| Revision as of 17:46, 25 January 2015 editIgnocrates (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,170 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:24, 19 January 2025 edit undoLiz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators769,696 edits →Prince Alexander of Georgia: Unused header | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude> |
<noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}} | ||
| __NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!-- | |||
| <includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly> | |||
| --><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly> | |||
| <noinclude>{{editabuselinks|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!-- | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| -->{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}} | |||
| |archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |counter =347 | |||
| |archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
| |counter = 161 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |minthreadsleft = 0 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|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}} | |||
| }} | |||
| ==Lemabeta== | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| {{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=== | |||
| ==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ashtul== | |||
| ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|EF5}} 20:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|Appeal declined. ] | ] 00:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| <small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found ]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. <p>To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see ]).''</small> | |||
| ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Lemabeta}}<p>{{ds/log|Lemabeta}}</p> | |||
| ; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Ashtul}} | |||
| <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
| ; Sanction being appealed : "To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating ] as documented in the related AE request, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week." | |||
| ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
| ; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Sandstein}} | |||
| <!--- 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 : | |||
| ; Notification of that administrator : | |||
| <!-- 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.--> | |||
| ===Statement by Ashtul=== | |||
| # - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing. | |||
| ==== First statement ==== | |||
| # - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist. | |||
| Sandstein, my reverts on Carmel were a misunderstanding of the fact it was subject to WP:ARBPIA 1RR restriction as well. It wasn't even part of the first appeal b/c it happened after. I am not that stupid to do a violation again after being reported. | |||
| While I understand that 1RR rule , I don't see anywhere how long it should be. For an honest mistake, I think 7 days is too severe. | |||
| Thanks, ] (]) 10:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
| ====Second Statement==== | |||
| <!-- 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=== | |||
| I just stumbled upon so I thought I will give a 2nd appeal a chance. | |||
| <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
| ====Statement by Lemabeta==== | |||
| Seems like ] who claimed ''@Sandstein:: The general 1RR restriction for Palestine-Israel articles was imposed by the Arbitration Committee, not by a single administrator. Zerotalk 23:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)'' hold a different standard for ], () a different standard . ''The fact of this case is that N is a good editor who broke 1RR. He should get a short block like anyone should expect when they break 1RR. The rest is hot air.'' | |||
| 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) | |||
| A block doesn't appear on Nishidani's block log so I guess the 1RR blocking rule didn't apply to him. | |||
| :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. | |||
| In addition, as ] noted on my appeal, ] wasn't blocked. | |||
| :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)==== | |||
| Last, my revert is 200% justified which wasn't taken into account either. On ] article, Hammerman's quote isn't about Carmel at all but rather about Umm al-Kheir. Nicholas Kristof's quote is partially about Carmel but then move to Umm al-Kheir thus ] or at least ]. The quotes are ] and not even connected to the article itself. Just standing there to say Israel/settlers are horrible. Now, to make things worse, a picture of Umm al-Kheir is present (added by one of Nishidani advocates) since -"In the background: Carmel." | |||
| <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
| Regards, | |||
| ] (]) 19:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by PhilKnight=== | |||
| I've copied the unblock request to this board. Anyway, I think the edits in question were under ], so a block could be applied. A 7-day block for a first block is fairly long, but within admin discretion. ] (]) 21:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : I consider his second statement to demonstrate a battle ground mentality, so in this context, I think a 7-day block is entirely reasonable. ] (]) 20:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Sandstein=== | |||
| I've commented in the related enforcement request section below that I think that the topic-wide 1R restriction isn't well thought through as written, but it does seem to have been adopted by ArbCom, so it is to be enforced. | |||
| It does not appear to be contested here that the edits at issue violated the 1R restriction. Considering that the wording of the restriction reads "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense", it appears to be the intent of the author(s) that no particular consideration should be given to the possibility of a violation resulting from a mistake or misunderstanding. This may be because the intent of the reverter does not affect the disruptive effect of edit wars, which the sanction appears to be intended to suppress. In any case, a mistake or misunderstanding appears improbable here: the edits at issue occurred while a request for arbitration enforcement was pending against the same editor for the same reason, which would have given them ample opportunity to familiarize themselves with the sanction. | |||
| As to the block duration, I believe that given the persistently contentious nature of the topic area, a duration of seven days is appropriately long to encourage Ashtul and perhaps others to be significantly more cautious in their editing in the future. In any case, blocks should generally last as long as they are needed to prevent problematic conduct, and I'm still not confident that Ashtul really understands the scope of the restriction and what sort of (particularly restrained) conduct is expected from editors in this topic area, based on their prior statements. The appeal should therefore be declined. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by involved Nomoskedasticity=== | |||
| ''While'' the AE discussion was taking place, Ashtul reverted '''again''' -- not another 1RR violation, but an amazing action for someone who was at that time being discussed for an obvious earlier 1RR violation on the same article (and the gives the other previous reverts, if anyone is wondering whether the most recent one is actually similar). accuses me (falsely) of being involved in BDS and shows a more general tendency to cast other editors as enemies -- something this topic area really doesn't need. ] (]) 22:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Cptnono}} what?? ] (]) 07:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by involved Cptnono=== | |||
| You increased your length of blocks for first time offenses, Sandstein. I'm also concerned that the editor was just about to "get it" and a 24-48hr would have sufficed. In regards blocking without warning, my understanding from reading the case was that it was intended to stop socks/meats/infrequent editors, not editors who are continuously editing in good faith. Why else would such a harsh restriction be implemented. It seems like an oversight to enforce a standard when it was meant for something else. | |||
| That being said, there have been questions of socks in the area and there is a new editor poking around. I guess just take this as constructive criticism, Sandstein. | |||
| :Then you deserve more criticism than Sandstien, Zero. Are discretionary sanctions meant to both protect and better the project or are they supposed to be punitive? Of course Misplaced Pages is losing editors when 1 week seems like nothing.] (]) 06:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :You bring an article in the topic area to GA and then we can talk about what the project "needs", Nomoskedasticity. I didn't do it with Nish, Ashtul, and certainly not you.] (]) 07:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :What do you mean "what"? ''"something this topic area really doesn't need."'' Maybe the topic area doesn't need you. Maybe it doesn't need me. It is not up to you decide. You would be surprised that new editors might start off kind of shitty then go on to do good things. It doesn't happen by treating them like scum. So how about you take a break from the topic area while Ashtul is taking a site wide break because I don't think the project or the highly volatile topic area needs you.] (]) 07:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by involved Zero000=== | |||
| Since Ashtul has done hardly anything except edit-war, I think a 7-day block is light. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by (involved editor 2)=== | |||
| ===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ashtul === | |||
| * If the sanction is solely for 1RR (and the edits/behavior were otherwise reasonable) then 1 week for the first offense seems excessive. I would suggest reduction to 24/48h (which will probably end up being time served by the time this appeal resolves). ] (]) 22:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * I'm not too familiar (that is, not at all familiar) with AE, but I tend to agree with ]. Cheers, --] (]) <span style="font-size: 50%;">]</span> 00:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Result |
===Result concerning Lemabeta=== | ||
| :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | ||
| <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
| <!-- Please notify the appellant in the event of a successful appeal, in addition to logging it on the case page. ] informs users that "If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful."--> | |||
| *<!-- | |||
| <!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
| --> | |||
| * 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) | |||
| *'''Decline appeal.''' The block was valid so there is no reason to grant an appeal based on that. Given that they've previously edited articles which are under 1RR, including at least ] with the edit notice, I don't accept that they were not aware that 1RR was in force as a reason to lessen the block duration as as the duration in this case fits within normal administrator discretion. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:22, 21 January 2015 (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) | |||
| ::Just noting for those reviewing that I've added the standard 1RR editnotice template to ] (]) and ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *{{tq| Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed"}} @]: what did you think "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage" meant? I think it's pretty obvious that that an article on an ethnic group from the Caucasus and about an ethnologist who writes about that region is covered by your topic ban. ] (]/]) 20:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd also note that {{u|Cathar66}} wasn't blocked for violating 1RR on the same article if we wish to take that into account. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:27, 21 January 2015 (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) | |||
| *"My revert was 200% justified" ]. I am also minded to decline the appeal. ] | ] 21:02, 21 January 2015 (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". ] (]/]) 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 ... 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">[]]</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? ] | ] 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| ::{{u|EF5}}, OK, I see. Blocks and bans are ], and the block log only logs blocks. ] | ] 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}} | {{hab}} | ||
| == |
==Boy shekhar== | ||
| {{hat | |||
| {{hat|1=Topic-banned for six months. ] ] 12:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| | result = Blocked by Rosguill as a regular administrative action. ] (]) 23:57, 12 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> | |||
| }} | |||
| <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 Boy shekhar=== | |||
| ; 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> | |||
| ===Request concerning GodBlessYou2=== | |||
| ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc}} 17:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|GodBlessYou2}}<p>{{ds/log|GodBlessYou2}} | |||
| <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
| ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] |
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | ||
| <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | ||
| ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ||
| <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> | <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | ||
| *{{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. | |||
| # Edit-warring regarding creationism (reinserting preferred content after reverting). | |||
| # Edit-warring regarding creationism (reinserting preferred content after an RfC on the talkpage went badly see previous attempt on | |||
| # Edit-warring on a usertalk page to argue about his POV-pushing. | |||
| # | |||
| ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | ||
| <!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | <!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | ||
| *{{diff2|972891251|Here}} is the topic ban for {{tpq|persistent insertion of ], use of unreliable sources or no sources at all, and ]}}. | |||
| ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | ||
| <!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | <!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | ||
| * |
*Previously 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 : | ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ||
| <!-- Add any further comment here --> | <!-- Add any further comment here --> | ||
| *I've edited the article so I am involved. ] (]) 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Subject of a ] thread started by the initiator of this request that contains additional discussion: ]. He was notified of this discussion: . Please see the usertalk page of the user for more discussions as to the problematic behavior. Believe that a broad topic ban from all religion/science/pseudoscience/creationism related pages is in order. | |||
| :{{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. ] (]) | |||
| ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | ||
| * | |||
| <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
| ===Discussion concerning Boy shekhar=== | |||
| <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
| ====Statement by Boy shekhar==== | |||
| ===Discussion concerning GodBlessYou2=== | |||
| <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 GodBlessYou2==== | |||
| ====Statement by Vanamonde==== | |||
| I will confine my response to the original charges made above according to the diffs cited. | |||
| 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) | |||
| 1. Edit-warring regarding creationism. | |||
| ===Result concerning Boy shekhar=== | |||
| :These edits were related to ]. It is not creationism nor classified by WP as such . (See also, categories: at bottom of article.) While critics may like to classify FTU it as creationism, I sincerely question if this article falls under the pseudoscience and fringe science editing restrictions. | |||
| :''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. --> | |||
| *<!-- | |||
| --> | |||
| *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== | |||
| :Even if I'm wrong on that account, my only edits have been related to adding citations to two books and attempting to add these to the list of ==Further Reading==. Both books are written by astrophysicists who address the fine tuned universe issue in a manner intended to make it accessible to non-scientists with an emphasis on why this hypothesis is compatible with both science and religion. I continue to remain confounded by one or two editor's efforts to block this content. More so because two articles by ] are elsewhere included in the article under External Links. Why the effort to block my adding a book of his on the subject? | |||
| <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=== | |||
| ; 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> | |||
| 2. Edit-warring regarding creationism. | |||
| <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
| :An RfC by Cposper sought opinions on adding one sentence and one source. Numerous editors agreed the source should only be used in the context of other sources and with attribution. I came to the article in response to this RfC. I drafted a section to show Csposper how to use multiple reliable sources to address the issue in a more balanced way. The RfC did not address my draft and is not binding on it. Check the dates. Most all of the RfC's comments were written before my draft and my draft addresses and incorporates most of the helpful comments. It does not preclude new content that addresses the same issue in a more substantive, balanced way. | |||
| ;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 of ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
| ShlomitLir (שלומית ליר) created their account back in 2014. The breakdown of their edits is as follows: | |||
| 3. # The so called Edit-warring on a Jytdog's talk page first, does not fall under the fringe and pseudoscience arbitration rules. | |||
| *2014 to 2016: no edits. | |||
| :Second, and most importantly, the edit conflict was clearly regarding difference in our understanding of policy guidelines governing the deletion of comments on user talk pages. This was addressed by Doncram in this diff . It is further discussed in my own diff here . Arguably, the confusion was due to Jytdog referring me to ] in this form rather than to ], because WP:TPO clearly indicates at the very top that comments should not be deleted. The confusion has resulted in efforts to clarify this problem per . In short, this wasn't edit warring. It was a sincere effort to prevent what an editor, whom I perceived as one with a history of deleting valid content, from hiding a record of disruptive behavior on his talk page contrary to policy as I understood it, and was even stated as such in the link he provided to defend his deletion.–] (]) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *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 ] 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. | |||
| :In summary, every edit in the article I have made has been relevant and well sourced. There wouldn't be any basis for this complaint if the editors making the complaint showed more respect for the good faith contributions of other editors. In general, it is my impression that these articles are subject to a lot of ] protectionism. Prime example: and talk page equivocations over adding the book by Barrs to the FTU ]. Seriously?! –] (]) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
| ::Regarding my proposed new section to the article on the creation evolution controversy, you will see that I have not been editing the article but rather confining myself to the talk page to try go the editors to actually discuss the 14 sources and proposed content I have offered. Instead, there is, what I perceive to be a refusal to recognize that there are any differences between my extensive contribution and the one proposed by Cpsoper. I am sincerely trying to get them to focus on the content, but they are so anxious to shut me out (not very collaborative in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, in my opinion) that they are ganging up on me both there and here. I believe the process recognizes that ], especially if an editor like myself goes to the effort to develop a well balanced section that is clearly topic relavant and based on 14 sources covering both sides of the contentious issue. It may not be perfect, but it is something that can be built on using WP:PRESERVE methods. In my view, it is my accusers who should be reprimanded for not making more effort to work with editors to incorporate material. The only reason I came to these pages was because of Cpsoper's RfC which, on investigation, led me to believe his contributions were being rejected without any effort to help him incorporate them per PRESERVE. My mistake was thinking the other editors here would welcome my efforts to help Cpsoper learn how to find and use a wider range of reliable sources, something AndytheGrump said would be needed in his response to the RfC,,. but now he's angry at me for implementing his advice. Go figure.–] (]) 06:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | |||
