considering, that
	;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
			a) I did not write, but only translated the text-in-question;
	<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
			b) the relevance to the text-in-question to my topic ban is not apparent, particularly in the larger context of the whole article;
			c) I do mind deleting the text-in-question from the draft;
			may I suggest changing the draft to fix this controversy?
			6) If there are other controversial sections/sentences in my translated draft, it may be better if someone re-writes them. Most wiki-readers, can agree with a statement, that this draft ] may not reach an "Article of the Day" status, but it has a value as a stand-alone article as well as a source of references (more-to-be-added).
	; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
			] (]) 13:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->
	# Revert #1
	# Revert #2, within 24 hours of the first
	# Revert #3, within 24 hours of the first
			====Statement by (username)====
			<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
			===Result concerning Walter Tau===
	; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :
			:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
	<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. -->
			<!-- 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. -->
	#Warned on by {{user|Domer48}}
			*Sidestepping for now the question of whether simply not mentioning anything conflict-related would have been enough to avoid a TBAN violation, the references to "new regions" make this a violation much more straightforwardly. Justice is blind but not stupid. Walter, I think we're going to need to see recognition from you that this was a TBAN violation, if we're going to find a good path forward here. I'd also like to know who you are referring to when you reference other editors working on the draft? ] has made some gnomish edits but you appear to be the only substantive editor. And why are you implying, on Bobby's talk, that y'all have been corresponding by email, when he denies that? <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 22:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I'll be direct: I think Walter knows what he is doing and has no intention of abiding by his TBAN, , and I don't think we should be wasting further time here when we're almost certainly going to be right back here again within a few weeks. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 05:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			<!--
	; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :I made the editor aware of the 1RR which the instantly removed. They have been inserting their opinion into the article, without using the talk page at all. With all the nonsense going on at the moment, this is very disruptive and flouts both 1RR and the Arbcom who instated it to prevent editwarring.
			-->
	*The editors comments below, after blanking some of the report suggest that they are well aware that they violated the 1RR. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 14:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
	*Having , the editor made the following comment which I removed while . I replaced their comments noting its removal. The editor now claims . With the arrival of the same two editors here and their offers of support and the suggestion of yet again oops my bad, followed by their ] and ] I'll simply allow the report to take its natural course. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 14:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
	*It appears that the editor seems intent on escalating this dispute by targeting other and .--<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 17:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
	<!-- Add any further comment here -->
	; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
	<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	===Discussion concerning Alssa1===
	==== Comments by Alssa1 ====
	====Comments by others about the request concerning Alssa1====
	====Statement by Flexdream====
	It seems to me that Alssa1 has broken 1RR. I suggest they be advised by an admin of the rule, warned not to breach it again, and asked to open a section on the relevant talk page to discuss the proposed edit. Then I suggest that this case is closed and we all go back to what we were doing before.--] (]) 13:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
	:Relevant article talk page amended for discussion ]. I suggest this AE now be closed as above.--] (]) 14:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
	::Domer has accused me of "offers of support and the suggestion of yet again oops my bad, followed by their assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks" ]. Where have I done any of that? Quite the contrary. --] (]) 14:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
	:::@KillerChihuahua. I think Alssa just doesn't know how the system works. I've found them responsive to guidance]. There is now a discussion there which I started, and the 2 editors are participating ]. Although either editor could have started this earlier, I think it might be an idea to see how that goes before imposing any sanctions. Regards. --] (]) 13:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	====Statement by Son of Setanta====
	I agree with Flexdream. Here we have an ordinary Wikipedian being set upon by a known gamer who has raised more 1RR requests than I've had hot dinners. There has been no discussion on the article talk page about this and no attempt to guide Alssa1, just a bludgeoning by 1RR. As someone who fell victim to the very same trick once I would appeal to sysops to issue guidance rather than a ban. The Misplaced Pages experience needs to less stressful otherwise we will lose some good editors when they stray into contentious zones they have no experience of. ] (]) 14:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
	====Comment by A Quest for Knowledge====
	I'm not really following this dispute closely, but I am disturbed that Alssa1 is marking (some) contentious edits as "minor". Contentious edits should not be marked as minor. ] (]) 18:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
	===Result concerning Alssa1===
	<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
	:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
	* I note with some concern that '''Alssa1''' has removed the notification of this discussion at least twice without making it clear whether he or she plans to respond. Has the need to respond been made clear? Are we certain Alssa1 is aware that non-response will almost certainly lead to more serious sanctions? If we have no response here from the editor, we must assume that the editor is not taking this seriously and has no plans to cease any possible problematic behavior. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	*In addition to the concerns KC brings up, Alssa1 also attempted to blank a part of this request: . Choosing to attempt removal of the request, rather than response to it, does not give me a lot of confidence that a warning alone will do any good here. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	*: Thanks for posting that, I did not see that. This does give me pause. I will attempt to explain the seriousness of this to Alssa1. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	*: I have left a notice . ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 08:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	==SonofSetanta==
	''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
	===Request concerning SonofSetanta===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 14:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|SonofSetanta}}
	<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
	<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
	; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
	<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->
	# Revert #1 To their preferred version
	# Revert #2, within 24 hours of the first. Again to their preferred version.
	*"''...reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of any editors.''"
	; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :
	<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. -->
	#Previously blocked under this remedy.
	#Subject of a report currently being discussed above and who violated additional 1RR sanction while that report is still open.
	; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :There really is not much more to say about this editor. At the mediation discussion they misrepresented sources on two occasions, again at the DNR were they filed another report they were told there that they were using ] and despited the diff they editor claims that they did not say it?
	*Arbcom will notice when looking at the edits just how contentious they are, and likewise just how disruptive the actions. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 15:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	*The editor is again being very misleading by suggesting , it was not, quite the opposite infact. The edit because of its contentiousness.--<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 15:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	@The Blade of the Northern Lights: The IRA has called a complete cessation of military operations but have not disbanded. Dissident republicans have used this vacuum to initiate a military campaign in a challenge to the IRA in what some would call a futile attempt to get the IRA to react i.e. Bring down the peace process in Ireland. Maybe your understanding of the issue would dictate your reasoning. Regardless, 1RR is an Arbcom imposed sanction, and this is a violation of that sanction. The third in fact in the last number of days, by an editor who has been sanctioned 3 times already. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 15:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	<!-- Add any further comment here -->
	; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
	<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	===Discussion concerning SonofSetanta===
	====Statement by SonofSetanta====
	This is not a 1RR violation. The content within the revert is one word - just one word and it refers to a piece within the article which clearly states that my revert is correct and I quote that on the revert. This complaint is frivolous and shows that the complainant is policing my activities on Misplaced Pages. The 1RR rule was established to stop edit warring on these articles, not to stop editing on them. Self revert carried out whilst complaints procedure is under way and subject introduced to talk page for discussion. ] (]) 14:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	I might also add that my revert on this article was both on a new day (for me) and as part of a larger rewrite which I have announced on the talk page whilst inviting others to take part. ] (]) 14:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	The complainant is attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill. He has studiously ignored the fact that ] (]) and I are engaged in meaningful discussion regarding the article and that he has tidied up other edits I made on the page yesterday which I have not modified in any way. If Domer wishes to join the discussion on the article talk page then his opinions could be noted. He has chosen to make contentious comments however trying to damn particular editors (mostly me). I don't feel I'm being shown much in the way of good faith here. ] (]) 15:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	'''To all visiting sysops:''' Before taking my block list into consideration I invite you to examine the complainants block list here ]. while he may have modified his behaviour recently he is refusing to acknowledge the help, guidance and chances he had from various sysops and denying me, the less experienced user, the chance to modify any aberrant behaviour which has been committed incidentally to my good intentions when editing. In fact he has been on my case since the day I joined the wiki. Notwithstanding that I have not yet even revisited the article where I had so much difficulty in October 2011 and January 2012. ] (]) 15:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	====Comments by others about the request concerning SonofSetanta====
	===Result concerning SonofSetanta===
	<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
	:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
	*I have to agree this strikes me as making a mountain out of a molehill; I'm really not seeing it here. ] (]) 15:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
	* Concur, and remind complainant that sanctions can and do occur for frivolous complaints, and advise s/he be less hasty to run here next time. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 14:46, 25 December 2024

"WP:AE" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:AE (disambiguation).

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
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 WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives v t e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346

