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

< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:56, 17 July 2020 editEl C (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators183,803 edits →Result concerning DrL: action← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:19, 17 July 2020 edit undoDrL (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,147 edits →Statement by DrL Next edit →
Line 407:		Line 407:
	<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 DrL====		====Statement by DrL====

			I was very surprised to receive this notice. I'm merely weighing in on a talk page as I'm allowed to do (at least to the best of my understanding). When the CTMU article was deleted in 2006, there were several administrators who seemed very invested in getting it removed. When I stumbled upon this debate about the redirect and saw what I thought might have been one or two of those admins, I became concerned lest the topic of the article again be unfairly criticized as it was in 2006, when it was misclassified as "intelligent design creationism". But of course, you're right - I should assume good faith no matter how bad it might look. Your advice is appreciated. ] (]) 23:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

	====Statement by (username)====		====Statement by (username)====

Revision as of 23:19, 17 July 2020

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.

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

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

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

YuukiHirohiko

Closing as stale and without an action --Guerillero \| Parlez Moi 15:16, 16 July 2020 (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 YuukiHirohiko User who is submitting this request for enforcement Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested YuukiHirohiko (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 Violates WP:1RR on 1 July: 1) makes a few edits failing WP:OR, WP:RS, 2) then reinstates the problematic edit without edit summary, 3) then doubles down with the problematic edits once again. Claims he will use "scholarly sources", and resorts to using same unreliable sources again while claiming on edit summary that "Scholarly sources added, new details on strength and units." 4 July Falsely alleges editor of being biased: "Please do not carry your own bias into this." 5 July: Gaming WP:1RR by reinstating his edits, then restoring them after being reverted. 5 July: Alleges me of vandalism contrary to WP:NOTVAND. 5 July: Refuses to self-revert and falsely claims that "Indian government sources" are being used on article. Upon seeing rejection of such problematic view, still doubles down with his use of Chinese mouthpieces. He is aware of what constitutes "vandalism" per this message written by him so I am confident that his reference to my edits as vandalism was deliberate. A report on WP:ANEW against this user with regards to edit warring on 2020 China–India skirmishes is still located on the noticeboard (Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit warring#User:YuukiHirohiko reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: ))Aman Kumar Goel 10:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Additional comments by editor filing complaint Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning YuukiHirohiko 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 YuukiHirohiko Logically speaking a page would use as many sources as possible. I have read the Japanese, Chinese wiki pages of the same incident. Both voices are heard, Indian figures and Chinese sources are given on all other language pages respectively. Attempts to do the same on the English site were either reverted without reasoning or deleted on the claim of "using communist mouthpiece". I have not removed the Indian scholarly sources stated in the talk section nor have I moved it. It remains in its original section and I just added my sources. It's more than unusual to use Indian government sources as an official casualty figure of the standing article, more unusual that the objection that I face of doing the same thing for the Chinese side. Indian government statements are well known to be inaccurate and sometimes self contradictory. So proclaimed "scholarly sources" in the article, backing up Indian government claims, are all written by one person, a professor at an Indian university, which according to the talk section sourced his death figures from "Bidanda Chengappa, working for an Indian think tank". I'd like to question the NPOV of this scholarly source. And "On Misplaced Pages, vandalism is editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive. Vandalism includes any addition, removal, or modification that is humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, or otherwise degrading." I see you removing my edits as vandalism as I was given 0 prior warning, 0 indication. You didn't show positive willingness to discuss this, I laid out my logic in my talk page regarding how China still has Cho La in its LAC despite the article stating the opposite, you didn't reply or rebut with solid evidence. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC) References https://time.com/5564980/india-never-shot-pakistani-plane-kashmir/ https://thewire.in/security/modis-no-intrusion-by-china-claim-contradicts-indias-stand-raises-multiple-questions https://scroll.in/article/960403/why-is-modi-government-contradicting-itself-on-whether-the-covid-19-lockdown-has-been-a-success Statement by (username) Result concerning YuukiHirohiko This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I cannot tell if YuukiHirohiko's sources are reliable and if they cite government sources. The status of this or that source which is not in English should have been discussed, and resolution arrived in that respect, on the article talk page first — before making key changes to the article based on these. YuukiHirohiko seems to be a new user who is currently SPAing. I'd be willing to go with, say, a week partial block from the article, or even just a warning, if they commit to the needed correction, which includes reading what vandalism is not. Very important. El_C 16:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Closing as stale and without an action --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:16, 16 July 2020 (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 YuukiHirohiko

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: YuukiHirohiko (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

Violates WP:1RR on 1 July: 1) makes a few edits failing WP:OR, WP:RS, 2) then reinstates the problematic edit without edit summary, 3) then doubles down with the problematic edits once again.
Claims he will use "scholarly sources", and resorts to using same unreliable sources again while claiming on edit summary that "Scholarly sources added, new details on strength and units."
4 July Falsely alleges editor of being biased: "Please do not carry your own bias into this."
5 July: Gaming WP:1RR by reinstating his edits, then restoring them after being reverted.
5 July: Alleges me of vandalism contrary to WP:NOTVAND.
5 July: Refuses to self-revert and falsely claims that "Indian government sources" are being used on article. Upon seeing rejection of such problematic view, still doubles down with his use of Chinese mouthpieces.

He is aware of what constitutes "vandalism" per this message written by him so I am confident that his reference to my edits as vandalism was deliberate.

A report on WP:ANEW against this user with regards to edit warring on 2020 China–India skirmishes is still located on the noticeboard (Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit warring#User:YuukiHirohiko reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: ))Aman Kumar Goel 10:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning YuukiHirohiko

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 YuukiHirohiko

Logically speaking a page would use as many sources as possible. I have read the Japanese, Chinese wiki pages of the same incident. Both voices are heard, Indian figures and Chinese sources are given on all other language pages respectively. Attempts to do the same on the English site were either reverted without reasoning or deleted on the claim of "using communist mouthpiece".

I have not removed the Indian scholarly sources stated in the talk section nor have I moved it. It remains in its original section and I just added my sources.

It's more than unusual to use Indian government sources as an official casualty figure of the standing article, more unusual that the objection that I face of doing the same thing for the Chinese side. Indian government statements are well known to be inaccurate and sometimes self contradictory.

So proclaimed "scholarly sources" in the article, backing up Indian government claims, are all written by one person, a professor at an Indian university, which according to the talk section sourced his death figures from "Bidanda Chengappa, working for an Indian think tank". I'd like to question the NPOV of this scholarly source.

And

"On Misplaced Pages, vandalism is editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive. Vandalism includes any addition, removal, or modification that is humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, or otherwise degrading."

