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

Revision as of 19:17, 27 February 2015 editDrmies (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators406,257 edits →Result concerning MarkBernstein: r← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 05:12, 24 December 2024 edit undoTiggerjay (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,882 editsm →Tinynanorobots: moving to appropriate section. comments do not follow in-line like they do in other places.
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}{{Redirect|WP:AE|the automated editing program|Misplaced Pages:AutoEd}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude>		<noinclude> {{pp-move-indef}}
			{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}}
	<includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly>
			__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!--
	<noinclude>{{editabuselinks|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}
			--><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly>
	</noinclude>
			<noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!--
	{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
	|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}		|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
			|counter =346
	|maxarchivesize = 200K
	|counter = 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}}
	}}
			==Entropyandvodka==
	{{clear}}
			{{hat
			| result = No action. ] (]) 23:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
			===Request concerning Entropyandvodka===
	==Astynax==
			; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Safrolic}} 16:49, 6 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|Entropyandvodka}}<p>{{ds/log|Entropyandvodka}}</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:
			Between Oct 6 and 7th, 2023, this user made over 500 edits changing short descriptions. , A majority of the edits were on Oct 6th, about 325 by my very rough count. They stopped their edit chain a few minutes after getting EC on the 6th, then did a couple hundred more on the 7th. , They had never made this kind of edit before, and they've only made a few edits of this type ever since, all on one P-I article this spring. They now have over 1,400 edits. Since then they have focused almost entirely on the PIA space, but have dedicated some time to the invasion of Ukraine. In the Russian invasion space, they've concerned themselves with making sure that a pro-Russian narrative is represented. They appear in {{User|Billedmammal}}'s , which shows their edits as being 100% in PIA for the remainder of 2023 and 75% PIA for 2024. I sought input from before making this report, because I see deeper implications from a gaming run for PIA on Oct 6th 2023.
	; ] 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. -->
	# 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
	# Reverting without addressing issues raised, disregarding bold/discuss revert, then reverting again
	# Argumentative and tendentious, again disregarding bold/discuss/revert
	# Mass revert of mutiple edits to reinstate contentious version of 30 January
			I have not interacted with this user, beyond notifying them of this report.
	;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 given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|SeraphimBlade}}.
	*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.		*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above).
			*Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on (same incident as the warning).
	*Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on
	; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :		; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
	<!-- 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).
			Re: Liz's comment, I was unsure whether this was stale given that their further edits would put them over EC by now, though likely not without counting the PIA-related edits. This was why I asked SFR on his talk page first, who advised me that there likely wasn't a stale period for permission gaming. I haven't tried to assess recent content or conduct beyond a brief look at the Russia/Ukraine related edits. ] (]) 21:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
	; 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. -->
	<!-- 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. -->
	==== Response to Cailil on policy based reason for removal of original edit ====
	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===		===Discussion concerning Entropyandvodka===
	<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 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)
	====Statement by Tgeairn====		====Statement by Entropyandvodka====
	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.
	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
	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)
	====Statement by ]====
	<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
	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)
	====Statement by DaveApter====
	(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 ].
	{{U|Astynax}}'s behaviour since the case has been exactly the same as it was before:
	*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)
	=====In response to questions raised by Cailil=====
	I can understand that readers coming newly to this may well find it confusing; I will do my best to shed some light.
	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.
	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 ].
	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.
	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).
	It's late here and this will have to do for now; I may add some more tomorrow. ] (]) 22:41, 25 February 2015 (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 (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 Astynax===		===Result concerning Entropyandvodka===
	:''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. -->
			*Since this editor now has about 1400 edits, if those edits had been gaming, they would be EC by now without them. I'm not sure how we assess possible gaming from over a year ago. Are there recent edits that concern you? I'd like to see what admins who frequent ARE think about this case. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
	*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)
			*As Liz said, they'd be well over EC by now anyway. I'm really not inclined to go over stuff dredged up from a year ago unless there's been actual misconduct since then (and then it would be the more recent misconduct that would concern me). It evidently wasn't enough of a concern for anyone to raise in a timely fashion. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I said on my talk page that I didn't really think that gaming could be stale, but I'm also interested in if there has been disruptive editing. ] (]) 14:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Without further evidence of disruptive editing I will be closing this as no action taken. ] (]) 12:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I don't think there's a bright-line rule in this area, but the combination of "over a year ago" and "hundreds of subsequent edits" is enough for me to support closing without action, which I will do momentarily. ] (]) 23:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{hab}}
			==xDanielx==
	*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)
			{{hat|result=xDanielx is subject to the ] on content within the scope of ]. ] (]) 17:16, 23 December 2024 (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)
			<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
			===Request concerning xDanielx===
	==Spudst3r==
			; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Selfstudier}} 11:30, 8 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|xDanielx}}<p>{{ds/log|xDanielx}}</p>
	===Request concerning Spudst3r===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Sonicyouth86}} 15:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
			<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Spudst3r}}<p>{{ds/log|Spudst3r}}
			;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
	;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}}
			<!--- 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 :
			Material was originally added and
	{{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)}}
	#: original research, doesn't mention sexual assault statistics (relevant passage on p. 33, second paragraph)
	#: adds unsourced material and original research, passage "feminist organizations ridiculing, ignoring and having perceived gender biases" unsupported by (p. 431, right column)
	#: original research, doesn't discuss the men's rights movement (MRM)
	#: revert, restores original research, disregarding active talk page discussion
	#: 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"
	{{cob}}
	#: revert, restores original research (source doesn't discuss the MRM)
	#: revert, restores original research again
	# : tendentious ] arguments
	#: baseless accusations ("small cadre of editors fighting against any sources content that portrays the "men's rights movement" in innocuous language")
	#: 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
	#: 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)
	#: 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
			Removed by reported editor on ,
			and
			with the last revert coming .
	;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 ]):
	Alert about discretionary sanctions in the men's rights topic area in the last twelve months, on
	; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :		; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
			Experienced ex admin who should know better.
	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.
			:{{Re|Fiveby}} It's for the PIA case as reported editor is not a named party. Both AE and Arbcom prefer not to deal with content issues. ] (]) 10:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{Re|Fiveby}} I did not add the content nor have I edit warred over it. Obviously there are 3 editors who don't share your view while I have not as yet made up my mind, there is an ongoing RSN discussion now, and I will communicate my thoughts on the content there or possibly in an RFC if it ends up as that.] (]) 16:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	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 :		; 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 Spudst3r===		===Discussion concerning xDanielX===
	<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>		<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====
			====Statement by xDanielX====
	'''Opening Remarks'''
			I don't think the "explicit warning" by Selfstudier ({{tq|Last time, RFC or RSN else AE}}) was appropriate; it seems like the sort of intimidation that ] prohibits. The idea of adjusting my editing based on intimidation by a highly involved non-admin didn't feel right.
	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
			Under the conventional view that removing old content generally doesn't constitute a revert, I made two reverts here, with a lot of discussion in between (], ], ], and this ]). My second revert was undoing what seemed like a <del>reflexive tag-team</del> , by a user who didn't join the discussion even after I pinged them asking for an explanation.
	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 ].''
			I normally revert very selectively - looking at my past 500 edits, there are only five reverts (at least obvious ones), with only these two being controversial. If I was a bit aggressive here, it was because the material violated our policies in a particularly blatant and severe manner.
	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 ].
			The estimate in question falls under ] since it's based on a novel methodology, and it fails that standard due to a lack of vetting by the relevant scholarly community (public health). The closest we have is this by an anthropologist, which includes the estimate but doesn't discuss whether the methodology is valid. The paper also appears to have no citations, and the group that published it doesn't appear to have any real scholarly vetting process.
	'''A Few General comments:'''
	*Being a SPA is not an offence. (Not that I think I am a SPA.)
			The claim is also a highly ] one. Health officials reported starvations (as of Sep 16), which is quite different from the 62,413 (as of Sep 30) estimate. To me pushing to include such an extraordinary claim in wikivoice, with sources that clearly fall short of our relevant policies, indicates either POV pushing or a competence issue. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 18:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
	*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.
			{{collapse top|title=Responses to M.Bitton}}
	*I strongly dispute that I have been malicious, tendentious, acting in bad faith or against Misplaced Pages's standards of conduct.
			{{yo|M.Bitton}} removals of old material are not the spirit of edit warring, and in practice are generally not understood as reverts, even if they appear to meet the literal definition. Some recent discussions on this were ] and ].
			I believe you misread the (confusing) history a bit; I don't see any restoration by Cdjp1. A related by Bogazicili had the effect of moving some footnote content, including a second instance of the 62,413 figure which I had initially missed, into the infobox. I hadn't understood this as an objection to my removal, since the edit summary conveyed a different purpose.
	*Contributions do not have ].
			It didn't occur to me that you might not have seen my ping. I'll strike that remark, but I still feel that reverting an extensively discussed change with only {{tq|there is no valid reason to remove this}} leaves something to be desired. I see that you've now the discussion, but still without substantive engagement; merely stating that you're unconvinced doesn't help to move the discussion forward. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 04:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	*] is ''not'' official Misplaced Pages policy.
			{{yo|M.Bitton}} okay I missed that footnote change, but I think the point stands that neither change clearly conveyed an objection to the idea of removing the estimate from the infobox. If there was such an objection, I would have expected it to be noted in an summary or the discussion thread. And please assume good faith. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 04:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	* Disagreement =! tendentious. Tendentious ccusations need to be backed with ''why'' my edit or comment is tendentious. Simply stating it is not enough.
			{{yo|M.Bitton}} {{tq|there is no valid reason to remove this}} isn't really an explanation. I still have no idea what you disagree with and why. Is your position that the Watson paper is vetted scholarship, or that ] doesn't apply, or something else? While this isn't the place, it would be good if you could explain your position in one of the relevant discussions. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 20:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''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.
			{{collapse bottom}}
			{{yo|Valereee}} I would argue that EW enforcement should account for factors like scale, engagement in discussions, timing, policy support, consensus, and broader patterns of user behavior.
	*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.'''
			* Scale: I thought I had made two reverts. Maybe there's an argument that it was really three, but I wasn't aware of it.
			* Engagement: I discussed very substantively (], ]), and ] to get more input.
			* Timing: I thought the discussion seemed to have settled. Noone appeared to be continuing to defend the content in a substantive manner, so I felt more justified in removing it. The latest points like ] didn't receive a response (besides {{tq|Still disagree}}).
			* Consensus: the local consensus appeared to be leaning toward at least requiring attribution (as we do in the body which I didn't remove). There's also just a very clear ] against including unvetted ] (no peer review, citations, etc) in wikivoice.
			* Patterns of behavior: these were my only controversial reverts in recent memory (at least looking at 500 edits).
			If I could rewind, I would at least give it extra time to make sure that the discussion had settled, and maybe leave it to someone else to enact the result. However, I think if this were to be considered actionable edit warring, then nearly all active editors in the topic area would be guilty of it. Even in this same dispute, a different user just made their , with less engagement and so on. I would argue that the with no explanation might actually be the most problematic EW here, although I don't believe there's a consensus on whether single reverts are technically considered EW (there have been some inconclusive discussions on that). — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 17:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	*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.
			{{yo|Ealdgyth}} understood, though I think you mean EW broadly rather than 1RR? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 19:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	*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.
			I'm receiving the message that the factors I mentioned aren't good enough, but would still appreciate input on what acceptable participation in an edit war could look like. Maybe the answer is that there is none, but that would seem to depart from convention as I understood it, and possibly lead to a lot more formal RfCs. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 19:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{yo|Valereee}} understood, but I think a strict/literal reading of EW would capture a lot of activity that's accepted in practice. It seems like in the absence of brightline violations, more subtle distinctions are drawn between acceptable and unacceptable forms of EW. I thought that I was on the right side of this distinction, per my remarks above, but maybe my understanding of it was off base. I can understand a warning here, but it would be more effective with more specific guidance on what to avoid. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 22:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	'''Response to Specific Accusations'''
			: {{yo|Valereee}} it looks I'm already past 500 words, is it okay to continue? Very briefly, I was trying to get at the idea that there seem to be certain informal customs limiting when EW should be enforced, going beyond the formal ] exceptions. If the policy were to be enforced to the letter, there would seem to be a vast number of violations; this same dispute contained at least a second ( ) and possibly a third. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 04:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
	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:
			{{yo|Valereee}}: I was ideally hoping for some clarifications, i.e.
	'''Example 1 & 2''':
			# A couple comments here made me wonder if this was being (mis)interpreted as a 1RR violation. Are we on the same page that this is a non-brightline instance of EW?
	*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 ].
			# Is the intention to enforce EW to the letter, irrespective of factors (outside of ]) like engagement in discussions?
			# Is there a reason for the focus on my involvement and not say (from the same edit war)? Maybe there are good reasons for it, I just want to understand.
			If this needs to be wrapped up soon, I can commit to following ] to the letter to be safe, unless or until a different line is clarified. I might start a ] discussion afterward to clarify whether there's community support for enforcing ] the letter. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 01:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	'''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.
			I'm a bit puzzled by the admin discussion. It seems like there are two concerns,
	'''Example 4''':
			# That I'm not entirely clear on where the line is. I've acknowledged this, and that's why I've asked for some clarifications in my last five comments, but I haven't really received the clarity I was hoping for.
	* 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.''"''
			# That I'm continuing to justify the edits (as I did initially). This seems like an uncharitable reading of my past several comments; asking for clarity on where the line is isn't an argument that my edits were on the right side of it.
			I ''think'' the implied message I'm getting is along the lines of "it's best to follow EW to the letter, irrespective of any other factors", which would be a clear line that I can follow. It's just frustrating that this hasn't been spelled out very clearly, and my questions seem to have been interpreted as something other than sincere requests for such guidance. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{yo|Valereee}} thank you, that is pretty clear and I can commit to that. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 16:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	'''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...
			====Statement by M.Bitton====
	'''Example 6''' {{tq|partial misquote of source ("believe female privilege and male degradation is system within society"}} and Example 7: {{tq|restores misquote }}
			{{tq|removing old content generally doesn't constitute a revert|q=yes}} old content means stable content (you know what that means).
	* ''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?)
			{{tq|I made two reverts|q=yes}} this is factually incorrect. You made 3 reverts (excluding the first content removal):
	'''Example 6 / 7''': Sonicyouth writes: {{tq|"adds statement from a source that doesn't mention the MRM"}}
			#] of stable content.
	* 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.
			#], after {{u|Stephan rostie}} restored it.
			#], after {{u|Cdjp1}} restored it.
			#], after I restored it.
			{{tq|undoing what seemed like a reflexive tag-team revert|q=yes}} casting aspersions to justify your disruptive editing is about as low as it gets.
	'''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.''
			{{tq|didn't join the discussion even after I pinged them|q=yes}} this is extremely disingenuous as it implies that I was editing something else while ignoring your notification, when in fact, you pinged me long after I logged out and I haven't edited anything since (the editing history and the diffs don't lie). Furthermore, I already made it clear in the edit summary that I disagree with your reasoning (which consists of made-up rules and demands to satisfy you with answers).
	* 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.
			The bottom line is that xDanielx is edit warring against multiple editors who disagree with them for various reasons. ] (]) 02:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	'''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}}:
			:{{re|xDanielx}}
	* 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
			:{{tq|removals of old material are not the spirit of edit warring|q=yes}} we all know what edit warring is, so please don't make-up another rule.
	'''Conclusion:'''
			:{{tq| I don't see any restoration by Cdjp1|q=yes}} <s>maybe that's because you only see what you want to see</s>. ]. Like I said, diffs don't lie.
	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.
			:{{tq|It didn't occur to me|q=yes}} that's because you assumed bad faith. You made that clear with your aspersions casting that I highlighted above.
	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)
			:For the last time, I don't need to convince you. ] (]) 04:30, 9 December 2024 (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)		:{{A note}} Instead of simply striking their aspersions, they doubled down on their bad faith assumption (see ]); and to add insult to injury, they reversed the roles and asked me to "assume good faith" (see their comment above). ] (]) 13:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{tq|the single revert with no explanation|q=yes}} xDanielx being disingenuous again (what they mean by "no explanation" is "no explanation that they agree with and that they'd rather edit war than take it to RSN or start a RfC"). Anyway, they can also argue all they want, but what they cannot do is justify what they did (edit warring, casting aspersions and assuming bad faith). ] (]) 18:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	====Statement by 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)
			:::{{tq|I don't believe there's a consensus on whether single reverts are technically considered EW|q=yes}} I hope not, because that would mean that you violated that rule three times. One thing is certain though, the 3 reverts that you made are considered EW. ] (]) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	:*@ 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)
			::::{{re|xDanielx}} quote the complete edit summary or don't bother quoting any of it. I didn't invite myself to this board to discuss content. All I'm interested in is your edit warring, your bad faith assumption and the fact that you doubled down on it after casting aspersions. ] (]) 20:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	:*@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)
			<hr>
	::*Undid premature bot archival--] <sup>]</sup> 15:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
			{{re|theleekycauldron}} Done. What about their aspersions casting and assumption of bad faith? ] (]) 16:54, 9 December 2024 (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)
			:{{re|theleekycauldron}} only when the person is not responding (i.e., they are editing something else and ignoring the other editor). I know that they struck the comment, but not without doubling down on the bad faith assumption (see above note). I covered all of this and more in my previous comments. ] (]) 23:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	====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 fiveby====
			I'm surprised that {{u|Selfstudier}} is making this report. If you're unable here to look at the article content and sources then this should go straight to the arbcom case as evidence. ](]) 03:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	====Statement by Strongjam====
			:{{re|Selfstudier}}, this is blatantly bad content. Like UFO level blatantly bad. It seems to me ] editors in some topic areas get told right off to go edit somewhere else, often harshly, quickly warned by admins, and finally sanctioned without a great deal of fuss about the thing. It seems no big deal when admins in those topic areas have some basic knowledge and apply a few research skills to start warning, topic banning, or blocking editors over content when they are otherwise following policies. {{re|Valereee}}, seems like an awfully high burden to impose on everyone here, especially when the RfC process seems to be a big part of the problem in the topic area. I could easily put the shoe on the other foot here, find some trivial bits of content: infobox, lead phrasing, or titles, complain on talk pages and then start a few RfC's. If i were to do that it seems best for WP that Selfstudier report me here for wasting everyone's time and admins here should be able to forcefully let me know that i'm just being a jerk. See ya back here when i've some idle time for ]. ](]) 16:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	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)
			::{{tq|3 editors who don't share your view...}} bad actors, not because they do not share my view but because they don't share ]. Just like all those non-EC editors flooding ] with edit requests and EC editors who've gamed the system to get there. Bad policies. Now there are two good actors and reasonable looking editors here, and more with good work and ideas targets at arbcom. I'd say better to join the edit war and remove that nonsense rather than wasting time with this. ](]) 17:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{re|Valereee}} i think there ''are'' such reasonable editors in the topic area who can work things out and are trying to work things out on talk pages with ], and good work on the real article content in the bodies. Why are they ending up here and at arbcom? I think it's due to the bad policies and the bad actors gaming them. Wastes time and frustrates everyone. ](]) 18:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	====Statement by 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)====		====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 Spudst3r===		===Result concerning xDanielX===
	:''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. -->
			* Daniel, your excuse for edit-warring seems to be that the claim is extraordinary. I totally see your point on this being an extraordinary claim; to me it seems highly dubious that 62,000 people could have died ''of starvation'' over the course of a year and it wouldn't be ongoing international front page news rather than speculation/estimation in obscure sources, with multiple mainstream RS only reporting starvation deaths in the dozens. But edit-warring isn't the answer. The answer is an RfC with notification to projects and noticeboards. It would even be fair to suggest the content be removed as dubious until the RfC closes; there's no particular urgency for WP to include such a dubious number in an infobox, which as you pointed out is similar to providing that info in Wikivoice. ] (]) 12:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	*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)
			*:@], sure, it would be better if editors at an article would just be able to work it out by saying to themselves, "Hm...yeah, that doesn't really make sense. 62,000+ people dead of ''starvation''? And no one's talking about it except some obscure unpublished research and a letter to POTUS, and both of those estimates are based on a single unproven theory? Maybe we ''should'' rethink". But it seems like the editors at the article talk who want to keep this dubious content in the infobox have dug in their heels on defending the poor sourcing and are in the majority. ] (]) 17:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	*(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)
			*::@], the exceptions to edit warring are detailed at ]. It's best to claim an exception in the edit summary. ] (]) 21:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	* 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)