M.Bitton

M.Bitton is warned against casting aspersions and reminded to abide by WP:CIVIL. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2024 (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 M.Bitton User who is submitting this request for enforcement XDanielx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested M.Bitton (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 I'll limit this to WP:CIVIL related issues for now, since they're easiest to evaluate with minimal context. 2024-12-09 xDanielx being disingenuous again (what they mean by "no explanation" is "no explanation that they agree with") 2024-12-08 casting aspersions to justify your disruptive editing is about as low as it gets ... this is extremely disingenuous ... made-up rules and demands to satisfy you 2024-12-08 please don't make-up another rule ... maybe that's because you only see what you want to see (partly struck per admin request) 2024-12-01, 2024-12-01 Misplaced Pages is not a collection of every piece of alleged garbage 2024-11-18 When someone keeps misrepresenting the sources (again and again), then I will rightly assume disingenuousness 2024-11-18 I'm starting to question your motives 2024-11-18 Please refrain from repeating your lies (edited to You're being extremely disingenuous. You misrepresented the sources (clearly to push a POV) 2024-11-15 I don't take lessons from those who misrepresent the sources and edit war over WP:OR 2024-11-15 please don't attribute your nonsense to me (this is totally unacceptable) 2024-11-15 Bobfrombrockley is busy adding whatever garbage they can find 2024-11-15 you've been very busy adding whatever garbage you could find to the article 2024-11-15 Do you expect me to explain to you what "freedom of expression" is? 2024-11-14 I'm done wasting my time with this nonsense ... Your self-serving opinion is irrelevant 2024-11-12 offensive humor Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any I'm not aware of CTOP sanctions. The block log seems to show four blocks, but they're not that recent and I'm not sure how relevant they are. If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Was a subject of a previous ARBPIA AE request. Made a couple other statements in ARBPIA AE requests: 2024-12-06, 2024-12-08 Additional comments by editor filing complaint Another 15 diffs were (rightfully) removed by an admin for exceeding the diff limit as well as falling outside PIA scope; just mentioning for transparency. They might be relevant on a different forum but admittedly not here. — xDanielx /C\ 16:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC) @Theleekycauldron: I planned to file something after the "garbage" comments (about BobFromBrockley) on Talk:Al-Manar. I reconsidered after being surprised by M.Bitton's diplomatic compromise there. Admittedly M.Bitton's comments in the thread above prompted me to reconsider again, but that wasn't about the fact that I might receive a warning there (irrespective of M.Bitton's participation); it was just about me personally being on the receiving end of some personal attacks. I don't really follow why me being emotionally affected by the conduct would affect the legitimacy of the report. Most of the incivility was directed at other users, and letting this conduct continue wouldn't seem fair to them. — xDanielx /C\ 16:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 2024-12-09 Discussion concerning M.Bitton 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 M.Bitton Not content with edit warring, assuming bad faith and casting aspersions (see #xDanielx), they now decided to go even lower and file a retaliatory report. M.Bitton (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC) @Vanamonde93 and Ealdgyth: I just want to draw your attention to their aspersions casting tag-team revert (their edit summary, while striking it, leaves no doubt about they believe) and the fact that they falsely accused me: of ignoring their ping (when I was logged out) and reverting without an explanation (when, in fact, I did provide one). M.Bitton (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC) @Ealdgyth: I agree and will make sure that doesn't happen in the future, regardless of what's coming the other way. I should know better than let myself take the bait, but lesson learnt nonetheless. M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC) @Valereee: sure. M.Bitton (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning M.Bitton This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. This is shamelessly and obviously a retaliatory filing, and I'm leaning towards a one- or two-way interaction ban to stop the back-and-forth sniping. But I'd still draw uninvolved admins' attention to this thread and ask what their thoughts are. That seems like pretty battleground-y behavior to me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I see it as a bit retaliatory, but we do need to stop this sniping, especially at AE and other such venues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC) Yeah, a logged warning sounds like enough to me, given their responses so far. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC) Yes, this is retaliatory, and at the same time, M. Bitton's language is not acceptable. Bad behavior should be addressed at an administrator noticeboard, or in a civil post to a user talk page, not with what SFR accurately describes as sniping. I would log a warning for casting aspersions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I agree with SFR and Vanamonde93 that the language used does not help the topic area at all. I don't know if M.Bitton's had a long history of logged warnings before (I'm a bit busy trying to get the farm ready for an artic clipper coming in) but I'm fine with a logged warning. But the filer should be aware that they need to also try to avoid retaliatory-filing look in the future... Ealdgyth (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I'm not happy about Daniel's behavior (but will try to find time to look at it in the earlier filing to avoid getting this one off track) but, M.Bitton, your comments are not just sub-par, but not at all what editors should be directing at others. An acknowledgment of that and working to avoid that in the future is something you need to seriously consider if you're not going to end up sanctioned in the future. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I also think a logged warning should be adequate here, particularly given the limited sanctions history and the commitment to do better in the future. Personally I'm not bothered by the timing of this report in light of xDanielx's explanation, although it's wise to avoid even the appearance of retaliation when you're at AE. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I don't disagree that this is retaliatory, but that doesn't moot the issue. M.Bitton does tend to approach editing in a battleground-y way, and their language often escalates rather than de-escalates. I'd very much like you to start using de-escalating language, M.Bitton. Can you discuss that? Valereee (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC) I meant can you discuss it here, but maybe I wasn't clear. Valereee (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Have not read this but will note that xDanielx is at their word limit. Daniel if you want to post anything else please get an extension first from an uninvolved administrator. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC) Comment to stave off the bot. Looks like the proposed resolution here is a warning for battleground behavior, does that still seem the way to go? Seraphimblade 09:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC) A logged warning, sure. Valereee (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Agreed, and I also agree we should put this to bed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Ethiopian Epic

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 Ethiopian Epic

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tinynanorobots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ethiopian Epic (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/Yasuke

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

1. November 14th created during the Yasuke case and went active when it ended. First 11 edits were to Government of Japan. In one case three edits were used to write one sentence.
2. November 12 Manually reverted the lead back to how it was in September.
3. November 16 Falsely Claimed cited material was OR. (G
4. November 24 Falsely Claimed cited material was unsourced
5. November 24 It took an ANI report to get him to use the article talk page. His defense was accusations and denial.
6. November 23 He reverted to a version that went against consensus established on the talk page and contained a falsely sourced quote.
7. November 25 Engages in sealioning
8. November 29 Removes a well sourced line from Yasuke as well as reverted an edit that was the result of BRD. He has now started disputes with me on all three Yasuke related articles.
9. November 30 starts disputing a new section of
10. December 2 Brought again to ANI, he claims that I didn't get consensus for changes, even though I had discussed them on talk prior to making them.
11. December 4 He keeps mentioning ONUS, and asking me to discuss it, in response to me discussing.
12. December 9 Used a non-controversial revert to hide his edit warring.
13. December 11 did the same thing on List of foreign-born samurai in Japan.
14. December 11 He also repeatedly complains that he doesn't like the definition because it is vague and claims that his preferred version is "status quo"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

[

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on December 1 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am not sure if this is actually a AE matter, but was told to go here by multiple admins. The biggest issue is the Editing against consensus on accompanied by bludgeoning. However, there are signs of bad faith editing on all three pages where I have interacted with EE. It could also be a CIR issue or it could be some sort of harassment. I don't know. I just know that EE first avoided providing clear reasons for reverting edits and has been trying to engage in Status Quo Stonewalling. He keeps citing Onus or Burden and asks me not to make a change until the discussion is over. Often, this doesn't make sense in context, because the change was in place. He has made false claims about sources and what they say. His editing on Yasuke is not so much a problem as the discussion which comes across as gaslighting.

@User:Red-tailed hawk, I am not an expert on proxies or socks. All the IPs have only posted on the one article and have advocated an odd definition for samurai, that doesn't apply to the article. All except the first one have just reverted. It is possible that this is just laziness, or lack of confidence in writing skills etc. After all, the false citation was added by another user and was just kept. I found the latest one the most suspect, in part because of it first reverting to the incorrect definition, before restoring most of the text and second because of falsely citing policy. I am not sure if they are proxies, but I hoped that someone here would have the expertise to know. I don't think the proxy evidence is the most important. EE is either acting in bad faith or has CIR problems. The later is possible, because he thanked City of Silver during ANI, although City of Silver has been the harshest critic of EE's behaviour towards me.

I think there should be some important context to the quote: "those who serve in close attendance to the nobility". The quote can be found in several books, on Samurai it is sourced to an article published in Black Belt Magazine in the 80s by William Scott Wilson, where he describes the origin of the word samurai. He is describing the early phases of its meaning in that quote, before it became to have martial connotations. It also refers to the time before 900. The earliest foreign samurai on the list was in the late 1500s. It also doesn't apply to most of the persons on the list. Finally, it is not mentioned in Vaporis's book, which EE keeps adding as the source. He hasn't even made the effort to copy the citation from Samurai.

@User:Eronymous

Not only did I have a dispute with Symphony Regalia about samurai being "retainers to lords", but also on Yasuke about "As a samurai" and on List of Foreign-born Samurai in Japan EE made the same reverts as SR. EE had with his first edit in all three articles continued a dispute that I had already had with SR.

@User:Ethiopian Epic I actually don't have a problem with you discussing things. Your talk page posts aren't really discussion though. Your main argument on all three pages has been a shifting of the burden of proof. You don't really discuss content and continually ask me not to make changes without discussing first, and then make changes yourself. I understand that your position is that your preferred version is the status quo. However, my edits regarding the definition on List of Foreign-born samurai in Japan , were discussed and consensus was clearly gotten. Similarly, my edits on Yasuke were discussed, and even though I didn't use the exact same version as Gitz said, Gitz had suggested using warrior instead of bushi, so I used samurai, because I thought it would be less controversial.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Ethiopian Epic

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 Ethiopian Epic

This is clear retaliatory filing because I recently didn't agree with Tinynanorobot's edits against RFC consensus, and because I made talk page sections on some recent edits.

@Eronymous That's not true and you are a very obvious alt account with only 26 edits. No one gave you a notification of this discussion and it's not on the Yasuke talk page. This suggests you are the sock puppet of someone here. Your post is also misleading and incorrect it wasn't an insertion. The line you are talking about in Samurai has been there for over 10 years and is normal. I know because I've read it before. Here is a version from 2017 that still has it. I don't understand why you are misrepresenting edits and using an alt account.

@Red-tailed hawk I think he is just fishing. That's why he removed his IP claims. Even his other diffs are just mislabeled regular behavior. It's amusing because Eronymous is the likely alt of Tinynanorobots or someone posting here. I think the way Tinynanorobots edits against clear consensus, skips discussion, and then files frivolous ANI/AE reports with misleading narrative like above is disruptive. Discussion is an easy solution and benefits everyone. I hope he will respect RFC consensus.

Statement by Relm

I am largely unfamiliar with the account in question, but I do frequently check Yasuke. I believe that EthiopianEpic has displayed a clear slant and battleground mindset in their editing in regards to the topic of Yasuke, but that their conduct on the Yasuke page itself so far has generally been in the ballpark of good faith edits. The revert on December 9th was justified, and their topic on November 29th is well within bounds (though I acknowledge that the background of their prior disputes on other pages with Tinynanorobots shows it may be edit warring) given that the two things being reverted was a change that seemed to skirt the prior RFC with agreement being given in a very non-direct way, and the other portion being an addition which had not been discussed on the talk page prior to its implementation (though previous discussions ered on the side of not including it). I am not accusing Tinynanorobots of any misconduct in any part of that either.

What I will note is that in addition to the sockpuppet IP allegations made by Tinynanorobots, I wanted to lodge that the posting style of EthiopianEpic, as well as their knowledge of much of the previous discussions on the page deep in the archive, led me to suspect that they were an alt of User:Symphony_Regalia. I never found anything conclusive. Relm (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223

These two editors have been tangling at WP:AN/I repeatedly. Last time they came there I said that this would likely continue until a third party intervened. And then the thread got archived with no action (see AN/I thread here) so I'm not surprised that the two of them are still tangling. There is evidence that both editors have engaged in a slow-motion edit war. Both have claimed the other is editing against consensus. Here I will say that it appears TinyNanoRobots is more correct than Ethiopian Epic. Furthermore, while neither editors' comportment has been stellar, as other editors have pointed out, it appears more that EE is following TNR about and giving them a hard time than the alternate. . In the linked AN/I case (above) you'll note EE attempted a boomerang on TNR and was not well-received for the effort.

