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 18:17, 27 February 2015 editAnonNep (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,074 edits Statement by AnonNep: Response← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:08, 11 January 2025 edit undoArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,326 edits fixing display error on parent page 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}{{Redirect|WP:AE|the automated editing program|Misplaced Pages:AutoEd}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude> <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!--
<includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly>
--><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly>
<noinclude>{{editabuselinks|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}
<noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!--
</noinclude>
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|counter =347
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 165
|minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(48h) |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}}
}}


==PerspicazHistorian==
{{clear}}
{{hat|{{u|PerspicazHistorian}} is blocked indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC) }}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning PerspicazHistorian===
==Astynax==
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 15:53, 19 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|PerspicazHistorian}}<p>{{ds/log|PerspicazHistorian}}</p>
===Request concerning Astynax===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Nwlaw63}} 17:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Astynax}}<p>{{ds/log|Astynax}}
<!--- 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: ]
] :
] :
"2) Parties to the case are reminded to base their arguments in reliable, independent sources and to discuss changes rather than revert on sight."
<!--- 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.-->
# - removed "discrimination" sidebar from the page of ] (fascist ideology) even though the sidebar was inserted inside a section, not even the lead.
# Massive controversial edit (more than doubled the size of the existing article) without any consensus. Besides having numerous BLP and POV issues (slanted defamatory allegations against a living person with sourcing issues), the edit discussed matters which predated the existence of the article topic by many years, and there was again, absolutely no consensus for including it.
# Reverting without addressing issues raised, disregarding bold/discuss/revert # - tag bombed the highly vetted ] article without any discussion or reason
# Reverting without addressing issues raised, disregarding bold/discuss revert, then reverting again # - attributing castes to people withhout any sources
# Argumentative and tendentious, again disregarding bold/discuss/revert # - edit warring to impose the above edits after getting
# Mass revert of mutiple edits to reinstate contentious version of 30 January # - 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.}}"

;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. -->
*Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
*Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on



; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
*Already 2 blocks in last 4 months for edit warring.
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here --> <!-- Add any further comment here -->
Astynax ignores consensus on talk pages and RfCs when it does not fit their agenda, and has ignored attempts to resolve the content dispute through normal ]. Rather than using these procedures, they attempt to have other editors sanctioned with whom they disagree. Ignoring and belittling the views of other editors and ignoring bold/revert/discuss is a consistent pattern over more than a year and a half, and has continued unabated even after the Arbitration case. A quick review of the background is as follows:
*In September 2013, Astynax initiated a RfC regarding the inclusion of Landmark in the ] which closed with a consensus that it '''should not''' be included . They ignored this and re-instated Landmark's entry, for which they were warned . They then turned their attention to the the Landmark article itself and persistently inserted similar claims there .
*In August 2014 Astynax returned and re-inserted the same material , proceeding to edit-war over the next few weeks to preserve their version.
*On 20th September 2014, Astynax filed the Request for Arbitration , which ultimately resulted in discretionary sanctions being applied to the Landmark article.
*Astynax did not respond to this recent ] , but instead filed a case at COI against editors who disagreed with them . It should be noted that no action was taken against the two editors here, {{U|DaveApter}} and ]. (DA's alleged COI was already raised at the Landmark Arbitration case and not found to be justified).


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 :


*PerspicazHistorian is still using sources (see ]) and wishing to move ] to ] which is a blatant POV. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 04:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- 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. -->


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
==== Response to Cailil on policy based reason for removal of original edit ====
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->

Regarding your point that the original edit would need “a cogent and policy based reason for removal” for there to be a problem here, the policies violated by the original edit seem to include ] and ]. The edit made literally half of the article about people and events that predated the existence of the article subject by years. The general guideline ] was also ignored when the above edit was reverted, with Astynax simply reverting the reversion.

If all of this is too content based for this forum, I accept that decision, and would appreciate any other suggestions for resolving these issues, noting that this editor has ignored a mediation request and been dismissive on the talk page of the views of other editors. ] (]) 21:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


<!--- 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 Astynax===
<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 Astynax====
Apart from rearguing points already discussed in Arbcom's Landmark case, the only recent activity Nwlaw63 is offering is the restoration of the article from a revert that essentially wiped out over 6 months of referenced work by multiple editors. The contention that consensus existed to return the article to the state that existed in July 2014 is false. The Arbcom case reminded all parties to base any edits in sources. Blanking referenced material on ] grounds or personal PoV is as much a violation as would be insisting on adding material not based in references. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


===Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian ===
====Statement by Tgeairn====
<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>
While {{U|HJ Mitchell|Harry}} is one of my favourite whisky drinking admins, and I generally agree with him, I submit that there is a significant conduct issue here.


====Statement by PerspicazHistorian ====
Following the Arbitration case and subsequent authorisation of Discretionary Sanctions, Astynax has refused to edit collaboratively in this domain of articles. They have refused to participate in mediation; the ] and archives have numerous examples of threads begun, only to stall out with Astynax's refusal to engage in discussion; and when requests for moves and mergers have not gone in the way they supported, they have then just forced the edits into the article anyway. There appears to be a significant misunderstanding of ], as well as ]. When other editors have argued that material is undue or has other issues, Astynax the material
*By far I am also concerned how my edits were forcefully reverted without a proper reason despite providing enough references. Please check how I am getting attacked by them on ] Page.
I didn't know about the three-revert-rule before ] told me about this: ].
Please grant me one more chance, I will make sure not to edit war.<br>
*In the below statement by LukeEmily, As a reply I just want to say that I was just making obvious edit on ] by adding a list of notable people with proper references. And according to ] it is clearly said: "Edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism." It was a good faith edit but others reverted it. I accept my mistake of not raising it on talk page as a part of ].<br>
*As a clarification to my edit on ], it can be clearly seen that I provided enough reference to prove its a terrorist organisation as seen in this . I don't know why is there a discussion to this obvious edit? Admins please correct me if I am wrong.
:@], Yes I read about 1RR and 0RR revert rules in ]. I now understand the importance of raising the topic on talk page whenever a consensus is needed. Thank You ! ] (]) 07:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, I will commit to that. ] (]) 13:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) <small>Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC) </small>
:At that time I was new to how AFD discussions worked. Later on when ] was marked for deletion, I respected the consensus by not interfering in it. The article was later deleted. ] (]) 11:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*Hi @] , I just checked your user page. You have 16 years (I am 19) of experience on wiki, you must be right about me. I agree that my start on Misplaced Pages has been horrible, but I am learning a lot from you all. I promise that I will do better, get more neutral here and contribute to the platform to my best. Please don't block me.
::''<small>P.S.- I don't know If I will be blocked or what , according to this enforcement rules, I just want to personally wish good luck to you for your ongoing cancer treatments, You will surely win this battle of Life. Regards.</small>'' ] (]) 12:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)<small>Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section.] (]) 15:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small>


*1) I just asked an user @] if the page move is possible. What's wrong with it? I still have not considered putting a move request on talk page of article.
The behaviour here violates at least ] principles that Arbcom passed in association with this case and subsequent authorisation of DS, and flies squarely in the face of remedy #2 ("...discuss changes rather than revert on sight."). Given that Astynax has already a to restore material against consensus repeatedly over long periods of time, there seems to be little evidence that the article will improve without the application of sanctions. --] (]) 00:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC) ] (]) 05:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
:2) Many of other sources are not raj era. Moreover I myself have deleted the content way before you pointing this out. Thank You ! ] (]) 06:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::even @] is seen engaged in edit wars before on contentious Indian topics. ] (]) 06:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::as mentioned by @] before, <sub>Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here</sub>. You can discuss content related topics on talk pages of articles rather than personally targeting a user here in enforcement. ] (]) 06:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@] I once filed a to find it @] is a sock (out of a misunderstanding, as all were teamed up similarly on various pages). I think he felt it as a personal attack by me and filed this request for enforcement. Please interfere. ] (]) 06:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC) <small>moving to correct section ] (]) 13:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</small>


*Hi @] @], In my defense I just want to say that
====Statement by ]====
:1)Yes I usually edit on RSS related topics, but to ensure a democratic view is maintained as many socks try to disrupt such articles. Even on ] page, I just edited on request of talk page and added a graph. I don't think its a POV push.
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
:2) My main interest in editing is ] and ] topics.
This matter was brought up at ], at ], where I regularly try to help with COI problems. My comment there was ''"That article has been a long-term headache and a subject of ArbComm sanctions. Can this problem be turned over to ArbComm enforcement? I doubt we can resolve this at WP:COIN. This probably needs the big hammers available at AN/I. John Nagle 20:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC) ... Buck passed to ]. Take this over there, please. Thanks. John Nagle 20:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)"'' I just got a request on my talk page at ] to do something about this. Since it's at AE, it's AE's problem now. I have no position on this. You guys sort this out. ] (]) 07:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
:3)There have been certain cases in past where I was blocked but if studied carefully they were result of me edit warring with socks(although, through guidance of various experienced editors and admins I learnt a SPI should be filed first). I have learnt a lot in my journey and there have been nearly zero case of me of edit warring this month.
:Please do not block me. ] (]) 14:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*@] I beg apologies for the inconvenience caused, thanks for correcting me. I will now reply in my own statement section. @] I am a quick learner and professionally competent to edit in this encyclopedic space. Please consider reviewing this enforcement if its an counter-attack on me as mentioned in my previous replies. You all are experienced editors and I have good faith in your decision-making capability.] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*@]@] I have edited content marked as "original research" and "mess" by you, I am ready to help removing any content that might be considered "poorly sourced" by the community. Please don't block me.] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*@] This enforcement started for edit-warring and now I feel its more concerned to my edited content(which I agree to cooperate and change wherever needed). After learning about edit wars, there has been no instance of me edit-warring, Please consider my request.--] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@] I am not a slow learner, I understand the concerns of all admins here. I will try my best to add only reliable sources, and discuss content in all talk pages, as I already mentioned ]. ] (]) 12:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@]@] I think admins should focus more on encouraging editors when they do good and correct when mistaken. I have made many edits, added many citations and created much articles which use fine citations. The enforcement started out of retaliation by nxcrypto, now moving towards banning me anyways. I started editing out of passion, and doing it here on wiki unlike those who come here just for pov pushes and disrupt article space(talking about socks and vandalizers on contentious Indian topics).
*::The article ] doesn't only has issue on citations, but the whole article is copypasted from the citations I added. I just wanted to point that out. Remaining about ], I am currently pursuing Btech in cs from IIT delhi, idt I am a slow learner by any means. Still, happy new year to all ! ] (]) 14:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::@] You mean to say, "<sub>The ''prasada'' is to be consumed by attendees as a holy offering. The offerings may include cooked food, ] and confectionery sweets. Vegetarian food is usually offered and later distributed to the devotees who are present in the ]. Sometimes this vegetarian offering will exclude prohibited items such as garlic, onion, mushroom, etc. "</sub> is not copy pasted by website? Is this also a wiki mirror website? How would you feel if I doubt your competence now? ] (]) 14:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::@ ] I just asked others to share their opinion in the enforcement. With all due respect, I don't think its wrong in any sense. ] (]) 15:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::To all the admins involved here,
*:::::* I agree to keep learning and apologize if my previous edits/replies have annoyed the admins.
*:::::* I have not edit warred since a month and please see it as my willingness to keep learning and getting better.
*:::::*Please give me a chance, I understand concern of you all and respect your opinion in the matter. But please don't block me from editing from main article space. I promise that I will abide by all the rules and will learn from other editors.
*:::::] (]) 15:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by DaveApter==== ====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.] (])
(I've reinstated this archived section, as it still seems unresolved)
There really does need to be some sort of shift here. As one of the Arbitrators remarked during discussion of the case "The aim of Arbitration is to break the back of the dispute", but here there seems to be no sign of any such breakage. The heart of the matter is a content dispute, but we are completely snookered because some parties resolutely refuse to engage with any of the normal ].


====Statement by Doug Weller====
{{U|Astynax}}'s behaviour since the case has been exactly the same as it was before:
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)
*Responding to discussion on the talk page by accusations of original research or "ignoring sources" rather than engaging with the points that are raised.
*Pressing ahead regardless with their preferred version, even when a clear consensus had emerged against it. For example, there had been a proposal on the talk page to merge the Landmark article with the ] and ], which was closed by {{U|Drmies}} as 'no consensus'. Yet the bloated "Background" section added by Astynax effectively added material relating to events years before the formation of this corporation that would have been appropriate to such a merge.
*Massive block reverts to re-establish his preferred version (This edit eliminated '''seven''' specific changes that had been made - is is plausible that there was no merit in any of them?)
*Point-blank refusal to join with any attempts to resolve the difference of opinion through normal channels: this Request for Mediation failed because neither Astynax nor any of the other editors who share his viewpoint would participate in it.
*Abuse of Misplaced Pages's disciplinary processes to intimidate editors who do not agree with his perspective. The post at ] is a case in point: Astynax knew full well that the question of my alleged COI had been aired at the Arbitration case (indeed I actually asked for it to be myself).
*For that matter, their original Request for Arbitration was arguably a frivolous application, insofar as none of the three parties that he named were found to have committed breaches of policies. ] (]) 17:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


:::I won't be involved in the decision. No more treatments for me, just coast until... ] ] 12:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
=====In response to questions raised by Cailil=====


====Statement by Toddy1====
I can understand that readers coming newly to this may well find it confusing; I will do my best to shed some light.
This is another editor who appears to have pro-] (RSS) and pro-] (BJP) views. I dislike those views, but find it rather alarming that Misplaced Pages should seek to censor those views, but not the views of the political opponents. Imagine the outrage if we sought to topic-ban anyone who expressed pro-] views, but allowed ] to say whatever they liked.


A lot of pro-RSS/BJP editors turn out to be sock-puppets, so please can we do a checkuser on this account. And to be even-handed, why not checkuser NXcrypto too.
The mass insert by Astynax on 29th of January was clearly in disregard of the extended discussion on the talk page - ''Proposed merger with ] and ]'' - which had been closed as '''No Consensus''' by {{U|Drmies}} on 15th January . The events described allegedly took place seven to sixteen years prior to the foundation of Landmark, and would belong (if at all, bearing in mind the poor sourcing for defamatory insinuations against a living person) in one or other of the articles whose merger had been rejected.


If we want to talk about ] when editors make mistakes, look at the diff given by NXcrypto for "Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested" - it is the wrong diff. He/she did notify PerspicazHistorian - but the correct diff is .
The re-insertion by Astynax of the same content the following day (as well as by a couple of other editors) had not been justified by any of the extended discussion on the talk page in the intervening time ].


A topic ban from Indian topics would be unhelpful, unless given to both parties. Misplaced Pages is meant to be a mainstream encyclopaedia, and BJP and RSS are mainstream in India. Loading the dice against BJP and RSS editors will turn Misplaced Pages into a fringe encyclopaedia on Indian topics.
Neither was the edit warring to reinstate the same material on 12th February justified by anything that had been brought to the talk page in the intervening period. In fact, almost '''all''' for the comments on the talk page between 30th Jan and 12th Feb were making the case ''against'' the inclusion of this material, and ''against'' other additions that Astynax and his collaborators had made.


I can see a good case for restricting PerspicazHistorian to draft articles and talk pages for a month, and suggesting that he/she seeks advice from more experienced editors. Another solution would be a one-revert rule to last six months.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 13:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
It was also arguably in disregard of the discussion - ''Requested move 10 January 2015'' - which was closed as '''no consensus''' by {{U|EdJohnston}} on 10th February . (This being an attempt to justify including the lengthy narrative of events prior to the formation of the corporation, by shifting the focus of the article from the corporation itself to one of its products on the - questionable - grounds that this product was identical with that offered by the other entities).


====Statement by Capitals00====
It's late here and this will have to do for now; I may add some more tomorrow. ] (]) 22:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I find the comment from {{U|Toddy1}} to be entirely outrageous. What are you trying to tell by saying "{{tq|Misplaced Pages is meant to be a mainstream encyclopaedia, and BJP and RSS are mainstream in India}}"? If you want us to entertain those who are in power, then we could never have an article like ].


You cannot ask topic ban for both editors without having any evidence of misconduct. Same way, you cannot ask CU on either user ]. It is a high time that you should strike your comment, since you are falsely accusing others that they "{{tq|seek to censor}}" this editor due to his "{{tq| pro-Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and pro-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) views}}". You should strike your comment. If you cannot do that, then I am sure ] is coming for you. ] (]) 15:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by John Carter====
I think it is very much worth noting that in the roughly two months since the arbitration closed, no less than three AE requests have been filed, and that, so far as I can tell, in all three cases of the filed requests there has been little if any support for sanctions against editors. There is also, I believe, a rather obvious to me attempt to mischaracterize some events, which is concerning. I note in particular that the COIN rarely if ever closes discussions with a clear "Editor X has been demonstrated to have a COI" although there seems to be a repeated insistence that lack of such a closing comment in some way is indicative of no finding. Such concerns, and some of the other concerns expressed here and elsewhere in the prior two AE requests, give me reason to believe that some editors involved may be trying to win through vexatious litagation something they would be unlikely or unable to win through standard procedures, and that possibility is one that raises in at least my eyes serious questions regarding the actions of some of the editors involved. ] (]) 21:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)==== ====Statement by Vanamonde93====
{{U|Toddy1}}: I, too, am baffled by your comment. We don't ban editors based on their POV; but we do ban editors who fail to follow our PAGs, and we certainly don't make excuses for editors who fail to follow our guidelines based on their POV. You seem to be suggesting we cut PH some slack because of their political position, and I find that deeply inappropriate. Among other things, I don't believe they have publicly stated anywhere that they support the BJP or the RSS, and we cannot make assumptions about them.
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


That said, the fact that this was still open prompted me to spot-check PH's contributions, and I find a lot to be concerned about. is from 29 December, and appears to be entirely original research; I cannot access all of the sources, but snippet search does not bear out the content added, and the Raj era source for the first sentence certainly does not support the content it was used for. ], entirely authored by PH, is full of puffery ({{tq|"first to sacrifice his life for the cause of Swarajya"}}, and poor sources (like , and , whose blurb I leave you to judge), from which most of the article appears to be drawn. ], also entirely authored by PH, has original research in its very first sentence; the sources that I can access give passing mention to people whose names include the suffix "appa", and thus could perhaps be examples of usage, but the sources most certainly do not bear out the claim.
===Result concerning Astynax===
:''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. -->
*There seems to have been a lot of back and forth on the article lately. I'm not seeing a major problem with Asyntax's conduct; they could be more communicative, but they don't seem to be being unreasonable given the circumstances. If I'm inclined towards any action, it's a lengthy spell (maybe a month) of full protection on the article to calm things down and force people to discuss things on the talk page. ] &#124; ] 21:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


I will note in fairness that I cannot access all the sources for the content I checked. But after spotchecking a dozen examples I have yet to find content PH wrote that was borne out by a reliable source, so I believe skepticism is justified. We are in territory where other editors may need to spend days cleaning up some of this writing. {{U|Bishonen}} If we're in CIR territory, just a normal indefinite block seems cleanest, surely? Or were you hoping that PH would help clean up their mess, perhaps by providing quotes from sources? That could be a pathway to contributing productively, but I'm not holding my breath. ] (]) 18:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*I'm trying to read myself in to this case but for all the allegations of misconduct against Astynax here there needs to be substantiation with dated diffs. For example a diff showing consensus being reached on the talk page needs to be followed by a diff showing it being broken, etc etc. Just saying "Astynax breaks consensus" is not sufficient. These allegations need clearly laid out evidence or uninvolved sysops will not be able to act--] <sup>]</sup> 20:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:*I don't see it. The biggest complaint in this request is that Astynax made "a big controversial edit". This looks to me like an attempt to win a content issue via AE and I'm inclined to recommend closure without action. <br>Unless someone can show me the diffs of the original edits that Astynax is reverting I don't see him "reverting onsight". These look like run of the mill reverts of removals of sourced content. Unless the original edit has a cogent and policy based reason for removal (and is right about its policy reason) we can't judge these reverts at all. <br>Furthermore does not show tendentiousness. The only edit I'd question is the last diff in Nwlaw63's report but that's only because Astynax is reverting a revert. Honestly this is a content dispute and should not be here - because we can't help. '''Recommend closure without action'''--] <sup>]</sup> 15:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


:Thanks Bish: I agree, as my exchanges with PH today, in response to my first post here, have not inspired confidence. . ] (]) 20:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
==Spudst3r==
<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 Spudst3r=== ====Statement by UtherSRG====
I've mostly dealt with PH around ]. They do not seem to have the ability to read and understand our policies and processes. As such, a t-ban is too weak. The minimum I would support is a p-block as suggested below, though a full indef is also acceptable. They could then ask for the ] when they can demonstrate they no longer have ] issues. - ] ] 20:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Sonicyouth86}} 15:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


:Based on , I'm more strongly leaning towards indef. - ] ] 12:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Spudst3r}}<p>{{ds/log|Spudst3r}}
::They now indicate they believe the article they edited was copied from one of the websites they used as a reference, when in reality the website is a mirror/scrape of the Misplaced Pages article. I believe we are firmly in ] territory here. - ] ] 14:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::: is a mirror of the Misplaced Pages article. - ] ] 16:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


===Result concerning PerspicazHistorian ===
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]: standard dscretionary sanctions authorized for all edits about and all pages related to {{tq|any gender-related dispute or controversy}}
:''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)
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- 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. -->
{{cot|These diffs predate the alert; they can be used to establish a pattern, but the final decision will be based on post-alert edits. ] &#124; ] 20:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)}}
:@], 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?
#: original research, doesn't mention sexual assault statistics (relevant passage on p. 33, second paragraph)
:<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)
#: adds unsourced material and original research, passage "feminist organizations ridiculing, ignoring and having perceived gender biases" unsupported by (p. 431, right column)
::I'm seeing this as a CIR issue. I'd like input from other admins, if possible. I'm a little concerned that setting a tban from IPA is just setting a trap. Maybe a p-block from article space would be a kinder way to allow them to gain some experience? ] (]) 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
#: original research, doesn't discuss the men's rights movement (MRM)
:::@], have you seen how many times I or others have had to move your comments to your own section? This is an example of not having enough experience to edit productively. Please do not post in anyone else's section again. ] (]) 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
#: revert, restores original research, disregarding active talk page discussion
::::I do agree we're in CIR territory, and the concerns expressed are completely valid. I don't think this editor is ill-intentioned. They just don't seem very motivated to learn quickly. Well-intentioned-but-a-slow-learner is something that can only be fixed by actually practicing what you're bad at. I'd prefer an indef from article space which gives them one more chance to learn here before we send them off to mr.wiki or Simple English to try to learn. Not a hill I'm going to die on, though. ] (]) 11:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
#: adds uncited material, changes meaning of phrase, presenting oppression as real rather than perceived, deletes critical content and describes peer-reviewed article as the opinion of "feminist authors"
:::::@], like Uther I have major concerns about the edit you made yesterday, which included replacing a citation needed tag with these sources.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Significance of Different Type of Prasad in Hinduism For God |url=https://www.ganeshaspeaks.com/predictions/astrology/prasad-food-for-god/ |access-date=2024-12-30 |website=GaneshaSpeaks |language=en-GB}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=What Is Prashad |url=https://www.swaminarayan.faith/articles/what-is-prashad |access-date=2024-12-30 |website=Shree Swaminarayan Mandir Bhuj |language=en}}</ref> The first is a company that markets astrology services. The second is the site for a religious sect. Neither is a reliable source for explaining the concept of prasada in Wikivoice. You made this edit ''yesterday'', after you'd confirmed here and on my talk that you understood sourcing policy.
{{cob}}
:::::The reason for an indef from article space is to allow you to learn this policy: You would go into article talk and suggest sources to fix citation needed tags. Another editor would have to agree with you that the sources are reliable before they'd add them. ] (]) 12:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
#: revert, restores original research (source doesn't discuss the MRM)
*A tban from IPA for PerspicazHistorian would be a relief to many editors trying to keep this difficult area in reasonable shape. However, Valereee makes a good point about 'setting a trap': it's doubtful that PH would be able to keep to a tban even if they tried in good faith. I would therefore support a p-block from article space. ] &#124; ] 16:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC).
#: revert, restores original research again
*:{{u|Vanamonde93}}, no, I don't really think PH can usefully help clean up their mess; I was following Valereee, who has been going into this in some depth, in attempting to keep some way of editing Misplaced Pages open for PH. It's a bit of a counsel of desperation, though; there is very little daylight between an indef and a p-block from article space. Yes, we ''are'' in CIR territory; just look at PH's ] for NXcrypto being "engaged in edit wars before on contentious Indian topics": one diff of an opponent complaining on NXcrypto's page, and one diff of somebody reverting NXcrypto. What do those actually prove? That NXcrypto has opponents (big surprise). So, yes, as you suggest, I'll support an indef as well. ] &#124; ] 20:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC).
# : tendentious ] arguments
*Is there a length of time proposed for the p-ban or would it be indefinite? ] (]) 17:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
#: baseless accusations ("small cadre of editors fighting against any sources content that portrays the "men's rights movement" in innocuous language")
*:I would say indefinite; not infinite, but I'd be wary about letting them back into articlespace without some kind of preclearance. ] (] • she/her) 18:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
#: synthesis, combined two sources to suggest that, since the author is considered a "men's rights leader" (first source), he wrote about the MRM in his book (second source) which he didn't
*It looks to me like there is a consensus for an indefinite partial block for PerspicazHistorian from article space. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within a day or so, I will close as such. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
#: partial misquote of ("believe female privilege and male degradation is system within society"), again original research (adds statement from a source that doesn't mention the MRM)
*:Given PH's recent slew of requests on multiple admin talk pages, yes, please do. - ] ] 12:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
#: partial revert, restores misquote, adds synthesis by combining two sentences that aren't combined that way in the source
*<!--
#: describes majority academic position as the opinion of "some feminist scholars" although the statement is sourced to (i.e., , , ], , , , interview with , ] and two additional reliable sources.
-->
#: again original research, sources the statement {{tq|conservative men's rights activists consider the MRM to be a backlash or countermovement to feminism}} with a quote that doesn't mention men's rights activists or the men's rights movement
#: changes the lead without any prior discussion; again original research: {{tq|Advocates describe the movement as bringing attention to...}} and {{tq|One prominent leader within the movement described men's rights..."}} sourced to a book that doesn't discuss the MRM, its activists, or anything about the MRM; removed the source which contained nine academic citations for the statement that the MRM is considered a backlash


{{reflist talk}}
{{hab}}


==LaylaCares==
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
{{hat|There is consensus to remove LaylaCares's EC flag. ] (]) 17:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}

<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
Alert about discretionary sanctions in the men's rights topic area in the last twelve months, on

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
Spudst3r is a long dormant ]; two of his three edits in 2014 were to ] and Men's rights movement and the vast majority of his edits in 2015 have been to the same topic area. His sudden return in 2015 to the MRM article coincides with several off-site calls for meatpuppets (e.g., ) in this topic area.