I see you removing my edits as vandalism as I was given 0 prior warning, 0 indication. You didn't show positive willingness to discuss this, I laid out my logic in my talk page regarding how China still has Cho La in its LAC despite the article stating the opposite, you didn't reply or rebut with solid evidence. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Statement by (username)

Result concerning YuukiHirohiko

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

I cannot tell if YuukiHirohiko's sources are reliable and if they cite government sources. The status of this or that source which is not in English should have been discussed, and resolution arrived in that respect, on the article talk page first — before making key changes to the article based on these. YuukiHirohiko seems to be a new user who is currently SPAing. I'd be willing to go with, say, a week partial block from the article, or even just a warning, if they commit to the needed correction, which includes reading what vandalism is not. Very important. El_C 16:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Erik-the-red

Please try Dispute Resolution such as an RfC to solve this dispute --Guerillero \| Parlez Moi 15:18, 16 July 2020 (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 Erik-the-red User who is submitting this request for enforcement Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Erik-the-red (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 ARBIPA : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Personal attacks 17–19 June 20:27, 17 June 2020 Says: "it is quite hypocritical for you to posture about consensus" 23:19, 17 June 2020 Says: 'You are extremely hypocritical if you think it's acceptable for you to offhandedly imply that I am motivated by "certain nationalistic posturings,"' 00:25, 18 June 2020 Says: "Or, you could keep being a hypocrite" 15:28, 18 June 2020 Says: "Regardless of your blatant hypocrisy, you are muddying the waters on what the dispute is." 00:21, 19 June 2020 Says: "You have once again demonstrated that you are discussing in very bad faith, with your repeated acts of dishonesty, hypocrisy, and gaslighting." Personal attacks 7–9 July 13:44, 7 July 2020 In response to stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS and work to resolve disputes, they say: "I repeat what I wrote to you on 19 June 2020: pointing out your repeated acts of dishonesty, hypocrisy, and gaslighting does not get us any further to a resolution.". 15:45, 7 July 2020 When warned of WP:NPA, they say: "Pointing out that you have repeatedly been dishonest, that you have repeatedly been hypocritical, and that you have repeatedly gaslighted me is not an attack on you" 19:56, 7 July 2020‎ Reinstates a contested edit; "it is possible for someone other than you to write in a way that abides by WP:NPOV" 20:15, 7 July 2020‎ Opens a talk page section titled "Hypocrisy". 20:40, 7 July 2020 Says: "Ah, so at long last, your true colo(u)rs are shown" (in response to stating that there are contending interpretations). WP:CIR 15:18, 8 July 2020‎ No appreciation of WP:V or WP:NPOV: "If you want to argue that... is not in Raghavan or Hoffmann or any other reliable source of your choosing, then that's just another example of your many instances of dishonesty and gaslighting.". Talk:Dhola Post#Map violates WP:NOR: They hold that reproducing a sourced map via OSM Location map constitutes WP:OR. ‎15:52, 7 July 2020 Says "why not use that map?" for a ma published in a book. When it is pointed out that it would be WP:COPYVIO, "Would you care to cite the portion of WP:COPYVIO that you believe is violated..." Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard#OSM_Location_maps: Filibusters WP:NORN, including input from Diannaa. WP:Edit warring ANEW report, 17–18 June: 6 reverts in 24 hours 19:56, 7 July 2020: Reinstates contested edit. Edit summary: "Believe it or not, it is possible for someone other than you to write in a way that abides by WP:NPOV" 15:48, 8 July 2020‎: Reinstates contested edit. Edit summary: "Believe it or not, it is possible for someone other than you to write in a way that abides by WP:NPOV and WP:NOR" Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any None If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 18:37, 17 June 2020 Additional comments by editor filing complaint (350 words) In February this year, I got interested in writing a page on the Dhola Post, an Indian Army post set up in 1962 near the China border, which turns out to be an important topic in the Sino-Indian border dispute. Having found a two-line stub called Dhola, Tibet, which was apparently a reference to this very post, I retitled it to Dhola Post and started expanding it. On 17 June, Erik-the-red came by that page and started bitterly complaining that I had modified the old page, this post being an example. When I pointed out that expanding stubs is normal day-to-day activity, his reponse was "don't gaslight me". After seeing that there was no way to reach agreement, I set the page back to what it was earlier and started a new page on Dhola Post. The user immediately came over to the new page and started modifying it too. Between the two pages, they made 6 reverts in 24 hours, as documented in this ANEW report. The admins did not sanction the editor. So I set it aside for a while to let things cool. During the debates, the user started calling me "extremely hypocritical" . The supposed "hypocrisy" is that I called this place to be disputed territory rather than declare it to be part of Tibet, which is their preference. Returning to the page now, after a month's gap, I find the same WP:BATTLEGROUND editing from the user. No appreciation of WP:V or WP:NPOV, not even WP:COPYVIO, but plenty of pomposity, snide remarks, and blatant personal attacks. Sino-Indian border disputes are filled with plenty of subtleties and complications. Without a good faith effort to resolve the disputes, it is practically impossible to get anywhere. I have twice proposed taking it to WP:DRN, 21:27, 18 June 2020, 11:41, 7 July 2020, to which I received no response. Erik-the-red's strategy is to reinstate a contested edit, argue for a day or two and, without resolving anything, and make more contestable edits, thereby presenting a series of fait accomplis. I don't believe they will seriously seek CONSENSUS unless forced to do so. Just like we saw yesterday as to whether something is a "personal attack" or not, the arguments can essentially go on forever, unless somebody with power and authority is able to put a stop to it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified Discussion concerning Erik-the-red 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 Erik-the-red I would like to respond to Kautilya3's comments. Because of the 500 word limit, I cannot respond to all the claims, so I will show that Kautilya3's first and last claims do not accurately describe the events and use quotes taken out-of-context. Kautilya3 claim: On 17 June, Erik-the-red came by that page and started bitterly complaining that I had modified the old page, this post being an example. My response: I created the first section on the talk page and wrote the following: @Kautilya3: You wrote that "there is no evidence that it has been incorporated in Tibet." However, paragraph 29(f) on page 53 and paragraph 35 on page 54 of the Part I of the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat Report acknowledge that "Dhola Post was established NORTH of the McMAHON Line." Paragraph 29(f) on page 53: "This, in effect, meant that the post was actually NORTH of the McMAHON Line as then marked on the map." Paragraph 35 on page 54: "DHOLA Post was established NORTH of the McMAHON Line as shown on maps prior to October/November 1962 edition." Therefore, by India's own claim, the assertion that "there is no evidence that has been incorporated in Tibet" is false. Erik-the-red (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC) I do not see how any reasonable person could construe the above statements to be "bitterly complaining that had modified the old page" as claimed by Kautilya3. Kautilya3 claim: During the debates, the user started calling me "extremely hypocritical" . The supposed "hypocrisy" is that I called this place to be disputed territory rather than declare it to be part of Tibet, which is their preference. My response: This claim by Kautilya3 is easily shown to be false by examining the link he/she provided. The context of my words were: You are extremely hypocritical if you think it's acceptable for you to offhandedly imply that I am motivated by "certain nationalistic posturings," but it's a "cheap shot" for me to flip it back at you by pointing out that the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report was commissioned by the Government of India. That is, in context, I did not mention Tibet at all. Kautilya3 has thus taken two of my words completely out of context to fit a story implying that I am motivated by nationalistic bias. I hope that my preceding reply has demonstrated that Kautilya3 accuses me of "bitterly complaining" when I merely quoted a source and stated one conclusion. takes my words completely out of context to fit a story implying that I have a nationalistic bias. and therefore that Kautilya3 has not discussed with me in good faith.Erik-the-red (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Posted for Erik-the-red who is currently blocked. El_C 12:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Erik-the-red This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Note that have blocked Erik-the-red for 72 hours for personal attacks as a normal admin action. A topic ban or other AE sanctions may still be considered, however. El_C 17:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC) I'm not sure there's IPA concerns beyond this one article. Why don't both of you turn to a dispute resolution request, like an RfC, and let others weigh in on the dispute? Limit interaction to the utmost in the interim. El_C 14:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Kautilya3, I wouldn't rely on DRN too much as it involves rather intensive interaction. A more standard dispute resolution request, like WP:3O or WP:RFC, are probably more suited for this dispute. El_C 15:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Agree with El C. While Erik-the-red needs to be warned that their tone is not constructive, and sanctions may become necessary if they continue in the same vein, the rest of their editing does not appear to require sanctions. Dispute resolution is the best way to go on this. --regentspark (comment) 14:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Please try to resolve this through an RfC --Guerillero \| Parlez Moi 18:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Please try Dispute Resolution such as an RfC to solve this dispute --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Erik-the-red