Frankly my view is that both editors are not editing to the best standards of Misplaced Pages but there is definitely a more disruptive member of this duo and that is Ethiopian Epic. I think it would probably cut down on the noise considerably if they were encouraged to find somewhere to edit which was not a CTOP subject and if they were encouraged to leave TNR alone. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Eronymous

Similar to Relm I check on the Yasuke page every so often, and it seems very likely given the evidence that User:Ethiopian Epic is an alt of User:Symphony_Regalia created to evade his recent ArbCom sanctions, having started editing the day prior to the Yasuke case closure. Of note to this is the last edit of Symphony_Regalia on Samurai was him attempting to insert the line "who served as retainers to lords (including daimyo)" - curiously enough, Ethiopian Epic's first edit on Samurai (and first large edit, having just prior made 11 minor ones in a short timeframe to reach autoconfirmed status) is him attempting to insert the same controversial line that was reverted before.

Symphony_Regalia has a history of utilising socks to edit Yasuke/Samurai related topics and is indefinitely blocked from the .jp wiki for extensive sockpuppetry (plus multiple suspected IPs) for this.

Prior to being sanctioned Symphony Regalia frequently got into exactly the same arguments concerning wording/source material with User:Tinynanorobots that Ethiopian Epic is now. One could assume based on their relationship that he is aggrieved that Tinynanorobots was not sanctioned by ArbCom during the case and is now continuously feuding with him to change that through edit warring and multiple administrator incidents/arbitration requests in the past few weeks. Eronymous (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Nil Einne

I was ?one of the editors who suggested Tinynanorobots consider ARE in the future. I did this mostly because after three threads on ANI with no result, I felt a change of venue might be more productive especially since the more structured nature of ARE, as well as a likely greater concern over low level of misconduct meant that some outcome was more likely. (For clarity, when I suggested this I did feel nothing would happen from the third ANI thread but in any case my advice being taken onboard would likely mean the third thread had no result.) I did try to make clear that I wasn't saying there was definitely a problem requiring sanction and also it was possible Tinynanorobots might themselves end up sanctioned. Since a topic ban on both is being considered, I might have been right in a way. If a topic ban results, I'd like to suggest admins considered some guidance beyond broadly constructed on how any topic ban would apply. While the entirety of the Yasuke article and the list of foreign born samurai stuff seem clear enough, one concern I've had at ANI is how to handle the editing at Samurai and its talk page. A lot of the recent stuff involving these editors seems to relate to the definition of samurai. AFAIK, this is generally been a big part of the dispute of Yasuke (he can/can't be a samurai because it means A which was/wasn't true about him). Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning Ethiopian Epic

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

• I've never been very impressed with retaliatory filings, and the one below is no exception. I will also note that I'm never too impressed with "must be a sock" type accusations—either file at SPI or don't. In this case, though, I think Yasuke would be better off if neither of these two were participating there. Seraphimblade 19:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  Red-tailed hawk, what are your thoughts after the responses to you? Seraphimblade 16:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think that it would be declined if it were an WP:SPI report and the editor should be mindful not to throw sock accusations around willy-nilly going forward. But I typically don't see any sort of sanction imposed when someone makes a bad SPI report, particularly if they're newer or aren't quite clueful yet. So I don't see much to do on that front other than tell them that we need more specific evidence of socking when reports are made than merely shared interest, particularly when the IPs are scattered across the world. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm still inclined to topic ban both these editors from Yasuke, but would be interested in hearing more thoughts on that if anyone has them. Seraphimblade 07:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• I also generally don't like "might-be-a-sock"-style accusations; when we are accusing someone of sockpuppetry by logged out editing we typically need evidence to substantiate it rather than just floating the possibility in a flimsy way. Filer has provided several diffs above as possible socks, but each of those IPs geolocates to a different country (Germany, Norway, and Argentina respectively) and I don't see evidence that any of those IPs are proxies.@Tinynanorobots: Can you explain what led you to note the IP edits? Is it merely shared interest and viewpoint, or is there something more?— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Looking at this .... mess... first, I'm not sure what actually was against the ArbCom decision - I don't see a 1RR violation being alleged, and the rest really appears to me to be "throw stuff at the wall and see if it sticks". But, like Seraphimblade, I'm not impressed with either of these editors actual conduct here or in general. I could be brought around to supporting a topic ban for both of these editors in the interests of clearing up the whole topic area. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• @Tinynanorobots: you are well above the 500 word limit. Please request an extension before adding anything more. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Tinynanorobots

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 Tinynanorobots

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

EEpic (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Tinynanorobots (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/Yasuke

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

1. 09:21, 14 November 2024. Tinynanorobots removes As a samurai from the lead text and replaces it with signifying bushi status against RFC consensus (There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification).
2. 17:12, 15 November 2024. Tinynanorobots removes who served as a samurai from the lead text and adds who became a bushi or samurai against RFC consensus (There exists a consensus against presenting Yasuke's samurai status as the object of debate).
3. 12:43, 20 November 2024. On List of Foreign-born Samurai, Tinynanorobots removes the longstanding definition and adds This list includes persons who ... may not have been considered a samurai against RFC consensus (There exists a consensus against presenting Yasuke's samurai status as the object of debate).
4. 07:48, 23 November 2024. Tinynanorobots reverts to remove As a samurai in the Yasuke article after Gitz6666 opposes at , again ignoring WP:ONUS.
5. 03:13, 4 December 2024. I restore and start a talk page discussion so that consensus can be formed.
6. 14:10, 6 December 2024 . Tinynanorobots, when consensus fails to form for his position, becomes uncivil and engages in a sarcastic personal attack What you are saying doesn't make sense. Perhaps there is a language issue here. Maybe your native language handles the future differently than English?
7. 14:22, 11 December 2024. Tinynanorobots removes "As a samurai" again, ignoring WP:ONUS and BRD even though no consensus has formed for his position, and no consensus has formed to change existing consensus.
8. 08:37, 6 December 2024. Tinynanorobots explains their reasons, I don't know if samurai is the right term which is against consensus.
9. 07:27, 28 November 2024. POV-pushing - With no edit summary Tinynanorobots tag bombs by adding Slavery in Japan.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 23:06, 13 November 2024.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Tinynanorobots frequently edits against consensus, restores his edits when others revert, doesn't wait for consensus, and engages in feuding behavior. He seems to think WP:BRD or WP:ONUS don't apply to him which is disruptive, and I don't know why.

Unaccounted removals of sources 23:44, 14 September 2024 - Warning from other editor about repeated removal of content when multiple users are objecting.

AGF 12:21, 15 September 2024 - Warning from yet another editor about not assuming good faith and making personal attacks

It seems to be chronic which suggests behavior problems. Tinynanorobots also frequently fails to assume good faith in others. I don't know why as I don't have any issues with him.

Their preferred edit for Yasuke against the RFC consensus is now still in the lead section.

@Relm Sorry for the confusion. I think we talking about different edits, so I'll adjust that part. I am referring to Tinynanorobot's repeated removal of As a samurai against RFC consensus, which states There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

18:40, 12 December 2024

Discussion concerning Tinynanorobots

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 Tinynanorobots

The accusations made by EE are so misleading as to be evidence against him. Most of what he is discussing is in reference to a successful BRD. I actually discussed the bold edit first on the talk, but didn't get much of a response. I decided a bold edit would get more feedback. The edits were reverted and then discussed. Gitz's main problem was OR, not a RfC violation. This was because he didn't read the cited source. Anyway, since Atkin says "signifying bushi status", I have no objection to restoring this text.

I never used any sarcasm, I know that some languages handle how they talk about time differently. It seems reasonable that a translation error could be the reason for EE asking me not to change the article, althoug my edit had already been restored by someone else and at the same time asking me to discuss that I had already discussed and was already discussing. I am disappointed that EE didn't point out that he felt attacked, so that I could apologize.

This was written in response to another user, and the whole thought is I don't know if samurai is the right term. It is the term a fair amount of sources use, and the one that the RfC says should be used. It is also consistent with common usage in reference to other historical figures. In fact earlier in that post I said this: I am not qualified to say whither or not Yasuke having a house meant that he was a samurai This is blatantly taking a quote out of context in order to prejudice the Admins against me.

@User:Ealdgyth I filed here, because the last time I filed at ANI it was suggested that I bring things here if things continue by an Admin. I try to follow advice, although I keep getting conflicting signals from Admins. I am most concerned that you find my work on Samurai and List of Foreign-born Samurai in Japan not adding anything helpful. My suggestion to rewrite the way samurai was defined on the List in order to reduce OR and bring it in line with WP:LSC was meant with unanimous approval by those who responded. Samurai is a high importance article that has tags on it from years back, is unorganized and contains outdated information. I am not the best writer, but I have gotten some books, and am pretty much the only one working on it.

I just thought that the Admins here should know about the ongoing SPI

Statement by Relm

I am the editor alluded to and quoted as 'protesting' Tinynanorobots edit. When I originally made that topic, I was fixing a different edit which left the first sentence as a grammatically incomplete sentence. When I looked at it in the editing view, one of the quotes in the citation beforehand was quoting Atkins Vera, and I mistook this for the opening quote having been changed. When I closed the editing menu I saw 'signifying samurai status' in the second paragraph and confused the two for each other as I had not noticed the addition of the latter phrase a little under a month ago. I realized my mistake almost immediately after I posted the new topic, and made this (1) edit to clarify my mistake while also attempting to instead direct the topic towards making sure that the edit recieved sufficient assent from Gitz (it did) and to talk about improvements that could be made to the opening sentence. I further clarified and made clear that I was not accusing Tinynanorobots of having done anything wrong in a later response (2).

