Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:09, 26 June 2015 editPenwhale (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users7,574 edits →Result concerning A Quest For Knowledge← 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>{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}{{Redirect|WP:AE|the automated editing program|Misplaced Pages:AutoEd}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__</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 = 174
|minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(4d) |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===
==A Quest For Knowledge==
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|EF5}} 20:18, 5 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>


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Lemabeta}}<p>{{ds/log|Lemabeta}}</p>
===Request concerning A Quest For Knowledge===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Mann jess}} 06:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|A Quest For Knowledge}}<p>{{ds/log|A Quest For Knowledge}}


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] : ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->



; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing.
# - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist.


] - a blog which promotes fringe views on climate science - recently to "correct" our coverage. Since then, we've been having a tough time handling the increased attention and fervor, and consensus building has been turbulent. I to facilitate discussion, but we kept hitting the same walls, so ] to address a recurring issue.

Unfortunately, ] has been disrupting the RfC and other methods of consensus building, which has made our task considerably harder. He has repeatedly inserted his opinions into the RfC question, suggesting that responding is a waste of time, and all but one of the options contravene policy, making the RfC's summary markedly non-neutral. In two cases, he added his opinions in the middle of JzG's comment, which mixed up attribution of JzG's words and the origin of the RfC. My first effort was to move his comment to the discussion section, but he reverted me, and hasn't helped.

*
*
*
*

While the RfC's wording may not be perfect, it was obviously a good faith effort to aid discussion and build consensus, and the structured format has helped us tease out a few suggestions already. AQFK's edits are clearly an effort to ''stop'' discussion and collaboration, which has not been helpful in an already terse environment.

AQFK has also been edit warring on the article for a considerable time. He is not the only one, but his history is extensive, and his reverts are often not coupled with substantive discussion. The following diffs are all removing the same sourced content from the article:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


AQFK has been exhibiting other problematic behavior as well, which I'll add to this request as I'm able. It is worth noting that disruptive behavior is not limited to AQFK, and broader sanctions may eventually be needed, but at the moment AQFK is the only one attempting to hinder collaboration.

AQFK was previously topic banned from climate change by arbcom in . The ban was lifted in 2012. The topic is subject to discretionary sanctions, and I'm asking that they be applied (in whatever form is deemed necessary) to prevent further disruption. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 05:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

:AQFK has also been misrepresenting the conversation, and not working toward a goal of building consensus and collaborating with editors of different viewpoints. For example, when discussing the inclusion of , AQFK has repeatedly summarized the dispute as the addition of the word "denier": , , , , , , , , , , ,

:This has led to confusion, since the contested edit does not contain the word "denier". Yet, AQFK continues to assess sources based on their use of the word "denier" and not variants like "climate change denial". Editors have asked AQFK to be more careful in his choice of language (, , , , , ), and method of assessing sources (), but his behavior has not changed ().

:Note that the last diff is one AQFK has copied and pasted several places. In it, AQFK misrepresents the sources by saying the word "denier" does not appear in any of them, when in reality some variant of "denier" appears in nearly 30%. () &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 08:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
] and


;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. -->
*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 : ; 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. -->

<!--- 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 A Quest For Knowledge=== ===Discussion concerning Lemabeta===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by A Quest For Knowledge====


====Statement by Lemabeta====
The problem with the RfC as currently written is that it presents a false trichotomy. According to ], the contentious terms such as "denier" should only be used if it's widely used by ]. So, the key question is, what do the majority of reliable sources say? In order to answer this question, I examined a random sampling of 10 ] (including peer-reviewed journals), the vast majority used the term "skeptic" (as randomly selected by Google):
Yeah, my bad. Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed" I recognize my mistake. --] (]) 20:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


:Ethnographic groups and cultural heritage are '''related but distinct concepts'''. An ''ethnographic group'' refers to a '''community of people''' defined by shared ancestry, language, traditions, and cultural identity. In contrast, ''cultural heritage'' refers to the *''practices, artifacts, knowledge, and traditions preserved or inherited from the past''. But cultural heritage is indeed a component of ethnographic groups.
* - "skeptic"
: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)
* - "skeptical"
::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)
* - "skeptic"
:::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)
* - "skeptics"
::::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)
* - "meteorologist" Note that that the full article is behind a paywall, so I did not have access to the full text. Perhaps this should be excluded from the sample set?
* - "skeptic"
* - Uses both "denial" and "skeptics". In specific reference to Watts' blog - "skepticism"
* - "skeptical"
* - "skeptic"
* - "science"
* - No specific label in reference to Watts Up with That, but uses "sceptical" in general
These were the first 10 ] randomly selected by Google. Based on these results, sources refer to Watts or his blog as:
#Skeptic (or some variation thereof) - 9 sources
#Meteorologist - 1 Source
#Science - 1 Source
#Denier - 0 Sources
I also performed a random sampling (as selected by Google) of sources not behind a paywall in Google Scholar, and here are the results:
* "sceptical".
* - No descriptor used.
* "retired television meteorologist"
* "conservative".
* "“science” (in quotes) and "anti-climate science, conservative"
* "Skeptic"
* "science blog"
* No descriptor used.
* "science skeptic" (in quotes) and "Meteorologist"
* "skeptic".
Google Scholar Totals:
# Skeptic - 3 times.
# Meteorologist - 2 times
# Conservative - 2 times
# Anti-climate science - 1 time
# Skeptic (in quotes) - 1 time
# Science - 1 time
# Science (in quotes) - 1 time
# Denier - 0 times
Based on two completely different random samplings of reliable sources, it seems pretty apparent that the overwhelming majority of sources don't use the term "denier". In fact, the total number approaches zero, let alone a wide majority.


====Statement by (username)====
Unfortunately, the RfC as written presents 3 options, all of which require that we violate Misplaced Pages's rules, on a ] no less. Other options are completely omitted from the RfC. For example, another editor presented a compromise which both Jess and I liked yet it was completely omitted from the RfC. Why was this omitted from the RfC?
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning Lemabeta===
Imagine an election where major opposition candidates are left off the ballot. Would such an election be considered legitimate?

I'm not against an RfC - quite the contrary - RfCs are a wonderful way to judge consensus. An RfC which presents a false trichotomy while ignoring actual legimate options isn't going to solve anything.

I've been on Misplaced Pages for 6 years and have tens of thousands of edits. I have as much right to point out that an RfC is flawed as anyone. The idea that an editor should be sanctioned for pointing out that a flawed RfC is flawed is absurd. ] (]) 19:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)<br /><br />

:As for the edit-warring, anyone who knows me knows that I always try to follow ]. However, BRD does not work if I'm the only one willing to follow it. I brought up a legitimate ] concern. Under no circumstance should anyone edit-war contentious negative information back into the article. It should have gone to the talk page and only restored after consensus was reached. I may have edit-warred, but at least I edit-warred to remove contentious content, not the other way around.

:In any case, if we're throwing stones at glass houses, here's everyone with more than one revert on just the last sentence in the lede:

:*Akhilleus
:*ArtifexMayhem
:*Capitalismojo
:*DHeyward
:*Gnncmac
:*Joel B. Lewis
:*JzG
:*Mann jess
:*Nomoskedasticity
:*Peter Gulutzan
:*PeterTheFourth
:*Stephan Schulz
:*Tillman
:*Ubikwit

:If you want to sanction someone, how about sanctioning all the editors who edit-warred contentious negative ] material into the article? ] (]) 13:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

::In retrospect, I obviously wasn't thinking clearly. It was a mistake for me to edit-war on the RfC. I can see why it was disruptive, although it was certainly not ''intentional''. I suppose that might make little difference. But if I realized that it was disruptive at the time, I certainly wouldn't have done it. I obviously let my emotions get the better of me, and for that I'm sorry. I let down the editors of that article, and the community, and I let down myself. I apologize. All I can say is that nobody is perfect, and we all have lapses of judgement. ] (]) 22:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Guerillero====
I have no horse in this race, I just formatted Jess's request in the format that AE likes --] &#124; ] 07:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Ubikwit====
This is an issue that needs attention. AQFK has been tendentiously ignoring ] and making repeated recourse to ], for example, ] the numerous comments on the Talk page refuting the attempt. </br>
The Watts BLP and WUWT blog article are subject to ], and the semantics issue between "denier", etc., and "skeptic" would seem to be clearly subordinate to the policy-based prioiritization of the mainstream view of scientists versus Watts' pseudoscience views, which do not correspond to ], but do fall under the rubric of ].--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 09:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware that the article was under a 1rr restriction, either. Perhaps someone should post a banner or the like on the page.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 04:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

*It bears noting that the discussion regarding denialism vs skepticism has been going on for a couple of months now at Watts' BLP, predating the appearance of both Man Jess and Sphilbrick. A substantial number of sources and interpretive aspects have been discussed, and I added most of the sources that had been previously discussed at the BLP to the WUWT talk page yesterday, .</br>
**It also bears noting that the issue of including "denialism" on ] has also been under discussion for a couple of months, with an emerging consensus to delete the term from that guideline. AQFK did participate in that discussion as well, though he subsequent deleted his comment.</br>
***It further bears noting that {{u|Dave souza}} has been tackling the definitional aspects in a professional manner, with this edit, for example, and more to come from .--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 09:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

'''Query''' What is the reason for the delay in handling this complaint?--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 15:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by JzG====
I have to say that AQFK's approach seems to me to be unhelpful. AQFK states ''as fact'' that an RfC cannot possibly succeed because of WTW, even though it includes nothing more skeptical than the result of the previous RfC, and numerous good-faith comments by long-time Wikipedians have already accepted that the question is valid.

It is fine to dispute the question put in an RfC. It is not fine to insist on stating ''as fact'' that the question is invalid, when that is just an opinion, and is rejected by most others commenting.

AQFK also repeatedly removes a statement which is sourced and attributed to a well-known authority, citing BLP, despite, again, numerous long-time Wikipedians arguing in good faith that this is not a violation since it si high profile, sourced and attributed.

Overall the impression is that PAG are being used not as a guide to good practice, but as a magic talisman to wave away opinions for which the editor very obviously harbours a visceral hatred. And AQFK comes across as a Warrior for Truth&trade;, where Truth equates to a philosophical view divorced from scientifically established reality. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick I am not sure what you're implying re. Mann jess, I would have thought that the involvement of experienced editors new to the article would be highly desirable, given the history of entrenched views and fights between the usual suspects on these articles. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

: @AQFK: You are stating your opinion as fact again. It is not a ''fact'' that the three options "violate" ]. That is in fact a grossly uncivil comment given that a significant number of people support one or other of them; you are in essence saying that several good faith editors and admins are systematically violating a core policy, by advocating an attributed comment from a world-famous expert in the field - who you happen to dislike. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Tony Sidaway====
As indicated in the request, this is an editor with a history of egregious disruption in this topic. The topic ban was lifted And so we're back here.

On the face of it, the editor has returned to their disruptive ways and is now interfering with serious consensus-building attempts. It seems reasonable to me to consider once again an indefinite topic ban. --] 11:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Are we going to allow a former topic banned policy violator to argue that their latest serious violation is justified by some content argument, related in some vague way to the BLP policy? That's the same question arbcom faced in 2010, when A Quest For Knowledge used the same argument in defence of their disruptive conduct at that time. Why would we assume that they've learned from their mistakes if they pull the same silly stunt _five years later_? --] 22:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

====Comment by Robert McClenon====
I was not involved in this particular controversy, but have a comment. I was involved in a ] where one of the parties to the conflict protested the RFC vociferously. That sort of behavior is very disruptive, especially because an RFC is often the last option of resolving a content dispute before going to conduct dispute resolution. Also, inserting one's own comments in the middle of another editor's comments, ''even if meant in good faith'', is problematic because it is very likely to cause other editors to mistake who is saying what. Aside from the more general matter of whether the subject editor is POV-pushing or personalizing the dispute (and I haven't researched that), disrupting an RFC is a conduct issue that complicates the resolution of content issues. ] (]) 15:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Sphilbrick====
* As Mann jess correctly points out, there is a post at WUWT reacting to recent edits to the article.
* Guy was understandably concerned about potential external influence, (see ]). I shared this concern, reviewed the and recent edit history. I am sure there is some involvement, my casual review suggested it was not significant. Please note that Guy and I hold very different opinions on the substance of the dispute, but Guy concurs. Most of the recent edits, and most of the contributors to the talk page are "regulars", the exception being Mann jess, who had zero involvement prior to 17 May, but who is now the fifth leading contributor to the article.
* The very first edits by Mann jess to the WUWT article were a , adding relevant material, but also changing the lede to characterize WUWT as a "] dedicated to ]"
* Mann jess has over 10,000 edits. Most editors with that much experience would know that such a contentious statement should be discussed on the talk page first.
* The edit was reverted, by AQFK, with edit summary (Per WP:WTW.) a reference to a guideline which specifically singles out "denialist" as a word to watch
* <s>The article is subject to a 1RR editing restriction, but Mann Jess re-introduced the wording with less than 24 hours elapsing between the first entry, the removal, and the re-introduction. In fairness, not every editor is aware of which articles are subject to 1RR, so I think this should mot result in sanction.</s>
* To her credit, Mann jess immediately went to ] to open up discussion. However, per ], one should then reach a consensus before re-introducing contentious wording.
* Mann jess requested semi-protection, I requested full protection. It has achieved the goal of stopping the edit war, and starting talk page discussion, which while heated, is proceeding.
* I understand Mann jess's objection to the edit by AQFK that inserted a comment near the top of an RfC, rather than at the bottom. However, the RfC failed to mention that "denialism" is covered by ], and thus, while not prohibited, requires a much higher hurdle than simply a consensus of editors to use the word. It is understandable that AQFK was trying to be helpful, so that outside editors would not spend time reviewing sources, and thinking about the best wording, only find some time later that a specifically relevant guideline existed.
* I do think AQFK could have handled the attempt to inform readers differently, but we do not levy sanctions for failure to be perfect (for which I am thankful). --]] 15:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by JBL====
There is a long-term content/wording-based edit war going on about how to describe ] and his blog, and particularly about the use of various forms of the word "deny." AQFK is very involved in this dispute (as are Mann jess and I). Probably this will only be resolved when sanctions are placed on a large enough fraction of denialist editors that normal editing can continue. In this context, most of AQFK's behavior has been consistent with the battleground approach being taken by editors on both sides, but the disruptive edits to the RFC are I think notable for their inappropriateness. --] (]) 16:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

:Edit to add: it is worth mentioning that Mann jess has been making substantial improvements to at least the Watts article (unrelated to ongoing edit warring) while all this has been going on.

: Response to Arzel: This sort of bad-faith argumentation, in which you pretend to care about the sanctity of process when in fact you care about the actual outcome, is tiresome. See my related comments .

====Statement by MONGO====
I cannot say whether or not AQFK has or has not acted inappropriately as far as edit warring and disruption, or whether others have in this matter. My take on the blog is that it posts guest speakers that are at least skeptical if not openly in denial of AGW. The lack of sturdy science in the blog which agrees with the scientific consensus that AGW is fact is alarming...so I would not consider the blog to be a reliable source. In one post on the blog, apparently written by Watts, he states in essence that he agrees with the scientific concensus that the planet is warming and that some of this warming is caused by us. He did not elaborate on how much is caused by what source. Watts then proclaims he considers himself a skeptic and scoffs at being labelled a denier. He also seems to be calling on his readers to correct this information. I do not know if AQFK saw this and is trying to help, but I doubt it. I won't link to the blog post as it makes a personal attack against one of our editors. Anyway, my take is that Watts opinion of himself, though it is a primary source, is important since this is a BLP issue. The parties need to work towards a consensus about incorporating Watts's proclamation and also listing what reputable scientists say. I suggested the source by an antagonist of Watts (Mann) be kept out since other scientific viewpoints of similarity could be used instead.--] 21:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Peter Gulutzan====
Mann jess's accusation should be dismissed.

Re JzG's RFC: I also complained it was not neutral and warned that JzG says people who don't call WUWT a denial blog are , Mann jess says about A Quest For Knowledge "he reverted me" but actually three different editors reverted.

Re the diffs: Mann jess says this is about the Watts Up With That article but actually the diffs are from the ] article, a BLP, which did not have a recent influx of new editors or perturbation caused by Watts's blog post. On Anthony Watts (blogger), by my count five different editors have reverted the addition of the quote in the lead saying Watts's blog is a denial blog, with oft-expressed concerns on the talk page about WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. There are more editors re-inserting (I counted eight), but that is not a consensus and A Quest For Knowledge deserves a defender-of-wiki barnstar. ] (]) 15:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: I believe one would get a better view of academic and mainstream-media reliable sources (plus Watts himself) saying skeptic by looking at an older version of the Anthony Watts (blogger) page , and looking at the five citations after the sentence "Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming" then the ten citations after the sentence "The blog is focused on the global warming controversy, in particular, Watts skepticism about the role of humans in global warming." I point to an older version because Mann jess destroyed those sentences. ] (]) 14:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by EvergreenFir====
I followed the Anthony Watts page for a bit, but honestly got tired of it and unwatched it. I'm disappointed to see that the exact same thing I saw weeks ago is still occurring. Without commenting on the content itself, AQFK's actions seem quite inappropriate and battleground. Especially so for the RFC comments. <small>I opened the diffs, closed them, and reopened them thinking I had accidently opened the same one over and over... the fact that I hadn't and that the same comment was essentially spammed is what prompted me to comment now.</small>

Given the past sanctions but otherwise good behavior (unless someone knows of similar disruption related to AGW outside of this recent event), perhaps a short reinstatement of the topic ban (e.g., 4 months) would be appropriate. It would provide cooling off time as well as time to demonstrate intent to cease disruption. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 19:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Cas Liber====
If a person is perverting the use of or misrepresenting sources according to our sourcing guidelines, that is a much more difficult and time-consuming problem to deal with than incivility and filibustering and undermines wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia...and should be dealt with accordingly. has someone done that here yet? I've only just scanned this page but reams of talkpage notes I haven;t had time to read. ] (] '''·''' ]) 20:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by (Arzel)====
AQFK actions have been no worse than those that would complain against him. In particular the statement by JBL is extremely troubling. '''"Probably this will only be resolved when sanctions are placed on a large enough fraction of denialist editors that normal editing can continue."''' - JBL How is that not a ] mentality? And it is right here in the this complaint! Not to mention calling all of us that disagree with him "denialists" Simply put, there will never be compromise with attitudes like that, and I doubt that opinion is limited to JBL. ] (]) 13:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris====

The admins here are experienced enough to see past some of the "But so did he!" stuff above. (I agree with the substance of Arzel's complaint though not with the way he has put it.) Any misbehavior by others can be dealt with separately.

This leaves us with AQFK's disruptive conduct as outlined in ]'s diffs. AQFK has a right to object to what they regard as an ill-formulated RFC ''but does not have the right to do so disruptively.'' Having previously been sanctioned at ] means that AQFK is fully aware that this is a contentious topic area and that they should be even more careful than usual.

but for whatever reason climate change is a hot-button issue for them. There's no indication of troublesome behavior outside of climate change -- which reinforces both the argument that AQFK is basically a valuable editor and the conclusion that climate change is a topic they should stay away from, whether by choice or otherwise. It appears that the original topic ban needs to be reinstated but I see no need at all for other sanctions. ] (]) 01:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Manul====

AQFK continues to misunderstand and/or misrepresent scholarly articles on climate change. One needn't look further than the first scholarly article AQFK cites in order to see the competence issue. This is not a question of content but of competence, of whether AFQK is able to understand the plain meaning of a source. That article says the exact opposite of what AQFK thinks it says: it actually equates "climate skepticism" and "climate denial" in the context of WUWT, as exhaustively explained . Yet AQFK did not understand their mistake then and despite repeated corrections over the course of months AFQK continues making the same mistake, up to this very AE request. This kind of tendentious behavior is time-wasting for all those involved.

This is not a battleground between opposing factions, nor is it a content dispute between equal sides. Rather, there are simply problematic individuals who misapprehend the scientific literature and the scientific consensus. While Misplaced Pages should describe fringe views accurately and fairly, Misplaced Pages ultimately ]. To portray the scientific consensus on climate change as anything other than settled is to violate Misplaced Pages policies, in particular ]. AQFK has consistently and tendentiously violated this policy by attempting to portray a climate denialism blog as practicing legitimate scientific skepticism, a view that goes against every scholarly source that substantively addresses the blog in question. AFQK makes tendentious arguments by searching for "skepticism" without apprehending the content or context of sources (in particular, not understanding or being concerned with the demarcation sources make between scientific skepticism and the word "skepticism" in the context of the specific blog in question).

Discretionary sanctions exist, at least in part, because certain topic areas attract entrenched individuals whose editing is not in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and goals. It is not clear why AQFK's topic ban on climate change was lifted, but it should be clear now that the topic ban needs to be reinstated, and for an indefinite duration. ''] ~ ]'' 03:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

* Are all admins here aware that the arbitration committee decided unanimously that A Quest For Knowledge had been ] on the topic of climate change and had been ] from climate change?

:I have never heard of a topic ban being reinstated for a shorter period of time, or given a narrower scope, when there is similar problematic behavior after a topic ban has been lifted. ''] ~ ]'' 15:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy====
Wikilawyering disruption in part by AQFK drove me from the article in April. He's still at it in this action.<p>

For his main "defense", AQFK offered a blatantly wrong reading of ], falsely claiming that this guideline allowed him to
::A. Disrupt an RFC survey that included as one option {{tq|"2. Use <nowiki></nowiki> self-identification, climate skeptic, but note <nowiki></nowiki> accusations of denialism, with attribution."}}
::B. Edit war to remove a certain quotation multiple times <small>list imported from OP in this complaint and verified by me that they're all dealing with the same quote</small>
::::::*,
::::::*,
::::::*,
::::::*,
::::::*,
::::::*,
::::::*,
::::::*,
::::::*,
::::::*,
::::::*,
::::::*,
::::::*,
::::::*,
::::::*,
::::::*,
::::::*,
::::::*,
::::::*,
::::::*,
::::::*,
::::::*

The first problem with AQFK's ] argument is that this guideline provides no edit-war exception and states in the lead ''' The guideline does not apply to quotations...'''