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Erik-the-red (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: ARBIPA :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Personal attacks 17–19 June

20:27, 17 June 2020 Says: "it is quite hypocritical for you to posture about consensus"
23:19, 17 June 2020 Says: 'You are extremely hypocritical if you think it's acceptable for you to offhandedly imply that I am motivated by "certain nationalistic posturings,"'
00:25, 18 June 2020 Says: "Or, you could keep being a hypocrite"
15:28, 18 June 2020 Says: "Regardless of your blatant hypocrisy, you are muddying the waters on what the dispute is."
00:21, 19 June 2020 Says: "You have once again demonstrated that you are discussing in very bad faith, with your repeated acts of dishonesty, hypocrisy, and gaslighting."

Personal attacks 7–9 July

13:44, 7 July 2020 In response to stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS and work to resolve disputes, they say: "I repeat what I wrote to you on 19 June 2020: pointing out your repeated acts of dishonesty, hypocrisy, and gaslighting does not get us any further to a resolution.".
15:45, 7 July 2020 When warned of WP:NPA, they say: "Pointing out that you have repeatedly been dishonest, that you have repeatedly been hypocritical, and that you have repeatedly gaslighted me is not an attack on you"
19:56, 7 July 2020‎ Reinstates a contested edit; "it is possible for someone other than you to write in a way that abides by WP:NPOV"
20:15, 7 July 2020‎ Opens a talk page section titled "Hypocrisy".
20:40, 7 July 2020 Says: "Ah, so at long last, your true colo(u)rs are shown" (in response to stating that there are contending interpretations).

WP:CIR

15:18, 8 July 2020‎ No appreciation of WP:V or WP:NPOV: "If you want to argue that... is not in Raghavan or Hoffmann or any other reliable source of your choosing, then that's just another example of your many instances of dishonesty and gaslighting.".
Talk:Dhola Post#Map violates WP:NOR: They hold that reproducing a sourced map via OSM Location map constitutes WP:OR.
‎15:52, 7 July 2020 Says "why not use that map?" for a ma published in a book. When it is pointed out that it would be WP:COPYVIO, "Would you care to cite the portion of WP:COPYVIO that you believe is violated..."
Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard#OSM_Location_maps: Filibusters WP:NORN, including input from Diannaa.

WP:Edit warring

ANEW report, 17–18 June: 6 reverts in 24 hours
19:56, 7 July 2020: Reinstates contested edit. Edit summary: "Believe it or not, it is possible for someone other than you to write in a way that abides by WP:NPOV"
15:48, 8 July 2020‎: Reinstates contested edit. Edit summary: "Believe it or not, it is possible for someone other than you to write in a way that abides by WP:NPOV and WP:NOR"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 18:37, 17 June 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

(350 words)

In February this year, I got interested in writing a page on the Dhola Post, an Indian Army post set up in 1962 near the China border, which turns out to be an important topic in the Sino-Indian border dispute. Having found a two-line stub called Dhola, Tibet, which was apparently a reference to this very post, I retitled it to Dhola Post and started expanding it. On 17 June, Erik-the-red came by that page and started bitterly complaining that I had modified the old page, this post being an example. When I pointed out that expanding stubs is normal day-to-day activity, his reponse was "don't gaslight me". After seeing that there was no way to reach agreement, I set the page back to what it was earlier and started a new page on Dhola Post.

The user immediately came over to the new page and started modifying it too. Between the two pages, they made 6 reverts in 24 hours, as documented in this ANEW report. The admins did not sanction the editor. So I set it aside for a while to let things cool.

During the debates, the user started calling me "extremely hypocritical" . The supposed "hypocrisy" is that I called this place to be disputed territory rather than declare it to be part of Tibet, which is their preference.

Returning to the page now, after a month's gap, I find the same WP:BATTLEGROUND editing from the user. No appreciation of WP:V or WP:NPOV, not even WP:COPYVIO, but plenty of pomposity, snide remarks, and blatant personal attacks. Sino-Indian border disputes are filled with plenty of subtleties and complications. Without a good faith effort to resolve the disputes, it is practically impossible to get anywhere.

I have twice proposed taking it to WP:DRN, 21:27, 18 June 2020, 11:41, 7 July 2020, to which I received no response. Erik-the-red's strategy is to reinstate a contested edit, argue for a day or two and, without resolving anything, and make more contestable edits, thereby presenting a series of fait accomplis. I don't believe they will seriously seek CONSENSUS unless forced to do so. Just like we saw yesterday as to whether something is a "personal attack" or not, the arguments can essentially go on forever, unless somebody with power and authority is able to put a stop to it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Erik-the-red

Statement by Erik-the-red

I would like to respond to Kautilya3's comments. Because of the 500 word limit, I cannot respond to all the claims, so I will show that Kautilya3's first and last claims do not accurately describe the events and use quotes taken out-of-context.

Kautilya3 claim:

On 17 June, Erik-the-red came by that page and started bitterly complaining that I had modified the old page, this post being an example.

My response: I created the first section on the talk page and wrote the following:

@Kautilya3: You wrote that "there is no evidence that it has been incorporated in Tibet." However, paragraph 29(f) on page 53 and paragraph 35 on page 54 of the Part I of the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat Report acknowledge that "Dhola Post was established NORTH of the McMAHON Line."
Paragraph 29(f) on page 53: "This, in effect, meant that the post was actually NORTH of the McMAHON Line as then marked on the map."
Paragraph 35 on page 54: "DHOLA Post was established NORTH of the McMAHON Line as shown on maps prior to October/November 1962 edition."
Therefore, by India's own claim, the assertion that "there is no evidence that has been incorporated in Tibet" is false.

Erik-the-red (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not see how any reasonable person could construe the above statements to be "bitterly complaining that had modified the old page" as claimed by Kautilya3.

Kautilya3 claim:

During the debates, the user started calling me "extremely hypocritical" . The supposed "hypocrisy" is that I called this place to be disputed territory rather than declare it to be part of Tibet, which is their preference.