Though many of their earlier edits on the page may show some issues, as they grew more familiar with the past discussions I believe that Tinynanorobots has made valuable contributions to the page in good faith. Relm (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Barkeep49

• @Ealdgyth I think this misinterprets the ArbCom decision. So Yakuse is a contentious topic and it has a 1RR restriction, in the same way as say PIA. As in PIA administrators can sanction behavior that violates the contentious topics procedures besides 1RR. Beyond that, editing against the RFC is a finding of fact from the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tinynanorobots

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

• As above, I'm failing to see what exactly is against the ArbCom case rulings - I don't see a 1RR violation. But also as above, I'm coming to the view that neither of these editors are adding anything helpful to the topic area and am leaning towards a topic ban for both. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier

No evidence of misconduct was presented. Filer Allthemilescombined1 is informally warned against frivolous filings. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 02:36, 19 December 2024 (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 Selfstudier User who is submitting this request for enforcement Allthemilescombined1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Selfstudier (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/Palestine-Israel articles 5 Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 16 October 2024 Concern for WP:CIVIL violation when Selfstudier told me on my talk page: “enough now.This is a warning to cease and desist with the WP:ASPERSIONS and general unhelpfulness at the Zionism article.” 3 November 2024 Selfstudier dismissed my source ISBN 9798888459683, with “Bernard-Henri Lévy is not an expert on Zionism or colonialism”. 3 November 2024 Selfstudier dismissed my source Adam Kirsch ISBN 978-1324105343 “does not appear to be an expert in Zionism or Settler colonial studies but is apparently well known for a pro Israel viewpoint". These dismissive comments are uncivil. 6 December 2024 Concerning for possible WP:GAME and WP:NOT ADVOCACY violations. Editors with one POV swarmed RM:6 December 2024 and closed it immediately for SNOW. Selfstudier immediately archived parts of this discussion, including my comments, while leaving the parts that supported their POV. 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) Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic. Additional comments by editor filing complaint On I/P topics, my edits on numerous occasions have been reverted almost immediately, by Selfstudier and their fellow editors who seem to be always hanging around I/P, and "owning" the topic area. They are creating a hostile editing environment and are violating NPOV. Concerns for possible WP:CIVIL and WP:TENDENTIOUS violations: Abo Yemen dismissed my reasoned arguments as “feelings”:8 December 2024 RolandR dismissed the author of "Saying No to Hate: Overcoming Antisemitism in America", ISBN 978-0827615236, as a “non-notable children’s writer”:3 November 2024 Zero told me “We should stick to history books and not cite emotional polemics”. 3 November 2024 Concerns for possible WP:GAME and WP:NOT ADVOCACY violations: Smallangryplanet accused me of WP:SYNTH and reverted my edits as irrelevant to the article on Holocaust inversion: 2 December 2024 whereas the article, prior to vandalism, resembled: Nableezy added that the only material that can be relevant to the aforementioned article is that which compares Israel to Nazi Germany, ignoring that such comparisons are antisemitic.2 December 2024 Levivich asked me “Why are these academic sources relevant to the discussion? How did you select them?” and added “I won’t bother reading the other two, I'll assume they also say the same thing that everybody else says.” (referring to Katz, Segev, and Goren)3 November 2024 Valeree wrote “If you'll read this talk page rather thoroughly so that you can bring yourself up to speed, you'll probably find fewer editors making sarcastic remarks about your suggestions.” 16 October 2024 Concerns for possible WP:ASPERSIONS violations: Sean.hoyland accused me of “advocacy and the expression of your personal views about the real world” 8 December 2024 and told me to see MOS:TERRORIST 7 August 2024 and accused me of violating WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTADVOCACY:8 December 2024 Sameboat wrote: "Please take extra attention to this recent ECU whose edits to I-P articles look rather deceptive to me".11 December 2024 Concerns for possible WP:TAG TEAM violations: Sameboat wrote on my talk page about Gaza genocide, though they were not involved in the earlier discussion, warning me about WP:NOTFORUM RM:6 December 2024.9 December 2024 Selected examples of my edits which were reverted within hours or minutes (this list is far from comprehensive): 11 December 2024 by Butterscotch Beluga claiming vandalism against a University of Michigan regent was irrelevant to pro-Palestine protests because it happened off campus; 24 November 2024 by Zero arguing that an egregious antisemitic incident 'fails WP:WEIGHT by a mile' 2 December 2024 by Abo Yemen removing my additions to Palestinian perspectives comparing Israel to Nazi Germany from a section on exactly that; along with 24 November 2024 and 2 December 2024 by Smallangryplanet; 1 December 2024 by AlsoWukai removing the disappearance of the ANC's $31 million debt when South Africa accused Israel of genocide. In summary, I have experienced a pattern of consistent, and what appears to be organized, intimidation from a small group of editors. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning Selfstudier 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 Selfstudier Statement by Sean.hoyland I see I've been mentioned but not pinged. That's nice. I encourage anyone to look at the diffs and the context. Why are there editors in the topic area apparently ignoring WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTADVOCACY? It's a mystery. It is, and has always been, one of the root causes of instability in the topic area and wastes so much time. Assigning a cost to advocacy might reduce it. Either way, it needs to be actively suppressed by enforcement of the WP:NOT policy. It's a rule, not an aspiration. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by Butterscotch Beluga I didn't say it was "irrelevant to pro-Palestine protests" as a whole. The edit I reverted was specifically at 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses, so as I said, the "Incident did not occur at a university campus so is outside the scope of this article". We have other articles like Israel–Hamas war protests & more specifically Israel–Hamas war protests in the United States that are more in scope of your proposed edit. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by Huldra I wish the filer would have wiki-linked names, then you would easily have seen that Bernard-Henri Lévy "is not an expert on Zionism or colonialism”, or that Adam Kirsch “does not appear to be an expert in Zionism or Settler colonial studies but is apparently well known for a pro Israel viewpoint", Huldra (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by RolandR I too have been mentioned above, and complained about, but not been notified. If this is not a breach of Misplaced Pages regulations, then it ought to be. As for the substance, I see that I am accused of describing Norman H. Finkelstein as a "non-notable children’s writer". Norman H. Finkelstein was indeed a children's writer, as described in most reports and obituaries. At the time of the original edit and my revert, he was not considered sufficiently notable to merit a Misplaced Pages article; it was only a week later that the OP created an article, of which they have effectively been the only editor. So I stand by my characterisation, which is an accurate and objective description of the author. Further, I was concerned that a casual reader might be led to confuse this writer with the highly significant writer Norman Finkelstein; in fact, I made my edit after AlsoWukai had made this mistake and linked the cited author to the genuinely notable person. This whole report, and the sneaky complaints about me and other editors, is entirely worthless and should be thrown out. RolandR (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000 This edit by OP is illustrative. It is just a presentation of personal belief with weak or irrelevant sources. I don't see evidence of an ability to contribute usefully. Zero 00:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by Sameboat It is clear that the filer has failed to understand my message, which was a warning about repeated violations of the NotForum policy. Instead, they have misinterpreted my actions, as well as those of others, as part of a coordinated "tag team." I raised my concerns on User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish after the filer's edit on the UNRWA article regarding its controversy, which failed to properly attribute the information to its source—the Israeli government. This filing is a complete waste of time, and serious sanctions should be imposed on the filer if similar issues occur again in the future. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by AlsoWukai Contrary to the filer's complaint, I never made an edit "removing the disappearance of the ANC's $31 million debt when South Africa accused Israel of genocide." I can only conclude that the filer misread the edit history. AlsoWukai (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by Valereeee The diff allthemiles links to above is me responding to their post (in which they complained about a mildly sarcastic remark by another editor) where they said, "If respectful discussion is not possible, administrative involvement will be needed." I've been trying to keep up at that article talk, so I responded giving them my take on it. I tried to keep engaging, trying to help them understand the challenges for less experienced editors trying to work in the topic, offering advice on how they could get up to speed at that particular article, even offering to continue the discussion at their talk or mine. Valereee (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC) @Liz, editors working in PIA are brought here often and bring other editors here often for various reasons, and it doesn't always mean a given editor is problematic. For instance, the particular appearance you're referring to was brought here by a suspected sock of an LTA. I've seen admins working here who don't work in PIA wonder if the fact someone is brought here often or brings others here often means that editor is a problem, and I get why it feels like some issue with that editor has to be a factor, but in my experience it isn't usually. Some of the best editors working in that area are brought here for spurious reasons, and also need to bring other editors here for valid reasons. And some of the worst offenders there avoid AE. Valereee (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Result concerning Selfstudier This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. While I'm on record as saying that the topic area could us more civility from editors, I'm failing to see anything actionable against the editor filed against here. There's an edit from Oct that isn't great but not even begining to get into my "not civil" category. Then there's a perfectly civil statement about a source from 3 Nov (Hint - "Bernard-Henri Lévy is not an expert on Zionism or colonialism" is exactly the type of discussion that SHOULD be taking place in a contentious topic - it's focused on the source and does not mention any editors at all. The full comment "There is nothing to suggest Bernard-Henri Lévy is an expert on Zionism or colonialism. As I said, it is rather simple to find a source saying what you want it to say, whether that's a WP:BESTSOURCE is another matter." is still quite civil and focused on the source - nothing in this is worth of sanctioning....) The other statement from 3 Nov is also focused on the merits of the source. The fact that it isn't agreeing with your source analysis does not make it dismissive nor uncivil. Frankly, it's quite civil and again, what is expected in a contentious topic - source-based discussion. The comment from 6 Dec is also not uncivil. The rest of the filing is not about Selfstudier and is instead an excellent example of (1) throwing a whole bunch of diffs out hoping something will stick to someone and (2) an example of why filings in this area often turn into huge messess that can't reach resolution. This is supposed to be a filing about Selfstudier's behavior - instead most of it is about a grab-bag of other edits from many other editors, and frankly, seems to be motivated by the filer feeling that they aren't being taken seriously enough or something. I'm not going to read any of these diffs because they are not about the editor you filed against and my time is worth something and we should not reward abuse of this process by this sort of grab-bag-against-everyone-that-disagreed-with-an-editor filing. The only reason I'm not going for a boomerang against the filer is that they have only been editing for about six months and this is the first AE filing they've done. Let me suggest that they do not file another one like this - it's a waste of admin time. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC) I second Ealdgyth's reading. The presented diffs against Selfstudier are not actionable, and a lot of the complaint is not about Selfstudier at all. I don't believe the filing alone is grounds for sanction on the filer, but if someone wishes to present more evidence against them I suggest they do so in a separate report. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC) I stumbled into this by accident and I don't do these requests anymore, but I wonder if filer should edit outside the subject area until they have much more experience in WP:BRD and dispute resolution.YMMV. Best-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Another case on this editor was just closed a week ago, is there any relation between this filing and issues brought up in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive345#Selfstudier? It seems like some editors are brought to AE on a weekly basis. Liz 08:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Rasteem

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 Rasteem

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NXcrypto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Rasteem (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. 23:21 12 December 2024 - removed wikilink of an Indian railway station thus violating his topic ban from India and Pakistan.

