Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:27, 24 January 2015 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,191 edits →Result concerning Cwobeel: cmt, blocking← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:12, 24 December 2024 edit undoTiggerjay (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,882 editsm →Tinynanorobots: moving to appropriate section. comments do not follow in-line like they do in other places. 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}{{Redirect|WP:AE|the automated editing program|Misplaced Pages:AutoEd}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude> <noinclude> {{pp-move-indef}}
{{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;}}
--><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 -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}} |archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter =346
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 161
|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}}

==Entropyandvodka==
{{hat
| result = No action. ] (]) 23:28, 10 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 Entropyandvodka===
{{clear}}
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Safrolic}} 16:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Entropyandvodka}}<p>{{ds/log|Entropyandvodka}}</p>
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ashtul==
{{hat|Appeal declined. ] &#124; ] 00:18, 23 January 2015 (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>


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Ashtul}}


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ], ]
; Sanction being appealed : "To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating ] as documented in the related AE request, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week."
<!--- 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:
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Sandstein}}


Between Oct 6 and 7th, 2023, this user made over 500 edits changing short descriptions. , A majority of the edits were on Oct 6th, about 325 by my very rough count. They stopped their edit chain a few minutes after getting EC on the 6th, then did a couple hundred more on the 7th. , They had never made this kind of edit before, and they've only made a few edits of this type ever since, all on one P-I article this spring. They now have over 1,400 edits. Since then they have focused almost entirely on the PIA space, but have dedicated some time to the invasion of Ukraine. In the Russian invasion space, they've concerned themselves with making sure that a pro-Russian narrative is represented. They appear in {{User|Billedmammal}}'s , which shows their edits as being 100% in PIA for the remainder of 2023 and 75% PIA for 2024. I sought input from before making this report, because I see deeper implications from a gaming run for PIA on Oct 6th 2023.
; Notification of that administrator :
===Statement by Ashtul===
==== First statement ====
Sandstein, my reverts on Carmel were a misunderstanding of the fact it was subject to WP:ARBPIA 1RR restriction as well. It wasn't even part of the first appeal b/c it happened after. I am not that stupid to do a violation again after being reported.


I have not interacted with this user, beyond notifying them of this report.
While I understand that 1RR rule , I don't see anywhere how long it should be. For an honest mistake, I think 7 days is too severe.
Thanks, ] (]) 10:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)}}


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
====Second Statement====
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|SeraphimBlade}}.
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above).
*Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on (same incident as the warning).


I just stumbled upon so I thought I will give a 2nd appeal a chance.


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
Seems like ] who claimed ''@Sandstein:: The general 1RR restriction for Palestine-Israel articles was imposed by the Arbitration Committee, not by a single administrator. Zerotalk 23:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)'' hold a different standard for ], () a different standard . ''The fact of this case is that N is a good editor who broke 1RR. He should get a short block like anyone should expect when they break 1RR. The rest is hot air.''
A block doesn't appear on Nishidani's block log so I guess the 1RR blocking rule didn't apply to him.


Re: Liz's comment, I was unsure whether this was stale given that their further edits would put them over EC by now, though likely not without counting the PIA-related edits. This was why I asked SFR on his talk page first, who advised me that there likely wasn't a stale period for permission gaming. I haven't tried to assess recent content or conduct beyond a brief look at the Russia/Ukraine related edits. ] (]) 21:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
In addition, as ] noted on my appeal, ] wasn't blocked.


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
Last, my revert is 200% justified which wasn't taken into account either. On ] article, Hammerman's quote isn't about Carmel at all but rather about Umm al-Kheir. Nicholas Kristof's quote is partially about Carmel but then move to Umm al-Kheir thus ] or at least ]. The quotes are ] and not even connected to the article itself. Just standing there to say Israel/settlers are horrible. Now, to make things worse, a picture of Umm al-Kheir is present (added by one of Nishidani advocates) since -"In the background: Carmel."
<!-- 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. --->
Regards,
===Discussion concerning Entropyandvodka===
] (]) 19:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>


===Statement by PhilKnight=== ====Statement by Entropyandvodka====
I've copied the unblock request to this board. Anyway, I think the edits in question were under ], so a block could be applied. A 7-day block for a first block is fairly long, but within admin discretion. ] (]) 21:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)====
: I consider his second statement to demonstrate a battle ground mentality, so in this context, I think a 7-day block is entirely reasonable. ] (]) 20:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning Entropyandvodka===
===Statement by Sandstein===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
I've commented in the related enforcement request section below that I think that the topic-wide 1R restriction isn't well thought through as written, but it does seem to have been adopted by ArbCom, so it is to be enforced.
<!-- 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. -->
*Since this editor now has about 1400 edits, if those edits had been gaming, they would be EC by now without them. I'm not sure how we assess possible gaming from over a year ago. Are there recent edits that concern you? I'd like to see what admins who frequent ARE think about this case. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*As Liz said, they'd be well over EC by now anyway. I'm really not inclined to go over stuff dredged up from a year ago unless there's been actual misconduct since then (and then it would be the more recent misconduct that would concern me). It evidently wasn't enough of a concern for anyone to raise in a timely fashion. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*I said on my talk page that I didn't really think that gaming could be stale, but I'm also interested in if there has been disruptive editing. ] (]) 14:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Without further evidence of disruptive editing I will be closing this as no action taken. ] (]) 12:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*I don't think there's a bright-line rule in this area, but the combination of "over a year ago" and "hundreds of subsequent edits" is enough for me to support closing without action, which I will do momentarily. ] (]) 23:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}


==xDanielx==
It does not appear to be contested here that the edits at issue violated the 1R restriction. Considering that the wording of the restriction reads "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense", it appears to be the intent of the author(s) that no particular consideration should be given to the possibility of a violation resulting from a mistake or misunderstanding. This may be because the intent of the reverter does not affect the disruptive effect of edit wars, which the sanction appears to be intended to suppress. In any case, a mistake or misunderstanding appears improbable here: the edits at issue occurred while a request for arbitration enforcement was pending against the same editor for the same reason, which would have given them ample opportunity to familiarize themselves with the sanction.
{{hat|result=xDanielx is subject to the ] on content within the scope of ]. ] (]) 17:16, 23 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 xDanielx===
As to the block duration, I believe that given the persistently contentious nature of the topic area, a duration of seven days is appropriately long to encourage Ashtul and perhaps others to be significantly more cautious in their editing in the future. In any case, blocks should generally last as long as they are needed to prevent problematic conduct, and I'm still not confident that Ashtul really understands the scope of the restriction and what sort of (particularly restrained) conduct is expected from editors in this topic area, based on their prior statements. The appeal should therefore be declined. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Selfstudier}} 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|xDanielx}}<p>{{ds/log|xDanielx}}</p>
===Statement by involved Nomoskedasticity===
''While'' the AE discussion was taking place, Ashtul reverted '''again''' -- not another 1RR violation, but an amazing action for someone who was at that time being discussed for an obvious earlier 1RR violation on the same article (and the gives the other previous reverts, if anyone is wondering whether the most recent one is actually similar). accuses me (falsely) of being involved in BDS and shows a more general tendency to cast other editors as enemies -- something this topic area really doesn't need. ] (]) 22:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Cptnono}} what?? ] (]) 07:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Statement by involved Cptnono===
You increased your length of blocks for first time offenses, Sandstein. I'm also concerned that the editor was just about to "get it" and a 24-48hr would have sufficed. In regards blocking without warning, my understanding from reading the case was that it was intended to stop socks/meats/infrequent editors, not editors who are continuously editing in good faith. Why else would such a harsh restriction be implemented. It seems like an oversight to enforce a standard when it was meant for something else.


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
That being said, there have been questions of socks in the area and there is a new editor poking around. I guess just take this as constructive criticism, Sandstein.
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
:Then you deserve more criticism than Sandstien, Zero. Are discretionary sanctions meant to both protect and better the project or are they supposed to be punitive? Of course Misplaced Pages is losing editors when 1 week seems like nothing.] (]) 06:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:You bring an article in the topic area to GA and then we can talk about what the project "needs", Nomoskedasticity. I didn't do it with Nish, Ashtul, and certainly not you.] (]) 07:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:What do you mean "what"? ''"something this topic area really doesn't need."'' Maybe the topic area doesn't need you. Maybe it doesn't need me. It is not up to you decide. You would be surprised that new editors might start off kind of shitty then go on to do good things. It doesn't happen by treating them like scum. So how about you take a break from the topic area while Ashtul is taking a site wide break because I don't think the project or the highly volatile topic area needs you.] (]) 07:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
===Statement by involved Zero000===
Material was originally added and
Since Ashtul has done hardly anything except edit-war, I think a 7-day block is light. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


Removed by reported editor on ,
===Statement by (involved editor 2)===
and
with the last revert coming .


===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ashtul ===
* If the sanction is solely for 1RR (and the edits/behavior were otherwise reasonable) then 1 week for the first offense seems excessive. I would suggest reduction to 24/48h (which will probably end up being time served by the time this appeal resolves). ] (]) 22:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
* I'm not too familiar (that is, not at all familiar) with AE, but I tend to agree with ]. Cheers, --] (]) <span style="font-size: 50%;">]</span> 00:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
===Result of the appeal by Ashtul===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- Please notify the appellant in the event of a successful appeal, in addition to logging it on the case page. ] informs users that "If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful."-->
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
*'''Decline appeal.''' The block was valid so there is no reason to grant an appeal based on that. Given that they've previously edited articles which are under 1RR, including at least ] with the edit notice, I don't accept that they were not aware that 1RR was in force as a reason to lessen the block duration as as the duration in this case fits within normal administrator discretion. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Experienced ex admin who should know better.
::Just noting for those reviewing that I've added the standard 1RR editnotice template to ] (]) and ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:{{Re|Fiveby}} It's for the PIA case as reported editor is not a named party. Both AE and Arbcom prefer not to deal with content issues. ] (]) 10:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'd also note that {{u|Cathar66}} wasn't blocked for violating 1RR on the same article if we wish to take that into account. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
::{{Re|Fiveby}} I did not add the content nor have I edit warred over it. Obviously there are 3 editors who don't share your view while I have not as yet made up my mind, there is an ongoing RSN discussion now, and I will communicate my thoughts on the content there or possibly in an RFC if it ends up as that.] (]) 16:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*"My revert was 200% justified" ]. I am also minded to decline the appeal. ] &#124; ] 21:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
{{hab}}


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
==GodBlessYou2==
{{hat|1=Topic-banned for six months. ] ] 12:42, 21 January 2015 (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 GodBlessYou2=== ===Discussion concerning xDanielX===
<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>
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc}} 17:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by xDanielX====
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|GodBlessYou2}}<p>{{ds/log|GodBlessYou2}}
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


I don't think the "explicit warning" by Selfstudier ({{tq|Last time, RFC or RSN else AE}}) was appropriate; it seems like the sort of intimidation that ] prohibits. The idea of adjusting my editing based on intimidation by a highly involved non-admin didn't feel right.
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] :
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->


Under the conventional view that removing old content generally doesn't constitute a revert, I made two reverts here, with a lot of discussion in between (], ], ], and this ]). My second revert was undoing what seemed like a <del>reflexive tag-team</del> , by a user who didn't join the discussion even after I pinged them asking for an explanation.
; ] 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. -->
# Edit-warring regarding creationism (reinserting preferred content after reverting).
# Edit-warring regarding creationism (reinserting preferred content after an RfC on the talkpage went badly see previous attempt on
# Edit-warring on a usertalk page to argue about his POV-pushing.
#


I normally revert very selectively - looking at my past 500 edits, there are only five reverts (at least obvious ones), with only these two being controversial. If I was a bit aggressive here, it was because the material violated our policies in a particularly blatant and severe manner.
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->


The estimate in question falls under ] since it's based on a novel methodology, and it fails that standard due to a lack of vetting by the relevant scholarly community (public health). The closest we have is this by an anthropologist, which includes the estimate but doesn't discuss whether the methodology is valid. The paper also appears to have no citations, and the group that published it doesn't appear to have any real scholarly vetting process.
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on


The claim is also a highly ] one. Health officials reported starvations (as of Sep 16), which is quite different from the 62,413 (as of Sep 30) estimate. To me pushing to include such an extraordinary claim in wikivoice, with sources that clearly fall short of our relevant policies, indicates either POV pushing or a competence issue. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 18:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
Subject of a ] thread started by the initiator of this request that contains additional discussion: ]. He was notified of this discussion: . Please see the usertalk page of the user for more discussions as to the problematic behavior. Believe that a broad topic ban from all religion/science/pseudoscience/creationism related pages is in order.


{{collapse top|title=Responses to M.Bitton}}
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
{{yo|M.Bitton}} removals of old material are not the spirit of edit warring, and in practice are generally not understood as reverts, even if they appear to meet the literal definition. Some recent discussions on this were ] and ].


I believe you misread the (confusing) history a bit; I don't see any restoration by Cdjp1. A related by Bogazicili had the effect of moving some footnote content, including a second instance of the 62,413 figure which I had initially missed, into the infobox. I hadn't understood this as an objection to my removal, since the edit summary conveyed a different purpose.
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


It didn't occur to me that you might not have seen my ping. I'll strike that remark, but I still feel that reverting an extensively discussed change with only {{tq|there is no valid reason to remove this}} leaves something to be desired. I see that you've now the discussion, but still without substantive engagement; merely stating that you're unconvinced doesn't help to move the discussion forward. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 04:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
===Discussion concerning GodBlessYou2===
<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 GodBlessYou2====


{{yo|M.Bitton}} okay I missed that footnote change, but I think the point stands that neither change clearly conveyed an objection to the idea of removing the estimate from the infobox. If there was such an objection, I would have expected it to be noted in an summary or the discussion thread. And please assume good faith. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 04:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I will confine my response to the original charges made above according to the diffs cited.


{{yo|M.Bitton}} {{tq|there is no valid reason to remove this}} isn't really an explanation. I still have no idea what you disagree with and why. Is your position that the Watson paper is vetted scholarship, or that ] doesn't apply, or something else? While this isn't the place, it would be good if you could explain your position in one of the relevant discussions. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 20:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
1. Edit-warring regarding creationism.
{{collapse bottom}}


{{yo|Valereee}} I would argue that EW enforcement should account for factors like scale, engagement in discussions, timing, policy support, consensus, and broader patterns of user behavior.
:These edits were related to ]. It is not creationism nor classified by WP as such . (See also, categories: at bottom of article.) While critics may like to classify FTU it as creationism, I sincerely question if this article falls under the pseudoscience and fringe science editing restrictions.


* Scale: I thought I had made two reverts. Maybe there's an argument that it was really three, but I wasn't aware of it.
:Even if I'm wrong on that account, my only edits have been related to adding citations to two books and attempting to add these to the list of ==Further Reading==. Both books are written by astrophysicists who address the fine tuned universe issue in a manner intended to make it accessible to non-scientists with an emphasis on why this hypothesis is compatible with both science and religion. I continue to remain confounded by one or two editor's efforts to block this content. More so because two articles by ] are elsewhere included in the article under External Links. Why the effort to block my adding a book of his on the subject?
* Engagement: I discussed very substantively (], ]), and ] to get more input.
* Timing: I thought the discussion seemed to have settled. Noone appeared to be continuing to defend the content in a substantive manner, so I felt more justified in removing it. The latest points like ] didn't receive a response (besides {{tq|Still disagree}}).
* Consensus: the local consensus appeared to be leaning toward at least requiring attribution (as we do in the body which I didn't remove). There's also just a very clear ] against including unvetted ] (no peer review, citations, etc) in wikivoice.
* Patterns of behavior: these were my only controversial reverts in recent memory (at least looking at 500 edits).


If I could rewind, I would at least give it extra time to make sure that the discussion had settled, and maybe leave it to someone else to enact the result. However, I think if this were to be considered actionable edit warring, then nearly all active editors in the topic area would be guilty of it. Even in this same dispute, a different user just made their , with less engagement and so on. I would argue that the with no explanation might actually be the most problematic EW here, although I don't believe there's a consensus on whether single reverts are technically considered EW (there have been some inconclusive discussions on that). — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 17:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


{{yo|Ealdgyth}} understood, though I think you mean EW broadly rather than 1RR? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 19:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Edit-warring regarding creationism.


I'm receiving the message that the factors I mentioned aren't good enough, but would still appreciate input on what acceptable participation in an edit war could look like. Maybe the answer is that there is none, but that would seem to depart from convention as I understood it, and possibly lead to a lot more formal RfCs. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 19:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:An RfC by Cposper sought opinions on adding one sentence and one source. Numerous editors agreed the source should only be used in the context of other sources and with attribution. I came to the article in response to this RfC. I drafted a section to show Csposper how to use multiple reliable sources to address the issue in a more balanced way. The RfC did not address my draft and is not binding on it. Check the dates. Most all of the RfC's comments were written before my draft and my draft addresses and incorporates most of the helpful comments. It does not preclude new content that addresses the same issue in a more substantive, balanced way.


{{yo|Valereee}} understood, but I think a strict/literal reading of EW would capture a lot of activity that's accepted in practice. It seems like in the absence of brightline violations, more subtle distinctions are drawn between acceptable and unacceptable forms of EW. I thought that I was on the right side of this distinction, per my remarks above, but maybe my understanding of it was off base. I can understand a warning here, but it would be more effective with more specific guidance on what to avoid. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 22:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
3. # The so called Edit-warring on a Jytdog's talk page first, does not fall under the fringe and pseudoscience arbitration rules.