<ins>Second problem</ins>
Naturally, he'll reply to this statement invoking something else. Shifting rationale is a common sign of disruptive wikilawyering. In April, as I was trying to pin AQFK down as to the rationale for his edit warring, his positions swirled from vague invocations of ] (above)<p>

to ].... ()<p>
:which I rebutted with
. (AQFK made no reply to my rebuttal, but still uses vague references to "Fringe", even though there are no edit war exceptions in that guideline.)

and back again to ]...
:which provides that we can at times report that so-and-so said "x" instead of saying X in wikivoice. At least, that's what I thought it said but AQFK kept on reverting the quotation. So I asked an abstract "how does it work" question at the noticeboard.
::See ]
::Called to the involved editors' attention
And AQFK chose not to participate.<p>

What it boils down to is that BLP - the real issue at play in the content dispute - requires inclusion of minority views. AQFK just ignores those viewpoints with a disruptively vague dismissal citing FRINGE but without constructively pursuing ] when others disagree with his evaluation.

Exhausted from the wikilawyering, I departed the article.<p>

<ins>Question for AQFK</ins>
Others have suggested you've had prior experience with dramas involving ], and certainly there's the present example. Do you think your approach has caused less disruption than might have resulted by instead following the advice explicitly stated in the exception, i.e., to seek help from BLP noticeboard instead?<p>
] (]) 13:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

:::ADDITION
:::Talk about wikilawyering! After posting my initial statement I peeked at AQFK's talk page. It turns out that AQFK has misrepresented himself. In his opening statement above he claims he was allowed to edit war on the basis that the text he repeatedly deleted ''was prohibited material''. However, at his own talk page he contradicts that claim, saying that he was actually edit warring ''just because he didn't want the material in the lead!!''
:::::Quote, "'Denier' is a WP:WTW and shouldn't be used unless widely used by WP:RS. It's not widely used, in fact, it's rarely used. And I don't object to having this in the article. My objection is that it doesn't belong in the lede. It's not widely used and minority/fringe POVs don't belong in the lede. But like I said, '''I'm fine with it being in the body.'''" (bold added)
::::There is no 3RR exception for <ins>"Text you ''approve'' for the body, but you ''don't like'' in the lead"</ins>
:::] (]) 13:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
<ins>NAEG's reply to AQFK's apology</ins><p>
I now endorse calls for a renewed climate change topic ban due to Edit warring, gaming the system, and battlegrounding. The comments offered by Arbs thus far all address the RFC, so and simply ignores my complaint of disruptive policy-shopping in order to somehow justify 22+ reverts of text AQFK apparently thinks is perfectly fine if it appears in the body of the article. There's neither an explanation nor apology for disrupting the article and talk page simply because he wanted to control the text in the lead section. By trying to soothe the ruffled Arb feathers thus far exposed, combined with these other behaviors, it's my opinion the apology is an example of gaming the system and battlegrounding while he is under the microscope. Accordingly, the topic ban should be renewed.
] (]) 23:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

*Discussion of possible sanctions
{{Ping|Gamaliel}} and {{Ping|Heimstern Läufer}}, 1RR is fine with me, but I'd like to suggest it be imposed only on the three climate-related articles that have been a problem rather than the entire topic area. The three I have in mind are ], {{Watts Up With That?]], and ]. There are many articles and editors that are not suffering from this dysfucntion and should not have to contend with 1RR because of this micro-problem. A recent example is what happened over a good faith misunderstanding regarding article splitting at ]. Please don't slap 1RR across the entire topic area, just because there's been recent squabbles regarding "denial" on these three pages. ] (]) 08:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
: Ah, thanks for the clarification earlier today Gamaliel, in which you articulated the idea is 1RR just on the specific editor in question. That works for me. ] (]) 15:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Gamaliel}} and {{Ping|Heimstern Läufer}}, Here's a technical fly in the ointment and I'm not sure what to think. AQFK made 22+ reverts of the same material from the lead, claiming the existence that a 3RR exemption allowed this. If you impose 1RR, someone less wise than AQFK might laugh, and carry on after the dust settles... after all, if claiming a revert didn't count due an exemption got them past 3RR, it should get them past 1RR, right? I don't know what to make of this observation. I have no reason to think AQFK would stoop to such gamesmanship, but there are many others who are interested in the same material whom I don't know as well. Do you think you might say something about the claims of exemption, to help any future controversy in event someone tries to break AQFK's revert record using the same exemption claims? ] (]) 23:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

*{{Ping|Tillman}}, who opines with no analysis that {{tq|"NAEG's reply to AQFK's apology, @23:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC), also strikes me as rather mean-spirited, as his own behavior has not (imo) been without fault in this ongoing edit war. "}}
:Pete, I would like to become a better editor. Please explain, with diffs instead of innuendo, ''<ins>exactly</ins>'' how you think I have been at fault? I can't help but note that earlier today that deleted the word "however". You justified it with a vague reference to the MOS; with a pinpoint cite to ]. You may well be right, but I'd just like to hear something specific. Instead, you've posted this innuendo about my behavior here. Please defend the claim? ] (]) 21:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
<ins>chilling effect? That's the purpose of AE in the first place</ins>
::ADMINS, Pete also complains of a chilling effect on a group of editors opposed to labeling Watts a "denier". If they're after real NPOV why should they be chilled? We could easily report Watts' self-description (skeptic), criticisms of Watts (some say denier), the controversy over which label applies, and observe that most pop culture sources don't really distinguish between these terms (see work in progress at ]. There is only a chilling effect on those who say "just skeptic" or "just denier". And that's OK. ] (]) 02:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
===== Closing with meaning - new request =====
Forget sanctions on anybody.<p>
Our purpose here is ''prevention'', not punishment. The only way to prevent future chaos in these articles is to resolve, once and for all, the correct application of policy to criticisms of Watts and his blog as being engaged in ]. Unless there is a binding resolution how that should work on these articles, I have little hope that sanctioning one or even a handful of editors will prevent anything, longterm. ] (]) 01:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
::@Jess, are arguments that are primarily about policy interpretation still regarded as mere ''content'' disputes? In a criminal matter I once sat on a jury, and among the charges we had to diliberate was one with several aspects, but our instructions only explained some of them. Once we had resolved what we thought had actually happened, we just spun our wheels until finally we trotted back into court with a written legal question for the judge. After that, it was resolved quickly. ] (]) 08:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by dave souza====
The ] above repeats an argument he introduced at ] on . It misrepresents the ] guideline, which is a sub-page of MOS/STYLE, and introduces novel claims about policies.

, the guideline included "denialist" as an example of a value-laden label which "may express contentious opinion and may be best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. In some cases, in-text attribution might be a better option." AQFK reinterprets this as meaning "the contentious terms such as 'denier' should only be used if it's widely used by reliable sources." <br>This misrepresents the guideline, which says at the top of the page "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Misplaced Pages, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias", going on to "The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly", and "The guideline does not apply to quotations, which should be faithfully reproduced from the original sources".

AQFK then says "So, the key question is, what do the majority of reliable sources say? In order to answer this question, I examined a random sampling of 10 reliable sources (including peer-reviewed journals), the vast majority used the term 'skeptic':", presenting "reliable sources randomly selected by Google".<br>This shifts the burden from "widely used" to "used by a majority", and disregards the requirement of ] policy to consider the quality of sources. It also disregards ] policy. <br>The article concerned is about a blogger who promotes the fringe view that scientists and government scientific bodies such as ] and ] "spuriously doubled" reported temperature increases for nefarious reasons; ] requires us to show how these views have been received by topic experts. Several academic sources explicitly associate Watts or the blog with ], but AQFK argued on the basis of the google search that using the word "denial" was ''"advocating giving undue weight to WP:FRINGE/insignificant minority POVs into the article."''

The word ''denier'' is defined in ] : 1) noun <br>A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence:<br> ''a prominent '''denier''' of global warming<br> a climate change '''denier''''' <br> Both the historian ] and the ] use the word non-pejoratively.

These are content issues to be resolved in normal talk page discussion, but AQFK's dogmatic insistence on novel interpretations of policy is tendentious and disruptive. A topic ban appears appropriate. . ], ] 14:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by DHeyward ====
This is now stale and AQFK has shown the same behavior or worse has been displayed by some of his detractors here. This should be closed with no action as it's clear there is no action against AQFK will be preventative considering the amount of discord and POV pushing and BLP violations that exist on the topic. Any action should be aimed at adressing the disruption which is at the page and topic level. 1RR should be a page 1RR, not an editor, for example. Ubikwit is facing a topic ban imminently which should lower the confrontation. level somewhat. --] (]) 20:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by Tillman====
There's so much unhappy and ugly behavior on display in the recent (and continuing) edit warring over ] and ], that it seems a bit churlish to single out AQFK. He has acknowledged, and apologized for, his edit-warring at ], above -- but he's gotten in trouble over this sort of thing before.

The edit-warring that I observed began at ], with a provocative edit by the editor who filed the complaint against AQFK, who added this opening sentence to the article, with no prior discussion:

:Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog '''dedicated to climate change denial'''.... -- cited to a long list of sources, all apparently personal opinions by opponents of Watts. Please see

Unsurprisingly, a number of editors felt that this was a problematic edit. The situation wasn't helped by the supporters of this change repeatedly claiming to have reached ] for the change: please see . Specifically, please see this reply to the editor proposing sanctions, @ 18:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
:"We established consensus to link climate change denial..."
:"Where do you find this consensus? I see a section above where you asserted that "denier" is the right word, but you immediately got pushback. As an editor with over 10,000 edits, I would have thought you knew what the word consensus meant. No, it doesn't mean without any opposition, but there is substantial, in-depth opposition. ..."

So there was problematic behavior by the editor proposing the sanctions -- which makes one wonder if the purpose of this RfE might be to get an opposing editor to go away. Further, we read at the :
:AQFK is very involved in this dispute (as are Mann jess and I). Probably this will only be resolved when sanctions are placed on a large enough fraction of '''denialist editors''' that normal editing can continue. ...

So it's clear what at least one editor is hoping for from this, and perhaps subsequent, enforcement actions. Other editors, both here and at ], have made clear their antipathy against both Watts and his blog.

NAEG's reply to AQFK's apology, @23:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC), also strikes me as rather mean-spirited, as his own behavior has not (imo) been without fault in this ongoing edit war. To be fair, neither has mine, and I think the arbs would have to look very hard to find a blameless editor active during the edit wars at these two articles. Sigh.

This Request for Enforcement is already having a chilling effect on editors who have opposed the efforts to label Anthony Watts and his blog as Climate Deniers. Is this what the ArbComm wants? --] (]) 20:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Jess====
@NewsAndEventsGuy This request is about specific problematic behavior, not a content dispute. While I agree that broader action will be necessary to address related problems from other editors, it is ''very likely'' going to require a separate AE case (and probably soon). AQFK's behavior is distinct from the other problems we're seeing, and it is very likely to extend to other articles in the topic even if this specific dispute is resolved. I'm unsure how I feel about his apology for the RfC, and especially his lack of interest in addressing other complaints, such as his edit warring, misrepresentation of sources, and so on. It's possible his behavior will improve without sanctions, but we should consider that possibility on its own, not settle on it because we got distracted by unrelated behavior from others. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 02:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Nomoskedasticity====
If this report is simply allowed to archive, we will surely end up here again when the behaviour resumes. It's not hard to imagine that AQFK is biding his/her time, refraining from editing as a means of giving the impression that there's no issue to deal with. Past experience suggests otherwise. ] (]) 09:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
====Statement by JBL====
AQFK has not edited essentially since this was filed. During the same period, discussion on the Anthony Watts page has been considerably more civil and constructive. I think there's a natural conclusion to draw. --] (]) 15:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

===Result concerning A Quest For Knowledge===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
*My initial reading suggests that this is actionable. Edit warring on both the article and on the RFC, as well as little attempt to engage with those supporting the RFC suggests a battleground approach. I have some concerns that there may be others in this topic area with unclean hands (even some of those accusing AQFK seem to allude to edit warring by others), and in part for that reason, I would prefer to wait a bit and see if AQFK will post a statement here. ] ] 04:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
-->
* Posting a note at the top of an RFC declaring it "a waste of time" and edit warring to keep it there certainly appears to be disruptive behavior and evidence of a battleground mentality. I'm curious to see what the justification is for this behavior. ] <small>(])</small> 05:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
* 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)
**If this editor is unable to distinguish between participating in an RFC, which a number of other editors managed to do without incident, and disrupting an RFC, then future disruption in this topic area will be inevitable. ] <small>(])</small> 21:10, 6 June 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)
* Awaiting A Quest for Knowledge's statement. He should post that statement here before making any further edits to the RfC. ] (]) 23:27, 3 June 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)
*:Note that I've deleted ] as a clear G5 violation. I think ] is a bit more of a questionable G5. ] (]/]) 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Your definition of "ethnographic group" includes the phrases "shared ancestry" (i.e., history), and "shared&nbsp;... traditions" and "shared&nbsp;... cultural identity" (i.e., cultural heritage). Your attempt to exclude "ethnographic group" from either of the two categories in your topic ban is entirely unpersuasive, particularly since your topic ban is to be "broadly construed". ] (]/]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: this doesn't seem like a mistake to me, but I'm okay with a logged warning here. ] (]/]) 21:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: This is about violating the TBAN. Per my response to leek, I think the issue is with the AE request template, which is a bit unclear. ] (]/]) 22:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: I don't think a block is needed here, but the next violation, definitely. ] (]/]) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@]: They were "reviously given&nbsp;... contentious topic restriction", the topic ban at issue. ] (]/]) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{re|Lemabeta}} Not every single thing you could write about an ethnic group would fall under cultural history, but that's not really relevant on the Rachvelians page, where the History section was entirely about their cultural history, even containing the words {{tqq| highlighting their ethnographic and cultural identity}}. There's a reason we use the words "]" on most TBANs, and a reason we encourage people to act like they're TBANned from a broader area than they are. (Consider: Would you feel safe driving under a bridge where clearance is exactly the same height as your vehicle? Or would you need a few inches' gap to feel safe doing it?){{pb}}This does seem like a good-faith misunderstanding, so if you will commit to not making it again in the future, I think this can be closed with a clarification/warning. But that's an important "if". If you want to argue semantics, then the message that sends to admins is that you don't intend to comply with the TBAN, in which case the next step would be a siteblock. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{u|EF5}}, I don't understand your {{tq|"Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above"}} statement, can you please explain what it refers to? ]? Lemabeta's block log is blank.
:That said, I'm unimpressed by Lemabeta's lawyerly distinctions above, and also by ]. I'll AGF that they ''were'' accidental, but OTOH, they surely ''ought'' to have taken enough care to realize they were violations; compare Voorts' examples. I suggest a block, not sure of what length. A couple of weeks? ] &#124; ] 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
::{{u|EF5}}, OK, I see. Blocks and bans are ], and the block log only logs blocks. ] &#124; ] 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
*It seems that the general consensus here is to treat this as a final warning, and Lemabeta has acknowledged it as such. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as such. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}


==Boy shekhar==
* Any thoughts regarding a 1RR restriction on articles and talk pages in the topic area given the evidence of edit warring? ] <small>(])</small> 04:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
{{hat
**That seems acceptable as a compromise between no action and reinstating the topic ban, both of which have been called for by those here. Of course, compromise is not always the right solution, but since I'm not seeing any real administrative will for a full topic ban, and as it seems incorrect to allow edit warring to simply stand, this may be best. (Note: I am restricted to mobile browsing only, so laying any sanction myself will be a bigger hassle than I have time for unless my situation changes.) ] ] 08:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
| result = Blocked by Rosguill as a regular administrative action. ] (]) 23:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
**{{ping|NewsAndEventsGuy}} I apologize for being unclear. I meant a 1RR restriction on A Quest For Knowledge. ] <small>(])</small> 15:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
}}
***And for the record, that's also the kind of 1RR I was responding to above. So we're on the same topic. ] ] 23:18, 15 June 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>
*One way or another, this AE ought to be closed. Though it's hard to see much exemplary behavior in the climate change area, there is evidence submitted that AQFK has engaged in long-term edit warring on articles related to Anthony Watts. Either this is serious enough to do something, or we should close this with a warning. Since he's already been in an arb case, a mere warning may not be enough. If you want to impose a sanction that actually does something, I'd propose a three-month ban from the topic of ] anywhere on Misplaced Pages, and a 3-month ban from the topic of ]. The evidence submitted by ] shows a pattern of long-term reverting that went on for six weeks or so and during that time AQFK may never have actually broken 1RR. This suggests that a 1RR restriction on AQFK could be more symbolic than real. A complete topic ban of AQFK from the suggested articles would have more effect. I don't know if sanctioning AQFK will solve the long-term problem with these articles, but if it doesn't a fresh AE may be appropriate. ] (]) 01:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
***I'm fine with this too if editors are concerned that a 1RR restriction will be ineffective. ] <small>(])</small> 03:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
:*Will enact the 3-month TBAN from Watts and Climate change denial with a modified end date of September 16, as this should have been closed days ago. - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 23:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


===Request concerning Boy shekhar===
==MarkBernstein==
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Daniel Quinlan}} 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hat|Handpolk topic-banned, I will place the GG-related BLPs under Pending Changes as a normal admin action. <code>]]</code> 13:59, 22 June 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|Boy shekhar}}<p>{{ds/log|Boy shekhar}}</p>
===Request concerning MarkBernstein===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Handpolk}} 01:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|MarkBernstein}}<p>{{ds/log|MarkBernstein}}
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
*{{diff2|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.


<!-- 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. -->
# accuses me of several things
# More accusations
# Calls me a gamergate fan
# accuses me of being non-neutral and says i came from a 'gamergate basement'
# accuses me of not being new or neutral
# calls me a troll when i warn him
#] 6/12/15 admits to battleground mentality on his talk page
; 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 in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. *Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above).


; 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)

:{{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. ] (])
It's important to note that 'gamergate supporter' or anything similar is essentially a slur. It's a personal attack. And since I am not in any way a gamergate supporter, it really offends me to be described that way. It's also a violation of AGF to accuse somebody of editing the article in accordance with views you perceive them to have. And extremely disruptive to do so repeatedly whenever you disagree, in an attempt to win an argument. Along with demonstrating a battleground mentality.

All of those are exactly what ] has been doing to me, despite repeated warnings from me to stop. And they are against the sanctions that put a very short leash on all editors to not be disruptive.

At the very least, I would ask him to be topic banned.