This violation comes after he was already warned for his first violation of the topic ban.

Upon a closer look into his recent contribution, I found that he is simply WP:GAMING the system by creating articles like Arjan Lake which is overall only 5,400 bytes but he made nearly 50 edits here. This is clearly being done by Rasteem for passing the 500 edits mark to get his topic ban overturned.

I recommend increasing the topic ban to indefinite duration. Nxcrypto Message 03:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

"topic banned from the subject of India and Pakistan, broadly construed, until both six months have elapsed and they have made 500 edits after being notified of this sanction."

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 agree that there are genuine CIR issues with Rasteem, for example while this ARE report is in progress they created Javan Lake, which has promotional statements like: "The lake's stunning caluts, majestic desert topographies, and serene lakes produce a shifting destination. Its unique charm attracts a wide range of guests, from adventure contenders to nature suckers and beyond". Nxcrypto Message 03:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Rasteem

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 Rasteem

This approach seems to be a coordinated attack to abandon me from Misplaced Pages indefinitely. Indeed, after my ban for 6 months. I was banned on 6 December, and in just 7 days, this report is literally an attempt to make me leave Misplaced Pages.

1. I rolled back my own edit; it was last time made unintentionally. I was about to revert it, but my internet connection was lost, so when I logged in again, I regressed it.

The internet is constantly slow and sometimes goes down. I live in a hilly location and I had formerly mentioned it.

My edits on Arjan Lake isn't any WP:GAMING factual number of edits I made; it is 45, not 50. Indeed, I made similar edits before in September and December months on the same articles within a single day or 2-3 days.

2. List of villages in Khoda Afarin on this article, I've added 5680 bytes & made 43 edits.

3. List of villages in Tabriz on this article I've added 4000 bytes & made 49 edits.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Rasteem

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

• While I don't see a change in editing pattern that indicates gaming, the edits to Arjan Lake indicate issues with competence, as the article is weirdly promotional and contains phrases such as "beast species", "emotional 263 proved species". —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Adding to Femke's point, magnific 70- cadence-high waterfalls in this area is not prose that inspires confidence in the editor's competence to edit the English Misplaced Pages. So, we have violations of a topic ban and questions about the editor's linguistic competence and performance. Perhaps an indefinite block appealable in six months with a recommendation to build English competency by editing the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and to build general Misplaced Pages skills by editing in the version of Misplaced Pages in the language they speak best during that minimum six month period. As for Arjan Lake, although the prose is poor, the references in the article make it clear to me that the topic is notable, so the editor deserves some credit for starting this article that did not exist for two decades plus. Cullen328 (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

שלומית ליר

שלומית ליר is reminded to double-check edits before publishing, and to try to reply more promptly when asked about potential mistakes. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2024 (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 שלומית ליר User who is submitting this request for enforcement Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:48, 15 December 2024 (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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 10:23, 13 December 2024 claiming a source supports something it never mentions Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any N/A 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 5 April 2023 (see the system log linked to above). Additional comments by editor filing complaint The user wrote that NATO had supported accusations against Hamas citing a chapter titled Hamas and Human Rights in a book titled Hamas Rule in Gaza: Human Rights under Constraint. They cited the entire chapter, pages 56–126. The source itself is a work of scholarship, and nobody would challenge it as a reliable source. Luckily, the full text of the book is available via the Misplaced Pages Library, and anybody with access to that can verify for themselves that the word "shield" appears nowhere in the book. Not human shield, or even NATO (nato appears in searches with the results being "explanatory, twice and coordinator once, or Atlantic, or N.A.T.O. It is simply made up that this source supports that material. The user later, after being challenged but declining to answer what in the source supports it (see here), added another source that supposedly supports the material, this paper by NATO StratCom COE, however they themselves say they are not part of the NATO Command Structure, nor subordinate to any other NATO entity. As such the Centre does not therefore speak for NATO, though that misunderstanding is certainly forgivable. However, completely making up that a source supports something, with a citation to 70 pages of a book, is less so. That is to me a purposeful attempt at obfuscating that the source offered does not support the material added, and the lack of any attempt of explaining such an edit on the talk page led me to file a report here. nableezy - 23:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC) It’s a matter for AE because violations in a CT topic are AE matters and I’ve previously been told to come here instead of AN(I). What sanction? I don’t think there’s any action more serious than making up something about a source, so I’d say it would be anywhere from a logged, and first only, warning to a topic ban. The second sourcing issue isn’t a huge deal, but the first one, the diff im reporting, is IMO such a severe violation that it merits a sanction. I don’t think this is simply misrepresentation, it is complete fabrication. They cited 70 pages of a book without a quote, to a link that doesn’t have the text. Without the Misplaced Pages Library this would have been much more difficult to check. This is going back a while, but this was a similar situation reported here. If there had been some explanation given on the talk page I wouldn’t have reported this here, but the wholesale fabrication of claiming that a source that never mentions the topic supports some material was ignored there. nableezy - 14:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC) I want to be clear, I am not claiming any sanctionable behavior in the second diff. I only brought it up to say that rather than address the fabrication in the first one they simply attempted to add some other source. They have as yet not addressed the diff I am reporting here. I am only claiming an issue in that diff citing the book chapter for a book that never even says the word shield in it. nableezy - 19:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC) According to WikiBlame, the insertion of that source was here, the diff I've reported. As far as I can tell no other user has introduced that source on that page. The revision that the user below says has the sources they took from in the article's edit history is after the insertion of that source by that user. If there is some prior revision showing that source being used for that statement then I'd withdraw my complaint, but that does not appear to be the case. nableezy - 19:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC) If that is indeed reproducible then I suggest this be closed with a reminder, not a logged warning, to check the output of any tool more thoroughly. And answer questions about your edits when raised on the talk page instead of ignoring them. nableezy - 19:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Just noting that I verified the bug in the VE sandbox as well. Had I been told of that sequence when I asked about the edit I obviously would not have opened this request. nableezy - 18:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified 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 The article "Use of human shields by Hamas" is intended to address a well-documented phenomenon: Hamas’s deliberate use of civilian infrastructure — homes, hospitals, and mosques — as shields for its military operations. This includes hiding weapons, constructing military tunnels beneath civilian populations, and knowingly placing innocent lives in harm’s way. Yet, I found the article falls far short of adequately describing this phenomenon. It presents vague and generalized accusations while failing to reference the numerous credible organizations that have extensively documented these practices. During my review, I discovered that essential sources were available in the article's edit history (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Use_of_human_shields_by_Hamas&oldid=1262868174). I retrieved and restored these sources without reverting prior edits, including a source referenced by user Nableezy. When it was brought to my attention that an error had occurred, I acknowledged it, thanked the user, and corrected it by incorporating two reliable references. I had hoped this would resolve the issue, but apparently, it did not. Now, I find myself the subject of an arbitration enforcement hearing that feels not only unwarranted but intended to intimidate me from contributing further to this article. I would also like to point out that the responses to my edits raise serious concerns. For instance, an image depicting missiles hidden in a family home — an image used in other Wikipedias to illustrate this topic — was removed. This raises the question: why obscure such critical evidence? Similarly, a scholarly source with credible information that emphasizes the severity of this issue was reverted without clear justification. This article should serve as a thorough account of Hamas's war crimes, which have resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians. Instead, it seems that some editors are working to dilute its substance, resisting efforts to include vital context and documentation at the start of the article. This undermines the article’s purpose and risks distorting the public’s understanding of an issue of profound international importance.שלומית ליר (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC) I want to add that what Nableezy’s accusation is a complete misrepresentation (and, at times, distortion) of the sequence of events. A reference was mistakenly carried over from a previous editor, and once it was pointed out that it lacked the necessary supporting quotes, I removed it myself. I find it difficult to accept that failing to respond immediately to an inquiry regarding a removed source (and good faith attempt to find a sufficient replacement) equates to misrepresentation. I strongly believe that using this forum to imply such a thing, based on the actual facts here, is a misuse of the process. To the arbitrators: I want to ensure the sequence of events is clear, so I request permission to strike through extraneous elements in my initial response, if necessary, to include more technical evidence while staying within the 500-word limit שלומית ליר (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC) (moved from V93's comment) It’s simple. If you copy the reference from the previous version: 'Hamas' use of human shields in Gaza' (PDF), NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, and add it using the automatic reference tool, it changes it to: Mukhimer, Tariq (2013), Hamas and Human Rights, Hamas Rule in Gaza, New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 56–126, ISBN 978-1-349-45658-1, retrieved 2024-12-17. This is an innocent error caused by the Wiki program itself. You can try it and see for yourself. Where it led and what Nableezy allowed himself to do is a story by itself that demands investigation שלומית ליר (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC) While I see your point, the issue here was indeed caused by a bug in the 'Add a Cite' tool on automatic mode. I suggest you take the time to verify this before jumping to far-reaching conclusions. . שלומית ליר (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Thanks for checking it out and confirming; I appreciate it. שלומית ליר (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Moved comment to own section. Please comment only in this section. Seraphimblade 23:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC) True, and I would most definitely will check next time. שלומית ליר (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by Supreme Deliciousness Valereee created the article Politics of food in the Arab–Israeli conflict. She is therefor involved in the topic area and shouldn't be editing in the uninvolved admin section.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2024 (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. Please forgive my ignorance, but what specific sanction are you requesting and what exactly makes this possible interconnected source misrepresentation a matter that needs AE? Is the information removed (I'm assuming it is). Is this a long-term pattern? The filing even admits that the second instance is understandable given the name of the group putting out the source. I would be more concerned if this was a continuing problem - are there other recent instances of this editor possibly misrepresenting a source? And I'm still not sure that source misrepresntation is something that falls under AE's remit, rather than just something that could be dealt with at ANI or AN? Not saying no, but I'm not sure we need the big gun of AE for this just yet. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC) I'm not sure I'm ready to (1) take a 2011 discussion as binding in 2024 and (2) decide unilaterally that "violations in a CT topic are AE matters". Sorry, but I'm not that much of a cowboy (despite the cowboy hat in my closet and the western-trained horses in my paddock). I'm not trying to be difficult and not at all trying to minimize the severity of source misrepresentation - but I do not see where this topic area has sanctions authorized for that specific behavior - civility and aspersions yeah, but I'd like to see what other admins think. I also would like to see if שלומית ליר has any statement to make (while noting that not replying here is a very bad look for them). Ealdgyth (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC) I would agree with Nableezy's view regarding jurisdiction, and was under the impression that this was already standard practice. AE is intended to address disruptive editing in designated contentious topics--source misrepresentation is definitely disruptive editing even if it was not specifically a matter of issue for the parties to ARBPIA4. signed, Rosguill 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC) I'm perfectly happy to be shown that it's a matter for AE, I've just not seen it dealt with that I can remember (bearing in mind that I'm not as young as some other folks and can forget things) and I don't see it mentioned in the CT topics bits or in the case pages referred to. I prefer to err on the side of caution in these matters. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC) To my reading it would be directly justified by Misplaced Pages:Contentious_topics#Arbitration_enforcement point 2: ...requests for an individual enforcement action against aware editors who engage in misconduct in a contentious topic signed, Rosguill 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC) Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive331#Crampcomes is a report where I ~recently sanctioned for source misrepresentation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry - but I find this explanation ... not quite believable. Nableezy is saying that the Mukhimer source was introduced with this diff by you. You claim that "If you copy the reference from the previous version: 'Hamas' use of human shields in Gaza' (PDF), NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, and add it using the automatic reference tool, it changes it to: Mukhimer, Tariq (2013), Hamas and Human Rights, Hamas Rule in Gaza, New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 56–126, ISBN 978-1-349-45658-1, retrieved 2024-12-17." What automatic reference tool? And even if the tool is malfunctioning - you are responsible for your edits - especially in such a fraught topic area. Looking at the diff in question its pretty clear that the first citation is listing the author as "Mukhimer" which should have clued you in (if indeed the automatic tool is a problem) that there was an issue. And when Nableezy raised this issue on the talk page - you didn't actually try this explanation or even any explanation, you just replied "I thought you noticed and understood that I had updated the references." which is deeply concerning that you did not consider the fact that you inserted references that did not support the material (and yes, I did do a rapid read/skim of the Mukhimer work's chapter that was in that citation - the chapter is mostly concerned with Hamas' internal governance and human rights record. I saw nothing discussing human shields or even the war with Israel in that chapter (the chapter does discuss Hamas' actions against Gazans that Hamas accuses of spying/etc for Israel, but nothing about actual military conflict)). The lack of collaborative explanation and the seeming unconcern about the issues brought up are making me lean towards a topic ban, frankly. I apologize that it took me a while to circle back to this - yesterday was a day of small things breaking and needing to be taken care of and I didn't have the time in the afternoon that I expected to revisit this. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC) And add yet one more reason to not use VE.... if its some weird bug, then yes, a warning is sufficient. But, really, you need to double check when you use tools to make sure that there are not bugs (and yes, Visual Editor is buggy...) Ealdgyth (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC) I've gone on record saying that I consider source misrepresentation to be some of the most disruptive conduct in a contentious topic - it is insidious in a way that calling another editor names is not. That does not mean I support sanctions by default, but I do think we need to take such a report seriously. A lot depends on the specific circumstances - the second instance above seems like a very easy mistake to make - but I would like to hear from שלומית ליר. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC) שלומית ליר, I would like to see a specific response to Nableezy's evidence about where you got your source, so please go ahead and strike or collapse parts of your original statement (please don't remove anything entirely). NB; we are (mostly) administrators enforcing arbitration decisions here, not arbitrators ourselves. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC) I agree with Vanamonde that source misrepresentation is disruptive on its face, and the first time I see it, AGF is pretty much gone. Valereee (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC) I agree that if this was a bug -- which is really concerning -- then a logged warning is overkill, especially given this editor's inexperience. Valereee (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC) I'm not sure what "automatic reference tool" is being referred to here, but I'm generally not impressed with "It was the tool's fault." Editors are responsible for the edits they make, and while of course there's no problem with using tools to help, the editor, not the tool, is still responsible for ensuring that the final result accurately represents the sources which are cited. Overall, I'd tend toward Ealdgyth's line of thinking; source misrepresentation is an extremely serious form of misconduct and must under no circumstances be tolerated. Seraphimblade 15:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC) שלומית ליר, it has now been necessary on several occasions to move your comments to the proper section from other editors' sections or this one. Do not comment outside your own section again. Seraphimblade 09:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Above stuff out of the way, if this actually is reproducible, it may be wise to check Phabricator to see if such an issue has been reported—chances are pretty good this isn't the only time that bug will bite. I'm good with a logged warning to more carefully vet the output of automated editing tools before making the edit, given that. Seraphimblade 09:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Isn't a logged warning a bit too much for not catching a bug? I'd rather go for a reminder as Nableezy suggests. Will check Phab or open a new phab ticket when I've got a bit more time. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC) I still don't love the whole thing, but it seems that most people want to just do an informal reminder, so I've got no strong objection (of course, as long as the bug actually does get reported, if it's not been already.) Seraphimblade 17:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC) To my surprise, it's true that copying that text into VE's automatic citation formatter gives this output. Most absurd bug I've ever seen. Of course it's an editor's responsibility to check if the citation is correct, but this is not something you might think to check for, especially as a newer editor. While intentionally misrepresenting a source is highly disruptive, I don't think this weird error is sanctionable. I would like to give User:שלומית ליר one piece of advice for editing a contentious topic like this: always use edit summaries (you can change your settings so that you're warned if you forget them). That can help reduce misunderstandings. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC) I agree with Femke about how to resolve this request, including the advice to check things and to use edit summaries. I am also extremely concerned about the bug-created citation issue and wonder where is the best place to request that the error be investigated and fixed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