| *Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on and re-iterated on (see the system log linked to above). | |||
| *Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|Femke}}. | |||
| ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
| :::Regarding {{u|Heimstern Läufer}} comments below. I strongly object to his classification of thise edits as related to pseudoscience. Most importantly, I object to the assumption that my notification of this policy was sufficient if the scope of pseduoscience is going to be different than that by which the articles are marked. | |||
| 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) | |||
| ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
| :::Clearly, fine-tuned universe theory is not considered pseudoscience by Misplaced Pages categories, the article itself, or by scientists. It is speculation about origins of the universe issue, but that itself does not render it pseudoscience. And what is my "offense" there? Trying to include two books by astrophysicists writing for people interested in the intersection of faith and science in the further reading list, book which delve into depth into the fine tuned universe theory. I continue to be puzzled why I am being prosecuted for attempting to add these sources when clearly it is protectionists who feel they ] these pages who are hounding out even the most modest edits which support the idea there is no real conflict between science and religion. | |||
| <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
| :::Secondly, the confusion regarding the user talk page was due to confusing organization and statements in Policy regarding deletion of comments. It has nothing to do with the psuedoscience discretionary sanctions and should not be considered in any decision. | |||
| ===Discussion concerning שלומית ליר=== | |||
| :::Third, the article ] is about the controversy between these camps. Not about the science, or the pseudoscience, properly speaking, as those are addressed in separate articles. It is about the charges and counter charges advocates on both sides make against each other, which may include some science and pseudoscience, but also includes charges of discrimination, which is really political and not the subject of the discretionary sanction being employed against me. My edits on this article are an effort to bring a bit of ] collaboration to the page to simply support the rather obvious fact that the stated claims and counter claims have been made were clearly done in faith and mostly confined to the talk page. There is no violation of policy. | |||
| <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
| ====Statement by שלומית ליר==== | |||
| :::Finally, your assertion that my edits "are about an attempt to use scientific reasoning to support creationism" is simply false. Show me a pattern of such edits. In fact, I'm not a creationist. I've not argued for creationism. As per the evolution-creation controversy, I have simply dared to acknowledge that there are reliable sources, and numerous wikipedia articles, about the claims made by academics that they are discriminated for questioning the adequacy of evolution and also reliable sources identifying those who have responded to and denied these claims. | |||
| 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==== | |||
| :::Any judgment against me based on the false charge that I am advocating creationism is simply unfair and demonstrates a failure to look carefully at my edits. The real issue, the real reason these complaints have been made against me, is that when I make what I feel are clearly reasonable contribtions and they are shouted down by people with ] behaviors, I dare to persist instead of being bullied away.. Please do not give the bullies an easy victory based on contributions to pages which don't even properly fit under the discretionary sanctions rule. | |||
| 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==== | |||
| To the extent that it is relevant, the WJC report was discussed at ]. ] (]) 11:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by starship.paint (2)==== | |||
| ::::I've double checked, and even the ] page is not marked as being in the category of psuedoscience or fringe science. So the notice regarding discretionary sanctions for these categories should not be applied outside those categories. It is totally unfair to apply topic specific sanctions against editors when the articles are not identified as being within that topic...and properly so....this article is about the controversy between people in these camps, not the actual science or psuedoscientific claims.] (]) 23:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :::::Checking all my article contributions you will see that I only made one edit of ] and the diff for edit shows I only tagged a request for a citation regarding the claim that there are three kinds of creationism. That was immediately reverted by Dominus Vobisdu without any explanation. That's it. My only other edit to a pseudoscience article was in regard to ] both of which simply attempted to clarify the wording in the lead about the lack of any published scientific evidence in favor of ET activity and the U.S. government's official denial that any such evidence exists. Both edits were again reverted by Dominus Vobisdu who appears to claim ] over articles in which he has some presumed expertise, as a microbiologist and teacher. | |||
| ====Statement by xDanielx==== | |||
| :::::In total, in the , I edited only two articles, with a total of only three attempted edits, all reverted. None of these four edits were pushing religion or confusing pseudoscience with science. I can see no possible way these edits could run me afoul of the psuedoscience discretionary sanctions. | |||
| {{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) | |||
| :::::Please reject this baseless charge and rebuke those who have brought it against me.] (]) 04:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC). | |||
| ====Statement by |
==== Statement by Hemiauchenia ==== | ||
| This user has engaged in off-wiki canvassing regarding the IP conflict. Take the following recent tweet from the 12 January | |||
| Tend to support some sort of ban, indefinite or otherwise. I also tend to think that the topic area could use some more attention. <s>I don't myself see clear evidence, in just a quick review of course, of a separate ] page, for instance, which I think would be reasonable. Some months ago I picked up a book published by the Jehovah's Witnesses (clearly biased, and nowhere near being a reliable source in and of itself, I know, but it was one of a number of freebies I glommed onto at an academic book giveaway), and there seems to be from the apparently reliable sources it cites a reasonable basis for an article on scientific questions of evolutionary theory, either particular aspects of it or the theory in general. An article like that, or on any number of other related topics, might well be valuable and useful.</s> When I finish my current never-ending effort of developing bibliographies of reference sources, I may well attempt generating a list of articles on this topic in encyclopedic sources, but others are free to do so before then if they so see fit. ] (]) 17:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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 | |||
| :The main article I indicated does in fact exist, under ], and I am grateful for that information. I still think there may be reason to develop further development of articles in the broad topic area, but that is true of most topics and there is no particular reason to think this one would be more of a priority than others. ] (]) 17:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| @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.}} | |||
| ::jps below is probably right. While there is a distinction between "science vs. religion" and "pseudoscience," the bulk of that distinction lies in areas that would probably best be called "philosophy", including perhaps "philosophy of science". The Creation-evolution debate is for the most part, except in some extremist groups, considered closed in the science vs. religion debatae, because, so far as I can tell, most religions have come to the conclusion that creation and evolution are not incompatible. Those groups still postulating "either/or" in this matter in favor of creatiionism are basically dealing with the broad field of "creation science," and so far as I can tell that is counted as part of pseudoscience. Having said that all that, if the AE admins have reservations, I could see maybe going to ARCA ''again'' and requesting clarification. ] (]) 15:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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 |
====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 () in response to a question of if Misplaced Pages can be "saved". -- ] (]) 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <s>I am involved here and I will try to collect some information and post it here along with a more lengthy statement later in the day. --]<small> ]</small> 19:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :I had intended on adding more here but I think that Andy pretty much has it dead on. Considering this user's behavior at ] and a refusal by them to recognize the consensous reached in the last RFC, I suspect that GBU2 will certainly be considered for a topic ban soon.--]<small> ]</small> 02:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by |
====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. ] (]) 09:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not great with diffs so hopefully this is sufficient. | |||
| On Dec 26th another user added this which was quickly reverted. The talk page discussion led to an RFC . Two days into the RFC, with consensus clearly against the inclusion at that point on Dec 28th GBY2 added this section to the article. It was reverted as there was an ongoing RFC covering similar material. On Jan 7 the RFC was closed with consensus against adding such a section | |||
| On Jan 11 GBY2 readded the section (even bigger this time) against the consensus just a few days old which was again reverted. | |||
| ====Statement by (username)==== | |||
| Here we have GBY2 edit warring on a user talk page , , , , , until finally stopping after being threatened with a block . This can be chalked up to not understanding talkpage rules but it displays the tendentious attitude in almost all of GBY2's editing. | |||
| <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
| ===Result concerning שלומית ליר=== | |||
| On Jan 6 in Fine-Tuned Universe GBY2 added two books to further reading , this was reverted. They then tried to add one of the books as a ref , this too is reverted. They add a book back to further reading claiming vandalism this is again reverted, this time by a different user who goes on to add it correctly in the right place. On Jan 11th GBY2 once again tries to add the further reading and yet a different user reverts them. They try to add it yet again and are once more reverted. All the while consensus was also against the inclusion of these books/sources on the talk page yet GBY2 forged ahead regardless. | |||
| :''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== | |||
| All of GodBlessYou2's contributions are in the realm of religion, mostly creationism and its offshoots. This mainly started at where they displayed they didn't understand what constituted an independent reliable source in regards to scientific or fringe claims. ] (]) 19:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
| :Intelligent design is pseudoscience and the section GBY2 tried to insert both during and after the RFC depended mainly on the "documentary" Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and reviews of it, as a source.] (]) 13:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::So now not only has GBY2 tried once more to insert the same exact section that has no consensus, as Andy points out below, but they also added this gem to an essay, essentially claiming we're all lazy for not finding their inclusion worthwhile. ] (]) 17:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::And now GBY2 has started another RFC on the same wording already dismissed by consensus , worded such that however you answer you'd be agreeing for some level of inclusion and based on a very strange interpretation of WP:Preserve. ] (]) 16:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by AndyTheGrump==== | |||
| A further example of GodBlessYou2's refusal to accept consensus at ] - combined with a blatant misrepresentation of demonstrable facts: . GodBlessYou2 writes that "...the only appeal is to a stale RfC. The RfC was about one reference and one proposed sentence." The RfC closed less than a week ago. It mentioned no reference, and made no specific proposal regarding text. This gross misrepresentation, combined with a refusal to accept consensus, suggests to me that at minimum a topic ban is required. Though frankly, given that this refusal to accept consensus seems to be an ongoing issue with this contributor (see this discussion on another topic entirely, where GodBlessYou2's reponse to a clearly-developing consensus was to make the same proposal again, slightly reworded, and insist that it be discussed again) I have to wonder whether we would be better off without such contributions at all. ] (]) 03:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :With regard to 'pseudoscience-relatedness', it is worth noting the specific context of GodBlessYou2's confrontational behaviour at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy - his insistance that the article contain material on the claim (not even generally supported by Creationists), that Creationist scientists have been systematically discriminated against by the scientific establishment. While Creationism itself certainly isn't of itself scientific, or pseudoscientific, the claims made by some Creationists regarding mainstream science (particularly but not exclusively evolution) are certainly seen as pseudoscientific by many (including, it should be noted, the U.S. courts in their rejection of 'Intelligent Design' as legitimate science), and an assertion that such Creationist 'science' is being suppressed would seem to me to fall within the remit of the sanctions. It is, after all, common for proponents of fringe viewpoints to claim a conspiracy to silence them. Using Misplaced Pages to promote such fringe claims amounts to promoting Creationist 'science' - and doing so in a manner that does so not on its scientific merits, but on the basis of a fringe conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory that amounts to an attack on the legitimacy of science itself. If this ''doesn't'' fall within the remit of ArbCom sanctions in relation to pseudoscience, it would seem to me to certainly be covered by more general policies regarding appropriate weight, legitimate sourcing and the rest in the article concerned - and accordingly, if GodBlessYou2 isn't to be sanctioned for his tendentious behaviour at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy here, the matter will need to be resolved elsewhere. And for the record, I would like to suggest that the 'fine-tuned universe' article may also be within the scope of sanctions relating to pseudoscience - and certainly seems to be subject to some systematic POV-pushing to exclude commentary from the scientific mainstream. I'll not offer further evidence on this for now, however, since I've not really studied the subject matter in the depth necessary to entirely disentangle the legitimate debate from what appears on the surface at least to be special pleading based on preconceptions based around religious belief - certainly an article supposedly about a scientific debate seems to use the word 'God' rather a lot. The problem again isn't that religion has something to say about the universe - of course it does, and of course it should - but that particular views developed from a religious viewpoint are being promoted ''as science'' in an undue manner. Maybe these views aren't pseudoscience - if only because the scientific mainstream has little settled opinion to contrast them against - but the promotion of specific scientific hypotheses ''because they accord with a particular religious perspective'' is certainly undue. ] (]) 07:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::And so it continues. GodBlessYou2 has just posted the same arguments yet again, based on exactly the same falsifications previously used to try to Wikilawyer around a clear and conclusive RfC result. At this stage, I'm beginning to wonder whether this should be taken to ANI, with the intention of discussing an indefinite block on ] grounds. This isn't just a failure to drop the stick, it is a failure to actually even respond to adverse commentary at all. ] (]) 16:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::And on it goes - with GodBlessYou2 now stating a bogus 'RfC' (clearly lacking even a façade of neutrality) over content already rejected on multiple occasions. I have began to suspect that this tendentiousness is actually ''intended'' to bring about sanctions on GodBlessYou2, who will no doubt then consider his claims of a 'conspiracy' proven. ] (]) 01:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In response to GodBlessYou2's assertion above that " It is totally unfair to apply topic specific sanctions against editors when the articles are not identified as being within that topic", I would point out that the word 'pseudoscience' appears four times in the body of the ] article, and that the talk page contains a header indicating that discretionary sanctions applied to the page. And perhaps more to the point, I find it impossible to believe that GodBlessYou2 is unaware that the objection from the scientific mainstream to Creationist/'Intelligent Design' arguments against evolution ''in the debate covered in the article'' is that in as much as they amount to anything approximating scientific discourse, they are pseudoscience: something that "is not scientific" although "its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific". Accordingly, I have to suggest that GodBlessYou2 is engaging in yet more of the tendentious Wikilawyering that brought about this case in the first place. ] (]) 05:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by jps==== | |||
| I echo what AndyTheGrump says about pseudoscience-relatedness, and argue strongly that the edits under discussion here are 100% pseudoscience-related contrary to the attempted ] offered by Sandstein below. To give a kind of seminar tutorial in this subject, the ] (I would argue the foremost authority on identifying pseudoscience in the context of the ]) identifies the precise aspect of the fine-tuning argument which is pseudoscientific here: . This is exactly the same aspect that GodBlessYou2 is pushing. Claiming that the ] of ''religion versus science'' is somehow a separate issue from ''science versus pseudoscience'' actually skids dangerously towards adopting the position of ] pseudoscientists make in their ] — another argument that is itself rank pseudoscience promotion. In other words, it is clever propaganda meant to legitimize positions that are pseudoscientific — intending to make them look like a conflict of worldviews rather than pseudoscience. Remember, the discretionary sanctions are on topics that are "broadly construed" precisely because this kind of gaming is so common in contentious areas (of the "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" level of intellectual argumentation). ] (]) 13:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Sławomir Biały==== | |||
| Sandstein's argument seems to be that the edits in question do not fall within the mandate of the PSCI decision, because they concern the culture war rather than science. If that were truly the case, then Sandstein's argument would be quite convincing. However, it does not seem to me that the edits in question do concern the culture wars per se. Rather, they concern the Creationist claim (as advanced by one particular piece of unreliable propaganda) of exclusion the scientific process because, they allege, their "scientific" work is censored by the establishment. This is not a statement about religious belief versus science, but specifically that the Creationist agenda of "questioning evolutionary theory" (in the style of ]) are legitimately scientific. For example, from , "This consensus is so embedded in academia that some critics believe it has created a chilling effect on scientists who might raise questions regarding the adequacy of evolutionary theory." ] (]) 14:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Bishonen==== | |||