My response: This claim by Kautilya3 is easily shown to be false by examining the link he/she provided. The context of my words were:

You are extremely hypocritical if you think it's acceptable for you to offhandedly imply that I am motivated by "certain nationalistic posturings," but it's a "cheap shot" for me to flip it back at you by pointing out that the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report was commissioned by the Government of India.

That is, in context, I did not mention Tibet at all. Kautilya3 has thus taken two of my words completely out of context to fit a story implying that I am motivated by nationalistic bias.

I hope that my preceding reply has demonstrated that Kautilya3

accuses me of "bitterly complaining" when I merely quoted a source and stated one conclusion.
takes my words completely out of context to fit a story implying that I have a nationalistic bias.

and therefore that Kautilya3 has not discussed with me in good faith.Erik-the-red (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Posted for Erik-the-red who is currently blocked. El_C 12:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Erik-the-red

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

Note that have blocked Erik-the-red for 72 hours for personal attacks as a normal admin action. A topic ban or other AE sanctions may still be considered, however. El_C 17:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's IPA concerns beyond this one article. Why don't both of you turn to a dispute resolution request, like an RfC, and let others weigh in on the dispute? Limit interaction to the utmost in the interim. El_C 14:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I wouldn't rely on DRN too much as it involves rather intensive interaction. A more standard dispute resolution request, like WP:3O or WP:RFC, are probably more suited for this dispute. El_C 15:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with El C. While Erik-the-red needs to be warned that their tone is not constructive, and sanctions may become necessary if they continue in the same vein, the rest of their editing does not appear to require sanctions. Dispute resolution is the best way to go on this. --regentspark (comment) 14:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Please try to resolve this through an RfC --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Heptor

RGloucester is topic banned from EE broadly construed — user's own request! El_C 20:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Update: user has requested that the ban be lifted but that an enforceable civility restriction be attached, a request which I have granted. Whatever works. El_C 16:13, 12 July 2020 (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 Heptor User who is submitting this request for enforcement RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Heptor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe : Standard discretionary sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Consensus required restriction introduced on 9 July at the war in Donbass article by Ymblanter 10 July – Heptor removes content that had been added to the article as a consequence of the RM result at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War. 10 July – I revert his removal. Additional sources for the relevant sentence had previously been added below on 8 July. 10 July – Heptor ignores the restriction, and once again removes the phrase. He then proceeds to remove sourced content related to Russia's involvement, while leaving the citations intact, skewing the article's portrayal of what the relevant sources say. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Heptor was originally alerted 18 August 2018, but has retained the alert on his talk page in spite of the archival of all other old talk page threads. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Heptor has long pattern of edits intended to whitewash Russia's involvement in the Ukrainian crisis. A notable recent edit was his creation of the "2014 Ukrainian coup d'etat" redirect. In this most recent dispute, Heptor has repeatedly attempted to remove sourced information about Russia's involvement in the war in Donbass from the article, which I have tried to revert. I even added many additional sources to try and placate Heptor, but to no avail. Heptor has continually ignored the consensus found in the RM at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War, and has attempted to overturn it to no avail. This dispute led to the 9 July implementation of a 'consensus required' restriction under ARBEE by Ymblanter. As shown above, Heptor has shown no hesitation to violate the restriction, and continues to remove sourced content, or otherwise twist it in his favour. Discussion on the talk page has, unfortunately, been nothing more than a sparring match between him and myself. Ukrainian-crisis related articles have become a backwater, with few watchers...a place POV pushers and sockpuppets roam free. Attempts to provide sources, with page numbers, do not convince Heptor to stop...and he continues to cherrypick lines that he thinks supports broad conclusions about the 'indigenous' nature of the war, when they don't do any such thing, and otherwise introduce a WP:FALSEBALANCE between Russian claims and the scholarly consensus. I admit that I haven't been very civil in the relevant discourse, and if you want to toss me out the window or otherwise execute me publicly, feel free to do so. My behaviour is basically the result of having worked in this topic area since the outbreak of the relevant unrest, and being subject to a constant stream of sockpuppet attacks, PoV pushing, &c., on both sides. That's not an excuse, but I know bad faith when I see it. I recently discovered a whole sock farm in the topic area (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Dolyn), that seemed to have an anti-Russian angle, and reported it...! If that doesn't indicate my neutrality, I suppose nothing will. But, I digress. Please, I beg of you, do something about this Heptor...and if you want, feel free to sanction me. All I care about is the integrity of the encylopaedia, and nothing more. RGloucester — ☎ 17:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC) @El C: You are taking Heptor's edit summary as fact without bothering to check the diffs I provided. The present wording was introduced 1 July, following an RM at the other page. It was stable at the time of the introduction of the restriction. RGloucester — ☎ 18:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC) @El C: If 1 July is not long-standing (in terms of the restriction), and the version at the time of the implementation is not considered the starting point, then the restriction is pointless, and simply a way to game the system. If you think facilitating this sort of behaviour is in any way helping the encylopaedia, your are wrong. By this logic of an unfixed 'versison', and a restriction that applies retroactively, all of Heptor's changes, which changed a version that had been stable for years, have been in violation of the restriction RGloucester — ☎ 19:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC) El_C I am not the person who inserted the information into the article, so I don't see how you can hold me responsible for that. I agree that the 'onus' is on the person requesting inclusion, but this has been satisfied by an RM supporting the decision to classify these events as such, and reliable sources cited in the article. The onus, at this point, falls on Heptor to conjure a consensus to challenge the existing one, and such a burden has not been met. But, that's fine...again, if you can't see the difference between my edit's and Heptor's, it's 万事休す. Get this over with and topic ban me, as any good administrator would! RGloucester — ☎ 19:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC) @El C: I will do no such thing. I demand a topic ban from all things related to Eastern Europe. It's what you want, so it's what you'll get. RGloucester — ☎ 19:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC) @Guerillero: An RfC will not resolve this problem, as it is not a content issue, but a behavioural issue. If you can't see the difference between my edits and Heptor's, I'm sorry. RGloucester — ☎ 18:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC) @Heptor: This edit is not a violation of the restriction. I was reverting your bold change for the first time following the implementation of restriction at that point. RGloucester — ☎ 19:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Bold edit, revert, restriction violation. Heptor (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC) You're not supposed to comment in other people's sections, Heptor. In any case, no, the relevant edit was made long before the restriction was made, and went unchallenged for days. You're the one that made the bold edit, post-implementation of the restriction. RGloucester — ☎ 19:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified 18:45 10 July 2020 Discussion concerning Heptor 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 Heptor Regarding the diff The phrasing in question, "The War in Donbass is part of the broader Russo-Ukrainian War", was introduced on July 1st without establishing consensus. There is no consensus to mention the page move on Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War#Requested_move_9_June_2020 in the first sentence in the lead in War in Donbass. In addition, the consensus to move "Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) → Russo-Ukrainian War" is at best shaky. Three editors (me and two others) have criticized it as wrong and tendentious, so perhaps the MR was closed too early. I'm not going to wikilawyer, but it was RGloucester who violated the "consensus required" restriction with this edit, as he reintroduced this phrasing without establishing consensus. Heptor (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Other accounts With minor and unrelated exceptions, I do not edit Misplaced Pages with other user names then the one I sign presently. Uncivil tone Indeed, RGloucester had shown a thorough disregard for civility throughout this discourse. My first interaction with him was on February 22nd, when he reverted several hours of my edits with the summary "What a mess you've made...a load of WP:POV and coatrack rubbish". He showed no interest in participating in the discussion when I pinged him on the talk page of the article (section link) on February 25. His very first comment on the talk page (setion link) was "Your edits have been entirely unacceptable, and I've reverted them", quickly followed up by "Past engagement with you has made clear that constructive discussion is impossible". Repeated requests for citations for his ipsi dixit statements on the talk page were met with "I really have no energy to stoop to your level," and a liberal use of the exclamation mark. When he raises this RfE and attempts to present himself as a victim, saying that "if you want to toss me out the window or otherwise execute me publicly, feel free to do so not an excuse, but", I do not see that he in any way justified or apologized for his behavior. Summary The diff presented by RGloucester is not a violation of the "Consensus Required" restriction, and please do something about his lack of WP:CIVILITY and obviously WP:AGF. Heptor (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by Ymblanter Just to comment that my involvement in this accident started wheh Heptor asked me to have a look at the article talk page . I had a look, saw that it was previously actively edited by a sockfarm, and applied extended confirmed protection under arbitration enforcement. Then, following JzG, I thought it was useful to add a "consensus required" sanction. I also advised both usewrs to discuss the issue at the talk page. I never added the article to the watchlist (because, tbh, I am fed up by tendentious editing from both sides of the conflict - in general, not specifically applying it to this accident). Today, RGloucester asked me whether I am going to apply sanctions to Heptor for violation of the arbitration enforcement sanction I applied. I suggested them to go here. Whereas I do not know who is right and who is wrong here (and I am not currently willing to look at it, for a number of reasons), this episode is localized as a long talk page discussion between two users with two well articulated positions, so it should be straightforward for any administrator to have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Out of interest, can you name the socks or is there a privacy issue? Heptor (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Heptor This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. RGloucester your version does not appear to be the longstanding version, so I'm not sure Heptor has violated the restriction. Rather you might have. Anyway, I think this can be solved by a 3rd opinion or an RfC, as opposed to going through the AE procedure here. El_C 17:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC) RGloucester, July 1 is not longstanding. It is new. El_C 19:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC) RGloucester, you need to observe WP:ONUS. El_C 19:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC) RGloucester, please maintain decorum and avoid innuendo. Your failure to do so is not to your credit. El_C 19:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC) RGloucester, your response reveals underlying issues with civility and good faith. You need to correct these, or you will be sanctioned. El_C 19:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Please try to resolve this through an RfC --Guerillero \| Parlez Moi 18:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