KronosAlight

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 KronosAlight

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Butterscotch Beluga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

KronosAlight (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/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

1. 14 December 2024

• Adds "depiste being an ex-Muslim" to dismiss accusations of Islamophobia MOS:EDITORIAL.
• Adds MOS:SCAREQUOTES around ‘promoted Islamophobia’ & ‘Islamophobia’ while removing the supporting context.
• Changed "interpreted that statement as a threat and incitement to violence" to "claimed was a threat and incitement to violence, though no threats or violence in fact occurred" MOS:CLAIM & MOS:EDITORIAL

1. 14 December 2024 - MOS:TERRORIST

• Changes "Israeli settlers" to "Israeli soldiers" despite the source only explicitly stating them "throwing stones on settlers."

1. 14 December 2024 - MOS:TERRORIST
2. 14 December 2024 - MOS:TERRORIST

• Unnecessarily specific additions that may constitute WP:POVPUSH such as adding "against civilians" & changing "prevent the assassinations of many Israelis" to "prevent the assassinations of many Israeli civilians and soldiers"

1. 14 December 2024 - MOS:TERRORIST

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 24 June 2024 Warned to abide by the one-revert rule when making edits within the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.
2. 22 October 2024 Blocked from editing for 1 week for violating consensus required on the page Zionism

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 22 October 2024 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 24 January 2024.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

All edits were made at Mosab Hassan Yousef. After I partially reverted their edits with an explanation, I brought the issue to their attention on the talk page, asking for their rationale. They replied that they were "correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors" & asked if I "perhaps have a deeper bias that’s influencing decisions in this respect?"

They then undid my partial revert

Ealdgyth - While I can't find any comments where they were explicitly "warned for casting aspersions", they were asked back in June to WP:AGF in the topic area.

Also, apologies for my "diffs of edits that violate this sanction" section, this is the first time I've filed a request here & I thought it'd be best to explain the preamble to my revert, but I understand now that I misunderstood the purpose of that section & will remember such for the future. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 I was able to find a copy of the opinion article being cited 'They Need to Be Liberated From Their God'. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning KronosAlight

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 KronosAlight

This is a complete waste of the Arbitration Committee’s time.

1. That Yousef was born and raised a Muslim is important and neutral context for readers to be aware of when the article refers to claims of ‘Islamophobia’.

2. The scarequotes indicate that the claim comes from the sources provided, rather than being an objective ‘fact’ determined by a few Misplaced Pages Editors with an axe to grind.

3. This was already addressed on the Talk page and I updated the sentence to say settlers/soldiers with a further label that it needed further clarification because the source does not in fact unambiguously say what Butterscotch Beluga claims.

A few lines above what Butterscotch Beluga quotes is the following lines: “AMANPOUR: How did you take part in that? Were you one of the small children who threw rocks at Israeli soldiers?

YOUSEF: The model for every Palestinian child is a mujahid (ph) or a fidahi (ph) or a fighter. So, of course, I wanted to be one at that point of my life. It wasn't -- it's not my only dream. It's every child's dream in that territory.”

The updated Wiki page noted both settlers/soldiers and included a note that this requires further clarification, perhaps based on other sources, because it isn’t clear (contra Butterscotch Beluga) whether he is referring to soldiers or settlers.

4. It is not controversial to accurately describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation. It is simply a fact. To suggest otherwise is POV-pushing.

5. This is not POVPUSH; ‘assassinations’ against civilians during peacetime are usually called ‘murders’.

I in fact didn’t even remove the word ‘assassinations’, I merely broadened the description from ‘Israelis’ to ‘Israeli civilians and soldiers’ (as Butterscotch accepted) to indicate the breadth of the individuals in question included both civilians and combatants. This is not POVPUSH, it is simply additional information and context verified in the source itself.

All in all, a vexatious claim and a waste of the Arbitration Committee’s time.

