Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:57, 12 September 2009 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,613 edits →Result concerning Loosmark: sanctioned← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:37, 19 January 2025 edit undoBerchanhimez (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,800 edits →BabbleOnto: topic ban pls 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}}
={{anchor|toptoc}}Requests for enforcement=
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!--
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}
--><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly>
{{User:MiszaBot/config
<noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!--
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 45
|counter =347
|algo = old(2d)
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}
}}
<!--PLEASE PLACE NEW REQUESTS BELOW THIS NOTICE -->


== Dilip rajeev == ==Lemabeta==
{{hat|{{u|Lemabeta}} has acknowledged the warnings here to take more care and stay well clear of articles from which they are restricted from editing. Further violations are very likely to lead to sanctions, up to and including an indefinite block. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC) }}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning Lemabeta===
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|EF5}} 20:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
===Request concerning Dilip rajeev===


'''User requesting enforcement:'''<br> ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Lemabeta}}<p>{{ds/log|Lemabeta}}</p>
] (]) 02:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
'''User against whom enforcement is requested:'''<br>
{{userlinks|Dilip rajeev}}


'''Sanction or remedy that this user violated:'''<br> ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
*]: "''] and all closely related articles are placed on ]. It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with ], and that information contained in them will be supported by ] information from ]. The articles may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review. ''Passed 7 to 1 at 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)''"
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
*]
# - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing.
*]
# - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist.
*]


'''] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it:'''<br>
{{User|Dilip rajeev}} has been editing Falun Gong articles (almost exclusively) . He has a habit of disappearing (i.e. not editing in article space or talk space) for weeks on end. When he returns, he frequently reverts to the last version he feels comfortable with irrespective of the individual merits of each of the changes because the changes which took place were not to his liking. Such reverts are usually done without due reference to the discussions which have taken place during his absence. Some diffs immediately below, show this ''modus operandi''


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
*, made following an absence of 12 days, undid 36 intermediate edits made by others during this time.
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
I likely filed this improperly, but to sum it up they continue to make pages in a scope they were banned from. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 20:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:On the bullet point, I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:(Not sure if I’m allowed to reply here) I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:: <small>Response to Bishonen. Moved from results section. ] (]/]) 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
::(RES to Bishonen) That's fair. When starting the AE, it only gave me nine options, none of which seemed to fit right. The third bullet ("Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on DIFF by _____") didn't seem to fit, as the sanction wasn't for verbal conduct. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 22:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


===Discussion concerning Lemabeta===
His habit of making radical reverts is a matter of historical record. Some examples of this tendency are below:
<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>
* is his first intervention as Diip rajeev since the of Inactive user account. He reverted 43 edits made by others while he was away for 26 days' absence.


====Statement by Lemabeta====
* 44 edits by others in one fell swoop after 7 days' absence
Yeah, my bad. Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed" I recognize my mistake. --] (]) 20:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


:Ethnographic groups and cultural heritage are '''related but distinct concepts'''. An ''ethnographic group'' refers to a '''community of people''' defined by shared ancestry, language, traditions, and cultural identity. In contrast, ''cultural heritage'' refers to the *''practices, artifacts, knowledge, and traditions preserved or inherited from the past''. But cultural heritage is indeed a component of ethnographic groups.
For myself and a number of neutral editors who have joined the Falun Gong wikiproject, Dilip's latest reverts to the and articles have become the last straw in our tolerance of his disruptive behaviour.
:So i don't believe ethnographic group should be considered as either history of the Caucasus or cultural heritage. ] (]) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::In my opinion, cultural heritage (both tangible and intangible) '''emerges from''' ethnographic groups but '''does not define the group itself'''. ] (]) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think ethnographic groups fall under the category of Ethnography, or even socio-cultural antropology but for sure not cultural heritage. ] (]) 21:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I understand, i already apologized on my talk page for this accident. I will not repeat this mistake again. ] (]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)====
;NPOV at ]
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
The following is a brief history of the significant edits which took place after the article a ] through collaborative work by me and ]. The radical changes put through by Dilip rajeev to a good article were all done within a period of about a week, without prior substantive discussion to speak of:


===Result concerning Lemabeta===
* shows clearly how Dilip rajeev ] against all other opinions, including that of asdfg. The information about the victims deleted was just one of many very ] made to the article. That information was ] from Xinhua in much the same way as Dilip rajeev's stuff sourced from Faluninfo, and has every right to exist in the article. To omit it introduces undue bias. Furthermore, of the material which I "blanked", there was considerable repetition. We only need grouped representative opinions, and there is no rhyme or reason why we need to collect each and everybody's opinion. Below, I have a collection of the significant diffs where the unacceptable bias has been introduced, comments and objections, as well as his ] EgraS and me of engaging of ]:
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
-->
* I don't see Lemabeta mentioned in the case itself, but they're currently under ] from "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed". ] (] • she/her) 20:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:To be fair, when you click above to add a new enforcement request, the template states:<br><nowiki>;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]</nowiki><br><nowiki><!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---></nowiki> ] (]/]) 20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{tq| Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed"}} @]: what did you think "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage" meant? I think it's pretty obvious that that an article on an ethnic group from the Caucasus and about an ethnologist who writes about that region is covered by your topic ban. ] (]/]) 20:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Note that I've deleted ] as a clear G5 violation. I think ] is a bit more of a questionable G5. ] (]/]) 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Your definition of "ethnographic group" includes the phrases "shared ancestry" (i.e., history), and "shared&nbsp;... traditions" and "shared&nbsp;... cultural identity" (i.e., cultural heritage). Your attempt to exclude "ethnographic group" from either of the two categories in your topic ban is entirely unpersuasive, particularly since your topic ban is to be "broadly construed". ] (]/]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: this doesn't seem like a mistake to me, but I'm okay with a logged warning here. ] (]/]) 21:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: This is about violating the TBAN. Per my response to leek, I think the issue is with the AE request template, which is a bit unclear. ] (]/]) 22:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: I don't think a block is needed here, but the next violation, definitely. ] (]/]) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: They were "reviously given&nbsp;... contentious topic restriction", the topic ban at issue. ] (]/]) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{re|Lemabeta}} Not every single thing you could write about an ethnic group would fall under cultural history, but that's not really relevant on the Rachvelians page, where the History section was entirely about their cultural history, even containing the words {{tqq| highlighting their ethnographic and cultural identity}}. There's a reason we use the words "]" on most TBANs, and a reason we encourage people to act like they're TBANned from a broader area than they are. (Consider: Would you feel safe driving under a bridge where clearance is exactly the same height as your vehicle? Or would you need a few inches' gap to feel safe doing it?){{pb}}This does seem like a good-faith misunderstanding, so if you will commit to not making it again in the future, I think this can be closed with a clarification/warning. But that's an important "if". If you want to argue semantics, then the message that sends to admins is that you don't intend to comply with the TBAN, in which case the next step would be a siteblock. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{u|EF5}}, I don't understand your {{tq|"Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above"}} statement, can you please explain what it refers to? ]? Lemabeta's block log is blank.
:That said, I'm unimpressed by Lemabeta's lawyerly distinctions above, and also by ]. I'll AGF that they ''were'' accidental, but OTOH, they surely ''ought'' to have taken enough care to realize they were violations; compare Voorts' examples. I suggest a block, not sure of what length. A couple of weeks? ] &#124; ] 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
::{{u|EF5}}, OK, I see. Blocks and bans are ], and the block log only logs blocks. ] &#124; ] 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
*It seems that the general consensus here is to treat this as a final warning, and Lemabeta has acknowledged it as such. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as such. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}


==Boy shekhar==
* demonstration of ]
{{hat
* demonstration of ]
| result = Blocked by Rosguill as a regular administrative action. ] (]) 23:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* introduces very obvious pro-FG bias.
}}
*
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
* his favourite FG-aligned journalist
* without summary
* one partisan text and cherry-picked another
* of weasel words without changing attribution/refs
* introduces very obvious pro-FG bias.
* "''EgraS / Oconfucious. Stop vandlaizing the pages. You cannot accusse material from reporters such as Ian Johnson of being "biased" and stop misusing the NPOV tag. ''" (note: Ohconfucius' last edit dates to 6 August 2008)

'''Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):'''<br>

#
#
*He was given on 16 May 2009.

'''Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]):'''<br>
He is a ] whose aggressive and partisan edits have been the subject of numerous comments and complaints from other users, including fellow practitioner ]. Dilip rajeev has been warned repeatedly against edit-warring, and has been blocked a number of times - the was a 3 month topic ban; prior to that was a block of 55 hours. I believe that, in view of his continued disruption since the topic ban and the total lack of any mitigating collaborative successes, an '''indefinite ban from <s>Misplaced Pages</s> editing Falun Gong-related articles or their talk pages.''' would be in order; he should also be banned from any edit which potentially touches on Falun Gong on the ], ], ], ] etc.

A ban on editing ] articles should also be considered to minimise Dilip rajeev's disruption to the project overall. As Dilip rajeev appears to possess some less than prudent tendencies, such a move may also safeguard his personal safety and that of his family against the wrath of Baba supporters.

====Additional comments by ] (]):====

;Background
There is a protracted, large-scale propaganda war between the spiritual movement and the Chinese regime. The polariation makes it much, much harder to deal with, as there are activists on both sides. Both sides use exaggerated 'evidence', borrowed 'experts', sensationalist claims and other forms of propaganda to attack each other. "NPOV" becomes very delicate - as both sides clearly have an agenda against the other, there will be routine disruptions from both sides. No revision of articles is ever stable.

The propaganda war manifested itself on Misplaced Pages in 2006, with anti-Falun Gong activists and pro-Falun Gong practitioners constantly opposing each other and engaging in disruptive editing. To my knowledge, after arbitration, all of the anti-FLG editors (Sam Luo, Tomanada, etc.) were banished. As a result, since June 2007 and until mediation in July 2009, the Falun Gong family of articles have become unmistakably dominated by pro-Falun Gong activists. These articles all suffer from serious POV issues heavily biased in favour of Falun Gong, and are used as direct advocacy for the Falun Gong movement; users from all backgrounds (including those who are anti-Chinese gov't) have raised concerns - but all have been either discouraged by the drama, or their attempts at other means of dispute resolution have failed.

;]
Dilip rajeev is a Falun Gong practitioner, and edits Falun Gong articles ] since 2006 along with a team of 3 other very easily identifiable FLG activist editors - {{user|asdfg12345}}, {{user|Olaf Stephanos}}, and {{user|HappyInGeneral}}. After the ban of Anti-FLG users Sam Luo and Tomanada, this group of Falun Gong practitioners have seemingly ] all Falun Gong-related articles. All four users, to varying degrees, erase critical content, engage in lengthy advocacy commentary on talk pages, ] against other editors. Rajeev in particular shows very little respect for any users who wish to bring balance to articles, by sundry ] and tendentious editing. These
* attempts (amongst others) by fellow activist asdfg to rein him in have never had much effect.

In my experience, Rajeev has shown great animosity when non-FG devotees edit this article. There has been a long history of unchecked edit warring, even over the placement of {{tl|NPOV}} tags. Such tags are routinely removed (as ) with not so much as a 'how do you do', as if the contents suddenly become neutral when the tag disappears. Reverts are usually very provocatively done - blind and wholescale, often destroying many intervening edits which have accurate and well-reasoned edit summaries - and any ensuing discussion makes clear that the user is always 'right' and anyone who opposes him 'wrong'. Anything which is sourced from sources he approves of have a right to stay and any sources he disapproves of are "CCP propaganda" or somesuch. Dilip rajeev's tendency to introduce ironic quotes (like ) and ] are already mentioned above. Not only is he completely and blindly partisan, Dilip rajeev often expresses points of view which are unique; his style and content introduced have been frowned upon from time to time by most others, and also by asdfg.

In all Falun Gong articles, misrepresentation of sources has been endemic, and these four abovenamed editors are known to back up each other's problematic edits. They occasionally concede when it is clearly demonstrated that misrepresentations exist. However, more often than not, the neutralising revision provokes another flurry of introducing "highly sourced material" ostensibly to 'restore balance', but which usually tilt bias back in favour of Falun Gong; some such introductions give their cause the last word. Adding, removing, restructuring, moving, or otherwise changing any material that appears to upset the ] in any of the articles is met with the same tactics.

Dilip rajeev's stated view that nothing from the Chinese authorities is worthy of citing because it is ] propaganda demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of what is ]. He is known to endlessly pontificate on moral questions, and ] citing paragraphs of WP:RS and WP:NPOV to support whatever position he favours in regards to a certain link or source. He maintains a which he uses as Falun Gong advocacy. It seems that he passionately believes the persecution of Falun gong practitioners at the hands of the Chinese authorities, and is unable to put these views to one side when he is editing; and when he edits, it is with such great fervour and aggression that leaves little or no place for others who wish to contribute.

* of 'Persecution of Falun Gong practitioners.
*, he uses moralistic arguments in an apparent defense of denying platform for the "lot of mis-information and lies on Falun Gong" spread by the CCP
*
*, he apparently argues "highly sourced" is sufficient to achieve ]
* is another example.

I would add that the above edits from the 'self-immolation' article demonstrate a pattern of behaviour which can be seen throughout his editing in FGverse. Whilst there is nothing inherently wrong with inserting text favouring one viewpoint, to continue to do so and to ignore the other viewpoints (and all those who support it) when an article manifestly lacks balance is problematic. There are numerous discussions in which he openly advocates Falun Gong, the principles of "truthfulness, compassion and forbearance". He appears only to able to observe only <s>two</s>one of the three 'virtues' ("truthfulness"), and even so, he appears to do it with his rose-coloured spectacles.

;Sathya Sai Baba
Arbcom will already know about sockpuppet account. From ], it can be seen how he ran ], the sock apparently to protect himself against members of the Baba cult.

* in Jan 2009 demonstrates the same modus operandi (insertion of bias, use of ironic quotes) as in the Falun Gong articles. The account was blocked indefinitely in May 2009 after edit warring which resulted in his real identity being outed ] by his adversary there.
After said sock account was blocked, he continued to repeatedly edit war at ]
* edits in an edit war in Baba article (he crushed 13 explained changes with revert number 3)

Dilip rajeev creates an ambiance of intolerance and hostility, leaving behind a trail of breaches of ], 3RR and other guidelines wherever he goes. He is responsible, in whole or in part, for driving away a number of neutral editors from the Falun Gong articles. His editing Sathya Sai Baba demonstrate his propensity to be controversial; his forays there are nothing short of ]. He has demonstrated that he is incapable of working with others who do not share the same views as himself, and I am regrettably of the conclusion, after observing numerous attempts by myself and other editors to discuss, negotiate and mediate, and after many months of suffering his various antics and ], that Misplaced Pages is best off without him. A wholescale indefinite ban is warranted to end this editor's disruption of wikipedia, once and for all. ] (]) 02:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

'''Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:'''<br>
* ] (]) 02:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
*Because of his habit of frequent absence, I also sent him the following email:

<blockquote>'''Arbitration enforcement'''‏<br>
From: oh confucius (ohconfucius@hotmail.com)<br>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 4:19:41 AM<br>
To: dilip_rajeev@msn.com<br>
I wish to inform you that an arbitration enforcement case concerning your behaviour has been filed .</blockquote> ] (]) 04:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

----
I continue to be baffled by the discussion below concerning the scope of authority of admins in this matter. I would just point out that in January 2008, Dilip rajeev was without coming to AE; prior to that was a block of 55 hours. Olaf Stephanos was also given a recently here at AE for just such a violation. ] (]) 17:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

----
Per Shell's comment, I have now realised that Samuel Luo was only topic banned indefinitely, but though it was a site ban. I have now amended the request above. ] (]) 01:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

----
Reaction to asdfg's comments: My only ideology is ]. If Dilip's latest reverts to the and articles are part of Dilip's latest "improvements", I would hate to see what getting worse is like. He may be good at sourcing, but note that he frequently hides behind the "highly sourced material" as defense against removing any text which he wants to stay. ] (]) 13:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

===Discussion concerning Dilip rajeev===
====Statement by Dilip rajeev====
Well, a lot of accusations and all of them '''absolutely baseless'''.


=====1. Clarifying the Sock Accussation=====
I'll start with the sock accusation regarding the ] page. The "Sai Baba" topic being an extremely sensitive topic here in India, and any criticism of which could potentially result in threat on my safety as well as my family's safety, I had wanted anonymity when contributing to the pages( Ref: )( Even in the very state where I live for exposing critical information on this person.) All my contributions there has been well sourced - to the BBC, The Times, The Guardian, The DTV, etc. It was a Admins had also agreed there was no evidence of abusive socking from that account. Further, I had informed the arbcom, in a mail in February, regarding the account.

A newly registered editor, wanting to find out the real identity of the alternate account, started an SPA case against me - admins who were mislead by the manner in which the user presented the case initially mistook my account for a sock, revealing the identity of my alternate account. Shortly following this revelation of info, people related to the sai baba group had a large scale attack launched against me on several blogs and website.

Admins suggested that I rename the original alternate account and I did. That I "returned to edit warring" on the pages is a baseless mis-characterization. It is not uncommon on wikipedia for editors to get cornered and attacked when their '''contributions''' are not in- line with other's POV.

The above user had attacked me with claims along the same lines here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dilip_rajeev/Archive

And he was clearly told by the admins that I had not operated any abusive socks.

=====2.'''The Tiananmen Square Page'''=====

The article had remained stable in this version for over a year : http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident&oldid=300212095

The above User, Ohconfucius, came and and reverted it to a two year old revision - ignoring the pages of discussion that resulted in the newer version.

The user refuses to focus on the content being blanked out by his revision while attacking, personally, editors like me who bring up concerns on such a revert - chosing to base it ona "good article" comment.

The information and sources that got blanked out in the revert to the two year old version includes:

* Clive Ansley's statement from the CBC documentary
* ]
* ]
* ] ( Reporters Sans Frontiers )
* Beatrice Turpin of ]
* Ownby
* (which was part of the article for years).

'''And above are among the best sources and most notable sources available to us on the topic.'''

None of this removal was on the basis of any consensus. I had raised my concerns to the effect on talk, pointed things out clearly, requested that if any well sourced info from the two year old version ( which is extremely biased on builds on CCP propaganda ) be missing in the newer version, it be identified and incorporated into the newer article. PLease see my comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident#Carification_from_Dilip

I attempted a single revert to the stable version with the comment:

I was quickly reverted back by the above user, who, refusing to focus on the content, cast a set of baseless, distorted and misleading accusations against me. I refrained from any further revert to avoid a meaningless revert war.

=====3.'''The Organ Harvestation Page'''=====

It is true that I reverted to an approx. 10 day old version. But I was unaware of the discussions going on talk when I did the revert. Over 40 KB of centrally relevant, well sourced information as from Amnesty, Kilgour Matas, US COngress, etc., I had noticed, was removed in a series of edits. All images on the pages, showing statistic from the KM reports etc. had gotten removed as well.

I brought up the issue on the main page of ] article. I reproduce my comments, '''requesting admin attention''', in their entirety below. I had pointed out I did the revert and was '''requesting admin attention to the revert as well as to the current state of affairs in the article.'''

<div class="toccolours" style="float: left; margin-left: 2em; margin-bottom: 1em; font-size: 95%; background:#ffffff; color:black; max-width: 100%; padding: 1em 1.5em 1.5em">
'''Requesting admin attention on the organharvesting sub-page'''

Kindly review the flurry of changes that have happened in the the past couple of weeks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&diff=309220914&oldid=309152359

A 66 KB article, every sentence in which had been highly sourced, has got reduced to a 26 Kb stub. Could admins kindly review such changes - the article comes under the probation placed by the ArbCom on these pages.

I have attempted to restore the page as of around Aug 8th, when this flurry of removal started -and not just info sourced to Amnesty, Congressional Reports, Kilgour Matas reports, etc. have been blanked out but several centrally relevant images from the KM reports have been blanked out as well.

Requesting kind attention on the issue.
] (]) 09:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


Kindly see http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident#Carification_from_Dilip. The page was reverted to a two year old revision - in the process blanking out several pages of content sourced to western academia. I merely restored this removal of info on a stable article, requesting that we discuss and make changes based on consensus - incorporating stuff from the two year old revision that might be missing in the stable article. While the user accuses me of "blanking two weeks of work" on The Tiananmenn square page, he choses to ignore that what I did was merely undo the user's revert to a two year old version ( an edit that ignored completely years' of work on the page).

I request admins to kindly go through/ compare the revisions and see for themselves.

The same pattern has occured on almost all related pages - and by the same set of users in the past two weeks. ] article has had info removed , addition of several paras of info irreleavent to the individual's notability, in violation of WP:BLP , etc. ] article has undergone such changes as well.

I'd also like to point out that these flurry of changes started at around the same time as these comments were made by the same users involved in the changes. The "discussion" and "consensus" that resulted in the removal of all this info has been largely between the editors engaged in the below exchanges.

<blockquote>
::* Seb az86556 on Ohconfucius' talk page: "''you did well in keeping the this Olaf-guy at bay, and I can see now why the Falun Gong thing you emailed about will be "total war"...''"
::* Colipon on Edward130603's talk page: "''Anyway, do you have e-mail?''"
::* Colipon on Mrund's talk page: "''I'd sent you an e-mail today. Please check! :)''"
::* Ohconfucius on Mrund's talk page: "''I'm glad you're back. Drop me an email, I'd like a private chat with you.''"
</blockquote>


I'd also like to point out that am not accusing all editors involved in the conversation. Mrund, for instance, just received these comments on talk and there is little evidence of him being involved in the recent removal of info on these pages.

As regards the removal of info on a 66KB stable article - reducing it to a 26 KB article, another stable page being reverted to a two year old revision ,etc. I'd like to point out that the very majority of info removed in the process are material centrally relevant- sourced to western academia, Human rights bodies, etc. - Amnesty, AP, Congressional Reports, a Yale Univ Thesis, Kilgour Matas Reports,etc. I point this out because, in the past, we have witnessed such blanking being covered up by claims to the effect that it was primary sources such as ET or Faluninfo.net that was removed. Demonstratably, and very clearly, it is reliable 3rd party sources being blanked out here. In all of these pages, primary sources such as Faluinfo.net are very sparingly used ( despite that they are identified as being reliable by scholars such as David Ownby.)

] (]) 11:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
</div>

I was reverted by Ohconfucius , whose edit summary ran: "rvv - where's the discussion?". I pointed out I had brought up the issue on the main page . When I was reverted again, I refrained from doing any more reverts, again to avoid an unnecessary edit war and thought would bring up the issue in detail on the article's talk when I find more time.

The 10 day old version I reverted to is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&oldid=309225056 ( 66KB article, content stable for a almost a year )

The version from which I reverted ( the current version, after removal of 40 K info and ALL images) is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&oldid=309223036 ( 26 KB article )

If reviewing admins even causally compare the two versions, what motivated me to attempt restore all the info removed would be apparent.

====Comments by other editors====

=====Comment by antilived=====
I cannot express how much I appreciate User:DilipRajeev's effort to copy his rant verbatim to here, it makes life so much easier. As he himself said it, he was unaware of the talk page discussions (which should mean he is aware now?) and reverted a whole bunch of well discussed changes on the organ harvesting page. That itself is typical of ] behaviour, which seemed pandemic across all the FLG pages. But not only that presumably after he has become aware of the discussions he did not revert back his own edit, did not participate in the discussion, and instead posted a long winded rant on an unrelated page requesting admin intervention. The same thing happened ] I dealt with him, moving the issue right up to the ], accusing me of "adding in material from a clearly propagandistic video", "vandalism", "dis-information", the lot, while we were carrying out a conversation to resolve the matter. This, in my opinion, is clearly disruptive, inflammatory (that incident partly caused my hiatus on Misplaced Pages) and completely without remorse. --]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup> 09:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

'''Response to Asdfg12345'''
If by having an ideology of that an encyclopedia should have a neutral point of view opposes Dilip's ideology, I'll gladly be his "ideological opponent" (unless you are accusing every one of us being CCP propagandists?). The only criteria for his edits is to improve the outlook of FLG in Misplaced Pages articles (I can go add lots and lots of poorly written, poorly sourced text that praises FLG and he'd have no problems for it). By his criteria there can never be enough "discussion" to warrant a change that puts FLG in a more negative light (although I can hardly say it's specific to him, it's certainly the most prominent).

<small>a small side-note: Asdfg12345 raises a good issue here, it's quite obvious that all the people that regard Dilip highly are FLG-practitioners. Maybe it IS an ideological issue after all? --]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup> 07:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)</small>

=====Comment by PerEdman=====
Dilip rajeev states that he was unaware of discussions going on in talk when he reverted two weeks worth of good-faith collaborative edits. He could have investigated it and being the one who performed the revert, he should have created such a discussion, but he did not. Because this is not the first time he has done so, it is far too late to claim ignorance as a defense. I don't know what to make of this. I suppose it's possible, as Ohconfucius writes, that he's a devoted Falun Gong practitioner who cannot bear to see other sources represented and therefore acts in this way. What I can say is that it's disrupting a volatile subject matter.
The terms in which he defends himself above are sadly typical. The edits made are "attacks", he is being "attacked" when demands are made that he follow ] or ]. Such partisan behavior can be handled on many subject matters, but in the Falun Gong articles, on probation, with a very strong partisan conflict between the Chinese Communist Part and Falun Gong, it is extremely disruptive. I'm sorry to say that I believe the editing climate on these pages will be improved without the poorly-motivated reverts and deletions repeatedly made by Dilip rajeev in the past.
As a final note, I do not believe a blanket ban is necessary at this point - an indefinite subject ban from all articles on Falun Gong and possibly China subjects would allow the editor to grow into a well-rounded, constructive Misplaced Pages contributor in areas where he can maintain a semblance of objectivity. ] 09:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

; Response to comment by HappyInGeneral: If Dilip has the time to be '''Bold''' and '''Revert''', it is not unreasonable to expect hir to take the time to '''Discuss''' as well. To revert without discussion can obviously be quite disruptive to a probationary article that needs no more drama. ] 21:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

; Respose to comment by Asdfg12345: This is not a place of discussion, but the claim that critics are "ideological opponents" of Dilip rajeev begs the question: what ideology would that be? ] 22:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

=====Comment by Enric Naval=====

Confirming that there is a group of editors resisting the insertion of any criticism in Falun Gong articles, that this has stalled editors who keep trying to balance that articles (myself I tried to make a few changes), and that the articles have benefited from boldly ignoring unreasonable objections raised by these users. A topic ban of Dilip rajeev from anything related to Falun Gong would help improve those articles and would reduce the level of persistent advocacy. Topic ban should include making any edit that makes reference to Falun Gong stuff in any article or talk page in any namespace, broadly constructed. --] (]) 09:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

See , admins can impose topic bans of their own. Can someone hand the topic ban to Dilip rajeev and close this? --] (]) 21:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

=====Comments by PCPP=====
I was involved in long term edit disputes with Dilip, who has has demonstrated his lack of good faith previously by:

* has a habit of continued edit warring
* running false checkuser claims against Ohconfucius
* accused me of being an "vandal" and "propagandist" over content dispute at FLG articles
* bad faith attacks against Antilived, accused of being a PRC propagandist
* another bad faith attack against bobby_fletcher, using an external source that accuses him of being a Chinese spy.