RGloucester is topic banned from EE broadly construed — user's own request! El_C 20:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: user has requested that the ban be lifted but that an enforceable civility restriction be attached, a request which I have granted. Whatever works. El_C 16:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Heptor

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Heptor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe : Standard discretionary sanctions

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

Consensus required restriction introduced on 9 July at the war in Donbass article by Ymblanter
10 July – Heptor removes content that had been added to the article as a consequence of the RM result at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War.
10 July – I revert his removal. Additional sources for the relevant sentence had previously been added below on 8 July.
10 July – Heptor ignores the restriction, and once again removes the phrase. He then proceeds to remove sourced content related to Russia's involvement, while leaving the citations intact, skewing the article's portrayal of what the relevant sources say.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Heptor was originally alerted 18 August 2018, but has retained the alert on his talk page in spite of the archival of all other old talk page threads.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Heptor has long pattern of edits intended to whitewash Russia's involvement in the Ukrainian crisis. A notable recent edit was his creation of the "2014 Ukrainian coup d'etat" redirect. In this most recent dispute, Heptor has repeatedly attempted to remove sourced information about Russia's involvement in the war in Donbass from the article, which I have tried to revert. I even added many additional sources to try and placate Heptor, but to no avail. Heptor has continually ignored the consensus found in the RM at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War, and has attempted to overturn it to no avail. This dispute led to the 9 July implementation of a 'consensus required' restriction under ARBEE by Ymblanter. As shown above, Heptor has shown no hesitation to violate the restriction, and continues to remove sourced content, or otherwise twist it in his favour. Discussion on the talk page has, unfortunately, been nothing more than a sparring match between him and myself. Ukrainian-crisis related articles have become a backwater, with few watchers...a place POV pushers and sockpuppets roam free. Attempts to provide sources, with page numbers, do not convince Heptor to stop...and he continues to cherrypick lines that he thinks supports broad conclusions about the 'indigenous' nature of the war, when they don't do any such thing, and otherwise introduce a WP:FALSEBALANCE between Russian claims and the scholarly consensus. I admit that I haven't been very civil in the relevant discourse, and if you want to toss me out the window or otherwise execute me publicly, feel free to do so. My behaviour is basically the result of having worked in this topic area since the outbreak of the relevant unrest, and being subject to a constant stream of sockpuppet attacks, PoV pushing, &c., on both sides. That's not an excuse, but I know bad faith when I see it. I recently discovered a whole sock farm in the topic area (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Dolyn), that seemed to have an anti-Russian angle, and reported it...! If that doesn't indicate my neutrality, I suppose nothing will. But, I digress. Please, I beg of you, do something about this Heptor...and if you want, feel free to sanction me. All I care about is the integrity of the encylopaedia, and nothing more. RGloucester — ☎ 17:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: You are taking Heptor's edit summary as fact without bothering to check the diffs I provided. The present wording was introduced 1 July, following an RM at the other page. It was stable at the time of the introduction of the restriction. RGloucester — ☎ 18:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: If 1 July is not long-standing (in terms of the restriction), and the version at the time of the implementation is not considered the starting point, then the restriction is pointless, and simply a way to game the system. If you think facilitating this sort of behaviour is in any way helping the encylopaedia, your are wrong. By this logic of an unfixed 'versison', and a restriction that applies retroactively, all of Heptor's changes, which changed a version that had been stable for years, have been in violation of the restriction RGloucester — ☎ 19:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C I am not the person who inserted the information into the article, so I don't see how you can hold me responsible for that. I agree that the 'onus' is on the person requesting inclusion, but this has been satisfied by an RM supporting the decision to classify these events as such, and reliable sources cited in the article. The onus, at this point, falls on Heptor to conjure a consensus to challenge the existing one, and such a burden has not been met. But, that's fine...again, if you can't see the difference between my edit's and Heptor's, it's 万事休す. Get this over with and topic ban me, as any good administrator would! RGloucester — ☎ 19:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I will do no such thing. I demand a topic ban from all things related to Eastern Europe. It's what you want, so it's what you'll get. RGloucester — ☎ 19:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: An RfC will not resolve this problem, as it is not a content issue, but a behavioural issue. If you can't see the difference between my edits and Heptor's, I'm sorry. RGloucester — ☎ 18:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@Heptor: This edit is not a violation of the restriction. I was reverting your bold change for the first time following the implementation of restriction at that point. RGloucester — ☎ 19:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Bold edit, revert, restriction violation. Heptor (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You're not supposed to comment in other people's sections, Heptor. In any case, no, the relevant edit was made long before the restriction was made, and went unchallenged for days. You're the one that made the bold edit, post-implementation of the restriction. RGloucester — ☎ 19:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified 18:45 10 July 2020

Discussion concerning Heptor

Statement by Heptor

Regarding the diff

The phrasing in question, "The War in Donbass is part of the broader Russo-Ukrainian War", was introduced on July 1st without establishing consensus. There is no consensus to mention the page move on Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War#Requested_move_9_June_2020 in the first sentence in the lead in War in Donbass. In addition, the consensus to move "Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) → Russo-Ukrainian War" is at best shaky. Three editors (me and two others) have criticized it as wrong and tendentious, so perhaps the MR was closed too early. I'm not going to wikilawyer, but it was RGloucester who violated the "consensus required" restriction with this edit, as he reintroduced this phrasing without establishing consensus. Heptor (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Other accounts

With minor and unrelated exceptions, I do not edit Misplaced Pages with other user names then the one I sign presently.