In addition to the problem that he misleadingly summarizes sources, he reverts to his preferred version without waiting for the discussion to conclude. He either doesn't understand the original research and synthesis policies or he prefers to ignore them. In either case, the editor should be topic banned until he can demonstrate his ability to follow our content policies in the men's rights topic area.

His talk page edits are disruptive and circular, mostly consisting of arguments that the MRM page and women's rights movement page must be treated equally or repetitions of (as many as ) guidelines and principles per comment. --] (]) 15:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

{{ping|Thryduulf}} {{tq|Disputes and controversies involving the men's rights movement could be covered if they are gender related, e.g. a controversy about an MRM figure's allegations of bias against men would be within scope, but controversy about that figure's allegations of bias against Christians would not.}} The men's rights movement is a strand of the men's movement that's based on the idea that men are discriminated and oppressed. All secondary sources about the movement discuss men's rights activists' belief that men are discriminated and oppressed and all primary sources from within the movement argue that men are discriminated and oppressed relative to women. All disputes and controversies involving the MRM are inherently gender related. For example, one of the most favorite primary sources used by Spudst3r is a book (''The Myth of Male Power'') written by activist Warren Farrell who argues that male privilege is a myth and that men are the oppressed and disposable sex, and that secretaries oppress their male bosses with their "miniskirt power", and other stuff like that that's all clearly gender related. Btw, Farrell never actually mentions the MRM or its activists, yet Spudst3r attributes statements about the MRM and its activists to that book. The men's rights movement page is clearly a gender related page, everything mentioned on the MRM page is gender related. --] (]) 15:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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

===Discussion concerning Spudst3r===
<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 Spudst3r====

'''Opening Remarks'''

I hope that this arbitration is not administrated by editors who have a POV interest in gender-related subjects, since I believe I am being ''dogpiled'' by editors with a stake in those matters right now. I don't say that to cast aspersions: anyone can look at the history of the men's rights movement article and see a long

While I am making my best efforts here to ], it's hard not to think that my activity on the ] page is seen as a threat by those who are trying to exert, intentionally or unintentionally, ideological ] over the ] page. Proof of this? First, the ] article is currently Second, almost ''immediately'' after I started making edits to the men's rights movement page, I was as a way to further limit my participation: I was thoroughly investigated and eventually exonerated only after an IP lookup and proved it would be near impossible for the allegations to have been true. Third, when the other user in this matter , the entire process was ''That's what I call a ].''

Finally, I want to say that I think accusations of tendentious editing, sockpupetry, and meatpuppetry reflect a ''seriously unhealthy'' attitude towards contributing to Misplaced Pages. New editors who make ] but ] changes are now being quickly accused of all sorts of things - pick a WP:, any WP: -- to scare them away from participating. It ], demonstrates ] and does not promote ].

'''A Few General comments:'''
*Being a SPA is not an offence. (Not that I think I am a SPA.)

*Disagreement over how to structure an article is not grounds for disciplinary sanction. Please judge me by the ''content of my edits and comments'', not my opinions.

*I strongly dispute that I have been malicious, tendentious, acting in bad faith or against Misplaced Pages's standards of conduct.

*Contributions do not have ].

*] is ''not'' official Misplaced Pages policy.

* Disagreement =! tendentious. Tendentious ccusations need to be backed with ''why'' my edit or comment is tendentious. Simply stating it is not enough.

*'''It is not against Misplaced Pages policy to be active.''' Am I am interested in the ] article? Yes. Have made a lot of activity over a very short period of time. Yes. Am I inconvenient for those who would like ] of the ] article? Yes. Is it against the rules to be active? No.

*I am POV in so much as I believe the current ] is POV. The page currently gives ] to a collection of sources and lacks ] due to pervasive insertions of ]. I am not alone in thinking this:
{{cot|Background diffs collapsed for readability. ] &#124; ] 20:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)}}
{{cob}}
* Accusations of original research involve an extended dispute over the validity of sources for this matter. The tl;dr of the debate is that: 1.Currently a collection of scholarly articles are describing the movement in one way, while very ''prominent'' and ''influential'' sources established by sources to ''represent the movement'' describe it another. Most of my edits attempt to simply add an encyclopedic description of ''prominent views that people within the movement have'' into the article. Giving 100% weight entirely to only scholarly, theoretical analysis while ignoring sources that clearly give weight to other views, is to me, the definition of POV pushing. 2. There is a dispute over what's considered a valid source -- and this is permitting the current article to suppress new citations clearly related to this article if they do not directly speak about the men's rights ''movement'' from an abstract perspective. '''In my view it is the combination of these two tensions that is in need of arbitration more than anything else.'''


*I'll probably get eaten alive for saying this, but despite posturings of NPOV, there is an element of truth to I think an objective observer can look at this situation and see an ideological interest from editors on both sides of this dispute. However, I do not believe my edits push POV, engage in original research, or improperly engage in Synthesis. I don't even self identify as MRA, I have just studied the subject long enough to recognize this article's biases.

*To explain my spike of new activity: I picked up Misplaced Pages editing activity last month due to having more free time now. Before the men's rights movement article, I started my editing back up by making contributions to the ] and ] articles. This article is not what brought me back, though I admit it's been on my to-do list since last year.


'''Response to Specific Accusations'''

In light of {{User|Cailli}}'s comment, I've ignored examples before Feb. 15. Please instruct me if that interpretation is incorrect. Here we go:

'''Example 1 & 2''':
*I made two reverts to ] the contributions of a ''different editor''. I justified both reverts in my comments and cited Misplaced Pages policy. During my 2nd revert I even noted {{tq|"See Talk."}}, My two reverts are not even ''close'' to a violation of '''3RR'''. In fact, if we removed one of them, my reverts would actually be an archetypical example of ].

'''Example 3''' regarding my "tendentious" ''comments'':
* '''] is ''not'' official Misplaced Pages policy.''' But let's say it was official: The ] article itself even notes that the rationale ''"may be valid in some contexts but not in others"''. The rationale I made in the talk page was that the ] and ] should strive for similar tone and structure, because they are so clearly related in character as articles and as concepts. I still believe that is a valid point that I back up with genuine examples.

'''Example 4''':
* Baseless accusations? I made those comments in in response to {{User|BrantNewland}}'s remarks. I backed those comments up with evidence in that thread, pointing out how ''"consensus-seeking attempts to make the ] are getting and by the ''same individuals.''"''

'''Example 5''':
* Sonicyouth is convinced these edits are inappropriate, but I have devoted In fact, other editors who self-evidently hold a different POV on this article from mine, such as EvergreenFir, To seek consensus since making the original contribution I even in response to Sonicyouth86 disagreement with the use of "complement". In return for all of this? I get attacked for making "reverts before discussion has ended" and brought to arbitration...

'''Example 6''' {{tq|partial misquote of source ("believe female privilege and male degradation is system within society"}} and Example 7: {{tq|restores misquote }}
* ''Am I seriously getting accused of misquoting a line that was '' I made a ''typo'' where I accidently wrote "system" instead of "systemic" in a quote, which I With all due respect to Sonicyouth, I think it's fair to characterize the first part of this accusation as ''spurious''. In regards to the addition of Warren Farrell quotes? I added them to provide detail of why a male's rights advocate would deny male privilege from their perspective '''as they see it.''' I added them ] to provide detail on why the MRM denies male privilege. (which it currently did explain why). (Afterall... isn't it curious that in a section about female privilege, nothing at all exists to actually discuss that concept?)

'''Example 6 / 7''': Sonicyouth writes: {{tq|"adds statement from a source that doesn't mention the MRM"}}
* Not true. I am accurately summarizing Clatterbaugh here in a section called ''"The Men's Rights Perspective"'' on Page 11. Here's part of the quote ''"This perspective concurs with the profeminist view that masculinity is damaging to men but with the gigantic difference of the belief that the principal harm in this role is directed against men rather than women."'' From this existing source in this section I wrote: "{{tq|In contrast to feminist approaches to ], men's rights advocates see ] as primarily damaging to men more than women,}}" I'll let you be the judge of whether that's actual ], or a simple ] summary citation of a reference. Either way, it's worth noting also how I also in this edit removed the Warren Farrell attributions as a ''consensus seeking'' measure. I fail to see how I've engaged in bad behaviour here.

'''Example 8 & 9''' which Sonicyouth is ''literally now'' bringing to this arbitration after making ''zero'' attempts to discuss them in the talk page:
* I made these edits based on the and So to fix this, I went about ] as best I could. First: Since scholarly disagreement exists, I first clarified the statment as coming from {{tq|"Some feminist scholars ..."}} since Lingard, Douglas, Clatterbaugh, and Coston/Kimmel all provide more nuance than calling the movement a backlash. In this respect I admit may have been a little too general with the description of ''feminist scholars'' in my attribution however, since there sociological scholars also appear. Sonicyouth brings up a valid point there, and I agree referring to "Some scholars" may be more appropriate. ''Either way, these concerns concerns have not been up anywhere else except in this arbitration talk page.''

* Second, Sonicyouth accuses that I: {{tq| sources the statement ''conservative men's rights activists consider the MRM to be a backlash or countermovement to feminism'' with a quote that doesn't mention men's rights activists or the men's rights movement}} No, the source citation is very clearly speaking about the men's rights movement. I'll let you be the judge of what Lingard and Douglas wrote on pg. 36 as it also informs the previous citation above: {{tq|"'''While conservative elements of the men’s rights position overtly describe themselves as a ‘backlash’ to feminism,''' their more liberal counterpart’s self-proclaimed commitment to ‘the true equality of both sexes and to the liberation of both sexes from their traditional roles’ (Clatterbaugh 1997: 89) '''make it problematic to describe the men’s rights position in general as nothing more than a backlash against feminism.'''"}}. Sounds like an accurate source citation to me.

'''Example 10''': This is the ''first time'' concerns with these edits have been raised by Sonicyouth: {{tq|changes the lead without any prior discussion; again original research ... sourced to a book that doesn't discuss the MRM, its activists, or anything about the MRM; removed the source which contained nine academic citations for the statement that the MRM is considered a backlash}}:

* I changed the lede ] on trying to find consensus within the lede after after after after shows no sign of NPOV issues getting addressed. In my comments I emphasize heavily that this is a "first attempt" at seeking consensus: {{tq|updated lede: first attempt at reworking lede to achieve balance using existing article content. Content has been rearranged but NOT deleted, as to help consensus seeking for now.}} In that edit I did not remove any existing ''content'' from the lede, nor did I delete sources despite what Sonicyouth suggests. The additional content I added to the lede comes from existing sources within the article itself. Sonicyouth's disputes that this source "doesn't discuss MRM" again comes back to our disagreement in Example 5 on whether Warren Farrell's ] book is eligible for citation or not -- which other editors have indicated it is. You can again find our

'''Conclusion:'''

I believe I am being accused here because my activity is seen as a threat to the men's rights movement page. Responding to all these unclear accusations has been very draining on my ability to contribute to wikipedia.

In my contributions I have made ''extensive'' (possibly excessive?) use of the talk page. I have used citations extensively in my new additions, and have edited articles to reflect concerns that are raised in discussions. Have my contributions always been ] I don't claim they are, but taken as a whole I believe my contributions demonstrate a ] effort to ] in areas that have otherwise been lacking. I have lots of activity in this article, yes, but not activity worthy of disciplinary sanction. I think my banning or blocking has the potential to have a real ] on new contributors. ] (]) 01:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

*@{{User|Cailil}} - Hi Cailli Not sure if I'm allowed to reply to statements... but I just want to clarify that the paragraph above '''''does not reflect my personal views on men's rights.''''' Unfortunately with how I wrote it I look like an ideologue. That was not my intention - I was just trying to sum up the views of Warren Farrell and Clatterbaugh regarding ''how MRM supporters see men's rights issues''. E.g. Clattebaugh who wrote {{tq|''"the movement divides into those who believe that men and women are equally harmed by sexism and those who think that female privilege and male degradation are systemic in society"''}} I wrote that in the talk page to state my understanding from the sources what ''the movement thinks'' as a way of suss out what other views exist within the movement.
:*RE OR / ] revert issue: At the time my reverts were based in pretty strong policy (I wrote: {{tq|Directly related sourced facts is WP:NOTOR, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Compiling_facts_and_information.}} I admit the subsequent talk discussion I created in the talk page for the 2nd revert was instructive for clarifying how this source could be properly incorporated, however. So I admit my actions on that revert were not ], but I think in terms of conduct I acted ]: I cited policy I thought was appropriate in my revert comments, and limited my reverts by
:*RE ]: when read alone does look like I am casting aspersions with no evidence. But I was making that comment in relation to another comment in that same thread ''where I did provide evidence.'' Specifically I wrote: ''"consensus-seeking attempts to make the ] are getting and by the ''same individuals.''"'' I also made those comments after to the MRM page (where you suggested I be sanctioned with {{User|BrantNewland}}). I hope you can understand how that has contributed to a feeling of getting dogpiled (though I think we've had productive interactions on the MRM page since then.) ] (]) 02:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

*@ Tony Sidaway - Yeah, I really need to work on that. My apologies. I'm half convinced that I'm here due to the alacrity and verbosity of my comments than necessarily the contents of my edits...] (]) 10:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Cailil====
This is a rare occasion when I comment as an involved user (due to my edits at ] not in the GG area) at AE but I've had a number of interactions with Spudst3r and have in a very short space of time had a number of red flags raised <p>Diffs 1-5 are not relevant to the case since the notification is post Feb 13. However, was a revert of original research I removed from the ] article. The material a) had no connection to the subject b) it was being used in essay form to synthesize a point and c) it was a copy-paste of the majority of the linked article's abstract (probably a copyvio). Spudst3r then reverted its subsequent removal again . falls into the category of ] about other users. Here Spudst3r is parroting the r/mensrights reddit party line that feminists run wikipedia and the only way to solve "]" problem is to <s>illuminate</s> eliminate the "enemy" (see also ). I have little problem with Diffs 8 10 or 11. My only other issue is his use of ] in an attempt to discredit scholarly opinions he seems not to like. His defense of this action speaks volumes in terms of ] and ] <blockquote>"'' I think it's accurate to say that most Men's rights advocates see issues of male inequality as ones that are systemic throughout most of recorded history and in need of changing society as we currently know it away from how it currently or previously existed to address them. Recent social advancements coming from the women's movement may be seen as making the situation for men's rights worse, but only because they see the movement as imposing additional obligations on to men and new social rights to women without providing commensurate changes to complement them in areas where men face systemic disadvantage.''"</blockquote> <p>Even so I think a final warning and advice on how to fly right might be enough here--] <sup>]</sup> 20:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

:*@ HJM - My understanding of the wording of WP:ARBGG is that ''any gender controversy'' is covered - so controversial backlashes against ], the USA bills/laws ] & ], and other topics like ], as well as any future issues like the Chelsea Manning conflict etc etc are already preemptively covered. It is as I understand it a preventative measure so that nothing ever gets to the GG level of disruption on WP again. The Men's rights issue is highly controversial a) in RL and b) for the Men's rights online community's reaction to wikipedia's coverage (exactly like GG). Offsite interference has been an ongoing issue in the area since 2006 (and if you want to see a summary of the history which was made nearly 3 years ago see )--] <sup>]</sup> 12:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

:*@Thydruff: Spudst3r's edit re: the POV templates was about how women's equality movement (in the eyes of mRAs) has effected men's rights for the worse. That is very clearly a gender conflict. His edit re: Warren Farrell is exactly what you describe - an allegation of bias against men, and the prison/WP:NOR issue is about bias in favour of women--] <sup>]</sup> 19:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

::*Undid premature bot archival--] <sup>]</sup> 15:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Binksternet====
After I saw just a few of Spudst3r's contributions to the article and talk page of the men's rights movement topic, I thought that he was ] to build the encyclopedia. Rather, he is here to make the men's rights movement look good, to the best of his ability. Thankfully that motivation has not resulted in too much damage, since there are experienced and neutral page watchers keeping track of activists such as Spudst3r. I, too, was taken aback at with its display of battlefield attitude. Spudst3r is too deep into advocacy to see that is nonsensical, that the men's rights movement assertions of "male disadvantage" are overwhelmingly dismissed by sociology and anthropology scholars who should not have to remind us of the two-thousand-plus years of thoroughly established male advantage. In that same diff Spudst3r tries to argue against reliance on scholarly sources. Misplaced Pages does not need this kind of disruption. ] (]) 04:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by abhilashkrishn====
When considering all the points mentioned by Sonicyouth86 and Spudst3r, I can't see anything wrong in Spudst3r's actions. The user is actively using the wikipedia for positive contributions and the sources are well acclaimed. - ]<sup>]</sup> 20:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by Strongjam====
No stance on this request, but I am surprised by how broad the wording on the GG sanctions is. Based on the wording I think this case would qualify, MRM is certainly controversial and there is some overlap between GG and MRM. Clarification from the arbitrators if they meant for it to be applied this broadly might be needed though, should there be at least some connection to the Gamergate controversy first? — ] (]) 20:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Tony Sidaway====
Complaint aside, I think the admins might encourage this editor in the direction of terseness. --] 06:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

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

===Result concerning Spudst3r===
:''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'd like to hear from {{ping|Bbb23}} who seems to be the resident uninvolved admin on this topic. I'd also note that the article is under ]. I'm not entirely sure that masculinity and the men's rights movement fall under the GamerGate discretionary sanctions, which are authorised for {{xt|any gender-related ''dispute or controversy''}} (emphasis mine); I'm not sure masculinity/MRM are disputes or controversies in their own right. Input on that from other admins would be appreciated.<p>To the substance of the allegations, the complaint does appear to have some merit. Spudst3r clearly has an unhealthy interest in this topic and would be well-advised to broaden his editing interests. Cailil's comments were fairly conclusive in leading me to the opinion that Spudst3r's edits are problematic. The greatest cause for concern is the addition of op-ed style commentary to encyclopaedia articles, which appears to be based on novel synthesis of published material and reach conclusions that aren't fully supported by the literature; edit-warring to restore such content is also concerning, and a sign of a problem editor. I don't have a strong opinion on what the remedy should be if we decide this is in our scope. I'd like some more admins to weigh in first. ] &#124; ] 19:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
*(speaking in a personal capacity, not for the Committee as a whole) I don't think that the entire topic of the men's rights movement is within the intended scope of the Gamergate sanctions. Disputes and controversies involving the men's rights movement could be covered if they are gender related, e.g. a controversy about an MRM figure's allegations of bias against men would be within scope, but controversy about that figure's allegations of bias against Christians would not. I have not looked at the diffs and hold no opinion about the merits of this request. ] (]) 11:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
* Could somebody please trim the complainant's submissions? It is too long and administrators are not expected to read all that. ] ]] 13:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
*The notice log at ] shows that Spudst3r was notified in March 2014 of the community probation on ]. Not everything related to MRM may qualify as part of ARBGG's remit, but gender-related issues presumably do. All the diffs 1-10 listed at the head of this complaint are about gender-related issues and they all occurred since he was notified of ARBGG on 13 February. So in my opinion this is a valid complaint under ARBGG. ] (]) 16:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

*I'll leave the discussion of proper jurisdiction to others, as I am perfectly comfortable taking action on this topic under either ArbCom discretionary sanctions or under community general sanctions. And 'perfectly comfortable taking action' seems like an appropriate summation of my feelings as to this request. I agree with Cailil's excellent summation of the major issues (though I think I would quibble with the &ndash; I don't think it is serious enough to fall under the 'casting aspersions' guideline; and with &ndash; I can't really see what's wrong with that one but perhaps I'm just missing something). The original research issues raised are serious and valid, as is the edit warring generally. At this time, I am leaning towards a short (<2 month) topic ban along with encouragement to seek out another topic area to get a better appreciation of Misplaced Pages's content and conduct policies. Thoughts on that course of action? Thanks, '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 01:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


===Request concerning LaylaCares===
==Parishan==
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Vice regent}} 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|LaylaCares}}<p>{{ds/log|LaylaCares}}</p>
===Request concerning Parishan===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Steverci}} 22:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Parishan}}<p>{{ds/log|Parishan}}
<!--- 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: ] and a lengthy block : ;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.-->
# Following 4 are violations of ] # EC gaming
#
#
#


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
# First time blocked for 3RR
# Second time blocked for 3RR


;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 blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
Pretty obvious case of EC gaming. Account created on Nov 17, 2024, then about 500 mostly minor edits followed by the first substantial edit ever was the creation of on Dec 17 (subsequently moved to draftspace).''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Parishan has recently violated the three revert rule by edit warring on the ] article:<br>


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
Parishan has also shown a tendency to stalk and edit ware my edits on the ], ], and Shusha. articles.

Parishan has even more recently violated 3RR on the ] by harassing two other users, ] and ]:<br>

According to ], violating the rule guarantees a block.

He has also been edit warring ]'s contributions across several articles, usually without explanation:<br>
, ,

Parishan continues edit warring across multiple articles and exhibiting a battleground mentality and making controversial edits without reaching consensus with other editors. He has made multiple reverts in violation of 3RR on a range of highly sensitive articles, and has previously been blocked for violating the 3RR on Armenian-Azeri articles . Because he continues to violate the 3RR, I believe it is time for him to be disciplined for the rule once again. --] (]) 22:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

:'''NOTICE''' Parishan has accused me of breaking the 3RR on the Shusha article. I would like to point out that the was not a revert in any way, and the was me fixing an error of his. Thus, he remains the only one who violates 3RR. --] (]) 15:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

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


<!--- 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 Parishan===
<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 EtienneDolet====
Seeing that I am mentioned in this case, I feel that I have to make a comment to further elaborate as to why I've been mentioned. I will also comment on a few things to help further inform those involved with this case.


===Discussion concerning LaylaCares===
I have found myself at talk pages with Parishan several times. During these discussions, the user displays an aggressive tone that is almost always unnecessary. Above all, his belligerent approach to these discussions often gets personal with discourteous remarks. In this recent discussion, ], Parishan was quick to say "You are inventing grammar as you go along, which makes me seriously doubt the level of your command of Turkish" and that "it is quite legitimate on my part to express concern with regard to your understanding of that language." I find these remarks as bad faith, and I really don't understand how these comments can help the discussion. I felt as though I'm viewed more of as an 'unintelligible opponent' rather than someone he can work with. Other discussions where I have concerns was at ], where bad faith assumptions were made just because I made a late response, even though I apologized for it beforehand.
<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 LaylaCares====
As I can see from his contributions, the user has been displaying an increasingly disruptive editing pattern, particularly on Armenian related articles. Almost all his edits either:


====Statement by Aquillion====
*'''a.)''' publicize the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh's unrecognized status or that Armenians occupy the land ()
Question: Assuming it's determined that they gamed the extended-confirmed restriction, would the page they created be ]-able? I've asked the relevant question in more detail ], since it is likely to come up again as long as we have such a broad restriction on effect, but I figured it was worth mentioning the issue here as well. --] (]) 14:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''b.)''' remove, at times, any sort of mention of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in related articles ()
*'''c.)''' remove Armenian presence and history in Armenian populated villages, sometimes deleting them in the form of a redirect ()
*'''d.)''' add strong POV wording or claims that are not backed by RS sources ()


===Statement by Dan Murphy===
The diffs I provided highlight the user's vehement determination to make a ]: that Armenians occupy Nagorno-Karabakh, or that the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh is unrecognized. Misplaced Pages, as we all know, is not a place to ], nor is it a venue to promote the personal opinions. At any rate, given that I did not have much time to formulate my comment, I merely had to present the diffs I happen to come across. Most of his edits do not contain edit-summaries, making it even more difficult to pinpoint concerns found beneath them. I've also refrained from adding diffs pertaining to the recent problems at Shusha, Khaibalikend Massacre, and Shusha massacre since they're already being discussed in detail in the related cases above.
Please look at ], written by the account under discussion. It's a hit job, originally placed in mainspace by this account. Anyone who wrote that shouldn't be allowed with 1 million miles of the topic.] (]) 23:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by starship.paint====
As for Sterveci, I really don't know much about his editing pattern. But I do see that he has engaged in edit-wars himself. But this is without to say that Parishan hasn't been edit-warring at Shusha massacre, for example. The of Shusha massacre looks like what a talk page should be, but in the form of edit-summaries. The reverts appear problematic on both sides, and I think action should be necessary for both users. Given that Parishan has been topic-banned for similar behavior, while continuing to display a tendentious editting pattern I highlighted above, I personally believe he merits a more extensive ban. As for Sterveci, I think 1RR on all topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan seems more appropiate. ] (]) 08:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I've edited Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations, so Dan Murphy's link is inaccurate for the purposes of this discussion. For the version of Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations with content only written by LaylaCares, . '''] (] / ])''' 10:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)====
:The AE enforcement Parishan received was a 1RR restriction on topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan (see case ). As you can see, the case is similar to the one that has now brought him here, suggesting that the user is continuing the same disruption since then. Also, no one here is arguing whether the Republic of Karabakh is recognized or not. But to stick the word 'unrecognized' in multiple leads and infoboxes across multiple articles would be a clear sign of a ] editing pattern. After all, as I previously mentioned, the Misplaced Pages project is not a venue to ], even if you find them to be self-evident. As for the rest, I don't think the other points were convincing, but I'll leave that for the admins to decide. ] (]) 20:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

:::Even after such a ], I believe Parishan still fails to address the core problems at hand. On the one hand, he has admitted that there's a general consensus to have both ''de jure'' and ''de facto'' in articles related to villages in Karabakh. But then does edits like , where the ''de facto'' status of Karabakh is entirely removed. I do not understand how one could ] for this. He then states that some of these villages fall outside the Republic of Karabakh's boundaries, but that still doesn't mean it's not under the ''de facto'' governance of the Republic of Karabakh. Removing such information, as he did , renders the village as solely Azerbaijani, without provide any inkling of fact about its ''de facto'' Armenian presence. Changing ]'s name to simply "Armenian forces" is also another attempt to conceal the independent status of Nagorno-Karabakh's army . To top it all off, the removal of native names of villages mostly populated by Armenians is also deeply troublesome . In any case, the diffs are plenty and one does not have to dig deep into his contributions to find a problematic editing pattern. However, if anyone involved with the case still needs them, I can provide more. ] (]) 08:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