Most of the other issues were already mentioned by Colipon and Ohconfucius above. Basically, his method of destructive editing involve:

* Persumed ownership of articles. He often adds large chunks of material without discussion, while revert edits he doesn't like on sight. This often involves simply article tags, particularly in the and articles. He cannot seem to grasp the concept of discussion before inserting controversial edits.
* Wikilawyering. He demonstrates a clear disregard for wikipedia guidelines, particularly WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. His arguments often involves soapboxing and the such. He also has a habit of removing anything from Chinese sources as "propaganda" , while hold FLG sources as the gospel truth.

Since mediators become involved in the FLG articles, the users of both sides have became more cooperative, and dilip's continued disruption and violation of the arbcom ruling damages on the mediation, and as such warrants a topic ban or block .--] (]) 10:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

=====Comment by Mrund=====
'''The best''' that can be said about Dilip rajeev, and the one thing that makes him only the second most disruptive editor on everything having to do with Falun Gong over the past few years, is that he isn't there all the time. His contributions take the form of drive-by shootings. He cares only about Falun Gong, which in his mind is all good and whose reputation must be boosted, and the Sai Baba cult, which he used to fight on Misplaced Pages. Dilip is not primarily interested in making a good encyclopedia. He actively disrupts attempts in that direction. I am not optimistic about his willingness or ability to do any productive work here. ] (]) 13:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

=====Comment by Sandstein=====
It is not clear to me that this is a case for arbitration enforcement. Which remedy in ] allows uninvolved administrators to enact the requested "indefinite ban from Misplaced Pages"? Unless this request is amended to cite an actual arbitration ''sanction or remedy'' that has been violated (as of this writing, it cites only principles enunciated by the Committee, which are not by themselves enforceable), it may be closed without action. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

], which has now been added to the request, places the article on article probation (which would allow topic bans by admins), but also states that "The articles may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review." I understand this to mean that under this remedy, any topic ban may only be imposed as a result of action by the Arbitration Committee. If so, admins on their own can't do anything here and a request to the Committee would be required. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In reply to John Carter below and ], yes, a case can be made that ArbCom meant to enact standard ], but if so, why the confusing extra text about review by the Committee? On the face of it, that would appear to be a ] limiting the terms of article probation for this case. Absent clarification by the Committee, I am not ready to enact a sanction that is not authorized by the remedy (assuming any sanctions are required at all; I've not looked at the merits of this request). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

=====Comment by Edward130603=====
I would support a topic ban or a block of Dilip rajeev. He is a disruptive editor and often edit wars to get his way. Dilip simply has no care for the good faith work of other editors if they don't match with his POV.

Sandstein, I think that the Article Probation remedy allows blocks/restricted editing for disruptive editors. --''']''' (]) 15:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This enforcement case has been out for quite a while now. Can a administrator come and close the case now?--''']''' (]) 23:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

=====Comment by Seb az86556=====
I find it difficult to convince myself that a Francophone soccer-player, a piano-player from North Carolina, an archaeologist and convinced atheist, a Hong Kong resident, and an art-instructor with a staunch belief in Judeo-Christian deism would manage to agree on and produce one-sided, slanted revisions — ''unless'' one subscribes to the notion that all those who do not cheerfully support every source which celebrates the accomplishments and wisdom of a controversial religion must be part of a great heathen-conspiracy led by ''Hel'' and the time of ''Ragnarök'' has finally come to pass.<br>I have yet to become familiarized with the new rule which explains to the underlings exactly how long they would have to wait before Dilip descends from his watchtower to approve of the changes that had been thoroughly discussed before being implemented to the articles he apparently ]. It becomes terribly frustrating when, upon finally coming to some agreements in the course of tough discussions, one knows that said debates take place under the auspice of an omnipresent divine eye that will fire its wrath-filled flames of destruction down to earth should the inferiors' actions fall into disfavor. Just as there should be no ''cabal'', there should not be a god-like ''Übermensch'' with no need for explaining or justifying his actions, either — especially when he himself has been and informed of the fact that not everyone in the pool of unworthy minions follows the creed of ''Dilipianity''.

The behavior is clearly ] and violates remedy of the Arbitration Case closed on 06:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC) which states ''"Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review"''. ] (]) 15:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

=====Comment by Jayen466=====
Sandstein is correct: as written, the remedy does not appear to support direct admin action, but asks for a review by the arbitration committee following a corresponding motion; bans or restrictions should result from such a review. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 15:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
*John appears to be "more correct". The remedy links to ] which in turn redirects to ], authorising the community to place sanctions. I'll shut up now and leave it to smarter heads to sort this out. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 16:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
*As it appears that this may be falling under AE jurisdiction after all, I would like to add that I and several other otherwise uninvolved editors found Dilip Rajeev's editing at Sathya Sai Baba deeply problematic, as attested to by several ] threads (e.g. the two Sai Baba threads in ], both of which centred around material introduced by this editor). --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 00:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

=====Comment by John Carter=====
The existing remedy includes a specific link to ], which, in the second paragraph, specifically does allow for parties other than the ArbCom to impose general sanctions, although it also permits such sanctions to be revoked later if so desired. I have to assume that the presence of such a link indicates that it would be possible for uninvolved administrators to place sanctions, effectively at the community's request, on such topics. ] (]) 16:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
:Response to Sandstein: I understand your reservations about placing such a ban without a clear mandate in the existing ruling. I am therefore requesting clarification of the existing ruling, specifically regarding whether uninvolved admins would be acting within the ruling placing such a ban, at ]. ] (]) 16:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

=====Comment by HappyInGeneral=====
# Ohconfucius claims that Dilip is disruptive, but if he only edits once a week, how disruptive can he be? As I see it Dilip wants to contribute to these pages, just that right now he does not have the time to keep up with the huge amount of changes that are happening and that are driven by about 10 dedicated people. Plus Dilip did not engaged in any revert wars he only made some ] changes which correspond to the ] cycle.
# If the admins would like to understand how the team play is played, please see here: ] reading even just this thread alone will give a good idea. --] (]) 20:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
:: Contrary to what PerEdman suggests, I see that he engaged in talks: ]. --] (]) 22:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

=====Statement by Vassyana=====
My comments are mainly procedural.
* The remedy has been treated as a standard probation with an additional option for ArbCom review. See: ]. This interpretation has generally been upheld by ArbCom at ].
* The editor under scrutiny received a "final warning" over three months ago.
* If reviewing administrators feel the editor in question has engaged in explicit misconduct, contributed to a poor editing environment, or otherwise inhibited productive discussion and editing, he should be sanctioned to permit continued improvement in the topic area.
* Reviewing admins may find that other editors' conduct raised or exhibited here, or noted through examining the evidence of this request, is problematic and counterproductive to the topic area. If this is so, I implore the reviewing admins to issue final warnings to help future enforcement in the Falun Gong topic area. Anything that helps highlight and resolve counterproductive behavior is a boon for the area.
Thank you for considering my comments. --] (]) 00:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

* The drafting arbitrator has clarified the intent of the arbitration remedy, in line with my interpretation. --] (]) 22:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

=====Statement by Colipon=====
Dilip Rajeev is a very difficult user to work with. He was the primary user that drove me away from working on Falun Gong articles in 2007. After my two-year hiatus from the FLG zone, my first attempts to make good faith changes over at ‘Organ Harvesting’ in July 2009 was directly met with a horde of ] from dilip. Dilip’s style of disruptive editing and disrespect for users who do not share his POV has been a serious detriment to improvement to Falun Gong articles. Note in his defense, he writes ''“But I was unaware of the discussions going on talk when I did the revert.”'' I am baffled he is able to utter these words as a form of defence. This type of blatant disregard for other contributors' edits is not acceptable. He also often throws poorly argued but very offensive accusations at people who are displeased with his disruptive behaviour.

Although there seems to be an on-going debate about the semantics of sanctions, a long-term topic ban for Rajeev serves the ''basic spirit'' of ] – that is, to foster a more cohesive and productive editing environment. Dilip’s past behaviour has undoubtedly turned away and frustrated many good faith editors and significantly hindered progress in the Falun Gong articles - to a degree no less severe than now topic-banned user Olaf Stephanos. Olaf and Dilip's ] differ in that Olaf ''responds'' directly to comments by other users while Dilip simply uses overarching statements to conclude that he is 'right', and then engages in edit-warring and reverts regardless of other users' input (as shown in evidence above) - this is the reason dilip has many more warnings against him than other Falun Gong ]. In all this adds up to make dilip the most ''destructive'' user on these articles. Similar to Olaf, if dilip was truly interested in working on the project rather than pushing his views on two controversial movements, he can still remain a valuable contributor outside the realm of Falun Gong and Sathya Sai Baba. ]+<small>(])</small> 19:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

=====Statement by Outside Editor:Radiantenergy =====
I have n't followed the Falun Gong article closely. However I will like to share Dilip Rajeev's role in the Sathya Sai Baba article. Dilip Rajeev using the account 'White_Adept' added several unreliable sources and material banned by second arbitration commitee in the Sathya Sai Baba article since Jan 2009. He made 200+ edits in 10 days and changed a neutral article to NPOV nightmare. He always edit-warred with other editors who tried to remove the unreliable sources which he added. I had put an arbitration enforcement case here - http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive36#I_seek_Admin_help_in_this_case:_White_Adept_and_Arb.com_rulings where he was warned of sactions if he added questionable sources into the Sathya Sai Baba article.

Even after this case Dilip Rajeev still continued to add the same banned material in the sub-article '1993 murders in Prashanthi Nilayam'. I have always wondered why Dilip Rajeev was not afraid to break wikipedia rules or even arbitration enforcement rules. Many co-editors had become frustrated unable to stop his POV pushing and edit-warring in the Sathya Sai Baba article.

If you ask me if Dilip Rajeev disrupted the Sathya Sai Baba article? My answer is definite Yes. He did a lot of damage to that article. It has taken me and other editors almost 6 months to get rid of the unreliable sources Dilip Rajeev added into the Sathya Sai Baba article and bring it back to the original neutral state. Lately in the last 1 and 1/2 months after Dilip stopped interfering in the Sathya Sai Baba article the article has tremendously improved and has become more neutral and well balanced. I hope that the Sathya Sai Baba article will stay that way in the future instead of becoming a NPOV nightmare once again. ] (]) 02:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

=====Statement by Outside Editor: J929 =====
Hey, sometime in 2008 i came upon the Misplaced Pages Sathya Sai Baba page. The page at best was poorly written and lacked any real coherancy and information. Sometime later, in 2009 i read the page again and was disgusted with the way Sai Baba was presented. i know people have different opinions but it seems there lacked any human dignity or neutral presentation of a living person. That is when i signed up for a wikipedia account. 16:07, February 15, 2009 . i couldnt make any changes as the page had been blocked.<br />
i'm not familiar Dilip Rajeev or his writing as he stopped around the time i began, but i do know the article in early 2009 was, in my opinion, horrendous. you will have to consult the history of the page to see who made the contributions.


===Request concerning Boy shekhar===
] (]) 02:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Daniel Quinlan}} 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Boy shekhar}}<p>{{ds/log|Boy shekhar}}</p>
=====Statement by Asdfg12345=====
I've been involved with these articles for a long time. I believe Dilip is editing in good faith. Much of the calls for a ban here come from Dilip's ideological opponents, who of course find his presence a nuisance. I agree that Dilip's editing is unthoughtful in the cited instances, and I don't know why he annoys people like that when he doesn't have to. On the other hand though, he is improving, and he has made good contributions to these pages in terms of research and finding sources, and that shouldn't be discounted. His once a fortnight changes that get reverted in ten seconds aren't what is making or breaking the editing environment on these pages--they are minor, and he only did it a couple of times, and I'm sure he won't keep doing them after this incident. He notes, in his defence, that he was undoing changes that he felt had been pushed through without discussion, and were often cases of vast deletions of material referenced to reliable sources. There is actually nothing wrong with doing this. This is merely the bold-revert-cycle. It would only be a problem if he edit-warred, and I see no evidence of that. Mostly this seems like a difference in taste. People disagree with each other all the time. There should be a plurality of views on wikipedia. If there was some genuinely disruptive activity coming from Dilip's corner I would want him banned too, but I don't see evidence of it.--<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 18:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Result concerning Dilip rajeev===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
*We can't site ban someone as nothing in the Arbitration case went that far, however, a topic ban could be considered. Sandstein, there's an open amendment in which another editor was topic banned as a result of this case; not sure why the funny wording, but the Arbs seem to support standard discretionary sanctions here. I've asked ] if he wants to comment on this request as well. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
*:Also, given the repeated blocks for 3RR on these articles and a prior topic ban (]), a revert restriction might be appropriate as well. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
== Meowy ==
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
{{discussion top}}
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
===Request concerning Meowy===


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
'''User requesting enforcement:'''<br>
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;">&nbsp;·</span> ]</small> 11:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
*{{diff2|1268704307|This edit}} violates the topic ban because it is in the topic area. It's also based on an unreliable source and the section header includes a derogatory term.


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
'''User against whom enforcement is requested:'''<br>
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
{{userlinks|Meowy}}
*{{diff2|972891251|Here}} is the topic ban for {{tpq|persistent insertion of ], use of unreliable sources or no sources at all, and ]}}.


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
'''Sanction or remedy that this user violated:'''<br>
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
] Meowy has been under these sanctions since October 2007.
*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|Doug Weller}}.
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above).


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
'''] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it:'''<br>
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
# , Violation of '''''Revert limitation''' (formerly known as revert parole). You are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.'' User did not attempt to explain the removal clearly until the second revert either.
*I've edited the article so I am involved. ] (]) 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
# , , , , Not ] by making sudden and unjustified accusations against editors. I have made clear my concerns at ] including suggestions on how to fix the problems , and have notified other talk pages so a discussion can happen in a central location , , , , . Other editors have not accepted Meowy's interpretation of my actions either , , , and also think they represent a failure to assume good faith . Also engaging in ] by behaving aggressively and with unneeded hostility, in particular to quote the civility policy, ''Quoting another editor out-of-context to give the impression that he or she holds views they do not hold, or to malign them'', given that the evidence makes clear that I do not hold the views that Meowy has suggested. These actions collectively are applicable to the restriction under '''''Civility supervision''' (formerly known as civility parole). If you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then you may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.''
:{{ping|Vanamonde93}} No, I don't think you're being too harsh. I think you're right. My thinking was that if I was uninvolved, I would have blocked them under ] so I sleepily submitted it here last night instead of ANI, which is what I should have done. ] (])
# A look through Meowy's edits suggests that he has been repeatedly ignoring his editing restrictions on other pages as well. These include violation of 1 revert per week restriction on ] with , . Failure to assume good faith and ] at ] . Severe incivility on ] , particularly, to quote the civility policy again, ''Rudeness: insults, name-calling and excessive sarcasm'' and ''Using derogatory language towards other contributors or, in general, referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner.'' It is clear that another user was offended by such comments and Meowy's response shows that he has not acknowledged the damage that such comments make to Misplaced Pages and the editing environment .


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
'''Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):'''<br>
*
Not applicable, Meowy was warned about conduct like this when the sanctions were placed originally, further warnings are not required in the remedy.


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
'''Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]):'''<br>
===Discussion concerning Boy shekhar===
Meowy has been blocked a total of five times for violation of editing restrictions, this excludes overturned blocks or block setting adjustment. . According to the editing restrictions '''''Enforcement:''' Violations of limitations, supervision, or bans imposed by the remedies in this case may be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year.'' If any block is given the exact time is down to the discretion of administrators, however it is clear from the block log that short blocks have failed to correct Meowy's behaviour. A topic ban may also be appropriate as many ] articles, such as ], would come under ''articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area'' as Meowy's conduct suggests that disallowing him to continue editing such articles should be considered.
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>


====Statement by Boy shekhar====
'''Additional comments by ]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;">&nbsp;·</span> ]</small>:'''<br>
{{user|Lida Vorig}} is also under editing restrictions () from the same Arbitration Committee case and has violated them by also failing to assume good faith . While the evidence suggests that Lida Voring's behaviour has not been as severe as Meowy's, particularly less aggressive, Lida Voring should probably be warned that such comments are not assuming good faith, and that making such accusations without evidence disrupts dispute resolution and can also be considered incivil.


====Statement by Vanamonde====
Note that I am an administrator myself, but have not taken any enforcement action as I would be considered an 'involved administrator' for this remedy.
This user hasn't edited for 4.5 years since they were TBANned, and none of their 31 edits show any ability to follow our PAGs. At the risk of sounding harsh, an extended AE discussion is a waste of time; a passing admin should indef them (I cannot, I am INVOLVED on most of the content they have edited). ] (]) 23:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


:{{re|Daniel Quinlan}} Apologies if that sounded like a criticism of you, it wasn't intended as such: I'm just advocating for the first uninvolved admin who sees this to block and close. ] (]) 00:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:'''<br>
, .


===Discussion concerning Meowy=== ===Result concerning Boy shekhar===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
====Statement by Meowy====
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
====Additional comments by ] (])====
*<!--
-->
*Vanamonde93's assessment is spot on, the edit in question is the kind of gross violation of ] we indef people for on the spot even when it's not a TBAN violation. Blocked as a regular admin action. Although I will say, without knowing how exactly Vanamonde93 is involved here, this is so far beyond the pale that they could have gone ahead and blocked on an "any reasonable admin" basis. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 04:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}


==שלומית ליר==
I endorse Camaron's statement as a party who attempted to interpret the purpose behind the tag. Meowy has again responded asserting bad faith on Camaron's behalf, citing issues of ownership of the page, understanding of the purpose of tagging, and questioning Camaron's role as an administrator.
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning שלומית ליר===
====Comments by other editors====
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Smallangryplanet}} 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|שלומית ליר}}<p>{{ds/log|שלומית ליר}}</p>
===Result concerning Meowy===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
*The evidence here seems quite clear. I note the 1RR violation mentioned at Camaron's point number one and severe violations of AGF and CIV as exemplified by points two and three. The edit warring at ] seems a bit too stale to act upon, but the rest of the examples are quite recent.
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
*Meowy blocked for a month (the violations aren't ''so'' egregious as to go higher, though I understand that the maximum in this case is a year). I shall decline to topic ban for the time being, but one should go into effect if this comes up again.
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
*Lida Vorig notified to remember to assume good faith. <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 22:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation of ''how'' these edits violate it :
{{discussion bottom}}


ShlomitLir (שלומית ליר) created their account back in 2014. The breakdown of their edits is as follows:
==ChildofMidnight==
{{discussion top}}
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
===Request concerning ChildofMidnight===


*2014 to 2016: no edits.
'''User requesting enforcement:'''<br>
*2017 to 2019: 1 edit per year. None related to PIA.
] (]) 15:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
*2022: 7 edits. Mostly in their userspace.
*2023: 21 edits. Again, mostly in their userspace. Made two edits in the talk page of ] complaining about its content and calling it .
* 2024: Started editing after a 10 month break at the end of October.
**Made 51 edits in October and 81 edits in November (copyedits, adding links, minor edits).
**In December, that number rose up to almost 400, including 116 in December 6 alone and 98 in December 7. Became ECR that day.
**Immediately switched to editing in PIA, namely in the ] article where they with an unclear image with a dubious caption, and without providing a reason why.
**They also edited the ] article, with a caption not supported by the source (replaced by yet with a contextless caption when the previous image was removed) and WP:UNDUE content .
**they also in the second AfD for ] despite never having interacted with that article or its previous AfD. They have barely surpassed 500 edits, but the gaming is obvious, highlighted by the sudden switch to editing in PIA.


More importantly, there's the issue of POV pushing. I came across authored by them on Ynet, once again complaining about what they perceive as an anti Israeli bias on Misplaced Pages. They have also authored a report for the World Jewish Congress covering the same topic. The report can be seen in full . I think that someone with this clear POV agenda shouldn't be near the topic.
'''User against whom enforcement is requested:'''<br>
{{userlinks|ChildofMidnight}}


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
'''Sanction or remedy that this user violated:'''<br>
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
]<br>
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on and re-iterated on (see the system log linked to above).
]<br>
*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|Femke}}.
]<br>


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
'''] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it:'''<br>
Adding some additional comments on 2025-01-16: On top of POV issues, the user has a number of tweets that appear to be a , , , and . They've also been . If this - combined with the tweets, the forms, the op-ed and the report to the WJC, all under this user's name (that they also use to edit Misplaced Pages - this is ) isn't a clear cut case of canvassing, I don't know what is. ] (]) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
# - Comments on Obama pages and on interaction-restricted editors by comparing those editors to Nazis
# - Restores Nazi accusations after they were removed following discussion
# - updates Nazi comparison after being warned by Newyorkbrad
# - comments on talk page of {{User|Grundle2600}} (who is on community ban from editing Obama pages) regarding '']'' and Grundle's Obama-related comments on other editors' talk pages
# - comments extensively on editing history of Obama pages and editors there, forum shops Obama Arbcom matter to Jimbo Wales' talk page
# - commentary on Obama editors being like Nazis, "bullies and liars", "thugs", his editing restrictions being "censorship", the "content position" of Obama articles containing "false, misleading and innacurate information" and "skewed and biased information", his interaction over Obama pages and with Obama editors being "incessant harassment and stalking", "barage of abuse", "censorship and propaganda pushing", and "hounding"
# - further commentary about edits, and editors, on Obama pages


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
'''Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):'''<br>
# - Warning by {{user|Newyorkbrad}}
# - {{User|Jimbo Wales}} asks ChildofMidnight to remove Nazi accusations
# Other editors asking for Nazi accusations to be removed: {{User|Caspian blue}}, {{User|Soxwon}}, {{User|Roux}}, {{User|Bigtimepeace}}, {{User|Unitanode}}


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
'''Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]):'''<br>
#Injunction across all pages to remove and not repeat comparisons of Obama editors (and in particular, interaction-restricted editors) to Nazis, thugs, bullies, censors, stalkers, harassers, etc.
#Injunction across all pages not to further discuss Obama articles, their supposed bias, or their editing history - This is probably covered by existing remedies, but if necessary, clarification that above behavior is a violation


===Discussion concerning שלומית ליר===
'''Additional comments by ] (]):'''<br>
<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>
After posting similar screeds on his talk page and elsewhere without the Nazi references, ChildofMidnight was cautioned that rehashing the arbcom case on his talk page and mentioning me by name among his supposed stalkers and harassers were violations of the sanctions.


====Statement by שלומית ליר====
ChildofMidnight is again referring to me, ScJessey, Baseball Bugs, and Tarc as among his stalkers, harassers, bullies, censors, Nazis, etc. Here others opine that it is "heavily imlied" and "anyone with at least a shred of familiarity with this case will know precisely to who... refer to." Here ChildofMidnight makes clear that I am one of "this small group of POV pushers" he means to compare with Nazis. In other instances, he has included Bigtimepeace, Wizardman, Arbcom generally, Jimbo, and others among the Obama-related censors.
I believe contents of this filing to be in clear policy violation and have reached out to the arbitration committee for further clarification before commenting further.] (]) 14:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
: I was given clarification from an admin regarding my concerns and will now be drafting a response. Thank you for your patience. ] (]) 21:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by Thebiguglyalien====
These edits are also violations of his community sanction not to interact with Baseball Bugs (which is more specific as to prohibited conduct), and general behavioral policy (e.g. ]). ] (]) 15:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
This is the first ARBPIA report since the proposed decision ] and it's specifically a matter of POV pushing, responding admins should be aware of the "]" remedy. The committee is discussing whether to implement a remedy stating that admins at AE are "empowered and encouraged to consider a topic ban" purely for biased editing. So far, the argument against is that it's redundant because AE admins are already supposed to do this. ] (]) 05:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-29/Special_report


====Statement by Selfstudier====
'''Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:'''<br>
:''Requesting a clerk, or other party, notify various parties so that I need not discuss this case on non-arbitration page, or interact with ChildofMidnight's talk page'' - ] (]) 15:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC) To the extent that it is relevant, the WJC report was discussed at ]. ] (]) 11:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::I have notified COM of this report. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


====Statement by starship.paint (2)====
===Discussion concerning ChildofMidnight===
====Statement by ChildofMidnight====
====Comments by other editors====
CoM is deliberately pushing buttons to get a reaction, and he will continue to be inflammatory until he gets one. Why waste our time? Indef now, save us all a bunch of petty annoyance. The Nazi thing was the final straw, and though he removed the images, he failed to comply with NYB's unambiguous statement about the complete unacceptability of that sort of namecalling. Frankly, I would support an indef for ''any'' user making that sort of comparison; CoM's history of deliberate shit-stirring makes it that much easier. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;16:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)</small>


I would to like to raise at ], where there had been an existing unsourced paragraph ({{tq|On the morning of October 7, a tour minibus...}}) that שלומית ליר added to ( / ) from the ]. '''The reference is relevant, but I believe it may not verify every detail in the Battle of Sderot paragraph''' (e.g. "Netivot", "Holocaust survivors"). The reference contains a short paragraph of text and a video that is 4:21 long. I can't watch the video in the reference, but I believe it is this same video that is 4:20 long which contains the same screenshot as the reference, on the same topic. Most of the video is an interview of the daughter of a dead victim who was on the bus (the daughter had been on the phone with the victim), except for 1:58 to 2:13 which appears to be a quote from the bus driver. The publisher themselves do not have too much reporting in their own voice (on the video), yet this reference was used to cite a paragraph entirely stated in Wikivoice. No attribution was made to the relative or the bus driver, or to the publisher. I can't be totally sure though, due to unfamiliarity with Hebrew. '''] (] / ])''' 13:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* After a brief review of the diffs submitted, I do not see a violation of the arbitral remedies that would warrant an enforcement action. There is much silly ranting and soapboxing about censorship and Nazis and the like, as well as attacks against various named and unnamed users, but nothing seems to violate the ''actual remedies'' – the Obama topic ban or the ban against interaction with Scjessey and Wikidemon. I'm not in principle opposed to community sanctions against ChildofMidnight on the grounds of general unpleasantness (], ]...), but that would have to go through ] or another more public forum. On the other hand, this request by Wikidemon could be construed to violate Wikidemon's own restriction against interaction with ChildofMidnight, so it might be a good idea if all involved would just go away and edit a few articles about something non-political. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
::Both Wikidemon and C of M technically interacted with one another on the ArbNoticeboard, and this report could, as you say, also be viewed as a violation by Wikidemon. But I think it's best to ignore all that, and it's understandable (I think) that Wikidemon would want something done about this situation, given that the Nazi references were clearly directed at least in part at him (C of M did not say so explicitly, but the context is rather obvious).


