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 20:09, 26 December 2015 editLegacypac (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers158,031 edits →Statement by David in DC: Fixing style/layout errors← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:41, 19 January 2025 edit undoValereee (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators84,152 edits →Result concerning DanielVizago: ReplyTag: Reply 
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}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K |archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 185 |counter =347
|minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(7d) |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}}
}}


==Ollie231213== ==Lemabeta==
{{hat|{{u|Lemabeta}} has acknowledged the warnings here to take more care and stay well clear of articles from which they are restricted from editing. Further violations are very likely to lead to sanctions, up to and including an indefinite block. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC) }}
{{hat|Ollie231213 is topic banned from the Longevity topic area broadly construed. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 09:39, 24 December 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 Lemabeta===
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|EF5}} 20:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Lemabeta}}<p>{{ds/log|Lemabeta}}</p>
===Request concerning Ollie231213===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Ricky81682}} 03:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Ollie231213}}<p>{{ds/log|Ollie231213}}
<!--- Here and at the end, replace Ollie231213 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.-->
Ollie231213's conduct at various AFD discussions is bordering into uncivil territory with numerous personal attacks. There has been numerous circular and odd policy debates that Ollie has created and required for months, few of which has improved anyone else's experience here.
# "Legacypac, I'm sorry that you don't have basic critical thinking or research skills"] # - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing.
# - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist.
# Statement that "Not every bit of information in every source has to have citations. The original research has to be done somewhere." shows a fundamental misunderstanding of policy here.
#] Extensively long RFC arguing whether the GRG should get its own treatment as some "super reliable" source shows again problems with policy understanding.
# "And again, why don't you try educating yourself on the subject at hand." as part of the extensively long RFC about whether to include succession boxes in longevity biographies.


;Evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
*Ollie at the motion to request reinstatement of discretionary sanctions and ] is using ] which automatically includes a sanctions notice on the page. Ollie also extensively communicates at ] which has the same notice.


;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 : ; 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)
I simply think the editor would benefit from working away from WOP article and away from the flaws there. These repeated AFDs are getting heated (which isn't Ollie's fault) but at least a warning and a discussion would be helpful.
: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)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
:: <small>Response to Bishonen. Moved from results section. ] (]/]) 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>

::(RES to Bishonen) That's fair. When starting the AE, it only gave me nine options, none of which seemed to fit right. The third bullet ("Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on DIFF by _____") didn't seem to fit, as the sanction wasn't for verbal conduct. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 22:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


===Discussion concerning Ollie231213=== ===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 Ollie231213====


====Statement by Lemabeta====
Firstly, I apologise for being uncivil in a couple of instances. However, please understand my frustration when being faced by pro-deletion arguments which are based on both a poor understanding of the subject in hand and Misplaced Pages policy. is a deletion argument which is ] and contains false assertions. Note that other users have challenged similar comments from Legacypac ].
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.
Secondly, point number 2 is a misinterpretation of what I meant. I meant that not every bit of information in the '''sources themselves''' has to have citations, '''not the information in Misplaced Pages'''.
:So i don't believe ethnographic group should be considered as either history of the Caucasus or cultural heritage. ] (]) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::In my opinion, cultural heritage (both tangible and intangible) '''emerges from''' ethnographic groups but '''does not define the group itself'''. ] (]) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think ethnographic groups fall under the category of Ethnography, or even socio-cultural antropology but for sure not cultural heritage. ] (]) 21:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I understand, i already apologized on my talk page for this accident. I will not repeat this mistake again. ] (]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)====
Thirdly, Ricky was an involved editor in the RFC mentioned above, and actually, in that discussion I argued that not all sources should be given the same weight, in accordance with ] and ]. -- ] (]) 21:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->


===Result concerning Lemabeta===
*'''Comment''' What ] means when he says I "oppose and reverse efforts to simplify X/Y/Z", what he actually means is that I oppose and reverse efforts made BY HIM to make drastic changes to articles which he did NOT discuss on any talk pages first. Furthermore, ] clearly states that succession boxes can be used for records, which is why I reverted the edits made by another user who decided to remove succession boxes from a number of articles. A subsequent ] showed that opinion was quite divided. To try and use this to show that I don't understand Wiki policy is quite ridiculous. Note that Legacypac has made of ] against me. -- ] (]) 00:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' In response to {{u|EdJohnston}}'s post below: It is TOTALLY FALSE to assert that I am trying to "advocate for the GRG" as if there is some kind of COI. What I am arguing for is that Misplaced Pages respect the concept of age validation, and give ] to reliable sources. The irony is that the real agenda on longevity articles is not a pro-GRG one, it's an ANTI-GRG one held by a number of editors, and can be seen clearly . I'm just arguing that GRG should be given more weight than say, a newspaper source, and that age validation by the GRG is an important thing that should be included, bringing the articles in line with ]. The idea of a "GRG fan club" is one that has been propagated by a number of "anti-GRG" editors but it has little basis in reality. -- ] (]) 11:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Can {{u|EdJohnston}} and {{u|Spartaz}} please explain how they have come to conclusion - based on the evidence given here - that I am here to advocate for the GRG? Is it based on the evidence given, or on a preconception about longevity-related articles? I will say it again: the real campaign here is ANTI-GRG ( ) and is not based on Misplaced Pages policy, it's just a case of ]ing. I'm not on a pro-GRG campaign, on I'm an anti-anti-GRG campaign, which is not the same thing. I don't want longevity articles to be full of lists of people who are fraudulently claiming to be older than they are, which is what would happen if the anti-GRG editors have their way. I'm simply suggesting that oldest people lists should include notes to indicate if a claim has been validated by the GRG (or any other similar, reputable organisation for that matter - but no other such organisation exists). If you look at the GRG's coverage in other reliable sources, you'll quickly notice that they are considered the authority on the topic of the world's oldest people ( ). However, the anti-GRG editors want to try and treat the GRG as if it's "equally reliable" as newspaper reports and to ignore the GRG's validation system. However, scientific consensus is that as a concept (it's not just a GRG designation) and consensus in the media is that the GRG is an authority on the subject. I have suggested things like having two separate lists on ] - one list of the oldest verified people according to the GRG, and one list of unverified claims reported on by newspapers but not included on the GRG lists. That is in line with Misplaced Pages policy. The anti-GRG editors wanted one mish-mashed list of unverified and verified cases, effectively deciding themselves which cases were valid and which were not. Doing this is a violation of ], ], and ], which are core policies. So, how can you justify topic banning me but not topic banning anti-GRG editors? -- ] (]) 16:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' In response to this comment from {{u|Spartaz}}:
::"Regarding, your question on my talk page and comment above, i'd simply refer to your own statement above ''I'm just arguing that GRG should be given more weight than say, a newspaper source''. If that's not seeking to subvert our sourcing model then I don't know what is. I'll enact the tban tomorrow morning unless someone has objected by that stage."
:Please let me quote from ]:
:*"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."
:*"While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Misplaced Pages policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."
:*"'''Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements.'''"
:So, one of Misplaced Pages's core policies clearly states that Misplaced Pages's content in areas like longevity should be based on the most reputable authoritative sources available and that sources do '''not''' have to be given equal weight. So yet again I ask the question: what part of Misplaced Pages policy am I violating? Are your opinions based on the evidence presented and the arguments I am putting forward, or preconceptions? -- ] (]) 00:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Please read through . My point of view is shared entirely with Canada Jack, and it's a perfectly reasonable opinion to hold. -- ] (]) 03:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Legacypac====
This topic is overburdened by lists that slice and dice super old people. As things are now structured, a man born in Warsaw who moved to the US should be listed on pages for Poland, Austria-Hungary, Europe, North America, US, oldest people, top 10 men, living or not living, US state, and maybe 10 other places. There are not enough editors interested in maintaining the lists, or who know how they all fit together. This editor opposes and reverses efforts to simplify and so on.