: {{yo|Valereee}} it looks I'm already past 500 words, is it okay to continue? Very briefly, I was trying to get at the idea that there seem to be certain informal customs limiting when EW should be enforced, going beyond the formal ] exceptions. If the policy were to be enforced to the letter, there would seem to be a vast number of violations; this same dispute contained at least a second ( ) and possibly a third. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 04:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:Second, and most importantly, the edit conflict was clearly regarding difference in our understanding of policy guidelines governing the deletion of comments on user talk pages. This was addressed by Doncram in this diff . It is further discussed in my own diff here . Arguably, the confusion was due to Jytdog referring me to ] in this form rather than to ], because WP:TPO clearly indicates at the very top that comments should not be deleted. The confusion has resulted in efforts to clarify this problem per . In short, this wasn't edit warring. It was a sincere effort to prevent what an editor, whom I perceived as one with a history of deleting valid content, from hiding a record of disruptive behavior on his talk page contrary to policy as I understood it, and was even stated as such in the link he provided to defend his deletion.–] (]) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


{{yo|Valereee}}: I was ideally hoping for some clarifications, i.e.
:In summary, every edit in the article I have made has been relevant and well sourced. There wouldn't be any basis for this complaint if the editors making the complaint showed more respect for the good faith contributions of other editors. In general, it is my impression that these articles are subject to a lot of ] protectionism. Prime example: and talk page equivocations over adding the book by Barrs to the FTU ]. Seriously?! –] (]) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
# A couple comments here made me wonder if this was being (mis)interpreted as a 1RR violation. Are we on the same page that this is a non-brightline instance of EW?
# Is the intention to enforce EW to the letter, irrespective of factors (outside of ]) like engagement in discussions?
# Is there a reason for the focus on my involvement and not say (from the same edit war)? Maybe there are good reasons for it, I just want to understand.


If this needs to be wrapped up soon, I can commit to following ] to the letter to be safe, unless or until a different line is clarified. I might start a ] discussion afterward to clarify whether there's community support for enforcing ] the letter. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 01:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::Regarding my proposed new section to the article on the creation evolution controversy, you will see that I have not been editing the article but rather confining myself to the talk page to try go the editors to actually discuss the 14 sources and proposed content I have offered. Instead, there is, what I perceive to be a refusal to recognize that there are any differences between my extensive contribution and the one proposed by Cpsoper. I am sincerely trying to get them to focus on the content, but they are so anxious to shut me out (not very collaborative in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, in my opinion) that they are ganging up on me both there and here. I believe the process recognizes that ], especially if an editor like myself goes to the effort to develop a well balanced section that is clearly topic relavant and based on 14 sources covering both sides of the contentious issue. It may not be perfect, but it is something that can be built on using WP:PRESERVE methods. In my view, it is my accusers who should be reprimanded for not making more effort to work with editors to incorporate material. The only reason I came to these pages was because of Cpsoper's RfC which, on investigation, led me to believe his contributions were being rejected without any effort to help him incorporate them per PRESERVE. My mistake was thinking the other editors here would welcome my efforts to help Cpsoper learn how to find and use a wider range of reliable sources, something AndytheGrump said would be needed in his response to the RfC,,. but now he's angry at me for implementing his advice. Go figure.–] (]) 06:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


I'm a bit puzzled by the admin discussion. It seems like there are two concerns,
:::Regarding {{u|Heimstern Läufer}} comments below. I strongly object to his classification of thise edits as related to pseudoscience. Most importantly, I object to the assumption that my notification of this policy was sufficient if the scope of pseduoscience is going to be different than that by which the articles are marked.
# That I'm not entirely clear on where the line is. I've acknowledged this, and that's why I've asked for some clarifications in my last five comments, but I haven't really received the clarity I was hoping for.
# That I'm continuing to justify the edits (as I did initially). This seems like an uncharitable reading of my past several comments; asking for clarity on where the line is isn't an argument that my edits were on the right side of it.
I ''think'' the implied message I'm getting is along the lines of "it's best to follow EW to the letter, irrespective of any other factors", which would be a clear line that I can follow. It's just frustrating that this hasn't been spelled out very clearly, and my questions seem to have been interpreted as something other than sincere requests for such guidance. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


:{{yo|Valereee}} thank you, that is pretty clear and I can commit to that. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 16:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Clearly, fine-tuned universe theory is not considered pseudoscience by Misplaced Pages categories, the article itself, or by scientists. It is speculation about origins of the universe issue, but that itself does not render it pseudoscience. And what is my "offense" there? Trying to include two books by astrophysicists writing for people interested in the intersection of faith and science in the further reading list, book which delve into depth into the fine tuned universe theory. I continue to be puzzled why I am being prosecuted for attempting to add these sources when clearly it is protectionists who feel they ] these pages who are hounding out even the most modest edits which support the idea there is no real conflict between science and religion.


====Statement by M.Bitton====
:::Secondly, the confusion regarding the user talk page was due to confusing organization and statements in Policy regarding deletion of comments. It has nothing to do with the psuedoscience discretionary sanctions and should not be considered in any decision.
{{tq|removing old content generally doesn't constitute a revert|q=yes}} old content means stable content (you know what that means).


{{tq|I made two reverts|q=yes}} this is factually incorrect. You made 3 reverts (excluding the first content removal):
:::Third, the article ] is about the controversy between these camps. Not about the science, or the pseudoscience, properly speaking, as those are addressed in separate articles. It is about the charges and counter charges advocates on both sides make against each other, which may include some science and pseudoscience, but also includes charges of discrimination, which is really political and not the subject of the discretionary sanction being employed against me. My edits on this article are an effort to bring a bit of ] collaboration to the page to simply support the rather obvious fact that the stated claims and counter claims have been made were clearly done in faith and mostly confined to the talk page. There is no violation of policy.
#] of stable content.
#], after {{u|Stephan rostie}} restored it.
#], after {{u|Cdjp1}} restored it.
#], after I restored it.


{{tq|undoing what seemed like a reflexive tag-team revert|q=yes}} casting aspersions to justify your disruptive editing is about as low as it gets.
:::Finally, your assertion that my edits "are about an attempt to use scientific reasoning to support creationism" is simply false. Show me a pattern of such edits. In fact, I'm not a creationist. I've not argued for creationism. As per the evolution-creation controversy, I have simply dared to acknowledge that there are reliable sources, and numerous wikipedia articles, about the claims made by academics that they are discriminated for questioning the adequacy of evolution and also reliable sources identifying those who have responded to and denied these claims.


{{tq|didn't join the discussion even after I pinged them|q=yes}} this is extremely disingenuous as it implies that I was editing something else while ignoring your notification, when in fact, you pinged me long after I logged out and I haven't edited anything since (the editing history and the diffs don't lie). Furthermore, I already made it clear in the edit summary that I disagree with your reasoning (which consists of made-up rules and demands to satisfy you with answers).
:::Any judgment against me based on the false charge that I am advocating creationism is simply unfair and demonstrates a failure to look carefully at my edits. The real issue, the real reason these complaints have been made against me, is that when I make what I feel are clearly reasonable contribtions and they are shouted down by people with ] behaviors, I dare to persist instead of being bullied away.. Please do not give the bullies an easy victory based on contributions to pages which don't even properly fit under the discretionary sanctions rule.


The bottom line is that xDanielx is edit warring against multiple editors who disagree with them for various reasons. ] (]) 02:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


:{{re|xDanielx}}
::::I've double checked, and even the ] page is not marked as being in the category of psuedoscience or fringe science. So the notice regarding discretionary sanctions for these categories should not be applied outside those categories. It is totally unfair to apply topic specific sanctions against editors when the articles are not identified as being within that topic...and properly so....this article is about the controversy between people in these camps, not the actual science or psuedoscientific claims.] (]) 23:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


:{{tq|removals of old material are not the spirit of edit warring|q=yes}} we all know what edit warring is, so please don't make-up another rule.
:::::Checking all my article contributions you will see that I only made one edit of ] and the diff for edit shows I only tagged a request for a citation regarding the claim that there are three kinds of creationism. That was immediately reverted by Dominus Vobisdu without any explanation. That's it. My only other edit to a pseudoscience article was in regard to ] both of which simply attempted to clarify the wording in the lead about the lack of any published scientific evidence in favor of ET activity and the U.S. government's official denial that any such evidence exists. Both edits were again reverted by Dominus Vobisdu who appears to claim ] over articles in which he has some presumed expertise, as a microbiologist and teacher.


:{{tq| I don't see any restoration by Cdjp1|q=yes}} <s>maybe that's because you only see what you want to see</s>. ]. Like I said, diffs don't lie.
:::::In total, in the , I edited only two articles, with a total of only three attempted edits, all reverted. None of these four edits were pushing religion or confusing pseudoscience with science. I can see no possible way these edits could run me afoul of the psuedoscience discretionary sanctions.


:{{tq|It didn't occur to me|q=yes}} that's because you assumed bad faith. You made that clear with your aspersions casting that I highlighted above.
:::::Please reject this baseless charge and rebuke those who have brought it against me.] (]) 04:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC).


:For the last time, I don't need to convince you. ] (]) 04:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by John Carter====
Tend to support some sort of ban, indefinite or otherwise. I also tend to think that the topic area could use some more attention. <s>I don't myself see clear evidence, in just a quick review of course, of a separate ] page, for instance, which I think would be reasonable. Some months ago I picked up a book published by the Jehovah's Witnesses (clearly biased, and nowhere near being a reliable source in and of itself, I know, but it was one of a number of freebies I glommed onto at an academic book giveaway), and there seems to be from the apparently reliable sources it cites a reasonable basis for an article on scientific questions of evolutionary theory, either particular aspects of it or the theory in general. An article like that, or on any number of other related topics, might well be valuable and useful.</s> When I finish my current never-ending effort of developing bibliographies of reference sources, I may well attempt generating a list of articles on this topic in encyclopedic sources, but others are free to do so before then if they so see fit. ] (]) 17:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
:The main article I indicated does in fact exist, under ], and I am grateful for that information. I still think there may be reason to develop further development of articles in the broad topic area, but that is true of most topics and there is no particular reason to think this one would be more of a priority than others. ] (]) 17:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
::jps below is probably right. While there is a distinction between "science vs. religion" and "pseudoscience," the bulk of that distinction lies in areas that would probably best be called "philosophy", including perhaps "philosophy of science". The Creation-evolution debate is for the most part, except in some extremist groups, considered closed in the science vs. religion debatae, because, so far as I can tell, most religions have come to the conclusion that creation and evolution are not incompatible. Those groups still postulating "either/or" in this matter in favor of creatiionism are basically dealing with the broad field of "creation science," and so far as I can tell that is counted as part of pseudoscience. Having said that all that, if the AE admins have reservations, I could see maybe going to ARCA ''again'' and requesting clarification. ] (]) 15:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


:{{A note}} Instead of simply striking their aspersions, they doubled down on their bad faith assumption (see ]); and to add insult to injury, they reversed the roles and asked me to "assume good faith" (see their comment above). ] (]) 13:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Adamfinmo ====
<s>I am involved here and I will try to collect some information and post it here along with a more lengthy statement later in the day. --]<small> ]</small> 19:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)</s>
:I had intended on adding more here but I think that Andy pretty much has it dead on. Considering this user's behavior at ] and a refusal by them to recognize the consensous reached in the last RFC, I suspect that GBU2 will certainly be considered for a topic ban soon.--]<small> ]</small> 02:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


::{{tq|the single revert with no explanation|q=yes}} xDanielx being disingenuous again (what they mean by "no explanation" is "no explanation that they agree with and that they'd rather edit war than take it to RSN or start a RfC"). Anyway, they can also argue all they want, but what they cannot do is justify what they did (edit warring, casting aspersions and assuming bad faith). ] (]) 18:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Capeo====
I'm not great with diffs so hopefully this is sufficient.
On Dec 26th another user added this which was quickly reverted. The talk page discussion led to an RFC . Two days into the RFC, with consensus clearly against the inclusion at that point on Dec 28th GBY2 added this section to the article. It was reverted as there was an ongoing RFC covering similar material. On Jan 7 the RFC was closed with consensus against adding such a section
On Jan 11 GBY2 readded the section (even bigger this time) against the consensus just a few days old which was again reverted.


:::{{tq|I don't believe there's a consensus on whether single reverts are technically considered EW|q=yes}} I hope not, because that would mean that you violated that rule three times. One thing is certain though, the 3 reverts that you made are considered EW. ] (]) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Here we have GBY2 edit warring on a user talk page , , , , , until finally stopping after being threatened with a block . This can be chalked up to not understanding talkpage rules but it displays the tendentious attitude in almost all of GBY2's editing.


::::{{re|xDanielx}} quote the complete edit summary or don't bother quoting any of it. I didn't invite myself to this board to discuss content. All I'm interested in is your edit warring, your bad faith assumption and the fact that you doubled down on it after casting aspersions. ] (]) 20:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
On Jan 6 in Fine-Tuned Universe GBY2 added two books to further reading , this was reverted. They then tried to add one of the books as a ref , this too is reverted. They add a book back to further reading claiming vandalism this is again reverted, this time by a different user who goes on to add it correctly in the right place. On Jan 11th GBY2 once again tries to add the further reading and yet a different user reverts them. They try to add it yet again and are once more reverted. All the while consensus was also against the inclusion of these books/sources on the talk page yet GBY2 forged ahead regardless.


<hr>
All of GodBlessYou2's contributions are in the realm of religion, mostly creationism and its offshoots. This mainly started at where they displayed they didn't understand what constituted an independent reliable source in regards to scientific or fringe claims. ] (]) 19:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


{{re|theleekycauldron}} Done. What about their aspersions casting and assumption of bad faith? ] (]) 16:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:Intelligent design is pseudoscience and the section GBY2 tried to insert both during and after the RFC depended mainly on the "documentary" Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and reviews of it, as a source.] (]) 13:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


:{{re|theleekycauldron}} only when the person is not responding (i.e., they are editing something else and ignoring the other editor). I know that they struck the comment, but not without doubling down on the bad faith assumption (see above note). I covered all of this and more in my previous comments. ] (]) 23:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::So now not only has GBY2 tried once more to insert the same exact section that has no consensus, as Andy points out below, but they also added this gem to an essay, essentially claiming we're all lazy for not finding their inclusion worthwhile. ] (]) 17:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by fiveby====
:::And now GBY2 has started another RFC on the same wording already dismissed by consensus , worded such that however you answer you'd be agreeing for some level of inclusion and based on a very strange interpretation of WP:Preserve. ] (]) 16:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm surprised that {{u|Selfstudier}} is making this report. If you're unable here to look at the article content and sources then this should go straight to the arbcom case as evidence. ](]) 03:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{re|Selfstudier}}, this is blatantly bad content. Like UFO level blatantly bad. It seems to me ] editors in some topic areas get told right off to go edit somewhere else, often harshly, quickly warned by admins, and finally sanctioned without a great deal of fuss about the thing. It seems no big deal when admins in those topic areas have some basic knowledge and apply a few research skills to start warning, topic banning, or blocking editors over content when they are otherwise following policies. {{re|Valereee}}, seems like an awfully high burden to impose on everyone here, especially when the RfC process seems to be a big part of the problem in the topic area. I could easily put the shoe on the other foot here, find some trivial bits of content: infobox, lead phrasing, or titles, complain on talk pages and then start a few RfC's. If i were to do that it seems best for WP that Selfstudier report me here for wasting everyone's time and admins here should be able to forcefully let me know that i'm just being a jerk. See ya back here when i've some idle time for ]. ](]) 16:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq|3 editors who don't share your view...}} bad actors, not because they do not share my view but because they don't share ]. Just like all those non-EC editors flooding ] with edit requests and EC editors who've gamed the system to get there. Bad policies. Now there are two good actors and reasonable looking editors here, and more with good work and ideas targets at arbcom. I'd say better to join the edit war and remove that nonsense rather than wasting time with this. ](]) 17:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{re|Valereee}} i think there ''are'' such reasonable editors in the topic area who can work things out and are trying to work things out on talk pages with ], and good work on the real article content in the bodies. Why are they ending up here and at arbcom? I think it's due to the bad policies and the bad actors gaming them. Wastes time and frustrates everyone. ](]) 18:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


====Statement by AndyTheGrump==== ====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
A further example of GodBlessYou2's refusal to accept consensus at ] - combined with a blatant misrepresentation of demonstrable facts: . GodBlessYou2 writes that "...the only appeal is to a stale RfC. The RfC was about one reference and one proposed sentence." The RfC closed less than a week ago. It mentioned no reference, and made no specific proposal regarding text. This gross misrepresentation, combined with a refusal to accept consensus, suggests to me that at minimum a topic ban is required. Though frankly, given that this refusal to accept consensus seems to be an ongoing issue with this contributor (see this discussion on another topic entirely, where GodBlessYou2's reponse to a clearly-developing consensus was to make the same proposal again, slightly reworded, and insist that it be discussed again) I have to wonder whether we would be better off without such contributions at all. ] (]) 03:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