			*:::@], I feel like ] is {{xt|specific guidance on what to avoid}}. What are you not understanding? What revert did you think would covered under the exemptions? ] (]) 00:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
	*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)
			*::::@], you said {{xt|I think the implied message I'm getting is along the lines of "it's best to follow EW to the letter, irrespective of any other factors", which would be a clear line that I can follow.}} So here's a clear line to follow, explicitly stated rather than implied: When reverted, go directly to the talk page, open a section, ping the editor, and discuss. Do not revert until consensus has been reached. Unless a reversion is for reasons included by 3RR exemptions, such as a BLP vio, that is best practices. Can you commit to making that your default setting? ] (]) 15:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			* So, looking at the diffs here, it seems like xDanielx removes the content once, it's reverted, removes a second time. Then someone else bundles the list into a footnote and a second person re-adds the content, which xDanielx doesn't recognize as a readdition and thinks that they forgot to remove the same content somewhere else, gets reverted, reverts back. If it were actually the situation that there were two instances of the same content, it'd merit maybe a reminder because it's generally not good practice to arm-wrestle in the revision history to get edits through. Given that and the fact that they weren't being careful, I'd say either a warning or reminder is best. As for the content dispute, both positions are reasonable enough that neither one would be sanctionable on its own as POV-pushing, so it's out of scope for this thread. {{yo|M.Bitton}} {{tq|maybe that's because you only see what you want to see}} is inappropriate for a civil discussion. Please strike that. ] (] • she/her) 16:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:{{yo|M.Bitton}} Seems like they struck the "reflexive tag-team revert" comment. As for the pinging, it's pretty reasonable to bring up that someone isn't responding when you try and engage with them, I'm not sure I see the same assumption of bad faith. Open to your thoughts on it, though :) ] (] • she/her) 23:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Per Valereee above, the argument of an extraordinary claim is a reasonable one, but that isn't one of the very few exceptions we allow for edit-warring. I'm also not impressed by the dismissal of SelfStudier's warning as a threat. That said, there is engagement on the talk page, and no bright-line violation, so I would stop at a logged warning about edit-warring. ] (]) 17:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Daniel, there is no 1RR exemption for being right. You need to learn that the revert-button isn't a good first (or any) option in this topic area. Yes, it's frustrating to have to expend effort to discuss things but that's what system we have here at wikipedia. I'm okay with a logged warning, but I do want Daniel to understand that contentious topics such as this demand the best behavior. That's how you stay out of trouble, and yes, the filing against M.Bitton, while perhaps merited, certainly gave off a distinct impression of a retaliatory filing - too much of that sort of thing gets editors topic banned or worse. ] (]) 18:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*: I very slightly lean 0RR restriction, just because I think that might help the editor get the idea that edit warring isn't a good idea at all, which might not get through with a logged warning. But its very slight and a logged warning also works. (Sorry for delay - snowfall and I got mesmerized by the beauty of winter ... so nice to be all snug in the house next to the wood stove with hot tea and watching big fluffy flakes falling...) ] (]) 16:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Comment to stave off the archive bot. We should reach some resolution here; it looks to me like this is tending toward a warning for edit warring with no further sanction. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 09:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:My concern is that Daniel keeps arguing that ''this'' edit warring should be one of the exemptions and/or indicating that because not all edit warring gets exactly the same response consistently, they don't recognize where the line is. I'm fine with a warning ''if Daniel will indicate they do now understand where the line is and will comply''. ] (]) 15:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::{{u|xDanielx}}, please consider yourself to have a 300 word extension for the purpose of responding to the above from Valereee. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I'm wondering if this is a case where 0RR may be usefully applied. ] (]) 17:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*We need to close this. {{ping|Valereee|Seraphimblade|Ealdgyth|Theleekycauldron}} Is there agreement on a logged warning for edit-warring? I agree with Valereee that the justifications above are concerning, but that isn't enough to push me to something more draconian. I floated the idea of a 0RR restriction, but nobody has commented on that, so I would default to a logged warning. I see no history of sanctions. ] (]) 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I'm still pretty concerned about Daniel's most recent explanation of their understanding of EW. I feel like 0RR might be a better solution, but I'm willing to go along with a logged warning if 0RR doesn't work for others. I kind of feel like if this needs to be revisited, it's quite possibly likely an arbcom case. ] (]) 16:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::<small>Noting here for the record that Ealdgyth supports either, above in their own response area. ] (]) 17:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
			*:::I think I prefer 0RR here. I'm just not seeing an indication that xDanielx understands that "But I'm ''really sure I'm right''!" is not an exception to the rules on edit warring; indeed, that is the ''cause'' of probably 99% of edit wars. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I'm ready to go for a logged warning, given that Daniel has now committed to 0RR as a personal default. ] (]) 17:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::If you think that's the way to go, I don't have any particular objection to that. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within a day or so, I'll close as such. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I apologize for the tardiness: I was hoping TLC would chime in, but then this fell off my radar. I'm reading a slight consensus in favor of 0RR, given that Seraphimblade, myself, and Ealdgyth all preferred it, and Valereee's latest post does not indicate objection. In addition, if xDanielx intends to hold himself to this standard, it shouldn't prove an onerous restriction. I would be willing to consider an appeal within a few months based on engagement in disputes without a violation. ] (]) 17:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			<!--
			-->
			{{hab}}
			==M.Bitton==
	*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)
			{{hat|result=M.Bitton is warned against ] and reminded to abide by ]. ] (]) 06:35, 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>
			===Request concerning M.Bitton===
	==Parishan==
			; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|XDanielx}} 07:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
			; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|M.Bitton}}<p>{{ds/log|M.Bitton}}</p>
	===Request concerning Parishan===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Steverci}} 22:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
			;Sanction or remedy to be enforced:
	; 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. --->
	;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] and a lengthy block :
	<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
	; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :		; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
			I'll limit this to ] related issues for now, since they're easiest to evaluate with minimal context.
	<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->
	# Following 4 are violations of ]
	#
	#
	#
			# {{tq|xDanielx being disingenuous again (what they mean by "no explanation" is "no explanation that they agree with")}}
	; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
			# {{tq|casting aspersions to justify your disruptive editing is about as low as it gets ... this is extremely disingenuous ... made-up rules and demands to satisfy you}}
	<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
	# First time blocked for 3RR		# {{tq|please don't make-up another rule ... maybe that's because you only see what you want to see}} (partly struck per admin request)
			# , {{tq|Misplaced Pages is not a collection of every piece of alleged garbage}}
	# Second time blocked for 3RR
			# {{tq|When someone keeps misrepresenting the sources (again and again), then I will rightly assume disingenuousness}}
			# {{tq|I'm starting to question your motives}}
			# {{tq|Please refrain from repeating your lies}} ( to {{tq|You're being extremely disingenuous. You misrepresented the sources (clearly to push a POV)}}
			# {{tq|I don't take lessons from those who misrepresent the sources and edit war over ]}}
			# {{tq|please don't attribute your nonsense to me (this is totally unacceptable)}}
			# {{tq|Bobfrombrockley is busy adding whatever garbage they can find}}
			# {{tq|you've been very busy adding whatever garbage you could find to the article}}
			# {{tq|Do you expect me to explain to you what "freedom of expression" is?}}
			# {{tq|I'm done wasting my time with this nonsense ... Your self-serving opinion is irrelevant}}
			# offensive humor
			; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
	;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
			I'm not aware of CTOP sanctions. The seems to show four blocks, but they're not that recent and I'm not sure how relevant they are.
	<!-- 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.
			; If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
			* Was a subject of a previous ARBPIA AE ].
			* Made a couple other statements in ARBPIA AE requests: ,
	; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :		; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
			Another 15 diffs were (rightfully) removed by an admin for exceeding the diff limit as well as falling outside PIA scope; just mentioning for transparency. They might be relevant on a different forum but admittedly not here. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 16:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	Parishan has recently violated the three revert rule by edit warring on the ] article:<br>
			{{yo|theleekycauldron}} I planned to file something after the "garbage" comments (about BobFromBrockley) on ]. I reconsidered after being surprised by M.Bitton's there. Admittedly M.Bitton's comments in the thread above prompted me to reconsider again, but that wasn't about the fact that I might receive a warning there (irrespective of M.Bitton's participation); it was just about me personally being on the receiving end of some personal attacks. I don't really follow why me being emotionally affected by the conduct would affect the legitimacy of the report. Most of the incivility was directed at other users, and letting this conduct continue wouldn't seem fair to them. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 16:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	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 :		; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
			===Discussion concerning M.Bitton===
	<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
			<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
	===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.
			====Statement by M.Bitton====
	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.
			Not content with edit warring, assuming bad faith and casting aspersions (see ]), they now decided to ] and file a retaliatory report. ] (]) 09:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{re|Vanamonde93|Ealdgyth}} I just want to draw your attention to their aspersions casting {{tq|tag-team revert|q=yes}} (], while striking it, leaves no doubt about they believe) and the fact that they falsely accused me: of ignoring their ping (when I was logged out) and reverting without an explanation (when, in fact, I did provide one). ] (]) 18:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	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:
			::{{re|Ealdgyth}} I agree and will make sure that doesn't happen in the future, regardless of what's coming the other way. I should know better than let myself take the bait, but lesson learnt nonetheless. ] (]) 18:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{re|Valereee}} sure. ] (]) 00:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''a.)''' publicize the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh's unrecognized status or that Armenians occupy the land ()
	*'''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 ()
	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.
	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)
	: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. -->
	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.
	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)====		====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 Parishan===		===Result concerning M.Bitton===
	:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''		:''This 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. -->
			*<!--
	*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)
			-->
			* This is shamelessly and obviously a retaliatory filing, and I'm leaning towards a one- or two-way interaction ban to stop the back-and-forth sniping. But I'd still draw uninvolved admins' attention to ] and ask what their thoughts are. That seems like pretty battleground-y behavior to me. ] (] • she/her) 14:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I see it as a bit retaliatory, but we do need to stop this sniping, especially at AE and other such venues. ] (]) 14:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Yeah, a logged warning sounds like enough to me, given their responses so far. ] (] • she/her) 00:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Yes, this is retaliatory, and at the same time, M. Bitton's language is not acceptable. Bad behavior should be addressed at an administrator noticeboard, or in a civil post to a user talk page, not with what SFR accurately describes as sniping. I would log a warning for casting aspersions. ] (]) 17:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			* I agree with SFR and Vanamonde93 that the language used does not help the topic area at all. I don't know if M.Bitton's had a long history of logged warnings before (I'm a bit busy trying to get the farm ready for an artic clipper coming in) but I'm fine with a logged warning. But the filer should be aware that they need to also try to avoid retaliatory-filing look in the future... ] (]) 17:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			** I'm not happy about Daniel's behavior (but will try to find time to look at it in the earlier filing to avoid getting this one off track) but, M.Bitton, your comments are not just sub-par, but not at all what editors should be directing at others. An acknowledgment of that and working to avoid that in the future is something you need to seriously consider if you're not going to end up sanctioned in the future. ] (]) 18:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I also think a logged warning should be adequate here, particularly given the limited sanctions history and the . Personally I'm not bothered by the timing of this report in light of xDanielx's explanation, although it's wise to avoid even the appearance of retaliation when you're at AE. ] (]) 22:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I don't disagree that this is retaliatory, but that doesn't moot the issue. M.Bitton does tend to approach editing in a battleground-y way, and their language often escalates rather than de-escalates. I'd very much like you to start using de-escalating language, {{u|M.Bitton}}. Can you discuss that? ] (]) 00:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I meant can you discuss it ''here'', but maybe I wasn't clear. ] (]) 15:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Have not read this but will note that {{u| xDanielx}} is at their word limit. Daniel if you want to post anything else please get an extension first from an uninvolved administrator. ] (]) 02:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Comment to stave off the bot. Looks like the proposed resolution here is a warning for battleground behavior, does that still seem the way to go? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 09:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:A logged warning, sure. ] (]) 15:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Agreed, and I also agree we should put this to bed. ] (]) 20:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{hab}}
			==Ethiopian Epic==
	*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)
			<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
			===Request concerning Ethiopian Epic===
	==Gouncbeatduke==
			; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Tinynanorobots}} 11:23, 12 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|Ethiopian Epic}}<p>{{ds/log|Ethiopian Epic}}</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 --->
	]
	; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :		; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
	<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->		<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
			# created during the Yasuke case and went active when it ended. First 11 edits were to Government of Japan. In one case three edits were used to write one sentence.
	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.
			# Manually reverted the lead back to how it was in September.
			# Falsely Claimed cited material was OR. (G
	:In fact I the socks, . I also tried to convince the sock to stop on their now revdeleted talk page.
			# Falsely Claimed cited material was unsourced
			# It took an ANI report to get him to use the article talk page. His defense was accusations and denial.
	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".
			# He reverted to a version that went against consensus established on the talk page and contained a falsely sourced quote.
			# Engages in sealioning
	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".
			# Removes a well sourced line from Yasuke as well as reverted an edit that was the result of BRD. He has now started disputes with me on all three Yasuke related articles.
			# starts disputing a new section of
			# Brought again to ANI, he claims that I didn't get consensus for changes, even though I had discussed them on talk prior to making them.
			# He keeps mentioning ONUS, and asking me to discuss it, in response to me discussing.
			# Used a non-controversial revert to hide his edit warring.
			# did the same thing on List of foreign-born samurai in Japan.
			# He also repeatedly complains that he doesn't like the definition because it is vague and claims that his preferred version is "status quo"
	; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :		; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
	<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->		<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
			# Explanation
	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.".
			# Explanation
			;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):[
			<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
			*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above).
	;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 :		; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
	<!-- Add any further comment here -->		<!-- Add any further comment here -->
			I am not sure if this is actually a AE matter, but was told to go here by multiple admins. The biggest issue is the Editing against consensus on accompanied by bludgeoning. However, there are signs of bad faith editing on all three pages where I have interacted with EE. It could also be a CIR issue or it could be some sort of harassment. I don't know. I just know that EE first avoided providing clear reasons for reverting edits and has been trying to engage in Status Quo Stonewalling. He keeps citing Onus or Burden and asks me not to make a change until the discussion is over. Often, this doesn't make sense in context, because the change was in place. He has made false claims about sources and what they say. His editing on Yasuke is not so much a problem as the discussion which comes across as gaslighting.
	I 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.
			:@], I am not an expert on proxies or socks. All the IPs have only posted on the one article and have advocated an odd definition for samurai, that doesn't apply to the article. All except the first one have just reverted. It is possible that this is just laziness, or lack of confidence in writing skills etc. After all, the false citation was added by another user and was just kept. I found the latest one the most suspect, in part because of it first reverting to the incorrect definition, before restoring most of the text and second because of falsely citing policy. I am not sure if they are proxies, but I hoped that someone here would have the expertise to know. I don't think the proxy evidence is the most important. EE is either acting in bad faith or has CIR problems. The later is possible, because he thanked City of Silver during ANI, although City of Silver has been the harshest critic of EE's behaviour towards me.
	; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	.
			:I think there should be some important context to the quote: {{tq|"those who serve in close attendance to the nobility"}}. The quote can be found in several books, on ] it is sourced to an article published in Black Belt Magazine in the 80s by ], where he describes the origin of the word samurai. He is describing the early phases of its meaning in that quote, before it became to have martial connotations. It also refers to the time before 900. The earliest foreign samurai on the list was in the late 1500s. It also doesn't apply to most of the persons on the list. Finally, it is not mentioned in Vaporis's book, which EE keeps adding as the source. He hasn't even made the effort to copy the citation from ].
	<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
			:@]
	===Discussion concerning Gouncbeatduke===
			Not only did I have a dispute with Symphony Regalia about samurai being "retainers to lords", but also on Yasuke about "As a samurai" and on ] EE made the same reverts as SR. EE had with his first edit in all three articles continued a dispute that I had already had with SR.
	<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>
			:@] I actually don't have a problem with you discussing things. Your talk page posts aren't really discussion though. Your main argument on all three pages has been a shifting of the burden of proof. You don't really discuss content and continually ask me not to make changes without discussing first, and then make changes yourself. I understand that your position is that your preferred version is the status quo. However, my edits regarding the definition on ] , were discussed and consensus was clearly gotten. Similarly, my edits on Yasuke were discussed, and even though I didn't use the exact same version as Gitz said, Gitz had suggested using warrior instead of bushi, so I used samurai, because I thought it would be less controversial.
	====Statement by Gouncbeatduke====
			; 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. --->
	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.
			===Discussion concerning Ethiopian Epic===
	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.
			<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
			====Statement by Ethiopian Epic====
	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 is clear retaliatory filing because I recently didn't agree with Tinynanorobot's , and because I made talk page sections on some recent edits.
			@] That's not true and you are a very obvious alt account with only 26 edits. No one gave you a notification of this discussion and it's not on the Yasuke talk page. This suggests you are the sock puppet of someone here. Your post is also misleading and incorrect it wasn't an insertion. The line you are talking about in Samurai has been there for over 10 years and is normal. I know because I've read it before. Here is a version from 2017 . I don't understand why you are misrepresenting edits and using an alt account.
	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.
			@] I think he is just fishing. That's why he removed his IP claims. Even his other diffs are just mislabeled regular behavior. It's amusing because Eronymous is the likely alt of Tinynanorobots or someone posting here. I think the way Tinynanorobots edits against clear consensus, skips discussion, and then files frivolous ANI/AE reports with misleading narrative like above is disruptive. Discussion is an easy solution and benefits everyone. I hope he will respect RFC consensus.
	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.
			====Statement by Relm====
	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)
			I am largely unfamiliar with the account in question, but I do frequently check ]. I believe that EthiopianEpic has displayed a clear slant and battleground mindset in their editing in regards to the topic of Yasuke, but that their conduct on the Yasuke page itself so far has generally been in the ballpark of good faith edits. The revert on December 9th was justified, and their topic on November 29th is well within bounds (though I acknowledge that the background of their prior disputes on other pages with Tinynanorobots shows it may be edit warring) given that the two things being reverted was a change that seemed to skirt the prior RFC with agreement being given in a very non-direct way, and the other portion being an addition which had not been discussed on the talk page prior to its implementation (though previous discussions ered on the side of not including it). I am ''not'' accusing Tinynanorobots of any misconduct in any part of that either.
			What I will note is that in addition to the sockpuppet IP allegations made by Tinynanorobots, I wanted to lodge that the posting style of EthiopianEpic, as well as their knowledge of much of the previous discussions on the page deep in the archive, led me to suspect that they were an alt of ]. I never found anything conclusive. ] (]) 14:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	:@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====		====Statement by Simonm223====
			These two editors have been tangling at WP:AN/I repeatedly. Last time they came there I said that this would likely continue until a third party intervened. And then the thread got archived with no action () so I'm not surprised that the two of them are still tangling. There is evidence that both editors have engaged in a slow-motion edit war.
	In case you missed it, is how the user "at no time" stated "that User:WarKosign was the sockpuppet that left death threats".
			Both have claimed the other is editing against consensus. Here I will say that it appears TinyNanoRobots is more correct than Ethiopian Epic. Furthermore, while neither editors' comportment has been stellar, as other editors have pointed out, it appears more that EE is following TNR about and giving them a hard time than the alternate. . In the linked AN/I case (above) you'll note EE attempted a boomerang on TNR and was not well-received for the effort.
			Frankly my view is that both editors are not editing to the best standards of Misplaced Pages but there is definitely a ''more'' disruptive member of this duo and that is Ethiopian Epic. I think it would probably cut down on the noise considerably if they were encouraged to find somewhere to edit which was not a CTOP subject and if they were encouraged to leave TNR alone. ] (]) 18:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	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)
			====Statement by Eronymous====
	{{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)
			Similar to Relm I check on the ] page every so often, and it seems very likely given the evidence that ] is an alt of ] created to evade his recent ArbCom sanctions, having started editing the day prior to the case closure. Of note to this is the of Symphony_Regalia on ] was him attempting to insert the line "who served as retainers to lords (including '']'')" - curiously enough, Ethiopian Epic's on ] (and , having just prior made 11 minor ones in a short timeframe to reach autoconfirmed status) is him attempting to insert the same controversial line that was reverted before.
			Symphony_Regalia has a history of utilising socks to edit Yasuke/Samurai related topics and is indefinitely blocked from the .jp wiki for (plus multiple suspected IPs) for this.
	{{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)
			Prior to being sanctioned Symphony Regalia frequently got into exactly the same arguments concerning wording/source material with ] that Ethiopian Epic is now. One could assume based on their relationship that he is aggrieved that Tinynanorobots was not sanctioned by ArbCom during the case and is now continuously feuding with him to change that through edit warring and multiple administrator incidents/arbitration requests in the past few weeks. ] (]) 22:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	====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 .)
			====Statement by Nil Einne====
	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.
			I was ?one of the editors who suggested Tinynanorobots consider ARE in the future. I did this mostly because after three threads on ANI with no result, I felt a change of venue might be more productive especially since the more structured nature of ARE, as well as a likely greater concern over low level of misconduct meant that some outcome was more likely. (For clarity, when I suggested this I did feel nothing would happen from the third ANI thread but in any case my advice being taken onboard would likely mean the third thread had no result.) I did try to make clear that I wasn't saying there was definitely a problem requiring sanction and also it was possible Tinynanorobots might themselves end up sanctioned. Since a topic ban on both is being considered, I might have been right in a way. If a topic ban results, I'd like to suggest admins considered some guidance beyond broadly constructed on how any topic ban would apply. While the entirety of the Yasuke article and the list of foreign born samurai stuff seem clear enough, one concern I've had at ANI is how to handle the editing at ] and its talk page. A lot of the recent stuff involving these editors seems to relate to the definition of samurai. AFAIK, this is generally been a big part of the dispute of Yasuke (he can/can't be a samurai because it means A which was/wasn't true about him). ] (]) 12:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	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)
