Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GizzyCatBella (talk | contribs) at 00:24, 19 April 2021 (→François Robere). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

Vojtaruzek

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 Vojtaruzek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)

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

1. 22:00, 15 April 2021 "Don't forget that wikipedia is basically a far-left propaganda site now, they will not allow information about this to be published here."
2. 00:28, 16 April 2021‎ "See? You can't even talk here without getting reverted, if you say something local censors don't like. They will just whine about their "reliable sources", which is just an arbitrary demand to make writing non defamatory things about PV and other organizations impossible. And also to make criticism of CNN and other progressive media impossible, since they are those "reliable sources" and of course they won't inform about themselves being exposed for manipulating the public discourse and the election."
3. 00:37, 16 April 2021‎ Restoring above comment after it was reverted
4. 00:45, 16 April 2021‎ Restoring above comment after it was reverted, this time with the summary "I did stay on topic, which is refusal of PV's work and them exposing the "reliable media" that permeates the whole talk page. Also, censoring talk page is a new low for wikipedia censors, you now started to purge criticism of your far left policies."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 19:40, 18 January 2021: 48-hour block following a discussion at the edit warring noticeboard stemming from edit warring at Project Veritas

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The Project Veritas page has received some renewed attention lately, apparently due to some new video relating to CNN. Vojtaruzek, who has largely been inactive since their January block for disruption at the page, has evidently also found renewed interest in using the talk page as a place to denigrate Misplaced Pages, its editors, etc. It's pretty clear that they can't edit productively in this topic area and especially on this article. Whether or not they can edit productively at all I'll leave up to the AE admins, though their apparent disdain for Misplaced Pages's reliable sourcing policy and our other "far left policies" does not give me much hope in that regard. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

While I'm here, I'll mention that Talk:Project Veritas has become a bit of a nightmare again recently, of both SPAs and some slightly more established accounts making personal attacks, POV-pushing, and generally rejecting the reliable sourcing policy. I'm not sure if there's a discretionary sanction that would help, but if a reviewing AE admin has any ideas, some uninvolved admin eyes would be useful. There are a handful of users who could potentially be brought to AE over their behavior there, but a report per user would be unwieldy IMO. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Vojtaruzek

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 Vojtaruzek

• I usually edit Czech wikipedia (to that accusations that I do not edit much), here I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the propaganda about Project Veritas and refusal to accept any sources but from the same organizations that PV exposed (like CNN). Of course, it was just met with censorship from those people who took control of that page and can basically erase everyone, and when I defend myself, I get accused of "edit warring", "verbal grenades", "disruptive conduct" and other buzzwords and punished, how typical, why is wikipedia still called a public site that "anyone can edit", since many articles are just a far-left propaganda and informations that do not fit this narrative are immediately erased, which is very evident on Project Veritas page, along with people who criticize this. You will not be convinced otherwise, since this is just meant to silence me, stop with this act of "just arbitration" and "reasonable period to make a statement", the result has already been decided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojtaruzek (talk • contribs) 18:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (slatersteven)

I was going to post a message on their talk page about this ] to tell them if they are not willing to abide by wp:rs this might not be the best place for them to edit (I did not pick up on the NPA violations until now). They are not here.Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the comment they have posted here is chock full of not here and right great wrongs. Its about as clear a statement of POV pushing as I have even seen.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Vojtaruzek

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

• I'm not seeing much indication that this individual intends to do anything but disruption, with the noted lobbing of verbal grenades. The editor's last edits before the latest round were in January, which also involved disruption and edit warring at Project Veritas. Vojtaruzek, I'll leave some reasonable period for you to make a statement and convince me otherwise, but otherwise I'm very much leaning toward a regular administrative indef for disruptive conduct and NOTHERE. Seraphimblade 04:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  As the statement here was indeed more of the same, I have proceeded with the indefinite block. Seraphimblade 19:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Breezing through all the contribs, a few concerns come to mind, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is one of them. WP:FORUM is another. It's fine to have opinions, even about Misplaced Pages as a whole, but when those opinions interfere not only with your editing, but with the editing of others, then we have a problem. We are a collaborative project, welcoming diverse opinions, but not disruptive behavior. This seems a textbook case of WP:NOTHERE, as the primary reason they are editing is to "correct the record". I think Seraphimblade has the right solution here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Seraphimblade that a regular indef block would be logical. This user is also active on the Czech Misplaced Pages where he also seems to run into complaints of POV-pushing. Apparently the abbreviation 'POV' is internationally-recognized. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you Seraphimblade; I was on my way to do the same thing. And thank you, GorillaWarfare, for filing the paperwork. Two Veritas disruptors on the same day, what are the odds. Dennis Brown and EdJohnston, you might want to look at the one below this also, which is much less blatant but still disruptive. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Pkeets