::::Not only does Parish remove the word Karabakh from these articles, but he also removes the ''de facto'' Armenian presence of such and such village controlled by Armenian armed forces. He admits that Armenian forces do control areas outside Karabakh, but his editing pattern shows that he removes that too in its entirety. This makes it appear these villages are entirely Azerbaijani, and that there's no Armenian presence in them. He removes native names claiming that they've been spelled 'wrong', but doesn't bother to add the correct spelling (might I add that the spelling was initially correct). Nor does he make that obvious in the edit-summary of the edit in question (). As you may have noticed, these edits don't contain edit-summaries for the most part. I've observed that controversial and problematic edits either don't contain edit-summaries, and when they do, they're simply deceptive. And again, one does not have to dig deep into his contributions to uncover many other similar problems. For example, this nationalist editing pattern is not only limited to Karabakh, Parishan has removed large chunks of information from other separatist movements found within Azerbaijan (). In this particular edit, he deletes the entire ''The National Talysh Movement'' section because it's unsourced, even when there are four other CN tags in the article dating as far back as 2008. At any rate, I feel that I have said enough, even though there’s still much more to be said. But to sum it all up, what I see here is a consistent POV stemming from a desire to maintain the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan within Misplaced Pages. As documented above, this is most obvious in the form of edit-warring, tendentious editing, removal of Armenian native names, and other forms of disruptive editing. In light of all this, I expect admins to come to a fair and balanced judgment. ] (]) 19:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::The SPI is unrelated to the problems and issues I have outlined here. As we all know, the misconduct of other users ] the misconduct of another. This means, specifically in this case, that the results of that SPI should not be an excuse any user to edit-war. It's also important to note that the users blocked for socking weren't even the accounts Parishan has engaged with. Bottom line: I don't believe we should be conflating the two. As for Parishan's comments: he continues to blame other users for his edits, and claims that he simply reverted to the original version before NiksisNiks edited. But, in one such example, if he wanted to revert to an original version, he could have easily reverted to this version (), which indeed was the original version right before NiksisNiks edited. But he didn't. Parishan removed more than just NiksisNiks' additions. Please keep in mind that the original version included a reference to an Armenian military presence, whereas Parishan removed that too in its entirety: . Also, the removal of Armenian native names are not limited to that article alone . I really don't see any harm in leaving Armenian native names in the lead, especially considering that they're Armenian populated today. Parishan also states that his edits aren't guided by Azerbaijani nationalism because he's a Canadian national. But Azerbaijani nationalism is not limited to Azerbaijan, and neither is it inconceivable in Canada. Someone in Canada can make the same edits than, say, a nationalist in Baku. His states that he territorial integrity, and irrendentism, but in view of his more recent edits, I don't see any of it being directed against Quebec. It's the territoriality of Azerbaijan which provokes him to delete, censor, and manipulate separatist movements found within the country. No need to go over again as to how and why, I have already outlined it above. ] (]) 01:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::I just don't see these edits by Parishan exemplifying a good faith effort to improve various articles in the AA2 topic area, and I haven't retracted any of my aforementioned reasons as to why. I also have not reduced my reasoning to just two diffs, as he claims. All my comments above should be taken as a consolidated inquiry concerning the user's concerning editing pattern. His rebuttals still haven't been convincing for me, and they change with every response. With this recent example, in regard to this , he initially : ''I did not add any content. I reverted back to the original version after a bad-faith editor had removed mention of Azerbaijani personalities born in the village.'' However, when I raised the issue about him deleting information about the Armenian military presence from the original version, he refurbished his response by saying he deleted that original sentence only because its source contained a dead link. This new explanation for his edits were never included in the initial response here at AE, or in the edit-summary of the edit in question, which leads me to believe that his responses are filled with half-truths, and that the counterclaims were not and still not made in good faith. Besides, an editor who has been editing for eleven years should be aware of dead link or CN tags (and evidently so ). Instead, the user seems to employ flimsy excuses (i.e. dead links) to delete information not suitable to his POV, while displaying a disregard of Misplaced Pages policy which strongly ] you from doing so. He'll unsourced information when it doesn't suit his POV, but will add a when it does. On that note, it is of course the admin's inevitable decision as to whether these edits were made in good faith, and not of a user who seems to push a certain POV in a spirit that is contrary to the basic tenets of the project. ] (]) 08:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by Parishan====
<!-- 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. -->
I admit I was, perhaps, a bit too vigorous in reverting, but I do not consider the very of ] an example of engaging in an edit-war. A newly registered user with barely 100 edits appearing on the article and removing (without a word on the talkpage) sourced information that has featured there for at least five years, has survived the most heated discussions without being addressed once and included in the of this article - this can be viewed as vandalism, especially given that the removal was one-time and the editor never reappeared on the article. Reverting vandalism, as I know, does not count within the reverts that violate 3RR. Concerning the other diffs claiming that I violated 3RR on ] and ], I had a total of three reverts in each and not more, and the rule of ] states: "An editor must not perform '''more''' than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period", whereas it was ] went overboard with four reverts: , , , . His ill-intention motivating him to push his POV becomes obvious from the fact that soon after the article , he ceased participating in the discussion on the talkpage - once the article was not 'revertible', he was no longer interested in it. The user is talking about being stalked; whereas note him referring to my reverts as 'harrassment' and using a block record from eight (!) years ago in an attempt to prove that I have habit of breaking rules.


===Result concerning LaylaCares===
As for the claims of ], I do not see a 'personal attack' in questioning someone's level of command in a specific language (especially if it is not mentioned on his userpage, as it is on mine) if that person takes up the task of interpreting academic sources written in that language and that his interpretation, on which he vehemently insists, seems far from being perfect from the point of view of someone who does have some knowledge of the language. Similar in the case of ]: when a user silently reverts a page and appears on the talk page for the first time only two days later, he or she must understand that given the ongoing discussion (following reverts on both sides), such behaviour is counter-productive and can be initially interpreted as ], regardless of whether he or she apologises afterwards or not.

EtienneDolet's claims of me having 'bad faith' are baseless if we take a closer look at his arguments:
#(a) Nagorno-Karabakh ''is'' unrecognised and it ''is'' occupied by Armenian forces; this is not my invention, and this wording features in the consensus-based neutral version of dozens of articles, such as the one I provided above. It is much less POV than something like this .
#(b) The mention of Nagorno-Karabakh was removed from the villages where its independence was not proclaimed, or where it simply does not belong. Examples: the Topkhana Forest is not mentioned in Armenian sources, and being under threat in the 1980s, it may even not exist any longer, so there is no evidence to say that it is "located in Nagorno-Karabakh"; and "Republic of Artsakh" is not acceptable wording for any AA2 article.
#(c) The mention of Armenians was not removed in the first and fourth diff, while the second and third diffs were obscure articles consisting of a single line of unsourced information lingering for five years.
#The first two cases listed in (d) are reverts to the original versions; I did not add a word of my own, so claiming that I was making "a very strong POV statement" in inaccurate. In any event, the word 'occupied', for instance, is nowhere near as POV as 'liberated' in the case of Armenian-controlled Azerbaijani villages. The third and fourth cases were citing a source provided thereby.

Finally, I have never been topic-banned, as EtienneDolet claims, hence this argument cannot serve as a basis for bad faith on my part. ] (]) 10:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)



:I must apologise; I assumed that since we are on an arbitration page, I did not need to be overly specific in justifying my actions for every diff that has been provided here. However, since I have been told that my addressing of those issues did not seem convincing, I will take the time to treat each of them in a separate manner. EtienneDolet's selection features cases where most of the changes, in my opinion, were reverts of bad-faith edits of one specific disruptive editor. Certainly, when fishing for discrediting evidence on a user without taking a moment to look at what the article resembled just prior to that revert and what exactly prompted it, it would not take much effort to present every contribution as 'bad-faith'. With this biased strategy, it would be possible to find 'examples of disruptive behaviour' for every user who is involved in this case. Let us take a closer look at EtienneDolet's diffs:

:(a) '''"Publicising the non-recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh"'''
:* - I did not add any content in the article. I reverted an by ] who had removed information under the pretext of it not being sourced. I restored the information and provided a neutral source to back it up. Note also the malicious unexplained removal by NiksisNiks of the sourced information about the existence of a public school in the village.
:* - I did not add any content in the article. I reverted back yet another edit by NiksisNiks who had removed a statement on the ''de jure'' status of Nagorno-Karabakh from the lead of the article ], ridding the lead thus of any reference to the region's relation to Azerbaijan whatsoever. I leave it to the admins to decide if NiksisNiks was indeed motivated by good-faith and NPOV in doing so and if I was wrong in reverting that.
:* - I replaced the awkward wording "a village in the ] of the ]. ] put it in the ]" by NiksisNiks by the wording "a village in the ] of ] (''de jure'') or the ] of the unrecognised ] (''de facto'')". I do not see anything wrong in the use of the word 'unrecognised' in this case; if anything, it would spare the reader from wondering why there are two countries listed for the same village. Note that I did not revert the page back to the version that mentioned the village's occupation.
:* - The user had redirected the article under a POV name used only by Armenian sources. I did not add any content, but I did remove an unsourced statement added by NiksisNiks whose lack of good-faith had already been obvious to me.
:* - I did not add any content. I reverted an unexplained which rid the article of any mention of Azerbaijan back to the original version. I fail to see how EtienneDolet considers the use of the word 'unrecognised' tendentious and makes a point of it during arbitration, yet he does not mind it at all when someone removes every mention of Azerbaijan from an article about a landmark ''de jure'' located in Azerbaijan. If there is bad faith here in this specific case, it is certainly not on my part.

:(b) '''"Removing mentions of Nagorno-Karabakh"'''
:* - The village of Zülfüqarlı is located in the area outside of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, thus not covered by the ]. While it is still controlled by the Nagorno-Karabakh military forces, the latter consider this region to be in the ]. Hence it was up to the user who added "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" as the village's location to provide a source which lists this village as located within the boundaries of the self-proclaimed state.
:* - I did not remove references to Nagorno-Karabakh; they are found all throughout the article. I removed one from the lead where it was mentioned that the Topkhana Forest was a state reserve. The forest is, in fact, considered a national reserve, but only in Azerbaijan; no Armenian source makes any mention of the forest under any status, so saying that this state reserve was located in Nagorno-Karabakh would not be accurate. In any event, I find this wording much more acceptable than the wording "an imaginary forest claimed to have been located near ]" left by the previous editor.
:* - Again, I did not remove a reference to Nagorno-Karabakh. I simply precised its pre-war status as an autonomous entity. The region was officially and uncontestably known as the ] of the ] at the time of Arkadi Ghukasyan's birth.
:* - I did not add any content. I reverted back to the original version after a bad-faith editor had removed mention of Azerbaijani personalities born in the village.
:* - I shall let admins decide whether it is right to consider the wording "the Republic of Artsakh" NPOV. If you ask me, the edit that I had to revert falls under every possible AA2 restriction.
:* - I reverted yet again the same bad-faith editor NiksisNiks who had removed every reference to Azerbaijan from the information box.
:* - I reverted an edit where not only references to Azerbaijan had been removed, but the village had been referred to as being located not just in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic alone, but also "in Armenia"; a gross violation of AA2.
:* - I reverted an edit of the NiksisNiks who had stipped the article of every mention of Azerbaijan, including the DEFAULTSORT template and even the stub tag at the bottom of the page, replacing it with "Armenia-stub".
:* - Stepanakert was a city in the Azerbaijan SSR at the time of Serzh Sargsyan's birth; the Nagorno-Karabakh Oblast was not a Soviet republic and did not subordinate directly to the Soviet government, with Azerbaijan occupying the intermediate position in the hierarchy. I felt the need to precise that.

:(c) '''"Removing Armenian presence"'''
:* - The village of Gülüstan is located outside of Nagorno-Karabakh. It is controlled by Azerbaijan both ''de facto'' and ''de jure'', and since the break-up of the Soviet Union has never been under the control of any other state or military force, recognised or otherwise, except Azerbaijan. Its status is undisputed, unlike the status of Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding regions. Claiming that is it located in such-and-such province of Nagorno-Karabakh (when it is not from any point of view) would require at least a source and a word on the talkpage. It surprises me to see that refusing to accept such controversial statements at their face value constitutes an example of bad faith. Note that contrary to EtienneDolet's claim, I did not remove mention of Armenian presence in the village - it is still there.
:* and - These two articles were started back in 2008 by then-newly registered user who about a dozen articles on villages in the non-disputed Azerbaijani region of ], but under their Armenian names. Not only were these articles ] (for most of those villages, articles already existed under the official Azerbaijani names), blatantly POV (accompanied by the category "Villages in Armenia") and badly worded in English, but they also consisted of only one or two short sentences each and without any source, not even a partisan one. I redirected most of those articles to the ones that correspond to the said villages nowadays. For what was claimed as villages in these two diffs, I did not find a modern equivalent, so I redirected them to the page of the region where they had supposedly been located. The user reappeared two years later, undoing my redirect, but not improving the content one bit, and not even bothering to replace the red-linked obsolete category. The articles about villages whose existence could not have been attested anywhere thus remained unattested for for the next five years until recently when I redirected them back to the articles about their respective present-day geographical region.
:* - The Armenian spelling and transliteration are given in the lead, and I did not modify that part. I also kept the Armenian name in English letters in the information box above the Azeri one, simply removing the spelling in the Armenian alphabet, because it had already been given in the introduction, making it redundant and not much useful for the bulk of readers who cannot read Armenian, and had already been taking up too much space in the information box.

:(d) '''"Strong POV wording"'''
:* - I did not add any content. I reverted an by NiksisNiks who used the POV wording "liberated" with regards to a village that passed under the control of the Armenian forces during the war.
:* - I did not add any content. I reverted the page back to the original version which NiksisNiks changed without discussing, claiming that he "did not find the information in the source". When he was given the exact reference in the source, instead of taking it to the talkpage, he reverted again, saying "the author was biased". I wonder why EtienneDolet tolerates such a frivolous editing habit, but critisises me for appealing to an academic source which uses the word 'unrecognised'.
:* - I did not add any content. I reverted the page back to the original version, distorted by NiksisNiks in the manner described above and a claim that "all sources were biased". Note that the discussion concerning the neutrality of the sources was touched upon on the article's talkpage, and those considering it biased refrained from pushing this issue further and let the article feature this wording back in 2007. How acceptable is it for a user to appear and, in lieu of making a good-faith attempt to add his/her two cents to the discussion, to go ahead and take trouble over the content, and not neutrally (placing a reliability tag, for instance), but in a blatantly POV manner - by removing information?
:* - I simply expanded the text with a quotation that was found in the already cited third-party source. I did not add a word of my own. ] (]) 00:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)



With regard to EtienneDolet's response to the above comment, where he claims that before making revert I should have ''understood'' that "it's under the de facto governance of the Republic of Karabakh": honestly, I do not believe that this is not how Misplaced Pages works; good faith is one thing, but taking bold statements in sensitive articles at face value is another thing. The burden was on the user who added that highly controversial information to accompany it with a neutral source stating that Zülfüqarlı was "''de facto'' located in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic", because according to the cited in the article ], everything that falls outside of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and the ] is regarded by the Armenian side as the regime's 'security belt' to be passed ''"to the control of Azerbaijan in exchange for Azerbaijan recognising the independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic"'', meaning that the regime does not claim sovereignty over villages like Zülfüqarlı. I believe this is enough evidence to at least doubt that the wording on the "location of this village within the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" would be accurate.

The wording "Armenian forces" in edit is not POV; in fact, this is the wording used by third-party sources, such as the and the , and even the word 'Armenian' in the title of the article ] suggests the same. Note that I linked the phrase 'Armenian forces' to the article ], and not to the ], hence the argument about me ignoring "the independent status of Nagorno-Karabakh's army" is baseless.

The removal of the Armenian name in edit was motivated by the fact that there had not been any source provided for the given spelling, which would be expected for a village that is uninvolved in the conflict; Armenian sources appear to feature varying spellings, including , , , which are all different from the spelling inserted by the editor. In addition, there has not been any Armenian population in the village in the past quarter of a century and, unlike the Azerbaijani villages in the Armenian-controlled zone, the status of this particular village is undisputed, rendering the name irrelevant from the point of view of the village's current population. By that logic, the once majority-Azeri capital of Armenia should get an Azeri name in its lead. It is especially strange to see this accusation coming from EtienneDolet who himself has been making a go of from articles about cities which currently have a large Azeri population. EtienneDolet also refuses to acknowledge that the same user who added the unsourced Armenian toponym had earlier a page about an Armenian-controlled Azerbaijani village under its recently invented Armenian name used only in the Armenian media. Nor does EtienneDolet raise the issue of bad faith on the part of NiksisNiks involved in most of the above disagreements, when the latter removed en masse all alternative names of villages in Armenia that sounded Azeri , , , , , (this are just a few examples of many, see the user's ] from 13 February). I think it is quite obvious that EtienneDolet's criticism of my contributions stems from his personal take on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, hence the fact that controversial edits which conform to his POV remain unnoticed, ignored or even justified, whereas a logical response to these edits aimed at preserving NPOV is presented as 'bad faith' and 'tendentious'.

He claims to have more examples of my "problematic editing pattern". I must say I am very curious to see those, hence I would kindly ask EtienneDolet to please cite some.

'''Additional note to administrators''': In the course of my participation in this project, I have created a number of good-faith articles (unrelated to the war) about the historical presence of Armenians in Azerbaijan, such as ] and ]. I have also contributed substantially with good-faith edits to already existing articles about Armenians in Azerbaijan, such as , and most recently . Therefore I view attempts to portray me in this arbitration case as a contributor with nonyielding anti-Armenian bias - as unsubstantiated and seemingly motivated by factors alien to Misplaced Pages's community spirit. ] (]) 12:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)



:The latest comment from EtienneDolet confirms that he has been unable to pick and gather much from the rest of my edits to blame me for POV. We went from "displaying belligerent approach" down to "not using edit summaries" as an argument to have a sanction imposed on me. When other users on the same page make much more substantial and controversial without using the edit summary, EtienneDolet does not see a problem in that; he only sees a problem when a controversial edit is reverted back to the original version. The argument of me "not bothering to add the correct Armenian spelling" does make much sense in light of me wondering till now exactly which of the four spellings was correct and why I had to trust EtienneDolet and ] who had not provided a single source for the spelling they had proposed. Removing three lines for which there has not been any proof for over six years does not constitute violation of Misplaced Pages rules either, and blaming me for 'nationalism' for that edit (what nationalism are we talking about here, given that I am, in fact, Canadian?) is yet another example of bad faith on the part of EtienneDolet. ] (]) 21:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


::Indeed, the behaviour of certain uses does have directly to do with my edits because had it not been for their disruptive interference, EtienneDolet would have not raised the issue of 'POV' and 'nationalist wording' in the articles in question, for some of which I never made a single contribution of my own; for which the said wording had been part of a consensus version or had featured for as long as seven or eight years. The evolution of EtienneDolet's criticism of my activity on Misplaced Pages here speaks for itself: from over 20 diffs that he originally provided as evidence of my allegedly tendentious editing, he is only able to comment on my rebuttal about two of those.
::In article, I removed any additional text besides the location of the village because the source provided to support the village's being under the control of military forces since 1992 led to a , which was likewise removed.
::In article I did not remove anything either; I simply reverted an unsourced bad-faith edit erasing references to Azerbaijan back to the version by Ali al-Bakuvi which, unlike NiksikNiks' edit, mentioned ''both'' entities in the infobox: .
::My contributions to articles about ] are not quite as active because users editing those articles manage to remain remarkably NPOV and balanced, which is not the case in the domain of AA2 articles, even in this very arbitration case. In any event, I do not believe I should explain myself as to why I choose to edit a series of articles on a certain topic, and I do not believe that my interest in the given topic suffices to refer to me as a 'nationalist'. ] (]) 20:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


:::It is certainly always easy to say one has not been "convinced by someone's argumentation" while sparing oneself the trouble of precising exactly what did not sound convincing. EtienneDolet's concentrating on insignificant reverts in one specific article, in turn, does not seem as a very convincing way to argue that I deserve 'an extensive block', as he requested earlier.
:::I did not use a 'flimsy excuse': I stand by my original statement that I reinserted the names of the village natives that NiksikNiks had deleted. The source leading to a dead link was not removed by me, but by NiksikNiks himself . I simply did not restore it because all it referred to was a dead link that I could not replace with an NPOV source (I suggest EtienneDolet run a Google search looking for neutral references on the occupation of Asgaran), and I do not see a violation of rules in that. EtienneDolet's argument does not make much sense: if I were a 'bad-faith editor', why would I maliciously delete references to Nagorno-Karabakh in an article about one village, but add them in an article about village (that he provided as evidence)? I fail to see a 'bad-faith' pattern in these seemingly contradicting cases. ] (]) 16:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Grandmaster====
From what I see, a lot of edit warring concerns the statements regarding the status of the region of ], which is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, but de-facto controlled by separatists. I see that there are attempts to remove any mention of the de-jure status, like here: I don't see why the legal status of the region should not be mentioned in every article concerning the region, as otherwise it creates an impression that it is some sort of a internationally recognized country. I think there should be a certain formula agreed by the wiki community for the de-facto regions, which should be enforced. In that case a lot of edit warring over de-jure/de-facto status would be eliminated.

Here an edit war started because of the insertion of a totally inappropriate category: Same here: Note that the region in question has never been a part of the state of Armenia, nor it is now, so the category clearly did not belong there. Yet ] inserted it and made numerous reverts to keep it there. That is the problem with this user. He adds inappropriate content, and when other editors disagree, he keeps reverting to keep that content in the article. Of course, Parishan should have shown more restraint. I think that Parishan should be strongly warned to demonstrate more restraint and take any problematic issues to the appropriate forum. But considering that he has no history of blocks for 8 years, and that is 8 times longer than the user who filed this report has been here, I do not think that any stronger measures would at this point be really necessary. In fact, the equal punishment might be even seen as an encouragement for the party that was adding the inappropriate content. ]] 22:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the editing restriction mentioned by EtienneDolet, and it dates from around 6 years ago. I don't think that block logs and sanctions from so many years ago have any relevance now, as the AE report form requests only the warnings made within the last year. ]] 13:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think this request needs to be closed in light of ], as Parishan has been baited into an edit war by a sock account, and this request was made by the same sock account as well. ]] 22:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

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

===Result concerning Parishan===
:''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.''
<!-- 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. --> <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*I agree that this looks like EC-gaming. Absent evidence that the edits themselves were problematic, I would either TBAN from ARBPIA or pull the EC flag until the user has made 500 edits that aren't rapidfire possibly LLM-assisted gnomish edits. ] (]) 17:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*Two blocks for edit-warring from eight years ago do not provide any great cause for concern. The edit-warring is concerning but the article was fully protected, so there's nothing actionable on that front. EtienneDolet's evidence of POV pushing is concerning, and I don't find Parishan's rebuttal to be very convincing. I'd like to hear from other people who know the topic area well, though. ] &#124; ] 20:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
*I agree on the gaming piece and would suggest mainspace edits+time for restoration of EC. I will throw out 3 months + 500 (substantive) main space edits. ] (]) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*I agree with Barkeep but I'd up it to 4 months. I don't believe that a TBAN is necessary at this point. ] (]/]) 04:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*@]: I agree that the draft should be G5'd, but will wait for consensus to develop here. ] (]/]) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I don't think the wording of ] allows for deletion of a page that was created by an EC user. <small>(ECR also seems to forget that anything other than articles and talkpages exists, but I think the most reasonable reading of provision A still allows for G5ing drafts at admins' discretion if the criteria are met.)</small> That said, a consensus at AE can delete a page as a "reasonable measure that necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project". Deleting under that provision is not something to be done lightly, but I think for a case where a page's existence violates the spirit of an ArbCom restriction but not the letter, it'd be a fair time to do it. And/or this could make for a good ARCA question, probably after PIA5 wraps. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*I would just pull EC and require the editor to apply via AE appeal for its restoration. They should be very clearly aware that receiving such restoration will require both substantial time and making ''real'', substantive edits outside the area, as well as an understanding of what is expected of editors working in a CTOP area. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*I see a clear consensus here to remove the EC flag. For clarity, when I proposed a TBAN above it was because removing this flag ''is'' an ARBPIA TBAN as long as the ECR remedy remains in place; it's simply a question of whether the editor get the other privileges of EC or not. I don't see a consensus on what to do with the draft, but given that other editors have now made substantive contributions to it, I don't believe it's a good use of AE time to discuss the hypothetical further. ] (]) 17:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}


==AstroGuy0==
*Per the above comment by ] about the , I can see the logic of restricting both ] and ]. For Parishan to remove from articles mention of the ], as in EtienneDolet's diff, sounds to me like nationalist POV pushing. In a previous AA enforcement case, somebody had replaced mention of 'Nagorno-Karabakh forces' from a newspaper report and converted it into 'Armenian forces' in the article text. I have not yet determined whether Parishan's efforts to make the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic disappear are quite that blatant. ] (]) 21:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
{{hat|{{u|AstroGuy0}} has been issued a warning for source misrepresentation by {{u|Voorts}}. No other reviewers have expressed any wish for further action. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) }}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning AstroGuy0===
==Gouncbeatduke==
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}} 03:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|AstroGuy0}}<p>{{ds/log|AstroGuy0}}</p>
===Request concerning Gouncbeatduke===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|WarKosign}} 19:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Gouncbeatduke}}<p>{{ds/log|Gouncbeatduke}}
<!--- 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 --->
]
(Even though this isn't the usual R&I fare, I consider the intersection of "Race/ethnicity and sex offending", to come under "the intersection of '''race/ethnicity''' and human abilities '''and behaviour'''")


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : ; ] 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.-->
1. After a sockpuppet vandalized Gouncbeatduke's talk page and made some death threats, Gouncbeatduke decided to accuse me. Note that Gouncbeatduke to actually see the vandal's posts. # Asserts that "A majority of the perpetrators were Pakistani men" despite the cited source (freely accessible at ) does not mention the word "Pakistani" or any variant once.
# Describes the sex offender ring as "Pakistani" in the opening sentence when the cited source in the body says that they were only "mainly Pakistani"


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
:In fact I the socks, . I also tried to convince the sock to stop on their now revdeleted talk page.
2. Even after {{U|Tokyogirl79}} explained Gouncbeatduke the severity of their accusations, they stated again their lack of doubt, and intentions to continue removing my "pro-Jewish/anti-Arab non-NPOV edits from the Israel article".