Uncivil tone

Indeed, RGloucester had shown a thorough disregard for civility throughout this discourse. My first interaction with him was on February 22nd, when he reverted several hours of my edits with the summary "What a mess you've made...a load of WP:POV and coatrack rubbish". He showed no interest in participating in the discussion when I pinged him on the talk page of the article (section link) on February 25. His very first comment on the talk page (setion link) was "Your edits have been entirely unacceptable, and I've reverted them", quickly followed up by "Past engagement with you has made clear that constructive discussion is impossible". Repeated requests for citations for his ipsi dixit statements on the talk page were met with "I really have no energy to stoop to your level," and a liberal use of the exclamation mark.

When he raises this RfE and attempts to present himself as a victim, saying that "if you want to toss me out the window or otherwise execute me publicly, feel free to do so not an excuse, but", I do not see that he in any way justified or apologized for his behavior.

Summary

The diff presented by RGloucester is not a violation of the "Consensus Required" restriction, and please do something about his lack of WP:CIVILITY and obviously WP:AGF. Heptor (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter

Just to comment that my involvement in this accident started wheh Heptor asked me to have a look at the article talk page . I had a look, saw that it was previously actively edited by a sockfarm, and applied extended confirmed protection under arbitration enforcement. Then, following JzG, I thought it was useful to add a "consensus required" sanction. I also advised both usewrs to discuss the issue at the talk page. I never added the article to the watchlist (because, tbh, I am fed up by tendentious editing from both sides of the conflict - in general, not specifically applying it to this accident). Today, RGloucester asked me whether I am going to apply sanctions to Heptor for violation of the arbitration enforcement sanction I applied. I suggested them to go here. Whereas I do not know who is right and who is wrong here (and I am not currently willing to look at it, for a number of reasons), this episode is localized as a long talk page discussion between two users with two well articulated positions, so it should be straightforward for any administrator to have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Out of interest, can you name the socks or is there a privacy issue? Heptor (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Heptor

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

RGloucester your version does not appear to be the longstanding version, so I'm not sure Heptor has violated the restriction. Rather you might have. Anyway, I think this can be solved by a 3rd opinion or an RfC, as opposed to going through the AE procedure here. El_C 17:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

RGloucester, July 1 is not longstanding. It is new. El_C 19:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

RGloucester, you need to observe WP:ONUS. El_C 19:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

RGloucester, please maintain decorum and avoid innuendo. Your failure to do so is not to your credit. El_C 19:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

RGloucester, your response reveals underlying issues with civility and good faith. You need to correct these, or you will be sanctioned. El_C 19:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Please try to resolve this through an RfC --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Italawar

Italawar indefinitely blocked (as a normal admin action) by Bishonen.--regentspark (comment) 19:08, 17 July 2020 (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 Italawar User who is submitting this request for enforcement Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Italawar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 1 July 2020 Egregious violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. 2 July 2020 Reinstates essentially the same edit with the same issues. 11 July 2020 Creates this nonsense, which I don't think requires any explanation. 22 June 2020 Creates this draft, which violates, among other things, WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV (sorry, admins only). Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any No previous sanctions, but a lengthy list of warnings on their talk page. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted in March by Doug Weller. Additional comments by editor filing complaint I have only linked the most egregious examples; their recent editing history with respect to political articles has nothing positive in it. My attempt to discuss some of these edits () did not go well. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC) @El C: apologies, link fixed; I was trying to link to a preview, which isn't possible. Incidentally, Italawar has been blocked for three days by JBW. I'm not withdrawing this report, because I think a 3-day block isn't sufficient (in JBW's defense, I suspect they only looked at the deleted creations). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified. Discussion concerning Italawar 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 Italawar Statement by (username) Result concerning Italawar This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Vanamonde93, you mislinked the draft. I tried to find it and encountered multiple deleted articles and drafts, which is not a good sign. El_C 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Recommend indefinite IPA topic ban for egregious misconduct. El_C 16:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC) A topic ban seems warranted here --Guerillero \| Parlez Moi 16:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC) As has been mentioned above, I have blocked the account for three days. When I did that I did not know of this discussion. I regarded 3 days as a fairly minimal block in view of the editor's intransigent attitude and grossly unacceptable editing, and I do not in any way regard that block as a final statement; some kind of longer-term restriction would make sense. If a consensus emerges here for some other outcome, I shall be perfectly happy for my block to be removed and replaced by something else, without being consulted further. JBW (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC) I have blocked the user indefinitely as not here to build an encyclopedia, as a regular admin action (i. e. not per DS). Bishonen \| tålk 15:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC).

Italawar indefinitely blocked (as a normal admin action) by Bishonen.--regentspark (comment) 19:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Italawar

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Italawar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions :

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

1 July 2020 Egregious violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.
2 July 2020 Reinstates essentially the same edit with the same issues.
11 July 2020 Creates this nonsense, which I don't think requires any explanation.
22 June 2020 Creates this draft, which violates, among other things, WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV (sorry, admins only).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No previous sanctions, but a lengthy list of warnings on their talk page.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Alerted in March by Doug Weller.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have only linked the most egregious examples; their recent editing history with respect to political articles has nothing positive in it. My attempt to discuss some of these edits () did not go well. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: apologies, link fixed; I was trying to link to a preview, which isn't possible. Incidentally, Italawar has been blocked for three days by JBW. I'm not withdrawing this report, because I think a 3-day block isn't sufficient (in JBW's defense, I suspect they only looked at the deleted creations). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

Discussion concerning Italawar

Statement by Italawar

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Italawar

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

Vanamonde93, you mislinked the draft. I tried to find it and encountered multiple deleted articles and drafts, which is not a good sign. El_C 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Recommend indefinite IPA topic ban for egregious misconduct. El_C 16:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

A topic ban seems warranted here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

As has been mentioned above, I have blocked the account for three days. When I did that I did not know of this discussion. I regarded 3 days as a fairly minimal block in view of the editor's intransigent attitude and grossly unacceptable editing, and I do not in any way regard that block as a final statement; some kind of longer-term restriction would make sense. If a consensus emerges here for some other outcome, I shall be perfectly happy for my block to be removed and replaced by something else, without being consulted further. JBW (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked the user indefinitely as not here to build an encyclopedia, as a regular admin action (i. e. not per DS). Bishonen | tålk 15:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC).