====Statement by xDanielx====
::I would have to agree though that the Arb Enforcement board is not the right place for this, and really Wikidemon should not be filing the report. I have been considering filing a user-conduct RfC on ChildofMidnight given that editor's long-term behavioral problems and might still do that if others were willing to certify it, but it's an unpleasant prospect so I've been hesitating and may decide it's not worth the trouble.
{{yo|Arcticocean}} I don't really see how NPOV can be read as requiring edits which support both sides of a controversy. Our content policies don't impose any positive duties; they only tell us what not to do. The text of the policy doesn't support the notion that a ''pattern'' of edits could be in violation, even if no particular edit is in violation.


In principle, such a pattern of edits could violate the , but I don't believe this board has ever enforced it. If it were to be enforced, I think it should be for more serious violations like the double standards that e.g. ] attempted to demonstrate, rather than mere opinion-driven editing which applies to the vast majority of CTOP editors. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 03:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::On the specific matter of the Nazi stuff on the talk page (which is still there, even though another editor removed Nazi imagery, now petulantly replaced with "censored" boxes), I think the best idea is to post on ANI. Personally I consider that material disruptive so long as it remains on C of M's talk page, and I think he should remove it post haste, or if he won't he should be blocked and it should be removed for him. An ANI thread could best determine whether or not the community agrees that the talk page material is a problem. I think that's probably the right place for that discussion, though I think it would be a lot more effective if a fairly neutral party started it, which is not me at this point since I've already made it clear that I think C of M's Nazi analogies are quite heinous. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 18:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


==== Statement by Hemiauchenia ====
:::Sorry to thread this, but I absolutely have not violated and will not violate any Arbcom remedy, technically or otherwise. I have ignored ChildofMidnight completely since the initial close of the case, not discussing, interacting, or mentioning ChildofMidnight in any form, ''except'' to file requests in response to ChildofMidnight's making attacks on me in various forums in which I was participating. I have sought two clarifications here and now this request for enforcement. The first two resulted in findings that CoM was at the very least pushing the boundaries and that a continuation of the behavior would be a violation. This new incident is obviously unacceptable conduct directed at me in part, and derives from the Obama Arbcom case. Whether Arbcom decides to construe it as such, this forum is my only redress and I have not been told I should not use it. I have not abused my privileges here, so I cannot fathom how I would be precluded from seeking redress or discussing these remedies before Arbcom. Beyond that, the point of the interaction ban as I understand it is to prevent the kind of toxic exchanges that took place between me and ChildofMidnight during the period when he was disrupting the Obama pages. That works if it truly keeps ChildofMidnight away from me. If it means ChildofMidnight can call me a Nazi and I'm not supposed to ask for help, even here, it is not accomplishing its purpose. It would have been better if the community had dealt with this already through an AN/I report, an RfC, someone else filing this report, or an administrator simply removing the offensive material as Bigtimepeace suggests and blocking ChildofMidnight if he reinserts it. I waited for three days to see if the material would be removed, saw what looked like an acknowledgment from Newyorkbrad that this might be a fair matter for the committee, and asked if anyone else would be filing a report (despite saying "a few minutes" I waited a further six hours). So I hardly jumped the gun here. I filed this reluctantly after it was clear that the Nazi accusations were not going to come down on their own and there was nothing actively being done. I would be pleased to bow out now, but will someone please take care of this? ] (]) 19:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
This user has engaged in off-wiki canvassing regarding the IP conflict. Take the following recent tweet from the 12 January
::::As I said I don't think you should get in trouble for this and I obviously understand your frustration. I think bowing out now is very much a good idea, and obviously a number of people are aware of the situation. I do not know what happens next, but I think this will get addressed one way or another.
For posterity in case it is deleted it contains the following remarks: {{quote|If you can't handle the facts, just delete them Propaganda on
@Misplaced Pages includes targeting Israel, demonizing it, and erasing inconvenient truths, from falsifying war outcomes to deleting Israeli inventions and attempting to erase the reality of Palestinian suicide bombers.}}
Along with this is a screenshot of the current AfD ]. People are of course allowed to be caustic about Misplaced Pages off-wiki, but calling out a specific AfD with highly charged rhetoric, essentially inciting canvassing seems out of line. ] (]) 02:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
: For those concerned that this might be outing, שלומית ליר is very open about their real life identity on their userpage. See (). If you reveal your real identity on Misplaced Pages, your tweets about Misplaced Pages on your Twitter account connected to your real-life identity are fair game to mention. There's also reverse confirmation in this tweet . ] (]) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by Cdjp1====
::::The proximate issue right now is the "wikipedia is like the Nazis" stuff on ChildofMidnight's talk page. I think that should be dealt with on ANI (or just removed, but that was and ultimately just meant that instead of having we now have ), and as I said I hope some uninvolved person who happens by here and views it as a problem can start a thread on the matter. If not I'll maybe do that myself (loath as I am to have anything further to do with the matter), though that would go far less smoothly since C of M sees me as one of the administrators spreading propaganda and censoring him in a manner akin to the brownshirted stormtroopers of old. Also in the recent dustup ] I said I was "utterly done" interacting with C of M directly and I intend to hold to that, so if another admin or editor can take a look at this and/or throw it up for community discussion that would be appreciated. If the consensus is that it's C of M's talk page and he can liken other contributors to Nazis then I'll accept that and to a significant degree won't even care, since ultimately I think the material on his talk page does a great deal of harm to C of M and essentially none to anyone else, so ridiculous (but also ridiculously offensive) are the accusations there. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 20:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
As we seem to be ok to pull evidence from the statements of the editor in question, they have also commented more recently about () in response to a question of if Misplaced Pages can be "saved". -- ] (]) 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Okay then. Hasta mañana, compadres. - ] (]) 20:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
I find gratuitous comparisons to Nazis particularly distasteful, as do many; if an editor with no history in this conflict is needed to refile this report on another board, I'll volunteer. ]] 20:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It has been several days. Perhaps שלומית ליר could clarify whether their belief about the way Misplaced Pages works turned out to be a true belief or a false belief so that this report can progress. ] (]) 09:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)====
:I was going to offer to refile at AN/I as well; I have a history with this user, but no sanctions against interaction as others do. But a completely uninvolved person wants to, that'd be great. It is time to put an end to this toxic behavior. ] (]) 20:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
::It's a moot point now. C of M has, wisely, the offending material. it elsewhere hardly seems advisable, but it's definitely best to just let that slide. I don't think further action is necessary, though a user conduct RfC is still a possibility in the near or semi-near future. C of M certainly does not seem to think the offending material was a problem, which in and of itself is a problem. But as far as I'm concerned an uninvolved admin can probably fill out the results section now and archive this request. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 21:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Whilst AE doesn't seem to be an issue here, I think CoM's behaviour merits further examination. The way he inserted himself into a discussion that was nothing to do with him ( - link to oldpage#section; CoM pops up about halfway through the section) really makes me think he could do with an extended wikibreak to think about what exactly it is he's trying to achieve on Misplaced Pages, and how he wants to go about it. I mean when you get to the point of comparing admins to "rabid dogs" and concluding that "Occasionally the worst ones are put down", well then maybe, just maybe, the time has come for the editor and the community to take a break from each other. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


===Result concerning שלומית ליר===
:::The worst, anyway - I'm not being called a Nazi except in archive, just a thug, bully, liar, obscene, and accused of intimidation, stalking harassment, etc. We never did settle whether commenting about the three interaction-banned editors in that way, or forum shopping complaints about the Obama articles and Obama arbitration to Jimbo's talk page or elsewhere, is okay. I don't plan to comment further and won't raise this unless or until it crosses my path again but if it does, this is the forum, no? ] (]) 00:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*Users are allowed to have a POV - it's a rare user indeed who edits a contentious topic without having some strong opinions about it. For conduct to be actionable at AE it needs to be an actual policy violation. The misleading use of images doesn't rise to the level of AE action in my view, and judging whether an addition like is UNDUE is not within AE's purview, as long as it is supported by the source. ] (]) 23:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:The PIA5 remedy hasn't passed yet, and its interpretation is as yet unclear to me: but in my view we are already empowered to deal with biased editing, in the sense of editing that violates NPOV. What I'm not willing to do is sanction on the basis of someone's opinions alone; they have to be shown to have let their opinions get in the way of following our PAGs. ] (]) 07:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I see some evidence - based on Arcticocean's digging below - that שלומית ליר is using images without sufficient care, but I don't see that rising to the level of a sanction. As to the rest, xDanielx is correct - nowhere do our policies require treating both sides of a conflict equally - indeed our PAGs discourage false balance. Those diffs could be actionable if they individually or collectively violate policy, but I have yet to see evidence of that. ] (]) 03:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::The off-wiki canvassing is a problem. It merits a warning at least, I don't know if the formality thereof matters. If there was evidence that שלומית ליר was aware of ] I would consider something more stringent. ] (]) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* While I understand {{u|Vanamonde93}}'s concerns, I think that we are required to assess the totality of the user's contributions. Contentious topic editors are required to uphold NPOV. ] places an obligation to {{xtn|Within contentious topics,… edit carefully and constructively… and… adhere to the ]}}. The linked page provides that {{xtn|Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view… We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence}}. If an editor is ''only'' adding content that significantly favours one or the other side to the conflict, this is incompatible with their contentious topic obligation. That is because an editor making ''only'' one-sided edits will simply not be taking the necessary steps to ensure that the ''whole article'' is written from a neutral point of view. As their number of one-sided edits increases, the likelihood decreases that the editor is ensuring our content is neutral and impartial. Once we reach the point of being sure that they are not attempting to ensure neutrality of content, we can conclude the editor is not meeting their contentious topics obligations and we can issue a sanction. This can only be assessed with hindsight and by looking at the editor's contributions as a whole. ] 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Assessing the topic area contributions of the respondent (שלומית ליר) since they became extended-confirmed {{logid|166341641|at 17:33, 8 December 2024}}, there is cause for concern. I counted 19 edits to the area conflict. Taken together, they significantly skew the articles negatively against the opposing side of the conflict:
::* ].
::* ].
::* ] which was perhaps casting doubt on the relevant section, ''Massacre of pensioners'', and ].
::* ], therefore giving greater weight to the claims, in a context where the claims were already described at considerable length; ]; ].
::* ], then ], both to the first line of the article.
::* ] and ].
::* On the talk pages, there has been a ] although I would be prepared to look past that (it was like meeting like). I am skipping a few further and insignificant talk page comments.
::* There are then edits to ]: ]; ]. At ], there is then an expansion, again of the article lead, ] (]).
:: Assessing the edits as a whole, it is difficult not to conclude that the respondent user is failing to meet their contentious topics obligation to edit neutrally in this topic area. As the number of edits is so far limited, if a sanction is imposed, it could justifiably be light-touch. ] 20:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::: {{re|xDanielx}} Thanks for commenting. Most of the edits do not have a neutral, encyclopedic POV. There is an effort to influence our articles away from neutrally describing the subject without taking sides, contrary to ]. Even if each edit in isolation is insufficient for sanctioning, taken ''as a whole'' the edits show an inability or unwillingness to edit neutrally. One non-neutral edit shouldn't be sanctioned; twenty is a different story. This is not about the ''percentage'' of biased edits but about the weight or amount of them. Therefore, the assessment wouldn't really change even had the editor made some 'neutral' edits along the way. I'm happy to concede that editors cannot be compelled to balance edits of one bias with edits of another, but I don't think that comes into it. In a nutshell, this is about ]. ] 08:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*The offwiki canvassing is a problem...{{u|שלומית ליר}}, you're fairly inexperienced here. Were you aware ] is not allowed? ] (]) 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:For transparency, שלומית ליר reached out to me, and I explained multiple policy and advised her to go ahead and respond here without waiting for individual feedback from her email to arbcom, which may or may not happen. ] (]) 22:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*I take it that per {{u|Barkeep49}}'s brief oversighting of potentially-sensitive content in this report (]), and then restoration of the same (]), concerns of outing have been investigated and the report can proceed on its merits? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 19:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:That's correct. I got a request, I didn't really feel it was OUTING, but as I indicated in my edit summary OS is a tool of first resort. I consulted with the OS listserv and received some responses quickly agreeing with me and so I unsuppressed and restored the material. ] (]) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


==Luganchanka==
::::CoM's last comment to the thread on Jimbo's page suggests that he considers this event sort of a success. This is worrying but I suppose unsurprising. This will not be the last time we discuss CoM. ] (]) 01:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Result concerning ChildofMidnight=== ===Request concerning Luganchanka===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}} 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
*'''No enforceable remedy.''' The restrictions being asked for step a bit outside of the case, however, its possible that given CoM's tendency to "blow off steam" and attack editors from a prior dispute that perhaps the community needs to take action of its own here. Unfortunately, that's really not for this board. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
{{discussion bottom}}


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Luganchanka}}<p>{{ds/log|Luganchanka}}</p>
==Jayjg==
{{discussion top}}
===Request concerning Jayjg===


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
'''User requesting enforcement:'''<br>
] (]) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
'''User against whom enforcement is requested:'''<br>
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
{{userlinks|Jayjg}}


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
'''Sanction or remedy that this user violated:'''<br>
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
]
# Reversion to version of article where the article says "He is a child sex offender" in the second sentence despite consensus at BLPN discussion that this is problematic because Ritter never actually interacted with a real child.
<blockquote>Jayjg is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles .</blockquote><blockquote>For the purposes of editing restrictions in this case, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as it was defined in the Palestine-Israel articles case, encompassing the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, as well as any edits on the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict on any other article or talk page, or any other page throughout the project. </blockquote>


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
'''] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it:'''<br>
BLP CTOP warning given
# Quote: ''"Just because Ahmadinejad says he's not antisemitic, it doesn't mean Holocaust denial isn't antisemitic."'' Granted, Ahmadinejad isn't Arab, but this is not the place for unnecessary sophistry. Jayjg clearly understands that the Iran-Israel conflict is a subset of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
# Contentious edit to the ] article, section that makes the Qu'ran appear more bloodthirsty.
# More of the same, with an explicitly modern context: ''"The Muslim holy text defined the Arab and Muslim attitude towards Jews to this day, especially in the periods when Islamic fundamentalism was on the rise. It is really easy to find quotations stating that jihad (holy war) is the sacred duty of every Muslim, that Jews and Christians should be killed, and that this fight should continue until only the Muslim religion is left. Al-Baqara says about the Jews, slay them (the sons of apes and pigs) whenever you catch them."''
# Jayg removes ''"The church-owned Washington Times newspaper has been accused of having a pro-Israel bias"'' plus a large number of quotations, including:
::<blockquote>''""The Washington Times is a mouthpiece for the ultra conservative Republican right, unquestioning supporters of Israel's Likud government."'' </blockquote>
::<blockquote>''"Lind writes that the most supportive members of Likud in the Republican Party are southern Christian fundamentalists. “The religious right believes that God gave all of Palestine to the Jews, and fundamentalist congregations spend millions to subsidise Jewish settlements in the occupied territories,” says Lind."'' </blockquote>
::<blockquote>'' "the Times editorial content is generally considered favorable toward Israel by pro-Israel activists."'' </blockquote>


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
'''Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):'''<br>
At BLPN, there has been consensus that the version of the article describing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the second sentence of the article is problematic, as he did not actually have sexual contact with a child, only a police officer impersonating one. ]. Luganchanka has been persistently edit warring against this apparent consensus. For which he has been warned by {{Ping|NatGertler}} , which he subequently blanked There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article going back to at least August ], but Luganchanka persistently cites a "consensus" for its inclusion that as far as I can tell does not seem to exist, with Luganchanka aggressively editing to enforce its inclusion. ] (]) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Not applicable.
: Luganchanka's response is disingenuous and misleading. Look at the ] discussion I linked above. Nobody other than Luganchanka thinks that Ritter should be described as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article. The dispute isn't about whether or not the convictions should be mentioned in the lead at all or not, it's specifically about the use of the phrase "child sex offender", and there is no consensus to include that as far as I can tell, despite Luganchanka's vociferous claims to the contrary. ] (]) 20:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:: RfC opened ]. ] (]) 16:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


===Discussion concerning Luganchanka===
'''Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]):'''<br>
<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>
Block


====Statement by Luganchanka====
'''Additional comments by ] (]):'''<br>
It would be helpful to know the exact boundaries of what the ArbCom (twice) has loosely defined as ''"the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, as well as any edits on the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict on any other article or talk page, or any other page throughout the project"''. Can topics such as Ahmadinejad, anti-Semitism, pro-Israel bias in media, the Qu'ran and different modern interpretations of what it says about Jews be discussed or not?


The intro on the ] page had remained largely the same for several months, as you will see on the talkpage it is an intro approved, and reverted to, by multiple senior editors. There has been a recent flurry of activity / edits. While I ], it does look like those edits are attempting to downplay / whitewash Ritter's sexual offence conviction(s). I have not been 'aggressive' at all, rather I have simply referred contentious edits to the talkpage to build consensus, attempting to do my duty as a good Misplaced Pages editor.] (]) 20:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:'''<br>
''The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a ] of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.''


Please see the ], where there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior wikipedia editors, that Ritter's sexual offence conviction should be included in the lead to the article. My edits have simply been aimed at ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article.] (]) 20:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
===Discussion concerning Jayjg===
====Statement by Jayjg====
====Comments by other editors====
*I don't believe that "Israel-Palestine" can be stretched, however broadly construed, to include antisemitism in general; but I would ''strongly'' recommend that Jayjg be circumspect in his selection of articles to edit and discussions to join. Any repeat of the behavior that led to the current sanctions is likely to be viewed very dimly by the community and ArbCom both. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 16:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
*:(To answer the more direct question, I do believe that the edits under discussion skirt dangerously close to &mdash; but do not cross &mdash; the line. It's probably unwise to toe this close to the line though.) &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 16:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::* The topic is not defined as "Israel-Palestine" but "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles". Stretching it to all of antisemitism may be too much, but antisemitism in Iran is closely related. --] (]) 17:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
* (e/c with Coren above) I believe that the three diffs cited are not within the area of conflict. They are about the president of Iran, Islam, Judaism, antisemitism and holocaust denial. All of these are topics distinct from the ], and the context in which the edits were made does not involve either Israel, the Arab states, Palestine, or any people from these states and territories. This request is not actionable. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:::'''Comment''': A fourth diff, unequivocally within the area of conflict, has been added. ] (]) 17:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


: Thank you to @] and @] for your feedback. If you see the ], discussions - {{tq|14 August - Vandalism by removing all reference entirely to Ritter being a "Convicted Sex Offender"}} and {{tq|First sentence}}. The latter discussion ended on 26th September, and resulted in the intro we had until a flurry of edits the other day, trying to move information on Ritter's sexual offence conviction, downplay it, whitewash it etc. My edits were aimed at restoring the edit reached by consensus, which had been in place for several months until the recent raft of edits with the clear aim of moving / downplaying Ritter's sexual offence conviction.] (]) 06:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::I disagree. I think the edits are clearly within the area of the conflict, ''broadly interpreted'' as the ruling states. Islam and Ahmadinejad as topics are plainly part of the ] over which editors on different sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict are prone to war, and for reasons that ought to be obvious to anyone. I think that needs to be clarified to the user in question. ] (]) 17:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


:: Thank you for this ], I really do appreciate your feedback and advice here!!] (]) 16:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) <small>(moved from ] — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC))</small>
* I don't think it applies, unless the I/P sanctions are to construed as applying to generic Judeophobia. Indeed, it might be a little too close to the line for Meteormaker's comfort, but the sanctions are not intended to prevent Jayjg from editing. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
* This is difficult. It seems very hard to argue that Holocaust denial is a topic that is covered under the IP conflict (moreover, as noted Achmenijad is Persian, not Arab but this does seem to be a minor detail). These are very hard to draw lines. If Holocaust denial is covered, would an edit to say ] be ok? Similarly, persecution of Jews by Muslims has a very long history well before the existence of the modern state of Israel. Are purely historic edits to such sections or talking about the general history as he seems to be doing here ok? Note that Jayjg did edit the topic ] which I thought might violate the restriction and after talking to him about it he decided not to edit it although it wasn't completely clear if Freedman was included within the ban. Some sort of clarification from the ArbCom would likely be helpful here. (I'm also a bit worried by the fact that Meteormaker who has a prior history of conflicts with Jayjg on IP issues seems to have returned after a 2.5 month absence solely to discuss Jayjg's editing). ] (]) 17:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::Neither Holocaust denial nor "generic Judaophobia", as jpgordon puts it, would necessarily fall under the purview of topics related to the I-P conflict in my view. However, edits regarding prominent enemies of Israel such as Ahmadinejad, or edits that involve alleged Muslim attitudes to Jews (and by extension, Israelis) ought to be clearly off-limits for obvious reasons. ] (]) 17:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
* I'm more concerned about . This shows the classic behavior for which this editor was topic-banned. There's removal of a section, "Recent Genetic Studies", containing sourced material with references to reliable sources regarding the genetic history of the Jews in Israel, with an edit comment of "(remove unsourced material and material not referencing The Thirteenth Tribe)" One could legitimately argue over that edit, but given that the article contains the line "if Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar and not Semitic in origin, they would have no historical claim to Israel" it's clearly in the topic area of concern. --] (]) 17:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:: Nagle, you may be correct about that edit concerning the Thirteen Tribe but that doesn't seem correct. There's no mention in the section removed of the Israeli-Arab conflict and if we followed your logic then any edits related to what fraction of Jews are converts would be not ok, which seems to be a bit extreme. Also note that the material removed by Jayjg while technically sourced seems to be arguably OR in terms of connecting it to the book in question. This hardly seems like an edit to get worked up about. ] (]) 17:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:: Also, just realized, the material that Jayjg removed in that case is actually arguing against the Khazar hypothesis and is thus if it has any relevance is supportive of a Jewish claim to the land. So um, yeah... ] (]) 17:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
* I don't think the Israel-Palestine conflict should be broadened to include "Anything about Jews, Israel, or Muslims at any point in history." If the ArbCom decision was intended to be that broad, it should have made itself clear. An expansion to anything related to two major religions, significant elements of modern politics and 6000 years of history should require a request for clarification. ]] 17:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
* Holocaust denial has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian article space. The fact that some Palestinians are Holocaust deniers does not make Holocaust denial an I-P issue any more than the fact that some Israeli's are soccer players make soccer an I-P issue. -- ] (]) 17:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
** It isn't quite that clear cut because much of their Holocaust denial seems motivated by the surrounding conflict. But the argument does have some merit. I'm more worried about Gato's statement about ""Jews and by extension Israelis" which if one follows that sort of logic than anything at all related to Jews isn't ok. (Aside from the fact that the equation Jews=Israelis is pretty noxious). ] (]) 18:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::Who is arguing for a broadening to include anything about Jews or Israel? I'm certainly not, and I haven't seen anyone else here make such an argument. However, I do believe edits relating to Muslims/Arabs, and to the relationship and alleged attitudes of Muslims/Arabs to Jews, ought to be off limits. Defaming of Muslims and Arabs is a well known tactic employed by advocates of Israel in the I-P conflict, and for that reason such topics ought to be off limits. ] (]) 18:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::: "Defaming of Muslims and Arabs is a well known tactic employed by advocates of Israel" - That seems to be getting perilously close to letting your own POV dictate what is and is not covered by the ArbCom ban. ] (]) 18:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:::{{ec}}''Defaming of Muslims and Arabs is a well known tactic employed by advocates of Israel in the I-P conflict…'' is an opinion, Gato. Discussing a particular Arab or Muslim person's belief about Jews is not an I-P issue. Discussing that same person's belief about the status of East Jerusalem, is an I-P issue. Making the assumption that a particular Arab or Muslim's beliefs about Jews is a direct outgrowth of their belief about Israel is 1) an opinion, aka ] and 2) potentially insulting to the Arab or Muslim in question by intimating that they cannot separate those issues in their mind and are willing to judge one group by the actions of another. The logical ''reductio ad absurdum'' of that line of reasoning is to judge all Muslims by the actions of Hamas or Taliban suicide bombers—an abhorrent comparison in my opinion. -- ] (]) 18:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::::You may think so, but when Jayjg makes comments such as ''"The Muslim holy text defined the Arab and Muslim attitude towards Jews '''to this day''', especially in the periods when Islamic fundamentalism was on the rise. It is really easy to find quotations '''stating that jihad (holy war) is the sacred duty of every Muslim, that Jews and Christians should be killed''', and that this fight should continue until only the Muslim religion is left. Al-Baqara says about the Jews, slay them (the sons of apes and pigs) whenever you catch them."'' - then it ought to be clear to anyone that Jayjg is fighting the I-P conflict by proxy on these pages. I don't believe that is acceptable, and I think the best way to avoid problems is simply to make it clear to him that edits pertaining to Muslims or Arabs in any way are off limits. ] (]) 18:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::::: I'm sorry, but in what universe is anything related to Muslims or Arabs part of the I-P conflict? Does this mean for example that he can't edit say ]? Would that extend to ] for example? The claim that any edits pertaining to Muslims or Arabs should be off limits seems to do a decent job of indicating the extreme absurdity of the position that these edits go over the line. ] (]) 18:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::Again, you are playing the straw man. I did not state that "anything related to Muslims or Arabs part of the I-P conflict". However, the question at hand is where to draw the line in regards to the sanction imposed upon Jayjg. I am simply making the point that the simplest solution is to draw the boundary at edits relating to Arabs or Muslims, or at least to the relationship of Arabs or Muslims to Jews. That way there cannot be any misunderstanding about it. ] (]) 18:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::: I'm not sure what straw man there is here. You said "the best way to avoid problems is simply to make it clear to him that edits pertaining to Muslims or Arabs in any way are off limits." That's anything related to Muslims and Arabs. So may he edit al-Kharizmi or not? What about History of Algebra. Heck, for that matter, can he edit material related to ] whose philosophy was very much influenced by the Muslim culture in which he resided for most of his life? That's pretty clearly in the interface between Islam and Judaism. Is that too close to the IP conflict in your view? ] (]) 18:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::{{ec}}No, Gato. That is not fighting the I-P war by proxy, it is discussing the claims of inherent antisemitism in Islam. The Quran and Islam as a religion predated the I-P issue by hundreds of years, Gato. -- ] (]) 18:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::''That is not fighting the I-P war by proxy'' - only if you ignore the fact that the alleged antisemitism of Arabs and Muslims is very much a live issue in the IP conflict. ] (]) 19:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::Islam predated the I/P conflict by hundreds of years, but claims of an "inherent antisemitism in Islam" did not. Indeed, was to obscure the fact that one of his preferred sources, Bernard Lewis, explicitly states that Muslim antisemitism as a modern phenomenon is ''rooted in European antisemitism''. Here's what Lewis says, which Jay in that edit claims to present a "more accurate representation" of:
::::::<blockquote>From the late nineteenth century, as a direct result of European influence, movements appear among Muslims of which for the first time one can legitimately use the term anti-Semitic. Hostility to Jews had, of course, roots in the past, but in this era it assumed a new and radically different character...A specific campaign against Jews, expressed in the unmistakeable language of European Christian anti-Semitism, first appeared among (Middle Eastern) Christians in the nineteenth century, and developed among Christians '''and then Muslims in the twentieth'''....The first anti-Semitic tracts in Arabic appeared toward the end of the nineteenth century. They were translated from French originals - part of the literature of the Dreyfus controversy. </blockquote>
::::::In his "more accurate representation," Jay removes everything the source has to say about the "direct" influence of modern European antisemitism.--] (]) 19:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::{{ec}}Hello, G-Dett, good seeing you around. Even if Lewis is 100% correct, that still does not make discussions about Islam and antisemitism an I-P issue. The emergence of the claims is still not an I-P issue; your own quote is tying it to the Dreyfus affair and France. -- ] (]) 19:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::Zionism began in the late nineteenth century, Avi, and the Dreyfus affair was a major catalyst.--] (]) 19:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::What does that have to do with Muslim antisemitsm ("first anti-Semitic tracts in Arabic…"), G-Dett? -- ] (]) 19:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::: The claim that this anti-Semitism was due to early Zionism is not in the cited sources, is OR on your part, and is frankly a bit incredible. The early Zionists and their Arab neighbors got along well. ] (]) 19:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::I don't understand what OR has to do with this or how I can possibly be engaged in it. I'm not editing the article in question, nor suggesting it should say that "this anti-Semitism was due to early Zionism." I'm saying that the formative European influence on modern Arab antisemitism is an issue with obvious relevance to the I/P conflict, so Jay ought to avoid it. If you mean there aren't sources for the relevance of this issue to the I/P conflict, then you're wrong. There are scads.--] (]) 19:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::: So now something that's just minimally relevant to the I-P conflict isn't ok? Can he edit our article on the book of Joshua since it is relevant to where the historic state was in ancient times? Let's not be absurd. ] (]) 20:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': Some of you may have missed point 4 above (understandable, as it was added only 30 minutes ago). ] (]) 18:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