He also fails to understand the appropriate use of Succession boxes, ] the most important point being "2. Simply because a record has been earned does not merit a succession box for that record. Succession boxes for records should only regard records that are part of a series (for example, not all Guinness Book records deserve a succession box)." Ollie reversed efforts to comply with the guidelines by reverting ] 44 times on Oct 23 on 44 pages. See .
] (]) 20:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Reply''' Ollie correctly notes he opposes my efforts (and those of all other editors) to clean up and simplify coverage of super old people, regardless of the argument used, facts of the case, or who is suggesting the changes. If the coverage is not expanding into never ending lists, articles,and minute details on super old people you can count on Ollie to be there to oppose it. ] (]) 00:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Reply to Ollie's Comment''' his diff shows one of the main reasons he needs to be topic banned. In that discussion he wants to relegate all RS sources NOT GRG into 'unverified' status. There is plenty of opportunity to look into Canadian Jacks's involvement in Longevity outside this action. ] (]) 04:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by EEng====
*I think Ollie is acting in good faith, but his limited experience elsewhere in the project hobbles his understanding of applicable guidelines and policies, especially as they apply in this extremely fraught (historically, here on WP) topic area.
*I don't think Ollie has a ].
*Ollie's right that his statement "Not every bit of information in every source has to have citations. The original research has to be done somewhere" is being misinterpretated: there is no doubt he meant that ''the sources WP relies on'' need not, themselves, carry within themselves citations for everything they assert i.e. we allow (obviously) secondary sources to do OR.
However, there comes a point at which well-meant but misguided efforts become too much for the project to bear in (I repeat) this historically fraught topic area, which has been a semi-public embarrassment for years, and desperately needs cleaning up.
] (]) 05:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

===Result concerning Ollie231213===
:''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. -->
*<!--
*] specifically states that participating at ] and ] counts as awareness for policy purposes. I would think that since ] is a subpage of ], that would qualify. I will add a proper alert notice to this editor's talk page in any case. ] <small>(])</small> 15:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
-->
**Yeah they are "aware" with the comment at ARCA. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 14:40, 7 December 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)
***Restored this request from archive to allow it to be formally closed. ] (]) 04:19, 23 December 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)
*Having checked the five diffs supplied above by ], I propose that ] be banned from all pages related to longevity, broadly construed, both article and talk. Notice that in a recent case (]) the Committee made reference to enforcing discretionary sanctions against accounts that have a ''"clear shared agenda"''. Consistently editing articles, and voting in AfDs, to favor the position of the ] is incompatible with the goals of Misplaced Pages. Our standards of verifiability and of notability are different. Reference has been made to the opaque decision-making of the GRG which makes it difficult to understand the factual basis of some longevity records. In cases like that, Misplaced Pages policy must take precedence. Consistent adherence to the views of the GRG is an obstacle to us reaching proper conclusions here on Misplaced Pages. The recent AfDs of some old people are full of SPA voters that seem to advocate for the GRG position. At some point, admins need to rein in the bad behavior. Throwaway accounts in AfDs aren't worthy of attention, but steady advocacy of GRG positions (in counted votes such as AfD) by single-purpose accounts may show a need for more topic bans. The case of Ollie231213 is the current example that needs a ruling. ] (]) 04:57, 23 December 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)
*Concur with a topic ban. The user clearly is here to advocate for a specific position on longevity articles rather than following our long standing policies and guidelines. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 11:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
*:Note that I've deleted ] as a clear G5 violation. I think ] is a bit more of a questionable G5. ] (]/]) 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
**Regarding, your question on my talk page and comment above, i'd simply refer to your own statement above '' I'm just arguing that GRG should be given more weight than say, a newspaper source''. If that's not seeking to subvert our sourcing model then I don't know what is. I'll enact the tban tomorrow morning unless someone has objected by that stage. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:30, 23 December 2015 (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}} {{hab}}


==Mystery Wolff== ==Boy shekhar==
{{hat
{{hat|<s>Mystery Wolf is topic banned from all things electronic cigarette for six months. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 06:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)</s> Topic Ban struck on 22 December. Instead, Mystery Wolff is warned that further personalisation of editing disputes will lead to appropriate sanctions. There is no merit to the claim that MW is a sock. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 08:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)}}
| result = Blocked by Rosguill as a regular administrative action. ] (]) 23:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning Boy shekhar===
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Daniel Quinlan}} 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Boy shekhar}}<p>{{ds/log|Boy shekhar}}</p>
===Request concerning Mystery Wolff===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|AlbinoFerret}} 18:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


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


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


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
*{{diff2|1268704307|This edit}} violates the topic ban because it is in the topic area. It's also based on an unreliable source and the section header includes a derogatory term.
# Disruptive talk page section on other editors.
# 12/6/2015] Disruptive talk page section on other editors.
# 12/5/1015] Disruptive talk page section on other editors.
# Wholesale reverts to stop article improvement
# Wholesale reverts to stop article improvement


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- 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. -->
*Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on *Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|Doug Weller}}.
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above).



; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here --> <!-- Add any further comment here -->
*I've edited the article so I am involved. ] (]) 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Mystery Wolf is an ]. All of this editors edits save one have been in the topic or closely related . This new editor which started editing November 11th has a good grasp of wikipedia syntax even being able to ping other users. Knew what was proper for the lede of an article within two days and used the "lede" spelling . Within 4 days of starting knew the best format for a reference. Has become protectionist over QuackGuru's edits and the specific wording used and understands "undue weight" a very experienced concept. His editing times match up pretty well when comparing his and QG both not editing after 14:00 and starting again about 22:00 UTC. Has opened multiple talk page section in an effort to stop improvement of the article and keep edits in place from QuackGuru These sections have disrupted the articles talk page. Mystery Wolff has been informed of he correct DS locations and was even offered to have a section started for them if they lacked the knowledge to do so. But has continued to disrupt the page instead of seeking DS.
:{{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. ] (])

Since the possibility of sockpuppets was brought up in the e-cig case, and seeing the advanced knowledge of Mystery Wolff a checkuser is requested. In any event if not a sock they are a disruptive SPA and should be stopped from adding to the disruption.] 18:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel There have been no other sanctions against this user, I have removed the section. I have also removed all of the other ways of notifying except the one that is applicable and has a date/diff. ] 14:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian and S Marshaall. One things concerns me is the amount of knowledge Mystery Wolff has of the events long before his editing. "UK sockpuppets sniffed out" refers to the investigation of FergusM1970 how a new editor found this information is a very curious question. ] 20:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Mystery Wolff has changed the name of this section.] 14:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

12/8/2015 Mystery Wolff removes tags calling them vandalism when the tags are replaced, removes them again Assumes bad faith on the talk page in relation to the tags. Misapplication of vandalism and citing it as an excuse instead of its purpose. Since he assumes they are going to be deleted, how can this be vandalism? ] 23:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

{{u|Spartaz}} Mystery Wolff has not stopped editing, just slowed down. They made an edit to the talk page today, that is borderline ABF. ] 19:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Mystery Wolff continues his ABF off topic posts, this one on a specific edit. It looks like he is not going to oppose anything S Marshall proposes from the wording of this post. ] 14:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I still believe that it is possible that Mystery Wolff is a sock of some kind. This post shows advanced opinions, not something that is normal in an editor with a month or less of editing. ] 01:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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

===Discussion concerning Mystery Wolff===
<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 Mystery Wolff====
Archived to address feedback by Gamaliel below ] (]) 10:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
:Archived to address 2nd feedback by Gamaliel below. (All the points remain valid) ] (]) 20:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
::Text archived for TLDR concerns. ] (]) 09:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