Nocturnalnow

Request concerning Nocturnalnow

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Fram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Nocturnalnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Nocturnalnow is topic banned from American Politics after 1932

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

15 July 2020 Discussing Tucker Carlson
11 July 2020 Discussing Trump
10 July 2020 Discussing Trump (and Trump's niece)
29 May 2020 Section "Will Trump's executive order impact Misplaced Pages?"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

14 January 2020 Nocturnalnow was routinely violating his topic ban, was reminded of this, and excaped being blocked by acknowledging this and promising a change]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Since the January ANI discussion, Nocturnalnow has made no edits to any namespace but user talk, almost all of them to User talk:Jimbo Wales, and almost all of them to discuss current events in the USA (BLM protests and the like). Many of these edits clearly skirt or breach the topic ban. And these are not occasional outbursts, but the only edits they make to enwiki anymore... Fram (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Nocturnalnow

Statement by Nocturnalnow

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nocturnalnow

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

I indefed them as a mixed AE block and standard admin block. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

DrL

Request concerning DrL

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: DrL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist#Remedies (DrL):

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

2020-07-16 Aggressive demand for separate article on CTMU
2020-07-16 More of same

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

From remedies:

Asmodeus is indefinitely banned from editing Christopher Michael Langan and all related articles including but not limited to: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, Crank (person), and Academic elitism. He may make suggestions on talk pages if he is not disruptive.
All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

DrL is the wife of Christopher Langan, inventor and sole proponent of the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe", a fringe theory. DrL is a single-purpose account who has no significant history on Misplaced Pages other htan promoting Christopher Langan.

DrL was blocked indefinitely on 2020-03-03 due to personal attacks and unblocked on 2020-07-01 on the understanding that these would not resume.

Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a redirect following an AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, which was heavily canvassed. Offsite canvassing continues, according to the evidence of thee Talk page, with vociferous support for restoring a standalone article from DrL and some other WP:SPAs. The redirect target is a short section of just over 100 words. The sources are either by or about Langan, not CTMU. There is one source which meets RS and has some discussion of CTMU on its own merits (there are also a few mere namechecks). Most sources proposed are unreliable.

DrL's most recent statements at Talk are:

This solution is woefully inadequate. Not only does your redirect point to an insignificant mention of what has become an increasingly important theory, but the section is conflated with violations of WP:BPL - using remarks allegedly made by Langan on social media to denigrate him and the CTMU. This discussion is by no means over. The extensive mention by this Oxford publication (as cited by Langan above), in addition to other mentions in RS (both popular and academic) is more than enough to justify a separate entry for the CTMU. (emphasis added)
There is obviously no comparison between the amount of material covering the CTMU in 2020 as compared to 2006; yet, in 2006 we were able to discuss the merits of the entry without being summarily shut down by a coordinated clique. Let's open this up to have a real discussion and wait for some less involved admins and editors to weigh in.

This assumption of bad faith and promise to continue demanding until she gets the answer she wants is disruptive, and violates the ban. Further, since mid 2007, DrL has done nothing here other than promote Chris Langan and attack those who do not accept CTMU. Indeed, for most of that time she has been inactive (https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/DrL).

I advocate a full topic ban form articles connected to Langan and CTMU, broadly construed. There is enough off-wiki coordinated nonsense with this topic already. Notably, Christopher Langan himself has been able to resist any such aggression. His argumentation is prolix, but calm and polite.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ADrL&type=revision&diff=968162087&oldid=965447026

Discussion concerning DrL

Statement by DrL

I was very surprised to receive this notice. I'm merely weighing in on a talk page as I'm allowed to do (at least to the best of my understanding). When the CTMU article was deleted in 2006, there were several administrators who seemed very invested in getting it removed. When I stumbled upon this debate about the redirect and saw what I thought might have been one or two of those admins, I became concerned lest the topic of the article again be unfairly criticized as it was in 2006, when it was misclassified as "intelligent design creationism". But of course, you're right - I should assume good faith no matter how bad it might look. Your advice is appreciated. DrL (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DrL

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

I don't see how we can do anything here with that case. I guess we could use NEWBLPBAN or the Pseudoscience DS, but they have not been notified. I suggest you bring this to ArbCom. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Guerillero, I doubt they'd be interested: one COI user who's already banned from the article and under a non-disruption restriction at the talk page seems like the kind of thing we ought to be able to fix ourselves. Guy (help!) 18:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: I don't know what hook we have at this time --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
The most recent block of User:DrL was an indef on 3 March by User:Bradv who is an arbitrator but I don't think he was invoking any Arbcom sanctions. He stated that his block of DrL was for personal attacks and outing. Per the thread at User talk:DrL#UTRS 31095, after a UTRS appeal, User:Johnuniq lifted the indef block. I think this was a 'community' unblock, not an Arbcom unblock, so to speak. So if there is new evidence since Johnuniq's unblock which suggests the unblock should be reversed, an administrator could reapply the conventional indef block. Neither an AE report nor a return visit to Arbcom seems to be required, in my opinion. Any administrator who is considering a new block should weigh DrL's behavior since 1 July and ask if they are living up to the promises in their last unblock request. Their only edits since 1 July are a series of posts at Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe. A typical comment:

Yes. There is obviously no comparison between the amount of material covering the CTMU in 2020 as compared to 2006; yet, in 2006 we were able to discuss the merits of the entry without being summarily shut down by a coordinated clique bent on minimizing the reality of the situation by redirecting to a defamatory section of Langan's bio.

I can see this might set off the personal-attack alarm ('coordinated clique', and so forth). But a longer discussion here before a reblock might be appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I blocked DrL twice, both times for repeatedly outing other editors despite numerous warnings. Both blocks were regular administrator blocks, and the latter was lifted once DrL was able to assure the unblocking administrator that they wouldn't do it again. Regarding the matter at hand, I don't see how this violates the 2006 restriction, but recent events might suggest that the current restriction isn't strong enough. – bradv🍁 18:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Bradv, also: what the actual fuck is this? Guy (help!) 18:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Per the above from Guy: I realize it isn't recent, but I still revdeleted that copyvio. El_C 22:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG