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Regarding "I was correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors", it would be helpful if KronosAlight would explicitly identify the antisemitic editors and the edits they corrected so that they can be blocked for being antisemitic editors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The editor has been here since 2012. It is reasonable to assume that they know the rules regarding aspersions. It is reasonable to assume they are intentionally violating them, presumably because they genuinely believe they are dealing with antisemitic editors. So, this report is somehow simultaneously a vexatious complete waste of time and the result of the someone interfering with their valiant efforts to correct errors made by antisemitic editors. Why do they have this belief? This is probably a clue, a comment they had the good sense to revert. For me, this is an example of someone attempting to use propaganda that resembles antisemitic conspiracy theories about media control to undermine Misplaced Pages's processes and then changing their mind. But the very fact that they thought of it is disturbing. Their revert suggests that they are probably aware that there are things you can say about an editor and things you cannot say about an editor. From my perspective, what we have here is part of an emerging pattern in the topic area, a growing number of attacks on Misplaced Pages and editors with accusations of antisemitism, cabals etc. stemming in part from external partisan sources/influence operations. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

Aspersions:

• I made that comment to highlight the obvious problem of antisemitism among Misplaced Pages editors.
• It seems less like a merger and more like a deliberate burying of the original information.
• Given some of the users involved there, I don’t have very high hopes given the Pirate Wires allegations.
• Is there no limits you will not cross in order to seek to justify your Jew-hatred?

Zero 10:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Vice regent

KronosAlight, you changed on 14 Dec 2024: "An open letter signed by Christian and Muslim religious leaders interpreted that statement as a threat and incitement to violence" to "An open letter signed by Christian and Muslim religious leaders claimed was a threat and incitement to violence, though no threats or violence in fact occurred".

Can you show where either of the sources state "though no threats or violence in fact occurred"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Smallangryplanet

Wanted to add some pertinent evidence:

Talk:Zionism:

• "Interesting question, you should look it up and find an answer"
• I’ll leave it to others to consider what that says about Misplaced Pages’s community.
• If your claim is that the sinking of SS Patria is morally comparable then I simply don’t think you should be allowed to contribute to any of these articles
• You think WW2 and the Holocaust are too low-level to include in the lede?

Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon:

• This article gave me a very hearty laugh. It's hilarious. Nothing else to add, but congrats to the Editors for a very amusing article.

Talk:Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world:

• I want to make it clear that large parts of the Arab world agreed with Hitler’s goal of exterminating the Jewish people.

Talk:2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks:

• No evidence or reason to believe the attack targetted civilians, every reason to believe it targetted Hezbollah members. Also it's a bit of an overstatement to describe Lebanon as a "sovereign country".

Talk:Anti-Zionism:

• There's no difference between opposing the Jewish people's right to self-determination and calling for the destruction of the State of Israel. It's just two different sets of words to describe the same thing.
• "The route to this implication is via the identification of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Anti-Semites want to rid the world of Jews: Israel is a Jewish State: Anti-Zionists oppose Israel as a Jewish state, ergo anti-Zionists are anti-Semitic, and as such, seek the destruction of Israel." All of this is correct.

Talk:Gaza genocide:

• Even if we assume that Hamas' own numbers are broadly correct (which we shouldn't, because it don't distinguish between civilian and combatant casualties, and have been repeatedly proven be largely just invented), that doesn’t seem to even come close to genocide. Why are we even indulging this ludicrous nonsense?
• When this war ends and the vast, vast, vast majority of Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank are still alive and negotiating begin about the future of their region and political administration etc., will this article be deleted, or will this remain as yet another blood libel against the Jewish people?

Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre:

• It’s not how Misplaced Pages should work, and it badly distorts articles which should be neutral but are unfortunately pushes into pro-Hamas territory.

Talk:Al-Sardi school attack:

• Yes, we’re familiar with your propaganda campaign masquerading as some sort of neutral position.

Talk:Eden Golan:

• Can we stop acting like we aren’t creating double standards for Jews? Like there isn’t a profound problem of antisemitism among Misplaced Pages editors and moderators? It’s disgusting and shameful.

Other sanctions:

• March 2024: indefinitely topic banned from the subject of flood myths for sealioning, WP:ASPERSIONS, etc
• June 2024: warned to abide by 1RR
• October 2024: blocked for a week

Statement by (username)

Result concerning KronosAlight

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

• Much of the "diffs of edits that violate this sanction" fail to explain "how these edits violate" the sanction - to me, much of these diffs look like a content dispute. However, the "additional comments" section DOES have a diff that is concerning and violates the CT by casting an aspersion that is not backed up by a diff - the "antisemitic editors" diff. Has KA been previously warned for casting aspersions? If they have, I'm inclined to issue a topic ban, but many other editors get a warning for this if they lack a previous warning. The diffs brought up by Zero (not all of which I necessarily see as aspersions, but the "Jew-hatred" one is definitely over the line - but it's from September so a bit late to sanction for just that) - did anyone point out that aspersions/incivility in this topic area is sanctionable? I see the warnings for 1RR and consensus required... Ealdgyth (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @KronosAlight: - can you address the fact that saying "correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors" and "Is there no limits you will not cross in order to seek to justify your Jew-hatred"? Neither of these are statements that should ever be made - and the fact that you seem to not to understand this is making me lean towards a topic ban. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• KronosAlight, can you please provide quotes from the references you cited for - for instance - "for his terrorist activities" in this addition, showing that the sources explicitly supported the content you added? Calling a person or an organization is perfectly acceptable if you support that with reliable sources; if it is original research, or source misrepresentation, it isn't acceptable. I cannot access some of the sources in question. You may provide quotes inside a collapsed section if you wish to save space. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  I missed Zero's comments earlier. A lot of those comments, while concerning, are generic, not directed at a specific editor. this, however, is beyond the pale. I would need some convincing that this user is able to edit this area constructively. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  @KronosAlight, can you please respond to this? I too am concerned...the quote you're objecting to wasn't from DrSmarty. It was a direct quote, scare quotes and all, from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. You seem to have reacted to it as if it were DrSmarty. Valereee (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• I don't like to sanction in absentia, and I'm not yet suggesting we do so, but I want to note that not choosing not to respond here, or going inactive to avoid responding, will not improve the outcome as far as I am concerned. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  They're a pretty sporadic editor...many edits over a period of a few days, then nothing for two weeks. Maybe we pin this until they edit again? Valereee (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Valereee that this editors contribution history shows a pattern of editing for a day or two at a time followed by several weeks of inactivity. So I don't think it's fair to say they went inactive here but also holding this open for multiple weeks waiting for a response places some burden on the other other interested editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nicoljaus

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Nicoljaus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for edit warring, and intent to game 1rr, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages.

Administrator imposing the sanction

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

I'm aware. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Nicoljaus

The circumstances of my blocking were:

• I was looking for a Misplaced Pages account for Hiba Abu Nada to add it to Wikidata. I couldn't find it, so I did a little research. The reference in the article indicated that she participated in some WikiWrites(?) project. I didn’t find such a project, but I found the WikiRights project: https://ar.wikipedia.org/ويكيبيديا:ويكي_رايتس. It was organized by a certain Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. I read the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor article and didn't see any outside perspective, "controversy" or anything like that, just self-representation. I surfed the Internet and instantly found information that must be in the article to comply with the NPOV. I started adding , everything went well for two days. Then:
• 12:53, 23 April 2024 - Zero0000 made a complete cancellation of all additions
  
• 13:14, 23 April 2024 - (20 minutes later!) Selfstudier wrote on my TP
  
• 14:20 - 14:22, 23 April 2024 -‎ With two edits (first, second) I partially took into account the comment of Zero0000 about "ethnic marking", but returned the last .
  
• 14:27, 23 April 2024 (7 minutes later!!) Selfstudier makes a second complete cancellation of all my edits, blaming POV editing
  
• 14:45, 23 April 2024‎ - I’m returning the version where I partially took into account Zero0000’s comments (removed "ethnic marking")
  
• 15:10, 23 April 2024 - Selfstudier accuses me of 1RR breach. In the dialogue, I explained that the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination. My first undo was part of a counter edit User talk:Nicoljaus#1RR_breach
  
• 15:41, 23 April 2024 Selfstudier writes on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
  
• 16:10, 23 April 2024 (30 minutes later!) ScottishFinnishRadish issues an indefinite block . No opportunity to write my “statement”, as well as an extremely bad faith interpretation of my remark as "an intent to game 1rr".
  

Given that the both Selfstudier and Zero0000 are currently being discussed in Arbcom (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence), I humbly ask you to take a fresh look at my indefinite block and soften the restrictions in some way". Nicoljaus (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: - You mean, I need to discuss my previous edit war blocks? Well, the last one was almost four years ago and that time I simply forgot that I was under 1RR (there was a big break in editing) and tried to get sources for a newly added map, and the opponent refused to do so . As it turned out later, the true source was a book by a fringe author, which the RSN called "Usual nationalistic bullshit, no sign of reliability". Yes, it was a stupid forgetfulness on my part. Nicoljaus (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Even if you were correct that Selfstudier & Zero0000 were WP:TAGTEAMing (always a tricky accusation, because it's hard to separate that from just your edits being so obviously problematic that two people independently reverted them) -- That's why I wrote that my "so problematic edits" attracted attention only after two days, but two users appeared within 20 minutes. However, after months, a lot of data about the cooperation of these users appeared (and this is not my imagination): "While a single editor, Shane (a newbie), advocated for its inclusion, a trio of veterans including Zero0000, Nishidani and Selfstudier fought back. After Selfstudier accused Shane of being a troll for arguing for the photo’s inclusion, Zero0000, days later, “objected” to its inclusion, citing issues of provenance. Nishidani stepped in to back up Zero0000, prompting a response by Shane. The following day, Zero0000 pushed back against Shane, who responded. The day after, Nishidani returned with his own pushback. The tag-team effort proved too much for Shane, who simply gave up, and the effort succeeded: the photo remains absent" . I'll add that after Selfstudier accused Shane of trolling, Zero0000 appeared on Shane's page and said: "Kindly keep your insults to yourself I won't hesitate to propose you for blocking if you keep it up" . According to the table at the link , these two users cooperated like this 720 times. Probably hundreds of people were embittered, forced out of the project, or led to blocking like me.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Hello, thank you very much for transferring my remarks, now I understand how it works. I would like to clarify the issue of meatpuppetry. You directly accused me of such intentions in justifying the block, and now this accusation has been repeated . Let's figure out whether my hint that Selfstudier and Zero0000 are working too closely was so absurd? Was it really and remains so absurd that it could not be perceived as anything other than my self-exposure? I don't think so.