:So far I count one person who has actually addressed this complaint and not tried to change the subject to make this about me. The subject himself did not even feel it worth his effort to explain himself, despite him repeatedly being sanctioned for this very behavior in the past. ] (]) 05:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

::User:Jorm made the same accusations and personal attacks about me here as the subject of this AE made. Calling me a Gamergate supporter. These types of unfounded attacks and accusations being allowed so freely directly violate the sanctions along with the rules of Misplaced Pages. They contribute to the battleground mentality of the article and should not be tolerated. We are to assume good faith. ] (]) 07:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:MarkBernstein&diff=prev&oldid=666700640 *


<!--- 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 MarkBernstein===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by MarkBernstein====


====Statement by Vanamonde====
I am meeting with a distinguished colleague Saturday, and will have tasks and topics of greater interest and urgency before me. The complainant's behavior rather speaks for itself, as does the number of distinguished editors at AN/I who supported an indef even before this ill-advised return to AE. His subreddit, where notable Wikipedians have been ordered to "post tits", may also interest readers; it will not be difficult for you to find,
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)


I would call your attention to the amount of time and aggravation this editor has cost the project in the immediate wake of steps taken to stem the flood of "new" and zombie Gamergate editors. I said then that more would be needed; that appears to be the case. ] (]) 03:29, 13 June 2015 (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)


===Result concerning Boy shekhar===
<hr>
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
It was perhaps very wicked of me, back in 2014, to allude to the influx of new, zombie, brigaded, and sockpuppet accounts that arrived at Gamergate, each so eager to be severely neutral. I trust we have moved beyond that, now, and that we can speak plainly about what we so clearly see.
<!-- 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==
This complaint is one small move in Gamergate’s new playbook. Expendable accounts plan to file numerous grievances that will require lots of admin time. If they succeed in securing sanctions against their targets, or in embarrassing more victims, that’s icing on the cake: the immediate goal is to exhaust those few administrators willing to mop the space. First we had an ill-founded attack on TRPoD from an IP editor, resulting in the 30/500 rule. Here on its heels, we have an ill-founded attack on me, intended to gut that rule by showing it to be toothless. (Note, incidentally, that Handpolk’s late collaborator Dwarvenhobble has already been banned as an obvious -- and now confessed -- sock of a banned editor.)
<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===
Is there any reason to believe this will end here? Of course not. Handpolk's work has been a great success; they set out to spend a lot your time, and -- voila! -- your time has been spent. They set out to poke holes in the 30/500 rule, and while you’ve held your ground, they are not worse off than when they began and they know where to poke next. (Meanwhile, it looks like they're hoping to use the distraction to put scare quotes around each characterization of Gamergate abuse.)
; 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>
It is gratifying to see so many respected administrators below taking an interest in the problem and demonstrating close familiarity with the area, its unprecedented problems, and its extensive archives. Sooner or later, though, you will have to grasp the nettle. You know why the talk page archives run to a million words, why no question is ever settled, why the answer to every point is always yet another dissertation on why the reliable sources cannot be relied upon, why every fresh zombie is greeted and cosseted and protected until, as here, they fall to pieces. You don’t ''want'' to take this on, you’ve been ''hoping'' it would go away, melt, thaw, or resolve itself into a dew. I understand. I sympathize. But it has cost the rest of us a ''lot'' of time, it's costing the project credibility, and editors, and admins -- none of which it can afford right now -- and it's not getting any better. ] (]) 16:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
<hr>
;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:
:{{ping|Masem}} To refer to people by their first name alone is, in common written usage, an indication of intimacy or, at any rate, intimate acquaintance. That is, I presumed, what you were indicating when you introduced a reference to "Milo and Christina" into a discussion. My rejoinder was only a personal attack to the extent that any mild and discretely indirect stylistic and spelling correction is. A few first names are treated specially as a conventional sign of special reference and esteem -- “Martin” and “Malcom” for “Martin Luther King, Jr.” and “Malcom X”, some Japanese living treasures -- but even here the use of the first name is often reserved for people who knew and worked with the person. Of course, some fannish communities use first names as a clannish indicator of support, a ''dog-whistle'' that members will recognize and outsiders will not, to signal mutual membership, but of course that couldn't be ''your'' intent. If this were a personal attack, you'll want also to cite whoever corrected the Gamergate fan who kept misspelling “genesis” as “genesys”, too, but the standard of English in the area will likely deteriorate further. (Fear of reactions like this kept me from pointing out that the present filer misunderstood the used of the word “subjective” as a noun (“my subjective is...”), a curious grammatical error which, if memory serves, was also made on Gamergate topics by j0eg0d and, before then, by GhostLourde. Doubtless just a coincidence.) ] (]) 19:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


*2014 to 2016: no edits.
<hr>
*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.
Topic-banned editor {{ping|NorthBySouthBaranof}}, participating in the Arbcom Lightbreather case, is being hounded along with former editor Ryulong by Gamergate IP editors trying to call attention to discussion of their supposed sex lives at an attack site we will not mention here. Paraphrasing his words, ''"I note that Gamergate-related disruption and personal attacks are continuing to spread across the encyclopedia, and entirely-unrelated arbitration cases are now being used as platforms to attack and harass Misplaced Pages users targeted by Gamergate. How long will it be before Misplaced Pages wakes up to the fact that this issue isn't a debating club with two sides, it's an organized campaign of harassment and abuse hell-bent on destroying the lives of its targets?”'' To further emphasize the point, the last few minutes a Gamergate supporter has written, falsely, that I wrote something untrue in ''The Guardian'' and then called Zoe Quinn a ''participant'' in the Gamergate controversy, suggesting that she had any choice after Gamergate used Misplaced Pages to '''Enough already.''' ] (]) 20:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
<hr>
<!-- 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. -->
A reddit user named “ j0eg0d" has just opened a thread on one of the Gamergate forums to publicize this complaint. It disclaims any intention of encouraging Gamergaters to participate here, concluding "UPDATE: The Decision Against Bernstein Hasn't Been Made Yet, It's Ongoing, For Any Misplaced Pages Members That Haven't Made a Complaint ... I Mean ... Read The Article."
*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 :
A later addition, also signed "j0eg0d", explains that
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)
:"He's got a butt-buddy named Gamaliel protecting him. Gamaliel is the Admin that unblocks/unbans Bernstein every time he gets in trouble with ARBCOM."


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
Another editor named "ggtehxnor" opines:
:''I've met homeless unmedicated schizophrenics with a firmer grasp of reality than Bernstein. He is quite possibly the most deranged Misplaced Pages editor there is, and that is an impressive (and terrifying) accomplishment.''


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
At another Gamergate board, "WPBATTLEGROUND" starts a fresh thread titled "Let”s Talk About BarkMerstein.”
:''Is this dude banging Jimmy Wales or something? How is it possible he is not at least topic banned?''


===Discussion concerning שלומית ליר===
And as you know my talk page has been the home to lies and sneering insinuations, now kindly hatted by TRPoD. Thanks, guys! ] (]) 19:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>


====Statement by שלומית ליר====
<hr>
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)
{{ping|Bosstopher}}’s historical survey is unsympathetic and in a few cases not quite accurate, but I thank him for taking the trouble. The original ban, in particular, arose as a boomerang when I (so young! so idealistic!) appealed here against what I believed to be a McCarthyist slander . I believe I did not develop the terminology of Boss/Provocateur/Pal until on January 22, substantially later. I am happy to discuss these former broils if you like, but don't wish to tire your patience. If any of you are of a historical bent, you also want to review Gamergate’s successful attack on Ryulong, from which this case (if case this be!) is taken. ] (]) 15:59, 21 June 2015 (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====
:{{ping|Bosstopher}}'s additional background on Ryulong is very helpful. It should be remembered that the action against Ryulong was the cornerstone of the original attack (Operation: The Five Horsemen Of WikiBias) and was always prosecuted by a considerable group of editors, not by the provocateur alone. It should not be forgotten that key part of that attack was revealing or publicizing Ryulong's sexual orientation. Note, too, the relentless publicity Ryulong's opponents gave to a flimsy appearance of conflict of interest. And now, right on schedule, we have accusations that I'm really a member of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s staff, and perhaps also the King Of Titipu. ] (]) 17:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
This is the first ARBPIA report since the proposed decision ] and it's specifically a matter of POV pushing, responding admins should be aware of the "]" remedy. The committee is discussing whether to implement a remedy stating that admins at AE are "empowered and encouraged to consider a topic ban" purely for biased editing. So far, the argument against is that it's redundant because AE admins are already supposed to do this. ] (]) 05:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
<hr>
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-29/Special_report
"An encyclopaedia is not amoral. It either supports evil through complacency or it embodies an overall force for good by refusing to flinch from the delineation of all, both evil and good. When we flinch and turn a blind eye to violent attempts to subvert our great work, then we face the true test.” -- Tony Sidaway
] (]) 03:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
<hr>
{{ping|J0eg0d}} Re your comment about tag teams (forsooth!) with Strongjam and Bosstopher (!): I have no idea what you're saying, or asking me, or anyone, to do. ] (]) 02:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by uninvolved IP==== ====Statement by Selfstudier====
To the extent that it is relevant, the WJC report was discussed at ]. ] (]) 11:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Please note that there is currently a discussion at ] about whether ]'s latest complaint should earn him a boomerang. At the moment it has unanimous support.] (]) 01:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
::It appears that there's little to no self reflection by the OP on why he was topic banned. ] (]) 21:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
:::] makes a very fair point below about whether the linked off site behavior should be considered. I'll go ahead and bid these proceedings adieu. Farewell. ] (]) 22:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by Beyond My Ken==== ====Statement by starship.paint (2)====
I do not want to replicate the AN/I report referred to by the IP, but it should be noted that Handpolk made 170 4-byte edits to ] within an hour, each one removing a single Wikilink, in order to pad his edit total and qualify for the 500/30 requirement. Such gaming of the system (which also included 20 closely-times edits to another article, as reported in the AN/I thread by Floquenbeam) should not be rewarded by allowing him to edit Gamergate articles, or by having this complaint heard here. ] (]) 02:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
:Based on the AN/I discussion Handpolk has now been indefinitely topic-banned by Euryalus "from making edits related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed per ]. ] (]) 03:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
::I have no opinion one way or the other regarding MarkBernstein's edits or behavior, and I am totally uninvolved in Gamergate. ] (]) 03:54, 13 June 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)
====Statement by Masem====
While I do have a lot of doubts as to Handpolk's sincerity on their edits (the numerous tiny edits on one article as to get to 500+ edits), it should be noted that Mark has been warned and blocked twice before , due to his commenting on contributors not content in article talk space. This diff for example is specifically targeted at me due to a discussion I put into earlier regarding our ] policy. The comments toward Handpolk in article talk space are more of the same. --] (]) 03:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
:And while I know it's been recommended that this specific action is likely tainted and only end up focused on the filer, I'm adding this new personal attack from Mark , presuming I have connections to two named people, primarily for documentation. --] (]) 18:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
::@MarkBernstein: The point is not whether I use first names or last names; the issue is that you are commenting on contributors, not content, on article talk pages, an issue you were blocked twice before and warned since. If you want to assert that I have conflicts of interest with GG that should keep me from contributing on the GG pages, you can open a new enforcement case (but as I've said during the original ArbCom, I would freely allow any investigation of any sockpuppetry assumptions or offsite analysis to show that I don't interact with them at all). But to continue to speak about editors' actions is continuing the behavior that ArbCom expressly warned about as well as the previous bans. --] (]) 19:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
::@Protonk : Perhaps it was meant as a joke (Mark tends to use these but Poe's law always comes into play). Regardless, the issue is commenting on the commentator, not content, even if it was in jest. He's been blocked twice for this behavior and it leads to the combative battleground mentality plaguing that page. --] (]) 03:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
:@Zad68 : As best as I can recall, at the time that the ArbCom GG was filed, Mark was already blocked for making personal attacks under previous community GG sanctions, and thus was not likely considered a party. He was unblocked after/during? the case. --] (]) 03:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
:In reply to @TonySideway's comment (by way of Mark's reposting of part of it) - Myself (and presumably a few others) are not asking for the article to treat harassment and threats as if they were not a crime, if at the very leat amoral and unethical, but we need to amoral in drawing the line between the actions and the people behind it when there has been no legal conviction of anyone involved yet (though that will be a matter of when, not if). Misplaced Pages cannot judge, even if there was a conviction, under NPOV. But what is happening is that editors like Mark write the article to condemn all of GG when we know that there is a portion of GG that have stated they are not involved in the harassment and are trying to fight against it. If any of these were named people (and arguably there are), ] applies immediately and we'd temper the claims of the press without question; the spirit of BLP says we should be working on the same lines even if the group is primarily anonymous members (in that they have usernames but no apparent connection to real names) and treat the group objectively and not judgementally, separating the actions from the people. It is also the case that Mark and others want to condemn GG - Mark often speaks to the harassment and threats as "vile" and "evil", which I would not disagree with on a personal level, but as a WP editor, framing the article with these points in mind prevents us from reading sources and writing in a neutral, conservative, amoral style - they are crimes but we should not be harping in WP's voice or tone how bad these are. Similarly, which Quinn and others are victims of these crimes and we have to take to prevent BLP-type issues appearing about them, our article should not be treating them more than just victims, which instead we end up writing more sympathetically for these people which again moves off the amoral standpoint. We should not be trying to write the article to right great wrongs of the emotional and financial harm that has come to these people - just as we cannot make the GG movement look better than its current public perception. This is the amorality that is needed and demanded by NPOV that Mark and others do not seem to want to give, because the press has taken this stance. We are not the press, we're an academic work, and need to recognize when the press is writing within common moral standards for maintaining its readership rather than teaching information. --] (]) 13:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by Jorm==== ====Statement by xDanielx====
{{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.
] has pretty much followed the Gamergate Handbook On How To Be Difficult, only with a new twist (that of rapidly making hundreds of minor edits in order to game himself into the 30/500 set). Oh, he also started a subreddit where he exposes other Misplaced Pages editors to sexual harassment. He's absolutely ] to make an encyclopedia, and has just been indefinitely topic banned from the Gamergate/games/feminism area for his conduct.


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)
This should be closed as "no action."
:It looks like we might be heading towards the rare ''double boomerang''! This will require popcorn.--] (]) 07:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
:Actually, here's an interesting question: does continuing to post in this AE request violate the topic ban that was handed to Handpolk by ] a couple hours ago? I think it might. --] (]) 07:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
::Yes it does. {{u|Handpolk}}, benefit of the doubt for posts up till now as you may not have realised, but this AE request is a Gamergate-related issue and post-ban posts to it are a breach of the ban. There's plenty of eyes on this page so if there's anything that needs adding in either side of the debate, another editor will no doubt add it. -- ] (]) 07:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by PeterTheFourth==== ==== Statement by Hemiauchenia ====
This user has engaged in off-wiki canvassing regarding the IP conflict. Take the following recent tweet from the 12 January
{{ping|Masem}} Perhaps you should start a different enforcement request where the well is not quite so prodigiously poisoned by the filer? <small>] has made ] outside this topic.</small> 04:14, 13 June 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
@Misplaced Pages includes targeting Israel, demonizing it, and erasing inconvenient truths, from falsifying war outcomes to deleting Israeli inventions and attempting to erase the reality of Palestinian suicide bombers.}}
Along with this is a screenshot of the current AfD ]. People are of course allowed to be caustic about Misplaced Pages off-wiki, but calling out a specific AfD with highly charged rhetoric, essentially inciting canvassing seems out of line. ] (]) 02:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
: For those concerned that this might be outing, שלומית ליר is very open about their real life identity on their userpage. See (). If you reveal your real identity on Misplaced Pages, your tweets about Misplaced Pages on your Twitter account connected to your real-life identity are fair game to mention. There's also reverse confirmation in this tweet . ] (]) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by Ryk72==== ====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)
I do not believe that a reasonable person would find either the subject or the filer of this AE request to be entirely blameless. Given the issue raised here appears to be limited to comments about each other an interaction ban may be sufficient & appropriate.


====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
'''Support''' mutual (two-way) I-ban. - ] <sup>]</sup> 04:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
It has been several days. Perhaps שלומית ליר could clarify whether their belief about the way Misplaced Pages works turned out to be a true belief or a false belief so that this report can progress. ] (]) 09:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)====
:{{ping|EdJohnston}}, I noticed your comment in the "admin" section below: {{tq|The edits that Handpolk wants to make are precisely those that the Gamergate sanctions are trying to stop. I assume we aren't changing our mind about the wisdom of the Gamergate restrictions that are now codified in WP:ARBGG}}.
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning שלומית ליר===
:While I concur that the ] decision was intended to address a number of problematic behaviours in the topic space, (and also that the editor's behaviour appears problematic in itself), I'm not clear that the sanctions were intended to stop any particular type of edits in ], which is the meaning that I intuit from the comment. Of course, it is entirely likely that I am misunderstanding, and that the intent was to cover edits in non-Article spaces.
:''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==
:Would it be possible for you to elaborate a little on the meaning, and if & how you see ] impacting content decisions? Thanks in advance for any additional insight you can provide. <small>Apologies if this is not the best forum; please feel free to relocate.</small> - ] <sup>]</sup> 12:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning Luganchanka===
:@{{u|208.76.111.246|"uninvolved IP"}}, While I share your disdain for a number of the comments raised in fora such as the one which you ]; as a general principle, I don't believe that sanctioning editors for off-Wiki behaviour is in the interests of the ]. In part because I'm not sure where we would stop. - ] <sup>]</sup> 22:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}} 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Luganchanka}}<p>{{ds/log|Luganchanka}}</p>
====Statement by ForbiddenRocky ====
I suspect the filer is ] as evidenced by his reddit and other actions. ] (]) 05:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
: I just looked at the stuff ] mentioned about the filer and Liz. And I looked at the filer's edits on ] and its talk page. Those things are either serious chutzpah <s>or serious emotional reactiveness.</s> In the former case filer deserves an indef. <s>In the latter perhaps a short block.</s> While I really suspect the filer is ], <s>I can't also help feeling maybe he just needs time to cool off.</s> ] (]) 14:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
:: I change my mind. Filer knows too much GG history, and too much about sanctions against ]. Filer can't both claim general ignorance of what's going on and at the same time make comments that require knowing a lot about the arcana around GG. ] (]) 15:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
====Statement by Tony Sidaway====
A topic ban of the filer is merited on the grounds of their blatant attempt to game the 500 edit qualification. This already seems to have been handled through a topic ban arrived at by community discussion at ANI, however. I suggest this current AE discussion may be safely closed with a note of that ban, unless there is merit in the original complaint. In the latter case, perhaps a new filer will come forward to advance any genuine issues. --] 12:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
The filer is advertising, on both user page and user talk page, a reddit community supposedly created by the filer that is described as uncensored and currently contains attacks on individual Misplaced Pages editors. An edit by me earlier today to remove the user page link citing ] was reverted by the filer on the pretext of "vandalism". Obviously I'm walking away because I don't want to play to anybody's script. But maybe an indefinite block is merited here before things get out of control. --] 01:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
As a not at all disinterested observer I think it's fair to say that some otherwise edgy behaviour by some editors is being treated with a little indulgence (though very far from absolute liberty) precisely because they are clearly reacting to deliberate, targeted attacks that have been without cease for nine months.
<!-- 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 ]):
I don't know about other topics in Misplaced Pages that may be subject to similar attacks or worse, but I observe that over the past few months since the Gamergate arbitration this page has quite often been dominated by discussion of Gamergate. It may not be the worst topic for external pressure, but it's certainly not the least.
BLP CTOP warning given


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
There are honourable and fair editors who disagree with the mainstream on how we should report Gamergate; there are even some who clearly retain an honest belief that our NPOV policy requires that which I think it is impossible to square with the normal and routine interpretation we use everywhere else. They honestly and sincerely believe that Misplaced Pages should be truly amoral, knowing no difference between the most radiant love and the most heinous hatred, between a hand that caresses and a hand that mortally wounds. Those people, I can work with, though their very existence makes my hair stand up on end. We can discuss and wrangle and, grudgingly, reach a compromise that doesn't go off the deep end but does satisfactorily convey the fact that ''some'' objective harm must inevitably be conveyed in the course of reporting on malicious human behaviour.
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)
: Luganchanka's response is disingenuous and misleading. Look at the ] discussion I linked above. Nobody other than Luganchanka thinks that Ritter should be described as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article. The dispute isn't about whether or not the convictions should be mentioned in the lead at all or not, it's specifically about the use of the phrase "child sex offender", and there is no consensus to include that as far as I can tell, despite Luganchanka's vociferous claims to the contrary. ] (]) 20:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:: RfC opened ]. ] (]) 16:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


===Discussion concerning Luganchanka===
But we cannot work at all under the pressure of that same hatred, which I loathe with every fibre of my being, that seeks to harm those who find threats of rape to be a bad thing.
<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 Luganchanka====
And that's where we are. Ignore it, perhaps, for as Wikipedians we all have that option and that's always been the path condoned by Arbcom, sometimes expressly but usually only by omission. But an encyclopaedia is ''not'' amoral. It either supports evil through complacency or it embodies an overall force for good by refusing to flinch from the delineation of all, both evil and good. When we flinch and turn a blind eye to violent attempts to subvert our great work, then we face the true test.


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)
Righting great wrongs? No. Just making sure that we all understand that just getting the facts down, according to the NPOV, is a truly political statement and not one we should duck. --] 00:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


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)
====Statement by Protonk====


: Thank you to @] and @] for your feedback. If you see the ], discussions - {{tq|14 August - Vandalism by removing all reference entirely to Ritter being a "Convicted Sex Offender"}} and {{tq|First sentence}}. The latter discussion ended on 26th September, and resulted in the intro we had until a flurry of edits the other day, trying to move information on Ritter's sexual offence conviction, downplay it, whitewash it etc. My edits were aimed at restoring the edit reached by consensus, which had been in place for several months until the recent raft of edits with the clear aim of moving / downplaying Ritter's sexual offence conviction.] (]) 06:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd rather we not sanction editors for calling a duck a duck. The "I'm not a gater, I'm just a neutral editor who wanted to learn about GG and found the article be be biased" line is well-worn. We've heard it from literally every gater and almost never heard it from editors one might reasonably call neutral or disinterested. It is well worn precisely because serves a useful rhetorical purpose. The speaker can not only claim neutrality but they can erect that veneer over their position (which is almost inevitably pro gamergate in general and in this specific case stupefyingly obviously pro gamergate). Editors here trying to do their best to follow AGF are then '''obligated''' to treat this manifest ploy as the law of the land. If you accuse them what is plainly clear, you're impugning their neutrality or using a slur (gamergater) to describe them. If we keep reading from the same script it is no surprise the lines don't change. GG certainly won't change the tactic because ''it works like gangbusters'' and because it fits with their narrative of GG as objective/neutral and the rest of the world as biased. I find the hand-wringing above from editors who claim to be neutral offensive.