JzG has self-reverted. Report withdrawn by filer. El_C 22:52, 17 July 2020 (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 JzG User who is submitting this request for enforcement RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested JzG (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:ARBEE : War in Donbass consensus-required restriction Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 17 July I revert the addition of content added by Heptor 17 July JzG reinstates the content without gaining consensus If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) JzG himself is the person who requested that this page restriction be imposed on 8 July. Additional comments by editor filing complaint There must be some irony here. JzG himself requested this restriction be imposed on the article, and then violates it...perhaps this proves that such restrictions do not work. The administrator who imposed it refuses to have anything to do with it. Are we going to actually enforce this, or just forget about it? RGloucester — ☎ 17:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC) "It is customary", I am told, but where exactly is this custom documented? Very funny, indeed. Thank you though, JzG, for having the kindness to self-revert. I withdraw the request. RGloucester — ☎ 17:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC) I was making a comment to the effect that I think it is Kafkaesque to expect people to know what is 'customary' about specific kinds of obscure DS sanctions when no such information is provided anywhere in an easily accessible and digestible format. RGloucester — ☎ 17:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC) @Bradv: That somewhat negates the purpose of the restriction all-together, does it not? I can't be expected to understand the ways of the Arbitration Committee, but all this restriction seems to do is make a mess. 1RR is much easier to enforce, and indeed, understand... RGloucester — ☎ 18:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC) I agree with everything Aquillion said...and would support replacing the current restriction with something along those lines. RGloucester — ☎ 19:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notice Discussion concerning JzG 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 JzG It was nice of RGloucester to raise this through a polite note on my talk page reminding me of the restriction, since Twinkle doesn't show the edit notice. Oh, wait, he didn't do that. I self-reverted. I suggest a trout for RGloucester for needless escalation. Guy (help!) 17:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by Levivich WP:Dispute resolution's section WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE says If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way. It might be worth repeating at WP:AC/DS, or the instructions at the top of this page, or both. Levivich 17:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by PackMecEng Seems like a weird bastard of a restriction. Most concensus required restrictions that I remember go like You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article per WP:CRP. Anyhow at this point with the self revert I do not see any issue for AE at the moment. PackMecEng (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by Aquillion I was under the impression that the Consensus Required restriction was being phased out due to the way it leads to stonewalling. On Donald Trump, for instance (probably the highest-profile and most controversial article where it was used) it was replaced with a 24-hour BRD cycle restriction stating If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts. This encourages everyone to try and find a solution, whereas restrictions like this one place such a hefty burden on anyone who wants to make a change that it encourages anyone who prefers the article's current state to just drag their heels and make only token efforts to engage beyond the bare minimum necessary to block a consensus. Obviously it's not ideal for disputes to be resolved by exhaustion or filibuster, and consensus ultimately has to be reached in order to include contested material, but making the "default outcome" too one-sided actually discourages discussion - WP:BRD forces everyone to stay at the table and continue workshopping ideas, whereas consensus-required rewards one side in a dispute for just rejecting every proposal out of hand. Guiding people to reach a consensus is a balancing act - we get there by encouraging discussion (which requires that both sides have an incentive to participate properly or establish clear consensus for their preferred version), rather than supercharging WP:ONUS to the point where only one side in a dispute has any incentive to seriously engage in discussions at all. --Aquillion (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning JzG This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Not actionable. JzG has self-reverted. Indeed, it is customary that a request on the user's talk page to self-revert precede filings here. El_C 17:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Very funny, indeed — huh? I have no idea where this custom is documented, or if it is documented at all. El_C 17:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Ah, I see. I do not disagree. But now you know, so no harm done. El_C 17:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC) I try not to comment here unless I'm pinged, but I have spent a bit of time lately thinking about the wording of various page-level restrictions, and it's worth pointing out that restoring someone else's edits is not technically a violation of the restriction posted at Talk:War in Donbass. – bradv🍁 18:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Aquillion, this isn't the consensus required sanction as usually worded, and it's also usually accompanied by 1RR which helps to resolve some of these issues. But if you want to know why I've been thinking about this lately, there is a very lengthy discussion about it on my talk page if you're interested. – bradv🍁 19:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG has self-reverted. Report withdrawn by filer. El_C 22:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning JzG

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: JzG (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:ARBEE : War in Donbass consensus-required restriction

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

17 July I revert the addition of content added by Heptor
17 July JzG reinstates the content without gaining consensus

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

JzG himself is the person who requested that this page restriction be imposed on 8 July.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There must be some irony here. JzG himself requested this restriction be imposed on the article, and then violates it...perhaps this proves that such restrictions do not work. The administrator who imposed it refuses to have anything to do with it. Are we going to actually enforce this, or just forget about it? RGloucester — ☎ 17:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

"It is customary", I am told, but where exactly is this custom documented? Very funny, indeed. Thank you though, JzG, for having the kindness to self-revert. I withdraw the request. RGloucester — ☎ 17:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I was making a comment to the effect that I think it is Kafkaesque to expect people to know what is 'customary' about specific kinds of obscure DS sanctions when no such information is provided anywhere in an easily accessible and digestible format. RGloucester — ☎ 17:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: That somewhat negates the purpose of the restriction all-together, does it not? I can't be expected to understand the ways of the Arbitration Committee, but all this restriction seems to do is make a mess. 1RR is much easier to enforce, and indeed, understand... RGloucester — ☎ 18:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with everything Aquillion said...and would support replacing the current restriction with something along those lines. RGloucester — ☎ 19:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notice

Discussion concerning JzG

Statement by JzG

It was nice of RGloucester to raise this through a polite note on my talk page reminding me of the restriction, since Twinkle doesn't show the edit notice.

Oh, wait, he didn't do that. I self-reverted. I suggest a trout for RGloucester for needless escalation. Guy (help!) 17:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

WP:Dispute resolution's section WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE says If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way. It might be worth repeating at WP:AC/DS, or the instructions at the top of this page, or both. Levivich 17:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by PackMecEng

Seems like a weird bastard of a restriction. Most concensus required restrictions that I remember go like You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article per WP:CRP. Anyhow at this point with the self revert I do not see any issue for AE at the moment. PackMecEng (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

I was under the impression that the Consensus Required restriction was being phased out due to the way it leads to stonewalling. On Donald Trump, for instance (probably the highest-profile and most controversial article where it was used) it was replaced with a 24-hour BRD cycle restriction stating If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts. This encourages everyone to try and find a solution, whereas restrictions like this one place such a hefty burden on anyone who wants to make a change that it encourages anyone who prefers the article's current state to just drag their heels and make only token efforts to engage beyond the bare minimum necessary to block a consensus. Obviously it's not ideal for disputes to be resolved by exhaustion or filibuster, and consensus ultimately has to be reached in order to include contested material, but making the "default outcome" too one-sided actually discourages discussion - WP:BRD forces everyone to stay at the table and continue workshopping ideas, whereas consensus-required rewards one side in a dispute for just rejecting every proposal out of hand. Guiding people to reach a consensus is a balancing act - we get there by encouraging discussion (which requires that both sides have an incentive to participate properly or establish clear consensus for their preferred version), rather than supercharging WP:ONUS to the point where only one side in a dispute has any incentive to seriously engage in discussions at all. --Aquillion (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning JzG

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

Not actionable. JzG has self-reverted. Indeed, it is customary that a request on the user's talk page to self-revert precede filings here. El_C 17:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Very funny, indeed — huh? I have no idea where this custom is documented, or if it is documented at all. El_C 17:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I do not disagree. But now you know, so no harm done. El_C 17:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I try not to comment here unless I'm pinged, but I have spent a bit of time lately thinking about the wording of various page-level restrictions, and it's worth pointing out that restoring someone else's edits is not technically a violation of the restriction posted at Talk:War in Donbass. – bradv🍁 18:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Aquillion, this isn't the consensus required sanction as usually worded, and it's also usually accompanied by 1RR which helps to resolve some of these issues. But if you want to know why I've been thinking about this lately, there is a very lengthy discussion about it on my talk page if you're interested. – bradv🍁 19:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)