As for the "edit war" - I understand that edit wars are evil. In the spirit of cooperation, I tried to meet my opponents halfway, as in this case, taking into account their claim, which I could understand, in the counter edit. If such an action is also considered an edit war and a violation of the 1RR/3RR rule - I will of course avoid it in the future.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: Hello, I understand your point that edit wars can be disruptive, particularly in a CTOP context. However, I believe it is essential to recognize that not all reverts carry the same implications. While it is true that a revert is a revert, the context and intent behind the action should also be taken into account. In this instance, I made efforts to address the concerns of the other party involved, which reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue rather than simply reverting. Furthermore, I acknowledge your reference to the 1RR/3RR rule and my history of blocks for edit-warring. However, given the amount of time that has passed, I believe I have gained valuable insights and learned a great deal. Moreover, given this topic, I think I actually learned something unlike the other side, whose history of blocks for edit-warring remains clean.--Nicoljaus (talk) 4:24 am, Today (UTC−5)

@Valereee: In response to this, I can say that I already know very well how carelessly admins impose blocks. If any further statements are needed from me, just ping me. With best regards.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Absent from the appeal is discussion of the five prior edit warring blocks and any indication that they will not resume edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I said They have a long history of edit warring, so I'd like to see that addressed rather than blaming others above, twelve days ago. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Nicoljaus, you should be focusing on convincing people that you won't edit war in the future rather than more WP:NOTTHEM. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nicoljaus

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 Simonm223

This edit looks like a bright-line WP:BLP violation via WP:ATTACK and WP:WEASEL - and removing BLP violations are generally somewhere where there is some latitude on WP:1RR which makes the actions of Zero0000 and Selfstudier more justified, not less. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

Selfstudier accuses me of 1RR breach. In the dialogue, I explained that the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination. My first undo was part of a counter edit - I feel like this is obvious enough that I probably don't have to point it out, but "counter edit" is not a WP:3RR / WP:1RR exception. Even if you were correct that Selfstudier & Zero0000 were WP:TAGTEAMing (always a tricky accusation, because it's hard to separate that from just your edits being so obviously problematic that two people independently reverted them), it still would not justify your revert. The fact that they're parties to an ArbCom case (which hasn't even yet found any fault with them!) doesn't change any of this. You should probably read WP:NOTTHEM. --Aquillion (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

"the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination"...yet another conspiracy-minded evidence-free accusation against editors in the PIA topic area, the third one at AE in just a few days. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Result of the appeal by Nicoljaus

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

• I do not see any indication that Nicoljaus actually realizes the problem. The edit warring blocks were indeed some time ago, but one might think they would remember it after being blocked for it repeatedly, not to mention that being issued a CTOP notice might call a CTOP restriction to mind. And the remark in question sure looks to me like a threat to game 1RR via meatpuppetry, too. Given all that, I would decline this appeal. Seraphimblade 23:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• I see nothing in this appeal that makes me think they've taken on board the changes that they'd need to do to be a productive editor. It reads to me like "my block was bad, here's why", and that's not working as a reason for me to support unblocking. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Nicoljaus, what we need to see is you demonstrating you understand edit-warring at a CTOP, which is what you were blocked for, and convincing us you won't do it again. Arguing the block should be lifted because other editors did something you thought looked suspicious isn't going to convince us. Just FWIW, Nicoljaus, the source doesn't actually say these two users cooperated like this 720 times. It says they edited the same articles 720 times, and that's not unusual. Most editors see the same other editors over and over again in articles about their primary interest. And edit by editor 1>2 days>revert by editor 2>revert by editor 1>20 minutes>revert by editor 3 is also not at all unusual anywhere on the encyclopedia and isn't evidence of tag-teaming. People read their watch lists. Any editor with that article on their watchlist, which is nearly fifty editors, might have investigated the large revert of an edit by an experienced editor at a contentious topic. Valereee (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Nicoljaus, it's not that edit wars are evil. It's that they're disruptive, and particularly in a CTOP we really really don't need additional disruption and drama. A revert is a revert, even if you tried to meet my opponents halfway, as in this case, taking into account their claim, which I could understand, in the counter edit. Re: If such an action is also considered an edit war and a violation of the 1RR/3RR rule: a revert is a revert and is covered in the policy around reversions. And you have a history of blocks for edit-warring, including at other CTOPs.

  It's been seven months since the block. I'm trying to come around to a way to at least allow this editor a chance to show us they've taken this stuff on board...maybe a 0RR at all CTOPs? Valereee (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Nicoljaus, re I believe it is essential to recognize that not all reverts carry the same implications. While it is true that a revert is a revert, the context and intent behind the action should also be taken into account. In this instance, I made efforts to address the concerns of the other party involved, which reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue rather than simply reverting. Some editors at talk pages will take your apparent intentions into account. Some will just take you to ANEW. Some admins at ANEW will take your apparent intentions into account. Some will just reblock you.

  No one anywhere is promising that your intentions will be taken into account -- or even that they'll try to figure out what your intentions are -- and therefore it's completely your responsibility to read the situation you're in correctly. If you read it wrong, you're likely to be blocked again, and honestly another block for edit-warring at a CTOP is likely to be another indef, and it would absolutely not surprise me for the blocking admin to require 12 months to appeal. Valereee (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  No need to reply, but I'll tell you plainly I've been trying to give you opportunities to convince other admins here, and you keep wanting to dig the hole deeper. I'd support an unblock with an editing restriction of 0RR at any article with a CTOPs designation on the talk page. Valereee (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

PerspicazHistorian

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)

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)

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)

Walter Tau

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 Walter Tau

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Bobby Cohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Walter Tau (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. 4 December 2024 Creation (and subsequent editing and AfC submission) of Draft:Maternity capital. See it's page history, there's no need to supply the entirety of the diffs here.
   • For context on how this subject falls under the purview, see the context given by the news article as shared on the talk page: Russia using adoption of Ukranian children during the Russo-Ukranian war. Then note how this state program directly discusses adoption support, which was adapted by Putin following the start of the war. A citation given in the draft article. The Google translated version specifically notes the changes "At the same time, residents of the new regions will receive maternity capital regardless of the basis and timing of their acquisition of Russian citizenship" (emphasis mine).

   This draft, as it is written, is extremely promotional in areas and could basically be hosted on a state-sponsored website. Given the context, I believe this falls under the topic ban.

References

1. Bruce, Camdyn (14 December 2022). "Ukrainian official rips Russia for 'kidnapping' more than 13,000 children". The Hill.
2. "Путин подписал закон, уточняющий условия выплаты материнского капитала" . interfax.ru.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 26 November 2024 Notice given by Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that they were now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
2. 5 December 2024 Blocked by Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for violating the sanction based on the edits to a project page.

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

• Has been made aware, see the diffs in the above section.
• Alerted about contentious topics as it applies to this specific draft, on 4 December 2024 by Asilvering (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), given a warning about this specific draft and how it falls under the above purview.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It has been repeatedly pointed out to Walter Tau that they are skirting the line of the their topic ban by specifically not mentioning the "elephant in the room", see the diff by Asilvering above. They have also repeatedly chosen to ignore advice that they stop editing in the subject area and have repeatedly claimed to fail to see how their editing is problematic. As such, I have opened this discussion here so as to get an answer for Walter Tau on their editing, see "Also, since you mentioned a "topic ban", I would appreciate, if you provide a reference to it, as well as explain how it relates to this article Materniy Capital." They claim to continuously be unaware of the ban, see also their talk page discussions.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified 24 December 2024.

Discussion concerning Walter Tau

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 Walter Tau

I feel, that the decision by Boby Cohn regarding my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Maternity_capital, is "arbitrary and capriciuos" to use US legal terms : ], for the following reasons:

1) nowhere my draft mentions the words "Ukraine" or "Ukrainian".

2) this draft ] is a translation of the original Russian wiki- article : https://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB . I have heard the argument, that different languages in Misplaced Pages use different standards for articles' notability etc. Can someone please provide a web-link to Misplaced Pages rules, that actually confirms, that different standards for different languages is the currently accepted policy. I have been unable to find such statement.

3) In fact, my draft focuses mostly on the policies before 24 February 2022, i.e. before full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine.

4) Please correct me, if I am wrong, by it seems that Boby Cohn's only argument of my ban violation is the following statement in my draft of Maternity Capital. "Residents of new regions are paid maternity capital regardless of the time and basis for obtaining Russian citizenship." In my defense: I did not write that statement- it is a Google translation from the Russian wiki, actually a small part of the translated text. And with all honesty, when I was reading the translated text, it did not cross my mind, that someone may interpret so broadly. Also, this sentence-in-question does not really add much to the main subject to the article, and I do not object to its deletion.

5) Considering, that a) I did not write, but only translated the text-in-question; b) the relevance to the text-in-question to my topic ban is not apparent, particularly in the larger context of the whole article; c) I do mind deleting the text-in-question from the draft; may I suggest changing the draft to fix this controversy?

6) If there are other controversial sections/sentences in my translated draft, it may be better if someone re-writes them. Most wiki-readers, can agree with a statement, that this draft ] may not reach an "Article of the Day" status, but it has a value as a stand-alone article as well as a source of references (more-to-be-added). Walter Tau (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Walter Tau

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

• Sidestepping for now the question of whether simply not mentioning anything conflict-related would have been enough to avoid a TBAN violation, the references to "new regions" make this a violation much more straightforwardly. Justice is blind but not stupid. Walter, I think we're going to need to see recognition from you that this was a TBAN violation, if we're going to find a good path forward here. I'd also like to know who you are referring to when you reference other editors working on the draft? Auric has made some gnomish edits but you appear to be the only substantive editor. And why are you implying, on Bobby's talk, that y'all have been corresponding by email, when he denies that? -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 22:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• I'll be direct: I think Walter knows what he is doing and has no intention of abiding by his TBAN, even when it was exhaustively explained to him, and I don't think we should be wasting further time here when we're almost certainly going to be right back here again within a few weeks. ⇒SWATJester 05:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)