:: Thank you for this ], I really do appreciate your feedback and advice here!!] (]) 16:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) <small>(moved from ] — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC))</small>
This complaint is baseless and should be dismissed as such. ] (]) 16:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


:: As per ]'s comments:
:{{ping|Masem}} Perhaps they were just ] a good natured but ill fated joke at how we use first names to connote familiarity. To suggest you were friends with Yiannopoulos or Hoff Sommers is of course absurd. In the context of protracted and repeated arguments which favor the group under discussion it might be misinterpreted as slight against the subject's neutrality. But given how widely and strenuously this colleague--an administrator no less--asserts their neutrality I have no choice but to imagine this interpretation must have been furthest from {{u|MarkBernstein|Mark}}'s mind. ] (]) 15:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


{{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."}}
:{{ping|Bosstopher}} Yeah it's absurd. That it stings at all may be ''based'' on the singular regard a particular community holds for one administrator. ] (]) 12:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


https://casetext.com/case/ritter-v-tuttle
====Statement by EvergreenFir====
I've been quasi sorta watching Handpolk and frankly they've made the ] makers quite rich already. <small>Nearly as rich as they've made the ].</small> It's honestly heartening that anyone would find a glimmer of potential here and if {{U|Zad68}} thinks there's hope, don't see why not let them one more coil of rope? Though it's quite generous given the user's actions. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 02:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


] (]) 18:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*Also posting on BYK's talk page after being told not to: . Just indef already. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 01:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
:*And posted again on BYK's talk page. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 02:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by NatGertler====
{{U|Gamaliel}} - <s>To be clear, the topic ban is (or will be?) for Gamergate and gender related controversies, right? He keeps blanking his user talk page, so it's hard to tell if it's already been placed on him.</s> Nevermind. I ]. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 16:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Editor's edits today focused on trying to main a negative descriptor of what subject believed, despite it not being in the three sources that were listed (nor in the old version they ultimately reverted to.) Efforts were first trying to simply restate the claim, then trying to source it to an opinion piece (problem) from the Washington Examiner (also a bit of a problem, per ]), then trying to state as a fact what had merely been stated in a non-prime article as an accusation. BLP concern was pointed out repeatedly via edit summary and on Talk page. Removal of unsourced contentious BLP claims and even false claims is not "whitewashing" despite how editor wishes to depict it, it is in accord with our practices. -- ] (]) 21:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by IP user==== ====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
I find it strange that text which doesn't mention the banned topic would be sanctionable as a topic ban violation, or that it qualifies for removal under ]. The user ''reported'' in this request in fact has the following text on their talk page which seems to advocate the destruction of wikipedia yet no mention has been made of ] over several months:
{{talkquote|A project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious internet trolls does not deserve to survive. -- NorthBySouthBaranof.}}
I find it '''especially''' strange that here {{u|Gamaliel}} supports an indefinite ban when, while that same ''reported'' user was topic banned they maintained on their user pages links to their personal blog discussing the topic, criticizing our handling of it and even criticizing editors directly! In that case however, rather than recommend an indefinite ban he thought it more appropriate to '''lift''' the editor's topic ban. Is there some difference in these two situations not apparent to the rest of us? ] (]) 06:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Cullen328====

The thing I like the least among the OP's behavior, among a range of bad behaviors that one might want to analyze, is that they stomped away while loudly accusing actually productive editors of being "trolls" and "vandals". Can you imagine? Folks like {{U|Liz}}, the kind, helpful opposite of a troll. I do not believe that the encyclopedia will suffer at the loss of this editor. ] ] 06:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by ]====
My statement isn't about Mark but about Handpolk. I would argue that we give the topic ban a chance have an impact. I already see Handpolk editing on non-Gamergate articles which was the main goal of the topic ban. I can see he has a bit of a persecution complex right now and doesn't fully undertand how, in good faith, editors on Misplaced Pages disagree all of the time but manage to, mostly, find a way to coexist without going to ANI or AE.

But I hope maybe working with a different group of editors can turn him around. He's an intelligent editor and I see his main offense to be an unwillingness to drop the stick. If the topic ban can cause him to move on from Gamergate and work on other pages, then it will have served its purpose. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 20:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

: Regarding ] and ], a discussion about whether these articles fell under Gamergate DS only occurred yesterday (]) which was after Handpolk made his edits to the Kleiner article. A Gamergate connection is not immediately obvious and the warning on the talk page (again, posted after his edits) said that the articles were covered by DS without specifying Gamergate.
: While an editor should not edit an article after receiving a DS warning from an admin, I can see why an explanation might be called for so an editor can understand why these two articles would come under the Gamergate umbrella. It doesn't seem like a discussion over the scope of DS shouldn't be considered a violation of DS. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 14:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

::{{ping|J0eg0d}}, can you tell me what "brigading" means? The only place where I've seen that word used in regard to internet activity was on reddit and I didn't know what it refers to there except, apparently, it's a bad thing. Thanks for any explanation you can provide. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 17:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by 63.153.218.127====
I would just like to note that of creating the ] (]) 20:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof====
I note that Gamergate-related disruption and personal attacks are continuing to spread across the encyclopedia, and entirely-unrelated arbitration cases are now being used as platforms to attack and harass Misplaced Pages users targeted by Gamergate. How long will it be before ArbCom wakes up to the fact that this issue isn't a debating club with two sides, it's an organized campaign of harassment and abuse hell-bent on destroying the lives of its targets for nothing more than "lulz"? ] (]) 19:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
:The continuing harassment targeting myself in particular is clearly subject to ], as an issue directly involving myself. Furthermore, it's interesting how Gamergate-related editors and IPs magically appear out of nowhere to continue the harassment. I draw the Arbitration Committee's attention to this obvious disruption of the encyclopedia. ] (]) 19:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by j0eg0d====

{{ping|Zad68}} Apologies Zad68, I'm unfamiliar with the Admins handling this request ... In regards to ]; I will talk from my own ]: Mark has engaged in ] me and brigading members ] & ] into investigation of (what Mark believed to be) my IP address. MARK WAS WARNED Yet he continued researching for personal information about me through the Hugo Awards website, and demanding I provide personal information myself. I have been a member of Misplaced Pages since 2005, ] account appears to be a false-excuse to harass others & openly DOX people. He reacts this way to anyone looking to discuss the role of Gamergate.

Mark and acquaintances ], ], ] blatantly ] me and others in discussions about Gamergate. It's all archived. They would ] me personally when I created a dialog in a forum, edited other pages, or simply uploaded an image for a WIKI page. Their sole purpose regarding GamerGate_Controversy (IMHO) is to divert intelligent dialog by ''twisting words, going off-topic, deleting and hatting'' anything providing a balanced narrative about the #gamergate hashtag. Read from Mark's own words above; "zombie Gamergate editors, brigaded and sockpuppet accounts". These are the same biased, angry (dare I claim paranoid) attacks used against someone who has been with Misplaced Pages for 10 years. I stepped away from Misplaced Pages just to get a break, and here I return to still see Mark's activities being allowed.

This man and his alliances (Please note who is defending Mark and who is requesting Handpolk be topic banned) are disruptive to every GamerGate topic and aggressively harass newer users that want to add to the same GamerGate discussion - I point to ] whose USER page was altered because of a link he provided to Reddit. He was accused of advertising in this case. I can see the frustration in this, because Mark Bernstein's USER page is advertising his own website. Mark advertises again below in ] where I admittedly removed the link to his website only to have to undone by ]. Is this because of favoritism, because no one has ever pointed it out, or maybe Mark has enough friends to create the consensus that his website is not advertising? My appeal on Mark Bernstein, in light of the documented history of his past bannings & current behavior; is to permanently restrict him from every topic regarding GamerGate. I find this to be an absolutely reasonable action considering his current request to ''"check"''] every Misplaced Pages newcomer. Mark is not learning from his past bans. --] (]) 07:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

:{{ping|Liz}} The term ''"brigading"'' is like a ''"call to arms"''. For a better definition, you might ask your friend ] as he uses it more often than I do. --] (]) 01:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe any accusations by ] should be sourced. I'm very aware of ];s excessive suspicions as it have been focused on ] in Mark's attempts to ] me. His ] should be taken as an admission in treating Misplaced Pages as if it were a battleground. I'm also concerned by the accounts of ], ], ], ] and ] in what is clearly a shared agenda. I find it difficult to believe their claims of ''"organized attacks"'' against themselves or Misplaced Pages when each of these editors have ] continuously on IP addresses, contributing editors such as ], myself and every NEWCOMER that seeks to correct errors in a WIKI article. Even within this very page it is Mark's unusual behavior that needs to be addressed as it is personable to me ... To Quote
*''"(Fear of reactions like this kept me from pointing out that the present filer misunderstood the used of the word “subjective” as a noun (“my subjective is...”), a curious grammatical error which, if memory serves, was also made on Gamergate topics by j0eg0d and, before then, by GhostLourde. Doubtless just a coincidence.)" _]"''
*''"A reddit user named “ j0eg0d" has just opened a thread on one of the Gamergate forums to publicize this complaint. It disclaims any intention of encouraging Gamergaters to participate here, concluding "UPDATE: The Decision Against Bernstein Hasn't Been Made Yet, It's Ongoing, For Any Misplaced Pages Members That Haven't Made a Complaint ... I Mean ... Read The Article. A later addition, also signed j0eg0d, explains that He's got a butt-buddy named Gamaliel protecting him. Gamaliel is the Admin that unblocks/unbans Bernstein every time he gets in trouble with ARBCOM." _]''
I have one account and only one account with Misplaced Pages since 2005. I have not been blocked or restricted in all my 10 years. ] continues to make these accusations without fact, evidence or sourcing. ] pursuant zealotry in researching & following me inside & outside of Misplaced Pages is the exact method in which Mark approaches every person bringing question to the very articles ] himself guards. ADMINS, I must ask: After so many temporary blocks/restrictions specific ''Long Term Abuse'', if ] has not learned how to behave by now; Why is he and his ] being allowed to continue this ] conduct? --] (]) 04:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
: {{ping|Bosstopher}} I can certainly appreciate your defense of ] but in regards to me ... ... You're attempt to explain the Ryulong story to an Admin {{ping|Rad68}} which is already ] and (sorry) but Ryulong's excessive behavior predates the #gamergate hashtag by a few years ]. His "behavior" is well-documented even outside Misplaced Pages . Your defense of ] seemed to be in error, as my claim of Mark ] me has to do with my IP address & researching my name through the ] - It has nothing to do with Reddit.
: My recognizing the same extremism with ] (remaining) WIKI friends - My declaration that the ''"defenders"'' of the Gamergate-Controversy WIKI should be removed - and my current suggestion to simply delete the gamergate WIKI; are provided as measures to end this battlefield mentality. You called me an "ass" in defense of your friends, ]. I'm unconcerned with name -calling, but you're adding to the WIKI battlefield & encouraging quarreling; You're part of the problem. I hope you can see that, because you need to stop. --] (]) 00:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
{{ping|Strongjam|Strongjam}} If you and your ] with ] & ] have an ARBCOM request towards me or other Editors making statements; You may want to create a separate request (with sources) as you're pursuing off-topic conversations to distract from the current issue. --] (]) 01:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Strongjam====
] bullshit is the type of thing {{u|MarkBernstein}} and {{u|NorthBySouthBaranof}} are talking about, and it needs to stop. — ] (]) 15:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

:In regards to {{u|J0eg0d}}, can an oversighter please take a look at their contributions around ? I'm surprised those edits plus their recent contributions about living people haven't attracted much admin attention. — ] (]) 01:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
:{{reply|J0eg0d}} You're the one who brought me into with your ] that I've made false claims about IP harassment. Don't be surprised if you get hoisted by your own ]. — ] (]) 02:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Johnuniq====
J0eg0d's above statement mentions their long history at Misplaced Pages—that's a good achievement but it would be fairer to note the context:
*21 edits in 2005
*13 edits in 2008
*11 edits in 2013
*13 edits in 2014
*246 edits in 2015
That gives a total of 304 edits, the vast majority of which have been in 2015 and concerned with gamergate. Most editors would not have sufficient experience to comment at WP:AE after 304 edits, nor would they know that "WP:BATTLEFIELD" is a useful term of art. Rather than worrying about whether MarkBernstein has examined off-wiki forums, it would make more sense to worry about the off-wiki forums where tactics to push the gamergate line are discussed. ] (]) 10:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Bosstopher====
{{Ping|Zad68}} It's only just hit me that you don't know the background of Mark's topic bans and his IBANs with DHeyward so here I go. Mark was originally Tbanned for making some very extreme claims. He accused Thargor Orlando of being part of a coordinated 8chan threat against which endangered his life, without providing any evidence, made some incredibly dodgy and insulting comments to starship.paint and accused Masem of being the BOSS of a Gamergate faction that was organising offsite. As a result he ended up topic banned. Then he wrote a blogpost that got covered in the Guardian, got blocked for posting about it on Jimbotalk, got his topic ban removed because it had supposedly become punitive by this point.

He then returned to editing the article and behaved a lot more calmer than last time, but people he crossed swords with before his topic ban found it hard to bury the hatchet. So they tried to get him tbanned over minor issues. This led to all those IBANS that popped up, as well as another temporary topic ban/block. As for the present day I'm not really sure what's going on, because it's been 2 weeks since I've had a good nights sleep, but j0eg0d is acting like an ass ( +Mark's statement)) and really has no room to talk about AGF and civility. Also people in general are being a bit too mean to Masem on the talk page and really ought to dial it down. ] (]) 12:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

{{Ping|Protonk}} That comment is no more absurd than claiming Masem is coordinating a Gator army, which is something multiple editors of the article actually believe. On a related note you'd think if an experienced administrator was coordinating offsite disruption he'd come up with a better strategy than the current one: "And then after 4 days and 10 posts, you go to talk page and write "This isn't neutral at all, you're all SJWs! Then they'll be bound to fix the article!"] (]) 12:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

{{Ping|Zad68}}{{Ping|MarkBernstein}} Per your suggestion, (and per the worrying path j0eg0d is taking), here is a brief summary of what happned to Ryulong for Zad to get some context. Once upon a time an advocate of Gamergate started editing Misplaced Pages. He didn't like what was going on so he complained about it on reddit (a lot). He eventually made so many reddit posts about wikipedia that they made him a moderator of /r/KotakuInAction. Most of his reddit posts were extremely focused on Ryulong, some were highly insulting and tried to dig up dirt on him from a webpage that was created to harass him. He used exactly the same name on reddit and Misplaced Pages and admitted the reddit account was his multiple times. But whenever the account was brought up and Ryulong tried to correct his errors or get him to stop, he denied the account was his and accused everyone of ] him. He then deleted the vast majority of his insulting reddit posts about Ryulong before the Arbcom case ended (does this remind you anyone {{ping|j0eg0d}}?). The wikipedia administration in their infinite wisdom responded by banning Ryulong from mentioning offsite behaviour, and Arbcom claimed it was impossible to deduce that the reddit account and wikipedia account belonged to the same person (the extreme stupidity of such a conclusion still blows my mind to this day). In the end the editor in question got so ballsy that he started wikistalking Ryulong in the last days before his ArbCom ban, and it was this outrageous display which finally got him blocked (for 24 hour). Zad, I hope you keep the lessons of such a story in mind when dealing with complaints about insults on reddit. Also please note the ] we had that concluded linking usages of the same username on multiple websites is not necessarily outing.] (]) 16:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

{{Ping|j0eg0d}} Firstly I'd like to say how flattered I am that you think I have the necessary social skills to make friends. Secondly Mark's exclamation mark in brackets, pretty much sums up my views on your theory that Mark, Strongjam and me are some kind of evil Gamergate triumvirate. The reason I explained both Mark's story and that of Ryulong vs Loganmac to Zad, was because both were barely touched on in the Arbcom case, which is where he was looking for information. Also I never called you an ass, I merely said you were acting like an ass. I gave evidence that supported this, in the form of your taunting Mark through putting hidden Reichstag links in his username and referring to Gamaliel as his "butt buddy" on reddit. Now I am no expert on assholish behaviour, but surely you must agree that what you did here falls very well into that category? If my name calling is part of the problem, what does that make your name calling?] (]) 13:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


===Result concerning MarkBernstein=== ===Result concerning Luganchanka===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
* Last time someone tried to game a 30/500 restriction like this, . I see no reason why this case shouldn't be handled similarly. ] (]) 21:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
-->
* As to Mark Bernstein, I support prompt closing with no action. As to the filer, while I understand T. Canens' position, hasn't the issue been addressed by the community at ANI? ] (]) 22:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
:@]: whether you're correct or not, you were edit warring. I believe an indef block from the article and/or a temporary site block would be an appropriate sanction here. ] (]/]) 20:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
**Just noting that this was written before Handpolk's subsequent activity. (Which is obvious by definition, of course, but still pointing it out.) ] (]) 20:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
::I've blocked the user for 48h for violating 3RR based on the report at ].--] (]) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
**I note that Handpolk is now blocked 48 hours as a self-requested block for a wikibreak. If he is not blocked for longer as a result of this thread, he needs to steer well clear of controversial topics going forward. (I haven't reviewed some of the most recent behavior so I am not !voting on any sanction against him just now.) The concerns raised by Mark Bernstein and others about some IP edits are very serious, and help explain the remedies that have been imposed in this topic-area including the prohibition of IP and new-account editing, but I don't think they clearly relate to Handpolk. ] (]) 20:06, 16 June 2015 (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)
* The filer has gone on to post and restore a violation of his topic ban on his userpage and talkpage and posted terms for its removal , while treating other editors with contempt . The filer's conduct throughout has had the air of a ] and we can expect more of this kind of thing if it is seen as successful. I recommend indef for the filer. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 01:55, 14 June 2015 (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.
**Handpolk's edits restoring the advertising of the off-WP forum for discussing the WP Gamergate article and WP activities related to Gamergate are clearly, without room for argument, a violation of their topic ban from Gamergate broadly construed that was found at ANI (I did not argue either for or against a sanction for Handpolk in that discussion). The fact that Handpolk repeatedly removes everything from their User and User Talk pages ''except for'' the sections advertising that forum really says a lot about their intentions, much more so than their rhetoric repeatedly denying interest in the topic or that they will respect the topic ban. However, {{u|Acroterion}}, allow me to argue a little in Handpolk's favor here: I wouldn't go straight to indef and throw away the key. Other than restoring those sections, I do see that Handpolk has been trying to disengage from the topic and its editors, and I recognize that they have indeed made constructive edits in other areas. So instead an indef, an administrator could make an ] action of removing the sections from Handpolk's User and User Talk pages, and notify them that restoring them will, without question, result in a block. I think that would complete their disengagement from the topic without a block, and give them a little ], and that would be preferable. <code>]]</code> 02:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
*:But even if you ''had'' been somehow editing to support a consensus you believed was settled, you cannot edit-war contentious material into a BLP when others are objecting to it. The solution, always, is to go to talk, discuss, and reconfirm consensus. There is zero urgency to have this information in the article. Including something negative in a BLP is not something you should ''ever'' edit war over. ] (]) 18:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*** It's worth a try. However, they also need to treat other editors with respect. It would also be best if other editors who Handpolk views as adversaries refrain from posting on his talkpage, even with the best of intentions, and it would be wise for Handpolk to refrain from, as Euryalus notes, re-litigating the ANI discussion in other venues . I don't feel strongly about indef, but their conduct clearly requires stronger measures than a topic ban.'''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 02:30, 14 June 2015 (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)
**** Alright, I'll sit on my hands and wait for more comments. Do we have evidence of their bad behavior interacting with editors other than Gamergate editors? <code>]]</code> 02:43, 14 June 2015 (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)
***** Not that I've seen, though I believe Liz has edited there only recently and Tony Sidaway has largely withdrawn from participation on that subject. My comment about other editors was not meant to include you among the "other editors who Handpolk views as adversaries." The topic ban violation should go, as much for Handpolk's sake as anything else, as other editors have tried to point out. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 02:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
*::That's fair; I'll strike the link. My point in including it was that, when conversations fragment, we sometimes get these sorts of chaotic incidents. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
***** Since BMK removed the violations on their own initiative in the meantime, I, for the sake of procedure, reverted BMK's actions and then removed them myself as an administrative/arbitration enforcement action and left a note that reinstatement will result in a block. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 03:32, 14 June 2015 (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)
******* Handpolk has since been editing ], a firm at the center of a gender-discrimination lawsuit filed by ]. As far as I'm concerned, it's a topic ban violation. Handpolk's insistence that it has nothing to do with anything of the sort is to me utterly disingenuous. I don't see any likelihood that a short block will have any effect on their behavior, which has reinforced my perception that they're pushing boundaries.I've given them the benefit of the doubt that they sincerely believed it was safe, but they continue to argue, and I'm not interested in an ''ad nauseum'' discussion. However, I don't like issuing an indef block when I'm feeling exasperated, so I won't. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 00:39, 15 June 2015 (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)
******** I've blocked Handpolk for for continuing to try to discuss ] after I directly told him to stop: the boundary-pushing cannot be ignored. I blocked for 48 hours to allow for a little more discussion here, rather than indef. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 02:40, 15 June 2015 (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)
*********I note you've also unblocked per the discussion on my talk page. Please note I don't disagree with the block - it's a good faith judgement call on when enough rope is too much, and we simply mildly disagree that that point has been reached with these edits. We have both now urged Handpolk to stay further away from the topic-banned subjects, so if this wasn't enough rope, anything further certainly will be. -- ] (]) 03:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
*::::::The detail is in the record of ''Ritter v. Tuttle'' (case No. 3:15cv1235 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2018)), so it isn't completely made up. But I would also like to hear from the user on this point as to whether there was secondary sourcing here. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
****Those admins who don't yet support an indef might consider the logic of a one-month block of Handpolk based on the behavior so far. It's not as though there is much extenuation for the awful stuff that has been reported above. The edits that Handpolk wants to make are precisely those that the Gamergate sanctions are trying to stop. I assume we aren't changing our mind about the wisdom of the Gamergate restrictions that are now codified in ]. Handpolk's connection with Reddit is the icing on the cake. Does anyone think that Misplaced Pages has a tragic misunderstanding of the good intentions of the Reddit people? ] (]) 03:46, 14 June 2015 (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)
* <s>I think we've seen everything we need to see from the filer to support an indef block. ] <small>(])</small> 04:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)</s>
*:::::::{{yo|Luganchanka}}
:* Given the Reddit stuff on top of everything else, an indef would be the obvious way forward, though having said that the GG topic ban is effectively the same thing anyway in terms of stopping disruption, with the bonus that he ''may'' find useful other areas to work in. ] 18:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
*:::::::] 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 ].
::*Handpolk probably doesn't mind using up as much admin time on Misplaced Pages as possible, so if he is only topic banned he'll probably take the opportunity to launch further appeals. ] (]) 21:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
*:::::::— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{yo|Luganchanka}} Would you please provide a direct link to the talk page section you are referring to when you say {{tq|there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior wikipedia editors}} regarding the lead? — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Luganchanka|Hemiauchenia}}
*:It does seem that the discussion at ] does indicate some support for that language i.e. ({{tq|convicted child sex offender}}) in the lead, with some general lean against putting it in the first sentence. So, while {{tq|There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences}} is true if it means the literal first sentence, I do see a rough consensus to include the material in the lead section in some way in that discussion.
*:That being said, the BLPN discussion had a bit of different tone and tenor from the discussion on the talk page. There was on the article's talk page, but Luganchanka, despite having been pretty vocal about this subject in the past, hadn't participated in that BLPN discussion. They instead grounded their edits in the argument that the article's talk page had consensus for the current content, and nothing on the article's talk page had changed that consensus. And that much was true. In any case, we've got <s>]</s>two different forums with two different answers here, which appears to be what's leading to the whole kerfluffle.
*:Then the analysis comes to whether or not the label is a straightforward BLP violation, requiring us to read the sourcing in the article. , which is cited in the ''body'' of the article (but not the lead), does state that Ritter {{tq|was convicted unlawful contact with minors and other charges}} in the state of PA (the PA statute is ; "unlawful contact with minors" is the verbatim name of the crime). When dealing with a sting operation, PA treats it as {{tq|an offense of the same grade and degree}} as if the criminal had actually contacted a child (unless it's a lesser crime than a third-degree felony, in which case it becomes a third-degree felony). This is an extremely common practice in the United States (there are lots of philosophical questions regarding ''mens rea'' and ''actus reus'' here, but that's not really relevant here). In any case, labeling this to be a child sex offense (or, alternatively, to simply use the name of the crime in the article) does not appear to be straightforward malice/POV-pushing/libel, and a reasonably informed individual might shorten it in this way. Whether or not that is ''wise'' or ''optimal'' to shorten it is the proper subject for content discussion.
*:Aside from the edit warring (which was not acceptable, and was aptly handled by a block), this looks like a content dispute. A heated one involving a living person, sure, but a content dispute nonetheless. I see good-faith—albeit passionate—disagreement. If the editors were to come together and engage in one forum (such as the article's talk page, where this has been discussed a bunch), rather than splitting the discussion over multiple pages, I feel like we might have our best shot at attaining a consensus going forward.
*:In short, it looks like the conversation fragmented, and consensus-building broke down. Edit warring ensued, which was bad, but we've already blocked for that in order to dissuade it going forward. A ] on the article's talk page for what the lead should look like is probably the best way to go forward here.
*:— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 15:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::RTH, are you objecting to a p-block from the article? ] (]) 13:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*Luganchanka has been blocked for a week by ] for BLP violations and personal attacks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Just noting that this was a regular admin action and I wasn't aware this was before AE. ] (]) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*::With this in mind, I think we should wait to hear from RTH but otherwise expect to move forward to an indef p-block on top of SFR's stopgap action, as we haven't seen anything coming close to an adequate recognition of the relevant policies and practices from Luganchanka and after several second chances and nudges, I don't see reason to expect them to change course. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