| I recommend a topic ban from creationism-related pages for civil POV-pushing beyond the bounds of reason. Godblessyou2 has now got a ''third'' RfC, within a few weeks, going, on essentially the same issue on the talkpage of ], ignoring that there has all along been solid consensus ''against'' what he wants to do. (Before somebody points out that he didn't ''start'' the first RfC, I'll mention it myself.) I gave him a pseudoscience discretionary sanctions alert a while back, and I have already warned him several times against uselessly wasting editors' time. The first diff, from 31 December 2014, contains my reply to his (incredulous) question whether discretionary sanctions can be imposed for arguing for inclusion of material on the talk page: ''"yes, discretionary sanctions can be imposed for arguing on the talkpage, if it's taken far enough and uselessly exhausts too much of our most precious resource (=the time and energy of out volunteers). It's been done".'' To me, the amount of beating a dead horse and the level of civil POV-pushing GBY2 has demonstrated on that talkpage over several weeks is well ripe for a topic ban from creationism-related pages. I would already have instituted such a ban myself, except that when I went check out the article talkpage yesterday, to take stock, I realized I may be considered too involved (even though I've never edited the article), since I "voted" in the first RfC. But a topic ban is what I think should be done. This is the kind of thing that burns out good-faith competent editors. | |||
| {{ping|Sandstein}} Godblessyou2's whole argument is about whether or not creationist ''scientists'' are discriminated against by academe, as regards getting their papers published, getting hired to pursue their research in an academic setting, etc. Yes, creationism may be taken as simply religious, but this is all about creationism as science — GBY2 is pushing it as science. In that context, it is certainly pseudoscience. I don't think the OP has the emphasis right — e. g., never mind the mistake about restoring posts to user talkpages — but I do believe sanctions under the pseudoscience DS purely for the way GBY2 has acted on ] would be wholly appropriate. We need to give some protection to the protectors of articles. ] | ] 07:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC). | |||
| ====Statement by Dominus Vobisdu==== | |||
| Since this case was started, ] has continued to pursue his "proposal" by launching another RfC on the article talk page, which has been characterized by numerous responders as serious flawed and tendentious. See ]. | |||
| He also appears to be canvassing: ]. | |||
| This editor is deeply unsatisfied with the rigor of our sourcing policies. He has tried to loosen the notability guidelines for fringe films: ] | |||
| And has proposed that sources should be considered reliable if they appear in Google News searches: ] | |||
| He refuses to accept the fact that our policies forbid the additions that he wishes to make to this and other articles, and has a serious case of ]. He also has a penchant for accusing fellow editors of working against him, and resorts to appeals to WP essays, which he himself tried to alter, to back up his behavior, blithely ignoring our core policies and overwhelming consensus by many editors in the process. | |||
| He (not so indirectly) accused his fellow editors of being "lazy" his edits to one of the essays, in that they should try to "preserve" something of his additions, even though they violate our core policies: ] | |||
| This is indeed a pseudoscience related case, as the material he is trying to insert pertains to how pseudoscientists feel "persecuted" or "suppressed". He bases this all on in-universe fringe sources which he persists on insisting are reliable despite being told by many fellow editors that the contrary is the case. | |||
| ] and ] apply here, and I see little hope that this editor will ever be able to edit productively, particularly on controversial topics. He has squandered lavish amounts of his fellow editors' time, and will undoubtedly continue ad infinitum. I see no other viable option than an indefinite block under discretionary sanctions. Trying to reason with him has gotten me, and many other editors, precisely nowhere. ] (]) 07:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by (User)==== | |||
| ===Result concerning GodBlessYou2=== | |||
| <!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
| <small>''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''</small> | |||
| Three diffs of three different edits aren't evidence of edit-warring. We'd need dated diffs of each and every edit making up the edit war for that. This report may be quickly shelved if the evidence is not supplemented accordingly. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Ok, there's some evidence now of confrontative, tendentious editing. But can somebody explain how this is in scope of the sanctions? After all, evolution and the "fine-tuned universe" are not fringe science, and as far as I know the objections to evolution are essentially religious, not scientific (or even pseudoscientific) in nature and motivation. So where's the pseudoscience-relatedness in all of this? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::AndyTheGrump, I understand that there are forms of creationism that are portrayed as scientific, such as ], and these are probably pseudoscience and subject to sanctions. But the edits at issue here are not related to such "religion ''in the form of'' science" topics, but rather they appear to be related to the "religion ''versus'' science" debate that is at the core of the cultural controversies related to evolution, and that is not a topic covered by discretionary sanctions. So, unless other admins see something I don't, I'm of the view that this conduct is not within the scope of discretionary sanctions. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| In agreement with AndyTheGrump and jps, and contra Sandstein, I view these edits as falling into the area of pseudoscience (excluding the talk page edit warring ones, which appear to be based on a misunderstanding of policy and for which DS seem like the wrong tool). The edits, from what I can see, are about an attempt to use scientific reasoning to support creationism, thus making it fall under the topic of pseudoscience. ] ] 12:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :You may well be right - distinguishing the cultural and religious issues from the scientific ones is tricky here, I think, and I'd prefer to be cautious - but if you think that this is within the scope of the sanctions, I leave it to you to determine which action, if any, is appropriate. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::To Sandstein and to others here: Bit busy now. Will try my dangdest to come back to this soon, but real-life deadlines are approaching. ] ] 11:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Having read this situation in more detail, I'm seeing a strong ] problem here. I'm afraid that seems sufficient for a topic ban. As this is a first ban, I'll probably issue it for a finite duration. Will leave this open a bit to see if there is any more input. ] ] 13:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ===Request concerning Luganchanka=== | |||
| ==JzG== | |||
| ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}} 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|Closed with no action against JzG. All parties are reminded that conduct at WP:AE is actionable and that abuse of the process to pursue personal grudges, cast unfounded aspersions about others or to advance an off site agenda will result in sanction--] <sup>]</sup> 11:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
| ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Luganchanka}}<p>{{ds/log|Luganchanka}}</p> | |||
| ===Request concerning JzG=== | |||
| ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|A1candidate}} 01:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|JzG}}<p>{{ds/log|JzG}} | |||
| <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
| ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: | ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | ||
| *] | |||
| *] : | |||
| <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | ||
| ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ||
| <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> | <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | ||
| # 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 ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
| # - Violates ] by calling me an "acupuncture advocate" | |||
| BLP CTOP warning given | |||
| # - Violates ] by stating "and now you look a bit silly" | |||
| # Violates ] by accusing a new editor of being "a pertennial gadfly with an axe to grind" | |||
| # Violates ] by stating "how the fuck are we supposed to control POV-pushing?" | |||
| # Violates ] by stating "you were the problem then, and it sounds very much as if you still are" | |||
| # Violates ] by stating "you are in a minority of one, and clearly obsessed with this particular article" | |||
| # Violates ] by stating "of all the low-lifes in the world, the cancer quack is probably the worst" and "he is a perfect example of crank magnetism at work" | |||
| # Violates ] by stating "given your extremely limited editing history, I am inclined to dismiss your concern" | |||
| # Violates ] by calling me "an advocate of quackery and fringe ideas" | |||
| ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
| <!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
| # - ] warned him to comment on content, not on contributors, and this warning was to be "logged as a discretionary sanction" | |||
| ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
| <!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | |||
| * - Alerted about discretionary sanctions regarding pseudoscience and fringe science | |||
| * - Alerted about discretionary sanctions regarding complementary and alternative medicine | |||
| ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ; 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. ]. 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) | |||
| <!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
| : 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) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Gaijin42}} violates ] by calling an editor "the most severe (stupid person) was already dealt with at the previous AE". () His comment about a particular "OP" deals with a separate editor, not me. | |||
| * {{userlinks|Dominus Vobisdu}} violates ] by calling editors "fringe promoters on alternative medicine" (). He claims that I am adding "grossly unreliable sources", without stating which sources, and he accuses me of pushing pro-fringe material without giving evidence in the form of diffs. | |||
| * {{userlinks|TenOfAllTrades}} violates ] by calling me a civil-but-tireless POV-pusher (). In this arbitration filing, he commented in an area reserved for uninvolved administrators only, despite his status as an ] administrator as evidenced by his recent participation in the talk pages of ], ], and ]: , and . Based on the evidence shown above, TenOfAllTrades is clearly an involved administrator. | |||
| * ]: | |||
| #I am not an advocate of these treatments. I only support the scientific study of these therapies. | |||
| #I have previously removed positive studies about acupuncture () and ] (). If I were to advocate for anything, that would be for the faithful representation of scientific and medical literature per ]. | |||
| #A significant portion of TenOfAllTrades's recent editing falls under the category of pseudoscience, fringe science, or complementary and alternative medicine. In addition, TenOfAllTrades has participated in several content disputes about these articles (, and ) and is therefore an involved administrator in these disputes. | |||
| * ]: | |||
| :Please read ] carefully. The Cochrane review was removed because it does not support what was being stated in the article, not because it fails ] (Cochrane reviews are generally exempted from ]). The other review fails ] and was therefore removed. I stand by my edits because they absolutely conform to ]. | |||
| :''Further discussion removed by an administrator because it relates to a content dispute and is therefore beyond the scope of this forum. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)'' | |||
| * ]: | |||
| :There is a difference between being direct and being plain abusive and provocative. JzG uses foul language, makes baseless accusations, repeatedly bites the newcomers, and repeatedly comments on contributors instead of content. I do not claim to be a perfect editor and if you dig hard enough into my contributions, you might be able to find something that slightly borders on infringement of a guideline a while ago, but I believe I have nothing incriminating to hide. Feel free to search my edits, but until you find something incriminating, my conscience remains clear. I am not an advocate of acupuncture, neither financially nor otherwise. | |||
| * ] | |||
| :{{userlinks|QuackGuru}} is a disruptive editor who has been repeatedly blocked for multiple counts of edit-warring and disruptive editing. Problematic behaviorial issues include: | |||
| # - Accusing me of sockpuppetry, without evidence | |||
| # - Removing my request for clarification and accusing me of sockpuppetry again, without evidence | |||
| # - Advocacy of pro-fringe material claiming the the tattoo marks of ] suggest some form of acupuncture "developed independent of China" | |||
| # - Advocacy of pro-fringe material claiming that the tattoo marks of ] are supposedly "acupuncture points" | |||
| # - Advocacy of pro-fringe material claiming that "acupuncture was previously used in Europe 5 millennia ago" | |||
| # - Advocacy of pro-fringe material claiming that "an acupuncture-like therapy was already used in Europe 5 millennia ago" and the tattoo marks correspond to "acupuncture points" | |||
| # - Repeated advocacy for pro-fringe material using unreliable, non-] sources, despite earlier consensus | |||
| # - ] according to comments such as "I added a quote to ensure no editor claims the text is unsourced." | |||
| :I reverted his edit because they contained many sources that fail ] and he was advocating for pro-fringe material using a speculative claim that the tattoo marks on ] are supposedly "acupuncture points". This mass addition was performed without any attempts at discussion whatsoever, and that is why I removed it. | |||
| ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | ||
| <!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | <!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | ||
| <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
| ===Discussion concerning |
===Discussion concerning Luganchanka=== | ||
| <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. |
<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 JzG==== | |||
| This is abuse of process by one of a number of fringe advocates who are engaged in a determined campaign to undermine the scientific rigour of our coverage on quackery. Given the determined and vexatious nature of quackery advocacy on Misplaced Pages, it is unsurprising that a dumpster dive through contributions of any reality advocate will turn up instances of tetchiness, especially since it is usually necessary to explain policy repeatedly, in words of one syllable, and even then they just keep asking, and will always keep asking until they get what they want - something not in our gift, because what they want is for science to completely change and their beliefs to become true. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by |
====Statement by Luganchanka==== | ||
| <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
| The diffs that predate the 11th are prior to the warning, and the most severe <ins></ins> (stupid person) was already dealt with at the previous AE that ''just closed''. | |||
| 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) | |||
| * In diff #6 the OP accuses Guy of ] and threatens to take him to ANI, Guy responding on his own talk page that he thinks the OP is a problem editor seems pretty justified | |||
| * #8 is not a civility issue at all, he is clearly talking about the subject of the article ] who is indeed a well known crank. | |||
| 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) | |||
| : 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) | |||
| :{{u|A1candidate}} My "stupid person" comment is a direct reference to diff #2 that '''you posted above'''. As for the "OP" one, I was providing the context for Guy's comment, not accusing you personally of anything. But I do find it interesting that you are finding so many diffs that ''do not involve you'' to complain about. If this is the way conversations generally go in this topic area, I am not surprised that Guy lost his cool. ] (]) 15:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thank you for this ], I really do appreciate your feedback and advice here!!] (]) 16:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) <small>(moved from ] — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC))</small> | |||
| {{u|Callanecc}} Since A1 mentions the CAM sanctions in his report against JzG, wouldn't that be sufficient to say he was aware of them at the time of his posting? Also he was a named party on the CAM ArbCom case where the sanctions were applied by motion and he commented there significantly. Either seems to satisfy point #2 of the "awareness" criteria? ] (]) 14:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: As per ]'s comments: | |||
| ====Statement by Dominus Vobisdu==== | |||
| {{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."}} | |||
| There is a ] tactic currently being used by several fringe promoters on alternative medicine articles to provoke other editors into reacting and then calling them out for being uncivil. This complaint is a good example of trying to eliminate opposition to fringe promotion. I myself stopped editing altogether for several months because of my disgust at this phenomenon. I believe that boomerang applies, and that the OP should be topic banned from all articles related to medicine, including alternative medicine and related topics, broadly construed. This has become such a serious problem that alternative medicine articles are now covered by discretionary sanctions because fringe promoters tried to evade discretionary sanctions related to pseudoscience topics. This particular editor has been tendentious and disruptive, and pushing pro-fringe material backed up by grossly unreliable sources. Civil POV pushing is an apt description of his behavior. ] (]) 06:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by RAN1==== | |||
| Short comment: A1candidate’s TM diff was immediately preceded by a number of edits removing the sourced consensus that research on TM was of poor quality, making the lead statement to that effect unsourced. His justification for this was primarily MEDDATE on <10 year old articles. See ] (~13:12, 10 January 2015). —-] (]) 13:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :''Further discussion removed by an administrator because it relates to a content dispute and is therefore beyond the scope of this forum. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)'' | |||
| https://casetext.com/case/ritter-v-tuttle | |||
| ====Statement by Resolute==== | |||
| After seeing the comments at Jimbo's talk page that led to this request, I figured this would be a bad faith attempt at gaming the system by A1Canaditate. Having read this and the other comments, I am now convinced as such. In particular given how A1candidate is accusing people who disagree with him of various sundry violations simply because they disagree with him. I would agree with ToaT that this is more likely to be a ] situation than anything else. ]] 16:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 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 ]), 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) | |||
| {{ping|Sandstein}} Can you please clarify how the accusation of being "''an advocate of quackery and fringe ideas''" is true? If you're referring to acupuncture, and I assume that you are, I believe that you are mistaken. My only prior knowledge of acupuncture is what I see in the movies and on TV. But when I looked it up at: | |||
| * The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | |||
| * The Mayo Clinic | |||