===Result concerning xDanielX===
:With regard to 'pseudoscience-relatedness', it is worth noting the specific context of GodBlessYou2's confrontational behaviour at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy - his insistance that the article contain material on the claim (not even generally supported by Creationists), that Creationist scientists have been systematically discriminated against by the scientific establishment. While Creationism itself certainly isn't of itself scientific, or pseudoscientific, the claims made by some Creationists regarding mainstream science (particularly but not exclusively evolution) are certainly seen as pseudoscientific by many (including, it should be noted, the U.S. courts in their rejection of 'Intelligent Design' as legitimate science), and an assertion that such Creationist 'science' is being suppressed would seem to me to fall within the remit of the sanctions. It is, after all, common for proponents of fringe viewpoints to claim a conspiracy to silence them. Using Misplaced Pages to promote such fringe claims amounts to promoting Creationist 'science' - and doing so in a manner that does so not on its scientific merits, but on the basis of a fringe conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory that amounts to an attack on the legitimacy of science itself. If this ''doesn't'' fall within the remit of ArbCom sanctions in relation to pseudoscience, it would seem to me to certainly be covered by more general policies regarding appropriate weight, legitimate sourcing and the rest in the article concerned - and accordingly, if GodBlessYou2 isn't to be sanctioned for his tendentious behaviour at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy here, the matter will need to be resolved elsewhere. And for the record, I would like to suggest that the 'fine-tuned universe' article may also be within the scope of sanctions relating to pseudoscience - and certainly seems to be subject to some systematic POV-pushing to exclude commentary from the scientific mainstream. I'll not offer further evidence on this for now, however, since I've not really studied the subject matter in the depth necessary to entirely disentangle the legitimate debate from what appears on the surface at least to be special pleading based on preconceptions based around religious belief - certainly an article supposedly about a scientific debate seems to use the word 'God' rather a lot. The problem again isn't that religion has something to say about the universe - of course it does, and of course it should - but that particular views developed from a religious viewpoint are being promoted ''as science'' in an undue manner. Maybe these views aren't pseudoscience - if only because the scientific mainstream has little settled opinion to contrast them against - but the promotion of specific scientific hypotheses ''because they accord with a particular religious perspective'' is certainly undue. ] (]) 07:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
::And so it continues. GodBlessYou2 has just posted the same arguments yet again, based on exactly the same falsifications previously used to try to Wikilawyer around a clear and conclusive RfC result. At this stage, I'm beginning to wonder whether this should be taken to ANI, with the intention of discussing an indefinite block on ] grounds. This isn't just a failure to drop the stick, it is a failure to actually even respond to adverse commentary at all. ] (]) 16:28, 13 January 2015 (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. -->
:::And on it goes - with GodBlessYou2 now stating a bogus 'RfC' (clearly lacking even a façade of neutrality) over content already rejected on multiple occasions. I have began to suspect that this tendentiousness is actually ''intended'' to bring about sanctions on GodBlessYou2, who will no doubt then consider his claims of a 'conspiracy' proven. ] (]) 01:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
* Daniel, your excuse for edit-warring seems to be that the claim is extraordinary. I totally see your point on this being an extraordinary claim; to me it seems highly dubious that 62,000 people could have died ''of starvation'' over the course of a year and it wouldn't be ongoing international front page news rather than speculation/estimation in obscure sources, with multiple mainstream RS only reporting starvation deaths in the dozens. But edit-warring isn't the answer. The answer is an RfC with notification to projects and noticeboards. It would even be fair to suggest the content be removed as dubious until the RfC closes; there's no particular urgency for WP to include such a dubious number in an infobox, which as you pointed out is similar to providing that info in Wikivoice. ] (]) 12:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::In response to GodBlessYou2's assertion above that " It is totally unfair to apply topic specific sanctions against editors when the articles are not identified as being within that topic", I would point out that the word 'pseudoscience' appears four times in the body of the ] article, and that the talk page contains a header indicating that discretionary sanctions applied to the page. And perhaps more to the point, I find it impossible to believe that GodBlessYou2 is unaware that the objection from the scientific mainstream to Creationist/'Intelligent Design' arguments against evolution ''in the debate covered in the article'' is that in as much as they amount to anything approximating scientific discourse, they are pseudoscience: something that "is not scientific" although "its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific". Accordingly, I have to suggest that GodBlessYou2 is engaging in yet more of the tendentious Wikilawyering that brought about this case in the first place. ] (]) 05:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
*:@], sure, it would be better if editors at an article would just be able to work it out by saying to themselves, "Hm...yeah, that doesn't really make sense. 62,000+ people dead of ''starvation''? And no one's talking about it except some obscure unpublished research and a letter to POTUS, and both of those estimates are based on a single unproven theory? Maybe we ''should'' rethink". But it seems like the editors at the article talk who want to keep this dubious content in the infobox have dug in their heels on defending the poor sourcing and are in the majority. ] (]) 17:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@], the exceptions to edit warring are detailed at ]. It's best to claim an exception in the edit summary. ] (]) 21:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::@], I feel like ] is {{xt|specific guidance on what to avoid}}. What are you not understanding? What revert did you think would covered under the exemptions? ] (]) 00:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::@], you said {{xt|I think the implied message I'm getting is along the lines of "it's best to follow EW to the letter, irrespective of any other factors", which would be a clear line that I can follow.}} So here's a clear line to follow, explicitly stated rather than implied: When reverted, go directly to the talk page, open a section, ping the editor, and discuss. Do not revert until consensus has been reached. Unless a reversion is for reasons included by 3RR exemptions, such as a BLP vio, that is best practices. Can you commit to making that your default setting? ] (]) 15:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
* So, looking at the diffs here, it seems like xDanielx removes the content once, it's reverted, removes a second time. Then someone else bundles the list into a footnote and a second person re-adds the content, which xDanielx doesn't recognize as a readdition and thinks that they forgot to remove the same content somewhere else, gets reverted, reverts back. If it were actually the situation that there were two instances of the same content, it'd merit maybe a reminder because it's generally not good practice to arm-wrestle in the revision history to get edits through. Given that and the fact that they weren't being careful, I'd say either a warning or reminder is best. As for the content dispute, both positions are reasonable enough that neither one would be sanctionable on its own as POV-pushing, so it's out of scope for this thread. {{yo|M.Bitton}} {{tq|maybe that's because you only see what you want to see}} is inappropriate for a civil discussion. Please strike that. ] (] • she/her) 16:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|M.Bitton}} Seems like they struck the "reflexive tag-team revert" comment. As for the pinging, it's pretty reasonable to bring up that someone isn't responding when you try and engage with them, I'm not sure I see the same assumption of bad faith. Open to your thoughts on it, though :) ] (] • she/her) 23:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*Per Valereee above, the argument of an extraordinary claim is a reasonable one, but that isn't one of the very few exceptions we allow for edit-warring. I'm also not impressed by the dismissal of SelfStudier's warning as a threat. That said, there is engagement on the talk page, and no bright-line violation, so I would stop at a logged warning about edit-warring. ] (]) 17:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
* Daniel, there is no 1RR exemption for being right. You need to learn that the revert-button isn't a good first (or any) option in this topic area. Yes, it's frustrating to have to expend effort to discuss things but that's what system we have here at wikipedia. I'm okay with a logged warning, but I do want Daniel to understand that contentious topics such as this demand the best behavior. That's how you stay out of trouble, and yes, the filing against M.Bitton, while perhaps merited, certainly gave off a distinct impression of a retaliatory filing - too much of that sort of thing gets editors topic banned or worse. ] (]) 18:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*: I very slightly lean 0RR restriction, just because I think that might help the editor get the idea that edit warring isn't a good idea at all, which might not get through with a logged warning. But its very slight and a logged warning also works. (Sorry for delay - snowfall and I got mesmerized by the beauty of winter ... so nice to be all snug in the house next to the wood stove with hot tea and watching big fluffy flakes falling...) ] (]) 16:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*Comment to stave off the archive bot. We should reach some resolution here; it looks to me like this is tending toward a warning for edit warring with no further sanction. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 09:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:My concern is that Daniel keeps arguing that ''this'' edit warring should be one of the exemptions and/or indicating that because not all edit warring gets exactly the same response consistently, they don't recognize where the line is. I'm fine with a warning ''if Daniel will indicate they do now understand where the line is and will comply''. ] (]) 15:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*::{{u|xDanielx}}, please consider yourself to have a 300 word extension for the purpose of responding to the above from Valereee. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*I'm wondering if this is a case where 0RR may be usefully applied. ] (]) 17:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*We need to close this. {{ping|Valereee|Seraphimblade|Ealdgyth|Theleekycauldron}} Is there agreement on a logged warning for edit-warring? I agree with Valereee that the justifications above are concerning, but that isn't enough to push me to something more draconian. I floated the idea of a 0RR restriction, but nobody has commented on that, so I would default to a logged warning. I see no history of sanctions. ] (]) 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I'm still pretty concerned about Daniel's most recent explanation of their understanding of EW. I feel like 0RR might be a better solution, but I'm willing to go along with a logged warning if 0RR doesn't work for others. I kind of feel like if this needs to be revisited, it's quite possibly likely an arbcom case. ] (]) 16:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::<small>Noting here for the record that Ealdgyth supports either, above in their own response area. ] (]) 17:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
*:::I think I prefer 0RR here. I'm just not seeing an indication that xDanielx understands that "But I'm ''really sure I'm right''!" is not an exception to the rules on edit warring; indeed, that is the ''cause'' of probably 99% of edit wars. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I'm ready to go for a logged warning, given that Daniel has now committed to 0RR as a personal default. ] (]) 17:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::If you think that's the way to go, I don't have any particular objection to that. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within a day or so, I'll close as such. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*I apologize for the tardiness: I was hoping TLC would chime in, but then this fell off my radar. I'm reading a slight consensus in favor of 0RR, given that Seraphimblade, myself, and Ealdgyth all preferred it, and Valereee's latest post does not indicate objection. In addition, if xDanielx intends to hold himself to this standard, it shouldn't prove an onerous restriction. I would be willing to consider an appeal within a few months based on engagement in disputes without a violation. ] (]) 17:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
<!--
-->
{{hab}}


==M.Bitton==
====Statement by jps====
{{hat|result=M.Bitton is warned against ] and reminded to abide by ]. ] (]) 06:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}
I echo what AndyTheGrump says about pseudoscience-relatedness, and argue strongly that the edits under discussion here are 100% pseudoscience-related contrary to the attempted ] offered by Sandstein below. To give a kind of seminar tutorial in this subject, the ] (I would argue the foremost authority on identifying pseudoscience in the context of the ]) identifies the precise aspect of the fine-tuning argument which is pseudoscientific here: . This is exactly the same aspect that GodBlessYou2 is pushing. Claiming that the ] of ''religion versus science'' is somehow a separate issue from ''science versus pseudoscience'' actually skids dangerously towards adopting the position of ] pseudoscientists make in their ] &mdash; another argument that is itself rank pseudoscience promotion. In other words, it is clever propaganda meant to legitimize positions that are pseudoscientific &mdash; intending to make them look like a conflict of worldviews rather than pseudoscience. Remember, the discretionary sanctions are on topics that are "broadly construed" precisely because this kind of gaming is so common in contentious areas (of the "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" level of intellectual argumentation). ] (]) 13:39, 13 January 2015 (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 M.Bitton===
====Statement by Sławomir Biały====
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|XDanielx}} 07:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Sandstein's argument seems to be that the edits in question do not fall within the mandate of the PSCI decision, because they concern the culture war rather than science. If that were truly the case, then Sandstein's argument would be quite convincing. However, it does not seem to me that the edits in question do concern the culture wars per se. Rather, they concern the Creationist claim (as advanced by one particular piece of unreliable propaganda) of exclusion the scientific process because, they allege, their "scientific" work is censored by the establishment. This is not a statement about religious belief versus science, but specifically that the Creationist agenda of "questioning evolutionary theory" (in the style of ]) are legitimately scientific. For example, from , "This consensus is so embedded in academia that some critics believe it has created a chilling effect on scientists who might raise questions regarding the adequacy of evolutionary theory." ] (]) 14:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|M.Bitton}}<p>{{ds/log|M.Bitton}}</p>
====Statement by Bishonen====
I recommend a topic ban from creationism-related pages for civil POV-pushing beyond the bounds of reason. Godblessyou2 has now got a ''third'' RfC, within a few weeks, going, on essentially the same issue on the talkpage of ], ignoring that there has all along been solid consensus ''against'' what he wants to do. (Before somebody points out that he didn't ''start'' the first RfC, I'll mention it myself.) I gave him a pseudoscience discretionary sanctions alert a while back, and I have already warned him several times against uselessly wasting editors' time. The first diff, from 31 December 2014, contains my reply to his (incredulous) question whether discretionary sanctions can be imposed for arguing for inclusion of material on the talk page: ''"yes, discretionary sanctions can be imposed for arguing on the talkpage, if it's taken far enough and uselessly exhausts too much of our most precious resource (=the time and energy of out volunteers). It's been done".'' To me, the amount of beating a dead horse and the level of civil POV-pushing GBY2 has demonstrated on that talkpage over several weeks is well ripe for a topic ban from creationism-related pages. I would already have instituted such a ban myself, except that when I went check out the article talkpage yesterday, to take stock, I realized I may be considered too involved (even though I've never edited the article), since I "voted" in the first RfC. But a topic ban is what I think should be done. This is the kind of thing that burns out good-faith competent editors.


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced:
{{ping|Sandstein}} Godblessyou2's whole argument is about whether or not creationist ''scientists'' are discriminated against by academe, as regards getting their papers published, getting hired to pursue their research in an academic setting, etc. Yes, creationism may be taken as simply religious, but this is all about creationism as science — GBY2 is pushing it as science. In that context, it is certainly pseudoscience. I don't think the OP has the emphasis right — e. g., never mind the mistake about restoring posts to user talkpages — but I do believe sanctions under the pseudoscience DS purely for the way GBY2 has acted on ] would be wholly appropriate. We need to give some protection to the protectors of articles. ] &#124; ] 07:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC).
]


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
====Statement by Dominus Vobisdu====
I'll limit this to ] related issues for now, since they're easiest to evaluate with minimal context.


# {{tq|xDanielx being disingenuous again (what they mean by "no explanation" is "no explanation that they agree with")}}
Since this case was started, ] has continued to pursue his "proposal" by launching another RfC on the article talk page, which has been characterized by numerous responders as serious flawed and tendentious. See ].
# {{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}}
# {{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 :
He also appears to be canvassing: ].
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 ]):
This editor is deeply unsatisfied with the rigor of our sourcing policies. He has tried to loosen the notability guidelines for fringe films: ]
* Was a subject of a previous ARBPIA AE ].
* Made a couple other statements in ARBPIA AE requests: ,


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
And has proposed that sources should be considered reliable if they appear in Google News searches: ]
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)


{{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)
He refuses to accept the fact that our policies forbid the additions that he wishes to make to this and other articles, and has a serious case of ]. He also has a penchant for accusing fellow editors of working against him, and resorts to appeals to WP essays, which he himself tried to alter, to back up his behavior, blithely ignoring our core policies and overwhelming consensus by many editors in the process.


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
He (not so indirectly) accused his fellow editors of being "lazy" his edits to one of the essays, in that they should try to "preserve" something of his additions, even though they violate our core policies: ]


===Discussion concerning M.Bitton===
This is indeed a pseudoscience related case, as the material he is trying to insert pertains to how pseudoscientists feel "persecuted" or "suppressed". He bases this all on in-universe fringe sources which he persists on insisting are reliable despite being told by many fellow editors that the contrary is the case.
<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 M.Bitton====
] and ] apply here, and I see little hope that this editor will ever be able to edit productively, particularly on controversial topics. He has squandered lavish amounts of his fellow editors' time, and will undoubtedly continue ad infinitum. I see no other viable option than an indefinite block under discretionary sanctions. Trying to reason with him has gotten me, and many other editors, precisely nowhere. ] (]) 07:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
:{{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)
::{{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)
:::{{re|Valereee}} sure. ] (]) 00:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


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


===Result concerning GodBlessYou2=== ===Result concerning M.Bitton===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
<!-- 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. -->
<small>''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''</small>
*<!--

-->
Three diffs of three different edits aren't evidence of edit-warring. We'd need dated diffs of each and every edit making up the edit war for that. This report may be quickly shelved if the evidence is not supplemented accordingly. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
* 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)
:Ok, there's some evidence now of confrontative, tendentious editing. But can somebody explain how this is in scope of the sanctions? After all, evolution and the "fine-tuned universe" are not fringe science, and as far as I know the objections to evolution are essentially religious, not scientific (or even pseudoscientific) in nature and motivation. So where's the pseudoscience-relatedness in all of this? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:13, 13 January 2015 (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)
::AndyTheGrump, I understand that there are forms of creationism that are portrayed as scientific, such as ], and these are probably pseudoscience and subject to sanctions. But the edits at issue here are not related to such "religion ''in the form of'' science" topics, but rather they appear to be related to the "religion ''versus'' science" debate that is at the core of the cultural controversies related to evolution, and that is not a topic covered by discretionary sanctions. So, unless other admins see something I don't, I'm of the view that this conduct is not within the scope of discretionary sanctions. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
*::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)
In agreement with AndyTheGrump and jps, and contra Sandstein, I view these edits as falling into the area of pseudoscience (excluding the talk page edit warring ones, which appear to be based on a misunderstanding of policy and for which DS seem like the wrong tool). The edits, from what I can see, are about an attempt to use scientific reasoning to support creationism, thus making it fall under the topic of pseudoscience. ] ] 12:26, 15 January 2015 (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... ] (]) 17:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:You may well be right - distinguishing the cultural and religious issues from the scientific ones is tricky here, I think, and I'd prefer to be cautious - but if you think that this is within the scope of the sanctions, I leave it to you to determine which action, if any, is appropriate. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:42, 15 January 2015 (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. ] (]) 18:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::To Sandstein and to others here: Bit busy now. Will try my dangdest to come back to this soon, but real-life deadlines are approaching. ] ] 11:49, 18 January 2015 (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)
:::Having read this situation in more detail, I'm seeing a strong ] problem here. I'm afraid that seems sufficient for a topic ban. As this is a first ban, I'll probably issue it for a finite duration. Will leave this open a bit to see if there is any more input. ] ] 13:07, 19 January 2015 (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 meant can you discuss it ''here'', but maybe I wasn't clear. ] (]) 15:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*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)
*:A logged warning, sure. ] (]) 15:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Agreed, and I also agree we should put this to bed. ] (]) 20:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}} {{hab}}


==JzG== ==Ethiopian Epic==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
{{hat|Closed with no action against JzG. All parties are reminded that conduct at WP:AE is actionable and that abuse of the process to pursue personal grudges, cast unfounded aspersions about others or to advance an off site agenda will result in sanction--] <sup>]</sup> 11:55, 21 January 2015 (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 JzG=== ===Request concerning Ethiopian Epic===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|A1candidate}} 01:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC) ; 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>


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|JzG}}<p>{{ds/log|JzG}}
<!--- 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.