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
I tried to against myself to have a proof that Gouncbeatduke's slander is baseless, but {{U|Mike_V}} decided that "there are no reasonable grounds to consider a check".


: Made aware of contentious topics criterion:
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
I previously opened an arbitration request regarding the user and it was found that there was a problem "with how they approach discussions and issues they disagree with". It was decided to offer the user informal advide "and escalate if it becomes necessary.".

;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
* about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months
* Previous arbitration request
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here --> <!-- Add any further comment here -->
I do not believe this user wishes or is able to collaborate with editors whom they perceive as "anti-Arab POV-pusher". The user exhibits battleground mentality and is not here to create an encyclopedia.


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


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


Additional comments by editor filing complaint:
===Discussion concerning Gouncbeatduke===
<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>


This new user seems intent on POVPUSHING regarding "Asian/Muslim grooming gangs" and making contentious claims that are not backed up by sources. ] (]) 03:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
====Statement by Gouncbeatduke====


===Discussion concerning AstroGuy0===
At no time did I state that User:WarKosign was the sockpuppet that left death threats on my user talk page. I did ask him if he was the sockpuppet, and I kept asking because I found it strange that he refused to answer. If I am not allowed to do that, I will not do it again. If an editor ask me if I made death threats, I would not mind and I would simply say "No." and that would be the end of it, so I didn't see anything wrong with asking.
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>


====Statement by AstroGuy0====
Misplaced Pages administrator Tokyogirl79, who reverted the death threats on my talk page, suggested both User:WarKosign and I stop reading and commenting on each others user pages. I found this to be good advice, and I have followed that suggestion since the time she made it. Unfortunately, User:WarKosign has ignored it, and is now claiming that statements I made on my user page about the person who made death threats are directed at him. As I have said repeatedly, I do not know who made the death threats. I do suspect who it might be, but I do not know.


====Statement by Iskandar323====
As far as User:WarKosign's false claim and personal attack that I "exhibits battleground mentality and is not here to create an encyclopedia", I invite anyone who is evaluating this to look the ] page. I believe I am normally on the side of the majority of editors, as most editors want a NPOV. I think User:WarKosign editing behavior would be described by most NPOV editors as non-NPOV.
This rather dated "Asian/Muslim grooming gangs" malarkey from the UK has recently been pushed on social media by a certain US tech billionaire and is now recirculating in right-wing social media and the blogosphere, partly in connection with UK politics, so this trend could flare before it dims. ] (]) 03:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)====
Regarding User:WarKosign reporting the sockpuppet making the death threats, I think it is clear these edits would be quickly reverted, and I find his claim that this proves he is not the sockpuppet ridiculous. While I do not know who made the death threats, I do believe their intentions are the same as User:WarKosign in opening his multiple complaints, that is, to stop me from reverting edits I see as anti-Arab non-NPOV edits from Misplaced Pages articles.
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

I did say I plan to continue reverting edits I see as anti-Arab non-NPOV edits from Misplaced Pages articles, as I do not want anyone who makes death threats to be successful with intimidation tactics. I did not see the death threats made by the editor on my user page before they were reverted. According to a Misplaced Pages administrator, the threats included "== You deserve to ₫ie for your support of genocidal Islamic settlers. == I will make sure you suffer greatly." and "== You deserve to die ==I will make you suffer greatly." and "I can arrange for you to die in Gaza. Keep it up, raglover." If anyone has better advice on how to deal with such threats, I am happy to listen. I do not see anything unreasonable about stating I plan to continue reverting edits I see as anti-Arab non-NPOV edits from Misplaced Pages articles, as I do not want anyone who makes death threats to be successful with intimidation tactics.

I have relatively little desire to see Misplaced Pages admins block ] or any of it's currently known socks, as I would be happy for them to continue to fire away on my user page. I would far rather Misplaced Pages admins use their time counselling User:WarKosign, who has a history of opening specious complaints against at least one editor because he reverts User:WarKosign POV-pushing edits in an effort to create a NPOV Misplaced Pages. I see the ] article as far more important and in need of a NPOV than my user page. ] (]) 19:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

:@EdJohnston - Much to the contrary of what User:EdJohnston claims, I in no way feel "free to revert all edits that he perceives to be anti-Arab on the grounds that he must not allow a particular sockpuppet to win". I feel the best way to deter whoever is making death threats is to continue to revert extreme anti-Arab non-NPOV edits in the same careful, selective manner I have been doing, and always observing the one revert rule, to demonstrate the death threats have had no effect. ] (]) 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by WarKosign====
In case you missed it, is how the user "at no time" stated "that User:WarKosign was the sockpuppet that left death threats".

Also note that the user claims that they followed Tokyogirl79's suggestion not to make indirect comments while in fact the second accusation was made after the suggestion. ]]] 21:44, 19 February 2015
(UTC)

{{re|Bbb23}} I do not believe I had a good option. didn't work. Denying the accusation would be dismissed as a lie. Silently ignoring would be taken for admission. I tried to . Best case: CheckUser determines I couldn't be the sock. Worst case: an SPI clerk rejects the request. Did I violate some policy or hurt anyone ? ]]] 07:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

{{re|Cailil}} I would be perfectly happy not to interact with the user anymore, it would take care of their repeated personal attacks on me. It would not however take care of the user's unwavering conviction that their opinions are completely neutral and that one editor's opinion can be considered NPOV while everyone disagreeing with them must be a "pro-Jewish/anti-Arab POV-pusher". Most of the arguments the user made at ] lack any specific information but instead are repetitions of the same mantra:
* "This is typical of the editing throughout this very pro-Jewish/anti-Arab non-NPOV article."
* "Unfortunately, the POV-pushing editors will never allow this to happen unless more people stand up to them"
* "The Jewish Virtual Library is a very pro-Jewish/anti-Arab web site that should not be cited in any NPOV article"
* "The Misplaced Pages editors that control the Israel article only allow pro-Jewish/anti-Arab POV-pushing original research to be included in the article, any NPOV citation of NPOV secondary sources is immediately reverted"
* "Looks like the POV-pushing edit warriors are no longer going to allow this discussion"
* "Pro-Jewish/Anti-Arab groups in generally push a point of view ..."
* "PointsofNoReturn has suggested another NPOV way of stating the facts. Like all NPOV statements, it is unlikely to make it into the article as the Israel article is an non-NPOV Anti-Arabism narrative"
* "The Israel article contains a great deal of pro-Jewish/anti-Arab WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and needs work to move to a NPOV"
* "The article should note that the definition of Israel's borders throughout the Israel article is an ever changing line depending on which pro-Jewish/anti-Arab narrative the current paragraph is trying to sell"
* "I reverted the removal of the tag as I believe this is just more pro-Jewish/anti-Arab WP:TENDENTIOUS editing"
The user made a . ] says "Certain articles and topics are particularly contentious, and have attracted additional community scrutiny in the form of requests for comment, community sanctions, or arbitration cases. These areas should be completely avoided by the editor attempting a clean start". The user claimed having no special interest in the ] subjects, yet this seems to be the only subject of their edits. ]]] 18:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Huldra====
I´ve had no interactions with User:Gouncbeatduke before, but from what I can see, s/he has recently come under attack from ], and has become a bit unnerved by it. Also, to Gouncbeatduke: I´ve seen User:WarKosign around for a bit, and I´m 100% sure s/he is not "that fellow". "That fellow" typically goes "ballistic" in a short while (he has got a *very* short fuse). Also: there are loads of pro-Israeli socks, but at least 90% of them are *not* "that fellow". "That fellow" have some specialities, like death threats and vulgar, sexual language. Making harassment-accounts is another speciality. (I´ve had and , just for starters.) Sending abusive email via wiki-mail is another speciality (I had to disconnect my email-account again, as I about a week ago got emails promising to "rape me to death" and "kill your husband"). Death-threats on your user-page is another speciality. (My talk-page is now thankfully semied, after .)

To User:Gouncbeatduke I would say this: firstly, if you cannot deal with the behaviour from "that fellow", then don´t edit in the Israel/Palestine area. Yes, it is as simple as that. He has been behaving like this for 10 years now, and is not likely to stop soon. Also, never, never, ''never'', accuse anyone with an edit-count of say, above 100 of being him: it is virtually certain it is not, as "that fellow" have a tendency to go ballistic long before they reach such a number of edits. If you have in any way indicated that you thought an *established* editor was ], then you should humbly, (and I mean ''humbly'') apologise to them.

Also to User:Gouncbeatduke: ] is still a student, but yeah, he knows how to use TOR ( and scripts). Get your talk-page protected and unlink your wiki-mail will help enormously, I´ve found. Forward any abusive emails you already have received to ], who is collecting info. The best policy is to give "that fellow" as little (public) attention as possible. He loves attention, so why should we gratify him? ] (]) 23:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

:Thank you, Huldra, for the information about "that fellow", <strike>. When I contacted emergency@wikimedia.org and ask about proximity, they assured me they were 100% certain my death threats were originating from a location outside the USA, and "that fellow" appears to only appears make threats from Los Angeles, CA, USA. I suppose maybe he has become more sophisticated about hiding his location, but it could also mean it is someone else.</strike> and his history of masking IP addresses to appear outside the USA. I agree he is the most likely suspect, so I have opened a ] on him. I continue to find this all very confusing. ] (]) 15:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
::I suggest to revdelete the self-outing of location above to minimize the risk. ]]] 20:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Plot Spoiler====
Is it not already apparent that Gouncbeatduke is largely beyond reform in the IP area? The user believes that there is some "pro-Jewish/anti-Arab" camp operating on Misplaced Pages . And it's been mentioned here before, Gouncbeatduke has said that s/he has edited before under a different username but started a new account for a ]. As a single-issue editor, Gouncbeatduke does not seem to be abiding by the recommendation that "it is best to completely avoid old topic areas after a clean start." Given that Callanecc has already warned this user at AE (see ]), it would be wise to see if Gouncbeatduke can edit constructively ''outside'' the topic area. ] (]) 23:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


===Result concerning Gouncbeatduke=== ===Result concerning AstroGuy0===
:''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.''
<!-- 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. --> <!-- 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. -->
*<!--
*
-->
*Even by the usual standards of the I/P area, about how he plans to edit appear to cross into ] territory. He feels free to revert all edits that he perceives to be anti-Arab on the grounds that he must not allow a particular sockpuppet to win. ] (]) 21:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:The second diff was before AG0 received a CTOP alert. I've alerted AG0 to other CTOPs that they've edited in, and I am going to warn them for their conduct in diff #1 without prejudice to other admins determining that further action is warranted. ] (]/]) 04:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*This request is an example of a user spiraling out of control. {{U|Tokyogirl79}} has valiantly tried to get through to Grouncbeatduke, but apparently to no avail. BTW, WarKosign is not looking that great, either, when they ] against themselves to "clear their name".--] (]) 02:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
:I also looked at the source, and it indeed does not in any way support the claim made; it does not mention "Pakistani" even once. This is a fairly new editor, but I think we need to make it very clear to them that misrepresentation of sources is not something we will tolerate. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::Given that AstroGuy0 has already been issued a warning, I don't think anything further is necessary, and will close as such unless any uninvolved admin shortly objects. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}


==Lemabeta==
*Would other sysops support for a two-way ] here? It seems to me to be least harsh solution--] <sup>]</sup> 17:16, 23 February 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 Lemabeta===
==DungeonSiegeAddict510==
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|EF5}} 20:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Lemabeta}}<p>{{ds/log|Lemabeta}}</p>
===Request concerning DungeonSiegeAddict510===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|PeterTheFourth}} 14:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|DungeonSiegeAddict510}}<p>{{ds/log|DungeonSiegeAddict510}}
<!--- 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.-->
# Unprompted reference to a Gamergate discussion forum ('Kia') on my talk page. # - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing.
# Continues to discuss this forum on my talk page after making a statement on this request. # - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist.



;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. -->
*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
*Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
I likely filed this improperly, but to sum it up they continue to make pages in a scope they were banned from. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 20:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
:On the bullet point, I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I was initially unsure of what the comment related to, but I've been informed that Kia is a discussion forum for Gamergate. I'm not sure why he saw it pertinent to bring up on my talk page, but it's not welcome or relevant to anything I've been doing. Searching for 'kia gamergate' returns it as the first result, and I don't know what else it could be reasonably concluded that he was talking about.
:(Not sure if I’m allowed to reply here) I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:: <small>Response to Bishonen. Moved from results section. ] (]/]) 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
::(RES to Bishonen) That's fair. When starting the AE, it only gave me nine options, none of which seemed to fit right. The third bullet ("Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on DIFF by _____") didn't seem to fit, as the sanction wasn't for verbal conduct. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 22:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ; 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 DungeonSiegeAddict510===
<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 DungeonSiegeAddict510====
I really shouldn't edit Misplaced Pages in the dead of night. I'm UTC-8 after all. Maybe I confused OP for someone else. Moo --] ] 18:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|PeterTheFourth}} the term is subreddit. Am I not allowed to correct others? --] ] 00:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


===Discussion concerning Lemabeta===
I guess I should apologize. It was very late at night and I wasn't thinking straight. I will restrain myself from night editing talkpages, from now on. --] ] 00:22, 22 February 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 Lemabeta====
I'll have a thing written up soon, however, I have some other business to attend to so I can't write a thing right now. --] ] 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, my bad. Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed" I recognize my mistake. --] (]) 20:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


:Ethnographic groups and cultural heritage are '''related but distinct concepts'''. An ''ethnographic group'' refers to a '''community of people''' defined by shared ancestry, language, traditions, and cultural identity. In contrast, ''cultural heritage'' refers to the *''practices, artifacts, knowledge, and traditions preserved or inherited from the past''. But cultural heritage is indeed a component of ethnographic groups.
====Statement by MarkBernstein====
:So i don't believe ethnographic group should be considered as either history of the Caucasus or cultural heritage. ] (]) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

::In my opinion, cultural heritage (both tangible and intangible) '''emerges from''' ethnographic groups but '''does not define the group itself'''. ] (]) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
KiA (the final "A" is capitalized") is KotakuInAction, a reddit subforum where GamerGaters organize their attacks. (It is also the acronym for "killed in action"; the coincidence might conceivably be accidental.)
:::I think ethnographic groups fall under the category of Ethnography, or even socio-cultural antropology but for sure not cultural heritage. ] (]) 21:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I understand, i already apologized on my talk page for this accident. I will not repeat this mistake again. ] (]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Here, for example, is a thread (currently 98 comments long) about whether Anita Sarkeesian’s Twitter statements can be excluded from the Gamergate article:, a topic being actively discussed at the moment on the talk page. . Various commentators discuss strategy (adding tweets from Gamergate supporters) and tactics (topic-banning me, bringing complaints against Gamaliel, calling me names, etc). At least 11 tweets in my Twitter stream this morning are sea-lioning this particular thread. The originator of this thread, shares a name with one of the topic-banned parties in the ArbCom case, but surely this is a coincidence.

Brianna Wu recently published a call for Reddit’s CEO to close down the forum. ] (]) 16:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Avono====
To be added to Evidence:
subject also referring to ] & ] ] (]) 17:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Hipocrite ====
edit alone needs a serious explanation or a one-way interaction ban between this user and PeterTheFourth. It appears to be pure, unprompted talk page harassment. ] (]) 00:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
====Statement by ] ====
Considering that this mention links to the car Kia, not the GamerGate messageboard, it seems like a pretty trivial misstep. I'd feel differently if there had been a substantial remark about the controversy but this wasn't one. I think the apology from the editor should be sufficient. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 00:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)<br>
{{ping|PeterTheFourth}} I didn't look at the entire conversation and DSA510 shouldn't have been on your talk page participating in it. But I still think it was a marginal participation. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 01:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|PeterTheFourth}} I think I will just bow out of the discussion at this point. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 01:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by PeterTheFourth====
{{ping|DungeonSiegeAddict510}} Hello. Regarding you correcting others on my talk page- your topic ban means you shouldn't be talking about the topic at all, and I'm not impressed that you've decided to continue to do so on my talk page after I've filed this report. I initially filed it because you were discussing it for seemingly no reason on my talk page. I'm not a fan of unwarranted questioning about Gamergate as you did, especially given that I haven't interacted with you before.
:{{ping|DungeonSiegeAddict510}} Would be perfectly okay with accepting an apology, but I'd like to know what it is you meant to discuss and why with me? I'm not a user of the KiA forums. ] (]) 01:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

{{ping|Liz}} His further statements on the matter make it clear that he wasn't talking about the car manufacturer, despite his initial link to it. If I had to guess, I would say linking it would either be a joke or a means of plausible deniability ('I really only meant to ask you what trade secrets you were keeping about automobiles!') ] (]) 01:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Liz}} Thing is... he kind of started the discussion. He wasn't so much a participant as the person who brought it up (still don't know why.) As an aside: Should I be pinging every time I respond to something, or is it sufficient just to ping once? ] (]) 01:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


====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 DungeonSiegeAddict510=== ===Result concerning Lemabeta===
:''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.''
<!-- 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. --> <!-- 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. -->
*<!--
* This doesn't seem like that big of a deal. I think a trouting would do. - 00:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
-->
* ], based on his failure to abide by his topic ban, but the Committee, with my concurrence, decided to give him a final chance. His behavior since the case closed has been unimpressive, and I perceive his edits on PeterTheFourth's talkpage as blatant harassment. I would impose a siteban. ] (]) 23:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
* I don't see Lemabeta mentioned in the case itself, but they're currently under ] from "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed". ] (] • she/her) 20:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
* This post by DSA510 is indeed a violation of his topic ban from Gamergate. I suggest a one-month block, instead of the indef that might also be considered. Arbcom did entertain a motion to indefinitely block him as part of the case. The Committee made a Finding of Fact: {{green|{{quote|3) DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in soapboxing on talk pages (e.g., ) battleground conduct (), broken their topic ban twice (block log), and has provided inappropriate commentary during the case ().}} }}
*:To be fair, when you click above to add a new enforcement request, the template states:<br><nowiki>;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]</nowiki><br><nowiki><!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---></nowiki> ] (]/]) 20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:We assume that Arbcom hoped that his behavior after the case closed would show he was on a better path, but I don't see that. ] (]) 03:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
*{{tq| Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed"}} @]: what did you think "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage" meant? I think it's pretty obvious that that an article on an ethnic group from the Caucasus and about an ethnologist who writes about that region is covered by your topic ban. ] (]/]) 20:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Note that I've deleted ] as a clear G5 violation. I think ] is a bit more of a questionable G5. ] (]/]) 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Your definition of "ethnographic group" includes the phrases "shared ancestry" (i.e., history), and "shared&nbsp;... traditions" and "shared&nbsp;... cultural identity" (i.e., cultural heritage). Your attempt to exclude "ethnographic group" from either of the two categories in your topic ban is entirely unpersuasive, particularly since your topic ban is to be "broadly construed". ] (]/]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: this doesn't seem like a mistake to me, but I'm okay with a logged warning here. ] (]/]) 21:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: This is about violating the TBAN. Per my response to leek, I think the issue is with the AE request template, which is a bit unclear. ] (]/]) 22:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: I don't think a block is needed here, but the next violation, definitely. ] (]/]) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: They were "reviously given&nbsp;... contentious topic restriction", the topic ban at issue. ] (]/]) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{re|Lemabeta}} Not every single thing you could write about an ethnic group would fall under cultural history, but that's not really relevant on the Rachvelians page, where the History section was entirely about their cultural history, even containing the words {{tqq| highlighting their ethnographic and cultural identity}}. There's a reason we use the words "]" on most TBANs, and a reason we encourage people to act like they're TBANned from a broader area than they are. (Consider: Would you feel safe driving under a bridge where clearance is exactly the same height as your vehicle? Or would you need a few inches' gap to feel safe doing it?){{pb}}This does seem like a good-faith misunderstanding, so if you will commit to not making it again in the future, I think this can be closed with a clarification/warning. But that's an important "if". If you want to argue semantics, then the message that sends to admins is that you don't intend to comply with the TBAN, in which case the next step would be a siteblock. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{u|EF5}}, I don't understand your {{tq|"Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above"}} statement, can you please explain what it refers to? ]? Lemabeta's block log is blank.
:That said, I'm unimpressed by Lemabeta's lawyerly distinctions above, and also by ]. I'll AGF that they ''were'' accidental, but OTOH, they surely ''ought'' to have taken enough care to realize they were violations; compare Voorts' examples. I suggest a block, not sure of what length. A couple of weeks? ] &#124; ] 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
::{{u|EF5}}, OK, I see. Blocks and bans are ], and the block log only logs blocks. ] &#124; ] 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
*It seems that the general consensus here is to treat this as a final warning, and Lemabeta has acknowledged it as such. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as such. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


==Ashtul== == GokuEltit ==
{{hat|Issues on the Spanish Misplaced Pages will need to be handled there; the English Misplaced Pages has no authority or control over what happens on the Spanish project. This noticeboard is only for requesting enforcement of English Misplaced Pages arbitration decisions. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC) }}
<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>
I was blocked from Misplaced Pages for ignoring the formatting of a table, I edited an article wrong, Bajii banned me for 2 weeks, but it didn't even take 1 and Hasley changed it to permanent, I tried to make an unban request, they deleted it and blocked my talk page. I asked for help on irc, an admin tried to help me make another unblock request, but the admin jem appeared and told me that I was playing the victim and banned me and expelled me from irc. I just want to contribute to the platform ] (]) 20:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|GokuEltit}} This is a complaint about Spanish Misplaced Pages - see ], where you have (). Your block affects Spanish-language Misplaced Pages - it does not affect English-language Misplaced Pages.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 20:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:You also had some blocks on Commons, but they have expired.<sup></sup><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 20:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}


==Boy shekhar==
===Request concerning Ashtul===
<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 who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Nomoskedasticity}} 19:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Ashtul}}<p>{{ds/log|Ashtul}}
<!--- 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 :
#{{diff2|648316742|12:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)}} revert removes paragraph
#{{diff2|648462574|11:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)}} 1RR violation -- removes a paragraph again, <24 hours after the first time

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
*Previous block notice for 1RR violation:
*I/P topic ban: , subsequently lifted by HJ Mitchell,

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
*Report originally posted at AN3; moved here on suggestion by another editor.
*Ashtul continues to insist (on ever more bizarre grounds) that the edit violating 1RR was okay. This does not bode well. ] (]) 16:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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

===Discussion concerning 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>
====Statement by Ashtul====

{{hidden|
header=A lot more to consider|
content=

=====Preemptive quick resolution=====
The edit in question is completely insignificant and was returned by Nishidani only due to the massive rollback he has done to other changes. Before getting into a long discussion, I asked Nishidani to comment on it which can resolve this AE request quickly with none of us wasting any additional time. ] (]) 20:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

=====Long dirty road=====
] to admit the text in question should have been removed but he dodged the request claiming it is 'irrelevant'. I will demonstrate why it is and later the background for this.

#The text removed has been on Misplaced Pages in some form since at least 2010, not added by Nishidani.
#The text removed is completely outdated and false as ] is by now a city and the other content is redundant due to recent addition.
#The article has recently went through massive addition and needed a lot of work (9k->14k). The rewrite was done in a rush and obvious issues such as duplicate sections ('''History''' vs. '''History and today''') were left which is where the text in question is located.
#Before any of the changes took place, 100s of word of discussion were written and on ]. Nishidani was impossible to argue with , ] wrote 'Regardless, have you taken a look at Ashtul's reasoning, Nishidani? I don't know enough about those details but '''it is intriguing enough that merely blowing off is not the best thing to do''''.
#The change in question was done as two series of with the first including 16 changes, all step by step so other users can follow the logic and revert a single change if they disagree. The first series took over an hour to compile (11:22, 22 February 2015‎ to 14:27, 22 February 2015 with an obvious break in between). ] made a quick ] revert () with the cheerful description ''Failure to read the sources or if read, misinterpreting them. Describing as WP:OR statements in the sources, etc. '''General incompetence'''''. Please note, the revert in question isn't referred to neither there is't an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page as demanded . In a way, it can be called ] as Nishidani revert included return of , and .

So to summery, this 'revert' is eliminating old content '''during a rewrite of an article''' with obvious need for love. In a duplicate section - old, false, redundant content was removed for the second time after a massive, careless revert by Nishidani.

I will publish very relevant background in a bit. ] (]) 06:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


'''Background'''

I was blocked then topic banned, then blocked for breaking the topic ban then . ] demanded I will 'keep a respectful distance from Nishidani'.

Nishidani was aware of this requirement as he was pinged to the page. '''"Naturally"''' his instinct was to ] me in order '''to get in my face''' and '''provoke''' me by massive edits to the two pages I recently edited, ] and ]. I know I should ] but with ] statements such as 'Israeli-occupied West Bank', 'in the Occupied Territories' and '''elimination of my edit''' 'At Barkan Industrial Park, thousands of Israelis and Palestinians coexist and work side by side in many of the factories', which was already '''eliminated before twice''' by other members of the pack and , it has diminished (I'll touch on the pack practice later).

Nishidani has since apologized and admitted for possible wrongdoing , which was after the original WarEdit complaint was filed by Nomoskedasticity . Yet, it didn't occur to him to ask Nomoskedasticity to drop this complaint.

Now I want to explain 'The Pack' which I've mentioned earlier. It is quite a fascinating phenomenon to see users Nomoskedasticity, Huldra, Nishidani and Zero0000 keep on popping on the same pages, reverting the same content. It seems like a great system that prevents anyone for making a case for a ] Examples can be found
,
,
,
,
and . I am not sure if I'll go as far as blaming them for active ], but it happened enough times around me to shows a pattern.

* Another of ] was raised by Nishidani for ]. It is completely bogus and part of this witch-hunt. I have three stories that I thought weren't notable enough. A claim for POVPUSH will be completely false as one of them was about stone throwing where nobody died. I've then realized an image was related to one of those and thus it as well. Nableezy over the importance of two of the stories and returned them along with the picture. The only issue is, the picture is related to the story he chose to leave out. I haven't noticed it at first, but once I did, I it. I have asked Nableezy to comment on this matter.

I think at this point I have wrote everything I have about why the revert in question (and the one second one) weren't ], ] but rather the '''duty''' of an editor to correction of a mistake done by the previous revert where opposition is unlikely.

If this isn't enough of an explanation maybe Nishidani is right and I have . Since my topic ban was lifted I opened an (which concluded with consensus in a few days and effected tens of articles) and (so far, the two answers support my position - 'rampant POV-pushing and totally unacceptable') exactly to eliminate this type of conflicts.