| * The National Cancer Institute | |||
| * The American Heart Association | |||
| * Encyclopedia Britannica (which theoretically should produce an article roughly similar to ours) | |||
| Not a single one of these sources described acupuncture as pseudoscience, and these sources are about as ] and ] as they come. | |||
| As best I can tell, the POV that acupuncture is pseudoscience is a ] or minority POV (perhaps even significant minority) but certainly not scientific consensus. This appears to a case where editors who ''claim'' to be arguing in favor of scientific consensus are actually arguing ''against'' scientific consensus. ] (]) 17:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Pekay2==== | |||
| I fervently agree with aqfk. I would add--this whole fringe, quackbuster focus is an anachronism in my view. History is replete with yesterday's quackery as today's science, and yesterday's science as today's quackery.--] (]) 18:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by QuackGuru==== | |||
| A1candidate was notified of the sanctions on . A1candidate compliant sources and his edit summary did not give a valid reason to delete all the text or sources from Acupuncture. A1candidate made mass changes to Transcendental Meditation . A1candidate deleted text from the lede and body that describes Traditional Chinese medicine as largely pseudoscience after there was a long established consensus. See ]. ] (]) 21:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ], in case you missed it A1candidate was notified of the sanctions on . So admins are able to take further action against A1candidate at this time. Of course, he deleted the . A1candidate was also notified of the sanctions for acupuncture on . ] (]) 21:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by (username)==== | ====Statement by (username)==== | ||
| <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | ||
| ===Result concerning |
===Result concerning Luganchanka=== | ||
| :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
| <!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
| <!-- 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. --> | |||
| <small>''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''</small> | |||
| *<!-- | |||
| --> | |||
| :@]: 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've blocked the user for 48h for violating 3RR based on the report at ].--] (]) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (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) | |||
| *:@], 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. | |||
| *: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) | |||
| *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 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) | |||
| *::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. — ] <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. — ] <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 ]. | |||
| *:::::::— ] <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? — ] <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. | |||
| *:— ] <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== | |||
| The quality of the diffs provided, when examined in context, suggest that A1candidate is a ripe candidate for a boomerang. WP:AE is not meant to be used by a civil-but-tireless POV-pusher to try to eliminate editors who seem to have a much firmer grasp of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:MEDRS. ](]) 02:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
| :The request is unfounded. Insofar as the diffs submitted as evidence postdate the civility warning, they are not personal attacks, at least not to a sanctionable degree. Instead, a look at A1candidate's editing history makes it appear likely that JzG's assertion that A1candidate is "an advocate of quackery and fringe ideas" is true. They seem - at least since Summer 2014 - to edit exclusively in this topic area, including such articles as ], ] and ], and their edits seem to be intended to present these methods in a more favorable light. I invite comment by admins, and evidence by others, as to how and whether this might amount to sanctionable conduct. | |||
| :I'm also of the view that A1candidate's contention that TenOfAllTrades is an involved administrator is not supported by any evidence submitted here. Involvedness might arise from a personal, direct dispute with A1candidate, of which we have no evidence, but not merely from the fact that TenOfAllTrades has edited in the same topic area. TenOfAllTrades's view that A1candidate is a "civil-but-tireless POV-pusher" is an administrator's assessment of misconduct and not a personal attack. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I completely agree with that assessment and am inclined to decline to take action against JzG regarding this complaint. I'm not sure if I was just turned off by the excessive pseudo-legalese format in which everything was presented, but at a bare minimum, #1, 5, and 7 are also not at all evidence of misconduct. ] does not mean "unfailingly polite in all aspects of one's speech," and not all comments require that everything be footnoted and filed in triplicate. It is sometimes nice and even required to have that, but it would also be nice to live in a world with delicious calorie-free chocolate and no alt-medicine quacks. I don't (necessarily) think that A1candidate meets that criteria, but I think a closer examination of their recent edits are warranted. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 14:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::With respect, ], are you sure you're an uninvovled admin? seems to suggest that you are rather friendly with (and thus not objective regarding) JzG, and also suggests that you are not impartial on this subject and you even stated that you wouldn't consider yourself uninvolved. Coupled with the relative infrequency with which you participate as an admin at AE, it would be easy for somebody to get the impression that you were 'defending your mates'. I've seen you admin in other areas for many years, so I don't believe that is your intent but I would respectfully suggest that you move your comments to your own section and leave the adminning to admins who come to this issue 'cold'. ] | ] 18:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for the question ], I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. There are certainly a number of medicine editors who I would consider myself on good enough terms with to not take admin action. I would not say say that JzG is one of them; I think we may have worked together on an article at some point 3-4 years ago (]?) but I honestly cannot remember. I do not believe that it was too extensive though. The comment I left on his talk page was intended to both clarify Arbitration policy and also to simply leave a humorous comment for all those editors who are serious about ] who might come across it – which is not an insignificant group considering that JzG has a reputation for zero bullshit in this area and has the ] on Misplaced Pages. For the recent ArbCom case request, I tried to err on the side of caution (I recall making a few comments as to what I remember as being accuracy of a few sources on ] a little while ago) but I generally have always tried to act as an administrator in alt-medicine articles generally rather than as an editor, as it is not really a topic area of particular interest of mine (my real life interests in medicine are not something I edit on Misplaced Pages much or even at all). The reason why I interact with it at all on Misplaced Pages is because I believe it to be the highest profile portion of WikiProject Medicine where ] is routinely flouted. I don't believe the facts that I come into AE with that perspective and don't participate much in the rest of AE is a significant problem, quite the contrary – I would rather stay out of requests if I don't know what is going on. But perhaps others disagree with that perspective. As always, I would appreciate feedback from you and anyone else. Best, '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 20:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, it happens that there is agreement among the admins here to close this without action, and even if you were involved, I don't think your comment was the deciding factor there, so it's a bit of a moot point. I'm satisfied with your reply personally. The geo-political disputes are more our stock in trade at AE (though I can see alt-med/psudoscience/fringe science or gender politics and sexuality becoming roe dominant in the future), and some of the admins who are tangentially involved there often comment here as admins but recuse if anybody raises a good-faith objection and generally let another admin close the request and log any action—it might be wise for you to do something similar to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. ] | ] 20:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Request concerning BabbleOnto=== | |||
| {{ping|Dominus Vobisdu}} You violate ], an aspect of ], by asserting that A1candidate "has been tendentious and disruptive, and pushing pro-fringe material backed up by grossly unreliable sources" without at the same time providing actionable evidence for this serious accusation of misconduct. Please provide such evidence in the form of dated diffs as soon as possible, within 24 hours of your next edit following this message, or you may be made subject to a block or ban. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|ජපස}} 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I concur, though striking the remark would also be acceptable. ] | ] 18:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I would argue that filing this request – which is legalistic, poorly-judged in its choice of evidence, and appears principally to be trying for a second bite at the apple just closed by HJ Mitchell a few days ago – certainly represents ''prima facie'' "tendentious and disruptive" conduct. ](]) 18:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Disruptive, perhaps, but no evidence of "pushing pro-fringe material" and using "grossly unreliable sources" is apparent. <br>In response to some comments above, the removed comments are not helpful to admins evaluating this request. Involvedness requires evidence of a bias for or against a particular editor or contested content issue, rather than expressing an opinion in very broadly related topic areas. My comment above did not relate to acupuncture specifically, but to the totality of topics edited, which have in common that they are disputed with regard to their scientific validity or lack thereof. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps it would be best to close this thread – as it appears that there is little evidence or appetite for a sanction against JzG – rather than let it get sidetracked into a tangent bickering about A1candidate's conduct? If there are editors with specific concerns on that front, I suspect that they will find that a well-formed, dedicated enforcement request regarding A1candidate's behavior would be more focused and better able to address the issue. ](]) 20:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I could live with closing it without prejudice to a request being filed against A1candidate. I'm less than impressed with both parties, but JzG's tone was addressed in the warning last week; I don't know if he's heeded it, but there's nothing in the diffs that is absolutely outrageous (though the "low-life" remark in diff #10 would have been, had it been directed at an individual). It's not about knee-jerk "civility" enforcement, but about creating a hostile atmosphere in the topic area, and I note that that comment was made on a user talk page, not an article talk page (DS apply everywhere, but comments on a user talk page do not contribute as much to a toxic environment in the mainspace as comments on an article talk page do). ] | ] 20:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|BabbleOnto}}<p>{{ds/log|BabbleOnto}}</p> | |||
| As all of the admins who have commented here so far are long familiar, dealing with this alleged ] is a difficult task. It is a huge annoyance to have someone being an excessive stickler for the rules instead of actually being willing to work with other editors to figure out what everyone wants for the article so that it meets the underlying principles being ], ], etc. This AE report is not a helpful report in that respect (it brings up, at absolute worst, very very borderline comments), but based on my review a few weeks ago of A1candidate's edits, I do not believe his editing style is what I would consider to be civil POV pushing. However, I would be willing to be convinced otherwise. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 20:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Nearly the whole "Additional comments by editor filing the complaint" section suggests to me that they intend to disrupt, finding something in most comments made to complain about when most of which were blatantly not what they said they were is disruptive whether they know it was or not. Given that as well as conduct in other related comments (which Sanstein commented on) I would suggest that we take action against A1candidate. While civil POV-pushing is not necessarily a violation of policy, continuing to do so after having been informed of community norms regarding that and continuing to be disruptive is disruptive and likely tendentious as this this report. To that end I would suggest a short block due to disruptive conduct on this page (which includes trying to discredit editors who have commented rather than only rebutting their evidence). From what I can find where A1candidate has previously been notified of the ARBPS or Acupuncture discretionary sanctions so we would be unable to take further action against them at this stage expect an (unlogged) warning that they are walking on thin ice. | |||
| :Regarding JzG, I agree with my colleagues that there is nothing actionable presented in this report. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 06:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Chiming in here before closing. As I read it this request is a) not actionable, b) the filer has used this board inappropriately. I see no coherent consensus for any action against other users or in fact A1candidate. My suggested closing is that "''No action against JzG. All parties are reminded that conduct at WP:AE is actionable and that abuse of the process to pursue ], cast unfounded aspersions about others or to advance an ] will result in sanction''". Unless there are any objections to this I'll close in 24 hours--] <sup>]</sup> 11:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ==Mike Searson== | |||
| <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 Mike Searson=== | |||
| ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|162.119.231.132}} 15:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Mike Searson}}<p>{{ds/log|Mike Searson}} | |||
| <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
| ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: | ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | ||
| <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
| ] | |||
| ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ||
| <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. 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.--> | |||
| Offensive comment | |||
| # Sealioning | |||
| # Says of ] (LB) "Certain people with political agendas have placed politically charged articles in this project. Personally, I think this should only be the technical stuff. Reading the political bile some folks write makes me want to whack someone in the head with a shovel. An anti gunner writing a technical article about firearms is about the same as a child rapist writing about how to run a day-care center." | |||
| # Refusal to ] | |||
| Longterm battleground approach to Lightbreather: | |||
| # Personalizing an argument. | |||
| # Deletes LB from firearms project. (Maybe this was because of her temporary topic ban, but he didn't delete another user who received an identical ban). | |||
| # |
# Railroading the discussion. | ||
| # Says that he's only OK with LB improving the neutrality of the ] article if she's OK with him adding the text "Enjoys dancing in the blood of dead children" to articles on "anti gun organizations". | |||
| # Passive agressive personal attacks. | |||
| # Says gun control advocates (LB is one) have "an evil agenda where they want to disarm anyone who disagrees with them on their road to despotism and tyranny." | |||
| # Call LB a "troll". | |||
| # Says of LB "These groups have paid shills who operate on wiki spreading their lies, hate and racism." | |||
| #: LB asked him to lay off with the personal attacks. | |||
| # Says of LB "some people like writing misleading tripe" | |||
| # Insults Lightbreather ("Are you that slow that you cannot see that?") when she asks for a citation. | |||
| # Says LB is a "disruptive editor" and a "basket case" | |||
| # The welcome he gives LB: "Welcome to the firearms project. I look forward to your positive contributions and trust that you will not attempt to push your POV" | |||
| #: Typical welcome to the firearms project | |||
| #] 01:31, 13 November 2013 Says LB is "the proverbial "bad penny" that constantly undermines the hard work of others and previously arrived at consensus. That user is screaming for a topic ban." | |||
| #] 03:29, 3 October 2013 Says LB is "too emotional or too biased to work with anything firearms related" | |||
| 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. | |||
| Other users | |||
| # Deletes a comment with the edit summary "GFY". Urban Dictionary says it means "go fuck yourself". | |||
| # "I read it before the best part of you ran down your mother's leg." | |||
| # "Well, i took it out; why are you still running your cryhole?" | |||
| # "thats how its spelled jackoff" | |||
| # "gave direct link and a quote, to say it is not there means you are a liar pushing an agenda" | |||
| # "first sentence in a linked source in a published book, editor who cammot see it is either psychotic or liar" | |||
| # "cited in the article, where do these jackasses come from?" | |||
| # Deletes complaint about personal attacks with remark, "WLB". Urban Dictionary says it means "whiny little bitch". | |||
| # Following a disagreement, posts this comment on his user page: "Oh yeah, if you kick the hornet's nest on here, beware the deranged aspie dogpile!" | |||
| # Deletes complaint about personal attacks with remark, "don't like it? stay off my user page" | |||
| #] Filed 26 September 2014 | |||
| # Insults editors (and lots of other people) who use terms he doesn't accept: "whenever I hear someone use the terms "high capacity magazine", "assault weapon" or "Saturday Night Special" I take offense as those terms are perjorative in nature and reflect low intellect. If it is a man who uses the terms I instantly realize he knows nothing about firearms and is a better source of information about tofu burgers, scented candles and foot lotion." | |||
| ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
| Old stuff | |||
| <!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
| # Says of editors on Misplaced Pages: "you often deal with critics who could be compared to eunuchs in a harem" "For now I still believe in the projectm except for some of the losers it attracts. I really don't care about losers, but sometimes it's fun to watch them dance." | |||
| #] 08:26, 2 February 2010 He admits he was wrong for calling another editor things like "Fuckchop", "Douchebag", and "Barney Frank", blames it on the other editor for making him lose his temper. In other exchanges he calls the editor a "cuntrag" (even while he's accusing the other guy of making a personal attack), a "little twerp" and "some loser" | |||
| #] 07:00, 17 January 2007 Ancient history? It shows he ain't ignorant of the rules. He whines about another user being "frequently sarcastic", making "bold personal attacks", harassing him and blanking his talk page of complaints. Seven years ago he knew all about ] and thought that this other guy was in the wrong. Since then he's decided it's the best way to act. | |||
| # 18 November 2006 More complaints about an editor who is "fond of deleting the libellous attacks he makes too and denies them after the fact". That guy has a familiar list of uncivil remarks from Mike Searson. | |||
| #] More complaints about other users for "personal attacks". | |||
| ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | ||
| <!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | <!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | ||
| *Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above). | |||
| *Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on | |||
| ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ||
| <!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