==BabbleOnto==
*I've glanced at Handpolk's other contributions and he seems to be editing normally outside this topic area. Since he's already under an indef topic ban, I'm content to leave it at that unless he strays into the topic area again. Any objections to closing this? ] <small>(])</small> 14:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning BabbleOnto===
*I stuck my neck out a bit for Handpolk and I'm delighted to see my trust doesn't appear misplaced. I don't see any reason for any further action regarding Handpolk.<p>Regarding {{u|MarkBernstein}}, I do find that when he <u>focuses on content</u>, he makes cogent, policy- and source-based arguments. I am not saying I do or do not agree with his conclusions all the time as I'm still trying to keep an arm's length from the content, but his arguments appear well-formed and connected to policy. Mark doesn't do a 100% perfect job of ] and does sometimes take mild or indirect jabs at other editors, but I read through the ] case and his behavior appears within the limits of what Arbcom condoned. <s>Mark was editing the article at the time the case started and he doesn't even appear as a named party, much less as one of the sanctioned.</s><p>But the thing I'm finding most disruptive about Mark's behavior now is, frankly, a continued failure to adhere to ]. Gamergate is just one of so, so many articles that are under continuous, co-ordinated offsite attacks, and its editors are just a handful of so, so many targeted harassment campaigns. Yes absolutely there are public anonymous chat communities hosted at several sites where people talk about the Gamergate editing here, but honestly it's hardly a drop in the bucket compared to some of the stuff I've seen from well-funded advocacy groups who have <u>real money</u> on the line depending on how favorable "their" Misplaced Pages article is to their medical treatment or product or company. Also there are other well-known Misplaced Pages-antagonist sites that ] which have engaged in much sharper treatment of WP editors. So it's just a distraction when someone makes mention here that this or that post was made about some editor at such and such a site. In all but the most extreme cases does Misplaced Pages take an action here solely based on some complaint or comment posted off-site. Yes, if an off-site comment can be connected to an action that appears on-Misplaced Pages, we can adjust how we deal with it, but otherwise, bringing it here when there is no tangible effect from it is only a distraction.<p>I guess the question is, Does this equate to Mark being a net-negative in this topic area? Not sure but I feel it's close. <code>]]</code> 01:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|ජපස}} 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
**Thanks {{u|Masem}} for pointing that out, struck that part of my statement. <code>]]</code> 04:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|BabbleOnto}}<p>{{ds/log|BabbleOnto}}</p>
*And now we got some guy who says he's a journalist and he's threatening to write stuff if we don't hand out sanctions in a manner of his liking. Even if I wanted to here I won't sanction now because I don't even want to provide the appearance of appeasement. Closing with no further action. <code>]]</code> 13:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
=== A Modest, Informal Proposal ===


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
We've had a rough day. An IP tried to use an Arbcom page to publicize material of a sexual nature about two Gamergate enemies -- one current and one former Wikipedian. The current Wikipedian complained there, and here; an IP deleted their complaint because they're topic banned for Gamergate. I repeated it, as it's Kafkaesque to prevent someone from protesting Gamergate's use of Misplaced Pages to defame them because they're not supposed to mention Gamergate. Then ''I'' was redacted. Finally, this page was semi-protected.
<!--- 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 :
Elsewhere, Zoe Quinn is being called a "participant" in the Gamergate Controversy, as if she chose to participate. I'm accused falsely of publishing a falsehood in The Guardian, and also of looking at Gamergaters funny, or something. A new Gamergater arrived at the talk page, full of severe neutrality (but not full of 500 edits) to argue that we must immediately link to the latest Gamergate attack site, the promotion of which is 8chan's talking point of the day. Other editors are again unhatting their pet dead horses and throwing up great walls of text in support of phantasmic and whimsical propositions that have no chance of gaining consensus.
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# Sealioning
You're the experts: you know what to do! But, as you appear stuck, some things you might try include:
# Refusal to ]
# Personalizing an argument.
# Railroading the discussion.


This is all after I warned them about ] sanctions, and . Very nearly a ] on the subject. I see no reason to continue tolerating this kind of obstinate ]. Additional diffs available on request from admins, but looking at the user history should suffice to indicate the problem is obvious, I hope.
1) The IP loophole is clearly being used to allow socks or puppets to edit Arbcom and AE pages and Gamergate biographies. Stop this: semi-protect everything in sight for the next six months. At least that will deter the IP socks.


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
2) Consider checking all newcomers to Gamergate topics against the whole list of banned Gamergate editors. No doubt that's onerous, but what else can you do? (This still doesn't help with meat puppets, zombies, and brigades, but it's a start.)
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
3) Extend 30/500 to other problematic pages -- especially but not limited to the prominent Gamergate targets.
<!-- 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).


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
4) Either enforce the 30/500 restriction automatically, like blocks, or do this proactively, or let oversight do it proactively. It shouldn't be the responsibility of the defenders of the wiki to enforce rules against Gamergate transgression, and it reinforces their sense that the rules are simply meant to oppress them.
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
This is a ] with respect to the topic and their ] surrounding it has been subject to at least one ] thread that remains active: ]. The hope was that they would ] and move on from this, but it seems they either will not or cannot. ] (]) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
5) Limit or supervise Gamergate talk page editing. Endlessly repetitive rehashing of the same failed arguments, to which editors must respond time and time again, is painful and unproductive. At present, it requires endless wrangling simply to hat a dead horse -- and the horse always rises again in a couple of weeks.
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


===Discussion concerning BabbleOnto===
6) Freeze the Gamergate page ''and'' the talk page. No dithering, no shadow drafts, nothing. Send everyone away until 2016. If anything needs to be changed, petition for the change at AE, with the understanding that few or no changes are likely to be accepted.
<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 BabbleOnto====
These are drastic, but the pain this continued nonsense inflicts is very real. '''I’m not wedded at all to any of these suggestions,''' but it's time to try ''something.'' We have no business broadcasting murder threats against Gamergate's victims or broadcasting sexual gossip about Gamergate’s perceived enemies, and we're spending vast amounts of time (and incurring significant pain) simply to provide some amusing ''lulz'' for Gamergate’s fans.. ] (]) 22:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
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 .


To be honest I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm being charged with doing.
:I think placing all a lot of these pages (although not the arbitration pages) under Pending Changes would make a lot of sense. ] (]) 23:02, 16 June 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.
::Provided that Gamergate socks or supporter don't render pending changes a dead letter, of course. But that still leaves the talk page problem, which is severe -- most of today's BLP violations were talk pages, which is a small comfort if it's your sex life Gamergate is discussing. Plus, this endless rehashing of dead horses (and then rehashing the meta discussion of whether the horse is really dead or resting, and whether it might be revived) is also pernicious, painful, and completely unproductive. ] (]) 23:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


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.
<hr>
{{ping|Gamaliel}} I also see a number of comments here that indicate that some editors are here to . If you visit the usual Gamergate haunts, you may find a fairly fresh thread in which this is proposed as the talking point to use against that me and in defense of some of the more vocal participants here.At another, there's a nice thread about how "Masem’s had Enough" with that nasty Jew "Bernstein...stein..stein". ] (]) 21:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
<hr>
I understand that the clerks and admins need to allow a lot of latitude here, Still, I do think calling me "dishonest or paranoid" might be just a little hard to square with policy. ] (]) 22:17, 17 June 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?"
And since Dr. Hathaway raises the subject, I continue to stand behind and its sequels, in which, to the best of my knowledge, I took no liberties of any sort with any person’s words. Having previously diagnosed my mental illness, he now accuses me of unspecified professional misconduct. The mental illness is one thing, this is really another. ''Guys -- I tried to keep this section light in tone, general in its recommendations, and useful to administrators who I acknowledged have a tough job. You see below some of of the personal vituperation I'm receiving in consequence; there's plenty more beneath the waterline. I'm writing about the project; Gamergate responds by writing about (er) me. I'm really trying to help you here, but...'' ] (]) 23:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


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.
Dr. Hathaway now says my professional misconduct is not, as he wrote, "taking liberties with the words of others" but rather taking liberties with facts. He is mistaken on this count as well; that article correctly summarized the proposal that was its topic. If Dr. Hathaway wishes to take issue with something that ''The Guardian'' published, their editor Katherine Viner may be reached at Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU; I cannot help him, nor can Misplaced Pages administrators. Again, repeated and unfair attacks on my professional reputation are hard to square with policy, especially as the topic of this section is not my conduct at Arbcom or elsewhere: Handpolk's complaint against my conduct is thataway ⇧ ⇧ ⇧ , In the mean time, perhaps someone might mop up the mess? ] (]) 23:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


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.
To repeat myself at dr hathaway's demand, neither Infamous nor its sequels took any liberties with any facts. Though my professional reputation is not even slightly pertinent to this topic, I value it highly. Will an appropriate authority kindly delete this gratuitous personal attack or indicate that personal attacks, even if false and irrelevant , are sanctioned by custom or policy here? ] (]) 01:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


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)
:Masem now defends Dr Hathaway by claiming my reading of Masem's text does not conform to his intentions. This is really not the time or place for a lesson on the history of the Intentional fallacy and postmodern critical theory, is it? You may read my ACM Hypertext 2011 paper On Criticism if you wish, or Landow's Hypertext, or better still Eagleton (both volumes, they're not very long). Is my reading a valid reading? I believe it plainly is. (guys: I run a press known for edgy interactive Postmodern fiction, though some modernism is in the catalog as well. Srsly; I'm in your base deconstructing your pretty ponies. Stop it.) Will an appropriate authority kindly delete this gratuitous personal attack or indicate that personal attacks, even if false and irrelevant , are sanctioned by custom or policy here? ] (]) 02:57, 18 June 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.
<hr>
*: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====
The attention of administrators is called to this outrageous eve of wiki hounding . I presume even wiki editors who cross Gamergate are permitted to volunteer for their local candidates! Even if they support Democrats? ] (]) 01:24, 18 June 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)
:And to my unpracticed eye, this looks like a legal threat: . Not against me, but still. Mops? ] (]) 03:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by Starke Hathaway==== ====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, .


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 ].
Any proposed solution to what is wrong with the Gamergate article will be incomplete if it does not address the problem of a number of established editors with powerful personal feelings on the topic asserting ownership over the article, strangling any attempt to even discuss changes that do not fully agree with their preferred POV on the topic, and creating a palpably hostile, demeaning, and uncollaborative environment for anyone who dissents from their preferred POV (i.e., everyone but themselves). You don't need to look any farther than the abuse they heap on {{u|Masem}}, a long-established editor and administrator, to see that this is a problem. And that is entirely beside the fact that they assume, without evidence and in total contravention of AGF, that any young editor or newcomer to the topic area is a sock, or a troll, or a trolling sock. Just today, {{u|MarkBernstein}} alone has referred to {{u|Masem}} as (Masem has strenuously objected to this characterization), to {{u|Rhoark}} (and me) as simply (neither of us so identify as far as I know), and . In short, the article has exactly the same problem it had before the ArbCom case, which is that a confederacy of frankly paranoid editors is hell-bent on creating an article that reads in the most condemnatory way possible without regard to other editors' views, AGF and civility, and the sources as demonstrated by the discussion . That's not to say it doesn't have other problems as well, but I think everyone might find that the flames will die down if certain individuals around here stop throwing gasoline on them. ] (]) 23:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


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 ].
: I don't know what the "usual Gamergate haunts" are, but searching reddit for {{u|Masem}}'s username finds a recent thread titled "Masem's had enough!" containing the words {{u|MarkBernstein}} actually quotes but nothing like "nasty Jew" or any mention of MB's ethnicity at all. "Bernstein-stein-stein" is obviously a reference to MB's words echoing from the top of the WP:REICHSTAG, the essay which was linked three times in the comment to which the "Bernstein-stein-stein" comment is a reply. I find it strange that MB would imply anti-Semitism. ] (]) 22:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


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.
:: {{ping|Gamaliel}} I apologize for the directness of my language before. Still, this incident is illustrative of the liberties {{u|MarkBernstein}} sometimes takes with the <s>words of others</s> facts, as we all saw in the events surrounding the ArbitrationGate debacle, which is a problem for an encyclopedia editor. ] (]) 23:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


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.
::: {{ping|MarkBernstein}} You're right, "liberties with words" is not what I meant to say. "Liberties with facts" is closer to the mark, and I've edited my comment accordingly. And since I seem to have been insufficiently specific, allow me to specify. The liberties with facts you have taken in the present instance is implying that commenters on an external website thread were making anti-Semitic comments about you when in fact no one in the thread made any mention of your ethnicity. The liberties with facts you took in the ArbitrationGate incident occurred when you were quoted in the Guardian saying prior to the final decision that "feminists are to be purged en bloc from the encyclopedia" and "every feminist active in the area is to be sanctioned." Neither of these statements were or are true. The parallel I am drawing between these incidents is that in both cases you went beyond the facts in a direction that is both non-factual and apparently calculated make your position sound more sympathetic. ] (]) 23:44, 17 June 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)
:::: Before I send my letter to the editor at the Guardian, I think I'll just take a quick look at the essay hosted on your webpage, to which you link on your user page, to see if they quoted you correctly. Oh, it would seem they did. What was your objection exactly? ] (]) 00:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by Objective3000====
::::: Re: {{u|MarkBernstein}}'s statement above that {{tq| It should not be forgotten that key part of that attack was revealing or publicizing Ryulong's sexual orientation}}, to my memory Ryulong's sexual orientation was only ever "revealed" or "publicized" when he himself brought it up as a defense after being called out for homophobia after tweeting the statement {{tq| I don't have time to deal with gamergate fags here considering I only checked twitter to see if there was an update for a video game}}. I would link to an archive of the tweet in question, but I'm not sure whether that raises concerns about outing. Again, I must disagree with {{u|MarkBernstein}}'s assessment and presentation of facts. ] (]) 19:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick aside to Valereee's aside: {{TQ|Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn....}} ] currently has posts from 19 editors lacking the edits for extended confirmed. ] (]) 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:@], this is also a problem at other CTOPs, and is likely to become more problematic. I assume due to off-Wiki forums. ECR might just produce more users gaming EC. I thought it would be useful to put your aside into the CTOP template at the top of CTOP TPs. But that assumes folks read it. Walt Kelly said something along the lines of: “If only I could write, I’d write a letter to the mayor, if only he could read." This discussion is likely better off elsewhere. ] (]) 21:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::Note: ] was just TBanned from the topic of COVID-19 and indef blocked until the accusations of off-wiki coordination made by them at ANI are retracted. Those accusations are like their suggestion made in their statement in this filing. ] (]) 12:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by ForbiddenRocky ==== ====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)
Dear Admins, please save GGC from all the dead horses. Today included a suggestion to change the lede that has been shot down every time. And a repeat of the attempt to make GG ethics the keystone of the description of GG. And a rehash of the anti-feminism issue. ] (]) 23:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by Ryk72==== ====Statement by IntrepidContributor====
Respected Administrators, Having reviewed the considerable archives of the ] pages, one feels inclined to believe that there would be less re-discussion if discussions were allowed to reach their normal conclusion; rather than being endlessly filibustered, derailed with ] violating comment on the Article subject, ], constant requests to close discussion, and aggressive "hatting".


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 ().
If editors were compelled to focus on the discussion of article improvements, you might see both a better editing environment and a better article. <small>NB: Diffs to follow.</small> - ] <sup>]</sup> 23:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


One need only cross-reference names from , checking those that voted for labeling COVID-19 lab leak as conspiracy, with the names of complainants here. Contrast all these old timers with the steady stream of tens if not hundreds of regular editors complaining that our article fails NPOV, and see that their gentle approach doesn't work . Our chief complainant is already preparing his next case , and this might not be his first.
====Statement By Masem ====
First and foremost, it is very very frustrating that there is continued attempts to meat/sockpuppet Misplaced Pages due to GG-related issues, and I share Mark's and likely countless other admins in having to stem that tide. I certain agree in condemning any editor (new/IP or otherwise) that attempts to shame other editors in the matter Mark's addressed. This unfortunately is a reality that WP, being an open wiki in a age where the 4chan/Anon mentality exists, has to struggle with. This is still a learning experience for WP for everyone to figure out how to deal with these topics that involve the technology-saavy.


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.
That said, Mark has demonstrated in his analysis above the continued battlefield mentality that he and others on that page have continued to engage in since the formal closure of the GG arbcom case, in line with Starke Hathaway's comments above. In his plea, he points out how to limit IP and new editors (a reasonable step, particular in light of Handpolk's approach), but then says that we must block all further discussion on the talk page, which is basically allowing his version of the article, which several established editors including myself, have pointed out still has problems in tone and neutrality, and while summarizing the sources, is being used as a soapbox to attack the Gamergate supporters/movement in a manner that ''no'' other WP on a disliked group is treated as. Myself and other editors cannot get any word in edgewise because Mark and others on that page try to shut down any discussion before it can start. Add in the personal attacks or comments directed at other editors and not content (which I again point out, Mark has been warned and blocked twice within the duration of Gamergate), and this is the same OWNership and battleground mentality that Ryulong, NBSB, etc. showed from the original ArbCom. I've personally been very patient, trying to avoid opening any new ArbCom case against them and trying to work with them, but any suggestions that simply don't fit their vision are stonewalled. --] (]) 00:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


] (]) 14:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:As an example of the stonewalling, this diff has become quite common by several editors, when another editor tries to engage in broad strokes issues with the article, the reply "please state what specific edit you want or we'd collapse this discussion" is completely OWNership and battleground behavior. Yes, for IP/new editors that come along and go "the article is biased, fix it!" this is a reasonable step, but in the case above, for example, @Rhoark is attempting to figure how to address how to character the makeup of GG as used throughout the article based on a list of reliable sources, which one or two single edits is not going to cut it. --] (]) 01:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


=== Statement by TarnishedPath ===
:@MarkBernstein your Infamous post purposely twists my words (the "administrator" that you have noted in that blockquote is my text), and that's not the first time you've done it to my words on your blog offsite . You're reading something into what I have said that was nowhere close to my intentions in all those previous instances (which is comparable to assuming that when I said "WP should stay conservative" you took that as meaning "right-wing" rather than "a careful approach". You are not assuming good faith, and that failure to assume good faith ''by established editors'' is creating the continued battleground atmosphere. If established editors (and not just those that tip the 500 edits) are finding fault with the article, that's the point to continue discussion, not to lock down the article to a preferred version. --] (]) 23:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Please see ] where BabbleOnto edited ] restoring previously reverted content and ] using a shit source after they'd been told by multiple other editors in discussions ] and ] that the source was shit. Notably in the edit summary they wrote "{{tq|Read discussion page. Manual revert. No serious challenge has been made to these changes. Methinks an admin needs to get involved...}}" despite them being in a ] situation. If a clue is not gotten by the editor fast I'd suggest TBANs from both COVID and AP2 is warranted in order to cease their disruption. '']''<sup>]</sup> 04:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::@MarkBernstein: You readings can be very valid readings even if you consider context, I will give you that (just as taking "conservative" to mean "right-wing"; let's call it a failure of ]. But a core policy on WP is ], and your takes immediately presume the worst possible take on my statements, which is not appropriate for a conductive building of an encyclopedia by many editors. There are cases that we have had to throw AFG out the door (500/30 is an example of such) due to persistent off-site problems, I don't question that. But when you fail to AFG presented by long-established editors and make personal commentary about them on article talk pages to diminish their contributions, ''that is not appropriate'', and exacerbates the battleground nature that the GG talk page remains. This is exactly the behavior that instigated the GG case, and clearly one that should not be tolerated. --] (]) 03:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
:::@Aquillion I would be more readily accept that Mark's behavior was within Stewardship if there was not condensing replies, comments on editors, a clear contempt for the subject manner, and other factors that do not show contributions towards consensus and using policy as a tool to silence opposition. --] (]) 22:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


:Noting the editor's continued behaviour at ]. Refer to ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
====Statement By Rhoark ====
::and again at ] '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Much has been made about calling people Gamergaters. Mark Bernstein has made it abundantly clear that he defines a Gamergater as a violent misogynist. This makes it problematic when he casually labels someone as such. I on the other hand consider a Gamergater to be someone with a deep concern for verifiability in all media and solidarity with anyone who's been persecuted for expressing their views. As such, it's high praise that I consider Mr. Bernstein a standout Gamergater. I expect that displeases him, but I hope we can eventually see eye-to-eye. What this all goes to show is simply that we should not worry about what a Gamergater "really" is, foruming, and righting great wrongs. Rather we should focus on the sources.