# - Violates ] by calling me an "acupuncture advocate" # Manually reverted the lead back to how it was in September.
# - Violates ] by stating in the edit summary "go away, stupid person" # Falsely Claimed cited material was OR. (G
# - Violates ] by stating "and now you look a bit silly" # Falsely Claimed cited material was unsourced
# Violates ] by accusing a new editor of being "a pertennial gadfly with an axe to grind" # It took an ANI report to get him to use the article talk page. His defense was accusations and denial.
# Violates ] by stating "how the fuck are we supposed to control POV-pushing?" # He reverted to a version that went against consensus established on the talk page and contained a falsely sourced quote.
# Violates ] by stating "you were the problem then, and it sounds very much as if you still are" # Engages in sealioning
# Violates ] by stating "you are in a minority of one, and clearly obsessed with this particular article" # 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.
# Violates ] by stating "of all the low-lifes in the world, the cancer quack is probably the worst" and "he is a perfect example of crank magnetism at work" # starts disputing a new section of
# Violates ] by stating "given your extremely limited editing history, I am inclined to dismiss your concern" # 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.
# Violates ] by calling me "an advocate of quackery and fringe ideas" # 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 : ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> <!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
# Explanation
# - ] warned him to comment on content, not on contributors, and this warning was to be "logged as a discretionary sanction"
# Explanation


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):[
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> <!-- The 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).
* - Alerted about discretionary sanctions regarding pseudoscience and fringe science

* - Alerted about discretionary sanctions regarding complementary and alternative medicine


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here --> <!-- Add any further comment here -->
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.
*{{userlinks|Gaijin42}} violates ] by calling an editor "the most severe (stupid person) was already dealt with at the previous AE". () His comment about a particular "OP" deals with a separate editor, not me.


: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 ].
* {{userlinks|Dominus Vobisdu}} violates ] by calling editors "fringe promoters on alternative medicine" (). He claims that I am adding "grossly unreliable sources", without stating which sources, and he accuses me of pushing pro-fringe material without giving evidence in the form of diffs.


:@]
* {{userlinks|TenOfAllTrades}} violates ] by calling me a civil-but-tireless POV-pusher (). In this arbitration filing, he commented in an area reserved for uninvolved administrators only, despite his status as an ] administrator as evidenced by his recent participation in the talk pages of ], ], and ]: , and . Based on the evidence shown above, TenOfAllTrades is clearly an involved administrator.
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.


:@] 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. --->
#I am not an advocate of these treatments. I only support the scientific study of these therapies.
#I have previously removed positive studies about acupuncture () and ] (). If I were to advocate for anything, that would be for the faithful representation of scientific and medical literature per ].
#A significant portion of TenOfAllTrades's recent editing falls under the category of pseudoscience, fringe science, or complementary and alternative medicine. In addition, TenOfAllTrades has participated in several content disputes about these articles (, and ) and is therefore an involved administrator in these disputes.


===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 Ethiopian Epic====
:Please read ] carefully. The Cochrane review was removed because it does not support what was being stated in the article, not because it fails ] (Cochrane reviews are generally exempted from ]). The other review fails ] and was therefore removed. I stand by my edits because they absolutely conform to ].
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.
:''Further discussion removed by an administrator because it relates to a content dispute and is therefore beyond the scope of this forum. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)''


@] 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.
* ]:


@] 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.
:There is a difference between being direct and being plain abusive and provocative. JzG uses foul language, makes baseless accusations, repeatedly bites the newcomers, and repeatedly comments on contributors instead of content. I do not claim to be a perfect editor and if you dig hard enough into my contributions, you might be able to find something that slightly borders on infringement of a guideline a while ago, but I believe I have nothing incriminating to hide. Feel free to search my edits, but until you find something incriminating, my conscience remains clear. I am not an advocate of acupuncture, neither financially nor otherwise.


====Statement by Relm====
* ]
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.


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)
:{{userlinks|QuackGuru}} is a disruptive editor who has been repeatedly blocked for multiple counts of edit-warring and disruptive editing. Problematic behaviorial issues include:


====Statement by Simonm223====
# - Accusing me of sockpuppetry, without evidence
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.
# - Removing my request for clarification and accusing me of sockpuppetry again, without evidence
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)
# - Advocacy of pro-fringe material claiming the the tattoo marks of ] suggest some form of acupuncture "developed independent of China"
# - Advocacy of pro-fringe material claiming that the tattoo marks of ] are supposedly "acupuncture points"
# - Advocacy of pro-fringe material claiming that "acupuncture was previously used in Europe 5 millennia ago"
# - Advocacy of pro-fringe material claiming that "an acupuncture-like therapy was already used in Europe 5 millennia ago" and the tattoo marks correspond to "acupuncture points"
# - Repeated advocacy for pro-fringe material using unreliable, non-] sources, despite earlier consensus
# - ] according to comments such as "I added a quote to ensure no editor claims the text is unsourced."


====Statement by Eronymous====
:I reverted his edit because they contained many sources that fail ] and he was advocating for pro-fringe material using a speculative claim that the tattoo marks on ] are supposedly "acupuncture points". This mass addition was performed without any attempts at discussion whatsoever, and that is why I removed it.
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.
; 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. --->


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)
===Discussion concerning JzG===
<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 JzG====
This is abuse of process by one of a number of fringe advocates who are engaged in a determined campaign to undermine the scientific rigour of our coverage on quackery. Given the determined and vexatious nature of quackery advocacy on Misplaced Pages, it is unsurprising that a dumpster dive through contributions of any reality advocate will turn up instances of tetchiness, especially since it is usually necessary to explain policy repeatedly, in words of one syllable, and even then they just keep asking, and will always keep asking until they get what they want - something not in our gift, because what they want is for science to completely change and their beliefs to become true. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by Gaijin42==== ====Statement by Nil Einne====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
The diffs that predate the 11th are prior to the warning, and the most severe <ins></ins> (stupid person) was already dealt with at the previous AE that ''just closed''.


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)
* In diff #6 the OP accuses Guy of ] and threatens to take him to ANI, Guy responding on his own talk page that he thinks the OP is a problem editor seems pretty justified
* #8 is not a civility issue at all, he is clearly talking about the subject of the article ] who is indeed a well known crank.


===Result concerning Ethiopian Epic===
This seems like editors that didn't like the previous result trying to take two bites at the apple, but JzG could certainly tone it down a bit, while still holding the line against the quackery. ] (]) 02:37, 16 January 2015 (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==
:{{u|A1candidate}} My "stupid person" comment is a direct reference to diff #2 that '''you posted above'''. As for the "OP" one, I was providing the context for Guy's comment, not accusing you personally of anything. But I do find it interesting that you are finding so many diffs that ''do not involve you'' to complain about. If this is the way conversations generally go in this topic area, I am not surprised that Guy lost his cool. ] (]) 15:45, 16 January 2015 (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 Tinynanorobots===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : ] (]) 19:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Tinynanorobots}}<p>{{ds/log|Tinynanorobots}}</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: ]
{{u|Callanecc}} Since A1 mentions the CAM sanctions in his report against JzG, wouldn't that be sufficient to say he was aware of them at the time of his posting? Also he was a named party on the CAM ArbCom case where the sanctions were applied by motion and he commented there significantly. Either seems to satisfy point #2 of the "awareness" criteria? ] (]) 14:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- 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}}).
====Statement by Dominus Vobisdu====
#. 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}}).
#. 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}}).
#. 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
There is a ] tactic currently being used by several fringe promoters on alternative medicine articles to provoke other editors into reacting and then calling them out for being uncivil. This complaint is a good example of trying to eliminate opposition to fringe promotion. I myself stopped editing altogether for several months because of my disgust at this phenomenon. I believe that boomerang applies, and that the OP should be topic banned from all articles related to medicine, including alternative medicine and related topics, broadly construed. This has become such a serious problem that alternative medicine articles are now covered by discretionary sanctions because fringe promoters tried to evade discretionary sanctions related to pseudoscience topics. This particular editor has been tendentious and disruptive, and pushing pro-fringe material backed up by grossly unreliable sources. Civil POV pushing is an apt description of his behavior. ] (]) 06:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
# Explanation
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
====Statement by RAN1====
Short comment: A1candidate’s TM diff was immediately preceded by a number of edits removing the sourced consensus that research on TM was of poor quality, making the lead statement to that effect unsourced. His justification for this was primarily MEDDATE on <10 year old articles. See ] (~13:12, 10 January 2015). —-] (]) 13:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
:''Further discussion removed by an administrator because it relates to a content dispute and is therefore beyond the scope of this forum. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:26, 16 January 2015 (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 .
; 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 ] or ] don't apply to him which is disruptive, and I don't know why.
====Statement by Resolute====
After seeing the comments at Jimbo's talk page that led to this request, I figured this would be a bad faith attempt at gaming the system by A1Canaditate. Having read this and the other comments, I am now convinced as such. In particular given how A1candidate is accusing people who disagree with him of various sundry violations simply because they disagree with him. I would agree with ToaT that this is more likely to be a ] situation than anything else. ]] 16:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


- Warning from other editor about repeated removal of content when multiple users are objecting.


- Warning from yet another editor about not assuming good faith and making personal attacks
==== Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge ====
{{ping|Sandstein}} Can you please clarify how the accusation of being "''an advocate of quackery and fringe ideas''" is true? If you're referring to acupuncture, and I assume that you are, I believe that you are mistaken. My only prior knowledge of acupuncture is what I see in the movies and on TV. But when I looked it up at:
* The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
* The Mayo Clinic
* The National Cancer Institute
* The American Heart Association
* Encyclopedia Britannica (which theoretically should produce an article roughly similar to ours)
Not a single one of these sources described acupuncture as pseudoscience, and these sources are about as ] and ] as they come.


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.
As best I can tell, the POV that acupuncture is pseudoscience is a ] or minority POV (perhaps even significant minority) but certainly not scientific consensus. This appears to a case where editors who ''claim'' to be arguing in favor of scientific consensus are actually arguing ''against'' scientific consensus. ] (]) 17:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
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}}.
====Statement by Pekay2====
I fervently agree with aqfk. I would add--this whole fringe, quackbuster focus is an anachronism in my view. History is replete with yesterday's quackery as today's science, and yesterday's science as today's quackery.--] (]) 18:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


====Statement by QuackGuru====
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===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.
A1candidate was notified of the sanctions on . A1candidate compliant sources and his edit summary did not give a valid reason to delete all the text or sources from Acupuncture. A1candidate made mass changes to Transcendental Meditation . A1candidate deleted text from the lede and body that describes Traditional Chinese medicine as largely pseudoscience after there was a long established consensus. See ]. ] (]) 21:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


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.
], in case you missed it A1candidate was notified of the sanctions on . So admins are able to take further action against A1candidate at this time. Of course, he deleted the . A1candidate was also notified of the sanctions for acupuncture on . ] (]) 21:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


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


::I just thought that the Admins here should know about the ongoing SPI
===Result concerning JzG===
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
<small>''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''</small>


====Statement by Relm====
The quality of the diffs provided, when examined in context, suggest that A1candidate is a ripe candidate for a boomerang. WP:AE is not meant to be used by a civil-but-tireless POV-pusher to try to eliminate editors who seem to have a much firmer grasp of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:MEDRS. ](]) 02:30, 16 January 2015 (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 ().
:The request is unfounded. Insofar as the diffs submitted as evidence postdate the civility warning, they are not personal attacks, at least not to a sanctionable degree. Instead, a look at A1candidate's editing history makes it appear likely that JzG's assertion that A1candidate is "an advocate of quackery and fringe ideas" is true. They seem - at least since Summer 2014 - to edit exclusively in this topic area, including such articles as ], ] and ], and their edits seem to be intended to present these methods in a more favorable light. I invite comment by admins, and evidence by others, as to how and whether this might amount to sanctionable conduct.
:I'm also of the view that A1candidate's contention that TenOfAllTrades is an involved administrator is not supported by any evidence submitted here. Involvedness might arise from a personal, direct dispute with A1candidate, of which we have no evidence, but not merely from the fact that TenOfAllTrades has edited in the same topic area. TenOfAllTrades's view that A1candidate is a "civil-but-tireless POV-pusher" is an administrator's assessment of misconduct and not a personal attack. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
::I completely agree with that assessment and am inclined to decline to take action against JzG regarding this complaint. I'm not sure if I was just turned off by the excessive pseudo-legalese format in which everything was presented, but at a bare minimum, #1, 5, and 7 are also not at all evidence of misconduct. ] does not mean "unfailingly polite in all aspects of one's speech," and not all comments require that everything be footnoted and filed in triplicate. It is sometimes nice and even required to have that, but it would also be nice to live in a world with delicious calorie-free chocolate and no alt-medicine quacks. I don't (necessarily) think that A1candidate meets that criteria, but I think a closer examination of their recent edits are warranted. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 14:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
:::With respect, ], are you sure you're an uninvovled admin? seems to suggest that you are rather friendly with (and thus not objective regarding) JzG, and also suggests that you are not impartial on this subject and you even stated that you wouldn't consider yourself uninvolved. Coupled with the relative infrequency with which you participate as an admin at AE, it would be easy for somebody to get the impression that you were 'defending your mates'. I've seen you admin in other areas for many years, so I don't believe that is your intent but I would respectfully suggest that you move your comments to your own section and leave the adminning to admins who come to this issue 'cold'. ] &#124; ] 18:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the question ], I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. There are certainly a number of medicine editors who I would consider myself on good enough terms with to not take admin action. I would not say say that JzG is one of them; I think we may have worked together on an article at some point 3-4 years ago (]?) but I honestly cannot remember. I do not believe that it was too extensive though. The comment I left on his talk page was intended to both clarify Arbitration policy and also to simply leave a humorous comment for all those editors who are serious about ] who might come across it &ndash; which is not an insignificant group considering that JzG has a reputation for zero bullshit in this area and has the ] on Misplaced Pages. For the recent ArbCom case request, I tried to err on the side of caution (I recall making a few comments as to what I remember as being accuracy of a few sources on ] a little while ago) but I generally have always tried to act as an administrator in alt-medicine articles generally rather than as an editor, as it is not really a topic area of particular interest of mine (my real life interests in medicine are not something I edit on Misplaced Pages much or even at all). The reason why I interact with it at all on Misplaced Pages is because I believe it to be the highest profile portion of WikiProject Medicine where ] is routinely flouted. I don't believe the facts that I come into AE with that perspective and don't participate much in the rest of AE is a significant problem, quite the contrary &ndash; I would rather stay out of requests if I don't know what is going on. But perhaps others disagree with that perspective. As always, I would appreciate feedback from you and anyone else. Best, '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 20:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::Well, it happens that there is agreement among the admins here to close this without action, and even if you were involved, I don't think your comment was the deciding factor there, so it's a bit of a moot point. I'm satisfied with your reply personally. The geo-political disputes are more our stock in trade at AE (though I can see alt-med/psudoscience/fringe science or gender politics and sexuality becoming roe dominant in the future), and some of the admins who are tangentially involved there often comment here as admins but recuse if anybody raises a good-faith objection and generally let another admin close the request and log any action—it might be wise for you to do something similar to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. ] &#124; ] 20:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


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)
{{ping|Dominus Vobisdu}} You violate ], an aspect of ], by asserting that A1candidate "has been tendentious and disruptive, and pushing pro-fringe material backed up by grossly unreliable sources" without at the same time providing actionable evidence for this serious accusation of misconduct. Please provide such evidence in the form of dated diffs as soon as possible, within 24 hours of your next edit following this message, or you may be made subject to a block or ban. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
:I concur, though striking the remark would also be acceptable. ] &#124; ] 18:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
:I would argue that filing this request &ndash; which is legalistic, poorly-judged in its choice of evidence, and appears principally to be trying for a second bite at the apple just closed by HJ Mitchell a few days ago &ndash; certainly represents ''prima facie'' "tendentious and disruptive" conduct. ](]) 18:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
::Disruptive, perhaps, but no evidence of "pushing pro-fringe material" and using "grossly unreliable sources" is apparent. <br>In response to some comments above, the removed comments are not helpful to admins evaluating this request. Involvedness requires evidence of a bias for or against a particular editor or contested content issue, rather than expressing an opinion in very broadly related topic areas. My comment above did not relate to acupuncture specifically, but to the totality of topics edited, which have in common that they are disputed with regard to their scientific validity or lack thereof. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Perhaps it would be best to close this thread &ndash; as it appears that there is little evidence or appetite for a sanction against JzG &ndash; rather than let it get sidetracked into a tangent bickering about A1candidate's conduct? If there are editors with specific concerns on that front, I suspect that they will find that a well-formed, dedicated enforcement request regarding A1candidate's behavior would be more focused and better able to address the issue. ](]) 20:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
::::I could live with closing it without prejudice to a request being filed against A1candidate. I'm less than impressed with both parties, but JzG's tone was addressed in the warning last week; I don't know if he's heeded it, but there's nothing in the diffs that is absolutely outrageous (though the "low-life" remark in diff #10 would have been, had it been directed at an individual). It's not about knee-jerk "civility" enforcement, but about creating a hostile atmosphere in the topic area, and I note that that comment was made on a user talk page, not an article talk page (DS apply everywhere, but comments on a user talk page do not contribute as much to a toxic environment in the mainspace as comments on an article talk page do). ] &#124; ] 20:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by Barkeep49====
As all of the admins who have commented here so far are long familiar, dealing with this alleged ] is a difficult task. It is a huge annoyance to have someone being an excessive stickler for the rules instead of actually being willing to work with other editors to figure out what everyone wants for the article so that it meets the underlying principles being ], ], etc. This AE report is not a helpful report in that respect (it brings up, at absolute worst, very very borderline comments), but based on my review a few weeks ago of A1candidate's edits, I do not believe his editing style is what I would consider to be civil POV pushing. However, I would be willing to be convinced otherwise. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 20:03, 16 January 2015 (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)


*Nearly the whole "Additional comments by editor filing the complaint" section suggests to me that they intend to disrupt, finding something in most comments made to complain about when most of which were blatantly not what they said they were is disruptive whether they know it was or not. Given that as well as conduct in other related comments (which Sanstein commented on) I would suggest that we take action against A1candidate. While civil POV-pushing is not necessarily a violation of policy, continuing to do so after having been informed of community norms regarding that and continuing to be disruptive is disruptive and likely tendentious as this this report. To that end I would suggest a short block due to disruptive conduct on this page (which includes trying to discredit editors who have commented rather than only rebutting their evidence). From what I can find where A1candidate has previously been notified of the ARBPS or Acupuncture discretionary sanctions so we would be unable to take further action against them at this stage expect an (unlogged) warning that they are walking on thin ice.
:Regarding JzG, I agree with my colleagues that there is nothing actionable presented in this report. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 06:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)====
*Chiming in here before closing. As I read it this request is a) not actionable, b) the filer has used this board inappropriately. I see no coherent consensus for any action against other users or in fact A1candidate. My suggested closing is that "''No action against JzG. All parties are reminded that conduct at WP:AE is actionable and that abuse of the process to pursue ], cast unfounded aspersions about others or to advance an ] will result in sanction''". Unless there are any objections to this I'll close in 24 hours--] <sup>]</sup> 11:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
{{hab}}
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


==Request concerning Ashtul== ===Result concerning Tinynanorobots===
{{hat|1=Ashtul is blocked for a week. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)}}
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Nishidani}} ] (]) 17:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Ashtul}}<p>{{ds/log|Ashtul}}
; 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. -->
; Sanction or remedy to be enforced:
] - 1RR
; ] 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. -->
# ‎Ist revert. It is a revert. I had explained exhaustively on the talk page 3 days earlier why many of the sources he reintroduced here were utterly below the most generous reading of ] . I also explained that the material from obscure websites like ] did not meet the criteria in the lead of violence to persons and property in several cases.] (]) 22:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
#‎ 2nd revert.