| I was shocked to see someone comparing another editor to a child rapist and expressing the desire to hit her in the head with a shovel. This is a guy who collects guns and knives. He's used crude and aggressive language with her for years. Sure, he's abusive with other editors too but the way he's treated Lightbreather is unacceptable. Or it should be. This is sick. It's obviously intended to drive her away and discourage anyone else with a similar viewpoint. That violates the ArbCom case and a bunch of WP policies. He's been asked to stop but keeps doing it repeatedly. He knows it's wrong because he started on Misplaced Pages complaining about personal attacks by other users. Enough is enough. ] (]) 15:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::I have zero "relationship" with Lightbreather, unless you count editing some articles in common and having a similar point of view. ] (]) 16:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|DHN}} the other editor in a recent disagreement over a US military sniper, mentioned above. ] (]) 15:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I also have zero "relationship" with Darknipples, now the subject of two SPIs this month. | |||
| :::The January 16 message from MS says things about "certain people, "some folks", and "an anti-gunner". Who is he talking about if not LB? Which people are doing the things he's complaining about? Is the corollary of his last statement that "pro-gunners" writing about gun control is like child rapists writing about the age of consent? I dunno. The message, or a message, is that there ain't nothing good an "anti-gunner" can bring to a gun article. Maybe he thinks they should only be edited by gun fans. | |||
| :::The brief reply from MS is crazy. Maybe he thinks I hacked his cellphone to learn his schedule. I dunno how he got the idea there's a "group" behind this filing. I did it all by myself. Making unproven allegations, even against an unregistered editor though including registered ones, is another potential violation of the ArbCom decision. ] (]) 23:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | ||
| <!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
| * | |||
| <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
| ===Discussion concerning |
===Discussion concerning BabbleOnto=== | ||
| <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. |
<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 Mike Searson==== | |||
| I am out of town with no pc access until monday. Which is why this group chose this time to ambush me. I will respond then. But will say this. I never compared any editor to a child rapist. The accusers took that among other things i said out of context and misreported them. Same with the shovel comment its a figure of speech from the military, another reason for their enmity. The discussion was about source material. As in published authors on the subject and the subject was the technical aspect of firearms. Read that entire conversation before passing judgement as well as the other diffs they cherry picked. Sorry to put you folks through this, glad they didnt bring up the time i broke that lamp in 1973, respectfully -- mike searson (no tildes on my phone) (''Copied from ], 10:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)'') | |||
| ====Statement by |
====Statement by BabbleOnto==== | ||
| 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 . | |||
| He has also referred to me as a cunt in the past. | |||
| To be honest I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm being charged with doing. | |||
| As for more recent crap, he just seems to enjoy baiting me (and other editors). For instance, what was the purpose of this discussion? Or his comments in this discussion? I didn't bite, nor did the other editor, but he does this kind of stuff regularly, and I don't appreciate it. ] (]) 16:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| {{ping|Sandstein}} I don't know the anonymous user making this request. ] (]) 17:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I now address the specific edits in the complaint: | |||
| <s>{{ping|Beyond My Ken}} FWIW, the Editor Interaction Analyzer shows that Scalhotrod and the OP IP have in common. ] (]) 23:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)</s> | |||
| 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. | |||
| Going to call it a night soon, but I wanted to add, I've always thought it bizarre that Mike Searson is ''the'' ] of the ]. Is it a coincidence that gun-control articles on Misplaced Pages are under discretionary sanctions when the leader of the project that oversees these articles (more than any other group) is so biased ''and'' hostile? ] (]) 01:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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?" | |||
| {{ping|Scalhotrod}} No one pinged you, and the comment was struck. How did you know that you were mentioned here? (Here's an interesting Editor Interaction Analyzer since our mutual topic ban was lifted one week ago; note especially .) Anyway, I agree that there are "POV Editors" at WP:GUNS, where gun-rights sources are rarely questioned, but gun-control sources often are. And conservative/libertarian sources are rarely questioned, but liberal/progressive sources often are. (If the things Mike Searson has said about me sound hostile, you should see what he says about Dianne Feinstein.) The project's POV has resulted in a body of articles that are decidedly pro-gun/anti-control POV, as well as missing articles that ought to be added, though "wholesale" is exaggeration. | |||
| 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. | |||
| The point of your second paragraph is to belittle the OP and anyone who might agree with him/her. The fact is, Mike has a ''very'' sarcastic tone, that no-one should ''have'' to appreciate. His words don't ''seem'' harsh - they ''are'' harsh. It is ''not'' clear that his January 16 comment wasn't directed at me. (It is cousin to another brash editor's crass "cunt" comment that "wasn't" directed at me.) And your ''last'' remark in that paragraph reveals how impressed you are with yourself. | |||
| 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. | |||
| As for me trying to humor Mike Searson in my replies to him, considering that gun-control articles are under discretionary sanctions, and considering how I've been treated in the past when I tried to complain about civility on Misplaced Pages, and considering that I am a woman in a man's world (Misplaced Pages), and that for millenia women have learned to grin and bear it in response to aggressive male behavior - ''Are you really claiming that you think my offense is feigned?'' I'm not going to say what I'd like to say to you, but instead, I'll just say... ;-). | |||
| 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) | |||
| Finally, it does appear that the IP has some knowledge of WP, but it is not clear that he/she has an agenda beyond wanting to edit anonymously, which I sometimes wish I'd done from day one on Misplaced Pages when I see how people like Mike Searson and you treat those whose POVs are different from your own. Who wants to edit, anonymously or otherwise, in an environment where a project coordinator is likely to show up and allude to physically harming those whom he disagrees with? ] (]) 16:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:Edited. ] (]) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Sorry, the sub-header for this section says that only admins can edit this section, I didn't realize I was allowed to reply here. | |||
| {{ping|Guettarda|Heimstern|Sandstein}} Regardless of your decision re Mike Searson, may I ask you to consider an interaction ban between Scalhotrod and myself? I would prefer a one-way, since past evidence has shown, as has the interaction analysis since the end of our topic ban, that he follows me around, but I would agree to a two-way if necessary. ] (]) 17:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yes, I will. I intend on taking an extended break from wikipedia, as well. ] (]) 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC) <small> Moved from uninvolved admin section; you can answer questions, make comments, discuss, but all your input needs to be in your own section. ] (]) 17:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| **::{{TQ|an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.}} | |||
| **:: What I meant was that I'm willing to respect the consensus and not make any further edits or argue any more contrary to what the consensus decided. It seems to me that saying I have "Issues around understanding policy" and asking me to "learn policy" has subtext that says "Until you agree with this consensus, and you won't be allowed to edit at all." Is respectful disagreement with this consensus allowed? I'm afraid if in order to avoid a ban I have to ''personally agree'' with the consensus, beyond just respecting it, then there's nothing I can do. I still do disagree with the consensus's result. Nonetheless, I'm not going to edit or argue further, I'll respect it as a legitimate. | |||
| ====Statement by ProcrastinatingReader==== | |||
| Question: Since Robert McClenon has asked for clarification on whether or not Ibans ever result from ARE, does ARE ever result in any action against editors other than the requestor and requestee? ] (]) 18:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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. ] (]) 21:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by Beyond My Ken==== | |||
| The Editor Interaction Analyzer shows that Lightbreather and the OP IP have in common. ] (]) 23:41, 20 January 2015 (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, . | |||
| That's a pretty frightening comment; managing to involve not only guns, but a threatened assault with a shovel, and a casual mention of child rape, in relation to ... ''editing a Misplaced Pages project''. Not an article about war, not an article about a person's life, just a project. I can't guarantee it's specifically in reference to Lightbreather, but given the long history, it does seem possible; and frankly, it really shouldn't matter whom it was about, it's a pretty frightening comment regardless. This is not your standard Misplaced Pages namecalling, this is beyond the pale. <small>BTW ... y'all don't have to get out ''the tools'' for me. I admit it, ]. I am also Beyond My Ken and Scalhotrod. That way I ... we ... get to play not just solitaire Chess, but solitaire ]. Come, join us, be Lightbreather with me!</small> --] (]) 00:21, 21 January 2015 (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 ]. | |||
| ====Statement by Scalhotrod==== | |||
| <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
| Since I'm being mentioned, I'll comment as well. Mike has the unenviable position of being the coordinator for a project whose subjects happen to involve a lot of misinformation and outright ignorance of in the general public and media. I don't blame him in the slightest for not wanting political articles added in wholesale fashion to the project. I know first hand how easy it is to get sucked into the rhetoric and posturing of "debating a subject" within an article rather than just factually describing it. But the subject of gun politics is far from being alone in this aspect. Abortion, same-sex marriage, religion, and ISIS are all hot button topics that received attention from a great many POV Editors who feel that articles ''should'' state and say certain things. | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| That said, Mike has a pretty sarcastic tone that takes a while to appreciate or understand. If taken out of context, of course his words will seem harsh. The January 16th comment highlighted above is a perfect example of how Mike expresses himself. It was clearly not directed at one particular User and as the Project Coordinator, he's seen more than his fair share of POV Editors over his tenure. Anyone not realizing this is just entirely too impressed with themselves to think that Mike would find it necessary to comment about them specifically. | |||
| 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. | |||
| As for some of the additional examples, such as this one that Lightbreather pointed out. {{U|Lightbreather|LB}}, come on?! You responded to Mike's comment with a "wink and smile" ;) and now you're claiming that you're offended. You've dealt with Mike enough that I think you understood his point and responded accordingly. To use it against him in this context is just plain wrong. | |||
| 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. | |||
| As for everyone else watching/commenting, this just seems suspicious when an IP User that started editing on December 21, 2014 is initiating an ArbCom Enforcement proceeding. Clearly there is some prior knowledge of WP and an agenda in play. --] ] ☮ღ☺ 08:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ====Question by ]==== | |||
| Lightbreather has asked for an I-ban (interaction ban) with another editor. Does Arbitration Enforcement have the remit to impose interaction bans, or do they have to come from the ArbCom and/or the community noticeboards? ] (]) 17:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==== |
====Statement by Objective3000==== | ||
| 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) | |||
| I don't think he meant anything personal with his shovel comment. I don't feel it was directed at any specific editor (note the reference to "someone", '''not''' "certain people" or "them" or "her"). There are plenty of ways to phrase that so that it is targeted at another person, and I don't feel that it was phrased that way. As to "An anti gunner...run a day-care center." A bit overboard, but an anti-abortion activist may not be the best choice for technical information about abortions either. Likewise, a member of the ] is a bad source for information on LGBT issues. Of course, if any of the above can write NPOV stuff then whatever. ] (]) 03:16, 23 January 2015 (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 |
====Statement by JoelleJay==== | ||
| 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) | |||
| Mike Searson has a longstanding pattern of addressing other editors with hostility. His insults reference the gender, perceived sexual orientation, or perceived disability of his ideological opponents. Examples are numerous: referring to editors he disagrees with as an "aspie dogpile", referring to an editor he disagrees with as a cunt, referring to a female senator the same way, making comments about the intelligence of other editors (see below), making comments that imply that editors who disagree with him are homosexual (see below). | |||
| ====Statement by IntrepidContributor==== | |||
| Here's a representative quote: | |||
| :whenever I hear someone use the terms "high capacity magazine", "assault weapon" or "Saturday Night Special" I take offense as those terms are perjorative in nature and reflect low intellect. If it is a man who uses the terms I instantly realize he knows nothing about firearms and is a better source of information about tofu burgers, scented candles and foot lotion | |||
| 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 (). | |||
| I have seen the term "Saturday Night Special" used in reliable sources such as newspaper articles, books by historians and journalists, encyclopedias, and transcripts of Congressional hearings and debates. It's an important concept to articles such as ]. I do not believe that an editor can have a fair-minded, civil conversation about an article if he can't hold himself back from making sneering, thinly-veiled references to the sexuality of those who use terms discussed in that article. The pattern of comments creates a chilling effect that discourages other editors from participating. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Mike has repeatedly been made aware that these comments are inappropriate, including in the ANI thread linked above. The fact that this pattern of behavior has continued leads me to believe than an indefinite topic ban is an appropriate remedy.] (]) 05:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ====Comment by Pudeo==== | |||
| *The first 16 Jan diff is mispresented. Read the actual section: ]. They are talking about sources the project uses for technical details; Lightbreather suggets one source should be cautioned because of pro-gun bias. Mike Searson responds wih the shovel to the head comment about anti-gunners writing articles about techical details. The comment was not about Lightbreather, not even implicit. The rest of the presentation is one-sided and may contain more errors. Keeping in mind that Lightbreather has had problematic user conduct before such as during the Gender Gap ArbCom case (), one-sided presentation should not be taken at face-value without having a look at Lightbreather's conduct as well. --]] 06:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 14:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === |
=== Statement by TarnishedPath === | ||
| 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) | |||
| Re Pudeo's comments above: Regardless of Lightbreather's "user conduct", and regardless of who is behind the IP that opened this request, it is totally unacceptable for any editor to use language like "makes me want to whack someone in the head with a shovel". Excusing such an approach on the basis that it is someone else who should be whacked in the head with a shovel entirely misses the point. If it were an isolated incident, a warning would suffice. However, given the string of evidence presented, Mike Searson should be warned that further intimidatory language will result in an indefinite block. ] (]) 09:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Noting the editor's continued behaviour at ]. Refer to ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Result concerning Mike Searson=== | |||
| ::and again at ] '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
| <small>''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''</small> | |||
| ===Statement by berchanhimez=== | |||
| Awaiting a statement by Mike Searson. {{ping|Lightbreather}} Notifying you of this request on which you may want to comment; if you do, please also indicate any relationship between you and the anonymous user making this request. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:44, 20 January 2015 (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 | ] | ] 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Result concerning BabbleOnto=== | |||
| :Because Mike Searson doesn't seem to be active at the moment, I'll offer a preliminary assessment. The request appears actionable. The evidence indicates a confrontative attitude towards others. In particular, the recent edits of 08:42, 16 January 2015 ("makes me want to whack someone in the head with a shovel", comparing editors with different opinions to child rapists) and of 19:10, 10 January 2015 ("GFY" edit summary) are aggressive to a degree incompatible with working on a collaborative project to write a neutral encyclopedia about controversial topics. The use of aggressive, violent language aimed at a female editor in the context of disputes about gun control and gun violence by somebody who associates himself with a pro-gun point of view strikes me as particularly intimidating and inappropriate. The evidence of Mike Searson's past conduct shows that this is a persistent pattern of conduct, not an isolated incident. Unless fellow administrators see this in a radically different light, I am inclined to impose an indefinite topic ban. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
| ::Lightbreather, please let's keep this request focused on the conduct of Mike Searson. If you believe that there is actionable evidence of misconduct – in the form of diffs – that could require an interaction ban with respect to others, you can make a separate enforcement request about that. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
| *<!-- | |||
| --> | |||
| *{{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. | |||
| The worst matter here by far is the diff from 16 January, which is beyond unacceptable. That one is probably sufficient for a topic ban. Add that to the other ones under "Longterm battleground approach to Lightbreather" and it seems clear that Mike Searson's battleground approach is incompatible with further participation in this topic. ] ] 12:55, 21 January 2015 (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) | |||
| I think Mike Searson is a great editor, especially on species articles, but the interactions with Lightbreather here are not acceptable. I am especially bothered by what Sandstein refers to - the "aggressive, violent language aimed at a female editor..." Even if I took Scalhotrod's comments into consideration and assumed only the most benign intent behind those words, this would still be precisely what DS are supposed to prevent. I'm with Sandstein and Heim on this. ] (]) 14:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|title=Tangential}} | |||