			===Result concerning Ethiopian Epic===
	: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===
	:''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've never been very impressed with retaliatory filings, and the one below is no exception. I will also note that I'm never too impressed with "must be a sock" type accusations&mdash;either file at SPI or don't. In this case, though, I think ] would be better off if neither of these two were participating there. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	*
			*:{{u|Red-tailed hawk}}, what are your thoughts after the responses to you? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	*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)
			*::I think that it would be declined if it were an ] report and the editor should be mindful not to throw sock accusations around willy-nilly going forward. But I typically don't see any sort of sanction imposed when someone makes a bad SPI report, particularly if they're newer or aren't quite ] yet. So I don't see much to do on that front other than tell them that we need more specific evidence of socking when reports are made than merely shared interest, particularly when the IPs are scattered across the world. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 02:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	*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'm still inclined to topic ban both these editors from ], but would be interested in hearing more thoughts on that if anyone has them. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I also generally don't like "might-be-a-sock"-style accusations; when we are accusing someone of ] we typically need evidence to substantiate it rather than just floating the possibility in a flimsy way. Filer has provided as possible socks, but each of those IPs geolocates to a different country (Germany, Norway, and Argentina respectively) and I don't see evidence that any of those IPs are proxies.{{pb}}{{yo|Tinynanorobots}} Can you explain what led you to note the IP edits? Is it merely shared interest and viewpoint, or is there something more?{{pb}}— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 02:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Looking at this .... mess... first, I'm not sure what actually was against the ArbCom decision - I don't see a 1RR violation being alleged, and the rest really appears to me to be "throw stuff at the wall and see if it sticks". But, like Seraphimblade, I'm not impressed with either of these editors actual conduct here or in general. I could be brought around to supporting a topic ban for both of these editors in the interests of clearing up the whole topic area. ] (]) 14:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			* {{re|Tinynanorobots}} you are well above the 500 word limit. Please request an extension before adding anything more. ] (]) 16:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			==Tinynanorobots==
	*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>
	==DungeonSiegeAddict510==
	<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
			===Request concerning Tinynanorobots===
	===Request concerning DungeonSiegeAddict510===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|PeterTheFourth}} 14:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)		; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : ] (]) 19:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|DungeonSiegeAddict510}}<p>{{ds/log|DungeonSiegeAddict510}}		; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Tinynanorobots}}<p>{{ds/log|Tinynanorobots}}</p>
	<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->		<!--- 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.
	# Continues to discuss this forum on my talk page after making a statement on this request.
			#. Tinynanorobots removes {{tq|As a samurai}} from the lead text and replaces it with {{tq|signifying bushi status}} against ] ({{tq|There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification}}).
	;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
			#. Tinynanorobots removes {{tq|who served as a samurai}} from the lead text and adds {{tq|who became a bushi or samurai}} against ] ({{tq|There exists a consensus against presenting Yasuke's samurai status as the object of debate}}).
	<!-- 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. -->
			#. On List of Foreign-born Samurai, Tinynanorobots removes the longstanding definition and adds {{tq|This list includes persons who ... may not have been considered a samurai}} against ] ({{tq|There exists a consensus against presenting Yasuke's samurai status as the object of debate}}).
	*Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
			#. Tinynanorobots reverts to remove {{tq|As a samurai}} in the Yasuke article after Gitz6666 opposes at , again ignoring ].
			#. I restore and start a so that consensus can be formed.
			#. Tinynanorobots, when consensus fails to form for his position, becomes uncivil and engages in a sarcastic personal attack {{tq|What you are saying doesn't make sense. Perhaps there is a language issue here. Maybe your native language handles the future differently than English?}}
			#. Tinynanorobots removes "As a samurai" again, ignoring ] and BRD even though no consensus has formed for his position, and no consensus has formed to change existing consensus.
			#. Tinynanorobots explains their reasons, {{tq|I don't know if samurai is the right term}} which is against consensus.
			#. POV-pushing - With no edit summary Tinynanorobots tag bombs by adding {{tq|Slavery in Japan}}.
			; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
			# Explanation
			# Explanation
			<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
			;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
			<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
			*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on .
	; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :		; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
	<!-- Add any further comment here -->
	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.
			Tinynanorobots frequently edits against consensus, restores his edits when others revert, doesn't wait for consensus, and engages in feuding behavior. He seems to think ] or ] don't apply to him which is disruptive, and I don't know why.
	; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
			- Warning from other editor about repeated removal of content when multiple users are objecting.
	<!--- 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)
			- Warning from yet another editor about not assuming good faith and making personal attacks
	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)
			It seems to be chronic which suggests behavior problems. Tinynanorobots also frequently fails to assume good faith in others. I don't know why as I don't have any issues with him.
	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)
			Their preferred edit for Yasuke against the RFC consensus is lead section.
			@] Sorry for the confusion. I think we talking about different edits, so I'll adjust that part. I am referring to Tinynanorobot's repeated removal of {{tq|As a samurai}} against RFC consensus, which states {{tq|There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification}}.
	====Statement by MarkBernstein====
			; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	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.)
			<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
			===Discussion concerning Tinynanorobots===
			<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
			====Statement by Tinynanorobots====
			The accusations made by EE are so misleading as to be evidence against him. Most of what he is discussing is in reference to a successful BRD. I actually discussed the bold edit first on the talk, but didn't get much of a response. I decided a bold edit would get more feedback. The edits were reverted and then discussed. Gitz's main problem was OR, not a RfC violation. This was because he didn't read the cited source. {{tq|Anyway, since Atkin says "signifying bushi status", I have no objection to restoring this text.}}
			I never used any sarcasm, I know that some languages handle how they talk about time differently. It seems reasonable that a translation error could be the reason for EE asking me not to change the article, althoug my edit had already been restored by someone else and at the same time asking me to discuss that I had already discussed and was already discussing. I am disappointed that EE didn't point out that he felt attacked, so that I could apologize.
	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.
			This was written in response to another user, and the whole thought is {{tq|I don't know if samurai is the right term. It is the term a fair amount of sources use, and the one that the RfC says should be used. It is also consistent with common usage in reference to other historical figures.}} In fact earlier in that post I said this: {{tq|I am not qualified to say whither or not Yasuke having a house meant that he was a samurai}} This is blatantly taking a quote out of context in order to prejudice the Admins against me.
	Brianna Wu recently published a call for Reddit’s CEO to close down the forum. ] (]) 16:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
			:@] I filed here, because the last time I filed at ANI it was suggested that I bring things here if things continue by an Admin. I try to follow advice, although I keep getting conflicting signals from Admins. I am most concerned that you find my work on ] and ] not adding anything helpful. My suggestion to rewrite the way samurai was defined on the List in order to reduce OR and bring it in line with WP:LSC was meant with unanimous approval by those who responded. Samurai is a high importance article that has tags on it from years back, is unorganized and contains outdated information. I am not the best writer, but I have gotten some books, and am pretty much the only one working on it.
	====Statement by Avono====
	To be added to Evidence:
	subject also referring to ] & ] ] (]) 17:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
			::I just thought that the Admins here should know about the ongoing SPI
	====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====		====Statement by Relm====
			I am the editor alluded to and quoted as 'protesting' Tinynanorobots edit. When I originally made that topic, I was fixing a different edit which left the first sentence as a grammatically incomplete sentence. When I looked at it in the editing view, one of the quotes in the citation beforehand was quoting Atkins Vera, and I mistook this for the opening quote having been changed. When I closed the editing menu I saw 'signifying samurai status' in the second paragraph and confused the two for each other as I had not noticed the addition of the latter phrase a little under a month ago. I realized my mistake almost immediately after I posted the new topic, and made this () edit to clarify my mistake while also attempting to instead direct the topic towards making sure that the edit recieved sufficient assent from Gitz (it did) and to talk about improvements that could be made to the opening sentence. I further clarified and made clear that I was not accusing Tinynanorobots of having done anything wrong in a later response ().
	{{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)
			Though many of their earlier edits on the page may show some issues, as they grew more familiar with the past discussions I believe that Tinynanorobots has made valuable contributions to the page in good faith. ] (]) 03:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			====Statement by Barkeep49====
			*:@] I think this misinterprets the ArbCom decision. So Yakuse is a contentious topic ''and'' it has a 1RR restriction, in the same way as say PIA. As in PIA administrators can sanction behavior that violates the ] besides 1RR. Beyond that, editing ] is a finding of fact from the case. ] (]) 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{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 Tinynanorobots===
	:''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.''
			* As above, I'm failing to see what exactly is against the ArbCom case rulings - I don't see a 1RR violation. But also as above, I'm coming to the view that neither of these editors are adding anything helpful to the topic area and am leaning towards a topic ban for both. ] (]) 14:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- 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)
	* 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 ().}} }}
			-->
	: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)
	==Ashtul==		==Selfstudier==
			{{hat|1={{nobold|1=No evidence of misconduct was presented. Filer ] is informally warned against frivolous filings. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 02:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}}}}
	<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
			<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
	===Request concerning Ashtul===		===Request concerning Selfstudier===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Nomoskedasticity}} 19:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)		; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Allthemilescombined1}} 02:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Selfstudier}}<p>{{ds/log|Selfstudier}}</p>
	; 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. --->		<!--- 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. 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|648316742|12:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)}} revert removes paragraph
			# Concern for ] violation when Selfstudier told me on my talk page: “enough now.This is a warning to cease and desist with the WP:ASPERSIONS and general unhelpfulness at the Zionism article.”
	#{{diff2|648462574|11:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)}} 1RR violation -- removes a paragraph again, <24 hours after the first time
			# Selfstudier dismissed my source {{ISBN|9798888459683}}, with “Bernard-Henri Lévy is not an expert on Zionism or colonialism”.
			# Selfstudier dismissed my source Adam Kirsch {{ISBN|978-1324105343}} “does not appear to be an expert in Zionism or Settler colonial studies but is apparently well known for a pro Israel viewpoint". These dismissive comments are uncivil.
			# Concerning for possible ] and ] violations. Editors with one POV swarmed RM:6 December 2024 and closed it immediately for SNOW. Selfstudier immediately archived parts of this discussion, including my comments, while leaving the parts that supported their POV.
	; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :		; 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.-->
	*Previous block notice for 1RR violation:
			;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
	*I/P topic ban: , subsequently lifted by HJ Mitchell,
			<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
			*Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.
	; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :		; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
			On I/P topics, my edits on numerous occasions have been reverted almost immediately, by Selfstudier and their fellow editors who seem to be always hanging around I/P, and "owning" the topic area. They are creating a hostile editing environment and are violating NPOV.
	*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)
			Concerns for possible ] and ] violations:
	; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
			*Abo Yemen dismissed my reasoned arguments as “feelings”:
	<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
			*RolandR dismissed the author of "Saying No to Hate: Overcoming Antisemitism in America", {{ISBN|978-0827615236}}, as a “non-notable children’s writer”:
	===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====
			*Zero told me “We should stick to history books and not cite emotional polemics”.
	{{hidden|
	header=A lot more to consider|
	content=
			Concerns for possible ] and ] violations:
	=====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)
			*Smallangryplanet accused me of WP:SYNTH and reverted my edits as irrelevant to the article on Holocaust inversion: whereas the article, prior to vandalism, resembled:
	=====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.
			*Nableezy added that the only material that can be relevant to the aforementioned article is that which compares Israel to Nazi Germany, ignoring that such comparisons are antisemitic.
	#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 .
			*Levivich asked me “Why are these academic sources relevant to the discussion? How did you select them?” and added “I won’t bother reading the other two, I'll assume they also say the same thing that everybody else says.” (referring to Katz, Segev, and Goren)
	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.
			*Valeree wrote “If you'll read this talk page rather thoroughly so that you can bring yourself up to speed, you'll probably find fewer editors making sarcastic remarks about your suggestions.”
	I will publish very relevant background in a bit. ] (]) 06:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
			Concerns for possible ] violations:
			*Sean.hoyland accused me of “advocacy and the expression of your personal views about the real world” and told me to see MOS:TERRORIST and accused me of violating WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTADVOCACY:
			*Sameboat wrote: "Please take extra attention to this recent ECU whose edits to I-P articles look rather deceptive to me".
	'''Background'''
			Concerns for possible ] violations:
	I was blocked then topic banned, then blocked for breaking the topic ban then . ] demanded I will 'keep a respectful distance from Nishidani'.
			*Sameboat wrote on my talk page about Gaza genocide, though they were not involved in the earlier discussion, warning me about WP:NOTFORUM RM:6 December 2024.
			Selected examples of my edits which were reverted within hours or minutes (this list is far from comprehensive):
	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).
			* by Butterscotch Beluga claiming vandalism against a University of Michigan regent was irrelevant to pro-Palestine protests because it happened off campus;
			* by Zero arguing that an egregious antisemitic incident 'fails WP:WEIGHT by a mile'
			* by Abo Yemen removing my additions to Palestinian perspectives comparing Israel to Nazi Germany from a section on exactly that; along with and by Smallangryplanet;
			* by AlsoWukai removing the disappearance of the ]'s $31 million debt when South Africa accused Israel of genocide.
			In summary, I have experienced a pattern of consistent, and what appears to be organized, intimidation from a small group of editors.
	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.
			; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	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.
			===Discussion concerning Selfstudier===
	* 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.
			<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
			====Statement by Selfstudier====
	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.
			====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
	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.
			I see I've been mentioned but not pinged. That's nice. I encourage anyone to look at the diffs and . Why are there editors in the topic area apparently ignoring ] and ]? It's a mystery. It is, and has always been, one of the root causes of instability in the topic area and wastes so much time. Assigning a cost to advocacy might reduce it. Either way, it needs to be actively suppressed by enforcement of the ] policy. It's a rule, not an aspiration. ] (]) 15:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			====Statement by Butterscotch Beluga====
	If this does sound reasonable, I would like a mechanism to be put in place so The Pack won't gang on me again.
			I didn't say it was ''"irrelevant to pro-Palestine protests"'' as a whole. The edit I reverted was specifically at ], so as I said, the ''"Incident did not occur at a university campus so is outside the scope of this article"''. We have other articles like ] & more specifically ] that are more in scope of your proposed edit. - ] (]) 20:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			====Statement by Huldra====
	Cheers, ] (]) 08:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
			I wish the filer would have wiki-linked names, then you would easily have seen that ] "is not an expert on Zionism or colonialism”, or that ] “does not appear to be an expert in Zionism or Settler colonial studies but is apparently well known for a pro Israel viewpoint", ] (]) 22:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			====Statement by RolandR====
	: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)
			I too have been mentioned above, and complained about, but not been notified. If this is not a breach of Misplaced Pages regulations, then it ought to be.
	}}
	::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)
			As for the substance, I see that I am accused of describing ] as a "non-notable children’s writer". Norman H. Finkelstein was indeed a children's writer, as described in most reports and obituaries. At the time of the original edit and my revert, he was not considered sufficiently notable to merit a Misplaced Pages article; it was only a week later that the OP created an article, of which they have effectively been the only editor. So I stand by my characterisation, which is an accurate and objective description of the author.
	:::<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)
			Further, I was concerned that a casual reader might be led to confuse this writer with the highly significant writer ]; in fact, I made my edit after ] had made this mistake and linked the cited author to the genuinely notable person.
	=====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.
			This whole report, and the sneaky complaints about me and other editors, is entirely worthless and should be thrown out.
	Let me ask you again, should the material removed be included in the article? ] (]) 12:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
			<span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 22:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			====Statement by Zero0000====
			by OP is illustrative. It is just a presentation of personal belief with weak or irrelevant sources. I don't see evidence of an ability to contribute usefully. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			====Statement by Sameboat====
	: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.
			It is clear that the filer has failed to understand my message, which was a warning about repeated violations of the NotForum policy. Instead, they have misinterpreted my actions, as well as those of others, as part of a coordinated "tag team." I raised my concerns on ] after the filer's edit on the ] article regarding its controversy, which failed to properly attribute the information to its source—the Israeli government. This filing is a complete waste of time, and serious sanctions should be imposed on the filer if similar issues occur again in the future. -- ] (] · ]) 02:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
	: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)
			====Statement by AlsoWukai====
	=====Response to ]=====
			Contrary to the filer's complaint, I never made an edit "removing the disappearance of the ANC's $31 million debt when South Africa accused Israel of genocide." I can only conclude that the filer misread the edit history. ] (]) 20:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
	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.
			====Statement by Valereeee====
	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)
			The diff allthemiles links to above is me responding to their post (in which they complained about a mildly sarcastic remark by another editor) where they said, "If respectful discussion is not possible, administrative involvement will be needed." I've been trying to keep up at that article talk, so I responded giving them my take on it.
			I tried to keep engaging, trying to help them understand the challenges for less experienced editors trying to work in the topic, offering advice on how they could get up to speed at that particular article, even offering to continue the discussion at their talk or mine. ] (]) 14:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	=====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.
			:@], editors working in PIA are brought here often and bring other editors here often for various reasons, and it doesn't always mean a given editor is problematic. For instance, the particular appearance you're referring to was brought here by a suspected sock of an LTA. I've seen admins working here who don't work in PIA wonder if the fact someone is brought here often or brings others here often means that editor is a problem, and I get why it feels like some issue ''with that editor'' has to be a factor, but in my experience it isn't usually. Some of the best editors working in that area are brought here for spurious reasons, and also need to bring other editors here for valid reasons. And some of the worst offenders there avoid AE. ] (]) 11:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	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.
			===Result concerning Selfstudier===
	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.
			:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
			* While I'm on record as saying that the topic area could us more civility from editors, I'm failing to see anything actionable against the editor filed against here. There's an edit from Oct that isn't great but not even begining to get into my "not civil" category. Then there's a perfectly civil statement about a source from 3 Nov (Hint - "Bernard-Henri Lévy is not an expert on Zionism or colonialism" is exactly the type of discussion that SHOULD be taking place in a contentious topic - it's focused on the source and does not mention any editors at all. The full comment "There is nothing to suggest Bernard-Henri Lévy is an expert on Zionism or colonialism. As I said, it is rather simple to find a source saying what you want it to say, whether that's a WP:BESTSOURCE is another matter." is still quite civil and focused on the source - nothing in this is worth of sanctioning....) The other statement from 3 Nov is also focused on the merits of the source. The fact that it isn't agreeing with your source analysis does not make it dismissive nor uncivil. Frankly, it's quite civil and again, what is expected in a contentious topic - source-based discussion. The comment from 6 Dec is also not uncivil.
			* The rest of the filing is not about Selfstudier and is instead an excellent example of (1) throwing a whole bunch of diffs out hoping something will stick to someone and (2) an example of why filings in this area often turn into huge messess that can't reach resolution. This is supposed to be a filing about Selfstudier's behavior - instead most of it is about a grab-bag of other edits from many other editors, and frankly, seems to be motivated by the filer feeling that they aren't being taken seriously enough or something. I'm not going to read any of these diffs because they are not about the editor you filed against and my time is worth something and we should not reward abuse of this process by this sort of grab-bag-against-everyone-that-disagreed-with-an-editor filing.
			* The only reason I'm not going for a boomerang against the filer is that they have only been editing for about six months and this is the first AE filing they've done. Let me suggest that they do not file another one like this - it's a waste of admin time. ] (]) 14:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I second Ealdgyth's reading. The presented diffs against Selfstudier are not actionable, and a lot of the complaint is not about Selfstudier at all. I don't believe the filing alone is grounds for sanction on the filer, but if someone wishes to present more evidence against them I suggest they do so in a separate report. ] (]) 21:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I stumbled into this by accident and I don't do these requests anymore, but I wonder if filer should edit outside the subject area until they have much more experience in ] and dispute resolution.YMMV. Best] (]) 08:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Another case on this editor was just closed a week ago, is there any relation between this filing and issues brought up in ]? It seems like some editors are brought to AE on a weekly basis. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{hab}}
			==Rasteem==
	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)
			<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
			===Request concerning Rasteem===
	====Statement by EvergreenFir====
			; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 03:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	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)
			; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Rasteem}}<p>{{ds/log|Rasteem}}</p>
	====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.
			<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	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)
			;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
	====Statement by Nishidani====
			<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
	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)
			; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
	====Statement by (Cptnono)====
			<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
			# - removed wikilink of an Indian railway station thus violating his topic ban from India and Pakistan.
			This violation comes after he was already warned for his first violation of the topic ban.