:: As per ]'s comments:
::: Antisemitism is a distinct field that ''overlaps in part'' the Israeli-Palestinian topic area, but is not part of it. As a parallel, nuclear weaponry is salient to the countries and conflict, but I would not necessarily consider the remedy proscribed Jayjg from editing on nuclear weaponry in general, the nuclear policies of either Israel or Iran, or their religion's views on nuclear warfare. As to the diffs:


{{tq|"Unfazed by "Emily's" age, Ritter asked "Emily," "you want to see it finish?" Ritter then turned on the webcam and ejaculated in front of the camera for "Emily." Detective Venneman then notified Ritter of his undercover status and the undercover operation and directed Ritter to call the police station."}}
:::* is about the Unification church antisemitism controversy. It is not an "an article in the area of conflict". Part of a <u>quote</u> within it relates to the conflict. But the <u>article</u> is not in the area of conflict, and that is his restriction. I also note this was part of a larger (permitted) edit to the article - Jayjg may have seen the entire page as a religious topic cleanup and overlooked the 2 sentences in one quote which related to the conflict.


https://casetext.com/case/ritter-v-tuttle
:::* The others are fine both on subject matter and nature of edit: as topics are more about religious views and social persecution than about the conflicts, and Jayjg's edits related to religious viewpoints, religious material, and its (non-conflict) interpretation. It skirts the proscribed topics but stays ''just'' within the restriction I think, it's more about religious views than the conflict though they overlap. is the view of a notable individual in respect of their putative antisemitism, it's fine. is not about the conflict, though I find the description as "unsourced" a bit at odds with the edit.
::: That said concur with Coren and Jpgordon; Jayjg should continue to take care, and should avoid or consult if there is a serious concern an edit may stray over the line. ]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])</span></sup> 18:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I dont really care about this, but the topic ban is not just on articles within the topic area, it includes "any edits on the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict on any other article or talk page, or any other page throughout the project". I think edits involving the so-called Israel lobby in the US are on that subject. The ones about Holocaust denial and antisemitism in my opinion are not. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 19:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)</font></small>


] (]) 18:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Regarding this, a paralel discussion involving another editor included in the topic ban, and edits he made to ], is helpful and is seen . Note that the complaint there was also brought by an editor included under the topic ban, that the discussion was generally hostile to any attempts to distinguish a separate editing interest, and incidentally that the connection to the topic ban also involved Ahmadinejad and Iran to the extent that's an issue here. As to these edits, the first comment about Ahmadinejad may be incidental, but could have been avoided; however, the fourth edit seems to be a clear violation. More generally my understanding would be that if Jayjg would like to continue editing related to a topic which often intersects with the Arab-Israeli conflict, then ultimately it is up to him to ensure that he avoids those intersections entirely, broadly construed. ] (]) 19:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


====Statement by NatGertler====
:The diff you linked to has a incidental relationship to the I-P conflict because of a single sentence (describing the background of Richard Perle and Douglas Feith) in a section. Otherwise, he removed a side discussion of the Israel lobby and the allegedly pro-Israel bias of the Washington Times from an article that isn't about either - and is about antisemitism. If you exclude Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, Israel and Iran based on the IP conflict ban then you are effectively (by expanding the scope of the decision) banning him from anything related to Islam, Judaism, the Middle East and a major span of human history. I just don't think that was the intent of the decision. ]] 18:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Editor's edits today focused on trying to main a negative descriptor of what subject believed, despite it not being in the three sources that were listed (nor in the old version they ultimately reverted to.) Efforts were first trying to simply restate the claim, then trying to source it to an opinion piece (problem) from the Washington Examiner (also a bit of a problem, per ]), then trying to state as a fact what had merely been stated in a non-prime article as an accusation. BLP concern was pointed out repeatedly via edit summary and on Talk page. Removal of unsourced contentious BLP claims and even false claims is not "whitewashing" despite how editor wishes to depict it, it is in accord with our practices. -- ] (]) 21:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:: More to the point, that's not his restriction. He is restricted from editing '''articles <u>in the area of conflict</u>''', and I cannot conclude that the article concerned is '''in''' the area of conflict, or that having a citation added that references the conflict automatically causes the topic of the '''article''' to be "in" the restricted topic. ]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])</span></sup> 18:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:::That isnt accurate. He is prohibited from any edits about the topic area anywhere on Misplaced Pages, not just on articles within the topic area. See the second half of the definition used for "area of conflict" in the remedies. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 19:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)</font></small>
I don't find these charges to have particular merit. More significantly, I am concerned that User:MeteorMaker has returned to Misplaced Pages after a several month hiatus apparently for the sole purpose of getting Jayjg sanctioned or banned. This is, at best, extremely unhelpful. Also troubling is the use of the phrase "Jews (and by extension, Israelis)" as pointed out above. ] (]) 18:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)====
*I think it's important to note that these are MeteorMaker's first edits with this account since June 14; it seems to me that the purpose of the I/P ban was not to act as a "trap" for editors who are otherwise doing good work. It would be unfortunate if it were interpreted to encompass everything to do with Judaism, antisemitism, the Holocaust, and Holocaust denial, because these are issues Jay knows a lot about. I suggest he constantly ask himself how a reasonable opponent could view his edits, and always err widely on the side of caution; anything to do with Iran, for example, straddles the ban because of current animosities. Although I agree Jay needs to be careful, I hope the ArbCom won't let a situation develop where he's too nervous to edit in case some otherwise unused account pops up with a report. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 18:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning Luganchanka===
* '''Comment''' - Please forgive my stopping by here, but on the issue of the topic ban extent I found Gwen Gale's comment at AN/I persuasive: "..anti-semitism and anti-zionism are often conflated as one in the same. Mistakenly so, from my outlook, but then, that's a slice of what these I-P PoV kerfluffles on en.Misplaced Pages have been all about." The article ban (not a topic ban as such) concerns "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles", broadly construed. As such, histories of holocaust denial or persecution of jews are too far attenuated to be considered even broadly about the AI conflict. ] seems to involve Moon's statements about Judaism in biblical times and as a religion, not (as far as the article says) about Israel's modern conflicts. Thus, in principle any edit to those articles, even on the subject of AI matters, would be exempt. However, ] is much more closely related to the AI conflict because it deals in large part with the modern vehemence of Israel's neighbors towards Jews in Israel. One of its major sections, "Antisemitism in the Islamic Middle East", is mostly about warfare, terrorism, and hostility by Muslim states in the region, which is the core of the AI dispute. As that article's lede says, the subject includes "the attitudes of the Muslim world in history to Jews as a people". Per ], Islamic population of the middle east represents 17% of wolrd Muslims and 91% of the Mideast population (more if one omits Israel). Per ] Jews in Israel make up 76% of Israel's population, and something like 40% of the world Jewish population. So the mideast conflict between Israelis and non-Israeli Arabs is very much a conflict between Jews and Muslims, if not by logical necessity, by demographic fact. Back to Gwen Gale's comment, even though it morally and perhaps logically should not be the case, the dispute between Israel and its Arab neighbors is very much entwined with the attitudes by Muslims in the region towards Jews (and by extension, Judaism, zionism, and various other identifications that are associated primarily with Jews). Even if every last person who abhors Israel had no prejudice at all against Jews or the Jewish people, the fact that many people think so makes the two subjects related... if not by birth, by adoption. A clarification would be useful. Should Arbcom decide that this one article (or more) out of four is covered, I don't think Jayjg had adequate advance notice because it is not a clearcut case. So unless there has been a pattern of prior violations, testing the limits, or otherwise refusing to heed Arbcom a caution seems more appropriate than a block. - ] (]) 18:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
::This discussion is not so much about what sanctions if any should apply, it's about how one should interpret the statement ''the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted''. As you have correctly noted, the Arab-Israeli conflict is "very much a conflict between Jews and Muslims, if not by logical necessity, by demographic fact". Since that is the case, then edits pertaining to the relationship between Jews and Muslims (or Arabs) are always at least ''potentially'' related to the conflict in question. The simplest way to avoid problems in future then, is simply to take ''broadly interpreted'' to mean any edits that pertain to the relationship of Arabs/Muslims to Jews and vice versa. I would also suggest that any edits tending to disparage one ethnic group or another would also be in violation of the spirit of the sanction and should be avoided. ] (]) 19:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
::: Again, what about ]? I'm also a bit worried by your idea about general edits about ethnic groups. So is Jayjg now not allowed to edit an article about Berny Maddof if it discusses claims that Jews are more likely to commit fraud? Or for that matter if it is any ethnic group, would that mean he can't make edits discussing the fact that say ] is more common in certain racial groups? ] (]) 19:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
*<!--
::::When I said disparaging comments about an ethnic group, obviously I was talking about the ethnic group on the other side of the conflict. No-one is going to get upset if he edits the article about Bernie Madoff. ] (]) 19:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
-->
::::: Well, it wasn't obvious to me given how general you seem to want to extend this. So, what about ]? ] (]) 19:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:@]: whether you're correct or not, you were edit warring. I believe an indef block from the article and/or a temporary site block would be an appropriate sanction here. ] (]/]) 20:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I know very little about Maimonides, so I'm not sure why you are bringing him up, but in relation to the general question, again I think it's fine if he edits articles about Jews or Jewish topics, as long as he steers away from material relating to Arabs or Muslims in such articles - much as Malik Shabazz has suggested in the comment below. ] (]) 19:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::I've blocked the user for 48h for violating 3RR based on the report at ].--] (]) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::: Maimonides was Jewish. His philosophy was heavily influenced by the Muslims he lived in. He's very clearly in the set of articles that connect Islam and Judaism. So, in your vieew is he covered by the topic ban? (Incidentally, the notion of restricting each side in this dispute to its own group is really, really bad. The end result of that is just going to be massive whitewashing. There's a set of topics that are not ok. Something is either in that set or not. It isn't connected to what side people took prior to their bans). ] (]) 20:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
* @], edit-warring ''to remove'' negative content at a BLP is an exemption to 3RR. I see that NatGertler mentioned this in their edit summaries and at talk. As voorts points out, it doesn't matter whether you're right when you're reverting an edit that is being claimed as an exemption, even if you believe ]whiyou are "ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article". The solution is to go to talk, discuss, and get consensus. If you'd like to respond, ping me to your response at your talk and I'll post it here. ] (]) 16:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I haven't looked at the article in question and don't have time to do so today. However, if the point you are making is that the life of Maimonides is so enmeshed in Islamic culture that one can scarcely edit the article without making reference to that culture, then yes, I think it would be better if Jay did not edit it. It's not as if there aren't countless other articles on Jewish topics that aren't in need of attention, after all.
*:@], if you really believe those two sections -- senior editors, indeed, ] was between someone with 13 edits and somcoen who wasn't ECR, for heaven's sake -- somehow prove consensus was strong, and you think that means you can ignore all the later ones -- at one of which you didn't even respond to a ping, where people were objecting -- then this is maybe looking like a ] issue.
:::::::::And again, I'm not sure where you get this notion that I am advocating "restricting each side in this dispute to its own group", I've said no such thing, I am simply commenting on how a particular sanction imposed on a small group of editors should be interpreted, and how you have concluded that this must lead to "massive whitewashing" I cannot imagine. ] (]) 20:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
*:But even if you ''had'' been somehow editing to support a consensus you believed was settled, you cannot edit-war contentious material into a BLP when others are objecting to it. The solution, always, is to go to talk, discuss, and reconfirm consensus. There is zero urgency to have this information in the article. Including something negative in a BLP is not something you should ''ever'' edit war over. ] (]) 18:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::: Ok, but any universe in which Maimonides is part of the Arab-Israeli conflict is not the universe the rest of the universe operates in. And the fact that your interpretation mandates that sort of inclusion demonstrates pretty well how absurd it is. Regarding the restriction of each group, you seem to be saying that the "pro-Israel" side should not edit Arab articles while the "pro-Arab side" (God, I hate both these terms but they seem to be ok shorthand for now) can't edit anything related to Israel or Jews. Aside from the general problem again of conflating Jews with Israel, this handling each side separately. And a likely result will be that each side will try to remove negative content abouts its own group if you insist on pushing them in this direction. ] (]) 20:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
*Luganchanka's reading of the state of consensus on the talk page as supporting their edits is so far off base that it borders on being a CIR issue if it's sincere. Indef block from ] seems appropriate. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
* I don't think the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict should be expanded to include Judaism- and Islam-related articles. However, I think Israel- and Arab-related issues that are discussed within Judaism- and Islam-related articles should be off-limits. For example, editing ] in general would be okay, but the section concerning ] would be off-limits. — ]&nbsp;{{toolbar|separator=dot|] | ] }} 19:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
*:I see RTH's point about the "First sentence" section in isolation. I'd note that the link to ] isn't really appropriate here, as bringing the discussion to BLP/N was an appropriate action (if it was then brought to NPOVN, NORN, etc., ''that'' would be forumshopping). I'd like to see some actual contrition around the edit warring and frivolous accusations of {{tq|whitewash}} before writing this off as time-served. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 15:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* I agree that the scope of the ban should be more clearly defined. I also agree that Arab/Israeli conflict does not encompass all of the articles involving Jewish and anti-semitic issues including ]. Jayjg has been an exemplary voice on those issues for a long time although he might become more circumspect in the future, I hope his input continues...] (]) 19:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
*::That's fair; I'll strike the link. My point in including it was that, when conversations fragment, we sometimes get these sorts of chaotic incidents. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Understood, I think that meaning was clear for us here in the admin section, but I could easily see a new editor misinterpreting it unintentionally. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I am not at all comforted by the fact that Luganchanka has proceeded to make ]. The cited BBC source does not state {{tq| masturbated and ejaculated on camera}}, saying only {{tq|graphic sex act}}. As written, this is essentially another BLP violation, building a case that a ban from this topic is needed. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Having reviewed the other sources, reliable sources do confirm the masturbation claim (, ) but not ejaculation, which appears to be supported only by ''New York Post'', a generally unreliable source. {{u|Luganchanka}}, in light of this clarification, can you please address your decision to include the claims as you initially wrote them? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::The detail is in the record of ''Ritter v. Tuttle'' (case No. 3:15cv1235 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2018)), so it isn't completely made up. But I would also like to hear from the user on this point as to whether there was secondary sourcing here. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Seeing ] here and ], ] at ], I see no comprehension of the use of primary vs. secondary sources, nor any reflection of their past errors in engaging with this topic. I believe that a block from the page is needed to prevent further BLP violations as they have shown no understanding of the relevant policies even after being given several warnings, reminders and opportunities to revise their position. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 18:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::{{yo|Luganchanka}}
*:::::::] calls upon users to {{tq|{{strong|{{em|not}}}} use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person}}. There are some narrow exceptions (when {{tq|primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it {{em|may}} be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source}}), but adding material to the article not found in reliable secondary sources is... suboptimal ''at best'' under our ].
*:::::::— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{yo|Luganchanka}} Would you please provide a direct link to the talk page section you are referring to when you say {{tq|there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior wikipedia editors}} regarding the lead? — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Luganchanka|Hemiauchenia}}
*:It does seem that the discussion at ] does indicate some support for that language i.e. ({{tq|convicted child sex offender}}) in the lead, with some general lean against putting it in the first sentence. So, while {{tq|There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences}} is true if it means the literal first sentence, I do see a rough consensus to include the material in the lead section in some way in that discussion.
*:That being said, the BLPN discussion had a bit of different tone and tenor from the discussion on the talk page. There was on the article's talk page, but Luganchanka, despite having been pretty vocal about this subject in the past, hadn't participated in that BLPN discussion. They instead grounded their edits in the argument that the article's talk page had consensus for the current content, and nothing on the article's talk page had changed that consensus. And that much was true. In any case, we've got <s>]</s>two different forums with two different answers here, which appears to be what's leading to the whole kerfluffle.
*:Then the analysis comes to whether or not the label is a straightforward BLP violation, requiring us to read the sourcing in the article. , which is cited in the ''body'' of the article (but not the lead), does state that Ritter {{tq|was convicted unlawful contact with minors and other charges}} in the state of PA (the PA statute is ; "unlawful contact with minors" is the verbatim name of the crime). When dealing with a sting operation, PA treats it as {{tq|an offense of the same grade and degree}} as if the criminal had actually contacted a child (unless it's a lesser crime than a third-degree felony, in which case it becomes a third-degree felony). This is an extremely common practice in the United States (there are lots of philosophical questions regarding ''mens rea'' and ''actus reus'' here, but that's not really relevant here). In any case, labeling this to be a child sex offense (or, alternatively, to simply use the name of the crime in the article) does not appear to be straightforward malice/POV-pushing/libel, and a reasonably informed individual might shorten it in this way. Whether or not that is ''wise'' or ''optimal'' to shorten it is the proper subject for content discussion.
*:Aside from the edit warring (which was not acceptable, and was aptly handled by a block), this looks like a content dispute. A heated one involving a living person, sure, but a content dispute nonetheless. I see good-faith—albeit passionate—disagreement. If the editors were to come together and engage in one forum (such as the article's talk page, where this has been discussed a bunch), rather than splitting the discussion over multiple pages, I feel like we might have our best shot at attaining a consensus going forward.
*:In short, it looks like the conversation fragmented, and consensus-building broke down. Edit warring ensued, which was bad, but we've already blocked for that in order to dissuade it going forward. A ] on the article's talk page for what the lead should look like is probably the best way to go forward here.
*:— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 15:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::RTH, are you objecting to a p-block from the article? ] (]) 13:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*Luganchanka has been blocked for a week by ] for BLP violations and personal attacks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Just noting that this was a regular admin action and I wasn't aware this was before AE. ] (]) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*::With this in mind, I think we should wait to hear from RTH but otherwise expect to move forward to an indef p-block on top of SFR's stopgap action, as we haven't seen anything coming close to an adequate recognition of the relevant policies and practices from Luganchanka and after several second chances and nudges, I don't see reason to expect them to change course. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


==BabbleOnto==
:::Let me invert things apropos what Jayjg is said to have remarked on Al-Baqara. ] in his ] (3:51, from memory) defines blacks as a halfway breed between men and apes. Many pages dealing with rabbis in the West Bank could bear annotations to their writings equating the Palestinian Arabs with the Amalekites, and thus, in halakhic law, as codified by Moses Maimonides, subject to annihilation. It would be very easy for anyone with a polemic design on wikipedia, to annotate many such pages with reliably sourced material no less injurious to Jewish sensibilities that the crass and contemptuously illiterate characterization of a very complex civilzation like Islam Jayjg enunciated here. Reimagine this discussion were someone like myself editing in potentially offensive material about Judaism. What would your respective positions then be? When I once added just one such snippet to the page on Baruch Goldman, impeccably documented, Jayjg simply wiped it off the page as untrue. When I mentioned the above datum about Maimonides to him as an aside on a discussion page, to get him to stop introducing smear material, he again denied this was true. Christianity's history of antisemitic antipathies is neglected everywhere, yet the Muslims are fair game.
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning BabbleOnto===
:::My own rule, as former editor, was to refrain, even when I had full liberty to edit in whatever I thought worthy of note, from adding such uselessly inflammatory material readily available from Christian, Muslim and Jewish cultural and religious traditions to articles. To do so is to open up a can of emotional self-defensiveness and counterattacks. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground for notes on the stupidities, crassness, bias and hatreds of the past and present. With due respect to my admired former colleagues who differ with Gatoclass, I don't think the gravity of the point made in that remark is understood. Jayjg, like myself and others, should just shut up and edit, if we wish to edit, articles that do not lend themselves to such suspicions.] (]) 19:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|ජපස}} 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|BabbleOnto}}<p>{{ds/log|BabbleOnto}}</p>
::::Hello, Nishidani, it is good to see you around. Would it be wiser for all involved, including JayJg, to err on the side of caution and to stay away from all articles that may be related? Yes, I agree with you in that. However, there is a difference from people exercising self-control, as you have done, and people being improperly forbidden from areas where they are technically allowed to edit. I've counseled Jay to be very careful in these areas, and I think he is better off voluntarily restricting himself in the main, but the bringing of this report concerns me as it appears to be an attempt to widen the boundaries of what already is a very broad restriction, thus my comments. -- ] (]) 19:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
::::::::::Hi Avi. To explain. I thought I'd drop a note because MM's ''bona fides'' in raising this were questioned, while no attention was being paid to the serious misrepresentation Jayjg made of an entire faith and its world by selective use of the Al-Baqara remark. I believe MM, like myself, took the ban to mean we're to stay off anything that could be interpreted as bearing, directly and indirectly, on the I/P dispute, i.e., though having read ]'s autobiography recently, and with my files full of material about his life, as a Jerusalemite, I have refrained even from editing into his (hopelessly bad) wiki page the fact that he is married to Lucy Austin, the daughter of the phyilosopher ], because he is a major actor in the I/P conflict. MM is as rigorous as they come, and his restrictive reading of the ban mirrors mine. I just dislike suggestions that he is motivated by ''arrières pensées'' of the type, 'get Jayjg'. I've never seen MM make anything more than edits that speak to substance, nor caught him working away ''ad hominem''. There is a zone of ambiguity in that ruling and I think MM does well to raise his point in order that it be clarified. Best regards and keep up the fine work.] (]) 19:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::We'd all be better off if we exhibited more self control (myself at the forefront ]). -- ] (]) 20:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
::::::::::: We are talking about yes? It seems like all he did was undue to the blanking of sourced content by an anon. He doesn't seem to be going out of his way to add material about the matter. ] (]) 19:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
:::::::::::::Avi: We are mainly discussing . Apparently it's ''not'' erring on the safe side of caution to edit sections that discuss a particular newspaper's alleged pro- or anti-Israel bias — just ask Nickhh, who was slammed with a for mere talk page edits at . Furthermore, at the time he got the warning, the topic ban scope was "" rather than "the Arab-Israeli conflict". Given that the scope was expressly broadened to cover Nickhh's edit, that Jayjg edited in the exact same topic area, and that his edit was in article space, Jayjg should get'' at least'' the same punishment as Nickhh, a final warning and a block next time. ] (]) 20:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: The matter of the Independent was concering specifically the Independent's coverage of accusations that Israel used specific types of weapons against Arabs. It doesn't seem hard to distinguish that and a set on a newspaper having a pro-Israel bias. ] (]) 20:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::If you read the , you will notice that the discussion was about whether or not to include citations that accuse The Independent of an anti-Israel bias — and Jayjg's edits were to ''remove'' citations that accuse Washington Post of a pro-Israel bias. Apart from the inverted bias signs and the fact that Jayjg edited an article whereas Nickhh merely posted on the talk page, no difference at all. If Nickhh deserved a warning, so does Jayjg. ] (]) 20:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::: Not that same thing. The issue with The Idependent was in the context of its coverage of the Israel-Lebanon conflict. There's no aspect of the Israeli-Arab conflict being discussed in the Washington Post context. ] (]) 20:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Please read the talk page thoroughly. The context is the newspaper's alleged anti-Israel bias, which one editor (who incidentally escaped the blanket topic ban by the slimmest of margins) sought to prove with various citations, mainly about its coverage of the Israel-Lebanon conflict. Quite the same context as Jayjg's removal of various citations that demonstrate Washington Post's alleged pro-Israel bias. ] (]) 21:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
::::::::::::::It's worrying that there's an effort to extend the scope again. Common sense has to kick in at some point. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 20:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# Sealioning
# Refusal to ]
# Personalizing an argument.
# Railroading the discussion.