| :{{ping|Robert McClenon}} - courtesy ], the answer is yes, at least in principle: AE has instituted i-bans in the past. | |||
| ::@], 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) | |||
| :{{ping|Lightbreather}} - there isn't enough here, in my opinion, to consider an interaction ban. And if it is warranted, it would be a separate request, though whether this is the best place for it is a different question; it would have to somehow spring from this arbcomm case. ] (]) 18:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::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 ]. — ] <sub>]</sub> 01:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] hasn't edited since 16 January. I suggest waiting *at most* two more days to see if he'll respond. There is a case that he has engaged in talk page disruption, given the aggressive language. If this were an ] complaint we would probably be talking about a three-month topic ban at this point. Interaction bans are tricky and might be considered if nothing else were available. ] (]) 00:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@], not ECP. ECR: non-EC are restricted from anything but making edit requests. ] (]) 14:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::This has been going on for many years. Is there any reason to think that a three month topic ban will help? I would argue that we should be thinking indefinite, with the allowance of appeal, plus a one way interaction ban. ] says he is a good editor with regards to species articles; that's the only reason I'm not arguing for a long term block. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 01:38, 23 January 2015 (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 ] by enforcing ECR. | |||
| :::In view of Mike Searson's interim statement reproduced above, I agree that we can wait until Monday UTC and should then decide based on his definitive statement. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::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)">] <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) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| *{{u|BabbleOnto}}, are you planning to answer my questions above? Do you think you're able/willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you? Are you able/willing to stop insisting everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers? ] (]) 13:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| My first thought was the same as NW's: that a lengthy block might be necessary. Several of the comments taken individually are beyond the pale, but taken collectively they indicate an extraordinary level of hostility far beyond the occasional loss of temper or lapse of judgement. We all get angry, and I could overlook an isolated incident, but this seems to be a pattern of drastically over-personalising content disputes. And while the gender of either editor shouldn't really come into it, it's hard not to notice such intimidatory behaviour being directed at a woman; certainly if a man behaved like that towards a woman in the street, at least where I come from, passers-by would intervene. While I'm willing to wait for Mike to make statement if he does so quickly, I can't see how such a statement could adequately explain the conduct raised here; it could present matters in extenuation and mitigation, but to be compelling that would have to include a lot of evidence that Lightbreather has behaved similarly appallingly. Unless Mike's statement casts a completely new light on things, I recommend a one-way interaction ban (ie a ban on talking to, commenting on, or mentioning Lightbreather anywhere on Misplaced Pages) and an indefinite topic ban on gun control and possibly a lengthy block. {{small|amended 03:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)}} ] | ] 18:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:BabbleOnto's response understanding this as a suggestion to take a break from Misplaced Pages as a whole isn't quite what I was hoping to see. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:@], an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around. | |||
| *:@], I'd support a tban, but is AP2 enough? It seems like COVID and fringe science need to be included? ] (]) 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::AP2 + COVID? I see the same behavior at the Brian Thompson article and Havana Syndrome, so COVID alone doesn't seem adequate. Oddly, the intersection of "medicine and politics" would appear to cover all affected topics but maybe that's too bespoke? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Marlarkey== | |||
| *I agree with ]'s description higher up on the page, and with ] just above. The amount of often sexualized aggression and hostility in the comments quoted by the OP is totally unacceptable. I don't care ''who'' it's directed at. Sneers like … jeez. While a good deal of the stuff quoted is pretty old, , singled out by Heimstern above as "beyond unacceptable", was posted just a week ago. At least a topic ban, for at least three months, from the firearms project is my recommendation. Six months would be better. ] | ] 00:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC). | |||
| {{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)}} | |||
| **The duration should be indefinite, with leave to request reconsideration after a certain period of time. Though those remarks are among the the worst I've ever seen from an established editor and I'm not fully convinced that a lengthy block is unnecessary, given the highly sexualised language and the references to violence. ] | ] 01:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
| ***I'd be fine with an indefinite ban or indeed a block. ] | ] 01:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC). | |||
| I am inclined similarly to NW and to HJ Mitchell. The stream of childish but vicious abuse spread across multiple edits on 28 December (''not'', I note, in relation to Lightbreather) does not speak well of this editor's ability to contribute effectively to even mildly contentious areas. The most recent (16 January) diff illustrates that the pattern of problematic editing is ongoing—if one feels that comparing one's adversary to a child rapist is acceptable, even in jest or as part of a dubious analogy, then one is not in a suitable state of mind for editing. | |||
| <br> | |||
| Looking at Mike Searson's (initial) response, while I have concerns about the arrival of a 'new' IP with an apparently deep background appearing at this noticeboard, in the absence of supporting evidence it strikes me that he has greatly overreached with his self-serving assertion that this filing was deliberately timed to take place as an "ambush" during his absence. Searson has not apparently made a habit of notifying Misplaced Pages editors of his planned comings and goings, and regularly has gaps of between 'a few' and 'several' days in his editing activity. I see no indication to support any reason beyond coincidence that this filing seemed to hit one of his slightly-longer absences. | |||
| <br> | |||
| As well, the idea that particular behaviors, attitudes, forms of address, or turns of phrase may be appropriate (or acceptable, or tolerated) in some situations, venues, occupations, company, or countries but emphatically not in others is not a new one. A nominally collegial, text-based discussion with fellow volunteers (some of whom may disagree with you) who are attempting to write encyclopedia articles reasonably calls for a different approach than then one evinced here. ](]) 01:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Request concerning Marlarkey=== | |||
| ==Cwobeel== | |||
| ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|WeatherWriter}} 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|1=Blocked for a week and banned from editing BLP awards and nominations lists. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
| ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Marlarkey}}<p>{{ds/log|Marlarkey}}</p> | |||
| ===Request concerning Cwobeel=== | |||
| ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|ChrisGualtieri}} 05:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Cwobeel}}<p>{{ds/log|Cwobeel}} | |||
| <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
| ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] |
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | ||
| <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | ||
| ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ||
| <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> | <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | ||
| # Restoring an unsourced BLP page with the edit summary: "nothing here is contentious". | |||
| '''''' | |||
| # Restoring unsourced BLP content discussed at BLPN with a single source to the user-generated ] website. | |||
| # |
# - Mainspace PIA edit prior to EC status. | ||
| # |
# - 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. | |||
| '''''' | |||
| # - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. | |||
| # - 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 : | ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : N/A. No previous blocks or topic bans. | ||
| <!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | <!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | ||
| # Alerted of discretionary sanctions by The Wordsmith | |||
| # Admonished for ] by Cailil following an Arbitration Enforcement request. | |||
| ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): at 15:29, 21 November 2024. | ||
| <!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | |||
| *Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. | |||
| ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ; 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 ]-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) | |||
| <!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
| *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) | |||
| ] was opened by the user Cirt. Cwobeel responded and maligned Cirt's actions: {{tq|I leave it to you to continue blowing up the work of good faith editors for no reason other than being super-narrow in your interpretation of policy. Have fun.}} and {{tq|While you are at it, go ahead and do the same with List of people who disappeared mysteriously, List of ice hockey players who died during their playing career and similar lists. There are many to keep your fun going.}} This seems to be more of the ] behavior that merited the first admonishment. I believe that the restoration sourced only to IMDb following these comments are indicative of a lack of competence and understanding of ] and ]. | |||
| :*{{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) | |||
| *(updated 16:22, 24 January 2015) Numerous credits have not checked out at ] including three 2008 Razzie nominations for "Worst Actor".. Two did not check out at the ], included an award Boston Society of Film Critics: they instead awarded Melanie Griffith in 1988. I stopped on the Nicolas Cage one after 5 checks in a row came up dubious or not accurate. Adam Sandler's list doesn't seem to fair much better (Razzie 2008 again), but a large part of the list is negative awards. This is just to confirm the existence of problems on all three. | |||
| *{{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) | |||
| ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
| <!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
| ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
| <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
| ===Discussion concerning |
===Discussion concerning Marlarkey=== | ||
| <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. |
<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 Cwobeel==== | |||
| We are talking here about innocuous articles listing the nominations and awards of known actors and actresses, nothing contentious that would warrant any type of intervention, and super easily sourced as I did here . I am glad to see that at least he is responding with improvements and adding other sources after me placing a {{tl|refimprove}} template . OTOH, this editor needs to stop posting AN/I and AE postings against me over past weeks, and this last one is another example. This is bordering on ]. - ] ] 15:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Marlarkey==== | |||
| {{yo|Collect}}: It should be noted that we have many BLP-related articles in WP, in particular lists, that are unsourced for non-contentious material. (See for example ], and ], and we just don't go around blanking them and redirecting them. In these cases the approach should be to place a {{tl|refimprove}} or similar template. The Yank Barry case was contentious to start with. - ] ] 16:24, 24 January 2015 (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. | |||
| ====statement by Collect==== | |||
| 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." | |||
| Where a claim is made which another editor deems reasonably to be contentious, ] is sufficiently clear. I would present the following as indicative of an example where a "nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize" claim was removed as inadequately sourced to show just why this is a proper position for editors to embrace rather than oppose. ], ], ], ] etc. where I postulate that a Nobel Peace Prize is, in fact, a major award. It is not onerous to expect that reliable sources are findable for major awards. ] (]) 16:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ====Statement by A Quest for Knowledge==== | |||
| Kww is an ] admin and shouldn't be posting in the uninvolved admin section. I ask that uninvolved admins at ] not rush to judgement. There is more going on here than this RfE might suggest. There is a long standing dispute in the community as to whether it's acceptable to delete content for no other reason than being unsourced. I think most are in agreement that it's perfectly acceptable for an editor to remove content in which they have a ] belief that that the material is wrong or unverifiable. There is much debate in the community as to whether it is acceptable to blindly delete unsourced content for no other reason that being unsourced. See ]. Also, see the discussion at ] and ] as evidence that there considerable disagreement in the community as to whether such conduct is acceptable. Many editors consider blind deletions to be ]. ] (]) 23:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ====Statement by (username)==== | |||
| <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
| 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 | |||
| ===Result concerning Cwobeel=== | |||
| <!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
| <small>''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''</small> | |||
| The request has merit. ] provides that: | |||
| :"Contentious material about living persons (...) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." | |||
| The material at issue was contentious because at least one person objected to its inclusion. IMDB is a user-edited website and therefore not a reliable source. The BLP policy must not be ignored, and in addition, the evidence provided that at least some of the material added from IMDB was incorrect indicates that the edits were not in fact an improvement to Misplaced Pages (wrong information is arguably more harmful than no information). The statement by Cwobeel indicates that they intend to continue violating the BLP policy in this manner. They are therefore immediately blocked for a week to prevent this. I'm leaving the thread open to invite the opinions of other admins about the possibility of a IMDB, awards or BLP topic ban. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I would support any closure of this AE that ensures that ] won't continue to add information sourced only to IMDB to these articles. Cwobeel's view that IAR applies was expressed . There's no justification here for IAR, especially when it's been pointed out (above) that many of these award citations are erroneous. A BLP subject shouldn't expect to find obvious factual mistakes in their Misplaced Pages article. ] (]) 17:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I suggest a prohibition on restoring any material removed on BLP grounds without a) unimpeachable sourcing or b) consensus at BLP/N, to be enforced by blocks of rapidly escalating duration in the event of non-compliance. A total ban on any biographical content related to living people would be hopelessly broad and a siteban in all but name (if that's the sort of severity of sanction we feel is appropriate, we should be looking at a one-year AE block and/or an indefinite block as a normal admin action), whereas a ban on any specific set of articles would be too narrow and too open for gaming, in my opinion, to adequately address the issue. The restriction I suggest would seem to be a middle ground. ] | ] 19:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::The problem with this is that it does not prevent Cwobeel from adding problematic content if nobody reviews all of their edits, and they seem to have other ideas about what "unimpeachable sourcing" consists of than, well, most editors – a recipe for problems. I can't at the moment think of a better option than a ban from adding or changing any BLP content. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::But there are nearly 700,000 BLPs (~20% of the encyclopaedia) and almost every article is going to contain some sort of fact about a living person. If we're considering a total ban on biographical content about living people, we might as well block them until they bring their views on sourcing into line with the Misplaced Pages mainstream, because the alternative is endless wikilawyering and leaves them unable to edit most of the encyclopaedia anyway. ] | ] 22:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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." | |||
| In the context of potential damage, this isn't a huge BLP issue. (Adam Sandler isn't going to get a job over someone else if an award is attributed to him that he didn't actually receive.) The problem is that Cwobeel doesn't seem to understand the issue here. (There's a difference between "I'll stop" and "I understand, and here's why".) And I'm not seeing that in the links posted or in his unblock request. What bothers me most about this is how utterly pointless it is. But I can't disagree with the block. ] (]) 19:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| There are a ''lot'' of editors that don't seem to see the BLP issues involved with the "List of Awards and Nominations ..." articles. I agree with ] that they aren't huge, but they are there, they are real, and this class of article has become a cesspool of unsourced assertions. While I agree with ] that any Misplaced Pages-wide BLP restriction is, for all practical purposes, a Misplaced Pages-wide restriction, it would probably be reasonable to craft a restriction tailored at award and nomination lists.—](]) 23:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Kww}} If you can think of wording that one couldn't drive a coach and horses through, please do propose it, but it seems there are concerns about the scope of the problem with Cwobeel's editing is broader than these awards articles. ] | ] 00:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would think a simple topic ban on lists related to awards and nominations for living people would be a good start. Additional restrictions may wind up necessary later, but that one would be a good start.—](]) 05:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::There seems to be agreement that some action is required, although perhaps not as broad as a BLP topic ban. I'm going with Kww's proposal and am imposing a ban from editing any list of awards or nominations of living people, with the exception of edits that consist only of adding accurate and reliable sources, subject to the ]. If BLP problems continue in other topic areas, additional sanctions may be requested or imposed. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| '''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 | |||
| ==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Eurocentral== | |||
| <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> | |||
| ] (]) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Appeal by Eurocentral=== | |||
| ; User who is submitting this appeal : {{userlinks|Eurocentral}} 16:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ;Sanction to be lifted: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Eurocentral, Topic ban from Hungary and Romania | |||
| On another point, following me reviewing the information in this complaint by WeatherWriter... | |||
| User Ed Johnson sanctioned me "due to your quibbling as to the country of origin of various historians who write about Romania" | |||
| "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. | |||