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 Pkeets

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

RandomCanadian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1992_cutoff)

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

1. 14:22, 16 April 2021 Questioning the reliability of well established sources,...
2. Talk:Project_Veritas#Expose_CNN and Talk:Project_Veritas#CNN_2021_expose ...seemingly based on one "source" known for spreading disinformation
3. 22:21, 16 March 2021
4. 14:30, 16 April 2021
5. 14:40, 16 April 2021 ...and making vexatious RSN filings.

• All seem to indicate that this user has not heeded the concerns expressed previously about their behaviour in this topic area and that they are still intent on promoting their own views on the topic and engaging in trolling and posts of a purely disruptive nature.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 01:38, 9 December 2020 Topic banned for a duration of 3 months by Drmies pursuant a discussion at ANI

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

1. 04:22, 24 September 2020 Warned of AP2 sanctions,
2. 01:38, 9 December 2020 Topic banned for a duration of 3 months by Drmies pursuant a discussion at ANI and clearly aware of it on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The most appropriate course of action, given that the memo apparently hasn't gotten through after three months and that their recent edits are even more egregious, would be an indefinite topic ban from the subject area. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

01:52, 17 April 2021  Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Pkeets

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 Pkeets

Since suspension lapsed, I have made only good faith posts about issues I feel are important and supported these appropriately. I have made no changes to actual articles, but only made polite recommendations on various talk pages. Besides this Request, I notice that some editors have been changing my posts and then making raucous comments. I'm wondering when this kind of harassment became acceptable at Misplaced Pages? Pkeets (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by GorillaWarfare

(Posting here and not below as my editing interests overlap with Pkeets' somewhat substantially).

I have seen Pkeets cross my watchlist a few times recently and thought "aren't they topic banned from AP?" only to remember that their previous topic-ban was time-limited. I almost filed this myself last night after seeing their comments at Talk:Project Veritas (which, as I mentioned above, is a bit of a nightmare right now), but didn't have the energy for it. It's pretty clear that they treated their topic ban as a timeout after which they could return to their previous behavior, and didn't actually learn or change their approach. Their goals here seem to be pushing the things they read in unreliable, hyper-partisan sources, and attempting to reject the sources that are generally considered reliable on Misplaced Pages in talk page comments without actually beginning any discussions at RSN. Edit: Oh dear, I see they've actually begun to start discussions at RSN. While this is generally the advice that I give for people who object to RSP consensus, they're arguing from the basis of Project Veritas' "exposés". That's... arguably worse than not beginning the discussions at all. The AP topic ban should be indefinite.

I would also like to echo my comment above about the difficulties at the PV talk page, if any uninvolved admin has ideas for how to improve things there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Pkeets: Is this accusation of harassment referring to RandomCanadian's merging of your two sections at RSN? What is the "raucous" comment? Their edit summary was "merging sections by same OP" and they left no further comment in their edit, so I assume it wasn't that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies

I was alerted by Orangemike, who commented on Pkeets' claim that CNN was claimed to be unreliable based on some Veritas video. The "raucous comment" is probably this one (they're conflating me and RandomCanadian, I think)--I didn't merge the sections, but "Recommend reducing reliability rating of the NY Times and Washington Post over repeated failure to verify reports" is indeed presumptuous since "repeated failure etc." is hardly a fact, yet it is stated as one; I assume Orangemike's cn tag pointed at the same thing. In my edit summary here I indicated why I thought their comment (another indictment of the NYT) was a forum post--and that is precisely why I think we should go for a longer topic ban.

I didn't impose one myself, since I couldn't find the energy to do it, and log it, etc., and I figured that since the last one came from an ANI discussion it would not be a bad idea to have this one not be imposed by one administrator, especially since I think this one should be longer. And I asked RandomCanadian to file this since they need the practice. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Orangemike

Pkeets persists in disingenuous insistence that they are just raising questions of reliability, when what they are doing is trying to argue that two of the most reliable sources in North America have been "exposed" by a fraudulent operation run by a notorious conman specializing in deceptive editing of recorded images. Obviously, they understand nothing of why they were topic-banned before. How long do we have to tolerate this nonsense? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Hemiauchenia

Pkeets seems to have not learned their lesson from their prior temporary topic ban, and has subsequently engaged in similar behaviour to what got Yurivict indefinitely topic banned Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive276#Yurivict. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Pkeets

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

Plebian-scribe

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 Plebian-scribe

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Plebian-scribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)

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

1. 03:25–03:30, 28 March 2021; 16:52, 3 April 2021

   Edit warring to add "far-left" to the Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club article, without citing a source or providing an edit summary.