-----To the specific allegations. '''All of which DO NOT explain how there is any Violation.''' A requirement. That alone should kick it out.<br />
1. This is a talk page talking about the ALERT, edits, how to proceed, forming consensus. Besides asserting TLDR I do not understand the issue.
<br />
2. This a section where I responded to a direct question from EdJohnston. I responded, he ASKED me to wind it down....I did, we agreed to collapse the section. What is the issue?
<br />
3. Exactly the same as #2. Its already collapsed. Am I to guess how these edits in TALK violate anything?
<br />
4. This is a revert I did. Here is the exact edit summary "(Undid revision 693989905 by S Marshall (talk) Wordsmithing is changing the context improperly. Poor grammar on rewordings. Agree on removal of Drug items however, just not in a slew of others)" ---- I stand by that, I DO NOT SEE ANY ISSUE? What did I do wrong, per AlbinoFerret??????
<br />
5. Same as above, but with this Edit summary "(Undid revision 693990051 by S Marshall (talk) Edits change the context and importance of the citations, replaced with the POV of the editor, with undue weights. REVERTED)" It removed the citation source "The Report states" and replaces it as fact, and then does other dilutive edits<br />
] (]) 23:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)<br />

'''Reboot:'''<br />

I am unclear on the ongoing process of this AE. Of the 5 objections, I have responded to all 5. I done everything in order to not push changes into the LIVE page, and was careful to not edit war. Because an editor can edit 10+ times a day, and another only revert 2, an aggressive editor can push the article. While this may be an option for all, and perhaps the feedback to me just to BOLDly edit the live page, I refrained and kept my dialogue in the Talk pages, in order to have a stable LIVE page. Here is an example of some of the changes that were started in the LIVE page and moved back to talk. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Smoking_cessation I have nothing to do with QuackGuru. I am not a sockpuppet as EdJohnston required I respond to in the TALK page, and which AlbinoFerret is asserting here in this complaint. As Popeye will attest, I am what I am and that's all I am. I believe I have addressed the concerns, but perhaps there is a process I am not aware of? Immediately after I asked for Full Protection in TALK, (taking up EdJohnston's suggestion in TALK), this AE was noticed to me on my Talk page by AlbinoFerret. The section above this subsection is that request. As it seems that request will not get attention in this venue, '''please collapse it'''. What else is required for this process. What else can I answer? (ping in reply) ] (]) 10:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
:::Upon reading the most recent updates in involved administrator's section, I do want to clarify. I do accept feedback. I have '''not''' stopped editing. After my last post in this AE section I spent 4 hours on Dec 9 updating the Article. The edits were reasoned, and researched, with detailed explanations within edit summary. None has been reverted. The logic was simply not be afraid, edit properly.<br />
:::I have responded to all 5 charges at me here, and the Submitter has not responded to any of them. Its been alleged that I am a sockpuppet in this AE, without any investigation and with ongoing innuendo.<br />
:::There is an old saying after baseless charges. "Where do I go to get my good name back?" I do not want to see this case closed to be in the pocket of ANY specific administrator. I already had AlbinoFerret, come on my talk page, warn me he would open an AE, talked about WP boomerangs, and then opened this AE. I believe there should be a determination, because if not the AE process will not be of use.<br />

:::I can answer more questions, I can back up my actions, I will take feedback. But I don't want concerns about me being flushed onto an Admins Talk page. That is not what all the WP process information links say should be done.<br />

:::I again ask this case be closed as false, and unwarranted. Go ahead and investigate, ask AlbinoFerret to respond to my replies. Administrators should not resolve it temporary, by asking for their talk pages to be part of a new process.
:::'''Please disposition the AE, close it.''' I want my good name back. What other information can I provide? ] (]) 11:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)<br />
::::This AE asserts I am a sockpuppet, and other false items, nonetheless, I have taken feedback I have heard here, specifically to TLDR, not using a previous ARB decision to be the basis of a new request (re:Full Protection), letting various process proceed without pushing...as well as other feedback learned from. All the complaints (if not all nearly all) have been regarding the TALK page. '''That is no accident.''' I have been BOLDly editing TALK to the favor of protecting the live page from wild swings of content and only doing proper edits, I believe that is correct process. I can address any of my actions, explain any of my edits, but what I see is a constant flow of items from the requester AlbinoFerret being folded in. I can not keep up with the charges and innuendo...if AlbinoFerret still thinks I am a sockpuppet, it should be searched, if he does not....it should be withdrawn out of this AE. I can no keep up with each of my actions being accused of being AE worthy, and posted here-----> I will wait Admin direction on what I need to do next, or respond to, or do (if anything). Thank you. ] (]) 00:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
*Responding to AlbinoFerret's newest assertions: I continue to edit properly, my edits are reviewed and modified by others and let stand. Some of the reviews are by people who have duties in WikiMedical Projects. An inquisitive mind should not be subject to an Inquisition. I have read ARBs related EC article. They are very long. I learn from reading. While Misplaced Pages is likely the most successful and broadest collaborative writing system ever. It is not the only one, and WP has lot of directions to read. You have to read them because acronyms are tossed around terribly, but they are at least hyperlinked. I happen to be 100% sure I am not a sock. There are 4 allegations because one is circular pointing to this very AE page. This AE is regarding a general unspecific (generic) Alert to all editors of the Article. Even regarded as assumed worse case, those edits do not violate the Alert.<br />
*To the statement of '''S Marshall''', he alleges he has written to my talk page once, and was not responded to. That is not the case. As he says I archived it, I do not understand how he can represent that error. Here is that archived exchange, which also features the originator of this AE, '''AlbinoFerret.'''. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AMystery_Wolff&type=revision&diff=693096640&oldid=692975946 The message was for me to not edit until QuackGuru was banned. Something that S Marshall was sure would occur. I referenced an ARB that I read, (this is on the 28th) which should explain some of the reasons why I know things, vs sockpuppet allegations because I benefit from that reading. I reply, S Marshal replies again. And then AlbinoFerret echos S Marshall hand in hand, that I wait for QuackGuru to be banned. QuackGuru is banned, and being uncomfortable with the entire exchange I archive it. This AE was started in response to my asking for Full Protection of the article. My edits to the article remain unchallenged except for one revert regarding tagging controverted 10+ times, is the Smoke Cessation section, which S Marshall is currently asking for drastic changes to. Why S Marshall knew that administrators would ban QuackGuru I do not know. <br />
*The 29th was a very active day. AlbinoFerret posted on my Talk page about MEDRS, QuackGuru jumped onto that, I noticed that QuackGuru is asserting I am sockpuppet on SMcCandlish Talk page(an involved participant of the Alert being cited in this AE) , as well as strategizing with QuackGuru on the ARB. I post on SMcCanlish's talk informing them both that I am not SockPuppet. SMcCandlish asserts that he did not say that. Then SMcCandlish requested to Lankiveil TALK that the Alert be posted on my Talk page, and L235 did the follow-through on my Talk. In SMcCandlish request to Lankiveil he asserts I am sockpuppet etc. Sockpuppet again is the basis of this complaint by AlbinoFerret. Ultimately EdJohnston requires I answer the sockpuppet, how you know that, questions in the TALK page itself, which I do. After that ackward self defense I was required to do on the TALK page, it goes to this AE. EdJohnston congizant that ARTICLE edits are not in question, and only TALK items which he was directly involved with...SUGGESTS to All other Admins in the "uninvolved admin section", that I get banned for 6 months, without any basis. To which perhaps I should cower. References provided upon request, I am not embellishing. If admins want to know why I looked up things...its because THESE are the FIRST THINGS being put on my Talk page. I hope there is no rule about required to be happy about being halled into an AE.
* {{Ping|AlbinoFerret}} please complete whatever your AE request is, finalize it, you can not update the request daily. ] (]) 12:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by S Marshall====
We don't know if this editor is a single-purpose account or not yet. He has ~150 edits and has had his account for a couple of weeks. On the one hand, it might not seem necessary to open an AE request because this editor has pinged everyone in arbcom and everyone who's tried enforcing. Twice now. I think we can assume the AE sysops already have this on the radar.