===Statement by berchanhimez===
There is a problem, as others have noted, that certain editors are unwilling to engage with the sources. They will quote the name of a policy, but are unwilling to explain how it is pertinent. They will call for a discussion to be hatted without bothering to understand what has been said. This stems from the unfortunate situation of the number of trolls they have had to endure. They deserve sympathy on this count, but it has trained them to take a very particular mental shortcut of regarding anyone they see as opposition as being interchangeable. Thus you see Mr. Bernstein casually describing events on and off wiki as simply a continuum of "what Gamergate did today". They see conspiracies and campaigns whenever anyone on the Internet takes note of ''how bad the article is''.
This user was given no less than 4 chances on the talk page to stop talking about bans/other editors and start talking about the content. They have continued crying about how they're scared of getting banned... yet they continue blabbing about other editors getting banned for their bad behavior ]. ''At a minimum'' a partial block from the talk page(s) in question is warranted, and it would be beneficial for a topic ban from the origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


===Result concerning BabbleOnto===
It's true, whenever it happens there's an influx of people who are not familiar with policy or the history of the talk page. This is why we already have the exceptional 30/500 requirement. So far as I can tell, it hasn't helped. Experienced editors, who understand policy, are still subject to aspersions as if they were part of the mob. Will any of the proposed measures help? I can't say. Any of them but a total freeze would be mostly harmless. However, for these editors, change will ultimately have to come from within. ] (]) 01:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

: I invite everyone to ] and evaluate its vital signs. At first I posted a list of sources, and went on to point out that the article was at significant variance with these sources. Mark Bernstein's reaction was, in sequence:
* Twist Masem's use of the word "conservative" to mean "right-wing", when in context it was clearly used in the sense of "cautious". Imply NPOV is sympathy for misogyny.
* Block quote himself from an unrelated argument in February.
* Hat the conversation (without signing) based apparently on the fact that {{User|ForbiddenRocky}} and {{User|TheRedPenOfDoom}} asked for it.
* To appease the editors who felt a discussion about reliable sources had to be hatted unless a specific edit was proposed, I offered one off the cuff. It used the word "participant" to denote in the most general sense everyone involved in the controversy without regard to how they were involved or what side they took. Mark Bernstein considered this, apparently, equivalent to not just libel, but threatening murder
* He has in that thread evaded every request to support his position with a reliable source.
* Now, he'd like admins to get everyone to stop talking about it.
: This is the sort of thing being referred to when people are requesting relief from dead horses. ] (]) 14:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

:: I'm feeling a lot of mixed messages, so can someone please state unequivocally whether this is or is not an appropriate section in which to discuss specific editors' disruptive behavior? ] (]) 23:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

:::While waiting for clarification on the above point, I'd like to recognize {{User|Aquillion}} as one of the good ones, engaged in stewardship rather than ownership. {{User|Strongjam}}, {{User|Bosstopher}}, and {{User|Tony Sidaway}} are also among the editors who seem unsympathetic to Gamergate, but are still consistently civil and base their edits on policy and sources. ] (]) 16:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by ColorOfSuffering====
7) Topic-ban every user who has ever contributed to the Gamergate controversy talk page or article. This can be extended to other articles within the scope of Gamergate, but I'd focus on the controversy page first. We can maintain the 300/50 silliness to keep the trolls at bay, but we need to start from scratch with all new faces. The article does not need to be frozen; the editors do. There are too many battleground SPAs monitoring the most trivial edit, exhibiting extreme battleground behavior that would be excoriated in any other article space. Everyone with skin in the game has had their say, I believe it's now time for the true uninvolved editors to clean up the mess. ] (]) 05:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by an uninvolved editor FDJK001====
Some nice ideas up there.

Seeing how an editor threatened to block me after seeing my pattern of editing (actually my intentions were unrelated to gaining access to 500/30, the reason is hilarious), I realized things based off of what I read from all of you, how if unregulated Misplaced Pages could become the broadcast channel for Gamergate (quoting {{u|MarkBernstein}} and how the 500/30 rule could work only for so long.

First of all, I am uninvolved, having placed only one edit on the talk page for Gamergate but only to have it closed in minutes for my quota on edits being too low. So my one edit on there doesn't count and so this categorizes me as uninvolved.

We obviously need to restrict editors who have had some involvement with the talk page and those who have battleground behaviour, like {{u|ColorOfSuffering}} said. So here could be the optimal compilation of the solutions:

:•Users with more than 25% disruptive edits in their past 50 edits should not be allowed to edit.
:•Editors and administrators involved with the talk page in the past 6 months should not be allowed to edit. If the controversy is still ongoing the time restriction should be extended.
:•Like {{u|Rhoark}} and others mentioned, a temporary freeze on the page could deter Gamergaters, but this will work for only about a few months.
:•Temporary IP topic block for those already involved.
:•Recognize that Zoe Quinn has no fault in this so that Gamergaters don't blame the victim (https://en.wikipedia.org/Victim_blaming).


I admit I was messing around, experimenting with my talk page earlier today to punish myself for forgetting to use the "=" sign, but for the most part people like me could fit the criteria above. I didn't fit this list to conform just for me, but for everybody with rationality; one editor above, I forgot who, mentioned how ''involved'' editors with experience and prestige fall into the hate category, unfortunately.

I might come back and redefine my solutions if more loopholes spring up. I wish you all luck in finding the true optimal solution. Good night.

] (]) 06:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC).

====Statement by j0eg0d====

1) I suggest this for ] related discussion only; The excessive suspicion ] of the IP ''"loopholes"'', ''"socks"'' & ''"puppets"'' could also be handled by taking away the swords & shields off the editors battle-fielding the WIKI. OR - We could experiment with a trial-solution that ''all gamergate_controversy edits refrain from USER names and only allow IP signed content''.
*Asking to protect or semi-protect ArbCom & AE pages (even for one month) is absurd. One could easily assume this suggestion is meant to control the current bias surrounding the #gamergate topics ]. We'll be restricting direct emails to one another next with their exhausting mandates. These ''"defenders"'' of the WIKI are the problem here.

2) Checking all newcomers interested in Gamergate topics disregards ]. We are very aware of the interest in the WIKI Gamergate_controversy, because the current page is completely one-sided. It's one reason we get so many newcomers - because people want a balanced narrative. Editors certainly can not perform reasonably with the logic that every single newcomer is (sic) "meat puppets" or "zombies" ]. It would be autocratic in entertaining the idea and it's just further harassment.

3) ''"Extend 30/500 to other problematic pages"'' Again, we have a demand for restrictions and again Mark specifically points to ''"the prominent Gamergate targets"''. I suggest ] be removed from every gamergate topic, because (IMHO) Mark Bernstein incites the disruptions ]. I'm speaking from personal experience noted in this ] above.

4) ''"enforce the 30/500 restriction automatically"'' Again ... ] ... A suggestion to dominate #gamergate discussions by some inherent right. It IS part of our responsibility to maintain the WIKI, and by locking in automated functions that BLOCK even the questioning of content is ].

5) ''"Limit or supervise Gamergate talk page editing"'' We should never need to restrict a TALK page. It's the manner in reviewing content, identifying bias and (for some) pointing out the unreasonable hostility towards #gamergate supporters. This excuse of ''"endlessly repetitive rehashing of the same failed arguments"'' is the fault of those editors insulting, attacking, ] newcomers - as I and several other have ] and genuinely experienced.

6) ''"Freeze the Gamergate page and the talk page"'' ... more of the same ''deadhorse'' calls for restriction. Maybe it's time the Admins knew the opposition's story? We've heard plenty of Mark's one-sided prejudices & intolerant name-calling here. With all humility, I request our Admins to watch this with actor ] - Adam Baldwin created the #gamergate hashtag and he explains exactly why he started Gamergate. I understand YouTube is not a reliable source, I am not suggesting it be allowed in the WIKI, that isn't my intention. My intention is to allow you (our Administrators) to understand what makes the WIKI Gamergate_controversy so BIASED, and why people are so adamant about a ]. It may also help you come to a final decision.

{{ping|Zad68}} Final Thought: I wouldn't mind if we deleted the gamergate WIKI and let ]'s old friends go back to protecting his ] creations. They've made a mockery of the entire structure and I for one am tired of seeing new editors scrutinized & discouraged. I would also like some attention noted on the persons that have diverted this case off-topic over the past 8 days, as I believe the intentions are to close any resolution against ] by rehashing the Gamergate controversy and misdirecting attention to other Editors: ], ], ], ], ], ], ].

--] (]) 08:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Aquillion====

Most of these seem a bit too heavy-handed; the page itself is fairly stable, say, and while the circular talk-page discussions might be frustrating, my reading of the way they're going is that they're unlikely to lead to any dramatic changes. More aggressively doing checkusers on new users who immediately start arguing the position of recently-banned or topic-banned users could be reasonable, but the 30/500 restriction is hopefully minimizing that problem anyway. Regarding people going around the 30/500 restriction, though, I would suggest extending it to the entire ''topic'' regardless of where it appears, since it does seem like some users are just posting elsewhere in order to avoid that restriction and since it's generally bad for one content dispute to spill out all over the wiki.

Being more proactive about topic-banning editors who seem like they're here to ] or whose discussion indicates that they're ] to build an encyclopedia could help with a bit of the rancor, though (and discourage users from getting rancorous about their views in the first place). Anyone who edits a controversial article extensively is going to have some kind of opinion on its topic, on the sources and how to weight them and so on; but that opinion has to be expressed in a way consistent with our policies or it's not really going to be helpful. Misplaced Pages is not really the place to try and eg. press a disagreement with the mainstream coverage, and people who ''repeatedly'' seem to be pushing that without any apparent regard for the problems it causes are probably here to get the word out on a viewpoint they feel is being suppressed by the mainstream media -- which isn't an unreasonable thing to want, but which means they're ] to write an encyclopedia.

As an aside, I notice that a lot of users above are referring to ] a lot in an accusatory manner; it might be worth reminding people of ]. If people are editing an article due to sincere interest in its subject matter, and if they're taking the time to explain ''why'' they object to a change (as opposed to just tirelessly reverting back to one version with little or no explanation), it isn't usually ]. As that article says, it's important to be careful about throwing accusations about it around, since it can be taken as a personal attack (it implies that their edits are coming from a sense of ownership rather than a desire to improve the article.) --] (]) 22:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
====Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom====
I am not sure how it would be possible to contain the disruption of the gamergate trolls. If you have the stomach to go to their boards, you find that they are COMPLETELY OUTRAGED!!! by something new and not related to games every day - and they still seem to feel that Misplaced Pages is the place where they should play the white knight and try to right these terrible wrongs if only the SJW would just go away and let them write the TRUTH<sup>TM</sup>. But the longer they are allowed to maintain that delusion, the more of Misplaced Pages gets sucked into that pit. -- ] 20:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
:It is also probably valid to consider wherein a "blogger and journalist" , who so ethically , has kindly linked to their vlog in which they call for the participants at one of the gamergate boards to create accounts and stealth edit until they can swarm the GGC page as consideration for what steps may be considered in the effort to contain and limit disruption about the topic. -- ] 13:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ping|J0eg0d}} . AE exists to address '''disruption of the encyclopedia''' and the context of any actions discussed here MUST take into account the full context of the disruption. -- ] 13:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by ]====
This request has been open now for 8 days and has gone in a dozen different directions and we are now rehashing the Gamergate controversy as it was lived out on Misplaced Pages. It seems likely that no action will be taken against any editor so could ], ] or another admin close this case? Gamergate discussion have the potential to continue indefinitely so editors will keep posting as long as this complaint is open. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 20:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

=== Result concerning A Modest, Informal Proposal ===

I see a lot of comments here that indicate that some editors are here to ] and not to edit the encyclopedia in a neutral manner regarding a variety of topics. ] <small>(])</small> 20:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

:{{ping|Starke Hathaway}} and anyone else who wants to use this page as a boxing ring, your comments will be removed and you are likely to be faced with sanctions. ] <small>(])</small> 22:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Liz, this should be closed for that very reason. I'm not going to close it myself, because every time I say or do anything here, I get a bunch of messages and emails saying how I'm preventing righteous justice or some shit. ] <small>(])</small> 20:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I will place the GG-related BLPs under Pending Changes per {{u|Newyorkbrad}}'s suggestion. No further action, if you want BIG CHANGES start another ArbCom. <code>]]</code> 13:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
{{hab}}

==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Jaqeli==

<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>

; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Jaqeli}} – ] 14:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

; Sanction being appealed :

; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Sandstein}}

; Notification of that administrator :

===Statement by Jaqeli===

Hello everyone. 3 months ago I was granted by admin {{ping|HJ Mitchell}} with 3 month topic ban exemption on several of my TBAN-related articles, the reason behind this was to see if I could be trusted again in the area of my TBAN. Now my 3 months topic ban exemption is over so I want to file a new request at AE. I want my TBAN to be cancelled and lifted from me entirely. During these 3 months I've created some good quality articles, expanded some and I didn't engage in any edit war. I want to get back to wiki again without any TBAN on me as I can do many good for wiki as I am sure during this period of time I have truly learned my lessons from my past mistakes. As I've said in my past appeal 3 months ago I fully understand this is my last chance given to me so I will definitely keep and follow my word. Thank you. ] 15:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello {{ping|Heimstern}} Please see my contribs but one of them can be ]. As for conflicts, I had no conflicts during 3 months. Thank you. ] 23:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

===Statement by Sandstein ===
I'm not currently active in AE matters, so I'll leave it to my fellow admins to determine whether the topic ban should be lifted. At a glance I see nothing problematic in recent contribs, so why not. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

===Statement by (involved editor 1)===

===Statement by (involved editor 2)===

===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Jaqeli ===

===Result of the appeal by Jaqeli===
:''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 (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the discretionary sanctions log below where their sanctions is logged. --> <!-- 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. -->
*<!--
*Hello, Jaqeli. You say that you have created quality articles in the past three months. Would you mind linking to some of your best contributions in that time? Also, have you handled any conflicts in that time? That could help us evaluate your request. ] ] 01:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
-->
**Just letting everyone know that I've hit a busy patch of real life and likely won't be able to continue work on this for at least a few days. ] ] 23:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
*{{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.
*Based on a lookover of the past several hundred edits (going back through May), I'm fine with the topic ban being removed. Has the process by which one lifts a topic ban changed from a bureaucratic perspective recently? Or can I just go and strike the remedy from the log? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 21:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
*Re: NW, I think struck the entry (but not remove it fully) is the proper procedure. - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 23:05, 26 June 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)
== Unblock request from 82.11.33.86 ==
{{collapse top|title=Tangential}}
{{hat|1=IP unblocked. The user has agreed to stop warring at ] and will create an account that they will use for any edits to ARBPIA articles. ] (]) 16:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC) }}
::@], 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)
An IP user who was recently blocked for 1RR violation at ] just requested an unblock on their talk page. Here is the unblock request:
:::I would object to ECPing the talk page. COVID-19 ], though this specific ''article'' is protected. The purpose of protecting the page (in this case) is to push newer users to the talk page, where they can discuss changes they want made (such as by edit requests) and contribute towards consensus-building while not edit warring. Protecting talk pages is truly, ''truly'' a last resort. Ordinary good faith people would be entirely shut out and silenced—we'd not even get edit requests—and I frankly don't see anything near the level of disruption/LTA abuse that would justify jumping straight to ]. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 01:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse top|title=Unblock request}}
::::@], not ECP. ECR: non-EC are restricted from anything but making edit requests. ] (]) 14:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ]. I did no see notice on page when I reverted, was honest mistake. I use talk also explain why I revert. I am no reverting again, I am sorry for mistake. ] (]) 18:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)|category=}}
:::::I see. In any case, ECR is the sort of remedy that should be reserved for more or less when all else fails—it’s still ''super'' restrictive. If new users/inexperienced users are trying to contribute towards consensus-building on the talk page (or even if they’re doing ordinary confused new editor things), and aren’t edit warring, I don’t think we’d actually be ] by enforcing ECR.
:::::Suppose someone in good-faith sees “anyone can edit”, and they want to edit something topical. But then they see that the page that they want to edit is protected. They read the explanation that appears after clicking the “view source” tab. They then read that they can discuss this page with others, click on the first blue link, and then make a section using the “add topic” button in order to start a discussion.
:::::“OK”, the newbie thinks, “maybe I will find someone else who agrees with me, or I’ll at least get some answer as to why the article is this way”. They leave their computer and come back in an hour. They then discover that their question has been removed by some random editor with edit summary “] violation, user not ]; malformed edit request” and find a contentious topics notice on their own user talk page, all because they don’t make a properly formatted edit request (i.e. “please change X to Y”). Or maybe they wont navigate the talk page history and they’ll angrily post that their earlier comment was deleted. Or maybe they just won’t come back. To top it off, nothing at any point in this process was obvious to them that such a requirement existed—there is no edit notice that says so, and so they couldn’t know.
:::::] is ]y. It dissuades new voices from joining conversations, and it makes it somewhat hostile to true newbies. In particular, it dissuades people who, for example:
:::::#Are Not hardcore/insane enough to deal with intense wiki-bureaucracy;
:::::#Are unable to cope with handling unfamiliar wikitext markup when making edit requests for anything that is not a trivial word change, or who have abstract changes in mind more than concrete ones;
:::::#Do not want to spend an hour of their time to figure out how to say the magic words to summon another editor to fix a typo.
:::::The chief way that ECR works is by making LTAs/sockmasters have to put on a lot of effort or make a lot of edits. This raises the (time) cost of socking, and it has the benefit of possibly exposing tells along the way. But that also means that we’re imposing the same thing on good-faith newbies.
:::::When deciding whether or not to impose ECR, we have to balance that it is extremely BITEy to good-faith newbies against its ability to prevent disruption. There are times where we are basically left to throw our hands up because of LTA/sockmaster abuse, and conclude that the tradeoff is worth it; the ArbCom has done this for certain contentious topics. But, the ArbCom had the wisdom to not enable ECR as a page sanction across all contentious topic areas—there is a very real tradeoff that needs to be really carefully considered. And I don’t the tradeoff leans towards embracing ECR ''here''. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'm don't think we need to have this discussion here and now, but I don't disagree it's bitey and needs to be used only where necessary. I was just asking the question of someone who is working at that article: is this an article talk where it's necessary? ] (]) 17:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}} {{collapse bottom}}
--] <small>(])</small> 18:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


*{{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)
===Statement by Uninvolved non admin Bosstopher===
*: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)
Illegitimate block. The IP editor was never properly alerted of DS guidelines ] and therefore can't recieve a DS block, even if the edit page itself has the relevant information. Also it seems a bit overzealous, somebody could have just gone to the IP's talk page an informed them of 1RR without need for a block, which in my (albeit limited to one topic area) experience is what usually happens when someone violates 1RR. Judging by the IPs current comments they would have stopped if informed. ] (]) 18:54, 21 June 2015 (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==
===Statement by Mar4d===
{{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)}}
I don't want to debate the merits of the block, but a cursory look at ] shows that this highly problematic user is involved in 4 different edit wars. If not this, the IPs actions elsewhere are significant to contend disruption. That of course is another topic, but relevant as far as the IP's recent conduct is concerned. ''']''' (]) 19:23, 21 June 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>
===Statement by Involved non admin TripWire===
I'll leave the validity of the block to the admins, but I, having been dealt with this IP over the past week or so, would like to say:
* It's not possible that the IP did not see the 1RR warning when he was editing the page.
* The IP is a habitual edit-warrior and have been blocked previously too for editwarring.
* He is prompt to revert and lazy at using the talk pages.
* The IP, whereas a newcomer, but is quite experienced when it comes to editing and reporting other editors, in the past few days, it has already reported a few editors at various notice boards, I doubt he was unable to see the 1RR warning.—]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 19:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


===Request concerning Marlarkey===
===Statement by blocking administrator===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|WeatherWriter}} 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Marlarkey}}<p>{{ds/log|Marlarkey}}</p>
I don't think this has been copied over properly, but no matter. First, a DS alert is not necessary for a violation of 1RR. Second, the IP was at least put on notice at AN3 when the filer stated that it was a violation of ], although I don't believe he used the magical term 1RR. The IP could then have self-reverted or at least said he didn't know. Putting all that aside, and assuming that the IP's claim of ignorance is perceived as credible, I have no problem unblocking him if even one administrator thinks that's the right course of action.--] (]) 19:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Result of the appeal by 82.11.33.86===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the discretionary sanctions log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
*This was a valid block for 1RR violation. Israel was attacked with Scud missiles during the 1990 Gulf War so the ] decision applies there. For a short edit warring block like 48 hours I wouldn't see any special reason to lift it early. However, if the IP would promise to stop warring on ] and would agree to create an account and use it for any future edits on ARBPIA topics, I'd accept that as a good enough reason to lift the block. ] (]) 02:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
:*Per agreement at ] I've unblocked. The IP will stop edit warring on ] and will create an account. I think this would be OK with the blocking admin, ], per his comment above. ] (]) 16:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
{{hab}}


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
==J0eg0d==
{{hat|Wrong venue for the context of the behavior under review; closing with no action here, discussion is at ANI. <code>]]</code> 19:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>

===Request concerning J0eg0d===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|MarkBernstein}} 15:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|J0eg0d}}<p>{{ds/log|J0eg0d}}
<!--- Here and at the end, replace J0eg0d with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

;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.-->
# Calls Gamaliel a kapo and calls Kevin Standlee "another of MarkBernstein’s socks"
# Defends calling Gamaliel a kapo


''''''
# - 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.