* 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)
At ] Ashtul performed his second and third revert within 24 hours.
<!-- 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. -->
# Ist revert. Edit warring. Removal of high quality RS (], ]) which are dismissed as 'propagandistic garbage'.
# 2nd revert. Editwarring removal of the same, this time because the two sources are imputed to have a biased agenda (]).
*<!--
# 3rd revert. Edit-warring, editing out the same, this time because Ashtul says the quotes are too long.
The first revert is a revert because it cancelled information I entered
-->
The editor has been alerted about discretionary sanctions in the ARBPIA area of conflict in the last twelve months on several occasions,
* , and specifically
* by ] in November, last year.
* by User: ] in mid December.
* by ] later in December.
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
The editor is obviously tracking me, as , after I . This began from the day he encountered my edits at ]). I have had numerous problems since then with his breaking 1R, with his understanding of ] ( and ) and ] (he takes as proof I have a conflict of interest, when I am neither a Palestinian nor a settler, meaning he hasn’t read the policy) and I am not alone. My complaint sheet would be much longer, since the editor's behavior is incomprehensible policy wise and exasperating over many pages, but for the moment ...


==Selfstudier==
:]. The first example from ] is a revert because the page was created just over two weeks ago, and everything in it has been added or subtracted since then, with Ashful present, and in his edit summary, Ashtul knowingly acknowledges his edit as a 'revert'.
{{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)}}}}}
:I have no idea how to handle this sanction-wise. Ashtul appears to be an utterly intractable editor. I don't mind a tough environment, if people understand the basic rules, and decently follow them, and hash out differences. This guy doesn't. So much so that of the second series of reverts, 3, the last two were done after I made this complaint, in full awareness of the fact that 1R was being breached. I leave it to wiser minds to figure out how that is to be handled in terms of sanctions. ] (]) 21:01, 18 January 2015 (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>
::Ashtul. You assert here that 'There is no 1RR limit on Carmel'. On the talk page you stated
::I suggest to you that is a contradiction in terms, which, indicates that after months of warnings, you haven't actually digested what editors have told you. An ] on the ] is by definition part of the I/P conflict.] (]) 22:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Ashtul.] just noted what I now note here. He and I rarely agree (which is actually good for the encyclopedia), but I can trust him for an honest assessment because he understands and observes the technicalities of this place with scruple. The problem has been to get you to actually read and absorb the notifications you have been given (listed above) since November. To which I might add the one I posted , which informed you at that date that 'All articles related to '''the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR''' (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). '''When in doubt, assume it is related'''.’ That also told you that (b) 'Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.'
:::I have seen numerous examples of you ignoring this, and my exasperation today has forced my hand. You may not be disingenuous, but you don't understand enough of the rules to work productively here at the moment. ] (]) 23:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Igorp. Ashtul. ] means precisely both sides of a narrative must be given, balanced with due weight. You raise the insufficiency of my edits to ]. I’m not superman doing everything for editors on all sides, esp for those who only sit round checking edits for a putative POV without constructive building of pages. I’m not troubled by edit-warring when I do a settlement article which covers thoroughly the Jewish history, as I did at ], which is in brief walking distance from Carmel, Har Hebron. Not a murmur. I found it in and left it in . While I made a detailed survey of the synagogue and its Jewish heritage. I found no opposition. Silence. As soon as I started to mention the Palestinian realities of the site, I encountered stiff opposition, reverts and challenges on everything. At one point, it was stormed by 4 hostile editors (3 actually ], ] were sockpuppets) , who were intractable, leading to , which was then used to permaban me for ]. None of those editors built the page, or helped me write its Jewish history. They just sheriffed out as much of the Palestinian content as possible, whereas I showed both perspectives. If I get time I’ll build Carmel’s Jewish realities as well, which neither of you do.
::::As to ] which I created on January 4, the history is this. ] created an article to document exclusively Palestinian attacks on Jewish Israelis (]) in October. He was opposed to mentioning numerous assaults in the period covered on Palestinians. When the list grew weightier than the several incidents he focused on, a proposal (not mine) was made to give off a large part of the material into a list, and a ] was created through consensus by ]. The precedent is that we have numerous articles (if only for Israel’s perspective, listing terror events by year, cf. ]). I added everything I came across regarding violence to Jews and to Palestinians, in my work on that page. No partisanship. When the New Year arrived, I naturally, following precedent, created a successor page ]. Regardless of the fact that it is perfectly consonant with precedent and, unlike the rocket pages, covers injuries to Israeli Jews and Palestinians, ] protested its lack of NPOV from the start, and Ashtul edited in masses of material which fail the criterion for physical or property damage. It was all rumour or innuendo from unreliable sources, that fail the WP:RS standards rigorously insisted upon when editing anything about Palestinians. I added any incident regarding Jewish victims ( , and that came to my notice). They are few, compared to Palestinian victim incidents so far, but that is the fault of reality, not mine. Ashtul basically wants to ‘balance’ the article by including obscure website reports that some Palestinian was observed throwing a stone somewhere at a Jewish car or house, which is deemed to achieve parity with the mainstream newspaper reports of physical or property damage caused by episodes of real violence, the remit of this page. He can’t understand WP:RS, WP:NPOV in his fervour to find something anywhere to equalize what he considers my 'nurturing of articles with over the top pro-Palestinian propaganda.' Facts sourced from mainstream newspapers are not propaganda.] (]) 12:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::Verbosity? If my honour is attacked, I reply. You're welcome to ignore that. Sandstein, it is still a mystery to me, and I gather several others, why you cannot see that the first two diffs are both reverts. people more experienced than I, one at least an admin, say they are.
:::::You state:'I believe that a topic-wide 1RR restriction is far too wide in scope to be reasonably imposed or effectively enforced'.
:::::I'm not a policy wonk, but, um, I thought all editors in the I/P area(the topic area) are under a 1RR restriction. If you think the ARPBIA decision to that effect is 'far too wide in scope', then you appear to be saying that all the rest of us are laboring under a misprision, or that the system of specific regulations is flawed. Maybe. But all regular editors have worked under that system for several years. If it doesn't apply to Ashtul, he is granted a sovereign ''Ausnahmezustand''. Still, this place works, like the Lord of popular myth, in mysterious ways. I just want any sanction that stops him from rushing about, without the flimsiest awareness of standard policy and practice, creating huge workloads for people who actually build articles. He needs a breather.] (]) 20:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::Igorp. Your remarks here about RS only illustrate why it is so damnably hard to work this area when editors ignore Misplaced Pages's practices and policies through insouciance or indifference. You say (not relevant here by the way) ], is a reliable source for facts in the West Bank because mainstream Israeli newspapers refer to it or use some of it? Translation: ] is reliable for facts because some articles in the ] refer to it. I mean, understanding these simple matters is really really basic, and one shouldn't be editing if the simplest points of policy aren't grasped.] (]) 22:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
===Revert 1===
I am told I haven't supplied the evidence is a revert. Is this adequate proof?


===Request concerning Selfstudier===
*(1) On 10:32, 12 January 2015‎ Ashtul edited in
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Allthemilescombined1}} 02:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:The addition merely smeared the victims, had nothing to do with the list definition, and came from a Zionist religious website that was egregiously subpar/subpoor for 'facts'.
.
*(2) Rather than edit-war, I immediately took the matter to the RSN. .


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Selfstudier}}<p>{{ds/log|Selfstudier}}</p>
:The only comment was from ], an administrator who knows the area and policy and never makes friendly calls, whatever the POV. he wrote:
<blockquote> (Zerotalk 09:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC))</blockquote>
*(3)Since Zero might be held to be partisan, I waited 2 more days for further advice, though I though his call sufficient because obvious.
*(4)When no third party chipped in, I duly
:<blockquote> along with all the other material sourced to HaKol Hayehudi and 0404 websites (Revision as of 13:24, 15 January 2015)</blockquote>
*(5) (Revision as of 01:29, 18 January 2015) with an edit-summary acknowledging that he knew it was a revert ('revert changes unjustified by Nishidani').
:I.e. he added that passage on Jan. 12. I took it to RSN, my judgement was seconded, and waiting 2 days, I then removed it on Jan 15. On Jan 18 Ashtul restored the passage, in defiance of the RSN verdict. This is clearly a revert. ] (]) 21:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


<!--- In the line below, 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:
===Discussion concerning Ashtul===
]
<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>
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
====Statement by Ashtul====
This is a 2nd version. The first can be found .


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
* About the ] revert claim - Nishidani claim is just untrue. 0404 was discussed on ] but nobody claimed it was unreliable. Nishidani went ahead with deletion anyway. He also deleted sources about Palestinians violence while he put numerous source about settlers violence. Why? b/c ''B’tselem and re Hamas (1,2) have nothing to do with the definition of the lead. The lead states that attacks by Palestinians on Israelis are part of the substance of the list''. Does it make any sense? not to me.
<!-- 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.-->
:After deleting material that was reverted by me and I agreed with Nishidani wasn't well sourced, '''I have changed (but not reverted)''' the lead so it will be short, precise and without any unnecessary info, like a lead in a normal list as I saw in a few examples I looked at at random. Here is my newer version -
# 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.”
:::This is a list of individual incidents and statistical breakdowns of incidents of violence, including property damage and expropriation involving a violation of rights, taking place between Israel and Palestinians in 2015 as part of the ongoing ], but exclusive of particular events that fall within the parameters of any full outbreak of war hostilities. ] are included as well.
# Selfstudier dismissed my source {{ISBN|9798888459683}}, with “Bernard-Henri Lévy is not an expert on Zionism or colonialism”.
:This is not a revert but sensible solution to our conflict. '''Looking at ], it completely fail the conition of "being restored to a previous version"'''.
# 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 :
* As for ] article, I kept reverting b/c I wasn't aware it was considered a 1RR article. It doesn't state so in the Talk page. The fact Carmel is a settlement doesn't make automatically part of I/P conflict. On the contrary, after adding ] statement, I hoped different activists feel they have paid their dues and allow the article to be focused on its subject without forcing the politics into each individual article.
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
:In addition Nishidani ] ''"I have enough on my shoulders just trying to build Palestinian materials without having to eat into my time handling every angle to Israeli related material in the I/P area. I intended to"'', but between inserting one quote about Palestinian neighbors to another one about the same subject, over 9 months pasted by. So for all that time, and probably some more in the future if I haven't intervene, a passing reader gets to read an irrelevant quote from an article with relevant material. How does that contribute anything to WP? The state at which the article was left 9 months ago is embarrassing and to come back, put another irrelevant quote from a relevant article and take off is ] on a good day.
:An article of 1,508 bytes (117 words) ballooned into 4,754 bytes (445 words) with no new information about the subject but rather about the fact the neighbors don't have electricity which is a worthy subject on it's own but unrelated to Carmel article. Am I the only one to whom this does not look unreasonable? What exactly will a reader get from this article?
:Same is true for ] page which for years was 2,990 bytes (253 words) and reached 13,606 bytes (1118 words) at the top of it glory. There was minor additions to the skunk itself and almost all other info if about the Palestinian. A worthy issue to mention but it shouldn't take over. Two cases where Nishidani nurtured articles with '''over the top''' pro-Palestinian propaganda.


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
* My previous 1RR violations were mainly due to the fact I was (probably still am) a newbie.
<!-- 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.


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
* And for last, here is part of our exchange on ] lead which the revert complaint is about -
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.
:::Your addition to the lead is as POV I would expect from you. I will look at it later and I am sure we will settle somewhere. Overall, I think it is a solution. Good night. Ashtul (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Me settle? Never. I do admit to squatting, though. regularly every morning.Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


Concerns for possible ] and ] violations:
* Nishidani brings ] as an example to his 'great' job. While I do not discount the GREAT job with the synagogue (and many other articles), the Susya article is a great example how Nishidani made it into a piece of Palestinian propaganda. A huge part is about "Palestinian Susya" and neighboring Palestinians, while the article is about the settlement. Give him a few years, and each and every settlement article will look like that. Is that what WP became? Every article about a settlement will become a a center piece of I/P conflict. I believe the ] covers that aspect and many facts that are generalized should be left out. You don't write in every car company article how it damages the environment.


*Abo Yemen dismissed my reasoned arguments as “feelings”:
'''reply to other editors'''


*RolandR dismissed the author of "Saying No to Hate: Overcoming Antisemitism in America", {{ISBN|978-0827615236}}, as a “non-notable children’s writer”:
], though I am an Israeli and a proud one, I have indeed made quite a few edits that didn't support my opinion like , and as well as others in subject unrelated to I/P conflict. I try not to touch any edit that is well sourced and in place but Nishidani to be biased such as changing "Israel maintains" into "Israel sought to justify" b/c he added a source that worded a sentence that way.


*Zero told me “We should stick to history books and not cite emotional polemics”.
] I admit to a mistake on Carmel article but is was since it is not classified as 1RR, I had no way to know it.


Concerns for possible ] and ] violations:
] My edits were mainly adding info and multiple edits is a measure I have seen many editors do. If I understand correctly, that is not what edit-warring is about. A delete on BDS page was done a week after I opened it for discussion on talk page. There was never edit-warring with you because even when you reverted my change, it was very reasonable. Please feel free to gather evidence, I am pretty certain I can give a reason for every edit I have made.


*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:
] Thanks for your mentoring.


*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.
] Seems like you didn't read my title. The pro-Palestinian madness is about dragging any Israeli subject through the mud. Putting a historical fact before current ones are by no mean encyclopedic. Who are you kidding?
I guess BDS decided to make articles about Israel completely useless by dumping any possible Palestinian-remotely-related fact into them.
Your last revert on ] was unexplained and complete ].


*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)
Zero, on ] we chopped together half the 'Access' section out and some in 'Excavations'. There was dialog, something that doesn't happen with Nishidani.


*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.”
Nishidani, I never asked for balance in the article about incidents. If Israelis are causing more events, it should be in the article. The only balance should be in the lead where (and I invite other editors to check it) your (unnecesary) sources were not balanced and you kept editing out any balancing sources.


Concerns for possible ] violations:
===Answer to Nishidani - Revert 1===
*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:
You are telling only part of the truth (and this is really the nicest way to say it, someone else probably would have said you are lying to my face).
* Your complaint about 1RR isn't about the 01:29, 18 January 2015 revert but 14:51, 18 January 2015 edit.
* Immediately after my 1st (and in my opinion only )revert, I deleted those HaKol Hayehudi sources and it is in the history description. .


*Sameboat wrote: "Please take extra attention to this recent ECU whose edits to I-P articles look rather deceptive to me".
====Statement by IjonTichy====


Concerns for possible ] violations:
Ashtul now appears to be edit warring on yet another article: ]. I have not checked, but would not be surprised if he is editing disruptively on additional articles.
*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):
Ashtul is editing recklessly in a highly contentious area of WP with many controversial articles. He ignored numerous warnings posted on his talk page by several members of the community in recent weeks. He appears to not be fully familiar with WP policies, guidelines, community norms and culture.
* 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.
A one-month block would give this disruptive editor ample time to get a ]. &nbsp; ] (]) 20:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
: @]: I've added above the sanction or remedy to be enforced: ''' ] - 1RR.''' &nbsp; ] (]) 03:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

===Discussion concerning Selfstudier===
<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====

====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 Nomoskedasticity==== ====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 ], 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)
If Sandstein intends to find that there are insufficient grounds for enforcement via AE (despite edit-warring that now reaches in an I/P context), then of course it could be taken to EWN. Will this be necessary? ] (]) 20:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
*It now appears that Ashtul believes that being "pro-Palestinian" is "madness" . Inauspicious. ] (]) 09:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by Cptnono==== ====Statement by Huldra====
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)
I've been following this and have chimed in a couple times. I have no doubt that Ashtul is trying to improve the articles. As as someone who was sanction years ago for calling Nishidani a "liar" I get how frustrating his admitted bias can be. Ashtul does need to chill out, though. He hasn't had the experience to understand that he needs a cooler head in the topic area (for example, pointing the finger back and using the term propaganda doesn't help anything). Ashtul needs an uninvolved admin to clarly explain things. I've already suggested this to Nishidani.] (]) 21:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
:Disputing that the settlement Carmel is not subject to 1/rr shows that Ashtul needs to become more familiar with the topic area. It is part of the ongoing dispute. For what it's worth, I agree that it is disconcerting to see such articles become more and more about the plights of the Palestinians to the point that other information takes a backseat.] (]) 22:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
::Yes, Ashtul, you are missing it. It doesn't matter that it is not tagged. A common term used in these cases is "broadly construed". Carmel is part of the conflict in at least a small way. It is a settlement (a subject that is definitely part of the conflict) and it is obvious that there is an issue since you two are having a problem right now. Basically, it is subject to discretionary sanctions if there is any correlation between he subject matter and the overall troubles in the region.] (]) 22:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
:::No problem, Ashtul. What is needed for you to start getting it more? Someone up above mentioned a month block which is not going to happen for a first offense. Some editors obviously see a problem. Can you try taking a few extra seconds to think about your tone or reverts before hitting the save page button? Do you need any guidance in the topic area? There are plenty of noninvolved admins who can explain things better than Nish or i could.] (]) 21:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


Layoff IjonTichyIjonTichy. I don't think anyone disputes the inappropriate editing. Discretionary sanctions are not meant to be punitive. Can we get an admin to lay it out there for him? A short block works but even better would be actually letting them know why and how they screwed up. Any SPI should be done as well (I'm not seeing it but the tools might show differently).] (]) 06:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
====Statement by RolandR==== ====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.
] has also been edit-warring on ], on ], on ], on ] and on several other articles. This editor's behaviour is highly reminiscent of that of several blocked socks of ], and unless the result of this AE request makes this unnecessary, I intend to gather the evidence and submit an SPI. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 21:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


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.