If this does sound reasonable, I would like a mechanism to be put in place so The Pack won't gang on me again.

Cheers, ] (]) 08:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

:Over 36 hours after this request was submitted and the editor who actually did the changes in question, ], hasn't bother to comment though he was ]. This was a great stunt aimed to waste my time. ] (]) 12:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
}}
::Thank you Nishidani for an elaborate response. Some of these are legitimate content conflicts or correction of bad judgement of another editor. Yet, you haven't touched on the 'revert' in question in which the content was redundant, outdated and in duplicate section (History vs. History and today) due to your new contribution. You should have removed it yourself after the rollback. To go after me b/c of it with AE complaint is #@$%*&#%@#$ and bad faith!!! ] (]) 18:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

:::<big>It all comes down to a simple question, ], '''Do you think the material in the revert should have been removed?''' or was it your mistake (or simple lack of attention) putting it back in?. The revert was not WP:WAR or anything even close to that.</big>
:::Karmei Tzur isn't even 1RR not to mention once again remove a picture which referred to text that was left out by the reverting editor. ] seems to be on wikibreak but I have no doubt he would confirm it. ] (]) 12:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

=====Response to Nishidani complaint about my allegations=====
I have wrote on your page within hours of this request, asking you to admit the material should have been removed. You went in circles and wouldn't do it because this of course will dissolve this whole request. All was left was to tell the full story.

Let me ask you again, should the material removed be included in the article? ] (]) 12:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

:Regarding 'Ofra-Likud' edits - whoever read the text understand the Likud government helped Ofra in 1975 but this is impossible since Likud won elections only in 1977. This is beyond dispute.
:What I said in length on HJ Mitchell talk page was that the sources you have chosen to work with will be confusing b/c CS and WBS are two different animals even if they have a lot of historical and current relations between them. The sources you introduced talk mainly about WBS and touch on CS in a way that even myself, as an Israeli would probably have issue distinguishing when they are talking about what. Thus the removal of your sentence was justified and not POVPUSH not to mention I wrote it myself once there was a clear source that stated it.
:About Galilee and Palestinian state -
# Lets start with the fact you didn't put a source next to it before I took it all out..
# The 3 sources you write about proves my previous point - you (or the source) aren't clear of WBS vs CS. Obviously he speaks of WBS as CS exist also in Galilee which the int'l community doesn't see as future Palestinian state.
:You claim I wrote the grabbed sentence "''monitoring may have a particular shared ideology, religious perspective, or desired lifestyle which they wish to perpetuate by accepting only like-minded individuals''" but in fact . I merely deleted the statement before.
:So to sum this up, in a click of a button you rolled back 16 changes I have made. The one in the diffs for this AE request was your mistake and you don't even have the decency to say it out loud and lets us all put this ridicules waste of time behind us. ] (]) 23:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

=====Response to ]=====
Both revert were correction of mistaken edit by another editor. ] is part of ] which clearly states - "''An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions''". Since there is no content dispute, there is no ] and thus no 1RR.

In hundreds of words by Nishidani he never argued the content belongs in the article. Not once! He know it shouldn't and this whole AE request is an attempt to eliminate an editor with different opinions. ] (]) 13:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

=====Claims for my POVPUSH or WAR=====
I do have a strong POV but I don't push it. Some of my statement might need moderate work but I believe I contribute more on that field then do damage. Much work is needed on many pages.

An example for a change I've done recently is . Two following sentences from the same source but the date is attributed only to the second part. ''As of September 2010, only a small minority among them is violent.'' - ridicules. I haven't followed who put it this way to begin with but it is an obvious POVPUSH which I have corrected.

On ], I have tried to bring some NPOV to the table but Nishidani wouldn't hear it. If you compare the lead to that of ] you can see the lead grew from decent NPOV to a '''political manifesto''' with multiple sources criticizing Israel. for ] were removed by Nishidani b/c "''(3) removed false and unnecessary lead tags''". I have asked him about items on the list that doesn't fit the category at ] but over a week later '''he didn't even bother answering'''. A great source by ] I introduced with was move to the very end of the monthly lead stating "''This is a useful source and I will use it on a monthly basis. However unlike every other source, it has no details''" but a simple look shows the first part is by no-name group that provides even less details then my source, not to mention, detainees aren't covered by the definition in the lead.

Blaming me for POV discrepancy when Nishidani is in the picture is nonsense. I didn't go to war over those b/c he took control over those pages and won't hear anything from new editors. On ] he would resist any change until ] just chopped of one third of the article. His rollback on CS is exactly the same behavior. He didn't even go through all the changes to check whether they should stay in or not. Returning the part on which we all spending our precious time here can be considered unintentional ] but in hundreds of word and 2 days Nishidani didn't even stated once that he disagree with my action of removing it and as I stated before, I can't see how 1RR rule can be applied when there is no ]. ] (]) 23:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by EvergreenFir====
As I said over at {{diff2|648508246|the AN3 report}} in response to the user saying their timezone settings made them inadvertently revert before the 24 hours were up, the user appears to be waiting for the restriction window to end. They did so without discussing the edits in the meantime. It's ] to just wait for the instant the 24 hours are up. To quote ] <small>for the sake of the user, not the reviewing admins</small>: {{tq|Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation.}} ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 20:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by IjonTichyIjonTichy====
It seems Ashtul has learned almost nothing from his blocks and topic ban, and is repeating the same behaviors that led to the blocks and ban. He is ] and editing in a highly partisan way. He appears to have made an effort to familiarize himself to some modest extent with the letter of WP policies, but his understanding, and more importantly his acceptance, of the spirit of the policies are very poor. He still does not understand or accept the culture of WP. He still does not have a ]. Ashtul's disruptive editing significantly reduces the work output of productive editors.

Thanks and regards, ] (]) 15:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:I do not believe an interaction ban is a good option. To Ashtul's credit, it seems he has made a few edits that are neutral. But regretfully most of his contributions are not neutral. Ashtul appears to (not always, but almost always) edit in a highly partisan fashion, and exhibits battleground behavior. He seems to behave as if Misplaced Pages is an ideological war zone, and as Nishidani has shown (in two specific examples out of many) Ashtul has twisted, slanted and warped citations from reliable sources in order to serve Ashtul's own ideological bias. We all have personal biases but most of us are able to set-aside our biases most of the time and edit neutrally based strictly on what reliable sources say. In contrast, Asthul does not yet appear capable of setting aside his biases and thus he is not yet able to edit neutrally - his own ideology is far too powerful to allow him to accept the evidence provided by, and the views expressed in, reliable sources which strongly disagree with Ashtul's personal point of view. ] (]) 11:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Nishidani====
Ashtul, while depicting me as some hounding monster, part of a hunting pack of POV pushers (the sprawling defamatory screed above after my attempts to keep this polite violates ]), insists I renege on my undertaking not to comment here. All I can see is any comment I might make being an occasion for a massive expansion of erratic counter-charges. Of the huge wall of text and embedded charges above I'll give but one example of how unreliable his reportage is.
<blockquote>Nishidani made a quick ] revert()</blockquote>
What did I do in that innocuous edit?
*(1)I retained an important item Ashtul had added.
*(2) Resupplied a source for a passage that read:
:<blockquote>also in the Galilee as part of the aim of establishing a 'demographic balance' between Jews and Arabs, and thwarting the development of a Palestinian state.</blockquote>
This had been by Ashtul with the edit summary:
'Removed ] statement in the lead which is ])'
These are both spurious. I introduced 4 academic sources, three of which say this in various ways:
:(a)Weizman pp.81-82,pp.120-124, immediately before his specific section on 'community settlements' writes of a double planning policy to incentivate massive settlement in order to normalize the occupation and make it permanent, while ‘placing every conceivable obstacle.. in front of Palestinians attempting to develop their lands’.
:(b)Farsakh p.50 wrote:‘The growth of settlements . .paved the way for carving up the West Bank and disrupting the territorial continuity necessary for the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state’.
:(c)Efrat p.97 wrote:‘Apart from limiting the possibilities for urban and economic development through the seizure of land, the main impact on the Palestinians of the settlements in this strip is the disruption of the territorial contiguity of the Palestinian communities situated along the strip'.
That West Bank settlements, most of which are community settlements were designed to hinder a Palestinian state is known even to Blind Freddy and his dog. Ashtul won't accept that.
*(3)I had first made the edit: ‘by 1989, 115 had been added'. Ashtul on the pretext that:'Source say clearly the figure includes kibbutzim and moshavim which are DIFFERENT.'
That was a '''false edit summary''' (Kibbutzim and moshavim were not mentioned in that source). But I made an accommodation to his point, and reintroduced the section with more specific data and sourcing by writing:
:<blockquote>‘by 1987 they (comminity settlements) numbered 95,(Kellerman) and two years later most of the 115 settlements established were of this kind'(Farsakh).</blockquote>
*(4) I had written:-
:<blockquote>The design of these principles arose out of a perceived necessity of impeding Palestinian Israelis from residing in such settlements</blockquote>
This was based on the source wording:
:<blockquote>'The community settlement’ was conceived in this way to avoid the possibility that Palestinian citizens of Israel might make their homes in these settlements.' ( Eyal Weizman, Verso Books, 2012 p.126) </blockquote>
Ashtul had rewritten this in the following unrecognizable terms:
:<blockquote><nowiki><ref name="Weizman" /></nowiki>
</blockquote>
(a) This sentence is totally garbled English. 'Monitoring', cannot be a (human) subject with qualities like a shared ideology: it is a '''process''' exercised over people, etc.(b) it radically alters the source language that clearly states the community settlements exclude candidates for residency on ethnic grounds by denying Palestinian citizens of Israel their legal right to live in them, by a euphemism that makes the object of exclusion (Palestinians) into a subject for inclusion 'like-minded individuals'. Whereas the source, and my edit, state Palestinians are excluded, Ashtul twists this into a principle of inclusion, making an ethnic discrimination (against Palestinians) into an ethnic affirmation (of Jewishness). That's typical of his editing all over these articles. He makes Palestinian realities disappear in the face of sources that describe them. His edit summaries are deceptive, his reference to relevant policies incomprehensible, and his respect for the wording of highly reliable sources indifferent.] (]) 16:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
::Ashtul. I'm not going to be dragged into an argument by you. If any admin thinks my editing is problematical, they are welcome to ask me to explain. I can't see you managing to grasp the policy and practice issues raised in explanation I have provided at numerous talk pages, including admin talk pages. So it is pointless for me to continue, other than to note you were asked by an admin not to follow me around as a condition for returning to edit, accepted not to do so, and now have immediately followed up a comment I made on an extremely obscure page (]) by . ] (]) 18:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:::]. I appreciate your suggestions. I think any editor who's been around the I/P area will have a list of many editors who have found them 'frustrating', not to speak of the hundreds of IP or brief stagers who enter dramatically, cause fuss, and are quickly sent off. I've never had any problems, as you can see in my record, dealing with editors who have a thorough knowledge of the rules, respect ], look to ] and who would thoroughly disagree with me in private. I have exercised restraint from December, I think, by asking an admin () or two () to have a word with Ashtul over ] and other articles, and I've called on your good offices to help out twice ( and ]) at ]. Despite my ''frustrations'', I preferred administrative persuasion rather than recourse to sanctions for infractions (that were multiple), Ashtul is one of only two people I've reported in 9 years, and he's no where as hostile as many I've ignored. His problem is, (a) an insouciance to mastering even the elementary principles of policy and (b) a capacity to cause a major needless inflation of work for fellow-editors because of that. That is what disturbs me. I made no opposition when he asked to come back soon after a suspension; I made no report when I saw further formal infractions. I made one slip, and apologized, in editing with him.
:::Indeed, yesterday, when I saw Ed's suggestion, I opened this page to request a halving of the suggested sanction. When I did so, I saw his screed. On my page he was being amicable, on this page he wrote out an incomprehensible denunciation of my behavior, and saw a conspiracy afoot among other editors.
:::I'm still amenable to a reduction of the suggested period. I don't think an interaction ban workable, since it would mean neither he nor I could edit many I/P pages, and it would imply I am half the problem. The problem is simple: this time, he needs a serious rest from the topic, so that, editing other pages, he can learn how to edit, how not to misrepresent sources or policy. 3 months is lenient in this area, but fair. I've sat out that (imposed or self-imposed) on a few occasions, and if Ashtul is committed to working here, it's a strong enough warning to ensure that this area requires scruple in rule observance, care with precisely sourced information, and balance in perspective. Above all he has to learn that we are dealing with two realities, not one.] (]) 12:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Ashtul. Your additions to me are as incomprehensible as most of your edits or rewrites. I could have made a very long statement taking each of your edits to pieces. I've explained one such example. To avoid ], I'll give another, typical of your 'cleansing' of the text.
::::
::::What this removed;
::::<blockquote>The first community settlement, ], being established only in 1975, and four of the first five were unauthorized.(ref=Kellerman) The reevaluation and recognition of such settlements as cooperative associations was based on the ascendancy to government of the ] party, which seconded the rapid growth of closed exurbs in which religious nationalists played a dominant role.(ref=Gorenberg)(ref=Kellerman)</blockquote>
::::The edit summary is absurd, since as my statistics showed, most settlements were CS, and Ofra is alluded to earlier, not discussed. You eventually 'rewrite this' as
::::<blockquote>From 1977, the Likud led government supported expansion in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and in a few years, community settlements were the most common localities in those regions</blockquote>
::::I.e. you (a) removed the documentary basis for the text's assertions or facts (b) cancelled reference the date of Ofra's foundation, where you have a ] since your sisters live there (c) erased the fact that 4 of the first 5 such settlements were unauthorized, (d) removed the reference to such closed exurbs as dominated by religious nationalists and (e) in a totally ineptly phrased reworking wrote: 'community settlements were the most common localities in those regions,' confused a settlement with a locality, and worst of all, explicitly state that Israel's community settlements (115) were more ''common'' on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip than the several hundred Palestinian villages, which, in this formulation, are, again 'disappeared'.
::::All of your attempts to rewrite articles show this insensitivity and incompetence, and that is why I wait till your collective edits are done, and revert the damage. To take each edit seriously would mean a huge workload. You keep pestering me to explain an edit, and yet when I show edit after edit, what is wrong, you don't reply but push on.] (]) 14:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::, despite your efforts to make it into one. It is to do with the manipulation, inadveretent perhaps, but consistent, of content and sources to achieve a POV, which is what you did in both the examples I provided.] (]) 15:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
::Igorp (a) if you can't see Weizman stating the Galilee on p.126 then I suggested you reconsult the page or an optometrist. Other than this I can't help you, unless by indicating it is the 56th word in para.1 (b) This is a lead (WP:LEDE) with summary style, and (c) you apparently haven't read the thread above, where the sources amply documenting (as the body of the text illustrates) the reasons behind community settlements, and settlements generally, are provided.
::Generally, I am impressed by the amount of niggling examination of details flourished in arbitration as opposed to the disattentive negligance shown in the use of sources during the process of article drafting and talk page discussion. If people learnt to use the scrutiny they display here in the work they contribute, there would be no need for arbitration. I've said enough. This is not about me.] (]) 17:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Oh Keerist, Igorp! If you had actually followed my editing, and looked at my to the article in question, you would have known that I had based my actual edits from Weizman, also regarding the Galilee on, Eyal Weizman, ''Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Occupation,'' Verso Books, 2012 '''pp.125-130''', i.e. meaning also p.126. If you look above, you will se3e I cite Weizman twice, the second time on p.126 with a bloody link. Stop this ridiculous barrel-scraping pettifogging.] (]) 20:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Igorp. Don't keep asking questions that I have already replied to. ] (]) 11:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by (Cptnono)====


Wouldn't an interaction ban be sufficient instead of a lengthy topic ban? It looks to me like Astul is trying but having a hard time working with Nish. Since no one has offered to mentor the user, maybe give the two an extended break from each other. No reverts. Maybe no talking even.

I also still believe that Nish should have been more open to Ashtul's suggestions about settlements but it is hard to collaborate when everyone is off on the wrong foot. Ashtul could bring something good to the project and separating the two like school children (or how about prize fighters) might be all that is needed. ] (]) 23:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{Ping|EdJohnston}} Astul doesn't appear to be a troll inserting the worst of POV. He actually appears to know what he is editing to the point that he brought up points that were surprising to those well versed in the topic area. The problem is that he has gotten worked up about another editor. I am sure I can name a dozen editors who have been frustrated (legitimately or not) at Nish before. Separate those two by not allowing them to revert each other and the problem could be solved.
:Would you consider a topic ban? The severity of restrictions has increased dramatically in the last few years and he would not have faced such a lengthy ban for cussing out another editor in the past. I understand that it might be a good thing since enough is enough but a more novel approach could work better. Something like a 6 month ban strikes me as something for the worst of offenders. He hasn't even had that opportunity to screw up that bad yet while he is still making steps (as small as they might be). Is banning him good for the project or is it an easy fix to cutting out drama?] (]) 05:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
::::], Can you please explain me where was I wrong. I start to feel like I have lost my mind and if I do not understand, indeed I should not be allowed to edit at all and be blocked indefinitely.
::::How can there be 1RR violation with not content dispute and ]? Nishidani doesn't argue the content belongs there. ] (]) 13:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::You can't revert twice in a day. It doesn't matter that Nish didn't see talk (it looks like an edit summary was used at least). I'm not saying that was the best way to go about it but the rule was put in place to reduce the once prevalent edit wars. This may not have been an edit war but things would have been calmer if the talk page was used instead of reverting. Just don't revert twice in a day in this topic area even if it feels like no harm is being done.] (]) 16:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
This is at best a 'partial revert'. Nishidani and I have conversed in length (I believe ~20k out of ~30k in the thread). Then I waited for 24 hours which were miscalculated b/c of local time (I have fixed that). If there was a 1RR on anything which constituted a content dispute I would say - 'sorry, I f***ed up. Ban me indefinitely' but that isn't the case. This is not Carmel case where I made a mistake. It was a content dispute and I broke 1RR. ] (]) 18:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::It doesn't matter what it was a best. You fucked up. Man up to it and give the community an assurance that you will respect the process of using the talk page in the future. I totally agree with you that your revert was within reason. However, the process is in place to assure that things are done at a slower and more collaborative pace. Can you show us that you give a shit (I know you do) and lay out how you could have done it better? Or not. Take the 6 months and come back a better editor.] (]) 04:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Igorp lj ====
{{u|Nishidani}}, can you please explain what RS approve this text from the head, quoted by you?
<blockquote>
also in the Galilee as part of the aim of establishing a 'demographic balance' between Jews and Arabs, and thwarting the development of a Palestinian state.
</blockquote>
I do not find something about Galilee in RS what you placed below your quote. --] (]) 16:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I'd suggest not to jump to conclusions, as it has been not so long ago (:) As far as I can see nobody here insists that the disputed paragraph should be in the article. Then the 1-3RR violations' question itself is questionable too.
Therefore, I'd ask someone neutral to check out other arguments against Ashtul.

Now, to the question of "persecution". Not sure that these accusations are true. Any article may be in WatchList of any party, but ... it's no secret that cooperation with Nishidani isn't easy, especially when it concerns the fact that contrary to his personal POV, which for some reason he is considered neutral. I've already mentioned his didactic tone towards beginners and other things that might just discourage anyone to desire & to do something in Wiki.

I think that a problem - isn't Ashtul, who still has the patience and desire to break through the current, not healthy situation.
IMHO, it may be a perfect remedy to stop administration in those cases when parties expressed different points of view, but (!) to require from them not to add to an article any text, which wasn't previously agreed on an corresponding Talk page.
I'd propose to check this decision for ~ some months' period and after it to see if / how it works.. --] (]) 18:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

:* {{u|Nishidani}}: "I suggested you reconsult the page or an optometrist", "If people learnt to use"... (17:12, 26 February 2015)
: That's the pity, but this is exactly what I've wrote above about Nishidani's style of "cooperation".
: Somebody wants to use the formal reasons here. Ok, I simply remind: what you mentioned above is (a)Weizman pp.<u>81-82</u>,pp.<u>120-124</u> (Nishidani, 16:49, 25 February 2015), not <u>p.126</u>
: "Galilee" was mentioned <u>only once</u> - in article's head. One may check the version before Ashtul's edit () : "Galilee" <u>not appears in its body</u>.
: "I've said enough. This is not about me" (@Nishidani) :( --] (]) 20:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

::* {{u|Nishidani}} (20:47, 26 February 2015, mentioning his ] (]))''] edit)
:: A pity that I spent my time watching pro-Palestinian product of Weizman, but ... I do not see there any expression similar to your <u>and</u> "thwarting the development of a Palestinian state" <u>addition</u> (at least, on p. 126, it seems to me that at 125-130 - too). Please point to a specific place if I'm wrong.
:: Otherwise, Ashtul was right making his edit after his 1st such one ( ) . --] (]) 22:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

::: * Nishidani (11:11, 27 February 2015) "Don't keep asking questions that I have already replied to."
::: It only means that Ashtul's was right about your wp:OR. :) --] (]) 17:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

===Result concerning Ashtul===
:''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. -->
*If this was a first offence it might be closed with no action. But Ashtul has been previously blocked as long as two weeks for violations related to ARBPIA. I propose a six-month topic ban from everything covered by ]. ] (]) 03:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:*Tend to agree with Ed here. A six month topic ban seems appropriate here--] <sup>]</sup> 20:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
*I've now gone through the edit history of ]. There is a definite 1RR violation there. There's no obvious 1RR at ]. Ashtul has an evident POV on these matters, which he is entitled to have if he is willing to edit very carefully. I'm not seeing an adequate level of care, or enough patience in his reading of the sources. So I agree with Cailil that a six-month ban of Ashtul from the scope of ARBPIA will help assure the goal of having these articles be neutral. ] (]) 02:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


===Request concerning Boy shekhar===
==MarkBernstein==
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Daniel Quinlan}} 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Boy shekhar}}<p>{{ds/log|Boy shekhar}}</p>
===Request concerning MarkBernstein===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|DHeyward}} 06:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|MarkBernstein}}<p>{{ds/log|MarkBernstein}}
<!--- 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: ]
]<br>
]<br>
{{user5|MarkBernstein}} was indef topic banned in November 2014 and it appears that his behavior avoided scrutiny. During the ArbCom case, he was blocked multiple times for an Indef Topic Ban violation in January 2015. It appears that these actions saved MarkBernstein from direct ArbCom sanctions. After the decision, the indef topic ban and the block were lifted on promises that he wouldn't return to the behavior that led to the sanctions. Since then, he has returned to the exact same behavior and has been blocked for exactly the same issues. Per the case, enough is enough.

Participants in the case were sanctioned with this remedy for arguably less disruption. Per below, it doesn't appear that MarkBernstein will abide by the rules put forth in the ruling despite numerous promises, excuses, and breaks.


While the enforcement section allows and indef block, MarkBernstein will most likely cease disruption with the standard Topic Ban outlined in the case. <br>
]

Please enforce the rulings in the case with the Standard Topic Ban.

{{re|Guettarda}} It's not about his latest block. It's about his entire history of not being able to follow civility rules and the ArbCom ruling. The latest block is a culmination of all the other items. How many editors would come of a topic ban, a 1 month block and then return to the contentious topic and be warned multiple times and blocked again within two weeks and ''not'' have the topic ban restored? 2 days, a week, then a month block followed up with 2 warnings and another block within 2 weeks of having the block lifted early on a good behavior promise. --] (]) 15:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{re|Guettarda}}I chose only to list those comments that an admin deemed warnable or sanctionable and only since the TBAN. The questionable edits are embedded in those links below as part of the ban or block notice. I didn't go and search for additional evidence as most editors in that topic area have come across w bit sniping. I did this for three reasons: 1). it's highlighting a pattern severe enough that admins are attempting (and failing) to correct; 2). I don't follow GamerGate enough to correctly categorize every slight so I relied on Patrolling admins; and 3) if I were to bring a myriad of diffs from actual behavior it would be like bringing the GG talk page here. The pattern of conduct is what is disturbing with all the warnings and a block coming 2 weeks and it's noticed. He has 8 "official" warnings, bans and blocks related to specific topic areas and he has been able to accomplish this in less than 3 months and despite being Tbanned and/or blocked that entire time. --] (]) 20:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{re|Guettarda}} It seems you must not see the links in the admin comments. Also your dates are wrong. He was blocked until Feb 12, which was about two weeks early. All the below comments were since then and identified by admins as problematic, not me so please refactor your casting aspersion. This is simple documentation of what admins have already said and the aspersions belong to them.
:*
:* (also discusses his research into another editor)
:*

:In addition, he characterizes other editors, though broadly , , . And that's just from his talk page. Other editors have articulated further. And since this is a cumulative list of behavior that resumed almost immediately after his block was lifted, previous history is very relevant. --] (]) 07:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

{{re|Strongjam}} The request was closed and MarkBernstein was given the benefit of the doubt. Since then he's been warned and blocked. Everyone seems to have said to take these issues to AE as the proper venue so here we are. --] (]) 15:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

{{re|Gamaliel}} Please note that I was not against you lifting your topic ban which is clear from your talk page. Nor do I want to see anyone restricted based on ideology or "sides" or what not. It's as simple as what kind of editor is constructive for the topic area. If they are more disruptive than helpful, intervention is necessary. MarkBernstein, so far, hasn't demonstrated that he understands how to collaborate. A block two weeks after an indef topic ban and block for the same reasons as those given for the TBan and the previous 2 blocks on a topic covered by ArbCom sanctions means it shouldn't surprise anyone that it is at AE. No one is looking to put his head on a pike but he seems bent on putting it there himself.
:{{re|Gamaliel}} Which editor are you referring? I saw one that had a clean block log and no warning (not that it is required) and it was also an account that seemed to focus solely on GG. If admins are topic banning before an AE request, all the better. There's been no request to unban the editor I am aware of. This issue isn't that too many TBans of disruptive editors. Bring it here if you do not wish to perform the block yourself. --] (]) 23:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{re|Gamaliel}} Also, please re-read the ARCA request. The committee did not weigh any evidence about MarkBernstein during the proceedings despite his TBan and block (or perhaps because of it). Either way, they simply didn't review it and said AE is the proper venue. He wasn't "vindicated" in the ARCA request. --] (]) 00:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

{{u|Gamaliel}}, {{u|Dreadstar}}, {{u|Guettarda}}, {{u|HJ Mitchell}} read MarkBernsteins response to this and please review WP:CIV, WP:NOTHERE, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. When he assured you of his behavior upon return to get his ban rescinded and block ended, was it really a promise to fight "barbarian hordes?" Again, it's demonstrated that he can't work and play well with others. The ultimatum of essentially "let MarkBernstein edit GamerGate so women aren't physically assaulted" is rather extreme view of what the encyclopedia is. Jimbo's comment carries the view of the encyclopedia and it isn't MarkBernstein's. --] (]) 17:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

<!--- 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.-->
*{{diff2|1268704307|This edit}} violates the topic ban because it is in the topic area. It's also based on an unreliable source and the section header includes a derogatory term.
Note that these are only the violations he was warned about. Four separate admins have issues either topic bans or blocks regarding GamerGate conduct by MarkBernstein.