This is all after I warned them about ] sanctions, and . Very nearly a ] on the subject. I see no reason to continue tolerating this kind of obstinate ]. Additional diffs available on request from admins, but looking at the user history should suffice to indicate the problem is obvious, I hope.
This is completely absurd, and does a disservice both to Jay and Misplaced Pages. You cannot contort language and reason to bring issues like antisemitism and Holocaust denial within a narrow category of "Israel-Palestinian conflict". Those who assert this is not a "get Jay" vendetta protest too much. ] ] ] 20:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:They certainly do, considering that the person bringing the action has not edited since June, and has not had a substantial mainspace edit since April. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::Please focus on the evidence instead of dismissing it with ] and ]. Also note that until last week, Jayjg hadn't edited at all since early April, so your argument applies equally well to him. ] (]) 20:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::: Jayjg didn't come back to launch acussations. He's primarily been doing work on various religion stubs and synagogues. Lots of mainspace edits about many different topics. And he's been here for about two weeks back. Not at all the same. ] (]) 20:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
::To repeat. Some of those under the ban took it literally to mean they could not edit in the area they had concentrated on. MM, like myself, thought that the only appropriate response was to withdraw from wikipedia. Hence the argumentum ex silentio, with its culture of suspicion, is wholly misplaced. All talk here of a 'get Jayjg' vendetta is cheap and reflects poorly on the judgement of those who push it. I don't include Avi in this. His comments reflect a legitimate worry I think however misplaced here, and he will, admirably, defend, and yet criticize, a friend, who certainly has made substantial contributions to this encyclopedia, and yet who has often lacked the detachment and discretionary judgement Avi has distinguished himself for. The issue raised is raised because there is a grey zone, and, it is par for the course in wiki to clarify greyzones in arbitration. So kindly stop the innuendo, and what Herzl would call 'Tändelei''. It's unbecoming a member of Arbcom ] (]) 20:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC).
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
::Bah. ]. Harassment is harassment. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:Pfui.], wjhich in layman's terms contextually means, never let the sympathies of friendship blind your eyes to the aim of drafting an encyclopedic.] (]) 20:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:: There may be two separate issues here: It may well be that Jay has gone over the line (certainly he is close to wherever it is). It may also be that Meteor is harassing Jayjg and that other people are in this thread to harass. Any combination of the two is logically consistent. ] (]) 20:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:::(ec) reply to MM: But he hasn't brought a complaint. You have. And the fact that your account was otherwise unused for months begs the question as to how you even noticed Jay's edits. It would be somewhat unfortunate to have Jay admonished by someone who is himself in violation, so please appreciate that the reason for concern is valid. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 20:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::::R to SV: Kindly refrain from unfounded insinuations and focus on the evidence. In your opinion, was it correct to ] for discussing inclusion of citations that that accuse The Independent of an anti-Israel bias? ] (]) 21:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
===Result concerning Jayjg===
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above).


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
I am closing this request without action because the discussion is starting to become unhelpful and because consensus (among uninvolved admins, at least, and notably including two arbitrators) is that the edits - including edit 4 - did not violate the topic ban. However, FT2 and arbitrator Coren have cautioned Jayjg that, in FT2's words, "Jayjg should continue to take care, and should avoid or consult if there is a serious concern an edit may stray over the line." <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
This is a ] with respect to the topic and their ] surrounding it has been subject to at least one ] thread that remains active: ]. The hope was that they would ] and move on from this, but it seems they either will not or cannot. ] (]) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
: ''(Corrected, I'm not an arb - ]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])</span></sup> 02:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC))''
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
{{discussion bottom}}
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


===Discussion concerning BabbleOnto===
==SlimVirgin==
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
{{discussion top}}
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
===Request concerning SlimVirgin===


====Statement by BabbleOnto====
'''User requesting enforcement:'''<br>
I would first like to begin by point out the person filing this complaint . They have frequently left "warnings" which read more like threats on and for people who disagree with them. Nor would I be the .
] (]) 05:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


To be honest I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm being charged with doing.
'''User against whom enforcement is requested:'''<br>
{{userlinks|SlimVirgin}}


I think in general the user is alleging I've been uncivil, unhelpful, and, in their words, obstinate and tendentious. I know when someone disagrees with you it may feel like they're getting in your way and acting in bad-faith, but that's not always true. I've never tried to be disruptive or uncivil. I've , I've that were clarified to be wrong, I've , at times and work together. And when those editors , I didn't provoke any further.
'''Sanction or remedy that this user violated:'''<br>
]


I now address the specific edits in the complaint:
'''] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it:'''<br>
# Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
#) Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
#( Giving undue weight to obscure critics
# Giving undue weight to obscure critics
# Giving undue weight to obscure critics
# Giving undue weight to obscure critics
# Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics (in these edits she deletes commentary from the ] and ] to the effect that the "decoding" techniques of ] and others are a form of conspiracy theory.)
#Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics
'''Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):'''<br>
Not applicable.


1. I don't see how this is sea-lioning. The user misquoted the article. I pointed out the misquotation, then addressed a accusation against me that I was second-guessing the sources (A claim which was never substantiated). I then said any source would have to support that actual claim which was in the article. I don't know what this violates.
'''Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]):'''<br>
Topic ban.


2. I don't see how this is refusing to get the message (IDHT). The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it. I replied with what I actually said. What part of that interaction is saying "I didn't hear that?"
'''Additional comments by ] (]):'''<br>
An important tenet of ] is ]. In my view the various LaRouche articles have been fairly well balanced and stable for a substantial period of time. There are published sources available which contain both extravagant praise and extravagant criticism of LaRouche, but the articles were not dominated by either.


3. Admittedly probably the strongest of the four allegations. I'm not pretending I was perfect in all of my comments. I should have kept my criticism strictly to their argument. I ask you to read it in context and keep in mind you're viewing a hand-picked assortment of my worst edits, and this is the worst they could find. Also consider that conversation accused me of , perhaps you can see I lose my cool sometimes too.
Beginning on August 28, SlimVirgin began a series of controversial edits, 69 of them at last count, despite the "controversial" tag on the talk page which asks that controversial edits be discussed in advance. The edits are so numerous that it is difficult to unravel the overarching trend. However, the examples that I have given characteristic. The general effect of these edits has been to eliminate well-sourced material that presents LaRouche in a favorable light, while giving disproportionate amounts of space to highly derogatory criticism from obscure individuals, in a manner that overwhelms the article and appears to take sides.


4. I'm not even really sure what "railroading the discussion" means. Thus, to keep this section short and to save words, I don't know what I'm being accused of doing wrong here.
'''Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:'''<br>


All of this has stemmed out of arguments over two sources. I have tried to find compromise, I have tried to negotiate, I have tried to build consensus. I've been going through the proper channels, I've been participating in the RfC, I've been discussing it on the ANI, I source every claim I make, for a month now I've been trying to constructively explain my side and defend my argument against challenges. It's incredibly frustrating to now be facing an Arbitration Enforcement on grounds that '''I'm''' not working with others. ] (]) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
===Discussion concerning SlimVirgin===
*:Edited. ] (]) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
====Statement by SlimVirgin====
====Comments by other editors====


====Statement by ProcrastinatingReader====
===Result concerning SlimVirgin===
I've interacted with BabbleOnto in several threads. There's a few problems, but ultimately, I think they have a certain opinion on what the article should say, and will debate endlessly to get the article changed to their position. I mean, sure, reasonable people disagree on how to interpret sources and apply policy, but I don't think BabbleOnto is actually interested in faithful application of policies to write high quality articles based on good sources.
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
*'''Nothing enforceable here'''. The remedy you note specifically refers to actions of LaRouche supporters that disrupted the encyclopedia with POV-pushing and original research. Clearly, that is not the case here. Also, coming on the heels of your failed request for blocking SlimVirgin under the 3RR, this seems a bit like forum shopping because you disagree with her edits. Probably a good time to take a break from editing the subject if its starting to get to you. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
{{discussion bottom}}


That's not terribly problematic by itself, but most discussions with BabbleOnto are exhausting. Rather than actually trying to understand someone's argument in good faith, I think BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible, and making a superficially reasonable response ''ad nauseam''. They reply endlessly in this manner. As well as misrepresentation of opponents' arguments, on multiple occassions BabbleOnto has either misrepresented sources or hasn't read their own sources. I can't think of a single thread where BabbleOnto didn't have the last word, or a single thread where it seemed like BabbleOnto was actually trying to understand the arguments of other editors in a charitable way. As such, I think it's very difficult to work collaborately with BabbleOnto on the lab leak theory and related articles. ] (]) 21:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
==Xx236==
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
===Request concerning Xx236===


====Statement by Newimpartial====
'''User requesting enforcement:'''<br>
As the editor to whom BabbleOnto was responding in the diffs of the filing, I feel compelled to comment now that they have defended (to varying degrees) their first three diffs. I will reply as briefly as I know how to their defense of the diffs, .
] (]) 15:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


1. BabbleOnto is now doubling down on the claim that I {{tq|misquoted the article}}. I didn't "misquote" the article - I didn't quote the article, and I explained what my comment meant in the rest of the (now collapsed) thread that ends . Also, I provided a clear explanation of why I thought they were second-guessing sources later in the thread, but BabbleOnto never responded to that explanation. They are now responding to the accusation of ] with pure ].
'''User against whom enforcement is requested:'''<br>
{{userlinks|Xx236}}


2. On this they say, now, that {{tq|The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it.}} This is repeating a misreading they made in the original thread, where they mistook a statement I made about another editor's comment as if it were about theirs. In this "defense", I see no attempt to read thoughtfully what other editors say in reply to them and revise their understanding accordingly; all I see is zero-sum mentality and ].
'''Sanction or remedy that this user violated:'''<br>
]: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process."


3. BabbleOnto is now justifying an edit where they said to me, {{tq|You have a habit of inserting small lies into everything you say}} and {{tq|You're not adding anything constructive. You're just refusing to explain anything and saying conclusory statements, or lying about what you said}} - all this based on a misreading of what I had actually written - because I was going to refer to {{tq|a basic failure in reading comprehension}} '''''two hours later'''''. This seems like a time travel paradox.
'''] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it:'''<br>
The diffs are from the last 10 days and primarily from one article, ]. The last two diffs from ] were his newest contributions when I checked, confirming for me that Xx236 is editing other articles in the same manner.


4. They don't bother defending themselves on this one, but just to point out the actual issue with the diff, they doubled down on their accusations that I {{tq|said a material lie}}, and that I {{tq|lied when said that quoted the article out of context. Pointing out being caught lying}} and then proceeded to STRAWMAN the rest of my comment to which they were replying. If they had read my prior comment with a reasonable level of attention, they would have understood that there were no "lies", just a misunderstanding or two in each direction. But ] again; even in responding to this filing BabbleOnto is still insisting I did things that I quite obviously didn't do.
*'''Xx236 targeting me'''
# (I did not use Nawratil btw)
#
# (I did not call them "special" btw)
#
#
#
#


It is exhausting to deal with this kind of quasi-CPUSH (not quite civil, but certainly push) behaviour. The Talk page in question has seen a recent influx of single-purpose or nearly single-purpose POV accounts, and in terms of editor energy, this one certainly seems not to be a net positive for Misplaced Pages as a project. Perhaps if they edited away from Covid and US politics, their track record might improve. ] (]) 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Xx236 targeting ]'''
:] contains several derogative attacks on ]:
#
#
#
#
#


====Statement by Objective3000====
*'''Other'''
Just a quick aside to Valereee's aside: {{TQ|Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn....}} ] currently has posts from 19 editors lacking the edits for extended confirmed. ] (]) 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
#
:@], this is also a problem at other CTOPs, and is likely to become more problematic. I assume due to off-Wiki forums. ECR might just produce more users gaming EC. I thought it would be useful to put your aside into the CTOP template at the top of CTOP TPs. But that assumes folks read it. Walt Kelly said something along the lines of: “If only I could write, I’d write a letter to the mayor, if only he could read." This discussion is likely better off elsewhere. ] (]) 21:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
#
::Note: ] was just TBanned from the topic of COVID-19 and indef blocked until the accusations of off-wiki coordination made by them at ANI are retracted. Those accusations are like their suggestion made in their statement in this filing. ] (]) 12:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by JoelleJay====
'''Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):'''<br>
At the very least, can we get more admin involvement on the lab leak page so trolling like ] doesn't disrupt things even more? ] (]) 07:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
# Warning by {{admin|PhilKnight}}


====Statement by IntrepidContributor====
'''Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]):'''<br>
block and/or topic ban and/or mentorship


I have been observing BabbleOnto and while there are valid concerns about bludgeoning, I think the proposed sanctions are too much. His engagement in the Covid lab leak topic is driven by commitment to WP:NPOV, which our articles fail to adhere to, and he made the mistake of arguing with editors who were never going to listen (resulting in what looks like sealioning on his part). He's not only editor to raise issues in the topic and engage in good faith discussion, only to find themselves pulled to AN or AE disputes after staying out of the seasoning traps and refusing to capitulate to threats. In a parallel AN case concerning another editor in same topic, I suggest there may be possible off-wiki coordination , but it can also be on-wiki ().
'''Additional comments by ] (]):'''<br>
:After reading his response, I understand that Xx236 issued a ] on 27 August, did not notify me, and continued his ad hominems against me (all diffs above are from later dates). Since the mediation request is formulated as just another ad hominem against me, it is no surprise that no mediator took on the case or bothered notifying me, and frankly I fail to see how anything would have come out of it without a fundamental change in Xx236' approach. I take Xx236' further statements in this case as just confirming what is already expressed by the diffs above. ] (]) 14:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


One need only cross-reference names from , checking those that voted for labeling COVID-19 lab leak as conspiracy, with the names of complainants here. Contrast all these old timers with the steady stream of tens if not hundreds of regular editors complaining that our article fails NPOV, and see that their gentle approach doesn't work . Our chief complainant is already preparing his next case , and this might not be his first.
'''Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:'''


I suggest that administrators consider a 1 to 2 month topic ban for BabbleOnto to provide opportunity for him to correct his approach, while staying alert to the tactics of POV editors trying to draw them into content debates to influence outcomes.
===Discussion concerning Xx236===
====Statement by Xx236====
* I asked for mediation with Skaperod but got no help.
*The truth cannot be the result of voting or the result of better English and bigger number of German nationalistic editors. A dispute about genocides shouldn't be reduced to a play based on doubtful sources.
*I admit, I committed the ''crime'' of tagging the POV article as '''POV'''. I admit also that I have checked the quoted Cienciala article and found it's misqoted.
*I admit, I have read several texts by Rudy Rummel about Poland and they are based on selected, cold-war period books, including Polish-communist (censored) ones. Rummel is incompetent when describing post-war Poland both with words and numbers, his ''results'' are obsessionally anti-Polish. The result is so absurd, that it proves that Rummel's methods are naive.
*The word ''expulsion'' is a direct translation of ideologically biased German ''Vertreibung'' so should be used with care and with explanation of the context.
*The ''expulsion'' of Germans was the third expulsion in Europe, after the Soviet and Nazi ones. No ''source'' and no voting can prove it was the biggest. It was a part of post-war transfers both from East to West and from West to East. This Misplaced Pages doesn't describe the post-WWII transfers, but mostly the (real) tragedy of Germans, creating false image. This Misplaced Pages has a moral problem, that big nations impose their POVs and the small ones are humiliated. I know the subject better than Skaperod but I'm treated like a criminal here. A number of Polish editors weren't able to tolerate the attacks and were banned or resigned. ] (]) 07:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


] (]) 14:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
====Comments by other editors====
I would like to point out that Xx236 and user S. who filed this request have a history of disagreements and are on two different ends "of the stick" as far as their views on the subject of expulsion of German civilians from Eastern Europe after WW2. Unfortunately xX235 made a mistake by sometimes selecting unfortunate wording while commenting on the issues or in his edit summaries. To my knowelage, he did not break any other rules however. It would be wise in my opinion to advice him to be '''extra careful''' while commenting rather than sanctioning him. Articles which are being edited by these two editors need crucial balance which can be only achieved by having two sides involved.--] (]) 17:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


=== Statement by TarnishedPath ===
:Administrators should not be bothered by frivolous complains such as this. In my opinion the editor should have made a good faith effort to resolve this petty dispute on the talk page rather than waste the time of administrators. Editors should ignore provocative remarks and discuss the facts instead. It seems to me that we are back at square one --] (]) 18:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see ] where BabbleOnto edited ] restoring previously reverted content and ] using a shit source after they'd been told by multiple other editors in discussions ] and ] that the source was shit. Notably in the edit summary they wrote "{{tq|Read discussion page. Manual revert. No serious challenge has been made to these changes. Methinks an admin needs to get involved...}}" despite them being in a ] situation. If a clue is not gotten by the editor fast I'd suggest TBANs from both COVID and AP2 is warranted in order to cease their disruption. '']''<sup>]</sup> 04:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


:Noting the editor's continued behaviour at ]. Refer to ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::Today I had to correct a number of factual errors made at ]. The editors should take the time to become familiar with the sources rather than engage in food fights and bother the Administrators with frivolous complaints.--] (]) 19:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
::and again at ] '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


===Statement by berchanhimez===
::..<s>or squre two]. But frankly Woogie10w, I don't know what you meant by that, sorry,</s> (sorry Woogie10w, I know now what you meant) I think that user S. is as needed to be on the pages of Expulsions etc. as user xX236. They have to somehow come to the agreement. User S. has to tone down his strong German POV and User xX236 should be more understanding also. I know that Polish editors are very suspicious of Germans trying to present history from their point of view but that view has to be acknowledged without frustration as we clearly see here.--] (]) 19:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
This user was given no less than 4 chances on the talk page to stop talking about bans/other editors and start talking about the content. They have continued crying about how they're scared of getting banned... yet they continue blabbing about other editors getting banned for their bad behavior ]. ''At a minimum'' a partial block from the talk page(s) in question is warranted, and it would be beneficial for a topic ban from the origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree that Xx236 exaggerated with some of his comments however i have to note a couple of things. First, this might be trivial, but my observation is that Xx236 isn't too fluent in english and i often get the impression that some of the things he writes come out worse than he intended to. More importantly to understand his reactions one has to know a bit about the ] article. The reality of the matter is that Skapperod's work there is biased, he keeps added more and more material the result being he's making the Germans as much victims as possible, that's why all sources he uses are always those who paint the expulsions in as bad light as possible. Lately he even dug a source which claimed that the expulsions were a genocide... the absurdity of that claim leave one speechless, really. To better understand the tragicomical situation we are in there, one only needs to look at the size of the ] article, 158Kb, plus it's "sister" article ] which is 74kb, together that's 232kb. Compare that with the size of the ] article, 184kb. A bit ugly isn't it? IMO it's things like that make wikipedia a complete joke in the eyes of many serious scholars. In conclusion while I don't support the language that Xx236 used i fully understand his frustration at the current situation. ] (]) 18:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


===Result concerning BabbleOnto===
Xx is not being problematic in article space, but he is being uncivil in the talk space. I think the solution here is not a topic ban, but a civility parole. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 17:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
-->
*{{u|BabbleOnto}}, please edit your statement down further to fit within the restriction. This also serves as an opportunity to rephrase your defense, which currently is not convincing at first glance. ProcrastinatingReader's description of the situation seems quite apt, particularly {{tq|BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible}}, which is currently a pretty fitting description of your response to them here, given that you zeroed in on the "superficially reasonable" part and ignored the much more serious parts of the testimony. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Ok, having read through nearly every edit that BabbleOnto has made, I agree with the complainants that not only does BabbleOnto engage in sealioning, it appears to be almost exclusively what they do. The discussion at ] exhibits perhaps even more concerning argumentation than the diffs provided in the initial report. Throughout these discussions, BabbleOnto tends to demand a standard of stating the obvious (with respect to the context of said sources) that is absurd, and continues to lawyer for such standards even when the situation becomes ]. When criticizing sources' ability to account for basic claims, I can find no examples of BabbleOnto themselves attempting to find sources that would resolve the issues they identify--this is uncollaborative behavior. There is a clear pattern of engaging in this behavior across recent US politics topics consistent with the scope of ]. The only saving grace to BabbleOnto's track record is that none of this has translated into disruptive editing of actual articles, just unproductive engagement on talk pages. I am currently in favor of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics; if they are actually here to build an encyclopedia and not to provide a punching bag for debate club, they can use this opportunity to learn more constructive patterns of editing in topics that they are less personally invested in. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{u|Valereee}} in line with their follow-up response, I take Objective3000's comments as potentially a basis for community discussion rather than a call for protective action on the lab leak talk page right now. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 21:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
* I have to agree, this looks like sealioning. {{u|BabbleOnto}}, you're new here, and I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt about your ability to learn to collaborate. WP works on collaboration and consensus, and sometimes consensus goes your way, sometimes it doesn't. You have to be willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you. And you absolutely must not insist everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers. I've seen editors at both the Thompson and the lab leak talks tell you they don't actually owe you an answer to your satisfaction.


:Do you think you can learn to do that? Because if you don't think you can, this may not be the right hobby for you.
:Yes, he is being incivil, but he's also using Misplaced Pages as an ideological battleground, which is more problematic. I also tend to dislike civility paroles because we expect all editors to be civil all the time anyway, even without a parole. I don't yet see how any less restrictive sanction than a topic ban can properly address this problem. (We don't want to ban people just from talk pages, because editors must be able to communicate.) What do other admins think? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


:<small>As an aside, I'm going to recommend what I always recommend to new editors who end up here: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn. Go edit in noncontentious topics, where other editors are a lot less exhausted and have the energy to be more patient with new editors.</small> ] (]) 18:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
===Result concerning Xx236===
::@], hm, yes, and ] also has 37 archives, and even with archiving at 21 days, 20 sections. Do you think an ECR is something that talk page needs? That's not part of the authorized restrictions an individual admin can place...hm, and I'm not sure of the policy w/re most efficiently getting that done and wasting the fewest people's time. @]? ] (]) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
:::I would object to ECPing the talk page. COVID-19 ], though this specific ''article'' is protected. The purpose of protecting the page (in this case) is to push newer users to the talk page, where they can discuss changes they want made (such as by edit requests) and contribute towards consensus-building while not edit warring. Protecting talk pages is truly, ''truly'' a last resort. Ordinary good faith people would be entirely shut out and silenced—we'd not even get edit requests—and I frankly don't see anything near the level of disruption/LTA abuse that would justify jumping straight to ]. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 01:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*I have no opinion about the historical issues at stake, but the language used by Xx236 in the diffs provided violates ], ] and ]. If no uninvolved admin disagrees, I intend to impose a time-limited topic ban to give Xx236 the chance to edit in some other topic area that excites him less strongly. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
::::@], not ECP. ECR: non-EC are restricted from anything but making edit requests. ] (]) 14:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
:::::I see. In any case, ECR is the sort of remedy that should be reserved for more or less when all else fails—it’s still ''super'' restrictive. If new users/inexperienced users are trying to contribute towards consensus-building on the talk page (or even if they’re doing ordinary confused new editor things), and aren’t edit warring, I don’t think we’d actually be ] by enforcing ECR.
:::::Suppose someone in good-faith sees “anyone can edit”, and they want to edit something topical. But then they see that the page that they want to edit is protected. They read the explanation that appears after clicking the “view source” tab. They then read that they can discuss this page with others, click on the first blue link, and then make a section using the “add topic” button in order to start a discussion.
:::::“OK”, the newbie thinks, “maybe I will find someone else who agrees with me, or I’ll at least get some answer as to why the article is this way”. They leave their computer and come back in an hour. They then discover that their question has been removed by some random editor with edit summary “] violation, user not ]; malformed edit request” and find a contentious topics notice on their own user talk page, all because they don’t make a properly formatted edit request (i.e. “please change X to Y”). Or maybe they wont navigate the talk page history and they’ll angrily post that their earlier comment was deleted. Or maybe they just won’t come back. To top it off, nothing at any point in this process was obvious to them that such a requirement existed—there is no edit notice that says so, and so they couldn’t know.
:::::] is ]y. It dissuades new voices from joining conversations, and it makes it somewhat hostile to true newbies. In particular, it dissuades people who, for example:
:::::#Are Not hardcore/insane enough to deal with intense wiki-bureaucracy;
:::::#Are unable to cope with handling unfamiliar wikitext markup when making edit requests for anything that is not a trivial word change, or who have abstract changes in mind more than concrete ones;
:::::#Do not want to spend an hour of their time to figure out how to say the magic words to summon another editor to fix a typo.
:::::The chief way that ECR works is by making LTAs/sockmasters have to put on a lot of effort or make a lot of edits. This raises the (time) cost of socking, and it has the benefit of possibly exposing tells along the way. But that also means that we’re imposing the same thing on good-faith newbies.
:::::When deciding whether or not to impose ECR, we have to balance that it is extremely BITEy to good-faith newbies against its ability to prevent disruption. There are times where we are basically left to throw our hands up because of LTA/sockmaster abuse, and conclude that the tradeoff is worth it; the ArbCom has done this for certain contentious topics. But, the ArbCom had the wisdom to not enable ECR as a page sanction across all contentious topic areas—there is a very real tradeoff that needs to be really carefully considered. And I don’t the tradeoff leans towards embracing ECR ''here''. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'm don't think we need to have this discussion here and now, but I don't disagree it's bitey and needs to be used only where necessary. I was just asking the question of someone who is working at that article: is this an article talk where it's necessary? ] (]) 17:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


==Pmanderson== ==Marlarkey==
{{hat|Marlarkey p-blocked from ] and formally warned to be more mindful of policies, guidelines and best practices when editing CTOPs, particularly PIA <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
===Request concerning Pmanderson===


===Request concerning Marlarkey===
'''User requesting enforcement:'''<br>
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|WeatherWriter}} 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
] ] 10:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


'''User against whom enforcement is requested:'''<br> ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Marlarkey}}<p>{{ds/log|Marlarkey}}</p>
{{userlinks|Pmanderson}}


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
'''Sanction or remedy that this user violated:'''<br>
*]
* - ] restriction re-widened to include the pages and talk pages of all MOS and style guidelines due to continuing disruption.


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
'''] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it:'''<br>
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
# Mr Anderson removes a reference and link to MoS from the ] on the day ArbCom's original restrictions were reimposed (August 28); the edit is similar or identical to at least two of his previous attempts to remove mention of MoS from this policy.
# First in a series of diatribes against the Manual of Style, using the ] policy talk page as a soap box to denigrate the MoS and its editors: "], as usual, covers dashes badly; it's an unsourced bunch of rules of thumb made up in school one day."
# "... MOS is; a crusade by a handful of Language Reformers to impose some provinciality on the whole of Misplaced Pages - as harmful as Anglo-American warring and without its excuses in childhood patriotism.... a half-dozen editors have hammered one together out of bits and pieces; the result is not anybody's usage - some would call it dubiously literate."
# "... there is only one reason why literate editors care what those non-consensus essays say: to avoid having prose incompetently reworked by junior high school students who believe that MOS knows what it is talking about or represents an agreement of Misplaced Pages."