But on the other hand I do think this is a good idea. He clearly has an issue with me personally, and he needs to be given a forum to express that in. This venue is a better place than ], so let's make this a welcoming place for him and encourage him to make all his points in full right here.—] <small>]/]</small> 19:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

*Will it be in order for me to respond to Mystery Wolff here? This might spark a back-and-forth discussion that isn't normal at AE, but I hope the AE sysops will indulge that for the time being. He and I haven't actually had the conversations about this which experienced editors would have before we get to arbitration enforcement; in fact he's never edited ] and my only edit to ] was archived without comment.<p>On a personal level I don't think that Mystery Wolff is a sockpuppet or a new incarnation of a banned editor. I find his floundering with process and appeals to authority to be authentic and convincing for someone who's unaccustomed to Misplaced Pages. It's authentic for someone who's accustomed to academic rigour in writing and having some personal authority over how material is edited.<p>If this was QuackGuru returned, then he would ''know'' how it always ends when people with three weeks' editing history appeal to authority for help managing established editors' behaviour. QG was always canny with process and he has zero history of sockpuppetry. I'm sure this isn't him. Mystery Wolff wants to discuss what I'm doing and analyse it; he wants this to happen before I'm allowed to do it; and he asks for this as if it was perfectly normal and natural. This is an academic writer who expects to be in charge. Education rather than enforcement is the answer here.—] <small>]/]</small> 18:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

::*I take it back. This editor is making several accusatory posts about me every day, full of bizarre allegations about my so-called "agenda" and he won't speak to me directly. I can't work with him.—] <small>]/]</small> 08:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by uninvolved Kingsindian====
I have absolutely no opinion on the underlying dispute, but I agree with S Marshall that this doesn't look like a sock of an experienced user. It looks like an overenthusiastic new user. It is not surprising that some editor who knows about the topic will find a ton of things wrong with a Misplaced Pages article, and try to fix them all at once. Hell, this is my normal feeling whenever I see any article about which I have nonzero knowledge.

I see too many walls of text, but a basically good faith discussion in the talk page section. A lot of the section is simply them being confused by Misplaced Pages bureaucracy. The basic point is this: the edits by S Marshall were consequential, and it is perfectly proper to object to them, giving reasons. They were not simply copyediting. I would simply remind the editor of ]. It is more precious than ever in contentious areas, and the key to avoiding many misunderstandings. Also ], which is the iron law of the internet. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 19:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
: {{u|Gamaliel}}'s statement that they are quarreling with AnomieBOT is incorrect. They are quarreling with the previous of S Marshall, which MW reverted in two parts (, ) because AnomieBOT had an intermediate edit. Of course, S Marshall's edit was not vandalism, though it involved a lot of tagging. S Marshall reverted MW's edit providing their justification, and MW did not edit-war over it, but opened a talk page , where many people actually agreed with MW's position.

: More generally, I see the topic ban proposal as ]. MW's complaints have to do with the pace of editing on the page, which they expressed in confused language and actions due to not being familiar with ]. Another editor has also expressed the same concern in this ]; part of the problem is caused by MW, but partly because the pace of editing was too fast. It is unfortunate that ] is reaching for the ban-hammer because every problem looks like a nail. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 22:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Rhoark====
Following the removal of one obstructionist editor from the topic, a deluge of edits began. Mystery saw this as taking unfair advantage of the situation, but its actually the positive outcome that was hoped for. We do not need someone else to take up the obstructionist banner to keep the article from improving too much or too fast. I've looked at SM's edits, and the complaint that he is twisting context doesn't hold water. They're just deconvoluting tortured grammar. There are a few cases where SM regarded grammar as too poor to fix and removed an entire properly-sourced claim. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and I advise SM not to do that. Both sides should better focus on trying to ]. ] (]) 15:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Tracy Mc Clark====
<s>In response to ]: A simple but strict "discuss content, not the editor" with serious consequenses if not followed should do.</s>] (]) 15:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Strike as it is clear by now that it won't work.] (]) 23:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by SPACKlick====
It's clear Mystery Wolff's actions are disruptive and that they're not absorbing advice given to them about how to express there concerns, or what venue to do it in. I cannot find one instance of them discussing the content of an edit on a talk page, whether at the article or of an editor, they have simply decided S Marshall should be banned. I still have concerns of some form of Sock/Meat puppetry here given their detailed knowledge of arcane bits of wikipedia but claiming "it's my first day" as an excuse repeatedly for misusing process. MW has been given enough rope and either some firm education or a reprimand is needed. ] (]) 09:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Johnbod====
Was this notified to the EC talk page? I have only just become aware. Mystery Wolff's editing style, both on the article and talk, is very different from Quack Guru's. His edits to both are rather erratic and not especially helpful most of the time, but on the whole I don't think he should be topic banned. His talk comments are often long, wild, personalized and also rather unclear. Stripped of that, his underlying position is not in itself an extreme one, as far as I can see. I still hope he will calm down and begin to express himself more clearly and concisely. ] (]) 15:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

===Result concerning Mystery Wolff===
:''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. -->
*{{ping|AlbinoFerret}} The links under "Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any" do not appear to be working. Also a number of links under "If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)" ] <small>(])</small> 05:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
*{{ping|Mystery Wolff}} Your statement does not address the matter at hand. Can you provide something that either addresses the substance of the request against you or explains why this is "an abuse of process" according to Misplaced Pages policy? Please do not include personal reflections or opinions such as those in your statement above. ] <small>(])</small> 05:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is an unorthodox suggestion, but what do other admins think about imposing a daily word limit on the talk page for Mystery Wolff? It seems like only a quarter of the text they post is directly relevant. ] <small>(])</small> 15:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
*I'd be against a complex sanction that might result in further dispute about adherence to the sanction. We should expect that new participants on a difficult topic like ] would be cooperative and diplomatic, and they would be able to express themselves clearly on talk pages. If such a user is inexperienced they should wait to get feedback from others before changing the article. (The combination of aggressive and uninformed can have bad results). It appears that ] doesn't meet those expectations. He is likely to use up even more space on admin boards the longer he continues to be active about this. I favor a six-month ban of ] from the topic of electronic cigarettes on all pages of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 19:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
:*This editor just got into an argument with AnomieBOT. Wow. Concur with the topic ban. ] <small>(])</small> 21:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
*Mystery Wolf - can you please stop misusing the ping function. I have a watchlist and am perfectly capable of noticing if there is something going on that I want to involve myself in. Now that I am here, its pretty clear that Mystery Wolf is disrupting the page with their ongoing demands that the article only be edited in a way that they approve of. I'm not seeing any malice or intent to misbehave, its just that they do not know enough about how this place ticks to understand how to act collaboratively in this high tension area. If this continues or Mystery Wolf cannot accept that they need to learn to how work within our norms then I can't see any alternative to a topic ban but I'd prefer to see Mystery Wolf consider the feedback they are getting here and think about their approach. If we can see a prospect of some improvement I'd be minded to give them a chance to try again. If not, well, I guess our hands are tied. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 23:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
:*Noting that {{u|Mystery Wolff}} has stopped editing. There probably is no need to enact anything unless he returns and causes further disruption so I'm minded to close this and leave it to affected parties to drop me a note on my talk if there are problems in the future. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 10:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
::* Noting that MW is back and resuming personalised commentary on proposed changes. This is clearly disruptive and I'm afraid that we need to enact the topic ban. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 06:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
:::*In reviewing my close of this, it looks like I have misread some date stamps and edits after MW took a short break are not actionable. I do think there is no doubt that their earlier conduct was problematic but they do seem to be improving their interactions. Consequently the TB I imposed is unfair and not proportionate to the improved conduct. I have therefore lifted the TBan and replaced it was a final warning about personalising disputes. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 08:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
{{hab}}

==DrChrissy==
{{hat|1=DrChrissy is warned not to make further edits like their post to User talk:SlimVirgin. If you are unclear about the scope of ], ask for assistance. ] (]) 14:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC) }}
===Request concerning DrChrissy===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Only in death}} 16:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|DrChrissy}}<p>{{ds/log|DrChrissy}}
<!--- 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. -->
#
Opening a discussion on a third parties talkpage canvassing them to edit on their behalf in violation of their topic ban. Clearly not covered under ].