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.

This whole report, and the sneaky complaints about me and other editors, is entirely worthless and should be thrown out.
<span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 22:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by Zero0000==== ====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====
Sandstein, you ask for evidence that the first edit is a revert. Ashtul himself calls it a revert in his edit summary: ''''''. Ashtul is one of those edit-warriors whose contribution to the encyclopedia is entirely negative. He doesn't have a clue about neutral writing, and the only meaning he gives to "reliable source" is that it supports his politics. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
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====
{{ping|Sandstein}}: The ] was imposed by the Arbitration Committee, not by a single administrator. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
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 Igorp lj ==== ====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.
:''Statement removed by an administrator because it is overly long, confusing and does not seem to have a direct bearing on the edits at issue here. Please resolve related disputes elsewhere. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)''


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


:@], 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)
===Result concerning Ashtul===

<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
===Result concerning Selfstudier===
<small>''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''</small>
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
*I suggest that ] should be blocked one week for the 1RR violation documented above. I had a chance to explain to him the significance of 1RR . Though I've not had the chance to scrutinize his edits in detail, he does seem like a person who is on Misplaced Pages in service of a cause. I doubt you will see him editing any articles to make them more favorable to the Palestinian side. ] (]) 17:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
* 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.
::@Sandstein: I see three removals on 18 January of more than 1400 bytes of material at ]. One of his diffs was How can this not be a 1RR violation? ] (]) 19:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
* 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.
*Not impressed by the quality of this request. It neither tells us which remedy we are to enforce, nor does it provide evidence that the edits (the first in particular) are in fact reverts. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
* 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)
:*Still not impressed. The report needs to tell us which specific remedy is to be enforced, and it doesn't. Substitute evidence for verbosity, people. Still, if this is about the ] 1RR rule, the ] edits are a violation, but I believe that a topic-wide 1RR restriction is far too wide in scope to be reasonably imposed or effectively enforced as one admin's unilateral discretionary sanction (even if it were documented who came up with it, which is not the case), so I'm not enforcing it. Others are free to do what they think best, of course. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:50, 19 January 2015 (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)
::*Zero0000, thanks, I didn't remember that the ArbCom did seem to take over this 1RR rule at some point. That being the case, although I still think it's not the best of ideas, it is an ArbCom decision and must therefore be enforced. ] is clearly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict because it's an Israeli settlement in Palestinian territory, and these settlements are one of the principal issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ashtul is blocked for a week. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:15, 20 January 2015 (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}} {{hab}}


==Mike Searson== ==Rasteem==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning Mike Searson=== ===Request concerning Rasteem===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|162.119.231.132}} 15:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC) ; 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>


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Mike Searson}}<p>{{ds/log|Mike Searson}}
<!--- 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 --->
]


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
Offensive comment
# - removed wikilink of an Indian railway station thus violating his topic ban from India and Pakistan.
# Says of ] (LB) "Certain people with political agendas have placed politically charged articles in this project. Personally, I think this should only be the technical stuff. Reading the political bile some folks write makes me want to whack someone in the head with a shovel. An anti gunner writing a technical article about firearms is about the same as a child rapist writing about how to run a day-care center."
Longterm battleground approach to Lightbreather:
# Deletes LB from firearms project. (Maybe this was because of her temporary topic ban, but he didn't delete another user who received an identical ban).
# Refers to a comment by LB as "total but not unexpected bullshit".
# Says that he's only OK with LB improving the neutrality of the ] article if she's OK with him adding the text "Enjoys dancing in the blood of dead children" to articles on "anti gun organizations".
# Passive agressive personal attacks.
# Says gun control advocates (LB is one) have "an evil agenda where they want to disarm anyone who disagrees with them on their road to despotism and tyranny."
# Call LB a "troll".
# Says of LB "These groups have paid shills who operate on wiki spreading their lies, hate and racism."
#: LB asked him to lay off with the personal attacks.
# Says of LB "some people like writing misleading tripe"
# Insults Lightbreather ("Are you that slow that you cannot see that?") when she asks for a citation.
# Says LB is a "disruptive editor" and a "basket case"
# The welcome he gives LB: "Welcome to the firearms project. I look forward to your positive contributions and trust that you will not attempt to push your POV"
#: Typical welcome to the firearms project
#] 01:31, 13 November 2013 Says LB is "the proverbial "bad penny" that constantly undermines the hard work of others and previously arrived at consensus. That user is screaming for a topic ban."
#] 03:29, 3 October 2013 Says LB is "too emotional or too biased to work with anything firearms related"


This violation comes after he was already warned for his first violation of the topic ban.
Other users
# Deletes a comment with the edit summary "GFY". Urban Dictionary says it means "go fuck yourself".
# "I read it before the best part of you ran down your mother's leg."
# "Well, i took it out; why are you still running your cryhole?"
# "thats how its spelled jackoff"
# "gave direct link and a quote, to say it is not there means you are a liar pushing an agenda"
# "first sentence in a linked source in a published book, editor who cammot see it is either psychotic or liar"
# "cited in the article, where do these jackasses come from?"
# Deletes complaint about personal attacks with remark, "WLB". Urban Dictionary says it means "whiny little bitch".
# Following a disagreement, posts this comment on his user page: "Oh yeah, if you kick the hornet's nest on here, beware the deranged aspie dogpile!"
# Deletes complaint about personal attacks with remark, "don't like it? stay off my user page"
#] Filed 26 September 2014
# Insults editors (and lots of other people) who use terms he doesn't accept: "whenever I hear someone use the terms "high capacity magazine", "assault weapon" or "Saturday Night Special" I take offense as those terms are perjorative in nature and reflect low intellect. If it is a man who uses the terms I instantly realize he knows nothing about firearms and is a better source of information about tofu burgers, scented candles and foot lotion."


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.
Old stuff


I recommend increasing the topic ban to indefinite duration. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 03:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
# Says of editors on Misplaced Pages: "you often deal with critics who could be compared to eunuchs in a harem" "For now I still believe in the projectm except for some of the losers it attracts. I really don't care about losers, but sometimes it's fun to watch them dance."
#] 08:26, 2 February 2010 He admits he was wrong for calling another editor things like "Fuckchop", "Douchebag", and "Barney Frank", blames it on the other editor for making him lose his temper. In other exchanges he calls the editor a "cuntrag" (even while he's accusing the other guy of making a personal attack), a "little twerp" and "some loser"
#] 07:00, 17 January 2007 Ancient history? It shows he ain't ignorant of the rules. He whines about another user being "frequently sarcastic", making "bold personal attacks", harassing him and blanking his talk page of complaints. Seven years ago he knew all about ] and thought that this other guy was in the wrong. Since then he's decided it's the best way to act.
# 18 November 2006 More complaints about an editor who is "fond of deleting the libellous attacks he makes too and denies them after the fact". That guy has a familiar list of uncivil remarks from Mike Searson.
#] More complaints about other users for "personal attacks".


; 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 ] 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. -->


*Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on ;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 -->
I was shocked to see someone comparing another editor to a child rapist and expressing the desire to hit her in the head with a shovel. This is a guy who collects guns and knives. He's used crude and aggressive language with her for years. Sure, he's abusive with other editors too but the way he's treated Lightbreather is unacceptable. Or it should be. This is sick. It's obviously intended to drive her away and discourage anyone else with a similar viewpoint. That violates the ArbCom case and a bunch of WP policies. He's been asked to stop but keeps doing it repeatedly. He knows it's wrong because he started on Misplaced Pages complaining about personal attacks by other users. Enough is enough. ] (]) 15:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

::I have zero "relationship" with Lightbreather, unless you count editing some articles in common and having a similar point of view. ] (]) 16:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
*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)
::{{ping|DHN}} the other editor in a recent disagreement over a US military sniper, mentioned above. ] (]) 15:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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


; 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 Mike Searson=== ===Discussion concerning Rasteem===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Mike Searson====
I am out of town with no pc access until monday. Which is why this group chose this time to ambush me. I will respond then. But will say this. I never compared any editor to a child rapist. The accusers took that among other things i said out of context and misreported them. Same with the shovel comment its a figure of speech from the military, another reason for their enmity. The discussion was about source material. As in published authors on the subject and the subject was the technical aspect of firearms. Read that entire conversation before passing judgement as well as the other diffs they cherry picked. Sorry to put you folks through this, glad they didnt bring up the time i broke that lamp in 1973, respectfully -- mike searson (no tildes on my phone) (''Copied from ], 10:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)'')


====Statement by Lightbreather==== ====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.
He has also referred to me as a cunt in the past.


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.
As for more recent crap, he just seems to enjoy baiting me (and other editors). For instance, what was the purpose of this discussion? Or his comments in this discussion? I didn't bite, nor did the other editor, but he does this kind of stuff regularly, and I don't appreciate it. ] (]) 16:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


The internet is constantly slow and sometimes goes down. I live in a hilly location and I had formerly mentioned it.
{{ping|Sandstein}} I don't know the anonymous user making this request. ] (]) 17:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


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.
<s>{{ping|Beyond My Ken}} FWIW, the Editor Interaction Analyzer shows that Scalhotrod and the OP IP have in common. ] (]) 23:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)</s>


2. ] on this article, I've added 5680 bytes & made 43 edits.
Going to call it a night soon, but I wanted to add, I've always thought it bizarre that Mike Searson is ''the'' ] of the ]. Is it a coincidence that gun-control articles on Misplaced Pages are under discretionary sanctions when the leader of the project that oversees these articles (more than any other group) is so biased ''and'' hostile? ] (]) 01:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


3. ] on this article I've added 4000 bytes & made 49 edits.
{{ping|Scalhotrod}} No one pinged you, and the comment was struck. How did you know that you were mentioned here? (Here's an interesting Editor Interaction Analyzer since our mutual topic ban was lifted one week ago; note especially .) Anyway, I agree that there are "POV Editors" at WP:GUNS, where gun-rights sources are rarely questioned, but gun-control sources often are. And conservative/libertarian sources are rarely questioned, but liberal/progressive sources often are. (If the things Mike Searson has said about me sound hostile, you should see what he says about Dianne Feinstein.) The project's POV has resulted in a body of articles that are decidedly pro-gun/anti-control POV, as well as missing articles that ought to be added, though "wholesale" is exaggeration.


====Statement by (username)====
The point of your second paragraph is to belittle the OP and anyone who might agree with him/her. The fact is, Mike has a ''very'' sarcastic tone, that no-one should ''have'' to appreciate. His words don't ''seem'' harsh - they ''are'' harsh. It is ''not'' clear that his January 16 comment wasn't directed at me. (It is cousin to another brash editor's crass "cunt" comment that "wasn't" directed at me.) And your ''last'' remark in that paragraph reveals how impressed you are with yourself.
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning Rasteem===
As for me trying to humor Mike Searson in my replies to him, considering that gun-control articles are under discretionary sanctions, and considering how I've been treated in the past when I tried to complain about civility on Misplaced Pages, and considering that I am a woman in a man's world (Misplaced Pages), and that for millenia women have learned to grin and bear it in response to aggressive male behavior - ''Are you really claiming that you think my offense is feigned?'' I'm not going to say what I'd like to say to you, but instead, I'll just say... ;-).
:''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==
Finally, it does appear that the IP has some knowledge of WP, but it is not clear that he/she has an agenda beyond wanting to edit anonymously, which I sometimes wish I'd done from day one on Misplaced Pages when I see how people like Mike Searson and you treat those whose POVs are different from your own. Who wants to edit, anonymously or otherwise, in an environment where a project coordinator is likely to show up and allude to physically harming those whom he disagrees with? ] (]) 16:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
{{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===
{{ping|Guettarda|Heimstern|Sandstein}} Regardless of your decision re Mike Searson, may I ask you to consider an interaction ban between Scalhotrod and myself? I would prefer a one-way, since past evidence has shown, as has the interaction analysis since the end of our topic ban, that he follows me around, but I would agree to a two-way if necessary. ] (]) 17:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Nableezy}} 23:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Question: Since Robert McClenon has asked for clarification on whether or not Ibans ever result from ARE, does ARE ever result in any action against editors other than the requestor and requestee? ] (]) 18:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|שלומית ליר}}<p>{{ds/log|שלומית ליר}}</p>
====Comment by Beyond My Ken====
The Editor Interaction Analyzer shows that Lightbreather and the OP IP have in common. ] (]) 23:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
====Comment by GRuban====
That's a pretty frightening comment; managing to involve not only guns, but a threatened assault with a shovel, and a casual mention of child rape, in relation to ... ''editing a Misplaced Pages project''. Not an article about war, not an article about a person's life, just a project. I can't guarantee it's specifically in reference to Lightbreather, but given the long history, it does seem possible; and frankly, it really shouldn't matter whom it was about, it's a pretty frightening comment regardless. This is not your standard Misplaced Pages namecalling, this is beyond the pale. <small>BTW ... y'all don't have to get out ''the tools'' for me. I admit it, ]. I am also Beyond My Ken and Scalhotrod. That way I ... we ... get to play not just solitaire Chess, but solitaire ]. Come, join us, be Lightbreather with me!</small> --] (]) 00:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
====Statement by Scalhotrod====
#] claiming a source supports something it never mentions
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
Since I'm being mentioned, I'll comment as well. Mike has the unenviable position of being the coordinator for a project whose subjects happen to involve a lot of misinformation and outright ignorance of in the general public and media. I don't blame him in the slightest for not wanting political articles added in wholesale fashion to the project. I know first hand how easy it is to get sucked into the rhetoric and posturing of "debating a subject" within an article rather than just factually describing it. But the subject of gun politics is far from being alone in this aspect. Abortion, same-sex marriage, religion, and ISIS are all hot button topics that received attention from a great many POV Editors who feel that articles ''should'' state and say certain things.


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
That said, Mike has a pretty sarcastic tone that takes a while to appreciate or understand. If taken out of context, of course his words will seem harsh. The January 16th comment highlighted above is a perfect example of how Mike expresses himself. It was clearly not directed at one particular User and as the Project Coordinator, he's seen more than his fair share of POV Editors over his tenure. Anyone not realizing this is just entirely too impressed with themselves to think that Mike would find it necessary to comment about them specifically.
N/A


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
As for some of the additional examples, such as this one that Lightbreather pointed out. {{U|Lightbreather|LB}}, come on?! You responded to Mike's comment with a "wink and smile" ;) and now you're claiming that you're offended. You've dealt with Mike enough that I think you understood his point and responded accordingly. To use it against him in this context is just plain wrong.
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on ] (see the system log linked to above).


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
As for everyone else watching/commenting, this just seems suspicious when an IP User that started editing on December 21, 2014 is initiating an ArbCom Enforcement proceeding. Clearly there is some prior knowledge of WP and an agenda in play. --] ] ☮ღ☺ 08:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
====Question by ]====
::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)
Lightbreather has asked for an I-ban (interaction ban) with another editor. Does Arbitration Enforcement have the remit to impose interaction bans, or do they have to come from the ArbCom and/or the community noticeboards? ] (]) 17:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:::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)
::::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)
:::::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)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
====Comment by Faceless Enemy====
]
I don't think he meant anything personal with his shovel comment. I don't feel it was directed at any specific editor (note the reference to "someone", '''not''' "certain people" or "them" or "her"). There are plenty of ways to phrase that so that it is targeted at another person, and I don't feel that it was phrased that way. As to "An anti gunner...run a day-care center." A bit overboard, but an anti-abortion activist may not be the best choice for technical information about abortions either. Likewise, a member of the ] is a bad source for information on LGBT issues. Of course, if any of the above can write NPOV stuff then whatever. ] (]) 03:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


===Discussion concerning שלומית ליר===
====Statement by GabrielF====
<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>
Mike Searson has a longstanding pattern of addressing other editors with hostility. His insults reference the gender, perceived sexual orientation, or perceived disability of his ideological opponents. Examples are numerous: referring to editors he disagrees with as an "aspie dogpile", referring to an editor he disagrees with as a cunt, referring to a female senator the same way, making comments about the intelligence of other editors (see below), making comments that imply that editors who disagree with him are homosexual (see below).


====Statement by שלומית ליר====
Here's a representative quote:
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.
:whenever I hear someone use the terms "high capacity magazine", "assault weapon" or "Saturday Night Special" I take offense as those terms are perjorative in nature and reflect low intellect. If it is a man who uses the terms I instantly realize he knows nothing about firearms and is a better source of information about tofu burgers, scented candles and foot lotion


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.
I have seen the term "Saturday Night Special" used in reliable sources such as newspaper articles, books by historians and journalists, encyclopedias, and transcripts of Congressional hearings and debates. It's an important concept to articles such as ]. I do not believe that an editor can have a fair-minded, civil conversation about an article if he can't hold himself back from making sneering, thinly-veiled references to the sexuality of those who use terms discussed in that article. The pattern of comments creates a chilling effect that discourages other editors from participating.