			Upon a closer look into his recent contribution, I found that he is simply ] the system by creating articles like ] which is overall only 5,400 bytes but he made nearly 50 edits here. This is clearly being done by Rasteem for passing the 500 edits mark to get his topic ban overturned.
	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 recommend increasing the topic ban to indefinite duration. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 03:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	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)
			; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : "topic banned from the subject of India and Pakistan, broadly construed, until both six months have elapsed and they have made 500 edits after being notified of this sanction."
	====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)
			;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
	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.
			; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
	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.
			<!-- Add any further comment here -->
			*I agree that there are genuine CIR issues with Rasteem, for example while this ARE report is in progress they created ], which has promotional statements like: "The lake's stunning caluts, majestic desert topographies, and serene lakes produce a shifting destination. Its unique charm attracts a wide range of guests, from adventure contenders to nature suckers and beyond". ] <small><small>]</small></small> 03:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
	I think that a problem - isn't Ashtul, who still has the patience and desire to break through the current, not healthy situation.
			; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	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)
			<!-- 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. -->
	:* {{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)
			<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	::* {{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)
			===Discussion concerning Rasteem===
	::: * Nishidani (11:11, 27 February 2015) "Don't keep asking questions that I have already replied to."
			<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>
	::: It only means that Ashtul's was right about your wp:OR. :) --] (]) 17:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
	===Result concerning Ashtul===		====Statement by Rasteem====
			This approach seems to be a coordinated attack to abandon me from Misplaced Pages indefinitely. Indeed, after my ban for 6 months. I was banned on 6 December, and in just 7 days, this report is literally an attempt to make me leave Misplaced Pages.
	:''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)
			1. I rolled back my own edit; it was last time made unintentionally. I was about to revert it, but my internet connection was lost, so when I logged in again, I regressed it.
	==MarkBernstein==
	<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>
			The internet is constantly slow and sometimes goes down. I live in a hilly location and I had formerly mentioned it.
	===Request concerning MarkBernstein===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|DHeyward}} 06:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
			My edits on Arjan Lake isn't any ] factual number of edits I made; it is 45, not 50. Indeed, I made similar edits before in September and December months on the same articles within a single day or 2-3 days.
	; 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. --->
			2. ] on this article, I've added 5680 bytes & made 43 edits.
	;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.
			3. ] on this article I've added 4000 bytes & made 49 edits.
	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.
			====Statement by (username)====
			<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
			===Result concerning Rasteem===
	While the enforcement section allows and indef block, MarkBernstein will most likely cease disruption with the standard Topic Ban outlined in the case. <br>
			:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
	]
			<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
			* While I don't see a change in editing pattern that indicates gaming, the edits to ] indicate issues with competence, as the article is weirdly promotional and contains phrases such as "beast species", "emotional 263 proved species". ] (]) 20:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC) <!--
			-->
			*Adding to {{u|Femke}}'s point, {{tpq|magnific 70- cadence-high waterfalls in this area}} is not prose that inspires confidence in the editor's competence to edit the English Misplaced Pages. So, we have violations of a topic ban and questions about the editor's linguistic competence and performance. Perhaps an indefinite block appealable in six months with a recommendation to build English competency by editing the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and to build general Misplaced Pages skills by editing in the version of Misplaced Pages in the language they speak best during that minimum six month period. As for ], although the prose is poor, the references in the article make it clear to me that the topic is notable, so the editor deserves some credit for starting this article that did not exist for two decades plus. ] (]) 08:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			==שלומית ליר==
	Please enforce the rulings in the case with the Standard Topic Ban.
			{{hat
			| result = ] is reminded to double-check edits before publishing, and to try to reply more promptly when asked about potential mistakes. ] (]) 20:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
			===Request concerning שלומית ליר===
	{{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)
	:*
			; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Nableezy}} 23:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	: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)
			; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|שלומית ליר}}<p>{{ds/log|שלומית ליר}}</p>
	{{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)
			;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
	{{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 --->
	; ] 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 :
			#] claiming a source supports something it never mentions
	<!-- 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. -->
	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 :
			N/A
	<!-- 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 ]):		;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
			*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on ] (see the system log linked to 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 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 :
			The user wrote that NATO had supported accusations against Hamas citing a titled Hamas and Human Rights in a book titled . They cited the entire chapter, pages 56–126. The source itself is a work of scholarship, and nobody would challenge it as a reliable source. Luckily, the full text of the book is available via the , and anybody with access to that can verify for themselves that the word "shield" appears nowhere in the book. Not human shield, or even NATO (nato appears in searches with the results being "expla'''nator'''y, twice and coordi'''nato'''r once, or Atlantic, or N.A.T.O. It is simply made up that this source supports that material. The user later, after being challenged but declining to answer what in the source supports it (see ]), added another source that supposedly supports the material, paper by NATO StratCom COE, however they themselves say they are , though that misunderstanding is certainly forgivable. However, completely making up that a source supports something, with a citation to 70 pages of a book, is less so. That is to me a purposeful attempt at obfuscating that the source offered does not support the material added, and the lack of any attempt of explaining such an edit on the talk page led me to file a report here. ''']''' - 23:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:It’s a matter for AE because violations in a CT topic are AE matters and I’ve previously been told to come here instead of AN(I). What sanction? I don’t think there’s any action more serious than making up something about a source, so I’d say it would be anywhere from a logged, and first only, warning to a topic ban. The second sourcing issue isn’t a huge deal, but the first one, the diff im reporting, is IMO such a severe violation that it merits a sanction. I don’t think this is simply misrepresentation, it is complete fabrication. They cited 70 pages of a book without a quote, to a link that doesn’t have the text. Without the Misplaced Pages Library this would have been much more difficult to check. This is going back a while, but ] was a similar situation reported here. If there had been some explanation given on the talk page I wouldn’t have reported this here, but the wholesale fabrication of claiming that a source that never mentions the topic supports some material was ignored there. ''']''' - 14:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
			::I want to be clear, I am not claiming any sanctionable behavior in the second diff. I only brought it up to say that rather than address the fabrication in the first one they simply attempted to add some other source. They have as yet not addressed the diff I am reporting here. I am only claiming an issue in that diff citing the book chapter for a book that never even says the word shield in it. ''']''' - 19:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	I didn't bother with diffs showing his awareness of sanctions as it is more than obvious that he is.
			:::According to , the insertion of that source was ], the diff I've reported. As far as I can tell no other user has introduced that source on that page. The revision that the user below says has the sources they took from {{tq|in the article's edit history}} is ''after'' the insertion of that source by that user. If there is some prior revision showing that source being used for that statement then I'd withdraw my complaint, but that does not appear to be the case. ''']''' - 19:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::If that is indeed reproducible then I suggest this be closed with a reminder, not a logged warning, to check the output of any tool more thoroughly. And answer questions about your edits when raised on the talk page instead of ignoring them. ''']''' - 19:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Just noting that I verified the bug in the VE sandbox as well. Had I been told of that sequence when I asked about the edit I obviously would not have opened this request. ''']''' - 18:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :		; 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.
			===Discussion concerning שלומית ליר===
	<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
			<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
			====Statement by שלומית ליר====
	===Discussion concerning MarkBernstein===
			The article "Use of human shields by Hamas" is intended to address a well-documented phenomenon: Hamas’s deliberate use of civilian infrastructure — homes, hospitals, and mosques — as shields for its military operations. This includes hiding weapons, constructing military tunnels beneath civilian populations, and knowingly placing innocent lives in harm’s way. Yet, I found the article falls far short of adequately describing this phenomenon. It presents vague and generalized accusations while failing to reference the numerous credible organizations that have extensively documented these practices.
	<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====
			During my review, I discovered that essential sources were available in the article's edit history (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Use_of_human_shields_by_Hamas&oldid=1262868174). I retrieved and restored these sources without reverting prior edits, including a source referenced by user Nableezy. When it was brought to my attention that an error had occurred, I acknowledged it, thanked the user, and corrected it by incorporating two reliable references. I had hoped this would resolve the issue, but apparently, it did not.
	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.
			Now, I find myself the subject of an arbitration enforcement hearing that feels not only unwarranted but intended to intimidate me from contributing further to this article.
	:''“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
			I would also like to point out that the responses to my edits raise serious concerns. For instance, an image depicting missiles hidden in a family home — an image used in other Wikipedias to illustrate this topic — was removed. This raises the question: why obscure such critical evidence? Similarly, a scholarly source with credible information that emphasizes the severity of this issue was reverted without clear justification.
	Misplaced Pages's official response has been ineffectual and .
			This article should serve as a thorough account of Hamas's war crimes, which have resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians. Instead, it seems that some editors are working to dilute its substance, resisting efforts to include vital context and documentation at the start of the article. This undermines the article’s purpose and risks distorting the public’s understanding of an issue of profound international importance.] (]) 19:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:''“I (and Misplaced Pages) neither support nor oppose Quinn. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground.”'' – Jimmy Wales
			:I want to add that what Nableezy’s accusation is a complete misrepresentation (and, at times, distortion) of the sequence of events. A reference was mistakenly carried over from a previous editor, and once it was pointed out that it lacked the necessary supporting quotes, I removed it myself.
	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.
			:I find it difficult to accept that failing to respond immediately to an inquiry regarding a removed source (and good faith attempt to find a sufficient replacement) equates to misrepresentation. I strongly believe that using this forum to imply such a thing, based on the actual facts here, is a misuse of the process.
			:To the arbitrators: I want to ensure the sequence of events is clear, so I request permission to strike through extraneous elements in my initial response, if necessary, to include more technical evidence while staying within the 500-word limit ] (]) 21:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:: <small>(moved from V93's comment)</small> It’s simple. If you copy the reference from the previous version: ''<nowiki/>'Hamas' use of human shields in Gaza' (PDF), NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence,'' and add it using the automatic reference tool, it changes it to: Mukhimer, Tariq (2013), ''Hamas and Human Rights'', ''Hamas Rule in Gaza'', New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 56–126, ISBN 978-1-349-45658-1, retrieved 2024-12-17.
	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 an innocent error caused by the Wiki program itself. You can try it and see for yourself.
			::'''Where it led and what Nableezy allowed himself to do is a story by itself that demands investigation''' ] (]) 12:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:While I see your point, '''the issue here was indeed caused by a bug in the 'Add a Cite' tool on automatic mode.'''
			*:I suggest you take the time to verify this before jumping to far-reaching conclusions.
			*:. ] (]) 23:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Thanks for checking it out and confirming; I appreciate it. ] (]) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC) <small>Moved comment to own section. Please comment only in this section. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC) </small>
	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)		*:::True, and I would most definitely will check next time. ] (]) 23:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	====Statement by Cullen328====		====Statement by Supreme Deliciousness====
			Valereee created the article ]. She is therefor involved in the topic area and shouldn't be editing in the uninvolved admin section.--] (]) 08:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	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====		====Statement by (username)====
	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 שלומית ליר===
	:''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.''
			* Please forgive my ignorance, but what specific sanction are you requesting and what exactly makes this possible interconnected source misrepresentation a matter that needs AE? Is the information removed (I'm assuming it is). Is this a long-term pattern? The filing even admits that the second instance is understandable given the name of the group putting out the source. I would be more concerned if this was a continuing problem - are there other recent instances of this editor possibly misrepresenting a source? And I'm still not sure that source misrepresntation is something that falls under AE's remit, rather than just something that could be dealt with at ANI or AN? Not saying no, but I'm not sure we need the big gun of AE for this just yet. ] (]) 13:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			** I'm not sure I'm ready to (1) take a 2011 discussion as binding in 2024 and (2) decide unilaterally that "violations in a CT topic are AE matters". Sorry, but I'm not that much of a cowboy (despite the cowboy hat in my closet and the ] horses in my paddock). I'm not trying to be difficult and not at all trying to minimize the severity of source misrepresentation - but I do not see where this topic area has sanctions authorized for that specific behavior - civility and aspersions yeah, but I'd like to see what other admins think. I also would like to see if שלומית ליר has any statement to make (while noting that not replying here is a very bad look for them). ] (]) 14:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			**:I would agree with Nableezy's view regarding jurisdiction, and was under the impression that this was already standard practice. AE is intended to address disruptive editing in designated contentious topics--source misrepresentation is definitely disruptive editing even if it was not specifically a matter of issue for the parties to ARBPIA4. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			***: I'm perfectly happy to be shown that it's a matter for AE, I've just not seen it dealt with that I can remember (bearing in mind that I'm not as young as some other folks and can forget things) and I don't see it mentioned in the CT topics bits or in the case pages referred to. I prefer to err on the side of caution in these matters. ] (]) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			***::To my reading it would be directly justified by ] point 2: {{tq| ...requests for an individual enforcement action against aware editors who engage in misconduct in a contentious topic}} <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			***::] is a report where I ~recently sanctioned for source misrepresentation. ] (]) 15:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*: I'm sorry - but I find this explanation ... not quite believable. Nableezy is saying that the Mukhimer source was introduced ]. You claim that "If you copy the reference from the previous version: 'Hamas' use of human shields in Gaza' (PDF), NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, and add it using the automatic reference tool, it changes it to: Mukhimer, Tariq (2013), Hamas and Human Rights, Hamas Rule in Gaza, New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 56–126, ISBN 978-1-349-45658-1, retrieved 2024-12-17." What automatic reference tool? And even if the tool is malfunctioning - you are responsible for your edits - especially in such a fraught topic area. Looking at the ] its pretty clear that the first citation is listing the author as "Mukhimer" which should have clued you in (if indeed the automatic tool is a problem) that there was an issue. And when Nableezy raised this issue on the talk page - you didn't actually try this explanation or even any explanation, you just replied "I thought you noticed and understood that I had updated the references." which is deeply concerning that you did not consider the fact that you inserted references that did not support the material (and yes, I did do a rapid read/skim of the Mukhimer work's chapter that was in that citation - the chapter is mostly concerned with Hamas' internal governance and human rights record. I saw nothing discussing human shields or even the war with Israel in that chapter (the chapter does discuss Hamas' actions against Gazans that Hamas accuses of spying/etc for Israel, but nothing about actual military conflict)). The lack of collaborative explanation and the seeming unconcern about the issues brought up are making me lean towards a topic ban, frankly.
			*: I apologize that it took me a while to circle back to this - yesterday was a day of small things breaking and needing to be taken care of and I didn't have the time in the afternoon that I expected to revisit this. ] (]) 14:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:: And add yet one more reason to not use VE.... if its some weird bug, then yes, a warning is sufficient. But, really, you need to double check when you use tools to make sure that there are not bugs (and yes, Visual Editor is buggy...) ] (]) 20:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I've gone on record saying that I consider source misrepresentation to be some of the most disruptive conduct in a contentious topic - it is insidious in a way that calling another editor names is not. That does not mean I support sanctions by default, but I do think we need to take such a report seriously. A lot depends on the specific circumstances - the second instance above seems like a very easy mistake to make - but I would like to hear from שלומית ליר. ] (]) 19:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:שלומית ליר, I would like to see a specific response to Nableezy's evidence about where you got your source, so please go ahead and strike or collapse parts of your original statement (please don't remove anything entirely). NB; we are (mostly) administrators enforcing arbitration decisions here, not arbitrators ourselves. ] (]) 21:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I agree with Vanamonde that source misrepresentation is disruptive on its face, and the first time I see it, AGF is pretty much gone. ] (]) 19:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I agree that if this was a bug -- which is really concerning -- then a logged warning is overkill, especially given this editor's inexperience. ] (]) 15:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I'm not sure what "automatic reference tool" is being referred to here, but I'm generally not impressed with "It was the tool's fault." Editors are responsible for the edits they make, and while of course there's no problem with using tools to help, the editor, not the tool, is still responsible for ensuring that the final result accurately represents the sources which are cited. Overall, I'd tend toward Ealdgyth's line of thinking; source misrepresentation is an extremely serious form of misconduct and must under no circumstances be tolerated. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 15:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:{{u|שלומית ליר}}, it has now been necessary on several occasions to move your comments to the proper section from other editors' sections or this one. '''Do not comment outside your own section again.''' ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 09:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Above stuff out of the way, if this actually is reproducible, it may be wise to check Phabricator to see if such an issue has been reported&mdash;chances are pretty good this isn't the only time that bug will bite. I'm good with a logged warning to more carefully vet the output of automated editing tools before making the edit, given that. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 09:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:: Isn't a logged warning a bit too much for not catching a bug? I'd rather go for a reminder as Nableezy suggests. Will check Phab or open a new phab ticket when I've got a bit more time. ] (]) 11:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I still don't ''love'' the whole thing, but it seems that most people want to just do an informal reminder, so I've got no strong objection (of course, as long as the bug actually does get reported, if it's not been already.) ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			* To my surprise, it's true that copying that text into VE's automatic citation formatter gives this output. Most absurd bug I've ever seen. Of course it's an editor's responsibility to check if the citation is correct, but this is not something you might think to check for, especially as a newer editor. While intentionally misrepresenting a source is highly disruptive, I don't think this weird error is sanctionable. I would like to give ] one piece of advice for editing a contentious topic like this: always use edit summaries (you can change your settings so that you're warned if you forget them). That can help reduce misunderstandings. ] (]) 19:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			* I agree with Femke about how to resolve this request, including the advice to check things and to use edit summaries. I am also extremely concerned about the bug-created citation issue and wonder where is the best place to request that the error be investigated and fixed. ] (]) 14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->		<!-- 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)
			{{hab}}
	*** {{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)
			==KronosAlight==
	*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 KronosAlight===
	* 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|Butterscotch Beluga}} 03:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|KronosAlight}}<p>{{ds/log|KronosAlight}}</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)
	*I'm chiming in with Dreadstar and Gamaliel. That latest block, on the surface, seems harsh, but I suppose Mark Bernstein had been warned--I'd hate to make that kind of block, though, since the comment in itself wasn't all that bad. But that's neither here nor there, and I'm happy to see that Dreadstar is their usual objective self, who isn't looking to rake an editor over the coals. And they're perfectly right: no topic ban is warranted for anything presented here. I myself think that Bernstein, whom I don't think I know very well, seems to combine gravitas with levity in a topic matter that's lacking in both, though in different places of course. (Wait--Gamaliel, I'm reading over your comments again: Bernstein is celebrity? maybe I'll finally get tweeted!) Really, I think we're done here--no arbs or admins have posted since Gamaliel's comment, and that's indicative of one thing only: no interest in enforcing anything. ] (]) 19:17, 27 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 ''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.-->
			#
	#09:36, 18 February 2015 - ], text copied
			:*Adds "depiste being an ex-Muslim" to dismiss accusations of Islamophobia ].
	#10:23, 18 February 2015 - copyright infringement, text copied:
			:*Adds ] around ‘promoted Islamophobia’ & ‘Islamophobia’ while removing the supporting context.
	#04:58, 14 February 2015 - copyright infringement, text copied:
			:*Changed "interpreted that statement as a threat and incitement to violence" to "claimed was a threat and incitement to violence, though no threats or violence in fact occurred" ] & ]
	# 06:34, 14 February 2015 - copyright infringement, text copied :
			# - ]
	#08:01, 5 February 2015 - copyright infrigement, text copied:
			:*Changes "Israeli settlers" to "Israeli soldiers" despite
			# - ]
			# - ]
			:* Unnecessarily specific additions that may constitute ] such as adding "against civilians" & changing "prevent the assassinations of many Israelis" to "prevent the assassinations of many Israeli civilians and soldiers"
			# - ]
			; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
	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: ]
			<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
			# Warned to abide by the one-revert rule when making edits within the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.
			# Blocked from editing for 1 week for violating consensus required on the page ]
			;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
	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.---
			*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|ScottishFinnishRadish}}.
	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".
			*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on .
	;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. -->
	; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :		; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
			All edits were made at ]. After I with an explanation, I , asking for their rationale.
	<!-- Add any further comment here -->
			They replied that they were & asked if I "perhaps have a deeper bias that’s influencing decisions in this respect?"
			They then
	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.
			: ] - While I can't find any comments where they were explicitly ''"warned for casting aspersions"'', they were to ] in the topic area.
	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)
			:Also, apologies for my ''"diffs of edits that violate this sanction"'' section, this is the first time I've filed a request here & I thought it'd be best to explain the ''preamble'' to my revert, but I understand now that I misunderstood the purpose of that section & will remember such for the future. - ] (]) 15:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	: 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)
			:@] I was able to find a copy of the opinion article being cited . ] (]) 20:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	<!-- 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 :
	<!--- 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===
	<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>
			===Discussion concerning KronosAlight===
	====Statement by Joshua Jonathan====
			<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>
	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====		====Statement by KronosAlight====
	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)