''''''
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
# - 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 : 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.-->
Currently topic-banned (indef Gamaliel) and blocked (DESiegel); I'm not sure how to provide the diffs.


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): at 15:29, 21 November 2024.

;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. -->
*Currently blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log.


; 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)
*One of the edits by Marlarkey listed above from 13 January 2025 has been by {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} for Marlarkey not being ECR logged. '''The ]''' (] 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:*{{ping|Marlarkey}} I want to ], so I wanted to let you know that ] is what we call "broadly constructed". If you read ], it says, "{{tq|These are the current arbitration remedies applicable to any pages and edits that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.}}" The edit you are attempting to me is ''related'' to the Arab-Israel conflict. The page itself does not have to be entirely about the war to be covered under the restrictions. Any edit that is at least, even slightly related to the conflict is covered under the restrictions. While the page is about declarations of war throughout history, the specific edit is related to whether the Israel-Hamas war was a declaration of war. That is obviously related to the conflict, given it specifically is in regard to the ]. That is why the edits were reverted and why this violation report was filed. Hopefully that makes sense. Also, just a quick side-note, accusing other editors of vandalism is ] and is not really how Misplaced Pages operates. You should always ]. '''The ]''' (] 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::*{{ping|Marlarkey}} We are all working together to create a better encyclopedia. No one is against you and we do wish for all to edit Misplaced Pages. The ArbCom restrictions require that you have (1) at least an account of 30 days old and (2) at least 500 edits, to be able to edit content anywhere on Misplaced Pages regarding the Israel-Hamas war. At the time of all the edits linked above, you did not have 500 edits on Misplaced Pages. You were roughly at 490. At the time of this, you now have over 500 edits, which means you could now edit content regarding the Israel-Hamas war. That said, this report was made because of the several edits you made prior to reaching the 500 edit requirement.


:::Please understand this is for the edits that you made which were in clear violation of the policy, which requires you to have 500 edits prior to editing anything even remotely related to the conflict. This report was not that you are incorrect with your removal of the content. Not at all. This report is because you removed the content before you were allowed to (i.e. the 500-edit mark). Please understand we all are on the same-side here and no one is vandalizing anything. Once this is resolved, I would be more than happy to calmly discuss the content changes with you. I hope you can understand that this report is specifically because you made the changes before you were allowed to and not at all regarding the content in those changes. '''The ]''' (] 00:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
In diff #1, J0eg0d lashes out against Gamaliel and calls him a ''kapo'', a Jewish concentration-camp guard, providing a helpful WikiLink for those unfamiliar with the term.


*{{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)
In diff #2, J0eg0d defends his use of the term "kapo" and says Gamaliel and I "are lying about it." I replied:


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
::I do not recall having previously commented about this particular insult, which makes me wonder how I lied with regard to it. Is Gamaliel Jewish? I didn't know that, nor (I suspect) does the editor above; I don't see how that can possibly be relevant here and wonder why this editor thought it was. The phrase "half-Jewish" used above is interesting, as no one would say "I am half born-again"; it suggests the writer is thinking that Jewishness is racial. Finally, how many winners of Hugo awards confuse "abase" and "debase", or perhaps "abase" and "abuse"? All this raises the question of whether this editor is capable of making significant contributions to the project, even if they were here to contribute, and none of this improves the atmosphere around here. ] (]) 12:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

J0eG0d removed this from his user page, which he is entitled to do, but the attitude displayed here might merit scrutiny. The repeated injection of religion into Gamergate is strange and unsavory, its defense here is not well calculated to excuse or explain the editor's conduct, and of course we have real questions of competence here as well.

Someone using the same name on a gamergate forum at Reddit writes:

:To be fair, you haven't seen me go #FullCunt. I agree that the problem is Mark & the ETCs, they've been doing shit to me since I first mentioned gamergate. They're fanatics with Administrative fanatic friends. We need more people on Misplaced Pages, but I've heard some won't bother because of the 30/500 restriction ... I'd tell them that you can just edit your own TALK page over & over again until you reach that limit and then wait 30 days. I'm 140 edits away from that restriction, so the Kapos have increased their sanctioning of me. I just need to shut up for a while LOL.

I mention this only because (a) you might want to know what’s coming down the track, and (b) if I had more confidence in this editor’s competence, I might take the four-letter-word as an allusion or dog-whistle to the Gender Gap Task Force ArbCom case, and that, too, might be worth knowing about.

Admins being busy, I thought it might be easier to see it laid out plainly that to await your digging through the history for deleted passages.


:{{ping|166.177.187.197}} In the past week or so, I helped resolve a conundrum about the description of the ''Chetro Ketl'' great house in Chaco Canyon: since it is not circular, why do people describe its circumference? To assist editors working on Hypertext Fiction, I provided a half dozen lead references to the extensive literature on the early history of the subject. I repaired some apparent vandalism at Doug Engelbart, a page which suffers strangely frequent mishaps. I dealt with an absurd claim of WP:COI trumpeted by Gamergate partisans at User Talk:Jimbo and elsewhere. I added an award to novelist Erin Morgenstern. I helped research whether WIkiedia was trespassing on another organization’s trademark. I replied to any number of partisan Gamergate proposals at the talk page. I contacted oversight twice regarding urgent BLP violations, both of which were promptly acted upon. Any additional questions? ] (]) 16:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

:{{Ping|Kyohyi}} The English political lexicon has many indispensable terms based on behavior of animals or mythical creatures: herd mentality, stampede, mugwump, dog-whistle, bull moose, blue dog, majority whip, and concern troll spring to mind, but I don’t doubt we could find a lot more. I don't think they're necessarily dehumanizing; certainly, Lincoln was famously fond of animal similes, not least because even a familiar and symbolic metaphor like "sea lion" can leaven a situation with a touch of humor. ] (]) 17:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AJ0eg0d&type=revision&diff=668624725&oldid=668608615


<!--- 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 J0eg0d=== ===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. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by J0eg0d====


====Statement by Starke Hathaway==== ====Statement by Marlarkey====
He's already indefinitely topic-banned from Gamergate and currently blocked for the behavior {{u|MarkBernstein}} cites here. Leaving aside the question of what exactly {{u|MarkBernstein}} hopes to gain from bringing this request beyond the indefinite topic ban and block already in place, this request should be closed without action or at least deferred until {{u|j0eg0d}} is unblocked and can respond here. ] (]) 15:43, 25 June 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.
:{{ping|Bosstopher}} do you also find the to be an adorable and appropriate way of referring to other editors? ] (]) 17:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


My edits are WP:NPOV. This article is about declarations of war - the opening statement states "A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state announces existing or impending war activity against another."
::{{ping|Strongjam}} I don't think anyone has said any of these terms are equivalent. But whatever difference exists is one of degree and not kind. ] (]) 17:00, 25 June 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.
:::{{ping|Bosstopher}} for what it's worth I agree with you that those insults are not on the same level, and no one as far as I can tell is arguing that {{u|j0eg0d}} shouldn't be sanctioned for the personal attack (though some might argue that he as already been sanctioned for it). Still, I think it's fundamentally unfair to apply the most severe sanction available (indef block) for personal attacks when the requester has a prodigious history of personal attacks (albeit milder ones) for which he has faced no lasting sanction whatsoever. ] (]) 17:15, 25 June 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 174.30.95.89====
I don't think pursuing this is gonna help. j0eg0d already has an indef topic ban and is blocked for 3 weeks, more than enough to get the message across. This seems like kicking him while he is down. ] (]) 15:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Bosstopher}} "GamerGaters" (or "Gators") is an term used semi-frequently by some editors. Most of the time, it has an implied negative connotation. ] (]) 17:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
::{{ping|Bosstopher}} Thing is, there are many posts on KiA where they call each other "misogynists" (to mock its common usage and application). I wouldn't be surprised if they treat "sea-lioning" in the same manner. ] (]) 17:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


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
====Statement by Bosstopher====
J0eg0d's behaviour has gone far beyond the pale, and a strong statement should be made that throwing anti-semitic insults at other editors is not acceptable. Even though he's currently topic banned and temporarily blocked, I don't think that's enough given the circumstance. His block should be extended to indefinite with room for a ] should he wish to return. ] (]) 15:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Kyohyi}}I think categorizing this as dehumanisation is unfair. Idefinitely still think of J0eg0d as a human, just the sort of human who's proven he shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia. J0eg0d's entrance into this topic area began with creating some redirects that had to be Oversighted. He then spent much of the intervening period insulting other editors while accusing them of being uncivil, and making BLP vios. This culminated in the unrepentant use of antisemitic insults against editors, and accusing people with confirmed real life identities attached to their account of being Bernstein socks. If you can find me any other editor in this topic area who's undertaken "such behavior" please tell me and I'll file/support an AE sanction request against them. ] (]) 16:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Kyohyi}}Kapos were sick disgusting Nazi collaborators. Sealions are adorable creatures that overwhelm your heart with cuteness. I mean seriously look at . In fact multiple wikipedia users in the topic area, have proudly boasted of their ]. /r/KotakuInAction's logo is Vivian James riding a sealion. The alllure of the sealion is so strong that I sometimes wish I was pro-GG just so I could be associated with the adorable, adorable creature that is the sealion. Even if you view sealion as an insulting term, there really is no comparison between aquatic mammals and instruments of the Nazi persecution. ] (]) 16:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


{{Ping|Kyohyi}}{{Ping|Starke Hathaway}}I think the armies of Mordor thing is not the nicest way to refer to a group of people. The term sealion has also been used insultingly from time to time on Misplaced Pages, such as this comment from tRPOD. This is obviously not the best way to go about civil editing. BUT (and this is one huge but, think Sarah Massey only bigger) this is not on the same level as calling someone a Kapo. I would much rather people associate me with the fictional character ] than ]. Also the Kapo insult was racially and ethnically charged. It's one thing to insult a group based on ideology (for instance saying ]s are dumb), and another to insult a group based on ethnicity (for instance saying French people are dumb). While insults against people because of their ideology may not always be appropriate, it's just incomparable to racially charged epithets and insults.] (]) 17:06, 25 June 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."
====Statement by Strongjam====
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.
While I agree with {{u|Bosstopher}}. This seems like the wrong place for it. There is still an open topic on ] regarding this. — ] (]) 16:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


Weatherwriter reversions of my edits serve to support a political opinion on a page which is about facts.
] springs to mind. — ] (]) 16:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


'''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
====Statement by uninvolved IP====
'''Question for the filer:''' beyond {{Diff2|668511708|minor}} {{Diff2|668131303|copyedits}} what substantive contributions have you made to the encyclopedia in the last week? Last month? I think it's time you demonstrate an intent to contribute positively beyond the scope of a minor video game controversy. Enough community time and effort has been wasted on this pettiness. ] (]) 16:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
====Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom====
'''Question for 166.177.187.197''': what contribution '''''of any kind''''' have you made to the project, in any space EVER? -- ] 16:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


] (]) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
====Statement by RolandR====


j0eg0d denies that the term "kapo" is antisemitic, arguing that it is instead "a term we call privileged Jews abasing other Jews". Putting aside, for a moment, the fact that he only uses this term to describe editors he perceives to be Jewish, we should note that in Jewish discourse the term kapo is used to mean a traitor. This was the term used by the Israeli right wing to delegitimise ] in the period of incitement leading up to his murder in 1995. So it would appear to me that its use in this context is far worse than a simple antisemitic smear; it is an implicit call for physical violence against the editors so defamed. Use of this term should be banned in Misplaced Pages, and those who so describe other editors should be severely sanctioned. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 16:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


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


Again this makes me angry at the accusations being made against me. If you don't want people editing and contributing to wikipedia then please just say so. GRRR
] has been going on in the ]. If we are going to sanction this editor for this behavior we should be sanctioning all editors that participate in such behavior. --] (]) 16:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
] (]) 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)


:{{Ping|Bosstopher}} My apologies, but it's not this filing that I'm claiming as dehumanization. I think that the use of the term Kapo is dehumanizing. However, making references to sealions, calling people sealions, and such are also dehumanization. So if we're going for further sanctions, we should look at doing them consistently. --] (]) 16:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


Ok, having now reviewed ]'s page history, its talk page discussion, and Marlarkey's contributions more generally, I find that:
::{{ping|Bosstopher}} Just because a group reclaims a word or description for themselves doesn't mean those outside the group aren't engaging in dehumanization when they are using it. There's a certain ethnic slur which comes to mind that highlights this point. --] (]) 16:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
:* Marlarkey has repeatedly violated ] at ] since having received a CTOP notice
:*Irrespective of whether it is correct or not to include the Israel-Hamas war, Israel-Hezbollah war, or wars between states and non-state entities more broadly, WeatherWriter's edits to the page are plainly not ], 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&mdash;we can only leave messages, we can't force people to read them. I would otherwise agree with Rosguill's assessment. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*I entirely endorse Rosguill's reading of this. I am not happy about Marlarkey's approach to our restrictions, but I don't see this as EC gaming, and I can't see how pulling EC rights could be justified at this stage. As such I endorse the proposed page block and logged warning. Marlarkey, you seem to believe that because you are right on the substance you can ignore process and guidelines - that simply isn't true. The arbitration committee has consistently held that ]; you need to be able to edit within the scope of our policies. ] (]) 17:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
* Pretty much everything Rosquill said. {{u|Marlarkey}}, it doesn't look like you have a huge amount of experience working in ]s. I'm sorry you're finding this upsetting, but CTOPs are a whole 'nother world, and you're either going to have to learn how to nonproblematically work there, or not work there. ] (]) 18:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:FWIW, the CTOP warning was ]. You've got your archiving set so aggressively that you may be missing a lot of messages, and it's completely plausible that you missed this one, which was only on your talk for two days, and after it was left you didn't edit for a month. However, we do assume that if you've got your archiving set that aggressively, you're keeping on top of anything important by checking your notifications to make sure you didn't miss anything.
*:You can probably prevent this happening in future by having your talk page archive ''no more frequently than you typically go between editing sessions'', leaving maybe the five most recent messages unarchived, and/or being sure to check your notifications when logging back in. Any one of those three and you've have likely seen the notification. ] (]) 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hatb}}


==DanielVizago==
:::{{ping|Bosstopher}} Then it may be best to agree to disagree. To me, the fundamentals remain the same, you "other" that person, make them unwelcome, and open them up to further abuse. --] (]) 18:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning DanielVizago===
====Statement by ColorOfSuffering====
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Schazjmd}} 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
My name was invoked and so I felt I should respond. First, I would like to say that calling someone a kapo is a bad thing, and I'd consider it a ] specifically on point #4: {{tq|Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons.}} But I do feel that this policy has been inconsistently applied in all Gamergate-related articles, especially with regards to using the term sealion, which is admittedly a far less inflammatory term, though still an unwarranted personal attack. To wit: {{tq|Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.}} It's the kind of behavior that is tolerated by certain editors while other editors are banned and blocked for the exact same behavior. For evidence of this, see this AE request, or any previous AE request regarding the filing editor. As a final point of clarification, the image on my user page, used as evidence me "proudly boasting" of my sealion status, is a seal. This should be readily apparent by the caption. It is an ironic image used to criticize those who would attach labels to what are perceived to be "groups" of Misplaced Pages editors. Having clarified this point, {{ping|Bosstopher}}, if you would be so kind as to redact my user name from your comment I would appreciate it. ] (]) 17:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|DanielVizago}}<p>{{ds/log|DanielVizago}}</p>
====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning J0eg0d===
:''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. -->
* The behavior of the named party isn't under the jurisdiction of ] for where and when the behavior was exhibited. This is being discussed at ANI, which is the proper location. Closing with no action here. <code>]]</code> 19:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
{{hab}}

==TheRedPenOfDoom==
{{hat|TRPoD indefinitely topic-banned from Gamergate per the standard GG discretionary sanction; they may appeal after six months. <code>]]</code> 19:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>

===Request concerning TheRedPenOfDoom===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Masem}} 18:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|TheRedPenOfDoom}}<p>{{ds/log|TheRedPenOfDoom}}
<!--- 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: ]
:, though as written only applies to the mainspace page.


; ] 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.}});
# No assumption of good faith, and misinterpreting question as a BLP violation.
# Hatting a discussion he previously removed (arguably a 1RR violation), also demonstrating battleground behavior # and Removing sourced content from ] that states misandry is not a major an issue as misogyny;
# Changing content in ] to emphasize misandry (reverted by another editor with edit summary {{tq|rv, poorly sourced (sources supplemented by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH), earlier version was better, closer to sources}});
# Accusing an editor of peddling in BLP allegations where none exist
# Redacting out the supposed BLP issue, technically 2RR now from Diff #2. # 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;
# Hatting a discussion on the Meta page about his redaction of Diff #4 (involved).
# Rehatting the discussion from Diff #5 (now 1RR on the Meta page). # restored the "bimisandry" edit to ], then a 5th ref that includes the term but is just a blog; I left a 4th-level warning on talk page;
# (after final warning) adds <nowiki>] and ]</nowiki> to ]; those two individuals don't have articles and there is no mention in this article of their charges or convictions, even though the category solely consists of {{tq|articles of female individuals who have been convicted of rape in a court of law.}}


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
None. *None


;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 ]):
*I alerted them on
*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.
Yesterday, {{User|Anarchyte}} posted a question of in light of the website Kotaku's involvement with the Gamergate topic whether to continue to use them as a primary source or not . (Note that Anarchyte is >500 edits/30 day but I don't see any gaming like Handpolk). Additionally, they refers to the person on Kotaku as "one of their chief editors", which was probably an unintentional mistake, as the Kotaku person is a writer.) TheRedPenofDoom (TRPOD) reverted this (Diff #1 above), with the change "one sealion out, the next appears to make the same unfounded accusations" which is failing to assume good faith from the start. I subsequently reverted this and replied to the editor of how Kotaku is being used in relation to their question . TRPoD hatted this discussion (Diff #2 above) with again language that was inappropriate "WP:DEADHORSE / WP:BLP / WP:39PAGESOFTHISSHIT", as well as a question of violating 1RR.


Before the level 4 warning, I guiding DanielVizago away from CTOP; they don't engage on their talk page. (They've posted there once, to say "thanks" in response to a warning.) With their refusal to communicate, poor sourcing, and non-NPOV edits, I don't think they should be editing in this topic area. ]&nbsp;] 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
TRPoD, properly, did let {{User|Anarchyte}} aware of sanctions of the GG on their talk page but not after claiming they were "peddle in allegations" on the GG talk page (Diff #3 above). I pointed out TRPOD on that user's talk page that there was no BLP violations in the user's questions, and certainly nothing to question the disproven claim that is central to GG . TRPOD replies again that the disproven allegation was being dragged through the mud again ; I agree 100% in TRPOD if Anarchyte was redragging the disproven allegation but that was not the question asked.

Subsequently TRPOD redacted out the claim on the GG talk page (Diff #4 above). He then begs a question of why Anarchyte linked to an archive version of the article then link directly . To some defense of TRPOD, using archive sites is a tactic of GGers but they use "archive dot is", a blacklisted site on en.wiki rather than the Wayback version.

On TRPOD's redaction, and not wanting to hit 1RR myself, I opened a new section on the Meta page to ask about reverting the redaction as it was not a BLP issue . TRPOD again instisted there was a inference of the disproven accusation , and continued to assert that the goal of this whole discussion was to "muddy her name" . He subsequently hatted that discussion (Diff #5) with the change "ontinued attempts to slur reputation by association in events that 1) never occurred and 2) would not have been on the part of the only person named." which again is not what the original question was nor were any non-established claims made in this discussion to date. I reopened it since I felt the close was completely out of line and the discussion far from over. He rehatted that again (Diff #6) simply saying "WP:BLP".

This is an isolated case that would likely merit a ] from any other editor if it was done for the first time. But this is the continuation of behavior of TRPOD (who others have brought here before) of completely failing to assume good faith, issuing personal attacks and assuming editors are acting for Gamergate without cause, very little civility, trying to shut down discussions that they asserted have no need for further discussion, violating the 1RR behavior demanded by ArbCom, and overall a battleground mentality that shows no willingness to work with editors to discuss improvements to the article in a consensus-based manner (that is, ] at least in the area of Gamergate). I have tried to give TRPOD benefit of the doubt in case of a mistaken read of Anarchyte's question.