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
'''Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):'''<br>
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
Not applicable


''''''
'''Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]):'''<br>
# - Mainspace PIA edit prior to EC status.
I believe it is reasonable to widen Mr Anderson's topic ban to include ] and its talk page, to protect the project from incivility and disruption.
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request and acknowledgement of aforementioned edit.
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request.
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Accused another editor of vandalism.
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Says, "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration."
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary.
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary.


''''''
'''Additional comments by ] ]:'''<br>
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
ArbCom's remedy did not include a topic ban on policy pages. ] is the only significant policy page related to article style, and the user is clearly (1) violating the remedy by making edits that change the relationship between that policy page and MoS, and (2) gaming ArbCom's remedy by using the talk page to denigrate MoS and its regular editors, while recently having been banned again from participation at MoS itself.
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request.
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request..."''Someone has reverted my removal of Israel - Hamas *AGAIN* so I've taken it out *AGAIN*.''"
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
# - Self-revert of direct previous mainspace reversion that was prior to EC status.
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status...Made while this enforcement request was being typed up. This reversion by Marlarkey is of an edit with the direct edit summary of "Per ]". User is 100% disregarding CT requirements.


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : N/A. No previous blocks or topic bans.
'''Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:'''<br>
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
''The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a ] of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.''<br> ] ] 10:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): at 15:29, 21 November 2024.
===Discussion concerning Pmanderson===
====Statement by Pmanderson====
This is an effort, like the previous request for arbitration enforcement against me, to use claims of incivility to silence a voice that simply disagrees with a guideline with which Tony .


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
The way to get more respect for the "Manual of Style" is to write one worth having: one based on consensus, not on revert-warring; one based on English style guides, not on the opinions of a handful of Wikipedians who assert ownership of the page. This will never be done until more Wikipedians want one; but that does not change its condition; and criticisms of text are not criticisms of persons.
User has been on Misplaced Pages (on and off) since at least January 2010. It seems there is a ]-related issue on ArbCom PIA/Contentious topics, given the very clear lack of ignorance of the ArbCom Notification and subsequent edit summary arguments. I do not necessarily believe a block will be of use in this case, due to this editor's on-and-off Misplaced Pages editing status (less than 500 edits since January 2010). Either a topic ban and/or a 1,000 EC status requirement (i.e. EC-status requirement is something higher than 500 edits) is being requested. '''The ]''' (] 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*One of the edits by Marlarkey listed above from 13 January 2025 has been by {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} for Marlarkey not being ECR logged. '''The ]''' (] 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:*{{ping|Marlarkey}} I want to ], so I wanted to let you know that ] is what we call "broadly constructed". If you read ], it says, "{{tq|These are the current arbitration remedies applicable to any pages and edits that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.}}" The edit you are attempting to me is ''related'' to the Arab-Israel conflict. The page itself does not have to be entirely about the war to be covered under the restrictions. Any edit that is at least, even slightly related to the conflict is covered under the restrictions. While the page is about declarations of war throughout history, the specific edit is related to whether the Israel-Hamas war was a declaration of war. That is obviously related to the conflict, given it specifically is in regard to the ]. That is why the edits were reverted and why this violation report was filed. Hopefully that makes sense. Also, just a quick side-note, accusing other editors of vandalism is ] and is not really how Misplaced Pages operates. You should always ]. '''The ]''' (] 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::*{{ping|Marlarkey}} We are all working together to create a better encyclopedia. No one is against you and we do wish for all to edit Misplaced Pages. The ArbCom restrictions require that you have (1) at least an account of 30 days old and (2) at least 500 edits, to be able to edit content anywhere on Misplaced Pages regarding the Israel-Hamas war. At the time of all the edits linked above, you did not have 500 edits on Misplaced Pages. You were roughly at 490. At the time of this, you now have over 500 edits, which means you could now edit content regarding the Israel-Hamas war. That said, this report was made because of the several edits you made prior to reaching the 500 edit requirement.


:::Please understand this is for the edits that you made which were in clear violation of the policy, which requires you to have 500 edits prior to editing anything even remotely related to the conflict. This report was not that you are incorrect with your removal of the content. Not at all. This report is because you removed the content before you were allowed to (i.e. the 500-edit mark). Please understand we all are on the same-side here and no one is vandalizing anything. Once this is resolved, I would be more than happy to calmly discuss the content changes with you. I hope you can understand that this report is specifically because you made the changes before you were allowed to and not at all regarding the content in those changes. '''The ]''' (] 00:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I would prefer a first-class MOS, which would be concise, contain only the guidance that was necessary for Misplaced Pages, reflect the consensus of Misplaced Pages as a whole, and be based on sources. That would be brief, coherent, and stable.


*{{ping|Rosguill}} After my last reply, I realized I went 105 words over the 500-word limit. I would like to request that 105-word extension (so I do not have to reword or remove the last reply I made). I do not plan to reply again as I think everything I needed to say and link to has been said and linked to. '''The ]''' (] 00:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
As for the claim made here, ArbCom decided ''while the full extent of the date-delinking decision was still in effect on everybody'', that . The edit that gave rise to that discussion was my edit of the same clause now at issue.


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
I therefore request that if any administrative action be taken, it be taken against Tony1. ] <small>]</small> 15:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
====Comments by other editors====
The reported diffs do not concern date (de)linking and thus do not violate ]. The "extension" of this topic ban at does not appear to be provided for or allowed by any arbitration remedy or other Committee action. Such an extension would need to be made by the Committee itself, through motion or amendment. Because the extension is not founded on Committee authority, it is void and unenforceable, at any rate here at AE. This means that this request, in my opinion, is not actionable. If Pmanderson's editing is deemed to be problematic, I recommend requesting a community sanction on ] (after a ]) or Committee action. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
:I was under the impression that Shell Kinney had re-imposed a full topic ban, and could do so as an admin. Can we please have a clarification of the situation? ] ] 12:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
::No individual administrator has the authority to impose a topic ban except where a Committee decision delegates such authority. In this case, the Committee has not delegated such authority to administrators, which means that the supposed extension of the topic ban is without effect. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
::: I don't agree with you, Sandstein. I originally lodged a complaint about PMAnderson's behavior at the discussion page for the Arb Motion that narrowed his restrictions. I was told by administrators that it wasn't the correct venue and was directed to Requests for Enforcement. Indeed, at least one Arb (NYB) was aware that I was directed such. I re-filed the complaint and it was answered by an impartial admin who, in my opinion, acted correctly and remedied that particular problem. There is no clear venue for such requests, so we used the best available. PMA's behavior creates an exigence that cannot wait for systemic reviews at set intervals; he quite actively drives editors away from the pages he participates on. We now find ourselves debating process instead of debating the actual problem at hand, which is that PMA cannot behave himself on any page where style, semantics, or conventions are discussed. So none of us waste any more time, where is the correct venue for requesting a broadening of his ban to include all such pages? --] ] 04:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Well, it's not AE, because this page is for the enforcement of Arbitration Committee decisions, and the supposedly extended topic ban is not an Arbitration Committee decision. The only advice I can give you is to proceed per ]. This page is not part of the dispute resolution process. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


===Discussion concerning Marlarkey===
::::: Nobody can tell us where we ''ought to'' go, and there are only suggestions where we ''might try''. This is a worryingly huge crack in the floorboard where things are allowed to fall through. ] (]) 07:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>


===Result concerning Pmanderson=== ====Statement by Marlarkey====
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
*I agree with ] above. The "extension" to ] is not an Arbcom decision and should not apply here. The scope of the restriction was explicitly reduced () less than <s>two</s> three weeks ago, and it was stated that the situation should not be reviewed again for at least 30 days. Based on that it seems inappropriate to expand it here. I don't think Pmanderson's edits as presented above cross the line in terms of policy. If his behavior has changed significantly in the past three weeks perhaps an ] is warranted despite the length of time that has passed, but as it stands this is not enforceable. Of course it's somewhat open to interpretation; I wouldn't raise any objection if someone were to enforce a topic ban for disruption, but that would not involve Arbcom. ] (]) 12:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


{{userlinks|WeatherWriter}} is repeatedly reverting edits which are removing information outside the scope of the page in question. My edits are validly citated within the scope of the page. {{userlinks|WeatherWriter}} has cited WP:ARBPIA but that is not relevant to THIS article which is not a Palestine-Israel article. This article is not a contentious topic - it is factual.
*It was indeed narrowed, but was for PMA because of some other incidents of incivility. Shell Kinney logged it in the sanctions section of the case page. The widening was specific to PMA and was subsequent to the narrawing. ] (]) 12:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
**The expansion was an admin action, not an Arbcom decision. ] (]) 12:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
***Thanks for replies. Evil s, does that mean that Mr Anderson is indeed not permitted to edit or discuss style guides, and that ANI is the proper place to take this matter (since there do appear to be breaches if that is the case)? ] ] 14:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
****I think it means it's outside of the scope of anything Arbcom ever intended, so this is not the place. However, as there may be some breaches of ], you should take it to the relevant forum, ]. ] (]) 14:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


My edits are WP:NPOV. This article is about declarations of war - the opening statement states "A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state announces existing or impending war activity against another."
== Loosmark ==
1. Hamas is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hamas should not be included in the article
2. Hezbollah is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hezbollah should not be included in the article
3. Russia vs Ukraine are both nation states - the question then is whether there has been a declaration of war.


In the case 1 & 2, the removal of these two entries is WP:NPOV and the inclusion or otherwise in this article is in no way a comment on the conflict in question - only whether they constitute a declaration of war by one nation state on another. Which they do not because they are nation states.


In the case of 3, the inclusion of Russia vs Ukraine only relies on whether there has been a declaration of war. The citation I gave is documented evidence of Russia announcing that a state of war exists between Russia and Ukraine.
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
===Request concerning Loosmark===


I suggest that by taking the action they have that the complainant is the one acting in a that asserts a political opinion about the conflict
'''User requesting enforcement:'''<br>
] (]) 18:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


'''User against whom enforcement is requested:'''<br>
{{userlinks|Loosmark}}


The reference by Weatherwriter to 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Is only a partial quote - what I actually said was "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration. I care about whether it is in the scope of this page."
'''Sanction or remedy that this user violated:'''<br>
The key is the final point - the scope of this article and whether the edits are validly cited in accordance with the topic of the article...namely a list of declarations of war.
Scrolling down you will see that he is already on a list of editors placed on notice <br>


Weatherwriter reversions of my edits serve to support a political opinion on a page which is about facts.


'''I'm pretty angry about being accused in this way when MY edits were factually based and neutral point of view, whereas by reverting my edits it does precisely the opposite, allowing contentious and politically biased information to infect the page.''' GRRRRRRrrr
'''] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it:'''<br>
# Created an abusive topic heading naming another editor
# Escalating personal attack by writing about another editor: "Your constant attempts at trying to find something to blame on the Polish side is as sick and perveted as trying to find sth on the Jewish side for the Nazi horrors."


] (]) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):'''<br>
# Warning by {{user|Bobanni}}
# Warning by {{admin|Thatcher}}


'''Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]):'''<br>
#Topic ban on Ukrainian-Polish relations during World War II broadly defined followed by probationary period.


On another point, following me reviewing the information in this complaint by WeatherWriter...
'''Additional comments by ] (]):'''<br>
"If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)" The complainant cites a link to information which I have JUST accessed and have never seen before just now. I was NOT aware of this information so it is false to suggest that this constitutes evidence that I was aware.
Please note that there is a message on the top of that article's talk page requesting "be polite" and "avoid perosnal attacks."] (]) 18:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


Again this makes me angry at the accusations being made against me. If you don't want people editing and contributing to wikipedia then please just say so. GRRR
'''Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:'''<br>
] (]) 00:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I give up... I'm being accused and being told off for responding to the accusation. I don't know anything about this procedure, have never seen this page before and know nothing about how this works because its new to me.
*:But I get it - I'm not part of the club that decides things... so I'll let you get on with that. ] (]) 00:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::<small>(Moved from WeatherWriter's section</small> I get it - you'd rather call me out by this procedure than have an accurate encyclopaedia article. You've made accusations against me and put me through this over restrictions that I knew nothing about and policies I knew nothing about. I simply came across something inaccurate and followed what I understood to be WP principles and made an objectively accurate edit.
::::So now the end result is that an inaccurate article containing a politically biased assertion is going to stay live. ] (]) 02:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
===Result concerning Marlarkey===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
-->
{{u|Marlarkey}}, you have gone a bit over your 500 word allotment for responses. Please do not comment further unless directly asked to. I will remove an additional reply that was both over your limit and in the wrong section. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 00:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{u|Weather Event Writer}}, extension granted as that's essentially what Marlarkey has already taken. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 01:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


Requesting a clerk, or other party, notify various parties so that I need not discuss this case on non-arbitration page, or interact with Loosmark's talk page ] (]) 18:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
:, though I am neither clerk not party. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


Ok, having now reviewed ]'s page history, its talk page discussion, and Marlarkey's contributions more generally, I find that:
{{discussion top}}
:* Marlarkey has repeatedly violated ] at ] since having received a CTOP notice
===Statement by Loosmark===
:*Irrespective of whether it is correct or not to include the Israel-Hamas war, Israel-Hezbollah war, or wars between states and non-state entities more broadly, WeatherWriter's edits to the page are plainly not ], which has a specific (and serious) meaning on Misplaced Pages
My intention was not to attack Faustian or being uncivil but rather to discuss the edit which i considered, and i still do, to be very controversial and badly sourced. Basically the dispute is he's trying to insert a claim that the Poles joined the German police first which started or aggravated the violence. Btw I have already appologied to Faustian for creating the section with that title, i honestly didn't have any bad intentions with that. Still i don't think my 2 diffs are nearly as bad as he paints them. (Please not that the sentence is put completely out of the contest of the relevant discussion). To maximalise the drama now he doesn't even want to put a notice on my talk page. Oh well. If me writting "Faustian POV pushing" is so bad i'd like to present a couple of his diffs myself:
:*It appears to be a long-term status quo to include non-state entities provided that there is a citation to some sort of formal declaration of war, and the page's inclusion of conflicts involving non-states ] and ] do not appear to have been challenged at any point.
:*Marlarkey is incorrect to assert that their edit is {{tq|objectively accurate}}. Whether the edit is accurate is subject to community consensus, and the talk page arguments in favor of inclusion base themselves on RS reporting which is a valid, policy-compliant argument. Marlarkey's arguments that a declaration of war can only occur be between two states do not make any reference to a reliable source stating this; while that text is currently in the lead of the article, it does not have a citation nor is it clear that any citation in the article directly backs this.
:*In light of discussion at ], which at this point shows multiple editors in favor of keeping the Hamas and Hezbollah wars, only Marlarkey firmly for removing them, and one other editor calling for discussion as of December 31st, Marlarkey's edits to unilaterally remove the entries in January amount to slow-motion edit warring
:*Given that Marlarkey has had an account for well over a decade, has edited a wide variety of topics, hit 500 edits while this was happening, does not appear to have otherwise shown interest in Israel/Palestine topics, and that the edits at Declaration of war don't fit into any clear POV-warrior pattern, I don't think that pulling extended-confirmed or issuing a PIA topic ban would help.
I'm thus inclined to suggest an indefinite partial block from ] (but not its talk page) as a regular admin action for edit warring, and a logged warning to be mindful of CTOP standards. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC
*As Marlarkey stated that they were unaware of CT, I wanted to confirm that I double checked and found that the CT notice was properly left in November. If Marlarkey chose not to read it, well, that's rather on him&mdash;we can only leave messages, we can't force people to read them. I would otherwise agree with Rosguill's assessment. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*I entirely endorse Rosguill's reading of this. I am not happy about Marlarkey's approach to our restrictions, but I don't see this as EC gaming, and I can't see how pulling EC rights could be justified at this stage. As such I endorse the proposed page block and logged warning. Marlarkey, you seem to believe that because you are right on the substance you can ignore process and guidelines - that simply isn't true. The arbitration committee has consistently held that ]; you need to be able to edit within the scope of our policies. ] (]) 17:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
* Pretty much everything Rosquill said. {{u|Marlarkey}}, it doesn't look like you have a huge amount of experience working in ]s. I'm sorry you're finding this upsetting, but CTOPs are a whole 'nother world, and you're either going to have to learn how to nonproblematically work there, or not work there. ] (]) 18:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:FWIW, the CTOP warning was ]. You've got your archiving set so aggressively that you may be missing a lot of messages, and it's completely plausible that you missed this one, which was only on your talk for two days, and after it was left you didn't edit for a month. However, we do assume that if you've got your archiving set that aggressively, you're keeping on top of anything important by checking your notifications to make sure you didn't miss anything.
*:You can probably prevent this happening in future by having your talk page archive ''no more frequently than you typically go between editing sessions'', leaving maybe the five most recent messages unarchived, and/or being sure to check your notifications when logging back in. Any one of those three and you've have likely seen the notification. ] (]) 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hatb}}


==DanielVizago==
This one i don't think even deserves a comment: ] '''"clearing of Poles from Volhynia was necesasary in order to prevent the killing of Ukrainian civilians from spreading from Lublin region into Volhynia itself"'''.
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning DanielVizago===
Blaming the victims, the Poles for starting the massacres: .
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Schazjmd}} 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|DanielVizago}}<p>{{ds/log|DanielVizago}}</p>
Here is his personal attack Paweł5586 which is far worse than anything i've written: '''"You have admitted elsewhere that your Polish family is from Volhynia. Perhaps this may explain your passion and one-sidedness on this article."''' Talking about Paweł's family that way is not very nice. And what is that "admitted" supposed to mean?


More nice stuff:
'''"Please stop spreading falsehoods."''', '''"You seem to be pushing the Polish nationalist POV"'''. etc etc.


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
I could go on and dig many more diffs but really it seems such a waste of time. If Faustian feels so offended by those my 2 diffs i appology again but his behavior wasn't exactly exemplary either. IMO the problem we have is a content dispute and needs to be resolved on the talk page of the appropriate article rather than by trying to get opponents topic banned.
] (]) 20:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
:'''Please see next section for response to these false claims about me.''' Your behavior above suggests something, I think, about your apology.] (]) 21:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
# Added ] to a BLP, after CTOP notification and several talk page messages notifying DanielVizago that the category is not to be applied to articles about individuals (per category description, {{tq|This category is for issues relating to misandry. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly misandrist.}});
# and Removing sourced content from ] that states misandry is not a major an issue as misogyny;
# Changing content in ] to emphasize misandry (reverted by another editor with edit summary {{tq|rv, poorly sourced (sources supplemented by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH), earlier version was better, closer to sources}});
# Added "bimisandry" to ], citing 4 sources, none of which include that term;
# 14 Jan 2025, weird edits adding ] with piped names to unrelated articles, then those names directly to the category page;
# restored the "bimisandry" edit to ], then a 5th ref that includes the term but is just a blog; I left a 4th-level warning on talk page;
# (after final warning) adds <nowiki>] and ]</nowiki> to ]; those two individuals don't have articles and there is no mention in this article of their charges or convictions, even though the category solely consists of {{tq|articles of female individuals who have been convicted of rape in a court of law.}}


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
===Statement by Faustian===
*None
I have a right to defend myself against more attacks on this very ANE, a defence that was removed by Loosmark: . On the one hand, the editor complains that it was only 2 diffs and now he repeats attacks against me by claiming that I condone the killing of civilians. He does this right on the ANE! So here is a repeat of his attacks and my response to them:


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
Loosmark, previous section: "...Oh well. If me writting "Faustian POV pushing" is so bad i'd like to present a couple of his diffs myself:
*I alerted them on


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
This one i don't think even deserves a comment: ] '''"clearing of Poles from Volhynia was necesasary in order to prevent the killing of Ukrainian civilians from spreading from Lublin region into Volhynia itself"'''.
Above diffs are all edits ''after'' the CTOP notification was provided. Before then, DanielVizago misapplied ] to 46 articles, which is what caught my attention. Their attempts to add "bimisandry" to ] started . On 28 Dec 2024, DanielVizago added a lot of content to ] about misandry, which another editor with edit summary {{tq|remove recently added pro-fringe section and put back the excerpt}}. Most of their 122 edits have been reverted by multiple editors.
:Please don't snip my remarks to present a falsle picture of what I said. The full quote was "This incidentally seems to confirm the what I had posted from another book, that the OUN claimed the Poles started killing Ukrainian civilians and that (according to OUN's logic) clearing of Poles from Volhynia was necesasary in order to prevent the killing of Ukrainian civilians from spreading from Lublin region into Volhynia itself." On the very talk page I condemned killing of innocent Polish civilians and attacks against me suggesting that I did not. Here is just one: . And here you are, continuing such personal attacks against me by claiming that I support the killing of civilians, on this ANE!] (]) 21:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


Before the level 4 warning, I guiding DanielVizago away from CTOP; they don't engage on their talk page. (They've posted there once, to say "thanks" in response to a warning.) With their refusal to communicate, poor sourcing, and non-NPOV edits, I don't think they should be editing in this topic area. ]&nbsp;] 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Blaming the victims, the Poles for starting the massacres: .
:See my response to your previous comments.] (]) 21:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
Here is his personal attack Paweł5586 which is far worse than anything i've written: '''"You have admitted elsewhere that your Polish family is from Volhynia. Perhaps this may explain your passion and one-sidedness on this article."''' Talking about Paweł's family that way is not very nice. And what is that "admitted" supposed to mean?
*
:That is worse than stating as you did "Your constant attempts at trying to find something to blame on the Polish side is as sick and perveted as trying to find sth on the Jewish side for the Nazi horrors?"] (]) 21:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


More nice stuff:
'''"Please stop spreading falsehoods."''', '''"You seem to be pushing the Polish nationalist POV"'''. etc etc.
:Yeah, the falsehood that I am a denier of the murder of Polish civilians. That's a falsehood that was being spread. I didn't use the word "lies" as was thrown against me.] (]) 21:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)




===Discussion concerning DanielVizago===
{{discussion bottom}}
<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>


===Comments by other editors=== ====Statement by DanielVizago====
Well Faustian... This is my honest opinion about this request...I'm sorry to say that but this is just an attempt to eliminate your opponent by cherry picking his comments and hoping to get a "trigger happy" administrator to act against him. Unfortunately I see this behavior on Wikipiedia all the time. Certain users instead of trying to reach an agreement are manipulating the system by getting their opponents tricked and banned. If Loosmark gets restricted now, what will stop you from pushing in your POV on the articles you both edited? Are you absolutely sure that the Ukrainian POV you are presenting is %100 unbiased and neutral? I would not be so sure about that. We desperately need balance and middle ground on these difficult historical issues. I really hope that instead of constant fights, traps, tricks, cherry picking comments etc. editors will focus on reliable sources and good faith editing to reach consensus. Thanks.--] (]) 19:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
:I don't push my or any POV, and indeed have added plenty of negative info about Ukrainians such as where I added
{{collapse top}}
"On August 18th, 1943, Taras Bulba-Borovets and his headquarters was surrounded in a suprise attack by OUN-B force consisting of several battalions. Some of his forces, including his wife, were captured, while five of his officers were killed. Borovets escaped but refused to submit, in a letter accusing the OUN-B of among other things: banditry; of wanting to establish a one-party state; and of fighting not for the people but in order to rule the people. In retaliation, his wife was murdered after two weeks of torture at the hands of the OUN-B's SB" and my addition of the following info into the article being disputed: "Perhaps the largest practical effect of German rule on the Volhynia massacres was participation of Ukrainian nationalists with the German police forces. During the first year of German occupation, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists pursued a policy of infiltrating the German police units with its members. In this role they obtained training in the use of weapons, and would also assist the German SS in murdering approximately 200,000 Volhynian Jews. While the Ukrainian police's share in the actual killings of Jews was small (they primarily played a supporting role), the Ukrainian police learned from the Germans the techniques necessary to kill large numbers of people: detailed advanced planning and careful site selection; assurances to the local population prior to the massacres in order for them to let down their guard; sudden encirclement; and then mass killing. This training obtained in 1942 explains the UPA's efficiency in the killing of Poles in 1943."
{{collapse bottom}}
:Comments such as those by Loosmark "Your constant attempts at trying to find something to blame on the Polish side is as sick and perveted as trying to find sth on the Jewish side for the Nazi horrors" are hardly conducive to achieving balance and middle ground. This is why he was warned and placed on a list of editors put on notice here: . Speaking of of the goal - which I absolutely adhrere to and support - that "instead of constant fights, traps, tricks, cherry picking comments etc. editors will focus on reliable sources and good faith editing to reach consensus" it is especially important that abuse by Loosmark or others not be tolerated.
:Now with respect to "trapping" - I wasn't even involved in a conversation with Loosmark when he became abusive towards me. where it happened. How could I have "trapped" him? and btw there is another Polish editor (not you of course) also engaging in such behavior. Hopefully he can learn from this example and does not need to be reported also.] (]) 20:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Faustian, but you should at least tell Loosmark that you did not appreciate his wording before trying to get him restricted right away. You see... if he indeed gets restricted now, you will have an open door to compose the articles the way you want, right? Are you absolutely sure that you will be %100 neutral and correct all the time? Please be honest .. was his selection of words "so terrible" that you could not live with it? I personally would not be so offended if you did leave similar comments while talking to me. The bottom line is Faustian, that you '''both''' are very needed on these pages to maintain them neutral or at least close to it. I would not like to see Loosmark restricted from editing and same with you.--] (]) 20:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::There was another editor being abusive and I warned him several times to be civil, here and and then here and then here . In the latter thread where I warned the other editor of incivility Loosmark stepped in and took the incivility to a whole new level. At some point a line needs to be drawn. And our contributions are hardly equivalent here. I'm the one sticking to reliable sources and adding info about both sides in a balanced way. ] (]) 20:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Ya, you are right, it is wrong to describe somebody's edits as "lies" even if they are far from being true but again, is this so abusive that one can not live with it? Editors often get emotional especially if they really believe in their edits. I would ask them first to : ''please do not use word lie because I really believe that my version of events are true'' and see what happens. Being polite and friendly often works, threats and complains only escalate tensions but they don't solve disagreements.--] (]) 21:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
::I have collapsed the extended quote above for readability. This is not the place to discuss content disagreements. Waiting for Loosmark to make a statement. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