# Indef topic ban for personally directed comments
# Blocked 1 week for topic ban evasion.
# Blocked 1 month for topic ban evasion
# Indef discretionary topic ban ended while block still enacted based on "promises."
# Unblocked early with "promises" of no more personally directed comments
# Another final warning about personally directed comments
# Another personally directed comment gets another warning.
# Blocked for 24 hours for yet another personall directed comment.


; 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.-->
*{{diff2|972891251|Here}} is the topic ban for {{tpq|persistent insertion of ], use of unreliable sources or no sources at all, and ]}}.


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): ;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. -->
*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. *Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|Doug Weller}}.
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above).
*Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict.
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
*Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months.
*Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict.



; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
I didn't bother with diffs showing his awareness of sanctions as it is more than obvious that he is.
*I've edited the article so I am involved. ] (]) 06:34, 11 January 2025 (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. -->
Notified of discussion.


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


====Statement by Boy shekhar====
===Discussion concerning MarkBernstein===
<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 MarkBernstein====


====Statement by (username)====
Before this cunningly-contrived midnight ''trial in absentia'' concludes, perhaps I might review the choice that is offered here. On the one hand, you have an editor whose poor vocation as a knowledge seeker should be plain from his eight years of work here and his elsewhere. On the other, you have a barbarian horde of nameless trolls, openly colluding for months to exploit Misplaced Pages as part of a public relations campaign to threaten, shame, and punish women in computing.

:''“Next time she shows up at a conference we … give her a crippling injury that’s never going to fully heal … a good solid injury to the knees. I’d say a brain damage, but we don’t want to make it so she ends up too retarded to fear us.”'' -- Simon Parkin, “Zoe Quinn’s Depression Quest”, ''The New Yorker,'' 9 September 2014. http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/zoe-quinns-depression-quest

Misplaced Pages's official response has been ineffectual and .

:''“I (and Misplaced Pages) neither support nor oppose Quinn. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground.”'' – Jimmy Wales

Impartially to support or excuse a conspiracy notable only for threats of assault, rape, and murder, is to support those threats. Misplaced Pages can be a hobby or an entertainment, but for those against whom Misplaced Pages is weaponized it is neither. They ''cannot'' drop the stick and walk away; they can only submit to its repeated blows and hope that you will eventually raise your hand to restrain their assailants.

That’s the choice you have. But it’s not your choice alone: there are higher courts than yours, and in one tribunal you have already been taken to AN/I and . With thought for Misplaced Pages's defenders and care for the damage Misplaced Pages has done, you can resolve to amend your behavior and return to productive membership in the community of ideas.

This is, of course, entirely consistent with -- and indeed mandated by -- Misplaced Pages's core principles. We are building an encyclopedia; we do not, and should not, employ that encyclopedia to attack blameless individuals, to intimidate people considering a potential career, or to improve the image of a so-called “movement.” Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a public-relations platform for the use of shadowy and shady causes. We are neutral, but that neutrality never extends to promoting falsehoods or excusing -- much less abetting -- criminal mischief. We follow sources; we never seek (as so many have been seeking on these pages) to "rebalance" them in light of an imaginary and universal conspiracy among the media. We seek consensus, which is incompatible with repeating the same failed proposals incessantly for months on end in the vain hope that something may have changed from the previous week, and with the fervent quest to sanction the five horsemen -- and me, and anyone else who stands in their way -- for defending the Wiki.

The problem is not insoluble or even difficult, but it does require resolve, hard work, and thorough sweeping. It’s time for you to choose. ] (]) 16:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Cullen328====
Although I found Mark Bernstein's participation problematic before the ArbCom ruling on Gamergate, I believe that his contributions have been generally positive since then. Yes, he is forceful in defense of our BLP policy, but certainly such diligence is justified because of ongoing disruptive trolling of this group of articles. Any mistakes he has made recently seem minor, and should be corrected by a few words from other editors, rather than more serious sanctions. ] ] 07:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by PeterTheFourth====
I've been nothing but impressed with how stringently Mark Bernstein applies wikipedia's policies in editing articles. My interaction with his has been after his banning and subsequent reversal, and has been pleasant. I do note that there are editors who have directed rather pointed comments towards Bernstein since his ban from directing comments at other editors- that Bernstein has received prickly behaviour such as this and been as stoic as he has is admirable to the utmost extent. ] (]) 07:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by starship.paint====
Enough is enough. MarkBernstein clearly feels very strongly about protecting women in computing, but that is no excuse for repeatedly casting aspersions on other editors. This recent diff shows bright as day that MarkBernstein has no problem attacking and assuming the worst in other editors, therefore contributing to a hostile editing environment in spite of repeated warnings, blocks and a topic ban. ]] ''']''' 09:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
{{talkquote|Just for those of us who aren’t part of the secret society, what was "Masem’s Talk"? }}
:* It could certainly be construed that the "secret society" includes Vordox, Orlando (otherwise why is this post on on Orlando's talk page instead of Vordox?) and Masem. ]] ''']''' 03:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
*{{ping|Guettarda}} - please read through Bosstopher's statement, which provides diffs on the MarkBernstein's history of casting aspersions. He sees a vast conspiracy by '''established editors and even an admin''' to attack women in computing. I think Masem, Orlando and myself (there may be others as well) have contributed enough to Misplaced Pages that being grouped as part of a conspiracy or "secret society" is plain insulting. We're not redlinks. If MarkBernstein has a problem with established editors, he can come up with the evidence and report us right here. Otherwise, he needs to stop talking about established editors as such. ]] ''']''' 23:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
**{{ping|Guettarda}}
{{talkquote |There is no remaining NPOV issue, merely a vocal group of POV pushers, openly collaborating a campaign on 8chan to make this page more favorable to GamerGate}}
{{talkquote|this is precisely what one small cadre of editors, aided by off-wiki organization, insists we must do}}
{{talkquote|some of our number appear to be in a desperate hunt, coordinated on-wiki and off, for any source anywhere that casts the misogyny in a less vivid light}}
{{talkquote|MASEM ... : (Do you have a bunch of good rape jokes you'd like to share with us?) }}
{{talkquote|Hate to be a sourpuss, but I'm not sure that I join with ] in thinking Misplaced Pages should be "amoral" when it comes down to raping game developers.)}}
{{talkquote|MASEM and his (fortunately shrinking -- DSA is about to be topic banned for last night's escapade) band of merry editors try to insinuate that Zoe Quinn's sex life ... }}
{{talkquote|With respect MASEM, I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking the pattern of your edits on the page in question which ... (c) have facilitated a coordinated POV attack on this page and its talk page which is known to be coordinated offsite, and where your aid is specifically cited as an important asset.}}
{{talkquote |... you might have been supporting more favorable coverage of the planning to rape and beat women in computing because you personally support it, or for other reasons. That some editors are colluding is certain; your own part is not clear to me at this time}}
{{talkquote |... in the course of a Misplaced Pages discussion orchestrated to deter women from pursuing careers in computer science}}
{{talkquote |kthxbye}} in response to another editor saying ''By spreading rumours about wiki-editors online, while using minimal evidence, you raise the potential of exposing them to an angry mob that could try to exact vigilante justice. I hope you reconsider the extreme accusations you are making against wikipedia editors, and try to tone it down a bit.''
{{talkquote |From an 8chan thread ostensibly planning ArbCom strategy and coordinating how to deploy Orlando, DSA and Logan but largely venting at me}}
{{talkquote |I supposed that TheRealVordox referred to something of a similar nature that Masem had delivered. ... I see Vordox is active on Twitter, where they have 129 tweets to their 3 followers and conversations with TotalBiscuit, Masem, CH Sommers,and SargonOfAkkad ; say hi for me!}}
*Of all these accusations, where is the evidence against myself, Orlando or Masem regarding collusion? ]] ''']''' 01:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
*{{ping|Guettarda}} - look, I'm sorry for wasting your time. My second post wrote about the "history of casting aspersions". I thought you were asking for diffs on that, which is why I provided those. ]] ''']''' 10:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Thargor Orlando====

I fully endorse this request, along with the diffs that have been provided. I'm still puzzled as to why he was left out of the initial ruling, why his topic ban was ever lifted, and why he was ever unblocked early given his continued behavior. Hopefully this can put an end to this continued abuse. ] (]) 12:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Guettarda}} if this were an isolated incident, you'd be right. The fact of the matter is that this is a pattern of behavior, both before and after his lengthy block and topic ban, and if he's not topic banned from a space he is unable to remain civil and collaborative in now, it's inevitable that it will end up here again in the future. Warnings don't work, blocks don't work, so we're here. No, the behavior is not as bad as it was when he was first topic banned, but the basic intent (casting aspersions, trite dismissals, disruptive commentary toward other editors) persists. Enough should be enough. ] (]) 14:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Bosstopher====
I agree with Thargor insofar as I dont get why he was left out of the Arbcom decision and had his topic ban lifted. HOWEVER, now that his topic ban has been lifted, I'm not sure it has yet reached the point where he requires a new one.

These are the kind of commments MarkBernstein got topic banned for originally: accusations of being pro-rape, false accusations that an editor (no indication could be found of Thargor's participation at all) was coordinating against him on 4chan and threatening his life, and accusing Masem of being some kind of GG mastermind offsite.

Compare this to the lackluster comment that finally got Mark blocked this time round, I cant imagine anyone other than Mark being blocked for a comment like this.

I think there is no reason to topic ban him based on his recent block and his comments have been toned down since his original topic ban. BUT, (and this is a big but) keeping his past behavior in mind, some of his recent comments have been veering dangerously close to his old ways. This includes comments implying Orlando is part of some offsite collusion, as well as implying that '''''' ], is the evil mastermind behind everything. This was merely someone tweeting at Masem and not a conversation (Mark corrected his comment on request).

So while I think the recent block against Mark was unfair (if admins had topic banned/blocked him for earlier comments instead of giving him a final warning I would have been ok with it), he should probably at the very least be given a 1 way interaction bans with Thargor and Masem. ] (]) 13:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Strongjam====
Dr. Bernstein has been productive in the topic space. His presence has only been made disruptive by '''other''' editors who insist on make much ado about every edit. Editors who ] warnings that Bernstein has removed from his talk page, and who's ] on their talk page seems to be to get as much admin attention as possible. Claim rather mundane comments are "]", then when hatted, ] ] the hat over Bernstein's comment (leaving other editors signatures on the reasoning.)

The talk pages of ] and ] have plenty of examples of editors talking about {{u|MarkBernstein}}, and there has already been an ]. At some point this has to be considered ]y behaviour.

{{reply|Bosstopher}} If there is an interaction ban with Thargor it should be two-way in my opinion. — ] (]) 14:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Also of note, {{u|DHeyward}}'s collection of diffs '''that violate this sanction or remedy''' include 0 edits by {{u|MarkBernstein}}. — ] (]) 15:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Hipocrite====

Dr. Bernstein is being held to a standard of behavior that the people doing the holding could not reach in their best of days - that he reaches the standard on any day is a miracle. Misplaced Pages is offered here the choice between a bunch of brand new sock puppets and ressurected accounts who are members of a mysoginistic hate movement and a dedicated professional with decades of experience. Don't make the wrong one. ] (]) 14:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

On the other side, however DHeyward does appear to have a pointy, harassment, civility problem. He's taken to harassing Dr. Bernstein on his talk page by reinserting comments legitimately removed by Dr. Bernstein, and calling users who tell him to stop doing that "Daft." ] (]) 15:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Kaciemonster====
I agree with those who are pointing out that Dr. Bernstein is the only editor being held to this higher standard of behavior. While I can understand how past behavior might put his edits under greater scrutiny, we should consider that he's also made productive contributions, and brought valuable insight to the Gamergate talk page.

If I'm remembering correctly, an editor was banned from talking about Dr. Bernstein, and considering the open hostility he's faced from other editors I think he's handling himself pretty well. He's already been blocked for 24 hours, and from the looks of this request, no new evidence has been offered up. If he continues the personal attacks after he's unblocked, maybe a topic ban is something to consider. Right now, I think anything else would be excessive. ] (]) 16:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by ] ====
While Mark Bernstein can appear zealous at times, it is always to uphold Misplaced Pages policies like ]. He has edited fairly and engaged in productive discussions on article talk pages in the face of off-wiki harassment and on-wiki baiting. Right now, editing in the GamerGate area, we have a balance of editors with different points of view (that one might crudely identify as pro-GG, neutral and anti-GG) and the loss of Bernstein's participation would mean that newly created accounts promoting GamerGate as a ethnically neutral "consumer movement" would dominate the discussion.

Bernstein has a POV but so does everyone editing in this area or they wouldn't have ventured on to these talk pages. If Bernstein crosses the fuzzy line of civility, he, like any other editor, can receive limited time blocks. While no one editor is indispensable on Misplaced Pages, I think without Bernstein's participation, the articles could easily slide into smearing the good names and reputations of living people who are involved with this controversy. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 17:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

: I hope admins weighing in look at the dates of some of the examples of Bernstein's comments (some of which are not provided with a diff!) and see if they occurred before or after his topic ban was lifted. Some of these examples are stale indeed. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 22:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

====Comment by MONGO====
With all due respect...perhaps nine lives only applies to cats? Or shall we change the rules depending on which side of the coin one sits?--] 19:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by EncyclopediaBob====
I'll reserve direct comments about Mark's behavior until he's able to respond.

{{ping|Gamaliel}} In defense of your initial decision to lift his topic ban you offer assurance to concerned editors that a reasonable mechanism exists to ensure his positive contributions:
{{talkquote |He will be closely watched by many people when he returns to editing, so I am confident that if he steps out of line again he will be quickly dealt with by myself or another administrator.}}
{{talkquote |I've made it abundantly clear to Mark that he will be closely watched by a large number of people, including myself, and that I will be the first one in line at the block button should he engage in further disruptive behavior.}}
I'm having difficulty reconciling these statements with your apparent criticism of exactly that mechanism here:
{{talkquote |Mark Bernstein is being watched by everyone: friends, enemies, administrators, the press. This campaign to get rid of him is doing more damage to the atmosphere of collaborative editing than Mark Bernstein himself possibly could. }}

Further you state:
{{talkquote| If the edit histories of those other editors were subject to the same hyper-scrutiny that is applied to Mark Bernstein, they would not do well here.}}
but those other editors are not subject to the very specific condition on which HJ Mitchell removed his block:
{{talkquote|Hi Mark. As we discussed by email, I've unblocked you with the '''sole condition''' that you avoid personally directed comments}}
which the diffs above show he was unable to abide.

The pattern here seems to be that we give this editor leeway contingent upon special scrutiny but when an attempt is made to apply that scrutiny it's criticized for being special! I'd hope instead for general and consistent application of policy, especially in such a contentious space. ] ] 19:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Drseudo====
Based on the preliminary comments from admins below, I'm hopeful that this request will be seen for what it is: an attempt to drive Mark Bernstein from the project at any cost, for any or no reason. Issue him a ban on discussing other editors, if you must, and then send this request ] ] (]) 21:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Starke Hathaway====
Enough is truly enough. An editor who feels compelled to describe those who disagree with his edits as, variously, and and Misplaced Pages as cannot and should not be accomodated in a contentious topic area.

What, short of actual sanctions, is going to dissuade this user from his current behavior if warnings from no fewer than four admins will not? ] (]) 21:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by GoldenRing====
As the editor who initiated to ARCA request recently, I accept that the committee didn't take my view of the case history and the situation surrounding MarkBernstein. I don't have a horse in this (GG) race; I'm here because I see an editor being continually disruptive.

I think problems are clear. {{re|Dreadstar}}, if you {{tq|can't support a topic ban for MB}} then why did you {{tq|One more comment about another editor on the article talk pages and I will ban you from all GamerGate related articles}}??? Less than two days later he's back at it, so you decide a 24-hour block is sufficient.

I sort of agree with Hipocrite (and others) that MarkBernstein is being held to a standard higher than others; but there is a significant difference: Those others have not had a topic ban removed on the assurance that personally-directly comments . Those other editors have not been warned Those others have not been warned Those other editors haven't made .

The problem (or at least ''a'' problem) here is that admins want MarkBernstein to stop making personally directed comments but aren't willing to use the tools to make it happen. So far this month, he's given Gamaliel assurances by email; made a gentleman's agreement with HJ Mitchell; given a 'final' warning by Dreadstar; and given another warning by Dreadstar (what's the point of a final warning if you're going to follow it up with another warning?). When it finally becomes clear that none of these warnings is going to do anything, what's the result? A 24-hour block. What earthly good is that going to do anyone with an editor who ignores warnings, gives assurances then goes against them, makes agreements then goes against them? ] (]) 03:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

:Hard to disagree with DHeyward here; MarkBernstein's response is the perfect example of BATTLEGROUND. He is not here to work collaboratively and says so. If this is his avowed attitude, how is it not siteban time? ] (]) 01:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by (anonymous)====
{{ping|Cullen328}} You say: {{tq|Although I found Mark Bernstein's participation problematic before the ArbCom ruling on Gamergate, I believe that his contributions have been generally positive since then.}}

Quite frankly, I'm boggling at this. Exactly which do you have in mind? It seems to me like his edits are overwhelmingly in talk space. He has also ''repeatedly'' claimed () to be ''explicitly'' WP:NOTHERE, except to WP:RGW. ] (]) 07:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

In fact, I decided to dive in, and on the very first , I found that it flat-out misrepresents the source material, even while the relevant quote is right there in the source. It asserts that "the threats claimed to be affiliated with the Gamergate controversy", but the article refers to two threats and only connects one of them to Gamergate. The edit replaced perfectly valid phrasing that accurately represented the article's phrasing; and gave the matter undue weight by moving it to the beginning of the section when only one, less significant source talked about this second threat. I'm willing to WP:AGF when it comes to motivations here, but this cannot reasonably be called quality editing. ] (]) 07:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

{{ping|Guettarda}} If violating an explicit warning from an admin doesn't merit a topic ban, exactly what response does it merit?

{{ping|Gamaliel}} {{tq|The fact that other editors under topic bans during the case were sanctioned by ArbCom proves that this theory is inaccurate.}} It does no such thing. It merely suggests that policy may have been applied unevenly. Which, you know, is a thing that not only is known to happen on Misplaced Pages on a regular basis, but is '''explicitly endorsed in multiple policies and essays''' (I am particularly thinking of IAR, OSE and POINT). Also, I don't understand how you can hold yourself free to comment in the section "for uninvolved administrators only" when you are the one who lifted the topic ban in question. ] (]) 18:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the "explicit NOTHERE claim" diff I provided above as evidence, I would also to note that the discussion in question was in reference to , wherein we see MarkBernstein claim that {{tq|A group of supporters of a fringe movement openly have coordinated to silence their Misplaced Pages critics and to take control over the process of revising pages concerning their movement and those it seeks to target}}. This is presented as though it's not in reference to Gamergate (as he even claims {{tq|I write this most reluctantly as (a) I am topic-banned from GamerGate, which is a subtext here (as, it seems, in much of ANI these days), but which I have taken care not to otherwise allude to}} at the end) - which I ] as anything but disingenuous, given his well-known series of blog posts on the topic referring to Gamergate in the same way, and the absence of any other plausible "fringe movement" that could be referenced here. ] (]) 19:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by OccultZone====

I am hopeful that MarkBernstein has the ability to find himself out of the sanctions, only if he would really want to contribute again. For now I would endorse this request. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 09:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by USchick====
I am uninvolved in Gamergate and only became aware of it through news articles. I see this issue as one article that spilled over into real life as a result of a bigger festering Misplaced Pages problem that was allowed to happen simply because the bullies go unchecked and no one cares about content, especially not ArbCom. If it escalated to this point, what's next? Right now it's only threats, are we waiting for crime statistics before we start enforcing policy? Unless the original problem is addressed, the community can expect more of the same. This article happens to be about gaming, what if the next article is about international terrorism? Is ArbCom prepared to handle a threat like that? None of this is Mark Bernstein's fault. The people making these decisions need to look in the mirror and then have a meeting with board members, the Foundation, and Jimmy Wales. These are the people who set the standard for Misplaced Pages. When it spills over into real life and real people get hurt, you can't say you had nothing to do with it. ] (]) 17:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by HalfHat====
Can I just point out that he is continuing to make vague unsubstantiated attacks is his statement. '"you have a barbarian horde of nameless trolls, openly colluding for months to exploit Misplaced Pages as part of a public relations campaign to threaten, shame, and punish women in computing."' He has made it quite clear how deeply involved he is and that he is here to right wrongs, I'm assuming that diff has been supplied.

====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 MarkBernstein=== ===Result concerning Boy shekhar===
:''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.''
<!-- 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. --> <!-- 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. -->
*<!--
* {{ping|starship.paint}} - What's the problem with the link you provided? I'd be very curious about a brand new editor making a comment like that. ] (]) 13:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
-->
**{{ping|starship.paint}} - Diffs? ] (]) 00:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
*** {{ping|starship.paint}} Umm...what the heck? You provide a 12 diffs and 11 of those 12 are from before the topic ban was lifted? So, other than wasting my time looking at a pile of irrelevant diffs, what are you trying to convey? That you're acting in bad faith here? ] (]) 05:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
** {{ping|DHeyward}} - Can you point to some diffs showing a pattern of violating ] since the topic ban was lifted? ] (]) 15:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
* Looking at Dreadstar's warnings and blocks, I suppose "the new editor must think we're morons" (to paraphrase MB) is, in fact, a violation of Dreadstar's "don't comment on other editors" warnings. But I fail to see how that warrants a topic ban. ] (]) 14:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
** Complaints not backed up by relevant diffs (i.e. post Feb 7) ''demonstrating the behaviour being complained about'' would seem to amount to "casting aspersions". Which isn't acceptable. ] (]) 05:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


==שלומית ליר==
*At this point, I can't support a topic ban for MB; in my view, all he needs to do is quit talking about other editors on the article talk pages. ] <small>]</small> 15:21, 24 February 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>
:*@GoldenRing: yes I did threaten a ban, but after further consideration I decided the best course was to start with a block, then escalating from there if warranted. I am hoping the block is sufficient to deter MB from making further comments about others on the article talk pages. I echo the concerns raised by Gamaliel below, which factor into the change to my approach. ] <small>]</small> 15:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
* First, I have to address the mistaken idea that Mark Bernstein somehow "escaped" ArbCom sanction by being topic banned during the proceedings. This was ] last week. The fact that other editors under topic bans during the case were sanctioned by ArbCom proves that this theory is inaccurate.


===Request concerning שלומית ליר===
* Bernstein has voiced complaints to me that comments about him by other editors have gone unsanctioned. I have told him that he should strive to move on and attempt to treat those other editors as collaborators. It is apparent that those other editors are in need of the same advice. This is part of an incredibly disturbing trend by those editors and others to get Mark Bernstein sanctioned for absolutely anything they can. ], numerous editors demanded, cajoled, and insulted in order to get him sanctioned, regardless of policy, precedent, or the fact that he hadn't even made any new edits yet. Mark Bernstein is being watched by everyone: friends, enemies, administrators, the press. This campaign to get rid of him is doing more damage to the atmosphere of collaborative editing than Mark Bernstein himself possibly could. If the edit histories of those other editors were subject to the same hyper-scrutiny that is applied to Mark Bernstein, they would not do well here. ] <small>(])</small> 18:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Smallangryplanet}} 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|שלומית ליר}}<p>{{ds/log|שלומית ליר}}</p>
:* One would also hope for the general and consistent application of policy when it came to deciding which editors to file grievances against. Note that another long-standing editor on these pages was topic banned yesterday for openly insulting other editors. Instead of constantly demanding action against this editor in every talk page and noticeboard available, there was silence from the usual suspects. ] <small>(])</small> 21:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


==Edit war at ]==
{{archive top}}
This merits attention. It's a BLP covered by the Gamergate arbitration case and there should be no edit wars at all in that topic at this stage.

Please fix this. You were given the tools at ]. --] 01:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:As I read this, the issue here is primarily with ], who was informed as to the existence of discretionary sanctions a week ago. Does anyone see any reason for us not to sanction as requested? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 03:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
::Clearly deserves sanctioning. ] <small>]</small> 04:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
*I've imposed a 90 day topic ban. . Please let me know if anyone disagrees with the ban or the length. ] <small>]</small> 04:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:*I'm OK with this. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 04:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

==Joshua Jonathan==
<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 Joshua Jonathan===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Bladesmulti}} 18:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Joshua Jonathan}}<p>{{ds/log|Joshua Jonathan}}
<!--- 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 of ''how'' these edits violate it :


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


*2014 to 2016: no edits.
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
*2017 to 2019: 1 edit per year. None related to PIA.
<!-- 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. -->
*2022: 7 edits. Mostly in their userspace.
#09:36, 18 February 2015 - ], text copied
*2023: 21 edits. Again, mostly in their userspace. Made two edits in the talk page of ] complaining about its content and calling it .
#10:23, 18 February 2015 - copyright infringement, text copied:
* 2024: Started editing after a 10 month break at the end of October.
#04:58, 14 February 2015 - copyright infringement, text copied:
**Made 51 edits in October and 81 edits in November (copyedits, adding links, minor edits).
# 06:34, 14 February 2015 - copyright infringement, text copied :
**In December, that number rose up to almost 400, including 116 in December 6 alone and 98 in December 7. Became ECR that day.
#08:01, 5 February 2015 - copyright infrigement, text copied:
**Immediately switched to editing in PIA, namely in the ] article where they with an unclear image with a dubious caption, and without providing a reason why.
**They also edited the ] article, with a caption not supported by the source (replaced by yet with a contextless caption when the previous image was removed) and WP:UNDUE content .
**they also in the second AfD for ] despite never having interacted with that article or its previous AfD. They have barely surpassed 500 edits, but the gaming is obvious, highlighted by the sudden switch to editing in PIA.