			This is a complete waste of the Arbitration Committee’s time.
	====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)
			1. That Yousef was born and raised a Muslim is important and neutral context for readers to be aware of when the article refers to claims of ‘Islamophobia’.
	====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)
			2. The scarequotes indicate that the claim comes from the sources provided, rather than being an objective ‘fact’ determined by a few Misplaced Pages Editors with an axe to grind.
	====Statement by Delibzr====
			3. This was already addressed on the Talk page and I updated the sentence to say settlers/soldiers with a further label that it needed further clarification because the source does not in fact unambiguously say what Butterscotch Beluga claims.
	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.
			A few lines above what Butterscotch Beluga quotes is the following lines: “AMANPOUR: How did you take part in that? Were you one of the small children who threw rocks at Israeli soldiers?
	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.
			YOUSEF: The model for every Palestinian child is a mujahid (ph) or a fidahi (ph) or a fighter. So, of course, I wanted to be one at that point of my life. It wasn't -- it's not my only dream. It's every child's dream in that territory.”
	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.
			The updated Wiki page noted both settlers/soldiers and included a note that this requires further clarification, perhaps based on other sources, because it isn’t clear (contra Butterscotch Beluga) whether he is referring to soldiers or settlers.
	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)
			4. It is not controversial to accurately describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation. It is simply a fact. To suggest otherwise is POV-pushing.
	@ 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)
			5. This is not POVPUSH; ‘assassinations’ against civilians during peacetime are usually called ‘murders’.
	@ 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)
			I in fact didn’t even remove the word ‘assassinations’, I merely broadened the description from ‘Israelis’ to ‘Israeli civilians and soldiers’ (as Butterscotch accepted) to indicate the breadth of the individuals in question included both civilians and combatants. This is not POVPUSH, it is simply additional information and context verified in the source itself.
	====Statement by 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.
			All in all, a vexatious claim and a waste of the Arbitration Committee’s time.
	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.
			====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
	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)
			Regarding "I was correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors", it would be helpful if KronosAlight would explicitly identify the antisemitic editors and the edits they corrected so that they can be blocked for being antisemitic editors. ] (]) 08:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			The editor has been here since 2012. It is reasonable to assume that they know the rules regarding aspersions. It is reasonable to assume they are intentionally violating them, presumably because they genuinely believe they are dealing with antisemitic editors. So, this report is somehow simultaneously a vexatious complete waste of time and the result of the someone interfering with their valiant efforts to correct errors made by antisemitic editors. Why do they have this belief? , a comment they had the good sense to revert. For me, this is an example of someone attempting to use propaganda that resembles antisemitic conspiracy theories about media control to undermine Misplaced Pages's processes and then changing their mind. But the very fact that they thought of it is disturbing. Their revert suggests that they are probably aware that there are things you can say about an editor and things you cannot say about an editor. From my perspective, what we have here is part of an emerging pattern in the topic area, a growing number of attacks on Misplaced Pages and editors with accusations of antisemitism, cabals etc. stemming in part from external partisan sources/influence operations. ] (]) 17:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	====Statement by 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)
			====Statement by Zero0000====
			Aspersions:
			*
			*
			*
			*
			]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			====Statement by Vice regent====
	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)
			{{u|KronosAlight}}, you on 14 Dec 2024: "{{tq|An open letter signed by Christian and Muslim religious leaders interpreted that statement as a threat and incitement to violence}}" to "{{tq|An open letter signed by Christian and Muslim religious leaders claimed was a threat and incitement to violence, though no threats or violence in fact occurred}}".
	: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)
			Can you show where either of the sources state "though no threats or violence in fact occurred"? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	====Statement by Robert Walker====
			====Statement by Smallangryplanet====
	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:
			Wanted to add some pertinent evidence:
	from (with no attribution).
			'''Talk:Zionism''':
	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.
			*
			*
			*
			'''Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon''':
	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.
			'''Talk:Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world''':
	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 ]
			'''Talk:2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks''':
	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)
			'''Talk:Anti-Zionism''':
	====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)
			*
			'''Talk:Gaza genocide''':
	====Statement by నిజానికి====
			*
			*
			'''Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre''':
	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)
			'''Talk:Al-Sardi school attack''':
	====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.
			'''Talk:Eden Golan''':
	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)
			'''Other sanctions''':
	====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)
			* March 2024: for ], ], etc
	====Statement by VictoriaGrayson====
			* June 2024: to abide by 1RR
	Joshua Jonathan has remedied the alleged copyright issues. Lets move on.]<sup>]</sup> 15:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
			* October 2024: for a week
	====Statement by (username)====		====Statement by (username)====
	<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->		<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
	===Result concerning Joshua Jonathan===		===Result concerning KronosAlight===
	:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''		:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
			* Much of the "diffs of edits that violate this sanction" fail to explain "how these edits violate" the sanction - to me, much of these diffs look like a content dispute. However, the "additional comments" section DOES have a diff that is concerning and violates the CT by casting an aspersion that is not backed up by a diff - the "antisemitic editors" diff. Has KA been previously warned for casting aspersions? If they have, I'm inclined to issue a topic ban, but many other editors get a warning for this if they lack a previous warning. The diffs brought up by Zero (not all of which I necessarily see as aspersions, but the "Jew-hatred" one is definitely over the line - but it's from September so a bit late to sanction for just that) - did anyone point out that aspersions/incivility in this topic area is sanctionable? I see the warnings for 1RR and consensus required... ] (]) 13:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			** {{ping|KronosAlight}} - can you address the fact that saying "correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors" and "Is there no limits you will not cross in order to seek to justify your Jew-hatred"? Neither of these are statements that should ever be made - and the fact that you seem to not to understand this is making me lean towards a topic ban. ] (]) 14:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*KronosAlight, can you please provide quotes from the references you cited for - for instance - "for his terrorist activities" in , showing that the sources explicitly supported the content you added? Calling a person or an organization is perfectly acceptable if you support that with reliable sources; if it is original research, or source misrepresentation, it isn't acceptable. I cannot access some of the sources in question. You may provide quotes inside a collapsed section if you wish to save space. ] (]) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I missed Zero's comments earlier. A lot of those comments, while concerning, are generic, not directed at a specific editor. , however, is beyond the pale. I would need some convincing that this user is able to edit this area constructively. ] (]) 20:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::@], can you please respond to this? I too am concerned...the quote you're objecting to wasn't from DrSmarty. It was a ''direct quote'', scare quotes and all, from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. You seem to have reacted to it as if it were DrSmarty. ] (]) 16:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I don't like to sanction ''in absentia'', and I'm not yet suggesting we do so, but I want to note that not choosing not to respond here, or going inactive to avoid responding, will not improve the outcome as far as I am concerned. ] (]) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:They're a pretty sporadic editor...many edits over a period of a few days, then nothing for two weeks. Maybe we pin this until they edit again? ] (]) 17:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I agree with Valereee that this editors contribution history shows a pattern of editing for a day or two at a time followed by several weeks of inactivity. So I don't think it's fair to say they went inactive here but also holding this open for multiple weeks waiting for a response places some burden on the other other interested editors. ] (]) 17:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->		<!-- 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)
			==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nicoljaus==
	:*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)
			<small>''Procedural notes: Per the ], a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>
			<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections{{space}}but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see ]).''</small>
	*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)
			; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Nicoljaus}} – ] (]) 13:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	==Eric Corbett==
	{{hat|1=Blocked for 72 hours for violating a topic ban. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; ] // ] // ] // </small> 18:39, 27 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>
			; Sanction being appealed : To enforce an ],&nbsp;and for edit warring, and , you have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing Misplaced Pages.
	===Request concerning Eric Corbett===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Amortias}} 19:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
			; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|ScottishFinnishRadish}}
	; 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. --->
			; Notification of that administrator : I'm aware. ] (]) 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
	<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
			===Statement by Nicoljaus===
	; ] 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.
			The circumstances of my blocking were:
	; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
			*I was looking for a Misplaced Pages account for ] to add it to Wikidata. I couldn't find it, so I did a little research. The in the article indicated that she participated in some '''WikiWrites'''(?) project. I didn’t find such a project, but I found the '''WikiRights''' project: https://ar.wikipedia.org/ويكيبيديا:ويكي_رايتس. It was organized by a certain Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. I read the ] article and didn't see any outside perspective, "controversy" or anything like that, just self-representation. I surfed the Internet and instantly found information that must be in the article to comply with the NPOV. I started adding {{diff2|1220241573}}, everything went well for two days. Then:
	<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
			*12:53, 23 April 2024 - Zero0000 made a complete cancellation of all additions {{diff2|1220380219}}</br>
			*13:14, 23 April 2024 - (20 minutes later!) Selfstudier wrote on my TP {{diff2|1220382377}}</br>
			*14:20 - 14:22, 23 April 2024 -‎ With two edits ({{diff2|1220390536|first}}, {{diff2|1220390820|second}}) I partially took into account the comment of Zero0000 about "ethnic marking", but returned the last {{Diff||1220390820|1220380219}}.</br>
			*14:27, 23 April 2024 (7 minutes later!!) Selfstudier makes a second complete cancellation of all my edits, blaming POV editing {{diff2|1220391708}}</br>
			*14:45, 23 April 2024‎ - I’m returning the version where I partially took into account Zero0000’s comments (removed "ethnic marking"){{diff2|1220394447}}</br>
			*15:10, 23 April 2024 - Selfstudier accuses me of 1RR breach. In the dialogue, I explained that the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination. My first undo was part of a counter edit ]</br>
			*15:41, 23 April 2024 Selfstudier writes on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement {{diff2|1220403117}}</br>
			*16:10, 23 April 2024 (30 minutes later!) ScottishFinnishRadish issues an indefinite block {{diff2|1220407252}}. No opportunity to write my “statement”, as well as an extremely bad faith interpretation of my remark as "an intent to game 1rr".</br>
			Given that the both Selfstudier and Zero0000 are currently being discussed in Arbcom (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence), I humbly ask you to take a fresh look at my indefinite block and soften the restrictions in some way". ] (]) 19:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{yo|ScottishFinnishRadish}} - You {{diff2|1263932187||mean}}, I need to discuss my previous edit war blocks? Well, the last one was almost four years ago and that time I simply forgot that I was under 1RR (there was a big break in editing) and tried to get sources for a newly added map, and the opponent refused to do so {{diff2|983337359}}. As it turned out later, the true source was a book by a fringe author, which the RSN called "Usual nationalistic bullshit, no sign of reliability". Yes, it was a stupid forgetfulness on my part. ] (]) 16:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{yo|Aquillion}} {{tq| Even if you were correct that Selfstudier & Zero0000 were WP:TAGTEAMing (always a tricky accusation, because it's hard to separate that from just your edits being so obviously problematic that two people independently reverted them)}} -- That's why I wrote that my "so problematic edits" attracted attention only after two days, but two users appeared within 20 minutes. However, after months, a lot of data about the cooperation of these users appeared (and this is not my imagination): "While a single editor, Shane (a newbie), advocated for its inclusion, a trio of veterans including Zero0000, Nishidani and Selfstudier fought back. After Selfstudier accused Shane of being a troll for arguing for the photo’s inclusion, Zero0000, days later, “objected” to its inclusion, citing issues of provenance. Nishidani stepped in to back up Zero0000, prompting a response by Shane. The following day, Zero0000 pushed back against Shane, who responded. The day after, Nishidani returned with his own pushback. The tag-team effort proved too much for Shane, who simply gave up, and the effort succeeded: the photo remains absent" . I'll add that after Selfstudier accused Shane of trolling, Zero0000 appeared on Shane's page and said: "Kindly keep your insults to yourself I won't hesitate to propose you for blocking if you keep it up" {{diff2|1017316378}}. According to the table at the link , these two users cooperated like this 720 times. Probably hundreds of people were embittered, forced out of the project, or led to blocking like me.--] (]) 13:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish}} Hello, thank you very much for transferring my remarks, now I understand how it works. I would like to clarify the issue of meatpuppetry. You directly accused me of such intentions in justifying the block, and now this accusation has been repeated {{diff2|1264013557}}. Let's figure out whether that Selfstudier and Zero0000 are working too closely was so absurd? Was it really and remains so absurd that it could not be perceived as anything other than my self-exposure? I don't think so.</br>
			As for the "edit war" - I understand that edit wars are evil. In the spirit of cooperation, I tried to meet my opponents halfway, as in this case, taking into account their claim, which I could understand, in the counter edit. If such an action is also considered an edit war and a violation of the 1RR/3RR rule - I will of course avoid it in the future.--] (]) 16:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish===
	;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.
			Absent from the appeal is discussion of the five prior edit warring blocks and any indication that they will not resume edit warring. ] (]) 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I said {{tq|They have a long history of edit warring, so I'd like to see that addressed rather than blaming others}} above, twelve days ago. ] (]) 16:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{u|Nicoljaus}}, you should be focusing on convincing people that you won't edit war in the future rather than more ]. ] (]) 13:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Statement by (involved editor 1)===
			===Statement by (involved editor 2)===
	; 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 -->
			===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nicoljaus ===
	; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
			<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>
	<!--- 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====		====Statement by Simonm223====
			looks like a bright-line ] violation via ] and ] - and removing BLP violations are generally somewhere where there is some latitude on ] which makes the actions of Zero0000 and Selfstudier more justified, not less. ] (]) 13:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	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)====		====Statement by Aquillion====
			{{tq|Selfstudier accuses me of 1RR breach. In the dialogue, I explained that the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination. My first undo was part of a counter edit}} - I feel like this is obvious enough that I probably don't have to point it out, but "counter edit" is not a ] / ] exception. Even if you were correct that Selfstudier & Zero0000 were ]ing (always a tricky accusation, because it's hard to separate that from just your edits being so obviously problematic that two people independently reverted them), it ''still'' would not justify your revert. The fact that they're parties to an ArbCom case (which hasn't even yet found any fault with them!) doesn't change any of this. You should probably read ]. --] (]) 14:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	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====		====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
			"the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination"...yet another conspiracy-minded evidence-free accusation against editors in the PIA topic area, the third one at AE in just a few days. ] (]) 14:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	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)
			====Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)====
	*Note also Corbett was blocked about 1 month ago for comments to Lightbreather of a similar nature. See .
			===Result of the appeal by Nicoljaus===
	*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)
			:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
	*{{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)
			*I do not see any indication that Nicoljaus actually realizes the problem. The edit warring blocks were indeed some time ago, but one might think they would remember it after being blocked for it repeatedly, not to mention that being issued a CTOP notice might call a CTOP restriction to mind. And the remark in question sure looks to me like a threat to game 1RR via ], too. Given all that, I would decline this appeal. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			* I see nothing in this appeal that makes me think they've taken on board the changes that they'd need to do to be a productive editor. It reads to me like "my block was bad, here's why", and that's not working as a reason for me to support unblocking. ] (]) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Nicoljaus, what we need to see is you demonstrating you understand edit-warring at a CTOP, which is what you were blocked for, and convincing us you won't do it again. Arguing the block should be lifted because other editors did something you thought looked suspicious isn't going to convince us. <small>Just FWIW, Nicoljaus, the source doesn't actually say {{xt|these two users cooperated like this 720 times}}. It says they edited the same articles 720 times, and that's not unusual. Most editors see the same other editors over and over again in articles about their primary interest. And edit by editor 1>2 days>revert by editor 2>revert by editor 1>20 minutes>revert by editor 3 is also not at all unusual anywhere on the encyclopedia and isn't evidence of tag-teaming. People read their watch lists. Any editor with that article on their watchlist, which is nearly fifty editors, might have investigated the large revert of an edit by an experienced editor at a contentious topic.</small> ] (]) 15:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:@], it's not that edit wars are evil. It's that they're disruptive, and particularly in a CTOP we really really don't need additional disruption and drama. A revert is a revert, even if you {{xt|tried to meet my opponents halfway, as in this case, taking into account their claim, which I could understand, in the counter edit}}. Re: {{xt|If such an action is also considered an edit war and a violation of the 1RR/3RR rule}}: a revert is a revert and is covered in the policy around reversions. And you have a history of blocks for edit-warring, including at other CTOPs.
			*:It's been seven months since the block. I'm trying to come around to a way to at least allow this editor a ''chance'' to show us they've taken this stuff on board...maybe a 0RR at all CTOPs? ] (]) 17:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
			==PerspicazHistorian==
	====Statement by Knowledgekid87====
			<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===
	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)
			; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|PerspicazHistorian}}<p>{{ds/log|PerspicazHistorian}}</p>
	*@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)
			<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	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)
			;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
	====Statement by Buster7====
			<!--- 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 :
	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)
			<!-- 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.-->
	*Kk87. Its "militant feminists" not "feminist militants". . ]<small>]</small> 23:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
			# - removed "discrimination" sidebar from the page of ] (fascist ideology) even though the sidebar was inserted inside a section, not even the lead.
	*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)
			# - tag bombed the highly vetted ] article without any discussion or reason
			# - attributing castes to people withhout any sources
			# - edit warring to impose the above edits after getting
			# - just like above, but this time he also added unreliable sources
			# - still edit warring and using edit summaries instead of talk page for conversation
			# - filed an outrageous report on WP:ANI without notifying any editors. This report was closed by Bbb23 as "{{tq|This is nothing but a malplaced, frivolous personal attack by the OP.}}"
			; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
	====Statement by Ironholds====
			<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
	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.
			*Already 2 blocks in last 4 months for edit warring.
			;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
			; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
			<!-- Add any further comment here -->
			I do not see any positive signs that this editor will ever improve. So far he has only regressed. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	As an aside of my own: ], you had some honour to maintain, I believe? ;p. ] (]) 21:25, 26 February 2015 (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)
	====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)
			; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	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)
			<!-- 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. --->
	====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.
			===Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian ===
	====Statement by Drmies====
			<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>
	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====		====Statement by PerspicazHistorian ====
			By far I am also concerned how my edits were forcefully reverted without a proper reason despite providing enough references. Please check how I am getting attacked by them on ] Page.
	@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)
			I didn't know about the three-revert-rule before ] told me about this: ].
			Please grant me one more chance, I will make sure not to edit war.<br>
			In the below statement by LukeEmily, As a reply I just want to say that I was just making obvious edit on ] by adding a list of notable people with proper references. And according to ] it is clearly said: "Edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism." It was a good faith edit but others reverted it. I accept my mistake of not raising it on talk page as a part of ].<br>
			As a clarification to my edit on ], it can be clearly seen that I provided enough reference to prove its a terrorist organisation as seen in this . I don't know why is there a discussion to this obvious edit? Admins please correct me if I am wrong.
			:@], Yes I read about 1RR and 0RR revert rules in ]. I now understand the importance of raising the topic on talk page whenever a consensus is needed. Thank You ! ] (]) 07:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Yes, I will commit to that. ] (]) 13:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) <small>Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC) </small>
	====Statement by John Carter====		====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 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====		====Statement by Doug Weller====
			I'm involved so just commenting. I don't think this editor is competent. I had to give them a community sanction caste warning as they were making a mess of castes. See this earlier version of their talk page.]https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:PerspicazHistorian&oldid=1262289249] and ]'s comment that "It was very unwise of you to keep moving ] to article space when it has not passed review. As a direct result of your actions, a deletion discussion is taking place, and when this is complete and the article is deleted, you will be prevented from recreating it. ] (]) 14:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)" There have also been copyright issues. I strongly support a topic ban. ] ] 11:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	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)
			: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)
	:{{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)
			::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.
	::{{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)
			::''<small>P.S.- I don't know If I will be blocked or what , according to this enforcement rules, I just want to personally wish good luck to you for your ongoing cancer treatments, You will surely win this battle of Life. Regards.</small>'' ] (]) 12:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I won't be involved in the decision. No more treatments for me, just coast until... ] ] 12:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Result concerning PerspicazHistorian ===
	====Statement by Giano====
			:''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)
	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:
			<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
			:@], that explanation of edit warring is a bit wanting. An edit war is when two or more editors revert content additions/removals repeatedly. Even a second reversion by the same editor can be considered edit warring. Best practice -- and what I highly recommend, especially for any inexperienced editor -- is ''the first time'' someone reverts an edit of yours, go to the talk page, open a section, ping the editor who reverted you, and discuss. Do you think you can commit to that?
			:<small>Re: your question on why your "obvious edit" was reverted: we don't deal with content issues here, only with behavior issues, but from a very quick look, the source is 50 years old, and using a list headed "TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS LISTED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967" that includes a certain organization as a source that the organization should be described as a terrorist organization is ]; in their ] NXcrypto provided an edit summary of "Not a reliable source for such a contentious label. See WP:LABEL." Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here.</small> ] (]) 11:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*<!--
	*''"(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.''
	*{{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. -->
	{{hab}}