;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 :
DrChrissy is well aware of what is and is not allowed when topic banned. See discussions related to this ], ] and ]. Despite this being explained in various ways, DrChrissy still does not get it. While I do not consider the a violation (as it would be an appeal under BANEX) it does illustrate the point that DrChrissy cannot drop the stick.


; 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 DrChrissy=== ===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> <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 DrChrissy====
*Will the OP please clarify which part of my topic ban they believe I have violated.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 17:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
*It is 24 hrs later and the OP has still not clarified which part of my topic ban they believe I have breached.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 17:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
*Please note that I have struck through the single diff put forward as evidence in this case. I would have completely self-reverted, however, I am mindful this is another user's talk page and I would not do this without their permission or the support of someone in authority (e.g. an uninvolved admin).<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 18:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by Tryptofish==== ====Statement by Boy shekhar====
The complaint here is that DrChrissy watched the talk page of a page where he is topic banned, and raised a discussion about it at the user talk page of a potentially sympathetic administrator, was reverted, and then reverted the revert. I hate to say this, but it does seem to be a battlegroundy continuation of editing about the subject where he is banned. He is discussing an RfC about the topic of his ban, what the outcome of the RfC should be, rather than discussing his own restrictions. That's a ban violation. As it happens, the edit that he complained about on the administrator's talk page is an edit that I made. The edit is being openly discussed at ], so it can be resolved by editors who are not topic banned, and I have in fact requested at AN that an uninvolved administrator review my edit: , so there really is no need for DrChrissy to have gotten involved here. --] (]) 18:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
:I note JzG's reference to ] by DrChrissy, and I do not think that this choice of terms is accurate. Intelligent, high-achieving people (who are the kind of people we should want editing Misplaced Pages) are prone to taking criticism personally (perhaps I speak from personal experience). DrChrissy (who has now struck the inquiry at an administrator's talk page, that led to this discussion in the first place) is neither a griefer nor a troll, but rather someone whose feelings have been hurt, and who feels the need to keep asking about the boundaries and keep asking for reconsideration for that reason. I hope that we can cut DrChrissy some slack in that regard. I also note that DrChrissy has felt mistreated following the community topic ban, by editors seeming to play "gotcha", and I want to point out that here, in an ArbCom ban instead, any attempts at enforcement will have to go through AE, which is a process where vexacious accusations are more likely to be shut down. --] (]) 21:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by jps==== ====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). ] (]) 23:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
It's pretty clear to me that this user has no intention of strictly abiding by his topic ban. Topic bans are, as a rule, construed to include any and all on-wiki discussions that relate to a subject. I find topic bans to be a little ridiculous because of this (see ]), but your duly-elected arbitrators for better or worse imposed this ridiculous constraint and the question now is how much administrators here at AE are willing to let the user poke at its boundaries. ] (]) 18:40, 18 December 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)
====Statement by JzG====
DrChrissy is now under two topic bans, and has a long history of griefing about the first. I do not think the edits complained of constitute an unambiguous violation, but there's little doubt that DrChrissy is pushing the boundaries, and almost certainly doing so either as a deliberate testing of the limits or out of a lack of acceptance of the findings against him (see ). I advocate a warning but nothing else at this stage, per ]. Any action will be contentious and vigorously argued, and IMO it will not be long before a slam-dunk violation occurs. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by (username)==== ===Result concerning Boy shekhar===
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

===Result concerning DrChrissy===
:''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. -->
*<!--
*
-->
*In my opinion, there was no need for ] to at ]. He is complaining that others are taking advantage of his ban to make certain changes. This message to SV isn't justified by ]. It doesn't fall under any of:
*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)
::*asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party ..
::*asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban.
::*appealing the ban.
:I would close this request, but warn DrChrissy that they will be blocked if there is a recurrence. ] (]) 17:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
::Since ] has their post to ] I think this is ready to close with no action. ] (]) 04:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
{{hab}} {{hab}}


==שלומית ליר==
==Vergilden==
<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>
{{hat|1=Vergilden and jps are each warned for 1RR violation. A 1RR notice has been posted at ]. ] (]) 02:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC) }}


===Request concerning Vergilden=== }} ===Request concerning שלומית ליר===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Kingofaces43}} 16:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC) ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Smallangryplanet}} 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Vergilden}}<p>{{ds/log|Vergilden}} (Been here since 2010-11-11.) ; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|שלומית ליר}}<p>{{ds/log|שלומית ליר}}</p>


<!--- 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 of ''how'' these edits violate it :


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


*2014 to 2016: no edits.
;1RR violation at ]
*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.
#
#
#

* Also previously engaged in single reverts here and here after previously having their content removed and being told they need to use the talk page to reach consensus per ] and not revert further. Notification of 1RR occurred after this specific incident, but before the Dec 18 reverts.

]

* Content added by them removed, but they revert back in. Removed by a second editor and reinserted again in the same 24 hour period.

;General edit warring
]
* Makes controversial change to say there is no scientific consensus on GMOs, is reverted and asked to come to talk page. Reverts again anyways.

* Another case of adding content, being reverted, and simply reverting back instead of trying to reach consensus at the talk page.

]
* Adds content that is removed . Immediately reverts it back in.

;Notice of discretionary sanctions:
for general sanctions, and specifically of 1RR


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions 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 : ; 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 , , , 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)
The overall problem with this editor is that they add controversial content, and when they are reverted specifically asking them to go to the talk page and not revert, they revert anyways. This has been a common trend in all their recent edits in the last few days across multiple pages, so they did not technically violate 1RR until today. Vergilden is a newish editor (~200 edits), but has been made aware of what edit warring is and protocol when their edits are reverted.. Most of the time no attempt at talk page discussion occurs in the above reverts or their edits are in direct opposition to an ongoing talk discussion to keep reinserting the content.. In addition to the recent 1RR violation, this general edit warring behavior was specifically said to be covered under the discretionary sanctions by the drafting Arb at the case. Reviewing the edit summaries in the diffs should also show the combative edit warring language cover by discretionary sanctions in addition to the 1RR violation.


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
In addition, this editor is a ], where all of their edits (barring a handful of minor edits) are related to adding content related to sources from ] or recently by proxy his views on GMOs. I don't see any evidence of ], but there does appear to be strong advocacy on the topic associated with being an SPA such as hyperbole about censoring when trying to explain reliable sourcing or resorting to personal attacks when someone doesn't agree with them such as calling me a "jobsworth". Comments seen in this conversation are ] arguments that go beyond typical new editor problems and are more in line with SPA problems. This is especially after reading their initial statement above trying to argue their content on GMOs doesn't apply to sanctions here since it's on the precautionary principle page (even after multiple warnings).


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
I'll also note that ] has had multiple reverts on precautionary principle, but they had not been alerted to the discretionary sanctions prior to their recent edits. They now have a notice on their talk page.