@Strongjam: Assuming good faith and in context of Anarchyte's question, I do not see the attempt to make a false statement - just misidentifying the person's role at Kotaku, but as their question was asked, it was the fact Kotaku's activities relative to the accusation being central to GG making the question of their usability of a source, and that's nowhere close to a BLP issue, that's a standard good question to ask about independence of sources. --] (]) 18:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
:Also on the 1RR issues, then okay, they don't apply to the talk page per the admin's statement, but in considering the other factors related to battleground hostility, these reversions are still important to note; I'd also think the mess that the talk page has gone through that this would be a common sense goal everyone should adhere to. --] (]) 18:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
::Again, we're supposed to assume good faith. Anarchyte's statement in context made it clear it wasn't a new accusation being brought up, and just misnamed a person's role at Kotaku. I've done accidental typos too with names and persons, but the context is clear that it's not a BLP, and I'm sure others have too. --] (]) 18:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: That wasn't the question asked of whether the relationship's existence should involve WP's consideration of the source, but whether because Kotaku was criticized and was forced to respond to the situation around the disproven accusation of COI that gained further criticism from GG of them, how WP should treat that source. --] (]) 18:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
:I read the line "a main part of the whole fiasco" establishing the intent and context of the statement, speaking to Kotaku as a site as a whole, and not to one specific editor. --] (]) 18:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
*


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


===Discussion concerning TheRedPenOfDoom===
<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 TheRedPenOfDoom====
The insistence by Masem on trotting out and retrotting out and retrotting out the name of a living person in relation to an "ethical scandal" that 1) reliable sources from the beginning of the coverage have verified was never inappropriate action/scandal and 2) where even if there had been a scandal of inappropriate unethical the only person being named is the one who would have had zero agency in the commission of the ethical breach.


===Discussion concerning DanielVizago===
It is unacceptable.
<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 DanielVizago====
That he is attempting to justify his actions by "But they were in a relationship!!!" as justification for repeatedly dragging someone's name as near as the mud as he can get it is disgusting. -- ] 18:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by Strongjam==== ====Statement by caeciliusinhorto====
Since this report was opened, DanielVizago has continued to make questionable edits adding articles to ].
That's a pretty cut and dry BLP violation. It's not just unsourced, as you noted it's a false statement about an editor at Kotaku. Why would you restore it without correcting that first? — ] (]) 18:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


* , categorising a living person who has been accused (but not charged, let alone convicted) of sexual assault as a rapist (cf. ])
:On the topic of 1RR, the enforcing admin {{u|HJ Mitchell}}, when asked if it applied to the talk page ] that it only applied to the article. — ] (]) 18:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
* adds the category to a disambiguation page on the basis of one of the people listed on that page, who had in fact been convicted not of rape but of
* and edit categorise two sexually-motivated murderers as rapists despite no evidence that they ever raped anyone in the article (cf. ])


] (]) 10:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{reply|Masem}} It's not about ]. The statement in the diff is a false statement. It should have been redacted. It should not have been restored without being corrected. — ] (]) 18:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by Simonm223====
:{{reply|Masem}} Again, ] has nothing to do with whether it should be redacted. Even honest mistakes should be redacted. The AGF part is about how we respond to the user after the redaction. — ] (]) 18:52, 25 June 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)
====Statement by PeterTheFourth====
You've provided a number of diffs you believe to contain 1RR violations- I may be wrong, but I don't believe the talk page for Gamergate controversy has a 1RR restriction, just the article itself (besides, removals due to BLP violations are exempt from revert restrictions.) <small>] has made ] outside this topic.</small> 18:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Masem}} You stated- 'that's a standard good question to ask' re: an editor asking whether somebody's personal sex life made the company that employed them an unreliable source. I'm not sure it's reasonable to call these questions standard, good, or in any way encourage them. <small>] has made ] outside this topic.</small> 18:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
::{{ping|Masem}} Meat of the removed comment: {{tq|"Since ] is a controversially ] website towards the GamerGate controversy per one of their chief editors previously being in a relationship <with somebody>, should we really let Kotaku be main sources in this article?"}}
::Please don't try to portray the removed comment as about anything other than what it was. <small>] has made ] outside this topic.</small> 18:51, 25 June 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 TheRedPenOfDoom=== ===Result concerning DanielVizago===
:''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.''

*I've p-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor communicating. ] (]) 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. ] (] • 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. ] (]) 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. --> <!-- 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|TheRedPenOfDoom}} is indefinitely topic-banned from Gamergate per the standard Gamergate discretionary sanctions, for edit-warring, battleground behavior, and disparaging a group of people such as with comment. TRPoD may appeal this topic ban at AE after six months. <code>]]</code> 18:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
-->
{{hab}}


==USERNAME==
== Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Atsme ==
<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 USERNAME===
<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 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>
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Atsme}} – 19:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


<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. --->
; Sanction being appealed : Article ban from Kombucha (you may still edit the talk page and are encouraged to do so) until 7:59 pm, 28 June 2015, this Sunday (6 days from now) (UTC−4)
:You have been sanctioned as this is second time you have edit warred on the article in the past week so this sanction will stop the edit warring and encourage discussion.

; Reason for the appeal :
Callanecc has demonstrated an indisputable bias towards me and maintains a double standard. He automatically assumes that I am at fault without investigating the evidence. I am also requesting that this block be removed from the DS log, and that Callanecc recuse himself from future administrator interactions involving me.

; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Callanecc}}

; Notification of that administrator :

===Statement by Atsme===

=====History of bias and double standards=====

* - Callan imposes revert restriction on Griffin and simply warns editors involved in tag-teaming and reverting my edits.

* Callan advises another admin on how to prepare against me, clearly showing favoritism...''if/when this eventually ends up at AE for someone to look through your edits and believe that Atsme was pushed or harangued through incivility or personal attacks on your part.''

* Callan's summary and the RfC close which substantiated that my edits were indeed correct in removal of BLP violations even though I was repeatedly threatened and harassed by other editors, and also warned and ''told by Callan to <u>drop the stick</u>'' while he supported the position of the other editors who opposed me.

* 6 weeks later, more of the same suggestive tone by Callan with reference to acting against me by taking a harder line (purposely mentioning STICK) while ignoring the false accusations of the OP. This is further indication of Callan's bias against me, and his double standards.

====Inadvertent Emojis and 1st unwarranted ARB warning====

:;Callanecc's first ARB warning to me which was unwarranted
* Callan posts my first ever ARB warning (CAM) not long after consensus supported my position and problematic editors refused to abide by it - ''This edit is disruptive and is not commenting on the content but instead on the contributor.''

:;Other editors respond to Callan's DS warning
:* An editor confirms other instances of double standard w/diffs to demonstrate.

:* Another editor comments, ''Is that a joke, or are you actually threatened with prosecution for using an emoji?''

* I asked Callan why I got the warning.

* ''The pun regarding SPECIFICO's username and adding the rolling eyes are the bit which is uncivil.''

:*Note: I used ''specificolly'' instead of specifically in a harmless comment. The emojis were inadvertent and the result of a glitch in the emoji dashboard which I proved many times over before Callanecc would remove the warning.

* Explanation with diff from T13 about the emoji dashboard glitch.

:;More evidence of bias and double standards
* Issues ARB warning to a very offensive editor (also an admin), then removes all trace of it from the DS log the next day. My warning remains as a strike-thru as evidenced below.
* Editor who previously cast aspersions against me now asks Callan to do more than just warn me. Callan responds with ''.... working from memory and my opinion of Atsme's conduct (which overall I haven't had a problem with)....'' Yet he issued an ARB warning for inadvertent emojis?

* I request help from Callan because other editors are casting aspersions.

* Explains warning, acknowledges aspersion but does not act on it. Asks me, ''Can you explain why you think it's casting aspersions, the only one I can see there which could be is the implication that editors are leaving the article because of you.''

* Callan simply hides offending comment directed at me by the same user who caused me to get the ARB warning and is asking Callan for stricter penalties imposed against me.

:;My warning remains on DS log with a strike through - more evidence of the bias and double standard considering he removed all traces of other editor's warning who was far more deserving of more than just a warning.
:*Atsme (talk · contribs) warned for making a disruptive and uncivil edit on Talk:G. Edward Griffin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
:*Vacated following discussion on my talk page (see 1 & 2). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

* Discusses my warning with other editor who repeatedly harassed me, and continued to ignore my requests for removal of the warning from the log, not unlike what is happening now in the Kombucha case.
* My response to Callan's discussion with now desysopped Dreadstar regarding ] and how he failed to accomplish what Callan wanted done with regards to me. (my bold for emphasis) ''Sorry Callanecc, I tried to help but apparently failed miserably. I'll keep an eye on the talk page of the article and try to keep it on the straight and narrow, '''but helping with the above editor is beyond my ability.'''''
:The above exchange made me feel as though I have a target on my back, and that I'm fair game for the gamers who like to play games with human lives.

====Current DS Block re: ]====
* Request to Callanecc to repeal the DS but my request was ignored; typical of our prior interactions.
* Callan's response is reminiscent of Griffin, not <u>unlike</u> what was happening at Kombucha. ''.....you need to get consensus before making large or contentious changes to articles, or if you have been reverted (especially more than one) barring things like ] you need to get consensus'' It was apparent to me that he didn't even bother to evaluate the situation, and the block was a knee jerk reaction based on his bias, double standard, and in support of some of the same editors that were involved at Griffin. <sup>correction made 15:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)</sup>
*Some of the noncompliant material I disputed at the article have been removed but the issues are ongoing.
* I provided a sequential list of diffs demonstrating my edits and attempts to remove noncompliant material (scientifically unsupported death claims) that is grossly noncompliant with our 3 core content policies and MEDRS. Instead, I was blocked for it.

*Article is PP by NeilN Which should have been the initial action imposed by Callanecc instead of the block he imposed on me, clearly resulting from his past biases and ongoing double standards.

===Statement by Callanecc ===

===Statement by ]===
It was a good block. This user by comments like this is struggling with respect to proper interpretation of the ] guideline . And unfortunately this has been ongoing for a couple of weeks at least. ] (] · ] · ]) 20:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

===Statement by (involved editor 2)===

===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Atsme ===

===Result of the appeal by Atsme===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the discretionary sanctions log below where their sanctions is logged. -->

==Eric Corbett==
{{hat|General consensus amongst admins and others appeared to be that there is no issue to pursue here. However, another admin (and arbitrator) has gone ahead and unilaterally blocked Eric after this AE report was closed. The purpose of this page (and indeed any concept of consensus on it) now therefore appears to be unclear. ] 08:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>

===Request concerning Eric Corbett===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|EvergreenFir}} 21:13, 25 June 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: ] :
<!--- 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 :
<!-- 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. -->
# Corbett posts comment on talk page about how WMF's workshop related to gender issues is "grossly offensive". Adds that {{tq|{{U|Callanecc}} can block me again for as long as he likes, for whatever reason takes his fancy, but to my mind this is simply unacceptable.}}
# Adds another comments to the section linked above

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
# Blocked by Sandstein for 48 hours for GGTF tban violation
# Blocked by Coffee for 72 hours for GGTF tban violation
# Blocked by Callanecc for 1 week for GGTF tban violation
# Blocked by Callanecc for 2 weeks for GGTF tban and Lightbreather iban violations

;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 :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->

; 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. -->
#
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning Eric Corbett===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Eric Corbett====

====Statement by GregJackP====
Jesus Christ, he made a single comment on his own talk page. Leave him be. Or is he so influential that Misplaced Pages is going to riot over his comment? <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 21:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

==== Statement by Andy Dingley ====

What ''possible'' benefit is served by this, other than allowing whoever posted it to boost their feeble sense of self-worth? ] (]) 5:22 pm, Today (UTC−5)

====Statement by Cassianto====
The devil makes work for idle thumbs. Utterly pointless and tantamount to harassment of Eric. Some people clearly have too much time on their hands. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 22:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
====Statement by Sagaciousphil====
This is a pointless petty action and has no benefit to Misplaced Pages whatsoever. In fact, as I am a British female (yes, I know all the "vocal American feminists" will no doubt spit, hiss and create the usual drama at this: "British" and "female" appear to equate to "non entity" and/or "idiot" or of "no importance", "not worthy of any consideration" as far as the vociferous, vocal few are concerned.) Over the last couple of weeks on Misplaced Pages I have been subjected to pornographic images, been left "barnstars" advising me to have a poisoned drink, seen messages that advocated I should get cancer and die, as well as being the target of a particularly persistent POV pushing editor. Who has been the main person who has tried to encourage me to see past all the c*ap, helped, advised and been one of the few voices of support and reason? Certainly not any members of the Gender Gap Task Force or those who claim to be advocating Civility ... no, the editor who has particularly helped, enticed and encouraged is Eric. ] - ] 23:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

====Statement by Konveyor Belt====

Really? I think EvergreenFir could find a more productive way to help Misplaced Pages than hounding Eric's posts for slight references to the GGTF. ''']''' 23:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Darwinian Ape====

I have no idea why this user got a topic ban, but I find watching his every move and reporting even the slightest violation of his topic ban much more concerning than this minor breach. ] is never a good thing. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Davey2010====

Seems someone has too much time on there hands!, Stop wasting the communities time and find something better to do that doesn't involve following Eric like a lap dog. –]<sup>]</sup> 00:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Floq====
--] (]) 01:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by HiaB ====
It's a wikilawyered and frivolous sanction. EC has never in my knowledge treated any editor differently because of their sex. I would note the irony of the "harassment" (at least as defined by others in GGTF) he is undergoing and it is a minor sort for sure, but out of all the people who "know" harassment most are quite content to visit it on other people or their conceived opponents. I'm sure he'll be blocked and eventually down the line it will be wiki-lawyered into a site ban. ] (]) 01:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

===Result concerning Eric Corbett===
:''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. -->
{{hab}}

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:

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

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

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

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

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

    Standard of review
    On community review

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

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

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

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

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Important notes:

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

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

    A couple of reminders:

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

    Closing a thread:

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

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

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

    Lemabeta

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

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

    Request concerning Lemabeta

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

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


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


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

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

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

    Here

    Discussion concerning Lemabeta

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

    Statement by Lemabeta

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

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Lemabeta

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

    Boy shekhar

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

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

    Request concerning Boy shekhar

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

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


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

    Discussion concerning Boy shekhar

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

    Statement by Boy shekhar

    Statement by Vanamonde

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

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

    Result concerning Boy shekhar

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

    שלומית ליר

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

    Request concerning שלומית ליר

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    Notification diff


    Discussion concerning שלומית ליר

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

    Statement by שלומית ליר

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

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

    Statement by Thebiguglyalien

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

    Statement by Selfstudier

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

    Statement by starship.paint (2)

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

    Statement by xDanielx

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

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

    Statement by Hemiauchenia

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

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

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

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

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

    Statement by Cdjp1

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

    Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning שלומית ליר

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

    Luganchanka

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

    Request concerning Luganchanka

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Luganchanka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 19:55, 12 January 2025 Reversion to version of article where the article says "He is a child sex offender" in the second sentence despite consensus at BLPN discussion that this is problematic because Ritter never actually interacted with a real child.
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

    18:28, 12 January 2025 BLP CTOP warning given

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

    20:27, 12 January 2025

    Discussion concerning Luganchanka

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

    Statement by Luganchanka

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Statement by NatGertler

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Luganchanka

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

    BabbleOnto

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

    Request concerning BabbleOnto

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    BabbleOnto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Contentious_topic_designation
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 11 January 2025 Sealioning
    2. 11 January 2025 Refusal to get the message
    3. 11 January 2025 Personalizing an argument.
    4. 11 January 2025 Railroading the discussion.

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

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

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

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    diff

    Discussion concerning BabbleOnto

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

    Statement by BabbleOnto

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

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

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

    I now address the specific edits in the complaint:

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

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

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

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

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

    • 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)
    and again at Special:Diff/1270346091 TarnishedPath 03:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Statement by berchanhimez

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

    Result concerning BabbleOnto

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • BabbleOnto, please edit your statement down further to fit within the restriction. This also serves as an opportunity to rephrase your defense, which currently is not convincing at first glance. ProcrastinatingReader's description of the situation seems quite apt, particularly BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible, which is currently a pretty fitting description of your response to them here, given that you zeroed in on the "superficially reasonable" part and ignored the much more serious parts of the testimony. signed, Rosguill 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Ok, having read through nearly every edit that BabbleOnto has made, I agree with the complainants that not only does BabbleOnto engage in sealioning, it appears to be almost exclusively what they do. The discussion at Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman)/Archive 2 exhibits perhaps even more concerning argumentation than the diffs provided in the initial report. Throughout these discussions, BabbleOnto tends to demand a standard of stating the obvious (with respect to the context of said sources) that is absurd, and continues to lawyer for such standards even when the situation becomes WP:1AM. When criticizing sources' ability to account for basic claims, I can find no examples of BabbleOnto themselves attempting to find sources that would resolve the issues they identify--this is uncollaborative behavior. There is a clear pattern of engaging in this behavior across recent US politics topics consistent with the scope of Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/American politics. The only saving grace to BabbleOnto's track record is that none of this has translated into disruptive editing of actual articles, just unproductive engagement on talk pages. I am currently in favor of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics; if they are actually here to build an encyclopedia and not to provide a punching bag for debate club, they can use this opportunity to learn more constructive patterns of editing in topics that they are less personally invested in. signed, Rosguill 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      Valereee in line with their follow-up response, I take Objective3000's comments as potentially a basis for community discussion rather than a call for protective action on the lab leak talk page right now. signed, Rosguill 21:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I have to agree, this looks like sealioning. BabbleOnto, you're new here, and I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt about your ability to learn to collaborate. WP works on collaboration and consensus, and sometimes consensus goes your way, sometimes it doesn't. You have to be willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you. And you absolutely must not insist everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers. I've seen editors at both the Thompson and the lab leak talks tell you they don't actually owe you an answer to your satisfaction.
    Do you think you can learn to do that? Because if you don't think you can, this may not be the right hobby for you.
    As an aside, I'm going to recommend what I always recommend to new editors who end up here: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn. Go edit in noncontentious topics, where other editors are a lot less exhausted and have the energy to be more patient with new editors. Valereee (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Tangential
    @Objective3000, hm, yes, and Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory also has 37 archives, and even with archiving at 21 days, 20 sections. Do you think an ECR is something that talk page needs? That's not part of the authorized restrictions an individual admin can place...hm, and I'm not sure of the policy w/re most efficiently getting that done and wasting the fewest people's time. @Rosguill? Valereee (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would object to ECPing the talk page. COVID-19 isn't subject to ARBECR generally, though this specific article is protected. The purpose of protecting the page (in this case) is to push newer users to the talk page, where they can discuss changes they want made (such as by edit requests) and contribute towards consensus-building while not edit warring. Protecting talk pages is truly, truly a last resort. Ordinary good faith people would be entirely shut out and silenced—we'd not even get edit requests—and I frankly don't see anything near the level of disruption/LTA abuse that would justify jumping straight to WP:ECP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Red-tailed hawk, not ECP. ECR: non-EC are restricted from anything but making edit requests. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I see. In any case, ECR is the sort of remedy that should be reserved for more or less when all else fails—it’s still super restrictive. If new users/inexperienced users are trying to contribute towards consensus-building on the talk page (or even if they’re doing ordinary confused new editor things), and aren’t edit warring, I don’t think we’d actually be preventing disruptive edits by enforcing ECR.
    Suppose someone in good-faith sees “anyone can edit”, and they want to edit something topical. But then they see that the page that they want to edit is protected. They read the explanation that appears after clicking the “view source” tab. They then read that they can discuss this page with others, click on the first blue link, and then make a section using the “add topic” button in order to start a discussion.
    “OK”, the newbie thinks, “maybe I will find someone else who agrees with me, or I’ll at least get some answer as to why the article is this way”. They leave their computer and come back in an hour. They then discover that their question has been removed by some random editor with edit summary “WP:ARBECR violation, user not WP:XC; malformed edit request” and find a contentious topics notice on their own user talk page, all because they don’t make a properly formatted edit request (i.e. “please change X to Y”). Or maybe they wont navigate the talk page history and they’ll angrily post that their earlier comment was deleted. Or maybe they just won’t come back. To top it off, nothing at any point in this process was obvious to them that such a requirement existed—there is no edit notice that says so, and so they couldn’t know.
    WP:ECR is WP:BITEy. It dissuades new voices from joining conversations, and it makes it somewhat hostile to true newbies. In particular, it dissuades people who, for example:
    1. Are Not hardcore/insane enough to deal with intense wiki-bureaucracy;
    2. Are unable to cope with handling unfamiliar wikitext markup when making edit requests for anything that is not a trivial word change, or who have abstract changes in mind more than concrete ones;
    3. Do not want to spend an hour of their time to figure out how to say the magic words to summon another editor to fix a typo.
    The chief way that ECR works is by making LTAs/sockmasters have to put on a lot of effort or make a lot of edits. This raises the (time) cost of socking, and it has the benefit of possibly exposing tells along the way. But that also means that we’re imposing the same thing on good-faith newbies.
    When deciding whether or not to impose ECR, we have to balance that it is extremely BITEy to good-faith newbies against its ability to prevent disruption. There are times where we are basically left to throw our hands up because of LTA/sockmaster abuse, and conclude that the tradeoff is worth it; the ArbCom has done this for certain contentious topics. But, the ArbCom had the wisdom to not enable ECR as a page sanction across all contentious topic areas—there is a very real tradeoff that needs to be really carefully considered. And I don’t the tradeoff leans towards embracing ECR here. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm don't think we need to have this discussion here and now, but I don't disagree it's bitey and needs to be used only where necessary. I was just asking the question of someone who is working at that article: is this an article talk where it's necessary? Valereee (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    • 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.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning Marlarkey

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


    Discussion concerning Marlarkey

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

    Statement by Marlarkey

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

    Result concerning Marlarkey

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    DanielVizago

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

    Request concerning DanielVizago

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Schazjmd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    DanielVizago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


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

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

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

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning DanielVizago

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

    Statement by DanielVizago

    Statement by caeciliusinhorto

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

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

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

    Statement by Simonm223

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning DanielVizago

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

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