More importantly, there's the issue of POV pushing. I came across authored by them on Ynet, once again complaining about what they perceive as an anti Israeli bias on Misplaced Pages. They have also authored a report for the World Jewish Congress covering the same topic. The report can be seen in full . I think that someone with this clear POV agenda shouldn't be near the topic.
After reading some of those changes I have mentioned at #1 and #2, I had discussed about it with JJ ,(his talk page as well) but his response seemed unhelpful. Recently, one of the page came up on my watchlist, which was recently altered by JJ, I read some of the text and searched it elsewhere, I found that the text violated copyrights. After that I have investigated some of his changes that are violating copyrights. I have listed a few here: ]


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
Other than that, there is a pattern of making huge amount of undiscussed/controversial changes, JJ also seems to have misunderstood both references and information at times that I have described below. He continues to fill talk pages with long posts, one of the recent example is ], after the page was protected on , he started to make long posts,- and seemed to be advocating his changes rather than reading what others had said, even when other users had disagreed with his ideas. There has been some edit warring, recent example is a page and a template where he made some changes and soon those changes got reverted by other user, JJ would revert two times or until other user would stop.---

Sometimes his changes are flawed, they include his own opinions or misinterpretations of references,(e.g. -- ) he has been told to follow ] and to discuss the changes for avoiding these problems, even recently however he rejects this idea as "that's not how BRD works. It's not a "rule" to lock a preferred version".

;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 and re-iterated on (see the system log linked to above).
*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|Femke}}.


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here --> <!-- Add any further comment here -->


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
Drmies: If those books are not viewable to you then you should just click on the Google search bar that contains the text and it will show you the results. Why we have to quote copyrighted material when we can rephrase ourselves? I have seen that such changes are removed quickly and revisions are deleted.

Cailil: Are you actually saying that editors are allowed to copy from various book and websites as long as they have credited them in the citation(<nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki>)? Are you also saying that copying large sentences cannot be considered as the violation? I hope you seen , even if you think that they should be quoted, I still don't see that if it justifies the copyright infringement, as we know that inserting a quote in so many contributions is not allowed, quotes are usually valid for citing disputed or controversial things, not these these kinds of contributions. They must not be long. ] (]) 02:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

: Some of the below comments seems to be correct, it is becoming unhelpful to discuss issues with JJ mostly because he works on enforcing his changes as explicated in above diffs about edit warring and keeping the preferred version without reaching to any agreement. Also his usual behavior, he had recently termed one user as '']'' and '']'' though he wasn't, and JJ had termed one's argument as ''harassment'', by inserting a subheading to users' post. ] (]) 02:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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


<!--- 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 Joshua Jonathan=== ===Discussion concerning שלומית ליר===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> <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 Joshua Jonathan==== ====Statement by שלומית ליר====
That's a long list of complaints, and a very limited amount of words allowed to respond.
* Hindutva:
:* To tackle the main problem : quotation marks would indeed have solved the problem, ''if'' there was a problem. My sentence in the lead said
:::''"Hindutva, "Hinduness refers to the idea that Hindus are vulnerable in comparison to other "Pan-isms" such as "Pan-Islamism," and need to consolidate and strenhten their Hindu identity"'',
::whereas the source said
:::''"His book rests on the assumption that Hindus are vulnerable in comparison to or vis-a-vis other 'Pan-isms' such as Pan-Islamism: O Hindus consolidate and strenghten Hindu nationality."''
::So, what is "unhelpfull" about the suggestion to add quotation marks? Instead of simply adding those marks, or asking me to do so, , with the argument ''"we don't bring sfn style everywhere, these changes clearly require agreement"''.
:* Regarding "long posts" at talk pages: ''" Also because they were major changes, I believe that you should be proposing them here first and reach to an agreement."'' Which I did, and now you're trying to use that ''against'' me?
:* @ AP: regarding : the comparison is of "children of the soil" with the Nazi "Blut und Boden" (blood and soil) ideology. Blades removed the whole paragraph, noting ''"nothing in that book, no mention of gowalkar"'' . The specific quote says (Witzel 2006 p.204):
:::''"...stresses that the Hindus have always been the indigenous "children of the soil," terminology clearly reminiscent of contemporary fascism (Blut und Baden (sic), see below)."''
::Kautilya3 reinserted the text which was removed by Blades ; Blades then removed the specific comparison with the Nazi's "Blood and soil" ; I reinserted it again, since Blades' second removal didn't give an edit-summary.
::So, the info in the article is not exactly correct, but it is in the source. I'll correct it.
* Regarding BRD and "edit-warring" at ]: contrary to Blades' statement ''" without reaching to any agreement"'', , and I completely changed ] from to , in response to Ghatus concerns raised at ]; we seem to have reached a compromise here. I also agreed with the removal of the sentence in the lead ''"Muslim rule started in some parts of north India as early as the 8th century, but was firmly established in the 13th century"'', beacuse the same info is mentioned in the lead with this sentence: ''"The 7th-11th centuries saw the first conquests by Islamic forces."''
] -] 06:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:By the way: what sanction or remedy are you actually requesting? And what ] have I violated, according to you? Good faith, sockpuppets, soapbox, battleground, or disruptive editing? ] -] 10:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
::{{yo|Cailil|MER-C|Hut 8.5}} in response to Blades' concerns, I've paraphrased and quote-marked Thapar's and Witzel's contributions . Jaffrelot's revealing comments have already been removed in toto by Blades. It was, as is probably clear for most editors around here, not my intention to conceal the authorship of these persons. On the contrary; their writings are valuable sources, and I sincerely hope that my usage of those sources invites some people to regard Misplaced Pages as an ], and go to the real stuff. I'll take even more care to avoid misunderstandings concerning their, or others', authorship. I hope we can get back now to what we're doing here: "to make the world a better place by giving away a 💕" (]). ] -] 06:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Hafspajen====
Where exactly was this discussed before? Don't get it. Just look at this. ], Joshua was one of the editor that saved Bladesmulti from be banned... by taking on him as a mentor. This mentorship resulted from an extended discussion of a siteban for Bladesmulti. See . Look also at Joshuas archives, plenty of friendly and constructive exchanges between them ... And this is the thank you? Where exactly did was made any attempt to discuss this with him? Also users like Delibzr and AmritasyaPutra ... and other Indian topic editors ... going behind people's back like this instead of trying open discussion, dispute resolution noticeboard, or even ANI - first... I am sincerely disappointed. (P.S. I had a bad day yesterday and I said that aloud many times during the day ''this is just not happening''...) ] (]) 20:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Drmies====
I'm not sure how the arbs or I are to read , for instance, as "his own opinion or misinterpretation of reference". I've looked at all the supposed copyvio examples I could (some aren't available to me online), and I suppose I would have told Joshua Jonathan to use quotation marks more wisely, but that's about it. Their talk page comments don't seem to be lengthier than others on those same pages. In short--this is a matter for arbitration why? ] (]) 20:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
*{{U|Cailil}}, {{U|MER-C}}, and {{U|Hut 8.5}}, I thank you for your comments, and I agree with them--MER-C, I especially appreciate you weighing in. Clearly, Joshua, you need to be more careful. Now, I suppose I'm uninvolved and administrator enough to park my opinion in ''your'' section, but I started here so I will finish here, on my soapbox:<p>I've seen {{U|Bladesmulti}}'s work here and there and I agree with {{U|Sitush}}. But what we have here is an attempt to swat a mosquito with a pneumatic sledgehammer, and it seems pretty obvious to me that this is really an attempt to get to the supposed "pattern of ... huge amount of undiscussed/controversial changes" by way of a copyvio charge. It is also obvious that a whole bunch of editors are seizing this opportunity to settle a score ("to peel an apple") with Joshua Jonathan over content and other matters. You know who you are, but the responses here indicate that in that camp we find {{U|Delibzr}} (a new editor with 233 article edits, who accuses Joshua of poor English in a sentence containing a comma splice), {{U|Robert Walker}} (with a litany of all kinds of charges--Four Noble Truths, for instance, was a mess long before Joshua got to it, and I don't see the YouTube or Misplaced Pages in ), {{U|నిజానికి}} (another brand-new editor with more zeal than experience), {{U|Shrikanthv}} (who wants a topic ban also based on a diff from --and they still haven't learned the rules concerning PROD)... We seem to have yet another example of ArbCom being enlisted in a witch hunt. What really needs to be investigated (and I can't do that) is whether {{U|Kautilya3}} charge has merit to it--and ''that'' is properly what DS is all about. And the other thing that needs to happen is a couple of trout slaps (but without the humor part) to the plaintiff and the named contributors. ] (]) 15:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Kautilya3====
The main complaint of {{U|Bladesmulti}} seems to be valid, viz., JJ has been taking rather too much text from his sources as is. He needs to be warned about this. However, all other issues raised are not substantial. JJ is a gentleman, always ready to talk if you engage with him. He is also a great editor that has made enormous improvements to a lot of pages. I have learnt a lot by reading what he has written over the last few months and reading the sources that he brought to the table. He has my genuine thanks. I don't believe any sanctions are warranted. ] (]) 21:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
: It is worth noting that the editors complaining about JJ were also the ones pushing the ]. Now they seem unhappy that JJ is editing the ] page, which they seem possessive about. But it is not clear if they understand that the page is in a poor shape, basically synthesizing OR from primary sources. ] (]) 12:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Delibzr====

Looking at these examples and also the examples posted in his draft, I would say that these are blatant copyvios because no other mind in the world other than the author himself would come up with these long phrases that are often crossing over 20 or 30 exact words, it confirms that Joshua has completely taken from the books and failed to rewrite himself. Cailil should read ] and know that even quoting is not an exemption from copyvio, in fact it would be same as saying that we can upload any copyrighted image after crediting the actual author but we cannot unless the actual owner has permitted. Furthermore the copyright violation seems to be massive in scale, considerably imitating the original.

I believe that the main issue is with ], he cannot understand the English language. Whenever you will read the posts of Four Noble Truths and WikiProject Buddhism, you may find that more than half of the concerns would be left unanswered. His bludgeoning usually stops editors from contributing or participating on any of the talk pages. I was about to post at ], but after seeing wall of texts I felt that I am rather going to get badgered, thus I avoided this RfC. These types of convesations would lead anyone to think whether Joshua tries to involve himself in constructive discussion or only out-lenght others comments.

Misleading edit summary is the another reason that why I stopped reading the most of the edits that he made on the articles where I have contributed and watched. He would describe some of his edits as "ce", though he happened to have added 800+ bytes of content and twice repeated the Tibetan term. Something he has not mentioned in his edit summary. Then again "ce",, he adds his opinion about Jung, removed the mention of W.Y. Evans-Wentz and replaces the sources. Back to "ce", Jung wasn't even mentioned in the article summary before. I don't see any discussion about these changes.

Edits also lack page numbers, what he termed here as "correction", doesn't seem to be any correction, instead it seems to be marginalizing a commonly accepted thought within individual authors. You can also see in this particular edit that Joshua has not added any page numbers and he removes the page number after introducing a new information. He described this edit as "correction", but he has not mentioned any reason behind marginalizing a common thought and removing page numbers. ] (]) 00:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@ JimRenge: Joshua Jonathan is open for discussion? If you are terming bludgeoning as "discussion", I definitely agree. Though he is not open for discussing the actual edits. And if he is, then why he didn't responded to ]? On the day when another editor came and reverted to an older version, Joshua made TLDR summaries at ]. ] (]) 16:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Joshua: You still haven't rewritten the material. You have erased some part, have quoted a sentence and edited a little part other than the quoted one. The newer diff doesn't make sense. For the part outside the quote, first of all, periodisation is uncountable, it's an abstract noun. Therefore, you can't use 'a' before periodisation. It is not correct to say 'a periodisation', simply 'periodisation' would do.<br>
After so much struggle, this is what you have produced.. I am more confident in saying that you don't know English well enough to write a proper sentence. ] (]) 08:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Sitush====
I am familiar with both Bladesmulti and Joshua Jonathan from my work in the Indic area of this project. They both do good stuff, they are both occasionally wrong, as also am I. This looks like a spat and one that should go away if it were not exacerbated by proceedings such as this.

Drmies has a point regarding attribution/quotes but in the context of problems Indic, including frequent and massive copyvios, this report seems very minor. I'd suggest a minnow to both: JJ for perhaps not doing as much as they could to clarify their text, Blades for getting het up about it to the point that causes this extremis. Both of you, go away and do what you are good at: sanctions for this would benefit no-one in particular and would be detrimental to the project as a whole. Believe me, if you think that the Indic-related talk page commentary is TLDR bludgeoning, you've not even touched the tip of the iceberg with this situation.

Next time, feel free to ask me to take a look (and then, hey ho, you will probably both be equally offended by the outcome). - ] (]) 00:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by AmritasyaPutra====
{{u|Cailil}}, I think ] does apply here. Giving reference does not make a copyvio go away, only that it is not plagiarism any longer but copying the creative wording too closely is the copyright violation. Pasting walls of text and creating a lot of sections in talk page for same topic does hurt discussion and Joshua has done so and shows no intent of stopping though he has been told so. --]<sup>]</sup> 03:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Among the diffs mentioned, in Joshua has used a derogatory term, ''Nazi'' but Witzel has ''not'' used it, is this not violation of BLP applied to him? And in he makes a note, which is not a quote, by himself, about another author Kazanas. --]<sup>]</sup> 06:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:Ok Joshua, reason was , Discussion was also . The correction happens after prolonged discussion still leaves some attribution to living people unreferenced. That ] has been edited only by you and mentions Dayananda, when Witzel does not do so and Frawley, in the source goes with second group, the third is entirely different, where you put him. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Robert Walker====

These copyright issues such as clearly have to be stopped and fixed. He was warned in March 2013 . Also he says he has a degree in theology - he should know that this is forbidden. He has also made an article that's pure ] and another ] which duplicates many sections of a page difftool:
from (with no attribution).

There are many other issues with his edits. He did a highly OR and inaccurate ]. These are as central to Buddhism as the ] are to Judaism. Since his edit of 2nd Dec, it has been taken up by over a thousand web pages so far , including forum discussions, and a youtube video on the Buddha (as text to speech). These pages present JJ's OR text as the teachings of the Buddha, citing wikipedia.

He removes large amounts of previous cited material. In the most extreme case, he reduced ] to 21% of its mature state, in two days . His given main justification was to remove edits of a recently blocked user . This is not credible as it was a stable article with many editors and no recent additions of large amounts of text. His edit summaries are confusing and misleading to other editors, presenting large scale edits and rewrites as "shortened" , or "added info", "rephrasing" for fundamental change of meaning . He presents his major rewrites on talk pages as "clean up" , , , - you wouldn't know from those summaries that he rewrote the articles and removed many sections.

He used his own view on permitted citations in a tied RfC to block a newbie Misplaced Pages editor ] attempting his first major edits. This editor says he is dong a masters thesis in Buddhist studies (states that here, para. 4 of his talk page comment ), so could reasonably consider himself expert. His edits cited from works used as text books in courses on Buddhist studies. He had every edit blocked from the article on Anatta by JJ and has now stopped editing wikipedia.

This is part of a general pattern. After talk page discussions with many views presented, JJ then edits articles and posts on talk pages as if the outcome was consensus in support of his approach.

Note that he treated my comment presenting my own views on Bikkhu Boddhi and other Buddhist sources a harassment, even removing a comment from the talk page in which I told ScientificQuest about the tied RfC , and on my talk page tells me to "Robert, stop your ], and contribute to Misplaced Pages in a constructive way." "Stop using Misplaced Pages as your personal playground." .

He also used BRDR instead of BRD and presents his new versions of mature articles as a fait accomplis ]

I believe he wishes to improve the Buddhism topic area, but I'd say a strong case of ] on an RfC, and talk page discussions and his edits breach guidelines for ], ], ], and consensus based editing.

In my view many of his edits in the Buddhism topic area from summer 2014 onwards are largely disruptive and damaging to wikipedia. ] (]) 15:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by JimRenge====
Yes, JJ could have used more quotation marks. However, Bladesmulti´s complaints about alledged copyright violations might be seen as a rather dubious attempt to influence content disputes (see another example: , ,, ).

Bladesmulti´s allegation that JJ "(...) started to make long posts,- and seemed to be advocating his changes rather than reading what others had said, even when other users had disagreed with his ideas." is not appropriate (). JJ is generally open to discussions, admits to mistakes quickly, and listens to reason. ] (]) 16:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by నిజానికి====

After reading that what has happened around and many editors are having same complaints, it is easy to consider that there is no way to gain consensus from Joshua Jonathan for changing the massive edits that he had originally added without consensus. One should just view ] and ] and differentiate the pre-Joshua articles with the present version. Prior versions were not biased or promoted narrow point of views as final word like they do now and today these 2 articles looks like fork of each other. How we are going to sort out these problems? We can but not at all with Joshua Jonathan. I would conclude that this is a detailed complaint and multiple editors have evidenced the disruption on multiple namespaces. ] (]) 16:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

* The latest comment of Robert walker with regard to Joshua Jonathan's false accusations of harassment and other attempts to stop editor from contributing shows Joshua Jonathan's failure to ] and ]. ] (]) 04:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by John Carter====
This may not be particularly relevant to this particular discussion, but I thought it worth mentioning on Joshua's user talk page and I think it might be worth repeating here. Some of you may have seen that I place a lot of emphasis on other reference works. This includes looking at reviews of them. One of the reviews of the most recently highly regarded reference books in the field of religion in general made the rather remarkable statement that the articles on Buddhism by ] in the old Hasting ] might be the best things ever written on those specific topics. That work is currently in the public domain and is even available over at commons. Other now PD reference works, like the Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia, are available at archive.org and elsewhere. It would certainly be possible, particularly with the Vallée-Poussin material, to use exact quotes with proper attribution in our own content, if more recent reference sources don't seem to disagree with it. The same would probably hold for some of the other PD reference sources out there, particularly those which are still thought of highly. ] (]) 23:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by shrikanthv====
Would suggest a topic ban related to religion and philosophy, I firmly agree with the nominator as there is huge copyright violation that can be also seen at ] and since JJ is emotionally attached to Buddhism, he mostly edit wars without consent. Here & removing prod tag even though he was the page creator and was not allowed to.

Even in 2015, there are neutrality disputes, and many users tried to discuss, the agenda (the notion of truth according to JJ) was fixed and was not flexible to any change and often blaming contributors if any question raised. And the blame continues, like and , under talks at Neo Advaita, blaming so the called "supporters" and "devotees" for the issues with neutrality.

Since this kind of editing and behavior also violates ], as Misplaced Pages should keep a neutral tone without supporting superiority of one religion over other, I would suggest a topic ban for JJ. ] (]) 14:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Dorje108====
As I have stated ]: "Jonathan’s method is to quickly re-write an entire article without warning or discussion. He leaves no opportunity for other editors who have worked on the article to explain or justify the current content or structure of the article." Jonathan's response to my statement is that "Extensive and detailed explanations have been given on the talkpages." That simply is not the case. His pattern is to put a brief "clean-up" summary after a massive rewrite; the summary is basically a list of arbitrary, non-specific statements. When challenged on his edits he becomes defensive and attempts to bully other editors. When editors challenge him on specific points, he frequently throws out "straw man" arguments, acting as if the other editors have made assertions which were not made, and then defending against that assertion. For example, in discussions on Jonathan's edits to the ], Jonathan accused myself and other editors of being opposed to content from Western academic sources. This was never the case. I am opposed to Jonathan ''removing'' content based on "non-Western academic" sources. This just one example. There are many more problems with Jonathan's edits than simply copy right violations. Regards, ] (]) 14:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by VictoriaGrayson====
Joshua Jonathan has remedied the alleged copyright issues. Lets move on.]<sup>]</sup> 15:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


====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 Joshua Jonathan=== ===Result concerning שלומית ליר===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*
*These are not copyright violations. Not even close. The material clearly links to its source and is not lifting chunks of text beyond what is normally cited. Joshua Jonathan should, as Drmies says, use more quotation marks, and IMHO should ] the sources explicitly. All that said I'm tempt to call ] here rather than close without action - this report looks like ]--] <sup>]</sup> 22:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
*I was by AmritasyaPutra. I would formally advise Joshua to paraphrase or use quotation marks more and a request to clean up previous edits and note this in the sanction log, but that's about it. ] 12:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

:*No object to that {{User|MER-C}} - if you want to go ahead with that I think we can close here, unless there are substantive objections from uninvolved sysops--] <sup>]</sup> 15:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

*I was also asked to comment at the link above, and I haven't looked at any of the non-copyright issues raised. The diffs above are too close to the sources and I would definitely recommend that this editor paraphrase more. Quotation marks would also help, although articles consisting mostly of quotes from the sources aren't good either. I don't think there's any need for sanctions and would support MER-C's suggestion above. ''''']''''' 21:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

==Eric Corbett==
<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 Eric Corbett===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Amortias}} 19:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Eric Corbett}}<p>{{ds/log|Eric Corbett}}
<!--- 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. -->
# I believe this particular comment is in breech of point 1 of the above listed sanctions.

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->

;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):*Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
Although not an outright statement about the GGTF it is an easily drawn inference as to whom Eric is referring to and this is in breech of his previously impemented topic ban. ] (])(]) 19:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Add any further comment here -->

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning Eric Corbett===
<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 Eric Corbett====
I think that any block ought to be for at least a week, else I won't have learned my lesson. I have until now avoided the use of my admin account, but that's another possibility going forward. ] ] 05:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Capeo====
I don't see how this is a violation of the TB personally. There's no mention of the GGTF, the gender disparity or any process or discussion about either of the above. It's a comment about a dispute that doesn't fit any of the above criteria either. And it doesn't matter who the comment can be construed to be about. No editor is the embodiment of the GGTF so that simply engaging them can be broadly construed as mentioning the GGTF by proxy. ] (]) 19:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:If we exchanged "militant feminists" with "POV pushers" would we even be having this conversation? Because honestly that's all the sentence expresses. A sentiment that's been expressed a million times at ANI, by admins no less. ] (]) 21:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:@Hal peridol, if there indeed were "misogynist POV pushers" brought to ANI I'm quite sure they'd be dealt with like any other POV pusher. Hence my point. Militant is the key term as it espouses a radical form of feminism well outside of what this encyclopedia would consider neutral and I'd say there certainly has been some folks lately that have been approaching topics from that POV, at times to the point of disruption. ] (]) 00:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by (anonymous)====

This doesn't appear to violate the topic ban ''per se''; however, I'd also note here that the Arbcom decision also states: {{tq|Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors.... If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Eric Corbett does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked.}} I dare say that describing other editors (considering the context, it does appear he has other editors in mind) as {{tq|militant feminists}} who should be {{tq|dealt with once and for all}} qualifies as insult. ] (]) 19:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by EvergreenFir====
Lightbreather was involved in the GGTF arb case and presented ]. Indeed the now-infamous quote by Corbett {{tq|" easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one"}} was directed at Lightbreather and the subject of much discussion during the arbcom case. It seems clear to me that this statement is related to events with the GGTF and the arbcom ruling and is thus a breach the ban. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 20:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

*Note also Corbett was blocked about 1 month ago for comments to Lightbreather of a similar nature. See .

*Perhaps {{U|Black Kite}} should recuse themselves from this discussion if they cannot keep a civil tone and suggest that the target of prolonged harassment should be the one removed. No one, regardless of their politics, deserves the crap Corbett dishes out routinely. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 02:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
*{{U|Giano}} That's ]. Unrelated to the arbcom ruling related to Corbett. If you think another user is too incivil, start and ANI. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 18:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Knowledgekid87====

The thread on ] was started by LB, when he said "feminist militants" it was referring to a person or group in particular here on wikipedia. I don't know how the comment can be taken as another general broad opinion with that description. - ] (]) 20:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

*@J3Mrs - Facts come with evidence, if you think that a group of editors here on Misplaced Pages are "militant feminists" then please take it up with the right venue, otherwise it is just a counter productive baseless attack. - ] (]) 21:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
*@EChastain - Yeah this is very polite... . What does {{u|Rationalobserver}} or other editors not named in this discussion have to do with what happened on ] anyways? - ] (]) 23:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
*{{ping|Ddstretch}} It is a weird way of joking when you are facing a possible block for disruptive behavior. - ] (]) 14:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Im looking at other's comments in a bit of disbelief as well the wording was "Isn't it about time that these militant feminists were dealt with once and for all?" Who are these "militant feminists" which are referred to? The comment was made without provoking Eric as noted and the section had nothing to do with a discussion about a gender and it was a '''REPLY''' to H.I.A.B.'s comment which was this: "the underhanded actions are hurting the ncylopedia that's why it is hard to ignore. She is destructive in her method." Connect the dots here please, anything could have been said but that is not what took place. Lastly I want to say, why would Eric be commenting there (A thread about LB and HIAB) in the first place when he has an IBAN between himself and LB? Usually there is a reason for comments made. - ] (]) 02:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Buster7====

It is just as easy to construe that Eric meant to type ''omnipitent'' but hit the "L" instead of the "P" and at the same time had a lapse in spelling or a short-term memory loss. It happens to me all the time. . ]<small>]</small> 20:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
*Kk87. Its "militant feminists" not "feminist militants". . ]<small>]</small> 23:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
*Perhaps a bit facetious, yes, I'll agree. But not fallacious. Look at your keyboard. The L and the P live right next to each other. It's easy to strike one instead of the other, especially for us elderly editors that aren't challenged by the arrogance of youth but are limited by the challenge of arthritis. A little levity never hurt especially considering that this request is a joke. . ]<small>]</small> 06:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Ironholds====
Agreed with Evergreenfir, here; even were it not for the GGTF sanctions (there's an argument for this not falling under those, although frankly the fact that Eric hasn't learned to just avoid the entire topic area is...ludicrous), the prohibition on him deliberately insulting others is clear, as is the fact that this sort of behaviour violates that prohibition - BusterSeven's fallaciousness aside.