===Discussion concerning שלומית ליר===
Given that editors have tried to slow Vergilden down and stop this behavior with no improvement and continued inflammation of the topic, this is the only available option now. A block could be justified both under the ArbCom sanctions for edit warring and as described by ]. I wouldn't suggest a block if not for the SPA aspect, but a topic ban for GMOs and topics relating to ] would hopefully alleviate the issue too. ] (]) 16:43, 18 December 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====
*], I'm going to have to ask that you stop mischaracterizing my warning on 1RR as you've made multiple posts here directly contradicted by it now. In the last paragraph, I specifically mentioned 1RR and that associated with the discretionary sanctions, they could be blocked or topic-banned. To say it's not part of the "official" warning template is silly considering I had to specify the topic was under 1RR instead of 3RR. The combination of the main ds notice, 3RR template and manually warning about 1RR within the ArbCom case sanctions was what we had at the time as I don't believe many (including myself) were aware of the newer templates finalized earlier that day discussed (you can bet I'd use the newer one if I was aware of it). There shouldn't be any arguing that Vergilden had been made aware of the relevant sanctions, and the reason we're here is because they plowed ahead anyways. This is the place to go when trying to resolve behavior issues individually at the article fails, so please also refrain from the inflammatory "gotcha" comments. ] (]) 21:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I believe contents of this filing to be in clear policy violation and have reached out to the arbitration committee for further clarification before commenting further.] (]) 14:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
: I was given clarification from an admin regarding my concerns and will now be drafting a response. Thank you for your patience. ] (]) 21:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


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


====Statement by Selfstudier====
===Discussion concerning Vergilden===
To the extent that it is relevant, the WJC report was discussed at ]. ] (]) 11:25, 12 January 2025 (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 Vergilden====


====Statement by starship.paint (2)====
I was not aware the PP article was covered under the restriction regarding all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals b/c of its seemingly tertiary relationship to such things (primary risk management, secondary legal).


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)
If PP is covered, it needs to be made more explicit so accidents like this do not occur again. Nonetheless, I was trying to resolve the objection through the talk page rather than undos but jps reverted this morning even though we had an open/unresolved discussion. Even if he wasn't warned of these sanctions, this is poor behavior.


====Statement by xDanielx====
Regarding previous warning on obviously GMO related content, note that my actions on reverting content remained within the boundaries specified and I moved discussion to the talk page. By example, I added a section to discuss the content I wanted to edit and provided different ways to modify the submission so as to address the previous objections (i.e., "there isn't general agreement" to "some scientists have questioned" and provided reliable sources to substantiate, even offering to harmonize the controversy sections across the similar GM pages where there consensus on the content was reached)
{{yo|Arcticocean}} I don't really see how NPOV can be read as requiring edits which support both sides of a controversy. Our content policies don't impose any positive duties; they only tell us what not to do. The text of the policy doesn't support the notion that a ''pattern'' of edits could be in violation, even if no particular edit is in violation.


In principle, such a pattern of edits could violate the , but I don't believe this board has ever enforced it. If it were to be enforced, I think it should be for more serious violations like the double standards that e.g. ] attempted to demonstrate, rather than mere opinion-driven editing which applies to the vast majority of CTOP editors. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 03:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
For the record, I highly respect the Misplaced Pages process but it seems that both Kingoffaces and jps have an agenda to censor content they feel to be objectionable and use the various policies in specious ways to keep the content from being published. For example, it is still not evident to me the reason my submission in the PP article can't be published. A litany of different reasons were cited and each did not seem applicable. For them, the talk page isn't a place for honest discourse and debate, but a place to try to build a case against good-faith editors. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Precautionary_principle#Whitepapers_not_reliable_sources.3F


==== Statement by Hemiauchenia ====
Thank you for your consideration.
This user has engaged in off-wiki canvassing regarding the IP conflict. Take the following recent tweet from the 12 January
For posterity in case it is deleted it contains the following remarks: {{quote|If you can't handle the facts, just delete them Propaganda on
@Misplaced Pages includes targeting Israel, demonizing it, and erasing inconvenient truths, from falsifying war outcomes to deleting Israeli inventions and attempting to erase the reality of Palestinian suicide bombers.}}
Along with this is a screenshot of the current AfD ]. People are of course allowed to be caustic about Misplaced Pages off-wiki, but calling out a specific AfD with highly charged rhetoric, essentially inciting canvassing seems out of line. ] (]) 02:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
: For those concerned that this might be outing, שלומית ליר is very open about their real life identity on their userpage. See (). If you reveal your real identity on Misplaced Pages, your tweets about Misplaced Pages on your Twitter account connected to your real-life identity are fair game to mention. There's also reverse confirmation in this tweet . ] (]) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by Cdjp1====
Vergil Den 17:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
As we seem to be ok to pull evidence from the statements of the editor in question, they have also commented more recently about () in response to a question of if Misplaced Pages can be "saved". -- ] (]) 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
Amendment to address concerns about my tenure
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)

It may be the case that I've been an editor on Misplaced Pages since 2013, but never in my entire editor history have I come across, what I don't know what else to call, editor censorship from the likes of kingoffaces and jps. So yes I may have many posts but frankly, this kind of behavior is new to me.

Vergil Den 18:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Amendment to address concerns about my use of term "censorhsip"

My concern is the use of editors moving the goal posts (i.e., they are refuted on one front and then pitch a new argument). Again, I think it is reasonanle to think they there are trying to censor the content. I would be happy for this committee to adjudicate on the matter allowing the jps and me to present our best cases.

Vergil Den 18:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: The following arguments have been lobbed by KoF and jps: WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS , WP:POVPUSH, WP:COATRACK, operative statement is "sometimes", fact as opposed to an opinion, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:COMPETENCE.

If there truly was a policy violation in my submission to the PP page, one of these would have been sufficient (like in the case of the 3R that we are discussing were one violation of the rule is sufficient to convene this committee). Again, I think any reasonable person would conclude that something is amiss.

Vergil Den 18:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Further in support of my contention under this amendment, prior to the exchange between KoF and jps regarding the paper submission to the PP page, many of these same arguments were lobbed by KoF against *case law* content I submitted on the PP page, content that was reverted by KoF that I had to revert. This was *case law* referenced directly from the court of appeals official documents. Again, the behavior by KoF and jps follows that a reasonable person would suspect that these editors are censoring content.

Vergil Den 19:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Amendment to address concerns about my use of term "jobsworth"

As I stated previously, I stand by my contention that the behavior exhibited by KoF and jps is censorship. A jobsworth is a type of censor and in this case, an an editor using his/her authority granted inherently to Misplaced Pages editors to censor content rather than to "engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content".

Vergil Den 19:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Amendment to respond to statement about my lack of regard for consensus

Actually, I highly regard consensus when it's warranted. I think my actions demonstrate that it was exactly consensus that I was seeking through reasoning on the talk PP page. I first opened up the discourse on the talk page to debate the concerns raised. I was lobbed with over ten rules through the entire debate which I researched and reasonably refuted. Subsequently KoF and jps decided to lob more rules. My reverts today were in reaction to jps who took it upon him- her-self to initiate the first revert while we were still debating. In each of my reverts I requested jps to cease reverting while we debate on the talk page (unbeknownst to me that my reverts were pulling me into this sanctions forum). I was insulted by jps with curt responses and insults (e.g., anemic). Not once did either of the editors seek to understand my position which I stand by. Overall, my submission was treated as junk and belittled as an editor.

Vergil Den 21:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by jps====

My apologies for my role in this. I was not aware of the 1RR rules imposed on GMO articles until kingofaces let me know today.

As a form of penance (because ignorance of the law is no excuse), I am adding talkpage boilerplates to many articles.

I throw myself on the mercy of the AE board and beg for its forgiveness. I promise NEVER to break 1RR on GMO-related pages from here forward.

] (]) 16:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

{{ping|Minor4th}}: FYI: Your statement about the other user not being notified of 1RR restrictions until today is . ] (]) 18:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

{{ping|Minor4th}}Read the diff again. The diff explicitly mentions 1RR. ] (]) 19:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Minor4th====
In the diff of the notice given to Veridigen (or whatever the name it, Kingofaces43 used the wrong template and only notified the editor of discretionary sanctions - NOT 1RR. It appears there was no notice of the 1RR restriction until after Ver and jps had both edit warred (both having 3RR).