| I consider the Ed Johnson action as an abuse. Usually, all the pages of Romanian and Hungarian history are strongly modified by some Hungarian nationalist editors (I noted Borsoka and Fakirbakir) who want to show the priority in history of Hungarians (action similar to irredentism). They started a war edit between Romanian and Hungarian editors. Their tactics are to erase all references of Romanian historians or all data who are against their principles. In order to avoid the 3RR and other wiki rules they acted alternatively. In this way they managed to blocked a lot of Romanian editors. I edited especially against the elimination of data of Romanian historians entering in conflict with Borsoka and Fakirbakir. I also edited in history of Hungary where I insisted to keep the exact data of Romanian historians.see: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Hungarian_conquest_of_the_Carpathian_Basin, The use of leader's names instead of the nation name. It is obvious for Romanians that some Hungarian editors try to avoid the names of Romanians (Vlachs) to be mentioned. Also in ] I showed there about the alternative activity of Hungarian editors who erased all data of a Romanian historian who wrote against their principles. My opinion is that all data of all historians have room in wiki pages. Censoring historians are similar to vandalism. | |||
| 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 | |||
| Ed Johnson wrongly considered these as an action against "various historians" | |||
| ] (]) 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) | |||
| I want the ban to be lifted (]) 16:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Ok, having now reviewed ]'s page history, its talk page discussion, and Marlarkey's contributions more generally, I find that: | |||
| ** I will do what are necessary and ad some diffs to reverts discussed; normally diffs are in connection to reverts; why did you write "diff of notification to appeal". What does it means? | |||
| :* Marlarkey has repeatedly violated ] at ] since having received a CTOP notice | |||
| ] (]) 17:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*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 | |||
| :*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—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== | |||
| <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=== | ||
| ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Schazjmd}} 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] has placed the reviewers at a disadvantage by not providing any links to what he is talking about. I won't hold it against him that he can't spell my name correctly, even though it's clearly visible on ], in the various sanction notices. | |||
| ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|DanielVizago}}<p>{{ds/log|DanielVizago}}</p> | |||
| Back in October 2014, Borsoka reported Eurocentral for edit warring at ]. See . As a result of that report, I took no action but I notified Eurocentral of the discretionary sanctions under ]. | |||
| You can see the tone of the interactions between Borsoka and Eurocentral at . There are many charges of POV exchanged there. At the time, I believed that Eurocentral didn't want the opinions of Hungarian historians to be trusted, simply because they were Hungarian. Now that I review the material, I'm not so sure. But he still seems to believe that Hungarian Misplaced Pages editors are trying to enforce a certain POV. | |||
| ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
| Here is a statement he made about ] on that page: "''Borsoka wants to erase all references in Romanian but to keep all references in Hungarian. All pages of Hungarian history have references in Hungarian language. Another example of his subjective and nationalistic attitude. Eurocentral (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)''" | |||
| On my talk page he complained about by Hungarian editors. | |||
| It is possible that Eurocentral might have something useful to contribute but his limited English makes it hard for him to express himself clearly, and the net impression is of an ethnic warrior. ] (]) 20:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Borsoka=== | |||
| :Just a side remark: I have never wanted to "show the priority in history of Hungarians" (actually I do not understand what this expression means), and I have not "started a war edit between Romanian and Hungarian editors". On the other hand, Eurocentral has for long been dreaming of an edit war between Hungarian editors on one side and the united forces of Romanian, Slovak and Ukrainian editors on the other . No other editors have so far joined him. Eurocentral also expressed his biased views of Bulgarian editors during a debate about his (not unusual) abuse of scholars' name in order to substantiate his own OR . Even a banned (and, by the way, Romanian) editor, who had (ab)used Eurocentral as his puppet, stated that Eurocentral ]; an other editor wrote of the "]". ] (]) 18:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by (involved editor 2)=== | |||
| ===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Eurocentral === | |||
| ===Result of the appeal by Eurocentral=== | |||
| :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
| <!-- Please notify the appellant in the event of a successful appeal, in addition to logging it on the case page. ] informs users that "If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful."--> | |||
| <!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
| *This was a pretty malformed request, I've formatted it to something resembling normal. Eurocentral, you must notify the banning admin of this request, and add a diff of the notification to your appeal, or it may not be processed. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*Eurocentral, you must leave the banning admin a message that tells them you appeal the ban here. Then you must copy the diff (see ]) of that message to your section so that we can see that you left the message. Please comment in your own section only, I've moved your comment up. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't think we need to let the bureaucracy get in the way, given that Eurocentral is not a hugely experienced editor, so pinging {{u|EdJohnston}} should suffice. Nonetheless, I'm inclined to dismiss the appeal as it does not address the reasons for it and instead personally attacks two editors by accusing them of being {{xt|Hungarian nationalist editors who want to show the priority in history of Hungarians}}, accuses the sanctioning admin of "abuse", and is indicative of a battleground mentality. I also note that Eurocentral has violated the topic ban at least once, resulting a short block. This all suggests that the topic ban is not only justified but absolutely necessary. ] | ] 19:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree with declining the appeal for the same reasons. The statement by Eurocentral indicates the sort of confrontative approach to encyclopedia writing that this topic area does not need. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * There's no substantive editing outside the topic area since the sanction was imposed. Show that you can edit constructively elsewhere, on less contentious topics. Show that you can edit without getting into nationalistic confrontations. Make it clear that you won't get into confrontations like this, establish a track record. Do that and your request to have your ban lifted might be taken more seriously. At present, it doesn't seem like you understand the problem people had with your editing. ] (]) 19:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Eric Corbett== | |||
| <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
| ===Request concerning Eric Corbett=== | |||
| ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Lightbreather}} 23:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Eric Corbett}}<p>{{ds/log|Eric Corbett}} | |||
| <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
| ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: | |||
| *] indefinitely from: (i) editing the pages of the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) discussing the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) participating in any process broadly construed to do with these topics. | |||
| *] ... from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or '''belittling''' other editors. | |||
| <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
| ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ||
| # 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.}}); | |||
| <!-- 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. --> | |||
| # and Removing sourced content from ] that states misandry is not a major an issue as misogyny; | |||
| # In a discussion at ] about retaining and recruiting new editors, less than an hour after I asked if women had been invited to the conversation, and in direct response to that question, Eric Corbett showed up to criticize one of the proposals and compared the project to ''']''' | |||
| # 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}}); | |||
| # After I tried to help Eric Corbett by suggesting his criticism wasn't about gender, he replied that "we create a fantasy world of institutionalised '''sexism'''...." | |||
| # |
# 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; | |||
| # After notifying him of this enforcement request, he replied that he hopes that I get banned. | |||
| # 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.}} | |||
| Eric Corbett had not been active on the project's talk page since 14 November 2014, when he asked {{u|Rationalobserver}} if she was making a legal threat. | |||
| I tried twice to simply have the comments removed at the talk page in question, but both requests for admin help were closed within a few minutes. | |||
| {{ping|Go Phightins!}} As usual, when it comes to complaining about Eric Corbett, I had a knot in my stomach when I came here because I know how many people defend him. I only came here after I tried twice to correct his misstep, using the "path of least drama" as {{u|NE Ent}} puts it, at WER. Baiting has been mentioned here and there. Where did I bait Eric Corbett? | |||
| Also, when did I bring up GGTF? Not until after Eric Corbett had... in the very first sentence of his very first post at WER in over two months. ] (]) 16:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Buster7}} "Piqued" has two meanings, one of which is to feel irritated or resentful. I was neither of those things. I asked if women had been invited to the discussion because it seemed like a perfectly reasonable question. The men involved in the discussion had come up with a pretty good list of things to consider for retention and recruitment. You even invited others to "add to the soup." For this reason it seemed to be a pretty good time to ask, too, as there was also a suggestion to submit the list to the Signpost. | |||
| However, the answers ran from defensive (I don't see a way to fault those involved) to not AGF (a good way to derail something like this is to add the hot-button gender element to it). And then Eric Corbett jumped in with, "This project seems to be heading down the same rabbit hole that the GGTF project now finds itself in." ] (]) 16:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Hafspajen}} My question to the WER discussants had NOTHING to do with outing. There are many women who edit openly as women on Misplaced Pages, many respected women editors. And some of those women are members of WER. My questions was simply to suggest that the group invite some women to participate. ] (]) 17:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Chillum}} It was Eric Corbett who brought up GGTF first... in the very first sentence of his very first post at WER in over two months. ] (]) 17:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| @EVERYONE To explain the series of events from my eyes. I asked a question. The group might have simply answered, "Good idea. Let's do that," but it didn't. By the time Eric Corbett joined in, there were some already singing the "Misplaced Pages is genderless" chorus. My first response to Eric was to ignore the first sentence of his comment (comparing WER to GGTF) and to agree with him (I did and I do) that one of the list items should be clarified. Then I proceeded to give my opinion on how to improve one of the other list items. There was a little opposition to the suggestion, and Buster7 brought up Eric's "rabbit hole" statement about the GGTF. Seeing that we might be heading into another dispute about gender, I said 1) Let's not use terms like "rabbit hole," and 2) That I didn't think Eric was talking about gender. (Yes, despite opinions to the contrary, I was trying to keep the discussion from devolving into the other hot-button issue: civility.) And, for those who don't click through, this is what I said: | |||
| :''My purpose in asking the question that I asked earlier today was to ''remind'' the project members involved in this discussion that they ought to consider inviting some women project members to join in. That's all. There is a gender gap on Misplaced Pages, and we do want to narrow it, and one way to do that is to get more women involved in these kinds of discussions. I don't mean for that to be a critical comment - just a factual one.'' | |||
| To which Eric replied that "we create a fantasy world of institutionalised sexism or whatever and then we populate it with imaginary villains and heroes." WTH? And then Buster7 wanted to discuss whether or not "rabbit hole" is a negative figure of speech, and whether by using "let's" I was presuming to speak for the group. | |||
| Seeing the signs of a derailing of the discussion (should we invite some women project members to join this discussion), I asked for an uninvolved admin to remove Eric's comments per the ]. | |||
| Please note that I ''only'' asked for his comments to be removed, and that I did ''not'' come here first. | |||
| ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | ||
| *None | |||
| <!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
| <!-- # Explanation --> | |||
| ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
| *I alerted them on | |||
| ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
| <!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | |||
| *Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. | |||
| ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ||
| 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. | |||
| <!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
| 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. ] ] 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | ||
| * | |||
| <!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
| Notified | |||
| <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
| ===Discussion concerning Eric Corbett=== | |||
| <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
| ===Discussion concerning DanielVizago=== | |||
| ====Statement by Eric Corbett==== | |||
| <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
| The next thing will be a request for clarification I imagine, hopefully leading to another replay of the civility debates and ending up with me at last being banned. But for what? Merely mentioning the GGTF? ] ] 03:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by DanielVizago==== | |||
| I fully expected that the hard-line enforcers such as {{u|Sandstein}} would do their utmost to stretch the meaning of {{tq|"(iii) participating in any process broadly construed to do with these topics"}} beyond the limits of credibility, which is why I've been refusing to help with articles on female subjects. But if the editor retention project now comes under the remit of the GGTF then so be it, I'm guilty as charged. ] ] 15:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by |
====Statement by caeciliusinhorto==== | ||
| Since this report was opened, DanielVizago has continued to make questionable edits adding articles to ]. | |||
| An administrator already told Lightbreather they considered Eric's participation allowed: please see and ]. <small>]</small> 00:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * , categorising a living person who has been accused (but not charged, let alone convicted) of sexual assault as a rapist (cf. ]) | |||
| The allegation the Eric "showed up" in response to Lightbreather's participation is not supported by evidence. The article info tool indicates Eric is the sixth most frequent participant, with the following data: | |||
| * 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 | |||
| <pre> | |||
| * and edit categorise two sexually-motivated murderers as rapists despite no evidence that they ever raped anyone in the article (cf. ]) | |||
| Username ↓ Links ↓ # 1 ↓ Minor edits ↓ % ↓ First edit ↓ Latest edit ↓ atbe 2 ↓ Added (Bytes) ↓ | |||
| Eric Corbett ec · topedits 121 30 24.8% 2013-05-22, 21:55 2015-01-24, 23:48 5.1 36,359 | |||
| </pre> <small>]</small> 00:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{u|Sandstein}} A block is inappropriate here. Conflicts should be resolved using the ''Path of Least Drama.'' As an administrator (Go Phightins) a) gave Eric a great light to continue and b) has admitted they erred, a block would be excessive. The simplest way to resolve is to simply remove Eric's post from the page (I'd have done it already but the committee chose to use the term "administrator" rather than "editor".) <small>]</small> 11:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 10:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Chillum==== | |||
| ====Statement by Simonm223==== | |||
| I have read through the diffs and I have seen what is at worst mild abrasiveness. I don't think this behavior rises to the level of sanction. Eric has been rather impressively holding back over the last several weeks and has even demonstrated the ability to not allow provocation to get the better of him. He has done this while continuing to contribute to the encyclopedia. I don't think much is to be gained for using enforcements against such mild behavior. ] 00:11, 25 January 2015 (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) | |||
| :At the "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" section was not filled out. I assumed this was about the civility restrictions. I now realize it is about a topic ban. While I stand by what I said above I recognize I have not addressed the issue at hand. ] 01:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris ==== | |||
| There is nothing here other than the ordinary give-and-take of editing. Suggest a wrist-tap to the plaintiff for filing a frivolous complaint. ] (]) 00:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Sitush==== | |||
| ShortBrigade says {{tq|Suggest a wrist-tap to the plaintiff for filing a frivolous complaint}}. I'd suggest a well-aimed boomerang. People are not seeing the elephant in this room, which encompasses several other WMF-operated spaces (diffs on request). Alas, as I understand it, enforcement only works in one direction, unlike ANI. The volume is being turned ] and "frivolous" doesn't even get near to covering it. - ] (]) 02:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Go Phightins!==== | |||
| Insofar as I misread the topic ban as topics related to the gender gap, not merely GGTF, I erred in my initial assessment that there was absolutely no violation of the topic ban. Nevertheless, I chose not to block initially because Eric's participation was certainly not detrimental to the discussion, was only tangentially related to the GGTF, and even so, only because Lightbreather brought it up. Moreover, Lightbreather's decision to bring up the sanctions after arguably baiting or at least facilitating an atmosphere conducive to discussion of how the gender gap pertains to editor retention, a discussion in which I think Eric should have the right to participate. In short, when Eric began participating in the discussion, it was not about the gender gap, and only because of Lightbreather did it shift to that topic, at which point Eric's response catalyzed her reporting of him ostensibly violating a topic ban thereof. I do not support blocking Eric at this time, but as I told Lightbreather, I plan to continue to monitor the discussion on ]. '''] ]]''' 03:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|NuclearWarfare}} {{ping|Sandstein}} – Upon reflection and re-reading of the topic ban and Eric's comments, I think you are right that Eric's edits do violate the strict construction of the topic ban, notwithstanding that they were not inflammatory and were appropriate in the context of the discussion, which was never ''supposed'' to be about the gender gap, and only shifted to that topic because Lightbreather made it shift that way. I would not feel inclined to block considering the circumstances, but another administrator would certainly be justified in doing so per the topic ban's stipulation that Eric refrain from discussing the gender gap topic. The argument to block on the basis of belittling another editor, however, I think is significantly weaker, especially considering there was definitely some two-way baiting going on here. '''] ]]''' 13:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Buster7==== | |||