---

Latest revision as of 05:12, 24 December 2024

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

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

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

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

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

Entropyandvodka

No action. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Entropyandvodka User who is submitting this request for enforcement Safrolic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Entropyandvodka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:ARBPIA, WP:GAMING Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Between Oct 6 and 7th, 2023, this user made over 500 edits changing short descriptions. example,contribs log during the time period A majority of the edits were on Oct 6th, about 325 by my very rough count. They stopped their edit chain a few minutes after getting EC on the 6th, then did a couple hundred more on the 7th. Granted at 16h00, final edit of the day at 16h03 They had never made this kind of edit before, and they've only made a few edits of this type ever since, all on one P-I article this spring. They now have over 1,400 edits. Since then they have focused almost entirely on the PIA space, but have dedicated some time to the invasion of Ukraine. In the Russian invasion space, they've concerned themselves with making sure that a pro-Russian narrative is represented. They appear in Billedmammal (talk · contribs)'s ARBPIA statistics broadsheet, which shows their edits as being 100% in PIA for the remainder of 2023 and 75% PIA for 2024. I sought input from SFR before making this report, because I see deeper implications from a gaming run for PIA on Oct 6th 2023. I have not interacted with this user, beyond notifying them of this report. If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 8 May 2024 by SeraphimBlade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 13 Oct 2023 (see the system log linked to above). Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 8 May 2024 (same incident as the warning). Additional comments by editor filing complaint Re: Liz's comment, I was unsure whether this was stale given that their further edits would put them over EC by now, though likely not without counting the PIA-related edits. This was why I asked SFR on his talk page first, who advised me that there likely wasn't a stale period for permission gaming. I haven't tried to assess recent content or conduct beyond a brief look at the Russia/Ukraine related edits. Safrolic (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning Entropyandvodka Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Entropyandvodka Statement by (username) Result concerning Entropyandvodka This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Since this editor now has about 1400 edits, if those edits had been gaming, they would be EC by now without them. I'm not sure how we assess possible gaming from over a year ago. Are there recent edits that concern you? I'd like to see what admins who frequent ARE think about this case. Liz 21:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC) As Liz said, they'd be well over EC by now anyway. I'm really not inclined to go over stuff dredged up from a year ago unless there's been actual misconduct since then (and then it would be the more recent misconduct that would concern me). It evidently wasn't enough of a concern for anyone to raise in a timely fashion. Seraphimblade 02:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC) I said on my talk page that I didn't really think that gaming could be stale, but I'm also interested in if there has been disruptive editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC) Without further evidence of disruptive editing I will be closing this as no action taken. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC) I don't think there's a bright-line rule in this area, but the combination of "over a year ago" and "hundreds of subsequent edits" is enough for me to support closing without action, which I will do momentarily. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