====Statement by caeciliusinhorto====
I don't think the cited 2 diffs merit AE attention, but I do think that Loosmark should pay more attention to NPA/AGF. And so should you, Faustian, particularly where AGF is concerned. Have you tried mediation before coming here? AE enforcement - which is indeed often seen as an attempt to block a content opponent - should only be tried once discussion has been attempted and failed. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 20:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Since this report was opened, DanielVizago has continued to make questionable edits adding articles to ].
I request Faustian's comments are removed from my section because it's a complete mess now. He can reply in his own section, if he's allowed to insert text into my comments i request having the same right myself. ] (]) 21:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


* , categorising a living person who has been accused (but not charged, let alone convicted) of sexual assault as a rapist (cf. ])
:'''Faustian and Loosmark, will both of you please stop making any more edits anywhere here, thanks.''' This thread is a mess now, but you've both had your say. Now it's up to admins to evaluate the situation (I'll do so tomorrow). If either of you continues with the mudslinging in this request, I'll block him. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
* adds the category to a disambiguation page on the basis of one of the people listed on that page, who had in fact been convicted not of rape but of
* and edit categorise two sexually-motivated murderers as rapists despite no evidence that they ever raped anyone in the article (cf. ])


] (]) 10:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::Absolutely. I may have added a comment before reading this one by you. I will add nothing more.] (]) 21:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


====Statement by Simonm223====
:: Sandstein i need to reply to what Faustian wrote, since my section was archived (thanks to his disturbance of it) please advise me where can i reply. ] (]) 21:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


Might be wise, as long as doing so wouldn't interfere with evidence, to get a revision deletion on some of the diffs presented above that make unfounded statements about BLPs. ] (]) 18:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You've had your opportunity to respond to the request, and the two of you throwing new accusations at each other in an ''arbitration forum'' will not help either of you, so I strongly suspect that you do not "need" to reply to anything except the original request for enforcement. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)====
:::: I'm sorry but i don't understand your comment. He and he alone made the mess by starting to include his text into the Loosmark statement, '''which is a section where only i am allowed to write'''. I only deleted his text (which i am, correct me if i'm wrong, entitled to do) and asked him to use his section to reply. After that he once again attempted to add text into the Loosmark statement and your conclusion is we should both stop editing here!?!?!? Please explain what have i done wrong. Anyway since i don't know where can i reply i'll do it here, his statement: ''"And here you are, continuing such personal attacks against me by claiming that I support the killing of civilians, on this ANE"'' is false. I have not, I repeat, NOT accused Faustian of that. What I accuse him is trying to POV push that provocative explanation of Ukrainian mass slaughters into the article. ] (]) 22:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
:'''Comment'''. Faustian, do you really have to take all those who disagree with you to AE? You have your opinion, and Loosmark has his. Whatever is happening, things can always be worked out, without wasting time of admins with all those little grievances. A Misplaced Pages of my nightmares would be the one where we all denounce each other to AE, hoping that any users who disagree with us, would be eliminated, at least for 24 hours. ] (]) 00:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


===Result concerning Loosmark=== ===Result concerning DanielVizago===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->


*I've p-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor communicating. ] (]) 12:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I've reviewed the evidence and conclude that Loosmark's interaction with others in this topic area has violated ] and ], notably through comments like ''"Your constant attempts at trying to find something to blame on the Polish side is as sick and perveted as trying to find sth on the Jewish side for the Nazi horrors"'' () and ''"20,000? riiight."'' ().<br/>
*I want to hear what they have to say, but I'm going to need a fairly convincing explanation as to how they're here to build an encyclopedia and not to POV-push men's rights activism content where it doesn't belong. The IDHT and spammy behavior and the BLP vios on top of that aren't super encouraging, either, but if they decide to communicate, I'm happy to reassess. ] (] • she/her) 22:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
This is compounded by an completely inappropriate reaction to this request - his defence consists not in addressing his own conduct, but in making accusations against Faustian, the editor making the request, and in doing so seriously misrepresenting Faustian's comments. For instance, at , Loosmark claims that Faustian said ''"clearing of Poles from Volhynia was necesasary in order to prevent the killing of Ukrainian civilians from spreading from Lublin region into Volhynia itself",'' whereas in actuality at Faustian said ''"This incidentally seems to confirm the what I had posted from another book, that the OUN claimed the Poles started killing Ukrainian civilians and that (according to OUN's logic) clearing of Poles from Volhynia was necesasary in order to prevent the killing of Ukrainian civilians from spreading from Lublin region into Volhynia itself."'' Loosmark's statement makes it appear that Faustian condoned historical crimes, while Faustian actually only made claims about the opinions of "OUN" about these crimes. Likewise, in the same statement at , Loosmark accuses Faustian for "Blaming the victims, the Poles for starting the massacres", whereas Faustian at actually said: ''"the info that according to Ukrainian historian Ilyiushin Poles began the massacres belongs in the article."'' In other words, Loosmark seems to be unable or unwilling to distinguish, in discussions, between the opinions of third parties and the opinions of editors citing these third parties.<br/>
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
For these reasons, I believe Loosmark's involvement in the discussions surrounding these topics is detrimental to the purpose of Misplaced Pages. Since we cannot usefully ban an editor from discussions only (as editors are required to discuss their edits in cases of disagreement), a full topic ban is needed.<br/>
*<!--
Accordingly, under the authority of ], Loosmark is hereby '''banned from the topic of Ukrainian-Polish relations during World War II''', broadly construed, in all namespaces and discussions, for six months. He is encouraged to improve his communication skills in the interim. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
-->

Latest revision as of 03:37, 19 January 2025

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

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

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

    Standard of review
    On community review

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

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

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

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

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Important notes:

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

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

    A couple of reminders:

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

    Closing a thread:

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

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

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

    Lemabeta

    Lemabeta has acknowledged the warnings here to take more care and stay well clear of articles from which they are restricted from editing. Further violations are very likely to lead to sanctions, up to and including an indefinite block. Seraphimblade 12:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Lemabeta

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

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


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


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

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

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

    Here

    Discussion concerning Lemabeta

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

    Statement by Lemabeta

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

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Lemabeta

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

    Boy shekhar

    Blocked by Rosguill as a regular administrative action. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Boy shekhar

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

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


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    • This edit violates the topic ban because it is in the topic area. It's also based on an unreliable source and the section header includes a derogatory term.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    @Vanamonde93: No, I don't think you're being too harsh. I think you're right. My thinking was that if I was uninvolved, I would have blocked them under WP:CT/IPA so I sleepily submitted it here last night instead of ANI, which is what I should have done. Daniel Quinlan (talk)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Boy shekhar

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

    Statement by Boy shekhar

    Statement by Vanamonde

    This user hasn't edited for 4.5 years since they were TBANned, and none of their 31 edits show any ability to follow our PAGs. At the risk of sounding harsh, an extended AE discussion is a waste of time; a passing admin should indef them (I cannot, I am INVOLVED on most of the content they have edited). Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Daniel Quinlan: Apologies if that sounded like a criticism of you, it wasn't intended as such: I'm just advocating for the first uninvolved admin who sees this to block and close. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Result concerning Boy shekhar

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Vanamonde93's assessment is spot on, the edit in question is the kind of gross violation of WP:NPA we indef people for on the spot even when it's not a TBAN violation. Blocked as a regular admin action. Although I will say, without knowing how exactly Vanamonde93 is involved here, this is so far beyond the pale that they could have gone ahead and blocked on an "any reasonable admin" basis. signed, Rosguill 04:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    שלומית ליר

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

    Request concerning שלומית ליר

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Adding some additional comments on 2025-01-16: On top of POV issues, the user has a number of tweets that appear to be a clear admission of gaming, implicit canvassing, creating and sharing lists of potential "most biased articles", and clearly calling for specific edits. They've also been cited as coordinating an off-wiki coordination hub for editing Misplaced Pages. If this - combined with the tweets, the forms, the op-ed and the report to the WJC, all under this user's name (that they also use to edit Misplaced Pages - this is not outing) isn't a clear cut case of canvassing, I don't know what is. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    Notification diff


    Discussion concerning שלומית ליר

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

    Statement by שלומית ליר

    I believe contents of this filing to be in clear policy violation and have reached out to the arbitration committee for further clarification before commenting further.שלומית ליר (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    I was given clarification from an admin regarding my concerns and will now be drafting a response. Thank you for your patience. שלומית ליר (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Thebiguglyalien

    This is the first ARBPIA report since the proposed decision was posted at ARBPIA5 and it's specifically a matter of POV pushing, responding admins should be aware of the "AE topic bans" remedy. The committee is discussing whether to implement a remedy stating that admins at AE are "empowered and encouraged to consider a topic ban" purely for biased editing. So far, the argument against is that it's redundant because AE admins are already supposed to do this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-29/Special_report

    Statement by Selfstudier

    To the extent that it is relevant, the WJC report was discussed at Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-03-29/Special report. Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by starship.paint (2)

    I would to like to raise this 9 December 2024 edit at Battle of Sderot, where there had been an existing unsourced paragraph (On the morning of October 7, a tour minibus...) that שלומית ליר added a reference to (archive 1 / archive 2) from the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation. The reference is relevant, but I believe it may not verify every detail in the Battle of Sderot paragraph (e.g. "Netivot", "Holocaust survivors"). The reference contains a short paragraph of text and a video that is 4:21 long. I can't watch the video in the reference, but I believe it is this same YouTube video that is 4:20 long which contains the same screenshot as the reference, on the same topic. Most of the video is an interview of the daughter of a dead victim who was on the bus (the daughter had been on the phone with the victim), except for 1:58 to 2:13 which appears to be a quote from the bus driver. The publisher themselves do not have too much reporting in their own voice (on the video), yet this reference was used to cite a paragraph entirely stated in Wikivoice. No attribution was made to the relative or the bus driver, or to the publisher. I can't be totally sure though, due to unfamiliarity with Hebrew. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by xDanielx

    @Arcticocean: I don't really see how NPOV can be read as requiring edits which support both sides of a controversy. Our content policies don't impose any positive duties; they only tell us what not to do. The text of the policy doesn't support the notion that a pattern of edits could be in violation, even if no particular edit is in violation.

    In principle, such a pattern of edits could violate the UCoC policy, but I don't believe this board has ever enforced it. If it were to be enforced, I think it should be for more serious violations like the double standards that e.g. this attempted to demonstrate, rather than mere opinion-driven editing which applies to the vast majority of CTOP editors. — xDanielx /C\ 03:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Hemiauchenia

    This user has engaged in off-wiki canvassing regarding the IP conflict. Take the following recent tweet from the 12 January permanent archive

    For posterity in case it is deleted it contains the following remarks:

    If you can't handle the facts, just delete them Propaganda on @Misplaced Pages includes targeting Israel, demonizing it, and erasing inconvenient truths, from falsifying war outcomes to deleting Israeli inventions and attempting to erase the reality of Palestinian suicide bombers.

    Along with this is a screenshot of the current AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Palestinian suicide attacks. People are of course allowed to be caustic about Misplaced Pages off-wiki, but calling out a specific AfD with highly charged rhetoric, essentially inciting canvassing seems out of line. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    For those concerned that this might be outing, שלומית ליר is very open about their real life identity on their userpage. See (archived). If you reveal your real identity on Misplaced Pages, your tweets about Misplaced Pages on your Twitter account connected to your real-life identity are fair game to mention. There's also reverse confirmation in this tweet . Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Cdjp1

    As we seem to be ok to pull evidence from the statements of the editor in question, they have also commented more recently about running interference on Misplaced Pages (archive) in response to a question of if Misplaced Pages can be "saved". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Sean.hoyland

    It has been several days. Perhaps שלומית ליר could clarify whether their belief about the way Misplaced Pages works turned out to be a true belief or a false belief so that this report can progress. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning שלומית ליר

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Users are allowed to have a POV - it's a rare user indeed who edits a contentious topic without having some strong opinions about it. For conduct to be actionable at AE it needs to be an actual policy violation. The misleading use of images doesn't rise to the level of AE action in my view, and judging whether an addition like this is UNDUE is not within AE's purview, as long as it is supported by the source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      The PIA5 remedy hasn't passed yet, and its interpretation is as yet unclear to me: but in my view we are already empowered to deal with biased editing, in the sense of editing that violates NPOV. What I'm not willing to do is sanction on the basis of someone's opinions alone; they have to be shown to have let their opinions get in the way of following our PAGs. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      I see some evidence - based on Arcticocean's digging below - that שלומית ליר is using images without sufficient care, but I don't see that rising to the level of a sanction. As to the rest, xDanielx is correct - nowhere do our policies require treating both sides of a conflict equally - indeed our PAGs discourage false balance. Those diffs could be actionable if they individually or collectively violate policy, but I have yet to see evidence of that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      The off-wiki canvassing is a problem. It merits a warning at least, I don't know if the formality thereof matters. If there was evidence that שלומית ליר was aware of WP:CANVAS I would consider something more stringent. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • While I understand Vanamonde93's concerns, I think that we are required to assess the totality of the user's contributions. Contentious topic editors are required to uphold NPOV. Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics#Guidance for editors places an obligation to Within contentious topics,… edit carefully and constructively… and… adhere to the purposes of Misplaced Pages. The linked page provides that Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view… We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. If an editor is only adding content that significantly favours one or the other side to the conflict, this is incompatible with their contentious topic obligation. That is because an editor making only one-sided edits will simply not be taking the necessary steps to ensure that the whole article is written from a neutral point of view. As their number of one-sided edits increases, the likelihood decreases that the editor is ensuring our content is neutral and impartial. Once we reach the point of being sure that they are not attempting to ensure neutrality of content, we can conclude the editor is not meeting their contentious topics obligations and we can issue a sanction. This can only be assessed with hindsight and by looking at the editor's contributions as a whole. arcticocean ■ 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Assessing the topic area contributions of the respondent (שלומית ליר) since they became extended-confirmed at 17:33, 8 December 2024, there is cause for concern. I counted 19 edits to the area conflict. Taken together, they significantly skew the articles negatively against the opposing side of the conflict:
    Assessing the edits as a whole, it is difficult not to conclude that the respondent user is failing to meet their contentious topics obligation to edit neutrally in this topic area. As the number of edits is so far limited, if a sanction is imposed, it could justifiably be light-touch. arcticocean ■ 20:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    @XDanielx: Thanks for commenting. Most of the edits do not have a neutral, encyclopedic POV. There is an effort to influence our articles away from neutrally describing the subject without taking sides, contrary to WP:NPOV. Even if each edit in isolation is insufficient for sanctioning, taken as a whole the edits show an inability or unwillingness to edit neutrally. One non-neutral edit shouldn't be sanctioned; twenty is a different story. This is not about the percentage of biased edits but about the weight or amount of them. Therefore, the assessment wouldn't really change even had the editor made some 'neutral' edits along the way. I'm happy to concede that editors cannot be compelled to balance edits of one bias with edits of another, but I don't think that comes into it. In a nutshell, this is about Misplaced Pages:Advocacy. arcticocean ■ 08:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Luganchanka

    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 Luganchanka

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Luganchanka (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/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 19:55, 12 January 2025 Reversion to version of article where the article says "He is a child sex offender" in the second sentence despite consensus at BLPN discussion that this is problematic because Ritter never actually interacted with a real child.
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

    18:28, 12 January 2025 BLP CTOP warning given

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    At BLPN, there has been consensus that the version of the article describing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the second sentence of the article is problematic, as he did not actually have sexual contact with a child, only a police officer impersonating one. Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Scott_Ritter_Biography_-_Noncompliance_with_MOS_and_BLP_Guidelines. Luganchanka has been persistently edit warring against this apparent consensus. For which he has been warned by @NatGertler: , which he subequently blanked There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article going back to at least August Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence, but Luganchanka persistently cites a "consensus" for its inclusion that as far as I can tell does not seem to exist, with Luganchanka aggressively editing to enforce its inclusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Luganchanka's response is disingenuous and misleading. Look at the Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence discussion I linked above. Nobody other than Luganchanka thinks that Ritter should be described as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article. The dispute isn't about whether or not the convictions should be mentioned in the lead at all or not, it's specifically about the use of the phrase "child sex offender", and there is no consensus to include that as far as I can tell, despite Luganchanka's vociferous claims to the contrary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    RfC opened Talk:Scott_Ritter#RfC:_Ritter's_sexual_sex_offenses_convictions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    20:27, 12 January 2025

    Discussion concerning Luganchanka

    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 Luganchanka

    The intro on the Scott Ritter page had remained largely the same for several months, as you will see on the talkpage it is an intro approved, and reverted to, by multiple senior editors. There has been a recent flurry of activity / edits. While I WP: assume good faith, it does look like those edits are attempting to downplay / whitewash Ritter's sexual offence conviction(s). I have not been 'aggressive' at all, rather I have simply referred contentious edits to the talkpage to build consensus, attempting to do my duty as a good Misplaced Pages editor.Luganchanka (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Please see the Talk:Scott_Ritter, where there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior wikipedia editors, that Ritter's sexual offence conviction should be included in the lead to the article. My edits have simply been aimed at ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article.Luganchanka (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Thank you to @Valereee and @Red-tailed hawk for your feedback. If you see the Talk:Scott_Ritter, discussions - 14 August - Vandalism by removing all reference entirely to Ritter being a "Convicted Sex Offender" and First sentence. The latter discussion ended on 26th September, and resulted in the intro we had until a flurry of edits the other day, trying to move information on Ritter's sexual offence conviction, downplay it, whitewash it etc. My edits were aimed at restoring the edit reached by consensus, which had been in place for several months until the recent raft of edits with the clear aim of moving / downplaying Ritter's sexual offence conviction.Luganchanka (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for this (nest), I really do appreciate your feedback and advice here!!Luganchanka (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) (moved from admin-only section — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC))
    As per Rosguill's comments:

    "Unfazed by "Emily's" age, Ritter asked "Emily," "you want to see it finish?" Ritter then turned on the webcam and ejaculated in front of the camera for "Emily." Detective Venneman then notified Ritter of his undercover status and the undercover operation and directed Ritter to call the police station."

    https://casetext.com/case/ritter-v-tuttle

    Luganchanka (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by NatGertler

    Editor's edits today focused on trying to main a negative descriptor of what subject believed, despite it not being in the three sources that were listed (nor in the old version they ultimately reverted to.) Efforts were first trying to simply restate the claim, then trying to source it to an opinion piece (problem) from the Washington Examiner (also a bit of a problem, per WP:RSP), then trying to state as a fact what had merely been stated in a non-prime article as an accusation. BLP concern was pointed out repeatedly via edit summary and on Talk page. Removal of unsourced contentious BLP claims and even false claims is not "whitewashing" despite how editor wishes to depict it, it is in accord with our practices. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Luganchanka

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    @Luganchanka: whether you're correct or not, you were edit warring. I believe an indef block from the article and/or a temporary site block would be an appropriate sanction here. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've blocked the user for 48h for violating 3RR based on the report at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    • @Luganchanka, edit-warring to remove negative content at a BLP is an exemption to 3RR. I see that NatGertler mentioned this in their edit summaries and at talk. As voorts points out, it doesn't matter whether you're right when you're reverting an edit that is being claimed as an exemption, even if you believe Rosguillwhiyou are "ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article". The solution is to go to talk, discuss, and get consensus. If you'd like to respond, ping me to your response at your talk and I'll post it here. Valereee (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Luganchanka, if you really believe those two sections -- senior editors, indeed, this one was between someone with 13 edits and somcoen who wasn't ECR, for heaven's sake -- somehow prove consensus was strong, and you think that means you can ignore all the later ones -- at one of which you didn't even respond to a ping, where people were objecting -- then this is maybe looking like a WP:CIR issue.
      But even if you had been somehow editing to support a consensus you believed was settled, you cannot edit-war contentious material into a BLP when others are objecting to it. The solution, always, is to go to talk, discuss, and reconfirm consensus. There is zero urgency to have this information in the article. Including something negative in a BLP is not something you should ever edit war over. Valereee (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Luganchanka's reading of the state of consensus on the talk page as supporting their edits is so far off base that it borders on being a CIR issue if it's sincere. Indef block from Scott Ritter seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill 22:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      I see RTH's point about the "First sentence" section in isolation. I'd note that the link to WP:FORUMSHOP isn't really appropriate here, as bringing the discussion to BLP/N was an appropriate action (if it was then brought to NPOVN, NORN, etc., that would be forumshopping). I'd like to see some actual contrition around the edit warring and frivolous accusations of whitewash before writing this off as time-served. signed, Rosguill 15:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      That's fair; I'll strike the link. My point in including it was that, when conversations fragment, we sometimes get these sorts of chaotic incidents. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Understood, I think that meaning was clear for us here in the admin section, but I could easily see a new editor misinterpreting it unintentionally. signed, Rosguill 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      I am not at all comforted by the fact that Luganchanka has proceeded to make Special:Diff/1269831044. The cited BBC source does not state masturbated and ejaculated on camera, saying only graphic sex act. As written, this is essentially another BLP violation, building a case that a ban from this topic is needed. signed, Rosguill 16:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Having reviewed the other sources, reliable sources do confirm the masturbation claim (, ) but not ejaculation, which appears to be supported only by New York Post, a generally unreliable source. Luganchanka, in light of this clarification, can you please address your decision to include the claims as you initially wrote them? signed, Rosguill 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      The detail is in the record of Ritter v. Tuttle (case No. 3:15cv1235 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2018)), so it isn't completely made up. But I would also like to hear from the user on this point as to whether there was secondary sourcing here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Seeing Special:Diff/1269853673 here and Special:Diff/1269853955, Special:Diff/1269845272 at Talk:Scott Ritter, I see no comprehension of the use of primary vs. secondary sources, nor any reflection of their past errors in engaging with this topic. I believe that a block from the page is needed to prevent further BLP violations as they have shown no understanding of the relevant policies even after being given several warnings, reminders and opportunities to revise their position. signed, Rosguill 18:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Luganchanka:
      WP:BLPPRIMARY calls upon users to not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. There are some narrow exceptions (when primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source), but adding material to the article not found in reliable secondary sources is... suboptimal at best under our biographies of living persons policy.
      — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • @Luganchanka: Would you please provide a direct link to the talk page section you are referring to when you say there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior wikipedia editors regarding the lead? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Luganchanka and Hemiauchenia:
      It does seem that the discussion at Talk:Scott Ritter#First sentence does indicate some support for that language i.e. (convicted child sex offender) in the lead, with some general lean against putting it in the first sentence. So, while There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences is true if it means the literal first sentence, I do see a rough consensus to include the material in the lead section in some way in that discussion.
      That being said, the BLPN discussion had a bit of different tone and tenor from the discussion on the talk page. There was notification about a BLPN discussion on the article's talk page, but Luganchanka, despite having been pretty vocal about this subject in the past, hadn't participated in that BLPN discussion. They instead grounded their edits in the argument that the article's talk page had consensus for the current content, and nothing on the article's talk page had changed that consensus. And that much was true. In any case, we've got two different forums with two different answerstwo different forums with two different answers here, which appears to be what's leading to the whole kerfluffle.
      Then the analysis comes to whether or not the label is a straightforward BLP violation, requiring us to read the sourcing in the article. This NY Times piece, which is cited in the body of the article (but not the lead), does state that Ritter was convicted unlawful contact with minors and other charges in the state of PA (the PA statute is here; "unlawful contact with minors" is the verbatim name of the crime). When dealing with a sting operation, PA treats it as an offense of the same grade and degree as if the criminal had actually contacted a child (unless it's a lesser crime than a third-degree felony, in which case it becomes a third-degree felony). This is an extremely common practice in the United States (there are lots of philosophical questions regarding mens rea and actus reus here, but that's not really relevant here). In any case, labeling this to be a child sex offense (or, alternatively, to simply use the name of the crime in the article) does not appear to be straightforward malice/POV-pushing/libel, and a reasonably informed individual might shorten it in this way. Whether or not that is wise or optimal to shorten it is the proper subject for content discussion.
      Aside from the edit warring (which was not acceptable, and was aptly handled by a block), this looks like a content dispute. A heated one involving a living person, sure, but a content dispute nonetheless. I see good-faith—albeit passionate—disagreement. If the editors were to come together and engage in one forum (such as the article's talk page, where this has been discussed a bunch), rather than splitting the discussion over multiple pages, I feel like we might have our best shot at attaining a consensus going forward.
      In short, it looks like the conversation fragmented, and consensus-building broke down. Edit warring ensued, which was bad, but we've already blocked for that in order to dissuade it going forward. A Request for Comment on the article's talk page for what the lead should look like is probably the best way to go forward here.
      — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      RTH, are you objecting to a p-block from the article? Valereee (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Luganchanka has been blocked for a week by User:ScottishFinnishRadish for BLP violations and personal attacks. Liz 18:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      Just noting that this was a regular admin action and I wasn't aware this was before AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      With this in mind, I think we should wait to hear from RTH but otherwise expect to move forward to an indef p-block on top of SFR's stopgap action, as we haven't seen anything coming close to an adequate recognition of the relevant policies and practices from Luganchanka and after several second chances and nudges, I don't see reason to expect them to change course. signed, Rosguill 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    BabbleOnto

    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 BabbleOnto

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    BabbleOnto (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/COVID-19#Contentious_topic_designation
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 11 January 2025 Sealioning
    2. 11 January 2025 Refusal to get the message
    3. 11 January 2025 Personalizing an argument.
    4. 11 January 2025 Railroading the discussion.

    This is all after I warned them about WP:AE sanctions, and they dismissed my warning out of hand. Very nearly a WP:SPA on the subject. I see no reason to continue tolerating this kind of obstinate tendetiousness. Additional diffs available on request from admins, but looking at the user history should suffice to indicate the problem is obvious, I hope.

    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 9 Dec 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    This is a WP:SPA with respect to the topic and their disruption surrounding it has been subject to at least one WP:FTN thread that remains active: Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Gain_of_function_research. The hope was that they would WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on from this, but it seems they either will not or cannot. jps (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    diff

    Discussion concerning BabbleOnto

    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 BabbleOnto

    I would first like to begin by point out the person filing this complaint is involved in the content disputes at issue. They have frequently left "warnings" which read more like threats on my talk page and others' talk pages for people who disagree with them. Nor would I be the first person who would they would get banned from this topic for disagreeing with them.

    To be honest I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm being charged with doing.

    I think in general the user is alleging I've been uncivil, unhelpful, and, in their words, obstinate and tendentious. I know when someone disagrees with you it may feel like they're getting in your way and acting in bad-faith, but that's not always true. I've never tried to be disruptive or uncivil. I've admitted when I was wrong, I've dropped arguments that were clarified to be wrong, I've tried to find compromise, at times begging people to provide their sources and work together. And when those editors refused to, I didn't provoke any further.