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.
Mike has repeatedly been made aware that these comments are inappropriate, including in the ANI thread linked above. The fact that this pattern of behavior has continued leads me to believe than an indefinite topic ban is an appropriate remedy.] (]) 05:58, 23 January 2015 (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.
====Comment by Pudeo====
*The first 16 Jan diff is mispresented. Read the actual section: ]. They are talking about sources the project uses for technical details; Lightbreather suggets one source should be cautioned because of pro-gun bias. Mike Searson responds wih the shovel to the head comment about anti-gunners writing articles about techical details. The comment was not about Lightbreather, not even implicit. The rest of the presentation is one-sided and may contain more errors. Keeping in mind that Lightbreather has had problematic user conduct before such as during the Gender Gap ArbCom case (), one-sided presentation should not be taken at face-value without having a look at Lightbreather's conduct as well. --]] 06:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


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)
*I have opened a SPI on the filing IP: ]. --]] 07:25, 24 January 2015 (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.
====Statement by Johnuniq====
: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.
Re Pudeo's comments above: Regardless of Lightbreather's "user conduct", and regardless of who is behind the IP that opened this request, it is totally unacceptable for any editor to use language like "makes me want to whack someone in the head with a shovel". Excusing such an approach on the basis that it is someone else who should be whacked in the head with a shovel entirely misses the point. If it were an isolated incident, a warning would suffice. However, given the string of evidence presented, Mike Searson should be warned that further intimidatory language will result in an indefinite block. ] (]) 09:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
: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.
===Result concerning Mike Searson===
::This is an innocent error caused by the Wiki program itself. You can try it and see for yourself.
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
::'''Where it led and what Nableezy allowed himself to do is a story by itself that demands investigation''' ] (]) 12:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
<small>''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''</small>
*: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>
Awaiting a statement by Mike Searson. {{ping|Lightbreather}} Notifying you of this request on which you may want to comment; if you do, please also indicate any relationship between you and the anonymous user making this request. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


*:::True, and I would most definitely will check next time. ] (]) 23:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:Because Mike Searson doesn't seem to be active at the moment, I'll offer a preliminary assessment. The request appears actionable. The evidence indicates a confrontative attitude towards others. In particular, the recent edits of 08:42, 16 January 2015 ("makes me want to whack someone in the head with a shovel", comparing editors with different opinions to child rapists) and of 19:10, 10 January 2015 ("GFY" edit summary) are aggressive to a degree incompatible with working on a collaborative project to write a neutral encyclopedia about controversial topics. The use of aggressive, violent language aimed at a female editor in the context of disputes about gun control and gun violence by somebody who associates himself with a pro-gun point of view strikes me as particularly intimidating and inappropriate. The evidence of Mike Searson's past conduct shows that this is a persistent pattern of conduct, not an isolated incident. Unless fellow administrators see this in a radically different light, I am inclined to impose an indefinite topic ban. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
::Lightbreather, please let's keep this request focused on the conduct of Mike Searson. If you believe that there is actionable evidence of misconduct – in the form of diffs – that could require an interaction ban with respect to others, you can make a separate enforcement request about that. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by Supreme Deliciousness====
The worst matter here by far is the diff from 16 January, which is beyond unacceptable. That one is probably sufficient for a topic ban. Add that to the other ones under "Longterm battleground approach to Lightbreather" and it seems clear that Mike Searson's battleground approach is incompatible with further participation in this topic. ] ] 12:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
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)


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

===Result concerning שלומית ליר===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
* 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)
** 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)
***: 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)
***::] 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.
*: 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)
*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)
*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)
*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)
*: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)
*:::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)
* 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. -->
*<!--
-->
{{hab}}


==KronosAlight==
I think Mike Searson is a great editor, especially on species articles, but the interactions with Lightbreather here are not acceptable. I am especially bothered by what Sandstein refers to - the "aggressive, violent language aimed at a female editor..." Even if I took Scalhotrod's comments into consideration and assumed only the most benign intent behind those words, this would still be precisely what DS are supposed to prevent. I'm with Sandstein and Heim on this. ] (]) 14:01, 21 January 2015 (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>
:{{ping|Robert McClenon}} - courtesy ], the answer is yes, at least in principle: AE has instituted i-bans in the past.
:{{ping|Lightbreather}} - there isn't enough here, in my opinion, to consider an interaction ban. And if it is warranted, it would be a separate request, though whether this is the best place for it is a different question; it would have to somehow spring from this arbcomm case. ] (]) 18:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
] hasn't edited since 16 January. I suggest waiting *at most* two more days to see if he'll respond. There is a case that he has engaged in talk page disruption, given the aggressive language. If this were an ] complaint we would probably be talking about a three-month topic ban at this point. Interaction bans are tricky and might be considered if nothing else were available. ] (]) 00:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::This has been going on for many years. Is there any reason to think that a three month topic ban will help? I would argue that we should be thinking indefinite, with the allowance of appeal, plus a one way interaction ban. ] says he is a good editor with regards to species articles; that's the only reason I'm not arguing for a long term block. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 01:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:::In view of Mike Searson's interim statement reproduced above, I agree that we can wait until Monday UTC and should then decide based on his definitive statement. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


===Request concerning KronosAlight===
==Cwobeel==
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Butterscotch Beluga}} 03:16, 16 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>


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|KronosAlight}}<p>{{ds/log|KronosAlight}}</p>
===Request concerning Cwobeel===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|ChrisGualtieri}} 05:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Cwobeel}}<p>{{ds/log|Cwobeel}}
<!--- 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.-->
# Restoring an unsourced BLP page with the edit summary: "nothing here is contentious". #
:*Adds "depiste being an ex-Muslim" to dismiss accusations of Islamophobia ].
# Restoring unsourced BLP content discussed at BLPN with a single source to the user-generated ] website.
:*Adds ] around ‘promoted Islamophobia’ & ‘Islamophobia’ while removing the supporting context.
# Restoring unsourced BLP content discussed at BLPN with a single source to the user-generated ] website.
:*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" ] & ]
# Restoring unsourced BLP content discussed at BLPN with a single source to the user-generated ] website.
# Two edits (making a single comment) to defend IMDb as an acceptable BLP source and an invocation of ]. # - ]
:*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 previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> <!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
# Alerted of discretionary sanctions by The Wordsmith # Warned to abide by the one-revert rule when making edits within the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.
# Admonished for ] by Cailil following an Arbitration Enforcement request. # 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 ]): ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):

<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|ScottishFinnishRadish}}.
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to 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 :
All edits were made at ]. After I with an explanation, I , asking for their rationale.
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
They replied that they were & asked if I "perhaps have a deeper bias that’s influencing decisions in this respect?"
] was opened by the user Cirt. Cwobeel responded and maligned Cirt's actions: {{tq|I leave it to you to continue blowing up the work of good faith editors for no reason other than being super-narrow in your interpretation of policy. Have fun.}} and {{tq|While you are at it, go ahead and do the same with List of people who disappeared mysteriously, List of ice hockey players who died during their playing career and similar lists. There are many to keep your fun going.}} This seems to be more of the ] behavior that merited the first admonishment. I believe that the restoration sourced only to IMDb following these comments are indicative of a lack of competence and understanding of ] and ].


They then
*(updated 16:22, 24 January 2015) Numerous credits have not checked out at ] including three 2008 Razzie nominations for "Worst Actor".. Two did not check out at the ], included an award Boston Society of Film Critics: they instead awarded Melanie Griffith in 1988. I stopped on the Nicolas Cage one after 5 checks in a row came up dubious or not accurate. Adam Sandler's list doesn't seem to fair much better (Razzie 2008 again), but a large part of the list is negative awards. This is just to confirm the existence of problems on all three.

: ] - While I can't find any comments where they were explicitly ''"warned for casting aspersions"'', they were to ] 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. - ] (]) 15:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:@] I was able to find a copy of the opinion article being cited . ] (]) 20:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
*


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


===Discussion concerning Cwobeel=== ===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> <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 Cwobeel====
We are talking here about innocuous articles listing the nominations and awards of known actors and actresses, nothing contentious that would warrant any type of intervention, and super easily sourced as I did here . I am glad to see that at least he is responding with improvements and adding other sources after me placing a {{tl|refimprove}} template . OTOH, this editor needs to stop posting AN/I and AE postings against me over past weeks, and this last one is another example. This is bordering on ]. - ] ] 15:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by KronosAlight====
{{yo|Collect}}: It should be noted that we have many BLP-related articles in WP, in particular lists, that are unsourced for non-contentious material. (See for example ], and ], and we just don't go around blanking them and redirecting them. In these cases the approach should be to place a {{tl|refimprove}} or similar template. The Yank Barry case was contentious to start with. - ] ] 16:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


This is a complete waste of the Arbitration Committee’s time.
====statement by Collect====


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’.
Where a claim is made which another editor deems reasonably to be contentious, ] is sufficiently clear. I would present the following as indicative of an example where a "nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize" claim was removed as inadequately sourced to show just why this is a proper position for editors to embrace rather than oppose. ], ], ], ] etc. where I postulate that a Nobel Peace Prize is, in fact, a major award. It is not onerous to expect that reliable sources are findable for major awards. ] (]) 16:20, 24 January 2015 (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.

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. ] (]) 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? , 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)
====Statement by Zero0000====
Aspersions:
*
*
*
*
]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

====Statement by Vice regent====
{{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)

====Statement by Smallangryplanet====
Wanted to add some pertinent evidence:

'''Talk:Zionism''':

*
*
*
*

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

*

'''Talk:Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world''':

*

'''Talk:2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks''':

*

'''Talk:Anti-Zionism''':

*
*

'''Talk:Gaza genocide''':
*
*

'''Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre''':

*

'''Talk:Al-Sardi school attack''':

*

'''Talk:Eden Golan''':

*

'''Other sanctions''':

* March 2024: for ], ], etc
* June 2024: to abide by 1RR
* October 2024: for a week


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


===Result concerning Cwobeel=== ===Result concerning KronosAlight===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
* 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)
<small>''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''</small>
** {{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)
*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)
*: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)
*::@], 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)
*: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)
*::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)
<!-- 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 Nicoljaus==
The request has merit. ] provides that:
<small>''Procedural notes: Per the ], a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>
:"Contentious material about living persons (...) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."
The material at issue was contentious because at least one person objected to its inclusion. IMDB is a user-edited website and therefore not a reliable source. The BLP policy must not be ignored, and in addition, the evidence provided that at least some of the material added from IMBD was incorrect indicates that the edits were not in fact an improvement to Misplaced Pages (wrong information is arguably more harmful than no information). The statement by Cwobeel indicates that they intend to continue violating the BLP policy in this manner. They are therefore immediately blocked for a week to prevent this. I'm leaving the thread open to invite the opinions of other admins about the possibility of a IMDB, awards or BLP topic ban. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


<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>
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Eurocentral==
<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>


; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Nicoljaus}} – ] (]) 13:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
===Appeal by Eurocentral===
; User who is submitting this appeal : {{userlinks|Eurocentral}} 16:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


; Sanction being appealed : To enforce an ],&nbsp;and for edit warring, and , you have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing Misplaced Pages.
;Sanction to be lifted: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Eurocentral, Topic ban from Hungary and Romania


; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|ScottishFinnishRadish}}
User Ed Johnson sanctioned me "due to your quibbling as to the country of origin of various historians who write about Romania"
I consider the Ed Johnson action as an abuse. Usually, all the pages of Romanian and Hungarian history are strongly modified by some Hungarian nationalist editors (I noted Borsoka and Fakirbakir) who want to show the priority in history of Hungarians (action similar to irredentism). They started a war edit between Romanian and Hungarian editors. Their tactics are to erase all references of Romanian historians or all data who are against their principles. In order to avoid the 3RR and other wiki rules they acted alternatively. In this way they managed to blocked a lot of Romanian editors. I edited especially against the elimination of data of Romanian historians entering in conflict with Borsoka and Fakirbakir. I also edited in history of Hungary where I insisted to keep the exact data of Romanian historians.see: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Hungarian_conquest_of_the_Carpathian_Basin, The use of leader's names instead of the nation name. It is obvious for Romanians that some Hungarian editors try to avoid the names of Romanians (Vlachs) to be mentioned. Also in ] I showed there about the alternative activity of Hungarian editors who erased all data of a Romanian historian who wrote against their principles. My opinion is that all data of all historians have room in wiki pages. Censoring historians are similar to vandalism.


; Notification of that administrator : I'm aware. ] (]) 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Ed Johnson wrongly considered these as an action against "various historians"


===Statement by Nicoljaus===
I want the ban to be lifted (]) 16:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


The circumstances of my blocking were:
===Statement by EdJohnston===
*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)


===Statement by (involved editor)=== ===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. ] (]) 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
: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)=== ===Statement by (involved editor 2)===


===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Eurocentral === ===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nicoljaus ===
<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>


===Result of the appeal by Eurocentral=== ====Statement by Simonm223====
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====

{{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)

====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. ] (]) 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.'' :''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)
<!-- Please notify the appellant in the event of a successful appeal, in addition to logging it on the case page. ] informs users that "If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful."-->
* 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)
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
* 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)
*This was a pretty malformed request, I've formatted it to something resembling normal. Eurocentral, you must notify the banning admin of this request, and add a diff of the notification to your appeal, or it may not be processed. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:17, 24 January 2015 (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)
<!-- 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==
<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===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
<!--- 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.-->
# - removed "discrimination" sidebar from the page of ] (fascist ideology) even though the sidebar was inserted inside a section, not even the lead.
# - tag bombed the highly vetted ] article without any discussion or reason
# - attributing castes to people withhout any sources
# - edit warring to impose the above edits after getting
# - just like above, but this time he also added unreliable sources
# - still edit warring and using edit summaries instead of talk page for conversation
# - filed an outrageous report on WP:ANI without notifying any editors. This report was closed by Bbb23 as "{{tq|This is nothing but a malplaced, frivolous personal attack by the OP.}}"

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
*Already 2 blocks in last 4 months for edit warring.
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->

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

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

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

===Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian ===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>

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

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

====Statement by Doug Weller====
I'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)

: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)
:::I won't be involved in the decision. No more treatments for me, just coast until... ] ] 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.''

{{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)
<!-- 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)

*<!--
-->

Latest revision as of 05:12, 24 December 2024

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

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

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

    Standard of review
    On community review

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

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

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

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

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Important notes:

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

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

    A couple of reminders:

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

    Closing a thread:

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

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

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346

    Entropyandvodka

    No action. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:28, 10 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 Entropyandvodka

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Safrolic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Entropyandvodka (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, WP:GAMING
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    Between Oct 6 and 7th, 2023, this user made over 500 edits changing short descriptions. example,contribs log during the time period A majority of the edits were on Oct 6th, about 325 by my very rough count. They stopped their edit chain a few minutes after getting EC on the 6th, then did a couple hundred more on the 7th. Granted at 16h00, final edit of the day at 16h03 They had never made this kind of edit before, and they've only made a few edits of this type ever since, all on one P-I article this spring. They now have over 1,400 edits. Since then they have focused almost entirely on the PIA space, but have dedicated some time to the invasion of Ukraine. In the Russian invasion space, they've concerned themselves with making sure that a pro-Russian narrative is represented. They appear in Billedmammal (talk · contribs)'s ARBPIA statistics broadsheet, which shows their edits as being 100% in PIA for the remainder of 2023 and 75% PIA for 2024. I sought input from SFR before making this report, because I see deeper implications from a gaming run for PIA on Oct 6th 2023.

    I have not interacted with this user, beyond notifying them of this report.

    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 8 May 2024 by SeraphimBlade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 13 Oct 2023 (see the system log linked to above).
    • Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 8 May 2024 (same incident as the warning).


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Re: Liz's comment, I was unsure whether this was stale given that their further edits would put them over EC by now, though likely not without counting the PIA-related edits. This was why I asked SFR on his talk page first, who advised me that there likely wasn't a stale period for permission gaming. I haven't tried to assess recent content or conduct beyond a brief look at the Russia/Ukraine related edits. Safrolic (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Entropyandvodka

    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 Entropyandvodka

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Entropyandvodka

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Since this editor now has about 1400 edits, if those edits had been gaming, they would be EC by now without them. I'm not sure how we assess possible gaming from over a year ago. Are there recent edits that concern you? I'd like to see what admins who frequent ARE think about this case. Liz 21:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    • As Liz said, they'd be well over EC by now anyway. I'm really not inclined to go over stuff dredged up from a year ago unless there's been actual misconduct since then (and then it would be the more recent misconduct that would concern me). It evidently wasn't enough of a concern for anyone to raise in a timely fashion. Seraphimblade 02:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I said on my talk page that I didn't really think that gaming could be stale, but I'm also interested in if there has been disruptive editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
      Without further evidence of disruptive editing I will be closing this as no action taken. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I don't think there's a bright-line rule in this area, but the combination of "over a year ago" and "hundreds of subsequent edits" is enough for me to support closing without action, which I will do momentarily. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    xDanielx

    xDanielx is subject to the zero revert rule on content within the scope of WP:ARBPIA. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:16, 23 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 xDanielx

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    xDanielx (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

    Material was originally added to the infobox on 17 October and

    Removed by reported editor on 4 Dec, 5 Dec 7 Dec and 8 December with the last revert coming despite an explicit warning.


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

    PIA5 notice

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Experienced ex admin who should know better.

    @Fiveby: It's out of scope for the PIA case as reported editor is not a named party. Both AE and Arbcom prefer not to deal with content issues. Selfstudier (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Fiveby: I did not add the content nor have I edit warred over it. Obviously there are 3 editors who don't share your view while I have not as yet made up my mind, there is an ongoing RSN discussion now, and I will communicate my thoughts on the content there or possibly in an RFC if it ends up as that.Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    here


    Discussion concerning xDanielX

    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 xDanielX

    I don't think the "explicit warning" by Selfstudier (Last time, RFC or RSN else AE) was appropriate; it seems like the sort of intimidation that WP:BATTLEGROUND prohibits. The idea of adjusting my editing based on intimidation by a highly involved non-admin didn't feel right.

    Under the conventional view that removing old content generally doesn't constitute a revert, I made two reverts here, with a lot of discussion in between (here, here, here, and this older discussion). My second revert was undoing what seemed like a reflexive tag-team revert, by a user who didn't join the discussion even after I pinged them asking for an explanation.

    I normally revert very selectively - looking at my past 500 edits, there are only five reverts (at least obvious ones), with only these two being controversial. If I was a bit aggressive here, it was because the material violated our policies in a particularly blatant and severe manner.