xDanielx

xDanielx is subject to the zero revert rule on content within the scope of WP:ARBPIA. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning xDanielx User who is submitting this request for enforcement Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested xDanielx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:ARBPIA Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Material was originally added to the infobox on 17 October and Removed by reported editor on 4 Dec, 5 Dec 7 Dec and 8 December with the last revert coming despite an explicit warning. If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) PIA5 notice Additional comments by editor filing complaint Experienced ex admin who should know better. @Fiveby: It's out of scope for the PIA case as reported editor is not a named party. Both AE and Arbcom prefer not to deal with content issues. Selfstudier (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC) @Fiveby: I did not add the content nor have I edit warred over it. Obviously there are 3 editors who don't share your view while I have not as yet made up my mind, there is an ongoing RSN discussion now, and I will communicate my thoughts on the content there or possibly in an RFC if it ends up as that.Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested here Discussion concerning xDanielX Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by xDanielX I don't think the "explicit warning" by Selfstudier (Last time, RFC or RSN else AE) was appropriate; it seems like the sort of intimidation that WP:BATTLEGROUND prohibits. The idea of adjusting my editing based on intimidation by a highly involved non-admin didn't feel right. Under the conventional view that removing old content generally doesn't constitute a revert, I made two reverts here, with a lot of discussion in between (here, here, here, and this older discussion). My second revert was undoing what seemed like a reflexive tag-team revert, by a user who didn't join the discussion even after I pinged them asking for an explanation. I normally revert very selectively - looking at my past 500 edits, there are only five reverts (at least obvious ones), with only these two being controversial. If I was a bit aggressive here, it was because the material violated our policies in a particularly blatant and severe manner. The estimate in question falls under WP:SCHOLARSHIP since it's based on a novel methodology, and it fails that standard due to a lack of vetting by the relevant scholarly community (public health). The closest we have is this paper by an anthropologist, which includes the estimate but doesn't discuss whether the methodology is valid. The paper also appears to have no citations, and the group that published it doesn't appear to have any real scholarly vetting process. The claim is also a highly WP:EXTRAORDINARY one. Health officials reported 38 starvations (as of Sep 16), which is quite different from the 62,413 (as of Sep 30) estimate. To me pushing to include such an extraordinary claim in wikivoice, with sources that clearly fall short of our relevant policies, indicates either POV pushing or a competence issue. — xDanielx /C\ 18:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC) Responses to M.Bitton @M.Bitton: removals of old material are not the spirit of edit warring, and in practice are generally not understood as reverts, even if they appear to meet the literal definition. Some recent discussions on this were here and here. I believe you misread the (confusing) history a bit; I don't see any restoration by Cdjp1. A related edit by Bogazicili had the effect of moving some footnote content, including a second instance of the 62,413 figure which I had initially missed, into the infobox. I hadn't understood this as an objection to my removal, since the edit summary conveyed a different purpose. It didn't occur to me that you might not have seen my ping. I'll strike that remark, but I still feel that reverting an extensively discussed change with only there is no valid reason to remove this leaves something to be desired. I see that you've now joined the discussion, but still without substantive engagement; merely stating that you're unconvinced doesn't help to move the discussion forward. — xDanielx /C\ 04:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC) @M.Bitton: okay I missed that footnote change, but I think the point stands that neither change clearly conveyed an objection to the idea of removing the estimate from the infobox. If there was such an objection, I would have expected it to be noted in an summary or the discussion thread. And please assume good faith. — xDanielx /C\ 04:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC) @M.Bitton: there is no valid reason to remove this isn't really an explanation. I still have no idea what you disagree with and why. Is your position that the Watson paper is vetted scholarship, or that WP:SCHOLARSHIP doesn't apply, or something else? While this isn't the place, it would be good if you could explain your position in one of the relevant discussions. — xDanielx /C\ 20:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC) @Valereee: I would argue that EW enforcement should account for factors like scale, engagement in discussions, timing, policy support, consensus, and broader patterns of user behavior. Scale: I thought I had made two reverts. Maybe there's an argument that it was really three, but I wasn't aware of it. Engagement: I discussed very substantively (here, here), and tried to get more input. Timing: I thought the discussion seemed to have settled. Noone appeared to be continuing to defend the content in a substantive manner, so I felt more justified in removing it. The latest points like this didn't receive a response (besides Still disagree). Consensus: the local consensus appeared to be leaning toward at least requiring attribution (as we do in the body which I didn't remove). There's also just a very clear global consensus against including unvetted WP:SCHOLARSHIP (no peer review, citations, etc) in wikivoice. Patterns of behavior: these were my only controversial reverts in recent memory (at least looking at 500 edits). If I could rewind, I would at least give it extra time to make sure that the discussion had settled, and maybe leave it to someone else to enact the result. However, I think if this were to be considered actionable edit warring, then nearly all active editors in the topic area would be guilty of it. Even in this same dispute, a different user just made their second revert, with less engagement and so on. I would argue that the single revert with no explanation might actually be the most problematic EW here, although I don't believe there's a consensus on whether single reverts are technically considered EW (there have been some inconclusive discussions on that). — xDanielx /C\ 17:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC) @Ealdgyth: understood, though I think you mean EW broadly rather than 1RR? — xDanielx /C\ 19:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I'm receiving the message that the factors I mentioned aren't good enough, but would still appreciate input on what acceptable participation in an edit war could look like. Maybe the answer is that there is none, but that would seem to depart from convention as I understood it, and possibly lead to a lot more formal RfCs. — xDanielx /C\ 19:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC) @Valereee: understood, but I think a strict/literal reading of EW would capture a lot of activity that's accepted in practice. It seems like in the absence of brightline violations, more subtle distinctions are drawn between acceptable and unacceptable forms of EW. I thought that I was on the right side of this distinction, per my remarks above, but maybe my understanding of it was off base. I can understand a warning here, but it would be more effective with more specific guidance on what to avoid. — xDanielx /C\ 22:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC) @Valereee: it looks I'm already past 500 words, is it okay to continue? Very briefly, I was trying to get at the idea that there seem to be certain informal customs limiting when EW should be enforced, going beyond the formal WP:3RRNO exceptions. If the policy were to be enforced to the letter, there would seem to be a vast number of violations; this same dispute contained at least a second ( ) and possibly a third. — xDanielx /C\ 04:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC) @Valereee:: I was ideally hoping for some clarifications, i.e. A couple comments here made me wonder if this was being (mis)interpreted as a 1RR violation. Are we on the same page that this is a non-brightline instance of EW? Is the intention to enforce EW to the letter, irrespective of factors (outside of WP:3RRNO) like engagement in discussions? Is there a reason for the focus on my involvement and not say (from the same edit war)? Maybe there are good reasons for it, I just want to understand. If this needs to be wrapped up soon, I can commit to following WP:EW to the letter to be safe, unless or until a different line is clarified. I might start a WT:EW discussion afterward to clarify whether there's community support for enforcing WP:EW the letter. — xDanielx /C\ 01:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC) I'm a bit puzzled by the admin discussion. It seems like there are two concerns, That I'm not entirely clear on where the line is. I've acknowledged this, and that's why I've asked for some clarifications in my last five comments, but I haven't really received the clarity I was hoping for. That I'm continuing to justify the edits (as I did initially). This seems like an uncharitable reading of my past several comments; asking for clarity on where the line is isn't an argument that my edits were on the right side of it. I think the implied message I'm getting is along the lines of "it's best to follow EW to the letter, irrespective of any other factors", which would be a clear line that I can follow. It's just frustrating that this hasn't been spelled out very clearly, and my questions seem to have been interpreted as something other than sincere requests for such guidance. — xDanielx /C\ 00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC) @Valereee: thank you, that is pretty clear and I can commit to that. — xDanielx /C\ 16:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by M.Bitton removing old content generally doesn't constitute a revert old content means stable content (you know what that means). I made two reverts this is factually incorrect. You made 3 reverts (excluding the first content removal): Removal of stable content. 1st revert, after Stephan rostie restored it. 2nd revert, after Cdjp1 restored it. 3rd revert, after I restored it. undoing what seemed like a reflexive tag-team revert casting aspersions to justify your disruptive editing is about as low as it gets. didn't join the discussion even after I pinged them this is extremely disingenuous as it implies that I was editing something else while ignoring your notification, when in fact, you pinged me long after I logged out and I haven't edited anything since (the editing history and the diffs don't lie). Furthermore, I already made it clear in the edit summary that I disagree with your reasoning (which consists of made-up rules and demands to satisfy you with answers). The bottom line is that xDanielx is edit warring against multiple editors who disagree with them for various reasons. M.Bitton (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC) @XDanielx: removals of old material are not the spirit of edit warring we all know what edit warring is, so please don't make-up another rule. I don't see any restoration by Cdjp1 maybe that's because you only see what you want to see. Here is is. Like I said, diffs don't lie. It didn't occur to me that's because you assumed bad faith. You made that clear with your aspersions casting that I highlighted above. For the last time, I don't need to convince you. M.Bitton (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)  Note: Instead of simply striking their aspersions, they doubled down on their bad faith assumption (see their edit summary); and to add insult to injury, they reversed the roles and asked me to "assume good faith" (see their comment above). M.Bitton (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC) the single revert with no explanation xDanielx being disingenuous again (what they mean by "no explanation" is "no explanation that they agree with and that they'd rather edit war than take it to RSN or start a RfC"). Anyway, they can also argue all they want, but what they cannot do is justify what they did (edit warring, casting aspersions and assuming bad faith). M.Bitton (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC) I don't believe there's a consensus on whether single reverts are technically considered EW I hope not, because that would mean that you violated that rule three times. One thing is certain though, the 3 reverts that you made are considered EW. M.Bitton (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC) @XDanielx: quote the complete edit summary or don't bother quoting any of it. I didn't invite myself to this board to discuss content. All I'm interested in is your edit warring, your bad faith assumption and the fact that you doubled down on it after casting aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC) @Theleekycauldron: Done. What about their aspersions casting and assumption of bad faith? M.Bitton (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC) @Theleekycauldron: only when the person is not responding (i.e., they are editing something else and ignoring the other editor). I know that they struck the comment, but not without doubling down on the bad faith assumption (see above note). I covered all of this and more in my previous comments. M.Bitton (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by fiveby I'm surprised that Selfstudier is making this report. If you're unable here to look at the article content and sources then this should go straight to the arbcom case as evidence. fiveby(zero) 03:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC) @Selfstudier:, this is blatantly bad content. Like UFO level blatantly bad. It seems to me WP:PROFRINGE editors in some topic areas get told right off to go edit somewhere else, often harshly, quickly warned by admins, and finally sanctioned without a great deal of fuss about the thing. It seems no big deal when admins in those topic areas have some basic knowledge and apply a few research skills to start warning, topic banning, or blocking editors over content when they are otherwise following policies. @Valereee:, seems like an awfully high burden to impose on everyone here, especially when the RfC process seems to be a big part of the problem in the topic area. I could easily put the shoe on the other foot here, find some trivial bits of content: infobox, lead phrasing, or titles, complain on talk pages and then start a few RfC's. If i were to do that it seems best for WP that Selfstudier report me here for wasting everyone's time and admins here should be able to forcefully let me know that i'm just being a jerk. See ya back here when i've some idle time for the devil's work. fiveby(zero) 16:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC) 3 editors who don't share your view... bad actors, not because they do not share my view but because they don't share Misplaced Pages's. Just like all those non-EC editors flooding Talk:Zionism with edit requests and EC editors who've gamed the system to get there. Bad policies. Now there are two good actors and reasonable looking editors here, and more with good work and ideas targets at arbcom. I'd say better to join the edit war and remove that nonsense rather than wasting time with this. fiveby(zero) 17:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC) @Valereee: i think there are such reasonable editors in the topic area who can work things out and are trying to work things out on talk pages with WP:BESTSOURCES, and good work on the real article content in the bodies. Why are they ending up here and at arbcom? I think it's due to the bad policies and the bad actors gaming them. Wastes time and frustrates everyone. fiveby(zero) 18:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning xDanielX This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Daniel, your excuse for edit-warring seems to be that the claim is extraordinary. I totally see your point on this being an extraordinary claim; to me it seems highly dubious that 62,000 people could have died of starvation over the course of a year and it wouldn't be ongoing international front page news rather than speculation/estimation in obscure sources, with multiple mainstream RS only reporting starvation deaths in the dozens. But edit-warring isn't the answer. The answer is an RfC with notification to projects and noticeboards. It would even be fair to suggest the content be removed as dubious until the RfC closes; there's no particular urgency for WP to include such a dubious number in an infobox, which as you pointed out is similar to providing that info in Wikivoice. Valereee (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC) @Fiveby, sure, it would be better if editors at an article would just be able to work it out by saying to themselves, "Hm...yeah, that doesn't really make sense. 62,000+ people dead of starvation? And no one's talking about it except some obscure unpublished research and a letter to POTUS, and both of those estimates are based on a single unproven theory? Maybe we should rethink". But it seems like the editors at the article talk who want to keep this dubious content in the infobox have dug in their heels on defending the poor sourcing and are in the majority. Valereee (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC) @XDanielx, the exceptions to edit warring are detailed at WP:3RRNO. It's best to claim an exception in the edit summary. Valereee (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC) @XDanielx, I feel like WP:3RRNO is specific guidance on what to avoid. What are you not understanding? What revert did you think would covered under the exemptions? Valereee (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC) @xDanielx, you said I think the implied message I'm getting is along the lines of "it's best to follow EW to the letter, irrespective of any other factors", which would be a clear line that I can follow. So here's a clear line to follow, explicitly stated rather than implied: When reverted, go directly to the talk page, open a section, ping the editor, and discuss. Do not revert until consensus has been reached. Unless a reversion is for reasons included by 3RR exemptions, such as a BLP vio, that is best practices. Can you commit to making that your default setting? Valereee (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC) So, looking at the diffs here, it seems like xDanielx removes the content once, it's reverted, removes a second time. Then someone else bundles the list into a footnote and a second person re-adds the content, which xDanielx doesn't recognize as a readdition and thinks that they forgot to remove the same content somewhere else, gets reverted, reverts back. If it were actually the situation that there were two instances of the same content, it'd merit maybe a reminder because it's generally not good practice to arm-wrestle in the revision history to get edits through. Given that and the fact that they weren't being careful, I'd say either a warning or reminder is best. As for the content dispute, both positions are reasonable enough that neither one would be sanctionable on its own as POV-pushing, so it's out of scope for this thread. @M.Bitton: maybe that's because you only see what you want to see is inappropriate for a civil discussion. Please strike that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC) @M.Bitton: Seems like they struck the "reflexive tag-team revert" comment. As for the pinging, it's pretty reasonable to bring up that someone isn't responding when you try and engage with them, I'm not sure I see the same assumption of bad faith. Open to your thoughts on it, though :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC) Per Valereee above, the argument of an extraordinary claim is a reasonable one, but that isn't one of the very few exceptions we allow for edit-warring. I'm also not impressed by the dismissal of SelfStudier's warning as a threat. That said, there is engagement on the talk page, and no bright-line violation, so I would stop at a logged warning about edit-warring. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC) Daniel, there is no 1RR exemption for being right. You need to learn that the revert-button isn't a good first (or any) option in this topic area. Yes, it's frustrating to have to expend effort to discuss things but that's what system we have here at wikipedia. I'm okay with a logged warning, but I do want Daniel to understand that contentious topics such as this demand the best behavior. That's how you stay out of trouble, and yes, the filing against M.Bitton, while perhaps merited, certainly gave off a distinct impression of a retaliatory filing - too much of that sort of thing gets editors topic banned or worse. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I very slightly lean 0RR restriction, just because I think that might help the editor get the idea that edit warring isn't a good idea at all, which might not get through with a logged warning. But its very slight and a logged warning also works. (Sorry for delay - snowfall and I got mesmerized by the beauty of winter ... so nice to be all snug in the house next to the wood stove with hot tea and watching big fluffy flakes falling...) Ealdgyth (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC) Comment to stave off the archive bot. We should reach some resolution here; it looks to me like this is tending toward a warning for edit warring with no further sanction. Seraphimblade 09:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC) My concern is that Daniel keeps arguing that this edit warring should be one of the exemptions and/or indicating that because not all edit warring gets exactly the same response consistently, they don't recognize where the line is. I'm fine with a warning if Daniel will indicate they do now understand where the line is and will comply. Valereee (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC) xDanielx, please consider yourself to have a 300 word extension for the purpose of responding to the above from Valereee. Seraphimblade 16:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC) I'm wondering if this is a case where 0RR may be usefully applied. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC) We need to close this. @Valereee, Seraphimblade, Ealdgyth, and Theleekycauldron: Is there agreement on a logged warning for edit-warring? I agree with Valereee that the justifications above are concerning, but that isn't enough to push me to something more draconian. I floated the idea of a 0RR restriction, but nobody has commented on that, so I would default to a logged warning. I see no history of sanctions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC) I'm still pretty concerned about Daniel's most recent explanation of their understanding of EW. I feel like 0RR might be a better solution, but I'm willing to go along with a logged warning if 0RR doesn't work for others. I kind of feel like if this needs to be revisited, it's quite possibly likely an arbcom case. Valereee (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC) Noting here for the record that Ealdgyth supports either, above in their own response area. Valereee (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC) I think I prefer 0RR here. I'm just not seeing an indication that xDanielx understands that "But I'm really sure I'm right!" is not an exception to the rules on edit warring; indeed, that is the cause of probably 99% of edit wars. Seraphimblade 20:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC) I'm ready to go for a logged warning, given that Daniel has now committed to 0RR as a personal default. Valereee (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC) If you think that's the way to go, I don't have any particular objection to that. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within a day or so, I'll close as such. Seraphimblade 07:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC) I apologize for the tardiness: I was hoping TLC would chime in, but then this fell off my radar. I'm reading a slight consensus in favor of 0RR, given that Seraphimblade, myself, and Ealdgyth all preferred it, and Valereee's latest post does not indicate objection. In addition, if xDanielx intends to hold himself to this standard, it shouldn't prove an onerous restriction. I would be willing to consider an appeal within a few months based on engagement in disputes without a violation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

M.Bitton

M.Bitton is warned against casting aspersions and reminded to abide by WP:CIVIL. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning M.Bitton User who is submitting this request for enforcement XDanielx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:ARBPIA Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it I'll limit this to WP:CIVIL related issues for now, since they're easiest to evaluate with minimal context. 2024-12-09 xDanielx being disingenuous again (what they mean by "no explanation" is "no explanation that they agree with") 2024-12-08 casting aspersions to justify your disruptive editing is about as low as it gets ... this is extremely disingenuous ... made-up rules and demands to satisfy you 2024-12-08 please don't make-up another rule ... maybe that's because you only see what you want to see (partly struck per admin request) 2024-12-01, 2024-12-01 Misplaced Pages is not a collection of every piece of alleged garbage 2024-11-18 When someone keeps misrepresenting the sources (again and again), then I will rightly assume disingenuousness 2024-11-18 I'm starting to question your motives 2024-11-18 Please refrain from repeating your lies (edited to You're being extremely disingenuous. You misrepresented the sources (clearly to push a POV) 2024-11-15 I don't take lessons from those who misrepresent the sources and edit war over WP:OR 2024-11-15 please don't attribute your nonsense to me (this is totally unacceptable) 2024-11-15 Bobfrombrockley is busy adding whatever garbage they can find 2024-11-15 you've been very busy adding whatever garbage you could find to the article 2024-11-15 Do you expect me to explain to you what "freedom of expression" is? 2024-11-14 I'm done wasting my time with this nonsense ... Your self-serving opinion is irrelevant 2024-11-12 offensive humor Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any I'm not aware of CTOP sanctions. The block log seems to show four blocks, but they're not that recent and I'm not sure how relevant they are. If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Was a subject of a previous ARBPIA AE request. Made a couple other statements in ARBPIA AE requests: 2024-12-06, 2024-12-08 Additional comments by editor filing complaint Another 15 diffs were (rightfully) removed by an admin for exceeding the diff limit as well as falling outside PIA scope; just mentioning for transparency. They might be relevant on a different forum but admittedly not here. — xDanielx /C\ 16:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC) @Theleekycauldron: I planned to file something after the "garbage" comments (about BobFromBrockley) on Talk:Al-Manar. I reconsidered after being surprised by M.Bitton's diplomatic compromise there. Admittedly M.Bitton's comments in the thread above prompted me to reconsider again, but that wasn't about the fact that I might receive a warning there (irrespective of M.Bitton's participation); it was just about me personally being on the receiving end of some personal attacks. I don't really follow why me being emotionally affected by the conduct would affect the legitimacy of the report. Most of the incivility was directed at other users, and letting this conduct continue wouldn't seem fair to them. — xDanielx /C\ 16:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 2024-12-09 Discussion concerning M.Bitton Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by M.Bitton Not content with edit warring, assuming bad faith and casting aspersions (see #xDanielx), they now decided to go even lower and file a retaliatory report. M.Bitton (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC) @Vanamonde93 and Ealdgyth: I just want to draw your attention to their aspersions casting tag-team revert (their edit summary, while striking it, leaves no doubt about they believe) and the fact that they falsely accused me: of ignoring their ping (when I was logged out) and reverting without an explanation (when, in fact, I did provide one). M.Bitton (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC) @Ealdgyth: I agree and will make sure that doesn't happen in the future, regardless of what's coming the other way. I should know better than let myself take the bait, but lesson learnt nonetheless. M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC) @Valereee: sure. M.Bitton (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning M.Bitton This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. This is shamelessly and obviously a retaliatory filing, and I'm leaning towards a one- or two-way interaction ban to stop the back-and-forth sniping. But I'd still draw uninvolved admins' attention to this thread and ask what their thoughts are. That seems like pretty battleground-y behavior to me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I see it as a bit retaliatory, but we do need to stop this sniping, especially at AE and other such venues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC) Yeah, a logged warning sounds like enough to me, given their responses so far. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC) Yes, this is retaliatory, and at the same time, M. Bitton's language is not acceptable. Bad behavior should be addressed at an administrator noticeboard, or in a civil post to a user talk page, not with what SFR accurately describes as sniping. I would log a warning for casting aspersions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I agree with SFR and Vanamonde93 that the language used does not help the topic area at all. I don't know if M.Bitton's had a long history of logged warnings before (I'm a bit busy trying to get the farm ready for an artic clipper coming in) but I'm fine with a logged warning. But the filer should be aware that they need to also try to avoid retaliatory-filing look in the future... Ealdgyth (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I'm not happy about Daniel's behavior (but will try to find time to look at it in the earlier filing to avoid getting this one off track) but, M.Bitton, your comments are not just sub-par, but not at all what editors should be directing at others. An acknowledgment of that and working to avoid that in the future is something you need to seriously consider if you're not going to end up sanctioned in the future. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I also think a logged warning should be adequate here, particularly given the limited sanctions history and the commitment to do better in the future. Personally I'm not bothered by the timing of this report in light of xDanielx's explanation, although it's wise to avoid even the appearance of retaliation when you're at AE. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I don't disagree that this is retaliatory, but that doesn't moot the issue. M.Bitton does tend to approach editing in a battleground-y way, and their language often escalates rather than de-escalates. I'd very much like you to start using de-escalating language, M.Bitton. Can you discuss that? Valereee (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC) I meant can you discuss it here, but maybe I wasn't clear. Valereee (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Have not read this but will note that xDanielx is at their word limit. Daniel if you want to post anything else please get an extension first from an uninvolved administrator. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC) Comment to stave off the bot. Looks like the proposed resolution here is a warning for battleground behavior, does that still seem the way to go? Seraphimblade 09:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC) A logged warning, sure. Valereee (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Agreed, and I also agree we should put this to bed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Ethiopian Epic