Neither editor should be sanctioned because they were not properly notified. And I recommend that this game of gotcha stop and that editors actually try to discuss problem behavior they see rather than run to AE on the first whiff of a violation. For crying out loud! <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 17:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@jps - that notice references discretionary sanctions and 3RR - no mention of the 1RR restriction. i hope you're not requesting sanctions against him when you were matching him, revert for revert. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 19:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@jps - Ok, it's not part of the template or warning though, and it's not mentioned that it's the result of an Arb case and could result in enforcement at AE. That is not sufficient to notify him of Arb remedies. Plus he said on the talk page that he wasn't aware that that page fell under the GMO topic area. It would be appropriate to give you both a final warning or to topic ban both of you. I really don't care which. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 20:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

{{ping|Kingofaces43}}. Please don't ABF; I won't play that game with you ;) <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 23:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)</p>
*One last question for Kingofaces43: why did you template Ver twice for edit warring on Precautionary principle, but you didn't template jps for edit warring or otherwise caution him for his 3 reverts? Why are Ver's reverts worthy of Arbcom sanctions, but jps' 3 reverts apparently failed to even catch your attention? I'll note for the record here that last week you also went nuts with the templates and templated me and Montanabw (twice) when each of us had only made one edit to the article. Why are you so aggressive about going after those you disagree with, and at the same time entirely willing to allow edit warring and PAG violations by those with whom you agree on content? It's not the first time I've raised this issue. I will keep pointing it out when I see it. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 04:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by David Tornheim====

This is a brand new editor*, who clearly is not familiar with all the Wiki-rules and with the ArbCom proceedings. To bring this new editor here immediately is over the top. I agree with Minor4th's comments immediately above and Tryptofish's comments on how to handle this.

I see no reason that ] should be included in the restrictions on GMO ArbCom case. ] may have some overlap with GMO's just as a subjects like ], ] or ], but it is a very small overlap. Precautionary Principle applies to wide variety of subjects and products far outside of GMO's, agricultural chemicals and companies that manufacture them. For example wireless technology.

--] (]) 17:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

: * Vergilden is a brand new editor to the GMO field and still new to Wiki and its arcane rules. Although the editor has been here since 2013 as noted below by Capeo (immediately below), Vergilden shows no evidence of encountering drama (see ), does not have a user page, and the only work of this editor until December 2015 was almost entirely on one article ]. --] (]) 18:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

::Vergilden's amended statements are quite telling:

:::Note: The following arguments have been lobbed by KoF and jps: WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS , WP:POVPUSH, WP:COATRACK, operative statement is "sometimes", fact as opposed to an opinion, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:COMPETENCE.

:::If there truly was a policy violation in my submission to the PP page, one of these would have been sufficient.... Again, I think any reasonable person would conclude that something is amiss.

:::...prior to the exchange between KoF and jps regarding the paper submission to the PP page, many of these same arguments were lobbed by KoF against *case law* content I submitted on the PP page, content that was reverted by KoF.... This was *case law* referenced directly from the court of appeals official documents. Again, the behavior by KoF and jps follows that a reasonable person would suspect that these editors are censoring content.

:::A jobsworth is a type of censor and in this case, an an editor using his/her authority granted inherently to Misplaced Pages editors to censor content rather than to "engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content".

::What this shows is that all the problematic ]behavior (to block certain content) that I (and others) described in the GMO ArbCom proceeding is being continued by KingofAces43 and others to prevent ] coverage in our articles. (I would like to see diffs from {{u|Vergilden}} that back up these assertions/allegations.)
::--] (]) 01:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Capeo====
I'll just note the editor in question has been here since 2013 and has hundreds of edits.] (]) 17:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

David, the edits in question are specifically about GMOs so it applies. ] (]) 17:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

{{u|Vergilden}}, you're not covering yourself in glory here by calling your editing against consensus "censorship". Specifically you saying "The consensus rule doesn't apply to attempts to censor valid content" on the article talk page is simply false. There are very few exceptions to consensus and none apply here. And please, sign your posts. I could see giving Vergilden a final final warning hear and a short bit of rope if they show they understand the issues in play. If they continue to unrepentantly claim their edits are "right" then well... ] (]) 18:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Honestly at this point it matters little what Vergilden was alerted to (though the difs show they were clearly alerted and forged ahead anyway) because their responses show they have no regard for consensus which is the backbone of pretty much this entire project. A short block is probably in order then a TB if they return to edit warring. ] (]) 20:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Tryptofish====
My goodness, the GMO case seems like the gift that just keeps giving and giving. Anyway, KingofAces is basically correct about the facts of what happened. Clearly multiple reverts, and yes, the page is within the scope of the 1RR restriction. On the other hand, I believe that it is credible that Vergilden did not realize the situation, and my suggestion would be to let this go with a "final warning" but no block. --] (]) 18:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

:{{Ping|EdJohnston}} With regard to the notice for that page, there are specific templates from ArbCom for that purpose: ], ] (I strongly recommend the "style=long" parameter), and ]. --] (]) 18:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by AlbinoFerret====
Vergilden may not have been aware of the 1RR, and has less than 100 edits over the last 3 or so years. While not exactly new they are still a WP novice. I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (jps) on the other hand is an experienced editor who defiantly had knowledge that a case was ongoing because they made a case request statement for GMO. He was also notified of the Proposed decision. Yet he reverted the page 3 times. jps is an experienced editor and should be aware that there is no excuse for edit warring. He could have requested page protection as I did when I saw the reverts in my watchlist that I have yet to clean up from the GMO case. I believe some form of sanction is in order for jps. ] 19:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by (Mystery Wolff)====
I am an uninvolved editor, who looked at this because of an AE action on me, and wanting to discover the process by which the AE page works. Upon searching I find https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=639707330 which to me make it look like a systemic issue with Misplaced Pages and processes. So here are some items I believe germane to this Action Request.<br />
1. A 1RR policy is an invitation to feud. It would be better to have a 0RR policy than 1RR, because it instantly causes a ruckus to the person being reverted. It invites editors with shared interests to team for their vision. Their vision may or may not be NPOV. It is nearly impossible for any good faith content dispute to avoid hitting the 1RR<br />
2. The page in question does not appear to have any sanctions on it. This is a process failure. In an article that I am editing (electronic cigarettes), I had to request a notification be put up in the Talk page, a badge at the top, so all editors were aware. Without this, it is unfair to cite 1RR on any editor working the page in question.<br />

3. There seems to be advocacy of stratification of Misplaced Pages editorship, that is wide spread. All edits SHOULD be deemed as Good Faith, and with merit. (excluding obvious vandalism). The edits by Vergilden appear well intended and cited. Because he interjected them should not mean that others can just revert them out and then take a 1RR warning on an entirely different Article without meaning relationship.<br />
4. There are self appointed sheriffs point out warnings on other peoples pages, as if they are acting in an official capacity. There remarks are conclusionary and asserting they will be warned by them only once before they are banned. This fosters atmosphere of intimidation with this very AE page being the object being wielding as threat. See the sequence on Vergilden talk page by jps and Kingofaces43. In the real world this is not done, it actually a violation of the law to represent yourself as being law enforcement. Ambiguity lost in lack of statements and wikilawyering is a factor, but tossing badges out and saying "this is you one and only warning, is way across the line.<br />
5. A review needs to be done prior to the AE opening up actions on this page. It appears to me that Kingofaces43 has taken something from GMO and wrongly applied it to PP page. The two article are not joined at the hip. If a review was done, this whole AE action would be kicked out long before any give opinions. That should be the process....Check to see if Standing in AE...before starting. A simple go- no go test at the start of the process is missing.
6. Lack of disclaimers of interests is apparent. Regardless of whether there is a conflict of interest in the comments being made, the appearances are obvious....appearances, by the same ol participants. It looks to me that Kingofaces43 and AblinoFerret are long time associated editors with each other via their talk pages. Is that NECESSARILY a problem. NO!. Could it be, yes. When editors are coming on here an lobbying for a person to be banned. WHICH is what Kingofaces43 is doing, and AlbinoFerret makes the case for same.....Albinoferret should state his relationship with the requester. If the AE continues to not ask for any form of statement of interests of people commenting, it risks getting itself gamed to death by wiki-lawyering old timers pushing out every new editor by claiming new editorship is SPA, and then asserting same in in AE. '''There is a process breakdown...the process is failing.'''<br />
7. The is no warning on the talk page of GMO. In fact jps did not know about this until today...and needed to be alerted to it.
8. The AE process is so ill-defined (read as "open to interpretation") The requester here is attacking commentators about giving input. Why? And it leads everyone down the rabbit-hole....but we go to the rabbit hole because its process.<br />
9. This AE request is basically an editor that does not like another editor's edits, and is pointing to 1RR to get the other editor be banned. One a topic which is not part of an ARB in question. I reflects an old guard who does not want others who may have less experience in Misplaced Pages from editing. Experience in wikipedia is NOT REFLECTIVE of the merits of the actual edits.<br />