2. 10:13, 30 March 2021; 16:48, 3 April 2021; 22:52, 12 April 2021

   Edit warring to delete "(a neo-fascist hate group founded by McInnes)" or "(a far-right, neo-fascist, chauvinist, white nationalist organization founded by McInnes), along with cited reliable source, from the Otoya Yamaguchi article against talk page consensus without an edit summary. Deleted text refers to the Proud Boys.

3. 20:33, 7 April 2021; 03:19, 8 April 2021

   Edit warring to delete "neo-fascist" and "white nationalist" from the Proud Boys article. At the time of editing, these edits contravened the RfC result on the talk page at Special:Permalink/1016536874 § Questioning the sourcing on "white nationalist".

4. 22:56, 7 April 2021; 14:01, 8 April 2021; 20:08, 8 April 2021; 13:47, 10 April 2021; 21:42, 11 April 2021

   Edit warring to add "Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison drew criticism after posing with the book in a now deleted twitter post in January 2018. Ellison’s post said the book should 'strike fear into the heart' of President Donald Trump." in the Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook article. Only the 13:47, 10 April 2021, edit used an edit summary, and it contained a personal attack: "added Keith Ellisons endorsement of the book which keeps getting taken down by trolls."

5. 03:22, 8 April 2021

   Deletion of "neo-fascist" and "white nationalist" from the Enrique Tarrio article against talk page consensus in ongoing RfC at Talk:Enrique Tarrio § Lead sentence.

6. 12:45, 18 April 2021

   Deletion of "far-right", along with 14 cited reliable sources, from the Project Veritas article against talk page consensus without an edit summary.

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Among Plebian-scribe's 36 edits so far, 17 of them (47%) have been reverted as unconstructive.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 13:46, 18 April 2021

Discussion concerning Plebian-scribe

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 Plebian-scribe

Statement by GorillaWarfare

It's worth pointing out that all three requests on this page at the moment (Vojtaruzek, Pkeets, and Plebian-scribe) involve disruption at Project Veritas and its talk page. Please consider some kind of page-level restrictions for the talk page, which has been the location of most of it. See my comment above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Plebian-scribe

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

François Robere

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 François Robere

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

François Robere (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

Sanction under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision - interaction ban with GizzyCatBella

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

Referred to me in their post on the Arbitration page -->

Furnished within a new text and restored my prior removal - - please notice Szarek is affiliated with PiS.. - notice young historians changed to young missionaries, restoring the exact citations (see Behr Valentin 2017-01-02 Historical policy-making in post-1989 Poland), etc.

Explanation and additional information:

On August 9, 2020, a two-way interaction ban was imposed on François Robere and me. (important - please note that the two-way ban is of no fault of myself but François Robere and another participant; the reason for imposing two-way interaction ban was the fact that one of the assessing administrator's didn't like one-way interaction bans One-way interaction ban have initially been proposed,,,)

On April 18, 2021, François Robere directly referred to me in their post on the Arbitration page that interaction ban forbids to make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages, directly or indirectly.

This latest development prompted me to bring this to the administrative attention; however, I was also surprised to see that François Robere (after modifications) also commenced restoring my removals on one of the articles despite the precise instructions per WP:IBAN that editors under interaction ban can not - undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means.

François Robere restoration of my prior removal furnished within a new text -

My prior removals - - please notice Szarek is affiliated with PiS.. - notice young historians changed to young missionaries, restoring the exact citations (see Behr Valentin 2017-01-02 Historical policy-making in post-1989 Poland), etc.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. edit war block
2. personal attack block

Warnings:

1. warning
2. warning
3. warning
4. warning
5. warning

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Please note - François Robere has not been notified about this complaint since it's not clear to me if that's allowed - see WP:IBAN - Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to edit each other's user and user talk pages. Please advise if I can notify or let the user know. Thank you.

Discussion concerning François Robere

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 François Robere

Statement by (username)

Result concerning François Robere

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