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

Request concerning Ethiopian Epic

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ethiopian Epic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

[

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

@User:Eronymous

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Ethiopian Epic

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

Statement by Ethiopian Epic

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

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

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

Statement by Relm

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

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

Statement by Simonm223

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

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

Statement by Eronymous

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

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

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

Statement by Nil Einne

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

Result concerning Ethiopian Epic

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tinynanorobots

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

Request concerning Tinynanorobots

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

Tinynanorobots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

18:40, 12 December 2024

Discussion concerning Tinynanorobots

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

Statement by Tinynanorobots

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Relm

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

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

Statement by Barkeep49

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tinynanorobots

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

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

Selfstudier

No evidence of misconduct was presented. Filer Allthemilescombined1 is informally warned against frivolous filings. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 02:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
} This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Selfstudier User who is submitting this request for enforcement Allthemilescombined1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 16 October 2024 Concern for WP:CIVIL violation when Selfstudier told me on my talk page: “enough now.This is a warning to cease and desist with the WP:ASPERSIONS and general unhelpfulness at the Zionism article.” 3 November 2024 Selfstudier dismissed my source ISBN 9798888459683, with “Bernard-Henri Lévy is not an expert on Zionism or colonialism”. 3 November 2024 Selfstudier dismissed my source Adam Kirsch ISBN 978-1324105343 “does not appear to be an expert in Zionism or Settler colonial studies but is apparently well known for a pro Israel viewpoint". These dismissive comments are uncivil. 6 December 2024 Concerning for possible WP:GAME and WP:NOT ADVOCACY violations. Editors with one POV swarmed RM:6 December 2024 and closed it immediately for SNOW. Selfstudier immediately archived parts of this discussion, including my comments, while leaving the parts that supported their POV. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic. Additional comments by editor filing complaint On I/P topics, my edits on numerous occasions have been reverted almost immediately, by Selfstudier and their fellow editors who seem to be always hanging around I/P, and "owning" the topic area. They are creating a hostile editing environment and are violating NPOV. Concerns for possible WP:CIVIL and WP:TENDENTIOUS violations: Abo Yemen dismissed my reasoned arguments as “feelings”:8 December 2024 RolandR dismissed the author of "Saying No to Hate: Overcoming Antisemitism in America", ISBN 978-0827615236, as a “non-notable children’s writer”:3 November 2024 Zero told me “We should stick to history books and not cite emotional polemics”. 3 November 2024 Concerns for possible WP:GAME and WP:NOT ADVOCACY violations: Smallangryplanet accused me of WP:SYNTH and reverted my edits as irrelevant to the article on Holocaust inversion: 2 December 2024 whereas the article, prior to vandalism, resembled: Nableezy added that the only material that can be relevant to the aforementioned article is that which compares Israel to Nazi Germany, ignoring that such comparisons are antisemitic.2 December 2024 Levivich asked me “Why are these academic sources relevant to the discussion? How did you select them?” and added “I won’t bother reading the other two, I'll assume they also say the same thing that everybody else says.” (referring to Katz, Segev, and Goren)3 November 2024 Valeree wrote “If you'll read this talk page rather thoroughly so that you can bring yourself up to speed, you'll probably find fewer editors making sarcastic remarks about your suggestions.” 16 October 2024 Concerns for possible WP:ASPERSIONS violations: Sean.hoyland accused me of “advocacy and the expression of your personal views about the real world” 8 December 2024 and told me to see MOS:TERRORIST 7 August 2024 and accused me of violating WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTADVOCACY:8 December 2024 Sameboat wrote: "Please take extra attention to this recent ECU whose edits to I-P articles look rather deceptive to me".11 December 2024 Concerns for possible WP:TAG TEAM violations: Sameboat wrote on my talk page about Gaza genocide, though they were not involved in the earlier discussion, warning me about WP:NOTFORUM RM:6 December 2024.9 December 2024 Selected examples of my edits which were reverted within hours or minutes (this list is far from comprehensive): 11 December 2024 by Butterscotch Beluga claiming vandalism against a University of Michigan regent was irrelevant to pro-Palestine protests because it happened off campus; 24 November 2024 by Zero arguing that an egregious antisemitic incident 'fails WP:WEIGHT by a mile' 2 December 2024 by Abo Yemen removing my additions to Palestinian perspectives comparing Israel to Nazi Germany from a section on exactly that; along with 24 November 2024 and 2 December 2024 by Smallangryplanet; 1 December 2024 by AlsoWukai removing the disappearance of the ANC's $31 million debt when South Africa accused Israel of genocide. In summary, I have experienced a pattern of consistent, and what appears to be organized, intimidation from a small group of editors. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning Selfstudier Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Selfstudier Statement by Sean.hoyland I see I've been mentioned but not pinged. That's nice. I encourage anyone to look at the diffs and the context. Why are there editors in the topic area apparently ignoring WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTADVOCACY? It's a mystery. It is, and has always been, one of the root causes of instability in the topic area and wastes so much time. Assigning a cost to advocacy might reduce it. Either way, it needs to be actively suppressed by enforcement of the WP:NOT policy. It's a rule, not an aspiration. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by Butterscotch Beluga I didn't say it was "irrelevant to pro-Palestine protests" as a whole. The edit I reverted was specifically at 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses, so as I said, the "Incident did not occur at a university campus so is outside the scope of this article". We have other articles like Israel–Hamas war protests & more specifically Israel–Hamas war protests in the United States that are more in scope of your proposed edit. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by Huldra I wish the filer would have wiki-linked names, then you would easily have seen that Bernard-Henri Lévy "is not an expert on Zionism or colonialism”, or that Adam Kirsch “does not appear to be an expert in Zionism or Settler colonial studies but is apparently well known for a pro Israel viewpoint", Huldra (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by RolandR I too have been mentioned above, and complained about, but not been notified. If this is not a breach of Misplaced Pages regulations, then it ought to be. As for the substance, I see that I am accused of describing Norman H. Finkelstein as a "non-notable children’s writer". Norman H. Finkelstein was indeed a children's writer, as described in most reports and obituaries. At the time of the original edit and my revert, he was not considered sufficiently notable to merit a Misplaced Pages article; it was only a week later that the OP created an article, of which they have effectively been the only editor. So I stand by my characterisation, which is an accurate and objective description of the author. Further, I was concerned that a casual reader might be led to confuse this writer with the highly significant writer Norman Finkelstein; in fact, I made my edit after AlsoWukai had made this mistake and linked the cited author to the genuinely notable person. This whole report, and the sneaky complaints about me and other editors, is entirely worthless and should be thrown out. RolandR (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000 This edit by OP is illustrative. It is just a presentation of personal belief with weak or irrelevant sources. I don't see evidence of an ability to contribute usefully. Zero 00:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by Sameboat It is clear that the filer has failed to understand my message, which was a warning about repeated violations of the NotForum policy. Instead, they have misinterpreted my actions, as well as those of others, as part of a coordinated "tag team." I raised my concerns on User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish after the filer's edit on the UNRWA article regarding its controversy, which failed to properly attribute the information to its source—the Israeli government. This filing is a complete waste of time, and serious sanctions should be imposed on the filer if similar issues occur again in the future. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by AlsoWukai Contrary to the filer's complaint, I never made an edit "removing the disappearance of the ANC's $31 million debt when South Africa accused Israel of genocide." I can only conclude that the filer misread the edit history. AlsoWukai (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by Valereeee The diff allthemiles links to above is me responding to their post (in which they complained about a mildly sarcastic remark by another editor) where they said, "If respectful discussion is not possible, administrative involvement will be needed." I've been trying to keep up at that article talk, so I responded giving them my take on it. I tried to keep engaging, trying to help them understand the challenges for less experienced editors trying to work in the topic, offering advice on how they could get up to speed at that particular article, even offering to continue the discussion at their talk or mine. Valereee (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC) @Liz, editors working in PIA are brought here often and bring other editors here often for various reasons, and it doesn't always mean a given editor is problematic. For instance, the particular appearance you're referring to was brought here by a suspected sock of an LTA. I've seen admins working here who don't work in PIA wonder if the fact someone is brought here often or brings others here often means that editor is a problem, and I get why it feels like some issue with that editor has to be a factor, but in my experience it isn't usually. Some of the best editors working in that area are brought here for spurious reasons, and also need to bring other editors here for valid reasons. And some of the worst offenders there avoid AE. Valereee (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Result concerning Selfstudier This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. While I'm on record as saying that the topic area could us more civility from editors, I'm failing to see anything actionable against the editor filed against here. There's an edit from Oct that isn't great but not even begining to get into my "not civil" category. Then there's a perfectly civil statement about a source from 3 Nov (Hint - "Bernard-Henri Lévy is not an expert on Zionism or colonialism" is exactly the type of discussion that SHOULD be taking place in a contentious topic - it's focused on the source and does not mention any editors at all. The full comment "There is nothing to suggest Bernard-Henri Lévy is an expert on Zionism or colonialism. As I said, it is rather simple to find a source saying what you want it to say, whether that's a WP:BESTSOURCE is another matter." is still quite civil and focused on the source - nothing in this is worth of sanctioning....) The other statement from 3 Nov is also focused on the merits of the source. The fact that it isn't agreeing with your source analysis does not make it dismissive nor uncivil. Frankly, it's quite civil and again, what is expected in a contentious topic - source-based discussion. The comment from 6 Dec is also not uncivil. The rest of the filing is not about Selfstudier and is instead an excellent example of (1) throwing a whole bunch of diffs out hoping something will stick to someone and (2) an example of why filings in this area often turn into huge messess that can't reach resolution. This is supposed to be a filing about Selfstudier's behavior - instead most of it is about a grab-bag of other edits from many other editors, and frankly, seems to be motivated by the filer feeling that they aren't being taken seriously enough or something. I'm not going to read any of these diffs because they are not about the editor you filed against and my time is worth something and we should not reward abuse of this process by this sort of grab-bag-against-everyone-that-disagreed-with-an-editor filing. The only reason I'm not going for a boomerang against the filer is that they have only been editing for about six months and this is the first AE filing they've done. Let me suggest that they do not file another one like this - it's a waste of admin time. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC) I second Ealdgyth's reading. The presented diffs against Selfstudier are not actionable, and a lot of the complaint is not about Selfstudier at all. I don't believe the filing alone is grounds for sanction on the filer, but if someone wishes to present more evidence against them I suggest they do so in a separate report. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC) I stumbled into this by accident and I don't do these requests anymore, but I wonder if filer should edit outside the subject area until they have much more experience in WP:BRD and dispute resolution.YMMV. Best-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Another case on this editor was just closed a week ago, is there any relation between this filing and issues brought up in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive345#Selfstudier? It seems like some editors are brought to AE on a weekly basis. Liz 08:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Rasteem

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

Request concerning Rasteem

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

Rasteem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

1. 23:21 12 December 2024 - removed wikilink of an Indian railway station thus violating his topic ban from India and Pakistan.

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Rasteem

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

Statement by Rasteem

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Rasteem

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

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

שלומית ליר

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

KronosAlight

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

Request concerning KronosAlight

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

KronosAlight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

1. 14 December 2024

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

1. 14 December 2024 - MOS:TERRORIST

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

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

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

1. 14 December 2024 - MOS:TERRORIST

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

They then undid my partial revert

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning KronosAlight

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

Statement by KronosAlight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

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

Statement by Zero0000

Aspersions:

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

Zero 10:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Vice regent

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

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

Statement by Smallangryplanet

Wanted to add some pertinent evidence:

Talk:Zionism:

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

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

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

Talk:Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world:

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

Talk:2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks:

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

Talk:Anti-Zionism:

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

Talk:Gaza genocide:

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

Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre:

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

Talk:Al-Sardi school attack:

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

Talk:Eden Golan:

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

Other sanctions:

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning KronosAlight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nicoljaus

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

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

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

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

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

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

Statement by Nicoljaus

The circumstances of my blocking were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

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

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

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

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nicoljaus

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

Statement by Simonm223

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

Statement by Aquillion

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

Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Result of the appeal by Nicoljaus

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

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

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

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

PerspicazHistorian

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

Request concerning PerspicazHistorian

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NXcrypto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

PerspicazHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

1. 17:57, 18 December 2024 - removed "discrimination" sidebar from the page of Hindutva (fascist ideology) even though the sidebar was inserted inside a section, not even the lead.
2. 17:59, 18 December 2024 - tag bombed the highly vetted Hindutva article without any discussion or reason
3. 10:15, 18 December 2024 - attributing castes to people withhout any sources
4. 12:11, 18 December 2024 - edit warring to impose the above edits after getting reverted
5. 17:09, 18 December 2024 - just like above, but this time he also added unreliable sources
6. 18:29, 18 December 2024 - still edit warring and using edit summaries instead of talk page for conversation
7. 14:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC) - filed an outrageous report on WP:ANI without notifying any editors. This report was closed by Bbb23 as "This is nothing but a malplaced, frivolous personal attack by the OP."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• Already 2 blocks in last 4 months for edit warring.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian

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

Statement by PerspicazHistorian

By far I am also concerned how my edits were forcefully reverted without a proper reason despite providing enough references. Please check how I am getting attacked by them on Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu Page. I didn't know about the three-revert-rule before User: Ratnahastin told me about this: User_talk:PerspicazHistorian. Please grant me one more chance, I will make sure not to edit war.
In the below statement by LukeEmily, As a reply I just want to say that I was just making obvious edit on Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu by adding a list of notable people with proper references. And according to Edit_warring#What_edit_warring_is it is clearly said: "Edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism." It was a good faith edit but others reverted it. I accept my mistake of not raising it on talk page as a part of Misplaced Pages:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle.
As a clarification to my edit on Students' Islamic Movement of India, it can be clearly seen that I provided enough reference to prove its a terrorist organisation as seen in this edit. I don't know why is there a discussion to this obvious edit? Admins please correct me if I am wrong.

@Valereee, Yes I read about 1RR and 0RR revert rules in Misplaced Pages:Edit warring#What edit warring is#Other revert rules. I now understand the importance of raising the topic on talk page whenever a consensus is needed. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I will commit to that. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section. Seraphimblade 13:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement by LukeEmily

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

Statement by Doug Weller

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

At that time I was new to how AFD discussions worked. Later on when Satish R. Devane was marked for deletion, I respected the consensus by not interfering in it. The article was later deleted. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Doug Weller , I just checked your user page. You have 16 years (I am 19) of experience on wiki, you must be right about me. I agree that my start on Misplaced Pages has been horrible, but I am learning a lot from you all. I promise that I will do better, get more neutral here and contribute to the platform to my best. Please don't block me.

P.S.- I don't know If I will be blocked or what , according to this enforcement rules, I just want to personally wish good luck to you for your ongoing cancer treatments, You will surely win this battle of Life. Regards. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Result concerning PerspicazHistorian

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

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

@PerspicazHistorian, that explanation of edit warring is a bit wanting. An edit war is when two or more editors revert content additions/removals repeatedly. Even a second reversion by the same editor can be considered edit warring. Best practice -- and what I highly recommend, especially for any inexperienced editor -- is the first time someone reverts an edit of yours, go to the talk page, open a section, ping the editor who reverted you, and discuss. Do you think you can commit to that?

Re: your question on why your "obvious edit" was reverted: we don't deal with content issues here, only with behavior issues, but from a very quick look, the source is 50 years old, and using a list headed "TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS LISTED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967" that includes a certain organization as a source that the organization should be described as a terrorist organization is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH; in their revert NXcrypto provided an edit summary of "Not a reliable source for such a contentious label. See WP:LABEL." Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here. Valereee (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)