    I now address the specific edits in the complaint:

    1. I don't see how this is sea-lioning. The user misquoted the article. I pointed out the misquotation, then addressed a accusation against me that I was second-guessing the sources (A claim which was never substantiated). I then said any source would have to support that actual claim which was in the article. I don't know what this violates.

    2. I don't see how this is refusing to get the message (IDHT). The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it. I replied with what I actually said. What part of that interaction is saying "I didn't hear that?"

    3. Admittedly probably the strongest of the four allegations. I'm not pretending I was perfect in all of my comments. I should have kept my criticism strictly to their argument. I ask you to read it in context and keep in mind you're viewing a hand-picked assortment of my worst edits, and this is the worst they could find. Also consider that conversation accused me of having a basic reading comprehension problem, perhaps you can see I lose my cool sometimes too.

    4. I'm not even really sure what "railroading the discussion" means. Thus, to keep this section short and to save words, I don't know what I'm being accused of doing wrong here.

    All of this has stemmed out of arguments over two sources. I have tried to find compromise, I have tried to negotiate, I have tried to build consensus. I've been going through the proper channels, I've been participating in the RfC, I've been discussing it on the ANI, I source every claim I make, for a month now I've been trying to constructively explain my side and defend my argument against challenges. It's incredibly frustrating to now be facing an Arbitration Enforcement on grounds that I'm not working with others. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

    I've interacted with BabbleOnto in several threads. There's a few problems, but ultimately, I think they have a certain opinion on what the article should say, and will debate endlessly to get the article changed to their position. I mean, sure, reasonable people disagree on how to interpret sources and apply policy, but I don't think BabbleOnto is actually interested in faithful application of policies to write high quality articles based on good sources.

    That's not terribly problematic by itself, but most discussions with BabbleOnto are exhausting. Rather than actually trying to understand someone's argument in good faith, I think BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible, and making a superficially reasonable response ad nauseam. They reply endlessly in this manner. As well as misrepresentation of opponents' arguments, on multiple occassions BabbleOnto has either misrepresented sources or hasn't read their own sources. I can't think of a single thread where BabbleOnto didn't have the last word, or a single thread where it seemed like BabbleOnto was actually trying to understand the arguments of other editors in a charitable way. As such, I think it's very difficult to work collaborately with BabbleOnto on the lab leak theory and related articles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Newimpartial

    As the editor to whom BabbleOnto was responding in the diffs of the filing, I feel compelled to comment now that they have defended (to varying degrees) their first three diffs. I will reply as briefly as I know how to their defense of the diffs, as revised.

    1. BabbleOnto is now doubling down on the claim that I misquoted the article. I didn't "misquote" the article - I didn't quote the article, and I explained what my comment meant in the rest of the (now collapsed) thread that ends here. Also, I provided a clear explanation of why I thought they were second-guessing sources later in the thread, but BabbleOnto never responded to that explanation. They are now responding to the accusation of WP:CPUSH with pure WP:IDONTHEARTHAT.

    2. On this they say, now, that The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it. This is repeating a misreading they made in the original thread, where they mistook a statement I made about another editor's comment as if it were about theirs. In this "defense", I see no attempt to read thoughtfully what other editors say in reply to them and revise their understanding accordingly; all I see is zero-sum mentality and WP:IDHT.

    3. BabbleOnto is now justifying an edit where they said to me, You have a habit of inserting small lies into everything you say and You're not adding anything constructive. You're just refusing to explain anything and saying conclusory statements, or lying about what you said - all this based on a misreading of what I had actually written - because I was going to refer to a basic failure in reading comprehension two hours later. This seems like a time travel paradox.

    4. They don't bother defending themselves on this one, but just to point out the actual issue with the diff, they doubled down on their accusations that I said a material lie, and that I lied when said that quoted the article out of context. Pointing out being caught lying and then proceeded to STRAWMAN the rest of my comment to which they were replying. If they had read my prior comment with a reasonable level of attention, they would have understood that there were no "lies", just a misunderstanding or two in each direction. But WP:IDHT again; even in responding to this filing BabbleOnto is still insisting I did things that I quite obviously didn't do.

    It is exhausting to deal with this kind of quasi-CPUSH (not quite civil, but certainly push) behaviour. The Talk page in question has seen a recent influx of single-purpose or nearly single-purpose POV accounts, and in terms of editor energy, this one certainly seems not to be a net positive for Misplaced Pages as a project. Perhaps if they edited away from Covid and US politics, their track record might improve. Newimpartial (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Objective3000

    Just a quick aside to Valereee's aside: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn.... Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory currently has posts from 19 editors lacking the edits for extended confirmed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Valereee, this is also a problem at other CTOPs, and is likely to become more problematic. I assume due to off-Wiki forums. ECR might just produce more users gaming EC. I thought it would be useful to put your aside into the CTOP template at the top of CTOP TPs. But that assumes folks read it. Walt Kelly said something along the lines of: “If only I could write, I’d write a letter to the mayor, if only he could read." This discussion is likely better off elsewhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Note: IntrepidContributor was just TBanned from the topic of COVID-19 and indef blocked until the accusations of off-wiki coordination made by them at ANI are retracted. Those accusations are like their suggestion made in their statement in this filing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by JoelleJay

    At the very least, can we get more admin involvement on the lab leak page so trolling like this doesn't disrupt things even more? JoelleJay (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by IntrepidContributor

    I have been observing BabbleOnto and while there are valid concerns about bludgeoning, I think the proposed sanctions are too much. His engagement in the Covid lab leak topic is driven by commitment to WP:NPOV, which our articles fail to adhere to, and he made the mistake of arguing with editors who were never going to listen (resulting in what looks like sealioning on his part). He's not only editor to raise issues in the topic and engage in good faith discussion, only to find themselves pulled to AN or AE disputes after staying out of the seasoning traps and refusing to capitulate to threats. In a parallel AN case concerning another editor in same topic, I suggest there may be possible off-wiki coordination , but it can also be on-wiki ().

    One need only cross-reference names from Feb 2021 RfC, checking those that voted for labeling COVID-19 lab leak as conspiracy, with the names of complainants here. Contrast all these old timers with the steady stream of tens if not hundreds of regular editors complaining that our article fails NPOV, and see that their gentle approach doesn't work . Our chief complainant is already preparing his next case , and this might not be his first.

    I suggest that administrators consider a 1 to 2 month topic ban for BabbleOnto to provide opportunity for him to correct his approach, while staying alert to the tactics of POV editors trying to draw them into content debates to influence outcomes.

    IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by TarnishedPath

    Please see this edit where BabbleOnto edited Gain of function research restoring previously reverted content and WP:POVPUSH using a shit source after they'd been told by multiple other editors in discussions here and here that the source was shit. Notably in the edit summary they wrote "Read discussion page. Manual revert. No serious challenge has been made to these changes. Methinks an admin needs to get involved..." despite them being in a WP:1AM situation. If a clue is not gotten by the editor fast I'd suggest TBANs from both COVID and AP2 is warranted in order to cease their disruption. TarnishedPath 04:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    Noting the editor's continued behaviour at Talk:Gain-of-function research. Refer to Special:Diff/1270316266. TarnishedPath 01:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    and again at Special:Diff/1270346091 TarnishedPath 03:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by berchanhimez

    This user was given no less than 4 chances on the talk page to stop talking about bans/other editors and start talking about the content. They have continued crying about how they're scared of getting banned... yet they continue blabbing about other editors getting banned for their bad behavior rather than refocusing on the content as requested. At a minimum a partial block from the talk page(s) in question is warranted, and it would be beneficial for a topic ban from the origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Result concerning BabbleOnto

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • BabbleOnto, please edit your statement down further to fit within the restriction. This also serves as an opportunity to rephrase your defense, which currently is not convincing at first glance. ProcrastinatingReader's description of the situation seems quite apt, particularly BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible, which is currently a pretty fitting description of your response to them here, given that you zeroed in on the "superficially reasonable" part and ignored the much more serious parts of the testimony. signed, Rosguill 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Ok, having read through nearly every edit that BabbleOnto has made, I agree with the complainants that not only does BabbleOnto engage in sealioning, it appears to be almost exclusively what they do. The discussion at Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman)/Archive 2 exhibits perhaps even more concerning argumentation than the diffs provided in the initial report. Throughout these discussions, BabbleOnto tends to demand a standard of stating the obvious (with respect to the context of said sources) that is absurd, and continues to lawyer for such standards even when the situation becomes WP:1AM. When criticizing sources' ability to account for basic claims, I can find no examples of BabbleOnto themselves attempting to find sources that would resolve the issues they identify--this is uncollaborative behavior. There is a clear pattern of engaging in this behavior across recent US politics topics consistent with the scope of Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/American politics. The only saving grace to BabbleOnto's track record is that none of this has translated into disruptive editing of actual articles, just unproductive engagement on talk pages. I am currently in favor of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics; if they are actually here to build an encyclopedia and not to provide a punching bag for debate club, they can use this opportunity to learn more constructive patterns of editing in topics that they are less personally invested in. signed, Rosguill 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      Valereee in line with their follow-up response, I take Objective3000's comments as potentially a basis for community discussion rather than a call for protective action on the lab leak talk page right now. signed, Rosguill 21:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I have to agree, this looks like sealioning. BabbleOnto, you're new here, and I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt about your ability to learn to collaborate. WP works on collaboration and consensus, and sometimes consensus goes your way, sometimes it doesn't. You have to be willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you. And you absolutely must not insist everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers. I've seen editors at both the Thompson and the lab leak talks tell you they don't actually owe you an answer to your satisfaction.
    Do you think you can learn to do that? Because if you don't think you can, this may not be the right hobby for you.
    As an aside, I'm going to recommend what I always recommend to new editors who end up here: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn. Go edit in noncontentious topics, where other editors are a lot less exhausted and have the energy to be more patient with new editors. Valereee (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Objective3000, hm, yes, and Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory also has 37 archives, and even with archiving at 21 days, 20 sections. Do you think an ECR is something that talk page needs? That's not part of the authorized restrictions an individual admin can place...hm, and I'm not sure of the policy w/re most efficiently getting that done and wasting the fewest people's time. @Rosguill? Valereee (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would object to ECPing the talk page. COVID-19 isn't subject to ARBECR generally, though this specific article is protected. The purpose of protecting the page (in this case) is to push newer users to the talk page, where they can discuss changes they want made (such as by edit requests) and contribute towards consensus-building while not edit warring. Protecting talk pages is truly, truly a last resort. Ordinary good faith people would be entirely shut out and silenced—we'd not even get edit requests—and I frankly don't see anything near the level of disruption/LTA abuse that would justify jumping straight to WP:ECP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Red-tailed hawk, not ECP. ECR: non-EC are restricted from anything but making edit requests. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I see. In any case, ECR is the sort of remedy that should be reserved for more or less when all else fails—it’s still super restrictive. If new users/inexperienced users are trying to contribute towards consensus-building on the talk page (or even if they’re doing ordinary confused new editor things), and aren’t edit warring, I don’t think we’d actually be preventing disruptive edits by enforcing ECR.
    Suppose someone in good-faith sees “anyone can edit”, and they want to edit something topical. But then they see that the page that they want to edit is protected. They read the explanation that appears after clicking the “view source” tab. They then read that they can discuss this page with others, click on the first blue link, and then make a section using the “add topic” button in order to start a discussion.
    “OK”, the newbie thinks, “maybe I will find someone else who agrees with me, or I’ll at least get some answer as to why the article is this way”. They leave their computer and come back in an hour. They then discover that their question has been removed by some random editor with edit summary “WP:ARBECR violation, user not WP:XC; malformed edit request” and find a contentious topics notice on their own user talk page, all because they don’t make a properly formatted edit request (i.e. “please change X to Y”). Or maybe they wont navigate the talk page history and they’ll angrily post that their earlier comment was deleted. Or maybe they just won’t come back. To top it off, nothing at any point in this process was obvious to them that such a requirement existed—there is no edit notice that says so, and so they couldn’t know.
    WP:ECR is WP:BITEy. It dissuades new voices from joining conversations, and it makes it somewhat hostile to true newbies. In particular, it dissuades people who, for example:
    1. Are Not hardcore/insane enough to deal with intense wiki-bureaucracy;
    2. Are unable to cope with handling unfamiliar wikitext markup when making edit requests for anything that is not a trivial word change, or who have abstract changes in mind more than concrete ones;
    3. Do not want to spend an hour of their time to figure out how to say the magic words to summon another editor to fix a typo.
    The chief way that ECR works is by making LTAs/sockmasters have to put on a lot of effort or make a lot of edits. This raises the (time) cost of socking, and it has the benefit of possibly exposing tells along the way. But that also means that we’re imposing the same thing on good-faith newbies.
    When deciding whether or not to impose ECR, we have to balance that it is extremely BITEy to good-faith newbies against its ability to prevent disruption. There are times where we are basically left to throw our hands up because of LTA/sockmaster abuse, and conclude that the tradeoff is worth it; the ArbCom has done this for certain contentious topics. But, the ArbCom had the wisdom to not enable ECR as a page sanction across all contentious topic areas—there is a very real tradeoff that needs to be really carefully considered. And I don’t the tradeoff leans towards embracing ECR here. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm don't think we need to have this discussion here and now, but I don't disagree it's bitey and needs to be used only where necessary. I was just asking the question of someone who is working at that article: is this an article talk where it's necessary? Valereee (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    Marlarkey

    Marlarkey p-blocked from Declaration of war and formally warned to be more mindful of policies, guidelines and best practices when editing CTOPs, particularly PIA signed, Rosguill 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Marlarkey

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Marlarkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


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

    1. 19 August 2024 - Mainspace PIA edit prior to EC status.
    2. 19 August 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request and acknowledgement of aforementioned edit.
    3. 19 August 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request.
    4. 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Accused another editor of vandalism.
    5. 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Says, "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration."
    6. 21 November 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary.
    7. 21 November 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary.

    1. 13 January 2025 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
    2. 13 January 2025 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request.
    3. 13 January 2025 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request..."Someone has reverted my removal of Israel - Hamas *AGAIN* so I've taken it out *AGAIN*."
    4. 13 January 2025 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
    5. 13 January 2025 - Self-revert of direct previous mainspace reversion that was prior to EC status.
    6. 13 January 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status...Made while this enforcement request was being typed up. This reversion by Marlarkey is of an edit with the direct edit summary of "Per WP:ARBPIA". User is 100% disregarding CT requirements.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    N/A. No previous blocks or topic bans.
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    at 15:29, 21 November 2024.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    User has been on Misplaced Pages (on and off) since at least January 2010. It seems there is a WP:CIR-related issue on ArbCom PIA/Contentious topics, given the very clear lack of ignorance of the ArbCom Notification and subsequent edit summary arguments. I do not necessarily believe a block will be of use in this case, due to this editor's on-and-off Misplaced Pages editing status (less than 500 edits since January 2010). Either a topic ban and/or a 1,000 EC status requirement (i.e. EC-status requirement is something higher than 500 edits) is being requested. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    • @Marlarkey: I want to keep assuming good faith, so I wanted to let you know that WP:ARBPIA is what we call "broadly constructed". If you read WP:PIA, it says, "These are the current arbitration remedies applicable to any pages and edits that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." The edit you are attempting to me is related to the Arab-Israel conflict. The page itself does not have to be entirely about the war to be covered under the restrictions. Any edit that is at least, even slightly related to the conflict is covered under the restrictions. While the page is about declarations of war throughout history, the specific edit is related to whether the Israel-Hamas war was a declaration of war. That is obviously related to the conflict, given it specifically is in regard to the Israel-Hamas war. That is why the edits were reverted and why this violation report was filed. Hopefully that makes sense. Also, just a quick side-note, accusing other editors of vandalism is assuming bad faith and is not really how Misplaced Pages operates. You should always be assuming the other editors intents with good faith. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • @Marlarkey: We are all working together to create a better encyclopedia. No one is against you and we do wish for all to edit Misplaced Pages. The ArbCom restrictions require that you have (1) at least an account of 30 days old and (2) at least 500 edits, to be able to edit content anywhere on Misplaced Pages regarding the Israel-Hamas war. At the time of all the edits linked above, you did not have 500 edits on Misplaced Pages. You were roughly at 490. At the time of this, you now have over 500 edits, which means you could now edit content regarding the Israel-Hamas war. That said, this report was made because of the several edits you made prior to reaching the 500 edit requirement.
    Please understand this is for the edits that you made which were in clear violation of the policy, which requires you to have 500 edits prior to editing anything even remotely related to the conflict. This report was not that you are incorrect with your removal of the content. Not at all. This report is because you removed the content before you were allowed to (i.e. the 500-edit mark). Please understand we all are on the same-side here and no one is vandalizing anything. Once this is resolved, I would be more than happy to calmly discuss the content changes with you. I hope you can understand that this report is specifically because you made the changes before you were allowed to and not at all regarding the content in those changes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    • @Rosguill: After my last reply, I realized I went 105 words over the 500-word limit. I would like to request that 105-word extension (so I do not have to reword or remove the last reply I made). I do not plan to reply again as I think everything I needed to say and link to has been said and linked to. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Marlarkey

    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 Marlarkey

    WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly reverting edits which are removing information outside the scope of the page in question. My edits are validly citated within the scope of the page. WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has cited WP:ARBPIA but that is not relevant to THIS article which is not a Palestine-Israel article. This article is not a contentious topic - it is factual.

    My edits are WP:NPOV. This article is about declarations of war - the opening statement states "A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state announces existing or impending war activity against another." 1. Hamas is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hamas should not be included in the article 2. Hezbollah is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hezbollah should not be included in the article 3. Russia vs Ukraine are both nation states - the question then is whether there has been a declaration of war.

    In the case 1 & 2, the removal of these two entries is WP:NPOV and the inclusion or otherwise in this article is in no way a comment on the conflict in question - only whether they constitute a declaration of war by one nation state on another. Which they do not because they are nation states.

    In the case of 3, the inclusion of Russia vs Ukraine only relies on whether there has been a declaration of war. The citation I gave is documented evidence of Russia announcing that a state of war exists between Russia and Ukraine.

    I suggest that by taking the action they have that the complainant is the one acting in a that asserts a political opinion about the conflict


    The reference by Weatherwriter to 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Is only a partial quote - what I actually said was "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration. I care about whether it is in the scope of this page." The key is the final point - the scope of this article and whether the edits are validly cited in accordance with the topic of the article...namely a list of declarations of war.

    Weatherwriter reversions of my edits serve to support a political opinion on a page which is about facts.

    I'm pretty angry about being accused in this way when MY edits were factually based and neutral point of view, whereas by reverting my edits it does precisely the opposite, allowing contentious and politically biased information to infect the page. GRRRRRRrrr

    Marlarkey (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


    On another point, following me reviewing the information in this complaint by WeatherWriter... "If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)" The complainant cites a link to information which I have JUST accessed and have never seen before just now. I was NOT aware of this information so it is false to suggest that this constitutes evidence that I was aware.

    Again this makes me angry at the accusations being made against me. If you don't want people editing and contributing to wikipedia then please just say so. GRRR Marlarkey (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    • I give up... I'm being accused and being told off for responding to the accusation. I don't know anything about this procedure, have never seen this page before and know nothing about how this works because its new to me.
      But I get it - I'm not part of the club that decides things... so I'll let you get on with that. Marlarkey (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    (Moved from WeatherWriter's section I get it - you'd rather call me out by this procedure than have an accurate encyclopaedia article. You've made accusations against me and put me through this over restrictions that I knew nothing about and policies I knew nothing about. I simply came across something inaccurate and followed what I understood to be WP principles and made an objectively accurate edit.
    So now the end result is that an inaccurate article containing a politically biased assertion is going to stay live. Marlarkey (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Result concerning Marlarkey

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

    Marlarkey, you have gone a bit over your 500 word allotment for responses. Please do not comment further unless directly asked to. I will remove an additional reply that was both over your limit and in the wrong section. signed, Rosguill 00:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Weather Event Writer, extension granted as that's essentially what Marlarkey has already taken. signed, Rosguill 01:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


    Ok, having now reviewed Declaration of war's page history, its talk page discussion, and Marlarkey's contributions more generally, I find that:

    • Marlarkey has repeatedly violated WP:PIA at Declaration of war since having received a CTOP notice
    • Irrespective of whether it is correct or not to include the Israel-Hamas war, Israel-Hezbollah war, or wars between states and non-state entities more broadly, WeatherWriter's edits to the page are plainly not vandalism, which has a specific (and serious) meaning on Misplaced Pages
    • It appears to be a long-term status quo to include non-state entities provided that there is a citation to some sort of formal declaration of war, and the page's inclusion of conflicts involving non-states Ambazonia and SADR do not appear to have been challenged at any point.
    • Marlarkey is incorrect to assert that their edit is objectively accurate. Whether the edit is accurate is subject to community consensus, and the talk page arguments in favor of inclusion base themselves on RS reporting which is a valid, policy-compliant argument. Marlarkey's arguments that a declaration of war can only occur be between two states do not make any reference to a reliable source stating this; while that text is currently in the lead of the article, it does not have a citation nor is it clear that any citation in the article directly backs this.
    • In light of discussion at Talk:Declaration of war, which at this point shows multiple editors in favor of keeping the Hamas and Hezbollah wars, only Marlarkey firmly for removing them, and one other editor calling for discussion as of December 31st, Marlarkey's edits to unilaterally remove the entries in January amount to slow-motion edit warring
    • Given that Marlarkey has had an account for well over a decade, has edited a wide variety of topics, hit 500 edits while this was happening, does not appear to have otherwise shown interest in Israel/Palestine topics, and that the edits at Declaration of war don't fit into any clear POV-warrior pattern, I don't think that pulling extended-confirmed or issuing a PIA topic ban would help.

    I'm thus inclined to suggest an indefinite partial block from Declaration of war (but not its talk page) as a regular admin action for edit warring, and a logged warning to be mindful of CTOP standards. signed, Rosguill 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC

    • As Marlarkey stated that they were unaware of CT, I wanted to confirm that I double checked and found that the CT notice was properly left in November. If Marlarkey chose not to read it, well, that's rather on him—we can only leave messages, we can't force people to read them. I would otherwise agree with Rosguill's assessment. Seraphimblade 12:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I entirely endorse Rosguill's reading of this. I am not happy about Marlarkey's approach to our restrictions, but I don't see this as EC gaming, and I can't see how pulling EC rights could be justified at this stage. As such I endorse the proposed page block and logged warning. Marlarkey, you seem to believe that because you are right on the substance you can ignore process and guidelines - that simply isn't true. The arbitration committee has consistently held that being right isn't enough; you need to be able to edit within the scope of our policies. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Pretty much everything Rosquill said. Marlarkey, it doesn't look like you have a huge amount of experience working in WP:CTOPs. I'm sorry you're finding this upsetting, but CTOPs are a whole 'nother world, and you're either going to have to learn how to nonproblematically work there, or not work there. Valereee (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      FWIW, the CTOP warning was left on your talk page. You've got your archiving set so aggressively that you may be missing a lot of messages, and it's completely plausible that you missed this one, which was only on your talk for two days, and after it was left you didn't edit for a month. However, we do assume that if you've got your archiving set that aggressively, you're keeping on top of anything important by checking your notifications to make sure you didn't miss anything.
      You can probably prevent this happening in future by having your talk page archive no more frequently than you typically go between editing sessions, leaving maybe the five most recent messages unarchived, and/or being sure to check your notifications when logging back in. Any one of those three and you've have likely seen the notification. Valereee (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    DanielVizago

    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 DanielVizago

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Schazjmd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    DanielVizago (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/Gender_and_sexuality#Final_decision
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 29 Dec 2024 Added Category:Misandry to a BLP, after CTOP notification and several talk page messages notifying DanielVizago that the category is not to be applied to articles about individuals (per category description, This category is for issues relating to misandry. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly misandrist.);
    2. 4 Jan 2025 and 5 Jan 2025 Removing sourced content from Misogyny that states misandry is not a major an issue as misogyny;
    3. 5 Jan 2025 Changing content in Male privilege to emphasize misandry (reverted by another editor with edit summary rv, poorly sourced (sources supplemented by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH), earlier version was better, closer to sources);
    4. 13 Jan 2025 Added "bimisandry" to Biphobia, citing 4 sources, none of which include that term;
    5. 14 Jan 2025, weird edits adding Category:Female rapists with piped names to unrelated articles, then added those names directly to the category page;
    6. 14 Jan 2025 restored the "bimisandry" edit to Biphobia, then added a 5th ref that includes the term but is just a blog; I left a 4th-level warning on talk page;
    7. 14 Jan 2025 (after final warning) adds ] and ] to Hurtcore; those two individuals don't have articles and there is no mention in this article of their charges or convictions, even though the category solely consists of articles of female individuals who have been convicted of rape in a court of law.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    • None
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Above diffs are all edits after the CTOP notification was provided. Before then, DanielVizago misapplied Category:Misandry to 46 articles, which is what caught my attention. Their attempts to add "bimisandry" to Biphobia started 16 Dec 2024. On 28 Dec 2024, DanielVizago added a lot of content to Supremacism about misandry, which another editor reverted with edit summary remove recently added pro-fringe section and put back the excerpt. Most of their 122 edits have been reverted by multiple editors.

    Before the level 4 warning, I tried guiding DanielVizago away from CTOP; they don't engage on their talk page. (They've posted there once, to say "thanks" in response to a warning.) With their refusal to communicate, poor sourcing, and non-NPOV edits, I don't think they should be editing in this topic area. Schazjmd (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning DanielVizago

    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 DanielVizago

    Statement by caeciliusinhorto

    Since this report was opened, DanielVizago has continued to make questionable edits adding articles to Category:Female rapists.

    • Possibly the worst edit, categorising a living person who has been accused (but not charged, let alone convicted) of sexual assault as a rapist (cf. WP:BLPCRIMINAL)
    • This edit adds the category to a disambiguation page on the basis of one of the people listed on that page, who had in fact been convicted not of rape but of sexual activity with a minor
    • this and this edit categorise two sexually-motivated murderers as rapists despite no evidence that they ever raped anyone in the article (cf. WP:CATV)

    Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by Simonm223

    Might be wise, as long as doing so wouldn't interfere with evidence, to get a revision deletion on some of the diffs presented above that make unfounded statements about BLPs. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning DanielVizago

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I've p-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor communicating. Valereee (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I want to hear what they have to say, but I'm going to need a fairly convincing explanation as to how they're here to build an encyclopedia and not to POV-push men's rights activism content where it doesn't belong. The IDHT and spammy behavior and the BLP vios on top of that aren't super encouraging, either, but if they decide to communicate, I'm happy to reassess. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions Add topic