    The estimate in question falls under WP:SCHOLARSHIP since it's based on a novel methodology, and it fails that standard due to a lack of vetting by the relevant scholarly community (public health). The closest we have is this paper by an anthropologist, which includes the estimate but doesn't discuss whether the methodology is valid. The paper also appears to have no citations, and the group that published it doesn't appear to have any real scholarly vetting process.

    The claim is also a highly WP:EXTRAORDINARY one. Health officials reported 38 starvations (as of Sep 16), which is quite different from the 62,413 (as of Sep 30) estimate. To me pushing to include such an extraordinary claim in wikivoice, with sources that clearly fall short of our relevant policies, indicates either POV pushing or a competence issue. — xDanielx /C\ 18:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

    Responses to M.Bitton

    @M.Bitton: removals of old material are not the spirit of edit warring, and in practice are generally not understood as reverts, even if they appear to meet the literal definition. Some recent discussions on this were here and here.

    I believe you misread the (confusing) history a bit; I don't see any restoration by Cdjp1. A related edit by Bogazicili had the effect of moving some footnote content, including a second instance of the 62,413 figure which I had initially missed, into the infobox. I hadn't understood this as an objection to my removal, since the edit summary conveyed a different purpose.

    It didn't occur to me that you might not have seen my ping. I'll strike that remark, but I still feel that reverting an extensively discussed change with only there is no valid reason to remove this leaves something to be desired. I see that you've now joined the discussion, but still without substantive engagement; merely stating that you're unconvinced doesn't help to move the discussion forward. — xDanielx /C\ 04:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    @M.Bitton: okay I missed that footnote change, but I think the point stands that neither change clearly conveyed an objection to the idea of removing the estimate from the infobox. If there was such an objection, I would have expected it to be noted in an summary or the discussion thread. And please assume good faith. — xDanielx /C\ 04:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    @M.Bitton: there is no valid reason to remove this isn't really an explanation. I still have no idea what you disagree with and why. Is your position that the Watson paper is vetted scholarship, or that WP:SCHOLARSHIP doesn't apply, or something else? While this isn't the place, it would be good if you could explain your position in one of the relevant discussions. — xDanielx /C\ 20:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Valereee: I would argue that EW enforcement should account for factors like scale, engagement in discussions, timing, policy support, consensus, and broader patterns of user behavior.

    • Scale: I thought I had made two reverts. Maybe there's an argument that it was really three, but I wasn't aware of it.
    • Engagement: I discussed very substantively (here, here), and tried to get more input.
    • Timing: I thought the discussion seemed to have settled. Noone appeared to be continuing to defend the content in a substantive manner, so I felt more justified in removing it. The latest points like this didn't receive a response (besides Still disagree).
    • Consensus: the local consensus appeared to be leaning toward at least requiring attribution (as we do in the body which I didn't remove). There's also just a very clear global consensus against including unvetted WP:SCHOLARSHIP (no peer review, citations, etc) in wikivoice.
    • Patterns of behavior: these were my only controversial reverts in recent memory (at least looking at 500 edits).

    If I could rewind, I would at least give it extra time to make sure that the discussion had settled, and maybe leave it to someone else to enact the result. However, I think if this were to be considered actionable edit warring, then nearly all active editors in the topic area would be guilty of it. Even in this same dispute, a different user just made their second revert, with less engagement and so on. I would argue that the single revert with no explanation might actually be the most problematic EW here, although I don't believe there's a consensus on whether single reverts are technically considered EW (there have been some inconclusive discussions on that). — xDanielx /C\ 17:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Ealdgyth: understood, though I think you mean EW broadly rather than 1RR? — xDanielx /C\ 19:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    I'm receiving the message that the factors I mentioned aren't good enough, but would still appreciate input on what acceptable participation in an edit war could look like. Maybe the answer is that there is none, but that would seem to depart from convention as I understood it, and possibly lead to a lot more formal RfCs. — xDanielx /C\ 19:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Valereee: understood, but I think a strict/literal reading of EW would capture a lot of activity that's accepted in practice. It seems like in the absence of brightline violations, more subtle distinctions are drawn between acceptable and unacceptable forms of EW. I thought that I was on the right side of this distinction, per my remarks above, but maybe my understanding of it was off base. I can understand a warning here, but it would be more effective with more specific guidance on what to avoid. — xDanielx /C\ 22:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Valereee: it looks I'm already past 500 words, is it okay to continue? Very briefly, I was trying to get at the idea that there seem to be certain informal customs limiting when EW should be enforced, going beyond the formal WP:3RRNO exceptions. If the policy were to be enforced to the letter, there would seem to be a vast number of violations; this same dispute contained at least a second ( ) and possibly a third. — xDanielx /C\ 04:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Valereee:: I was ideally hoping for some clarifications, i.e.

    1. A couple comments here made me wonder if this was being (mis)interpreted as a 1RR violation. Are we on the same page that this is a non-brightline instance of EW?
    2. Is the intention to enforce EW to the letter, irrespective of factors (outside of WP:3RRNO) like engagement in discussions?
    3. Is there a reason for the focus on my involvement and not say (from the same edit war)? Maybe there are good reasons for it, I just want to understand.

    If this needs to be wrapped up soon, I can commit to following WP:EW to the letter to be safe, unless or until a different line is clarified. I might start a WT:EW discussion afterward to clarify whether there's community support for enforcing WP:EW the letter. — xDanielx /C\ 01:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    I'm a bit puzzled by the admin discussion. It seems like there are two concerns,

    1. That I'm not entirely clear on where the line is. I've acknowledged this, and that's why I've asked for some clarifications in my last five comments, but I haven't really received the clarity I was hoping for.
    2. That I'm continuing to justify the edits (as I did initially). This seems like an uncharitable reading of my past several comments; asking for clarity on where the line is isn't an argument that my edits were on the right side of it.

    I think the implied message I'm getting is along the lines of "it's best to follow EW to the letter, irrespective of any other factors", which would be a clear line that I can follow. It's just frustrating that this hasn't been spelled out very clearly, and my questions seem to have been interpreted as something other than sincere requests for such guidance. — xDanielx /C\ 00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Valereee: thank you, that is pretty clear and I can commit to that. — xDanielx /C\ 16:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Statement by M.Bitton

    removing old content generally doesn't constitute a revert old content means stable content (you know what that means).

    I made two reverts this is factually incorrect. You made 3 reverts (excluding the first content removal):

    1. Removal of stable content.
    2. 1st revert, after Stephan rostie restored it.
    3. 2nd revert, after Cdjp1 restored it.
    4. 3rd revert, after I restored it.

    undoing what seemed like a reflexive tag-team revert casting aspersions to justify your disruptive editing is about as low as it gets.

    didn't join the discussion even after I pinged them this is extremely disingenuous as it implies that I was editing something else while ignoring your notification, when in fact, you pinged me long after I logged out and I haven't edited anything since (the editing history and the diffs don't lie). Furthermore, I already made it clear in the edit summary that I disagree with your reasoning (which consists of made-up rules and demands to satisfy you with answers).

    The bottom line is that xDanielx is edit warring against multiple editors who disagree with them for various reasons. M.Bitton (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    @XDanielx:
    removals of old material are not the spirit of edit warring we all know what edit warring is, so please don't make-up another rule.
    I don't see any restoration by Cdjp1 maybe that's because you only see what you want to see. Here is is. Like I said, diffs don't lie.
    It didn't occur to me that's because you assumed bad faith. You made that clear with your aspersions casting that I highlighted above.
    For the last time, I don't need to convince you. M.Bitton (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    information Note: Instead of simply striking their aspersions, they doubled down on their bad faith assumption (see their edit summary); and to add insult to injury, they reversed the roles and asked me to "assume good faith" (see their comment above). M.Bitton (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    the single revert with no explanation xDanielx being disingenuous again (what they mean by "no explanation" is "no explanation that they agree with and that they'd rather edit war than take it to RSN or start a RfC"). Anyway, they can also argue all they want, but what they cannot do is justify what they did (edit warring, casting aspersions and assuming bad faith). M.Bitton (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't believe there's a consensus on whether single reverts are technically considered EW I hope not, because that would mean that you violated that rule three times. One thing is certain though, the 3 reverts that you made are considered EW. M.Bitton (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    @XDanielx: quote the complete edit summary or don't bother quoting any of it. I didn't invite myself to this board to discuss content. All I'm interested in is your edit warring, your bad faith assumption and the fact that you doubled down on it after casting aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Theleekycauldron: Done. What about their aspersions casting and assumption of bad faith? M.Bitton (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Theleekycauldron: only when the person is not responding (i.e., they are editing something else and ignoring the other editor). I know that they struck the comment, but not without doubling down on the bad faith assumption (see above note). I covered all of this and more in my previous comments. M.Bitton (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    Statement by fiveby

    I'm surprised that Selfstudier is making this report. If you're unable here to look at the article content and sources then this should go straight to the arbcom case as evidence. fiveby(zero) 03:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Selfstudier:, this is blatantly bad content. Like UFO level blatantly bad. It seems to me WP:PROFRINGE editors in some topic areas get told right off to go edit somewhere else, often harshly, quickly warned by admins, and finally sanctioned without a great deal of fuss about the thing. It seems no big deal when admins in those topic areas have some basic knowledge and apply a few research skills to start warning, topic banning, or blocking editors over content when they are otherwise following policies. @Valereee:, seems like an awfully high burden to impose on everyone here, especially when the RfC process seems to be a big part of the problem in the topic area. I could easily put the shoe on the other foot here, find some trivial bits of content: infobox, lead phrasing, or titles, complain on talk pages and then start a few RfC's. If i were to do that it seems best for WP that Selfstudier report me here for wasting everyone's time and admins here should be able to forcefully let me know that i'm just being a jerk. See ya back here when i've some idle time for the devil's work. fiveby(zero) 16:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    3 editors who don't share your view... bad actors, not because they do not share my view but because they don't share Misplaced Pages's. Just like all those non-EC editors flooding Talk:Zionism with edit requests and EC editors who've gamed the system to get there. Bad policies. Now there are two good actors and reasonable looking editors here, and more with good work and ideas targets at arbcom. I'd say better to join the edit war and remove that nonsense rather than wasting time with this. fiveby(zero) 17:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Valereee: i think there are such reasonable editors in the topic area who can work things out and are trying to work things out on talk pages with WP:BESTSOURCES, and good work on the real article content in the bodies. Why are they ending up here and at arbcom? I think it's due to the bad policies and the bad actors gaming them. Wastes time and frustrates everyone. fiveby(zero) 18:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning xDanielX

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Daniel, your excuse for edit-warring seems to be that the claim is extraordinary. I totally see your point on this being an extraordinary claim; to me it seems highly dubious that 62,000 people could have died of starvation over the course of a year and it wouldn't be ongoing international front page news rather than speculation/estimation in obscure sources, with multiple mainstream RS only reporting starvation deaths in the dozens. But edit-warring isn't the answer. The answer is an RfC with notification to projects and noticeboards. It would even be fair to suggest the content be removed as dubious until the RfC closes; there's no particular urgency for WP to include such a dubious number in an infobox, which as you pointed out is similar to providing that info in Wikivoice. Valereee (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Fiveby, sure, it would be better if editors at an article would just be able to work it out by saying to themselves, "Hm...yeah, that doesn't really make sense. 62,000+ people dead of starvation? And no one's talking about it except some obscure unpublished research and a letter to POTUS, and both of those estimates are based on a single unproven theory? Maybe we should rethink". But it seems like the editors at the article talk who want to keep this dubious content in the infobox have dug in their heels on defending the poor sourcing and are in the majority. Valereee (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
      @XDanielx, the exceptions to edit warring are detailed at WP:3RRNO. It's best to claim an exception in the edit summary. Valereee (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
      @XDanielx, I feel like WP:3RRNO is specific guidance on what to avoid. What are you not understanding? What revert did you think would covered under the exemptions? Valereee (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
      @xDanielx, you said I think the implied message I'm getting is along the lines of "it's best to follow EW to the letter, irrespective of any other factors", which would be a clear line that I can follow. So here's a clear line to follow, explicitly stated rather than implied: When reverted, go directly to the talk page, open a section, ping the editor, and discuss. Do not revert until consensus has been reached. Unless a reversion is for reasons included by 3RR exemptions, such as a BLP vio, that is best practices. Can you commit to making that your default setting? Valereee (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    • So, looking at the diffs here, it seems like xDanielx removes the content once, it's reverted, removes a second time. Then someone else bundles the list into a footnote and a second person re-adds the content, which xDanielx doesn't recognize as a readdition and thinks that they forgot to remove the same content somewhere else, gets reverted, reverts back. If it were actually the situation that there were two instances of the same content, it'd merit maybe a reminder because it's generally not good practice to arm-wrestle in the revision history to get edits through. Given that and the fact that they weren't being careful, I'd say either a warning or reminder is best. As for the content dispute, both positions are reasonable enough that neither one would be sanctionable on its own as POV-pushing, so it's out of scope for this thread. @M.Bitton: maybe that's because you only see what you want to see is inappropriate for a civil discussion. Please strike that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
      @M.Bitton: Seems like they struck the "reflexive tag-team revert" comment. As for the pinging, it's pretty reasonable to bring up that someone isn't responding when you try and engage with them, I'm not sure I see the same assumption of bad faith. Open to your thoughts on it, though :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Per Valereee above, the argument of an extraordinary claim is a reasonable one, but that isn't one of the very few exceptions we allow for edit-warring. I'm also not impressed by the dismissal of SelfStudier's warning as a threat. That said, there is engagement on the talk page, and no bright-line violation, so I would stop at a logged warning about edit-warring. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Daniel, there is no 1RR exemption for being right. You need to learn that the revert-button isn't a good first (or any) option in this topic area. Yes, it's frustrating to have to expend effort to discuss things but that's what system we have here at wikipedia. I'm okay with a logged warning, but I do want Daniel to understand that contentious topics such as this demand the best behavior. That's how you stay out of trouble, and yes, the filing against M.Bitton, while perhaps merited, certainly gave off a distinct impression of a retaliatory filing - too much of that sort of thing gets editors topic banned or worse. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
      I very slightly lean 0RR restriction, just because I think that might help the editor get the idea that edit warring isn't a good idea at all, which might not get through with a logged warning. But its very slight and a logged warning also works. (Sorry for delay - snowfall and I got mesmerized by the beauty of winter ... so nice to be all snug in the house next to the wood stove with hot tea and watching big fluffy flakes falling...) Ealdgyth (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Comment to stave off the archive bot. We should reach some resolution here; it looks to me like this is tending toward a warning for edit warring with no further sanction. Seraphimblade 09:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
      My concern is that Daniel keeps arguing that this edit warring should be one of the exemptions and/or indicating that because not all edit warring gets exactly the same response consistently, they don't recognize where the line is. I'm fine with a warning if Daniel will indicate they do now understand where the line is and will comply. Valereee (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
      xDanielx, please consider yourself to have a 300 word extension for the purpose of responding to the above from Valereee. Seraphimblade 16:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm wondering if this is a case where 0RR may be usefully applied. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    • We need to close this. @Valereee, Seraphimblade, Ealdgyth, and Theleekycauldron: Is there agreement on a logged warning for edit-warring? I agree with Valereee that the justifications above are concerning, but that isn't enough to push me to something more draconian. I floated the idea of a 0RR restriction, but nobody has commented on that, so I would default to a logged warning. I see no history of sanctions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I'm still pretty concerned about Daniel's most recent explanation of their understanding of EW. I feel like 0RR might be a better solution, but I'm willing to go along with a logged warning if 0RR doesn't work for others. I kind of feel like if this needs to be revisited, it's quite possibly likely an arbcom case. Valereee (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      Noting here for the record that Ealdgyth supports either, above in their own response area. Valereee (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I think I prefer 0RR here. I'm just not seeing an indication that xDanielx understands that "But I'm really sure I'm right!" is not an exception to the rules on edit warring; indeed, that is the cause of probably 99% of edit wars. Seraphimblade 20:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I'm ready to go for a logged warning, given that Daniel has now committed to 0RR as a personal default. Valereee (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      If you think that's the way to go, I don't have any particular objection to that. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within a day or so, I'll close as such. Seraphimblade 07:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I apologize for the tardiness: I was hoping TLC would chime in, but then this fell off my radar. I'm reading a slight consensus in favor of 0RR, given that Seraphimblade, myself, and Ealdgyth all preferred it, and Valereee's latest post does not indicate objection. In addition, if xDanielx intends to hold himself to this standard, it shouldn't prove an onerous restriction. I would be willing to consider an appeal within a few months based on engagement in disputes without a violation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    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.

    1. 2024-12-09 xDanielx being disingenuous again (what they mean by "no explanation" is "no explanation that they agree with")
    2. 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
    3. 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)
    4. 2024-12-01, 2024-12-01 Misplaced Pages is not a collection of every piece of alleged garbage
    5. 2024-11-18 When someone keeps misrepresenting the sources (again and again), then I will rightly assume disingenuousness
    6. 2024-11-18 I'm starting to question your motives
    7. 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)
    8. 2024-11-15 I don't take lessons from those who misrepresent the sources and edit war over WP:OR
    9. 2024-11-15 please don't attribute your nonsense to me (this is totally unacceptable)
    10. 2024-11-15 Bobfrombrockley is busy adding whatever garbage they can find
    11. 2024-11-15 you've been very busy adding whatever garbage you could find to the article
    12. 2024-11-15 Do you expect me to explain to you what "freedom of expression" is?
    13. 2024-11-14 I'm done wasting my time with this nonsense ... Your self-serving opinion is irrelevant
    14. 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)
    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)
    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


    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
    1. 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.”
    2. 3 November 2024 Selfstudier dismissed my source ISBN 9798888459683, with “Bernard-Henri Lévy is not an expert on Zionism or colonialism”.
    3. 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.
    4. 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
    1. 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)

    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 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
    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)
    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:

    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:

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

    Talk:Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world:

    Talk:2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks:

    Talk:Anti-Zionism:

    Talk:Gaza genocide:

    Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre:

    Talk:Al-Sardi school attack:

    Talk:Eden Golan:

    Other sanctions:

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)
    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)