As an aside of my own: ], you had some honour to maintain, I believe? ;p. ] (]) 21:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by J3Mrs====
This is the most stupid of sanctions. Not only is it an open invitation to some editors to be spiteful and vindictive but it is counter-productive. "Militant feminists" as applied here is a statement of fact. ] (]) 21:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It is obvious to me that militant feminists are attempting to ban Eric and I feel sorry for those who can't see it. They have been allowed to create a vile and disruptive atmosphere for many other editors that has been allowed to continue unchecked. This drama is entirely the creation of Arbcom's most ridiculous sanction. ] (]) 08:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by ]====
I'm incredulous by the fact that some of Corbett's defenders lines of argument are a) militant feminists don't exist on Misplaced Pages or b) it shouldn't be taken as an insult or c) the fact that militant feminists are, by implication, ruining Misplaced Pages, is a statement of fact and that negates any restrictions that might have been placed on Corbett. He said what he said and admins can decide whether it crossed a line or not. But the point here is not to defend or interpret what he said. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 22:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
====Statement by EChastain====
Just to say that Eric Corbett's first block, initiated by Lightbreather, resulted after she had posted a POINTY heading at WER, something about "Where are the women on this project" or something like that (and continued disruptively posting there until he left that project). Eric Corbett had basically only mentioned "GGTF", and it was unclear at that time (to me atleast and I asked about it) what all pages did this "sanction" pertain to. As it has evolved, it turns out everywhere, at SPI's, edit summaries, reports elsewhere such as ANI, etc., and his own talkpage. Eric Corbett has been hassled repeatedly on his talkpage by certain editors. I wonder how much a specific editor should have to endure. <p> Yesterday, after extensive disruption on his talk by Rationalobserver who has been disruptive there before and who has made extensive derogatory remarks on her own talkpage regarding his inability to edit well and that she wouldn't want his help, now asked for his help, on ] where FR writer {{u|Victoriaearle}} has already been driven off. Rationalobserver is turned down. Eric Corbett was polite at first, but she continued until he deleted her subsequent remarks. She proceeds to edit ] an FAC for which he was a principal editor, and argue extensively on the talk page with other editors in defense of her edits. She also goes to the RS noticeboard and questions his sources, and continues to argue there on the noticeboard talkpage after that section was closed by other editors. Nevertheless, Eric Corbett is blamed by Knowledgekid87 for her behavior, because he mentioned Donner Party.<p>Anyone following GGTF, which is a political advocacy task force, and seeing some of what has resulted from discussions there (recent ANI's and article disruptions like on ]) and others, can't help but wonder. I'm a female as I've said before, but I'm afraid to say that I might support Eric Corbett's remark, although I think the remark was ill-advised because of the PC atmosphere on wiki; it seems that no female editor (though I've been hassled by some of those same female editors), can be criticised by those perceived as males. There's a chill in the community, and even admins seem fearful. Really, just using the term "militant feminist" is sanctionable? (anonymous says above: " it does appear he has other editors in mind"). After what he endured just yesterday from a "friend" of Lightbreather, an editor who filed for a ds sanction against Eric Corbett just days after Lightbreather successfully did, I can understand his remark as he is a human. There are many, many females on this project who abhor what's going on at GGTF and the targeting Eric Corbett.<p>The "cunt" remark, brought up above, occurred last fall but is still being brought up repeatedly to tarnish him, spread around by those same (female) editors, repeated verbatim over and over again by Lightbreater who claimed it was a personal attack against her. (And there clearly is a cultural difference in the way that word is used.) ] (]) 01:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
*Agree with {{u|Capeo}} and {{u|Black Kite}} that "militant feminism" is essentially a political remark, not a personal attack as we typically think of one, directed at an editor who pushes a POV whether it's GGTF-type attention-getting dustups, or gun control articles.
*Agree with {{u|John Carter}}. "Political descriptions and biological descriptions are not the same thing". There are problems in defining what is a gender-related offense. One point of a political view shouldn't be stifled.
*{{reply to|Knowledgekid87}}, "militant feminist" isn't a gender-based term, as both males and females can be extremist on this subject.

====Statement by Drmies====
To those who think that they're doing anyone a favor by starting an arbitration request hoping to see someone get kicked in the balls, why don't you just make up your mind and be consistent? If you think Eric is a troll, then don't feed him. Let it go. Here's yet another manufactured controversy. Just move on. There's plenty of people who make stupid remarks all the time, no need to make a fuss. I think the "militant feminists" remark was foolish, and I think that the ANI thread started by someone was foolish, and I think some of the remarks made by someone else that started an ANI thread were foolish. Motes and beams, pots and kettles. Eric, be careful lest you fart with the wind from the wrong direction. ] (]) 22:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Hal_peridol====
@Capeo, J3Mrs - what about if rather than "militant feminists", someone had said, "Isn't it about time that these misogynists were dealt with once and for all?" - we probably would be having this conversation. And it is possible that some people would see it as a statement of fact.] (]) 23:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by John Carter====
I agree with Black Kite below in thinking that "militant feminist" is more of a statement of someone's political or social positions than a description of gender, and thus possibly outside the scope of the existing sanctions. In fact, there are, at least some, biological male "feminists", from what I remember seeing in some sources. On that basis, I would have to say that while this may well be not unreasonably seen as being an attempt to determine just how far Eric can go in using comments which are not necessarily gender-specific or insulting, it is also, at least in the eyes of some, an at least potentially gender-neutral term and not-necessarily-judgmental term, and on that basis I have difficulty seeing how it necessarily relates to the "gender gap." Political descriptions and biological descriptions are not the same thing, and it is not reasonable to believe that someone who may have opinions regarding the political or social positions of others with whom (s)he may not share the same ethnicity or gender is necessarily disparaging either an ethnicity or gender when that person is making a comment which specifically relates only to one ideological group within that broader community. I would think that maybe simply advising Eric that these comments are unacceptable and considered violations of the existing sanctions might be enough. That is, if they are violations, which I actually personally think they aren't, because "extremism" of all sorts exists, and it isn't insulting to describe such people by such terms. ] (]) 01:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:I tend to agree with Johnuniq below that a comment made at ANI is both (1) on a page allegedly open to ''everyone,'' to which one does not have to be "invited" in any way but allegedly should be free to comment freely, and (2) that it is a place where the level of decorum is often sub par, but that there have been to my knowledge anyway few if any sanctions imposed to date on comments there. I am unaware that we have ever had people sanctioned for comments specifically at ANI in the past, but I tend to think that if there have been such cases they will likely have been few and far between. I am welcome to any input anyone might have regarding previous sanctions for comments there however.
:Also, and this may be a first here, I think I may agree with Giano below on this topic. It is very, very hard to not get the impression that there are perhaps a largish group of editors who make a point of reviewing each and every character Eric types around here for the express purpose of finding a reason to sanction him. There are a few terms for that: ] and ] come to mind. I sincerely doubt anyone would be able to stand up very well knowing that there are individuals who seem to be, at least in part, dedicated to finding a pretext to sanction them almost before all else, and I cannot but think that few if any of us would necessarily behave well under those circumstances. Taking everything into account, I would tend to think that the best option here would be a trout slap to the stalkers, a warning to Eric about whether using what are seemingly reasonably well-recognized academic terms, like "radical feminists," are terms he can no longer use or not (and I do not think that is called for here), and maybe urge the stalkers to find something more acceptable as per ] to do than to place every character Eric types under a microscope. ] (]) 16:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by BoboMeowCat====
I initially was not going to contribute here because although I suspect Eric's comment was technically a violation, he doesn't even seem to be the worst offender here with respect to the battleground disruption, and it seems like this is a case of going after the weakest link considering Eric is more vulnerable due to past sanctions. However, I decided to chime in here to second {{U|EvergreenFir}}'s observations regarding the inappropriateness of {{U|Black Kite}}'s below suggestion that some admin should have the balls (or female equivalent) to act {{em|unilaterally}} to remove Lightbreater from Misplaced Pages. Very inappropriate. I do not think such an action would have community support as in it would not be supported at ANI. I would actually be similarly disgusted if an admin were encouraging someone to take unilateral action to remove Eric Corbett. --] (]) 04:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

:{{ping|Intothatdarkness}} Your comment seems to go beyond Lightbreather and Eric Corbett, so my reply does too. To me it seems your argument basically amounts to: "she's annoying, so therefore she made me follow her around and insult her/bully her". That seems counterproductive to the encyclopedia. I mean, if someone is being a nuisance on your talk page, ban them from your talk page, and if they won't respect that then take them to ANI. If they are hounding you, it seems there should be documentation of that. Aren't there admin tools to track edits to see who is following who around? I think it might be helpful at this point if those tools were used and applied to all of the various participants here, to have some actual evidence regarding who is following who around. On GGTF, it appears LB is the one being hounded because she appears to have genuine interest in gender issues and reducing the gender gap etc, while others who do not show up there to argue with her. Could someone provide some actual data using those interaction tools to see who (if anyone) among the various participants is ]? --] (]) 17:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::{{ping|Intothatdarkness}} My observations were basically based on what appears to be wikihounding on GGTF, which I've noticed going with respect to various participants for a while (notably not from Eric Corbett). I don't recall ever seeing you participate over there, so would not really expect you to be aware of this. Again, I wish some admin would analyze the interactions of various participants so we have actual data on this. --] (]) 18:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Giano====

Here's some extracts From Eric's talk page yesterday , posted by an agitated Rationalobserver, who was furious that Eric had politely declined to collaborate with her:

*''"(EC) Honestly, I feel sorry for you. It must be an unpleasant existence for a grown man to consistently act so immature and mean-spirited. You've bought into your own Wiki-myth, which is based in reality but greatly exaggerated. If you are really so great, why won't a publisher pay you to write something? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)"''

*''"You seem to resent Misplaced Pages so much that I assumed you were unemployed, because if you were being paid to write stuff like Bile Beans, I would think you'd do that versus giving away your work for free. I'll bet that if you wrote that article under a new account that nobody knew was you, you'd be surprised and disappointed at the reception you might receive from the same people who praise your work now. "Eric Corbett" is a Wiki-brand, but in a blind test I'm not convinced you'd get the same level of support. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)"''

*''"The attacks are far too petty to have validity, that's why I feel sorry for him. Adults behaving like immature teenagers is pathetic and sad. And no happy person would act this terrible on a regular basis. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)"''

So where were all you Admins and editors so obsessed with civility and nice, pretty behaviour yesterday when Rationalobserver was trolling him? Perhaps you feel being nice and polite is only obligatory to men, and women are exempt from the rules? It seems very obvious to me that a group of what appear to be militant feminists and their hangers-on have had a target pinned to Eric's back by an Arbcom who clearly hasn't a clue or more likely driven on by a man-hater in its midst. Where's this going to end I wonder - these females and their attendants clearly want Eric off the project and some Admins and Arbs seem to be only too happy to be manipulated into that opinion.That's very concerning. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 08:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::*@ ]. Yes, I had noticed your block of Rationalobserver, and I was jolly pleased to see it, not so much for her rudeness, but the blatant trolling and provocation. My point, however, was that none of the well known members of the civility police (of which you are not a member) saw anything wrong in RO's behaviour. I find it impossible to believe that not one of them, or one of the militant females, has Eric on their watchlist. This is just gross hypocrisy as is this current attempt to have Eric blocked. It looks to me like we are about to enter a very militant battle zone, a battle zone of the Arbcom's deliberate making. I wonder who's going to win and how many will fall in the process. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 11:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Sitush====
Anyone who doesn't think there are militant feminists disrupting this project, just as there are caste warriors and nationalists etc, needs their eyes testing. As a political descriptor, the term can be applied to men as well as to women and its scope extends well beyond the supposed purpose of the GGTF. If people here are to be prevented from calling a spade a spade, and instead are expected to soften things to the point of banality in order not to cause alleged offence etc, then we may as well shut up shop and go home: it is asking too much of human nature and putting too much power in the hands of the politicians. - ] (]) 08:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

{{ping|BoboMeowCat}} I don't think Eric has been on the GGTF talk page since before the ArbCom case concluded, so your point is probably not relevant to this request. However, if you were to conduct such an analysis I do hope that you distinguish between hounding and legitimate criticism - they are not synonymous. - ] (]) 18:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Johnuniq====
Eric's comment was at ANI where it is standard practice to speak bluntly about other editors and to suggest that other editors be removed from the project. The comment has no shouting, swearing, insulting, or belittling. Harej is reading far too much into the Arbcom remedy. ] (]) 09:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Ddstretch====

{{ping|Giano}} Quite independently of this appeal for enforcement, here, I had taken ] to task for her offensive comments on Eric Corbett's talk page. As a result of her thinking nothing she had written was in any way wrong, and given that she had subsequently been given a warning by {{ping|:Drmies}} for being offensive on his/her talk page, I have blocked Rationalobserver for two weeks and suggested that if she wishes to be unblocked she considers carefully her behaviour and gives an undertaking to not be so offensive in future. I blocked because the disruption caused by her was very likely to continue given that she claimed she had done nothing wrong, when clearly she had. ]&nbsp;] 09:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(Added later): I might add that {{ping|EChastain}} has also covered, rather extensively, the same ground that I covered in determining what to do about Rationalobserver. My action to block happened now because I am in China, time differences and real life meant I could not act until now. ]&nbsp;] 09:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

{{ping|Chillum}} I rather read Eric Corbett's comment as a joke. He clearly cannot sock as an admin, and the joke would fit in with his view of this process as being a bit laughable, like a few others do, here. ]&nbsp;] 09:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: it may be weird to you, but I think it is quite in character, and, indeed, I laughed out loud and would like to steal it for any future use (possibly modified) myself. I think it just goes to show that cultural sensitivity is needed: it appears that Eric Corbett and myself come from similar parts of the UK, which is why I can immediately appreciate the humour (also recent comments by ClemRutter apply)

Also, I have to say that this edit , by you, Knowledgekid87, doesn't help and merely stirs up the drama more. You would be well-advised to stop making such inflamatory and plainly wrong comments about some who has been rightly blocked. Your insinuation here: " circle of editors here on Misplaced Pages who defend each other like crazy. Your mistake was going to Drmies for help, if you look at Corbett's talkpage history you will know why. Anyways I hope you come back after all of this I cant say I blame you though if you want to call it quits. I believe you are innocent here, you asked for help on Eric's talkpage and while Eric did turn down your offer Montana made things worse by ganging up on you." is insulting and offensive to a number of editors. I am taking action against you as a result of this.

====Statement by ClemRutter====
I am getting increasing bored with this continual harrassment of Malleus. Consistently, he has been unqualifiedly helpful to newbies, and provided a string of FAs that one can refer to for inspiration. Nit-picking comments by a small group of editors who seem detemined to play wikilawyer with flawed policy and text. So what have they found this week-- absolutely nothing, so they make up a new offence. It appears that the nineteen sixties term 'militant-feminist'is no longer a description but an insult. Tosh.

Looking at ]- there appears to be one glaring ommission. (c) Indirect rudeness- by not respecting an editors register of speech, racial, class or regional variety of English. Eric is an outstanding academic who in his ' professional register' will use terms precisely with well defined meaning. Eric obviously uses that register when discussing professional matters with colleages. It is grossly uncivil to try and wikiwonk a phrase out of that register. Within the professional register in the North of England, one relies heavily on humour: not to accept that is to show you don't understand the culture- and are ready to belittle it. That is indirect rudeness.

The accusation is plainly malicious. I don't understand why this harrassment is not picked up- why we have serious administrators that fall to look at these weekly attacks from a wider perspective. Next week couldn't the admins just block the accuser for eight days to send a message. The serial accusers/abusers could be required to make a nominal 500 edits to main space before being unlocked to make accusations. Admins can protect a page, so how about extending that and allowing them to protect the user. -- <span class="vcard"><span class="fn nickname">]</span> (])</span> 13:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Moxy====

It's time for the community to look at who is causing all theses problems and solve it. Odd always the same people that just dont have the right skills to collaborate here. -- ] (]) 15:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by AnonNep====
@Drmies - ''"If you think Eric is a troll, then don't feed him."'' No-one 'fed the troll', Eric chimed in on a discussion where he wasn't mentioned, in which the Arb case may be applicable. Where is the baiting?

@Hal_peridol - ''"what about if rather than "militant feminists", someone had said, "Isn't it about time that these misogynists were dealt with once and for all?"'' If someone with a history with Eric, with similar Arb case finding against them, chose to comment like that on a discussion in which they weren't mentioned, wouldn't there be a substantial ban? ] (]) 16:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Intothatdarkness - ''"Their constant use of innocent victim status when challenged or questioned regarding their conduct also runs counter to the ideal of collegial behavior (it fosters a chilling effect on discussions and an exclusionary mindset), yet it is conduct that continues to be tolerated and even encouraged by many."'' That makes sense, but, despite constant warnings, a history so relevant that others have raised it (above, which includes Arb prohibitions), Eric still entered a discussion where he is ''not mentioned'', and makes that comment. And in your analysis Eric is the victim? ] (]) 18:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Intothatdarkness====
On the whole I attempt to avoid these boards and discussions, but I find this case an interesting example highlighting an issue Misplaced Pages seems unable to address - how to deal with passive-aggressive incivility and behavior (conduct which, by the way, is independent of gender). Was Eric's comment unacceptable? Likely yes. But is the continual passive-aggressive behavior and conduct of many who continually bring these issues here acceptable? One would hope not, but apparently they are. Many of those mentioned here (RationalObserver, Knowledgekid87, and Lightbreather) have a pattern of passive-aggressive accusations, forum shopping, and superficially polite badgering designed to further their views. Their constant use of innocent victim status when challenged or questioned regarding their conduct also runs counter to the ideal of collegial behavior (it fosters a chilling effect on discussions and an exclusionary mindset), yet it is conduct that continues to be tolerated and even encouraged by many. Eric is prone to ill-advised comments, and in this case he certainly made one. But I find the root conduct of others in this incident far more disturbing. ]] 16:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)\
:{{ping|BoboMeowCat}} My comment is based on the fact that I don't see the sort of bullying you do. What I see is behavior calculated to generate a result that can then be spun as bullying. Obviously we all have different perspectives. ]] 17:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

===Result concerning Eric Corbett===
:''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.''
*{{ec}} (commenting as an uninvolved admin, not as an arbcom member) I'm not certain that that comment is clearly related to the GGTF, it could be directed at LB and/or HIAB personally. However if that is the case, I'd say that was a breach of his prohibition against "shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors." ("militant feminists" seems intended to be a disparaging and/or insulting epithet). All in all definitely not a well advised comment and I think at least a warning that anything else of this nature <I>will</I> be treated as a breach of the ban is deserved here. ] (]) 19:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
*I also think that this was, at best, an ill-advised comment. --] (] • ]) 20:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
*I have defended Eric in the past, however I cannot interpret characterizing another editor as a {{tq|militant feminists}} as anything other than a violation of {{tq|Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors}}. I feel that Eric is intentionally testing the limits of their restrictions and I would say that the result of this test should be a block. ] 21:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:*Given comment which I can only imagine is meant to intimidate us I would suggest that the block not be less than 1 week. ] 06:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
*It appears to me that Eric was not prompted to participate in this discussion; he chose to do so on his own. That participation involved the characterization of an involved editor and unspecified others as "militant feminists." Eric could have made a concrete proposal, provide evidence, or offer something else constructive given his opinion, but did not in this situation. I agree that this behavior was not only ill-advised but is in violation of the ban as an attempt to belittle or insult other editors. ]] 22:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
*Violation of sanctions. Perfectly skilled with prose and semantics, either Eric is testing the limits of his restrictions, per {{U|Chillum}}, or such unprovoked disparaging remarks have become a habit (or even a reflex) over the years. I believe it is highly probable that Eric will continue to test his topic ban(s) or comment before he realises what he is doing. Only incremental blocking per the AE is going to address the problem. The last block under the AE was 48 hours, the next block should be longer. --] (]) 23:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
*This is a clear violation of his sanctions and he knows it. I suggest at least a 1 week block to deter future behavior like this. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; ] // ] // ] // </small> 00:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
*Technically a violation? Who knows. I'd argue that mentioning someone's politics is ''not'' a violation of the sanction (which simply mentions gender disparity). Of course, if any uninvolved admin had the bollocks (<small>or the female equivalent) </small>to simply remove ] from the encyclopedia completely, neither this, nor multiple other wastes of everyone's fucking time would continue to appear. ] 00:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
**Yep, involved. ] (]) 04:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
* Regardless of whether or not he was referring specifically to GGTF, saying it is time to "do something" about "militant feminists" is an indecorous way to talk about your editorial adversaries. This is an encyclopedia, not the pub. It is a collaborative encyclopedia; we are expected as a matter of principle and policy to treat each other respectfully. It is insulting and belittling to the volunteers who contribute to Misplaced Pages, and no Wikipedian editing the site on his or her free time should expect to put up with this kind of behavior. It is my opinion as an administrator that he has violated Sanction 3.3, "prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors"—it does not say the editors have to be GGTF-related. He has already been blocked for 48 hours for violating this sanction; the sanction recommends 72 hours for the first two infractions. I support a 72 hour block at minimum. ] (]) 05:07, 27 February 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. --> <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
-->

Latest revision as of 19:08, 11 January 2025

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

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

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

    • 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.
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
    Information for administrators processing requests

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

    A couple of reminders:

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

    Closing a thread:

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

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

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

    PerspicazHistorian

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

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

    Request concerning PerspicazHistorian

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

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


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

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

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


    Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian

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

    Statement by PerspicazHistorian

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

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

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

    Statement by LukeEmily

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

    Statement by Doug Weller

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

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

    Statement by Toddy1

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

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

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

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

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

    Statement by Capitals00

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

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

    Statement by Vanamonde93

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

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

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

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

    Statement by UtherSRG

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

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

    Result concerning PerspicazHistorian

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

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

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

    References

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

    LaylaCares

    There is consensus to remove LaylaCares's EC flag. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning LaylaCares

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    LaylaCares (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/ARBPIA
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 13:54, December 17, 2024 EC gaming


    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

    Pretty obvious case of EC gaming. Account created on Nov 17, 2024, then about 500 mostly minor edits followed by the first substantial edit ever was the creation of this article on Dec 17 (subsequently moved to draftspace).VR (Please ping on reply) 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning LaylaCares

    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 LaylaCares

    Statement by Aquillion

    Question: Assuming it's determined that they gamed the extended-confirmed restriction, would the page they created be WP:G5-able? I've asked the relevant question in more detail on the CSD talk page, since it is likely to come up again as long as we have such a broad restriction on effect, but I figured it was worth mentioning the issue here as well. --Aquillion (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Dan Murphy

    Please look at Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations, written by the account under discussion. It's a hit job, originally placed in mainspace by this account. Anyone who wrote that shouldn't be allowed with 1 million miles of the topic.Dan Murphy (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by starship.paint

    I've edited Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations, so Dan Murphy's link is inaccurate for the purposes of this discussion. For the version of Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations with content only written by LaylaCares, click this link. starship.paint (talk / cont) 10:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning LaylaCares

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I agree that this looks like EC-gaming. Absent evidence that the edits themselves were problematic, I would either TBAN from ARBPIA or pull the EC flag until the user has made 500 edits that aren't rapidfire possibly LLM-assisted gnomish edits. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I agree on the gaming piece and would suggest mainspace edits+time for restoration of EC. I will throw out 3 months + 500 (substantive) main space edits. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I agree with Barkeep but I'd up it to 4 months. I don't believe that a TBAN is necessary at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    • @Aquillion: I agree that the draft should be G5'd, but will wait for consensus to develop here. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      I don't think the wording of WP:ECR allows for deletion of a page that was created by an EC user. (ECR also seems to forget that anything other than articles and talkpages exists, but I think the most reasonable reading of provision A still allows for G5ing drafts at admins' discretion if the criteria are met.) That said, a consensus at AE can delete a page as a "reasonable measure that necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project". Deleting under that provision is not something to be done lightly, but I think for a case where a page's existence violates the spirit of an ArbCom restriction but not the letter, it'd be a fair time to do it. And/or this could make for a good ARCA question, probably after PIA5 wraps. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I would just pull EC and require the editor to apply via AE appeal for its restoration. They should be very clearly aware that receiving such restoration will require both substantial time and making real, substantive edits outside the area, as well as an understanding of what is expected of editors working in a CTOP area. Seraphimblade 01:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I see a clear consensus here to remove the EC flag. For clarity, when I proposed a TBAN above it was because removing this flag is an ARBPIA TBAN as long as the ECR remedy remains in place; it's simply a question of whether the editor get the other privileges of EC or not. I don't see a consensus on what to do with the draft, but given that other editors have now made substantive contributions to it, I don't believe it's a good use of AE time to discuss the hypothetical further. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    AstroGuy0

    AstroGuy0 has been issued a warning for source misrepresentation by Voorts. No other reviewers have expressed any wish for further action. Seraphimblade 06:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning AstroGuy0

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    AstroGuy0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/Race and intelligence

    (Even though this isn't the usual R&I fare, I consider the intersection of "Race/ethnicity and sex offending", to come under "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour")

    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 03:19, 4 January 2025 Asserts that "A majority of the perpetrators were Pakistani men" despite the cited source (freely accessible at ) does not mention the word "Pakistani" or any variant once.
    2. 01:40, 4 January 2025 Describes the sex offender ring as "Pakistani" in the opening sentence when the cited source in the body says that they were only "mainly Pakistani"
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    Made aware of contentious topics criterion: 01:52, 4 January 2025
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint:

    This new user seems intent on POVPUSHING regarding "Asian/Muslim grooming gangs" and making contentious claims that are not backed up by sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discussion concerning AstroGuy0

    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 AstroGuy0

    Statement by Iskandar323

    This rather dated "Asian/Muslim grooming gangs" malarkey from the UK has recently been pushed on social media by a certain US tech billionaire and is now recirculating in right-wing social media and the blogosphere, partly in connection with UK politics, so this trend could flare before it dims. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning AstroGuy0

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    The second diff was before AG0 received a CTOP alert. I've alerted AG0 to other CTOPs that they've edited in, and I am going to warn them for their conduct in diff #1 without prejudice to other admins determining that further action is warranted. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I also looked at the source, and it indeed does not in any way support the claim made; it does not mention "Pakistani" even once. This is a fairly new editor, but I think we need to make it very clear to them that misrepresentation of sources is not something we will tolerate. Seraphimblade 04:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Given that AstroGuy0 has already been issued a warning, I don't think anything further is necessary, and will close as such unless any uninvolved admin shortly objects. Seraphimblade 18:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Lemabeta

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

    Request concerning Lemabeta

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

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


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


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

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

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

    Here

    Discussion concerning Lemabeta

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

    Statement by Lemabeta

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

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Lemabeta

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

    GokuEltit

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

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

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

    Boy shekhar

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

    Request concerning Boy shekhar

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Daniel Quinlan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Boy shekhar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    • This edit violates the topic ban because it is in the topic area. It's also based on an unreliable source and the section header includes a derogatory term.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Boy shekhar

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

    Statement by Boy shekhar

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Boy shekhar

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

    שלומית ליר

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

    Request concerning שלומית ליר

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Discussion concerning שלומית ליר

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

    Statement by שלומית ליר

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning שלומית ליר

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