| Editor Lightbreather came into the discussion piqued because no women were present. I just want to point out that no editor was invited to the conversation. No editor or group of editors was excluded. As is normal, it was many varied conversations that just bubbled up from the masses. It just so happened that none of those masses were women. It could have been handled in so many different ways that would have been forwarding and positive toward the issue that is important to Lightbreather. As a long time member and a co-ordinator at WER I feel some responsibility to maintain the proper decorum at the project. At no time did I feel that Eric had over-stepped the bounds of propriety. He never even got close.]<small>]</small> 09:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Delibzr==== | |||
| Most of the people don't know that the complaint concerns topic ban. ] (]) 11:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Kudpung==== | |||
| As I interpret the exact wording of the arbitration, Eric is clearly in breach of the sanctions. What happens next I will leave for others to decide. --] (]) 13:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Hafspajen==== | |||
| I believe that the whole discussion was about the tread: '''How many women have been involved in these discussions?''' started by the same editor who also started this one. Is based on outing. Outing is not allowed. Or you have to declare you are a woman or you chose to say - '''I don't want to say = he edits or she edits'''. This kind of discussions are forcing people to disclose their identity. I believe it is every editor's fundamental right to chose what they want to disclose or not, but in this way it's soon impossible. Or is this a project for finding out people's gender? The answer is: You don't know the answer. You will never know: ''How many women have been involved in these discussions?'' - not until every single editor disclosed their gender. ] (]) 16:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Drmies==== | |||
| I suppose I'm hardly uninvolved since I have supported both editors in their various disagreements with others (Lightbreather, you may recall, had gotten somewhat unfairly in hot water in the whole gun debate thing and I mostly supported her arguments there), but this is indeed frivolous. Worse, it causes a chilling effect which I think is never OK--and I'm putting that mildly since I don't wish to use the H-word. | |||
| ====Statement by John Carter==== | |||
| I see absolutely no merit whatsoever to this complaint. I specifically stated that this discussion be taken to AE, but that as an individual I and I believe the other editors who have been given the authority to remove disruptive comments on the page apparently saw nothing that merited such action. The only possible grounds for declaring a violation are Eric mention of the GGTF, and, honestly, that seems to me to be an extremely weak basis on which to impose sanctions. I also note that Jimbo's talk page has historically been declared out-of-bounds by AE given his status. While I do not necessarily think that the ER group has the same status or authority as Jimbo, I do think that there might well be merit to having at least one other page where comments which might be otherwise less than appropriate be placed, and that the talk page of a group whose stated goal is to keep editors would be an appropriate page to serve that purpose. As I have indicated there already, several people have already been effectively declared as having the authority to remove comments that are counterproductive, including a few active admins. If the comments ever get regularly excessive there, then it may be necessary for AE or ArbCom to be invoked, but I have no reason to think it will ever get to that point, and that it is appropriate to allow some editors to express their concerns somewhere other than Jimbo's talk page somewhere on wikipedia. ] (]) 17:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by (username)==== | ====Statement by (username)==== | ||
| <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | ||
| ===Result concerning |
===Result concerning DanielVizago=== | ||
| :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
| <!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
| <small>''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''</small> | |||
| *Frivolous complaint in my opinion. In view of the history between the users, I would say that the talk from LB about 'trying to do Eric a favor' was pretty provocative, as were also her requests for admin to remove Eric's comments ( when she didn't like the first uninvolved admin response). Eric's comments seem mild enough, and not in breach of his GGTF topic ban. ] | ] 01:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC). | |||
| **Is your stated intention to apply a one-week block a supervote, ]? But in fact where I mentioned the topic ban, I've realized I missed where Eric Corbett mentioned GGTF without being prodded into it: . Sorry about that. He shouldn't have, but a bare mention = a week's block? A warning is sufficient IMO. Lightbreather's other complaints are straight from the bottom of the barrel. EC's supposedly "belittling" edit summary was in response to . I could easily have said as much myself. EC's edit summary response might make LB self-reflect a little about her own belittling condescension ("I tried to do him a favor by saying that he wasn't talking about gender" — consider the history betwen them!), rather than complain. And EC's to LB filing an AE report is " his restriction from 'insulting (...) other editors'" (per Sandstein)? Please. This whole complaint is overblown, and I think you're overreacting too, Sandstein. ] | ] 17:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC). | |||
| *This does look a bit silly. Eric could perhaps not bring up the GGTF, but the mere mention of it is not a violation of his topic ban. Lightbreather could perhaps look past the person who made the comment and reply to its substance or ignore it, but I don't believe she is subject to an applicable arbitration remedy so there would be no grounds for a boomerang, even if I didn't feel that it would be excessive. In some respects, I'm glad this has been brought for outside input before it deteriorated any further, but I wish it had been taken to a forum that wasn't about imposing sanctions. {{small|Full disclosure: I met Eric IRL once and I've interacted with him off-wiki, but the same is true of possibly thousands of editors, including several that I've sanctioned. I believe I am objective on this matter.}} ] | ] 03:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I too am inclined to think that this complaint is making a mountain over something that could not even be charitably described as a molehill. However, can someone explain to me why Eric's edits do not fall under the scope of the topic ban (parts 2-3, if not specifically part 1)? Thanks, '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 05:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I think the complaint has merit and is not frivolous. By writing that "This project seems to be heading down the same rabbit hole that the GGTF project now finds itself in", Eric Corbett violated his topic ban from "participating in any process broadly construed to do with "; see also ], which clearly extends topic bans to discussions. By writing that "Hopefully it will result in you being banned", which is an insult, Eric Corbett violated his restriction from "insulting (...) other editors". Considering Eric Corbett's long block log, I intend to apply a one-week block unless my colleagues show me something I've overlooked. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Not a frivolous complaint, in my opinion. Thin, but not frivolous. The real question is what's the appropriate remedy? Normally this wouldn't merit more than a warning. Normally Eric Corbett's block log would merit a block. But here's the problem - short blocks don't seem to bother Eric - and why should they? Longer blocks would be disproportionate, and not in the interest of the project. I'm at a loss here. ] (]) 15:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *A technical violation but not one I suspect was done in bad faith. It appears an existing discussion was going on and it was swayed into the forbidden topic area by the poster of this report. I suggest a stern warning that the topic ban is to be interpreted strictly in the future and to beware of such pitfalls. ] 16:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I've p-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor communicating. ] (]) 12:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==John Carter== | |||
| *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) | |||
| <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
| *:I'd like to hear what they have to say, too, but I'm also not averse to letting this archive with no further action since the p-block is an indef. I've left another message at their talk. ] (]) 13:41, 19 January 2025 (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. --> | |||
| *<!-- | |||
| --> | |||
| ==USERNAME== | |||
| ===Request concerning John Carter=== | |||
| <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
| ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Ignocrates}} 17:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Request concerning USERNAME=== | |||
| ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|John Carter}}<p>{{ds/log|John Carter}} | |||
| ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Bamdad bahar}} 17:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|USERNAME}}<p>{{ds/log|USERNAME}}</p> | |||
| ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] : | |||
| ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
| # John Carter directly commenting on a post I made to Fearofreprisal's talk page re outing | |||
| # John Carter making disparaging comments about me to Eric Corbett and putting words into ArbCom's mouth about how I am regarded by the Committee | |||
| ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
| #] AE block for previous I-ban violation | |||
| ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
| John Carter opposed my recent amendment request to relax the terms of the I-ban restriction: Therefore, John Carter should also be obligated to abide by the original terms of the ban restriction. | |||
| ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
| <!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
| ===Discussion concerning John Carter=== | |||
| <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 John Carter==== | |||
| ====Statement by (username)==== | |||
| <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
| <In editing Alexander's family and descendants' information, editor Prince Tehran keeps deleting edits and reverting to unfounded information. A new reference has been cited in Persian, and there has been considerable research conducted to confirm that Prince Alexander had two sons (not recorded in Georgian texts - for obvious political reasons). I am respectfully requesting that this editor(Prince Tehran) NOT be allowed to make these changes (or undo the edits). In a very practical sense, its a little ridiculous to suggest that Alexander had two children in his 50's but somehow did not have any when he was younger. The data from Iranian sources is correct. !--- Here and at the end, replace Prince Tehran with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
| ===Result concerning John Carter=== | |||
| <!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
| <small>''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''</small> | |||
Latest revision as of 18:24, 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:
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}}.
|
wikimedia.org).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. Request concerning Lemabeta
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)
Discussion concerning LemabetaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by LemabetaYeah, 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)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Lemabeta
|
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. Request concerning Boy shekhar
Discussion concerning Boy shekharStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Boy shekharStatement by VanamondeThis 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)
Result concerning Boy shekhar
|
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)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 2023-04-05 and re-iterated on 2024-11-25 (see the system log linked to above).
- Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 2024-12-18 by Femke (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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:
- Adding a citation for a claim that Hamas terrorists shot dead a group of Israeli tourists.
- Replacing map with a photograph of victims of violence.
- Removing an outdated maintenance tag which was perhaps casting doubt on the relevant section, Massacre of pensioners, and again.
- Adding specification to claims of the use of human shield (specifying who has made the claims), therefore giving greater weight to the claims, in a context where the claims were already described at considerable length; adding another reference to that claim; and adding another.
- Adding an image contentiously captioned 'Weapons Found in a Mosque', then again Rockets hidden at a house, both to the first line of the article.
- Adding, without sufficient context, an assertion that a philosopher has determined that one side of the conflict is culpable and expanding other coverage of culpability of that side.
- On the talk pages, there has been a tinge of failure to AGF 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 LGBTQ rights in the State of Palestine: inserting a reference to execution into the first sentence of the lead; adding more references to news coverage of executions of LGBT+ people by the other side of the conflict. At Houthi movement, there is then an expansion, again of the article lead, to add references to terrorist attacks (with follow-up).
- 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)
- 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:
- The offwiki canvassing is a problem...שלומית ליר, you're fairly inexperienced here. Were you aware WP:canvassing is not allowed? Valereee (talk) 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. Valereee (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I take it that per Barkeep49's brief oversighting of potentially-sensitive content in this report (Special:Diff/1269845558), and then restoration of the same (Special:Diff/1269848988), concerns of outing have been investigated and the report can proceed on its merits? signed, Rosguill 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 16 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
- 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)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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"
andFirst 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 onlygraphic 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 (whenprimary-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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- @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, whileThere 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 asan 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)
- 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)
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
- 11 January 2025 Sealioning
- 11 January 2025 Refusal to get the message
- 11 January 2025 Personalizing an argument.
- 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
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)
- Edited. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, the sub-header for this section says that only admins can edit this section, I didn't realize I was allowed to reply here.
- Yes, I will. I intend on taking an extended break from wikipedia, as well. BabbleOnto (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC) Moved from uninvolved admin section; you can answer questions, make comments, discuss, but all your input needs to be in your own section. Valereee (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.
- What I meant was that I'm willing to respect the consensus and not make any further edits or argue any more contrary to what the consensus decided. It seems to me that saying I have "Issues around understanding policy" and asking me to "learn policy" has subtext that says "Until you agree with this consensus, and you won't be allowed to edit at all." Is respectful disagreement with this consensus allowed? I'm afraid if in order to avoid a ban I have to personally agree with the consensus, beyond just respecting it, then there's nothing I can do. I still do disagree with the consensus's result. Nonetheless, I'm not going to edit or argue further, I'll respect it as a legitimate.
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
| Tangential |
|---|
|
- BabbleOnto, are you planning to answer my questions above? Do you think you're able/willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you? Are you able/willing to stop insisting everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers? Valereee (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- BabbleOnto's response understanding this as a suggestion to take a break from Misplaced Pages as a whole isn't quite what I was hoping to see. signed, Rosguill 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @BabbleOnto, an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.
- @Rosguill, I'd support a tban, but is AP2 enough? It seems like COVID and fringe science need to be included? Valereee (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- AP2 + COVID? I see the same behavior at the Brian Thompson article and Havana Syndrome, so COVID alone doesn't seem adequate. Oddly, the intersection of "medicine and politics" would appear to cover all affected topics but maybe that's too bespoke? signed, Rosguill 17:56, 19 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. Request concerning Marlarkey
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)
Discussion concerning MarlarkeyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MarlarkeyWeatherWriter (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
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)
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)
Result concerning Marlarkey
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)
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
|
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
- 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.
); - 4 Jan 2025 and 5 Jan 2025 Removing sourced content from Misogyny that states misandry is not a major an issue as misogyny;
- 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
); - 13 Jan 2025 Added "bimisandry" to Biphobia, citing 4 sources, none of which include that term;
- 14 Jan 2025, weird edits adding Category:Female rapists with piped names to unrelated articles, then added those names directly to the category page;
- 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;
- 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)
- I alerted them on 28 Dec 2024
- 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)
- I'd like to hear what they have to say, too, but I'm also not averse to letting this archive with no further action since the p-block is an indef. I've left another message at their talk. Valereee (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
USERNAME
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 USERNAME
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Bamdad bahar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- USERNAME (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
<In editing Alexander's family and descendants' information, editor Prince Tehran keeps deleting edits and reverting to unfounded information. A new reference has been cited in Persian, and there has been considerable research conducted to confirm that Prince Alexander had two sons (not recorded in Georgian texts - for obvious political reasons). I am respectfully requesting that this editor(Prince Tehran) NOT be allowed to make these changes (or undo the edits). In a very practical sense, its a little ridiculous to suggest that Alexander had two children in his 50's but somehow did not have any when he was younger. The data from Iranian sources is correct. !--- Here and at the end, replace Prince Tehran with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->