10. I have pointed out many process failures here. What I would suggest here is that Kingofaces43 and Vergilden not be allowed to revert each others edits going forward for 6 months. Editors associated with these editors from Talk Page history or otherwise should not revert the same. Edits being reverted should be done by other editors of the pages. If either of these editors wants edits looked at, they should open up talk page topics and solicit openly review. I strongly urge the AE to NOT ban. It is my firm believe the AE is being gamed IN GENERAL. That Wikilawyers are manipluating the processes. That vigilante warnings are being put on peoples Talk pages. Familiarity of how to use the AE process should not be a determinant of whether reasonable edits should occur. The AE process is failing, its not defined well, and here in fact is case in point. IMO thank you ] (]) 00:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
:::UPDATE: The ARB in question states: '''Locus of the dispute: The dispute centers on pages about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, including biographical pages about persons involved in these topics, with numerous editors engaging in poor conduct, including battlegrounding and edit warring.'''<br />
:::The "Precautionary Principle" is a generic term. It is not called out in the Locus of the Dispute definition that was APPROVED, it is in fact used on many many many different items, without any relationship to GMOrganisms. It is essentially a fancy way of saying '''"a stitch in time saves nine"'''. To jump to the conclusion that the PP page should should now be blanketed into the DS is massive scope creep. Its also done in a way that is not notified to editors, as has clearly been shown here. If editors are edit warring, that can be shown for it...for itself.
:::The AE should be cognizant of scope creep, and Gaming of requests to the AE, that can be solved by other dispute resolution methods. "Precautionary Principle" is an agnostic term used in a plethora of industries and topics. ] (]) 11:14, 20 December 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 Vergilden=== ===Result concerning שלומית ליר===
:''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. -->
*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==
*"''Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.''" This quote from Arbcom's decision should imply that all editing at ] is covered by 1RR and is included in any topic bans imposed under the GMO case. That article is mentioned four times by various editors on ]. From the data presented in this complaint, I conclude that both jps and Vergilden should be warned for breaking 1RR. The ] article is now fully protected by ] for four days. That implies it's not urgent for AE to take immediate action to protect the encyclopedia. But I would advise both jps and ] to think carefully before making controversial changes to the article after protection expires. Vergilden has been here since 2010, but they should be aware that articles which are under newly-imposed Arbcom sanctions are not a good place for bold editing. Use negotiation to get your ideas accepted. ] (]) 05:28, 19 December 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>
:*This case ought to be closed with warnings to jps and ] but no other action. An administrator should place a banner announcing the 1RR (and linking to ]) on the talk page of ]. ] (]) 05:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
::*Notice placed. I agree that a warning to both is appropriate. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
:::*Closing. Issuing warnings to the two editors. Since the talk page notice was added as an arbitration enforcement it has been logged as a discretionary sanction in ]. ] (]) 02:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
{{hab}}


===Request concerning Luganchanka===
==Nocturnalnow==
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}} 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hat|Nocturnalnow is topic banned from American Politics after 1932 ] <sup>'']''</sup> 09:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Luganchanka}}<p>{{ds/log|Luganchanka}}</p>
===Request concerning Nocturnalnow===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NorthBySouthBaranof}} 21:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Nocturnalnow}}<p>{{ds/log|Nocturnalnow}}
<!--- 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: ] on the biography of ] ;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.-->
# Reverting in contentious negative material without talk page consensus that the material is appropriate, nor any attempt to engage in talk-page discussion. # 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.
# Again reverting this material without any attempt to create talk page consensus.
# Yet again reverting this same material without talk page discussion.
# And yet again reverting it with no talk page discussion.


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
BLP CTOP warning given
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
# Previous arbitration enforcement request closed with the warning that further edit-warring would result in sanctions.

;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. -->
*Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on .


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
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)
Despite a previous enforcement request which was closed with a strong warning, this user has continued to edit-war negative contentious material into the biography of Huma Abedin, absent any talk page consensus - in fact, '''the user has completely refused to engage in any talk page discussion whatsoever'''. Their last edit to ] was on , after POINTily ] (a move which was obviously unsuccessful). They have continued to edit the page, but ignored repeated requests to discuss the material in question. Consensus on the talk page has run against their proposals, and so they have simply ignored the talk page altogether. The user has apparently no interest in anything but tendentiously pushing a POV on Abedin's biography, and has no scruples about simply revert-warring to get their way. This is not how we edit living people's biographies. ] (]) 21:21, 18 December 2015 (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)
:I note that the user's response nowhere addresses the substance of this enforcement request; to wit, the fact that they are inserting contentious negative material into a biography with no attempt to engage in editorial discussion and gain consensus that the material is suitable. Is it the user's position that consensus is not necessary and that they are not required to discuss their edits on the article talk page? ] (]) 04:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
:: RfC opened ]. ] (]) 16:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Since Nocturnalnow has brought their prior edits up, I note that under their prior name, they were heavily engaged in editing ], including to "controversy" and otherwise positively portray the widely-rejected, wholly-discredited ''conspiracy theories'' about Obama's birth and citizenship. This, along with the series of edits to Hillary Clinton-related pages such as Huma Abedin, suggests that they have a partisan political ax to grind. Misplaced Pages is not a platform for attacking one's political opponents. They may be able to positively contribute in other areas of the encyclopedia, but they don't seem able to set aside their personal biases and beliefs when it comes to biographies of people whose politics they disagree with.
:These prior edits also demonstrate that Nocturnalnow is perfectly ''capable'' of engaging in talk-page discussion, knows about Misplaced Pages's consensus-driven editorial processes, and has taken part in them previously. Their ''personal choice'' to refuse to engage in discussion of their proposed edits on ] and simply revert-war them is therefore all the more inexcusable. ] (]) 04:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
:Mouse001's accusation that I have a "pro-Hillary agenda" is an interesting example of ], coming from an editor with fewer than 100 total , of which 59 are overwhelmingly negative edits on articles related to Hillary Clinton, and is clearly here in furtherance of pushing a negative POV toward Clinton. On the other hand, I have never edited either Clinton's biography or the article about the e-mail controversy. It would seem obvious who here has a political agenda with their edits, and who is here to write neutral, policy-compliant biographical articles. ] (]) 03:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
:Nocturnalnow just claimed with regards to the talk page. However, the user's contributions belie this. They have not edited the article talk page since 23 November. The fact that several other editors (including {{ping|Cwobeel}}, {{ping|Muboshgu}}, Johnuniq, etc.) have expressed disagreement with Nocturnalnow's edits (effectively '''all of which have been to insert contentious negative material into Abedin's biography''' - i.e. grinding a political ax against Abedin and, by extension, Clinton) is, in fact, how we build consensus on what is and is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. Nocturnalnow's complaint seems to be '''My plan to use Abedin's biography as a platform for political smears has been rejected by consensus, but I don't like the consensus, so I'm going to do whatever I want anyway.''' ] (]) 22:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> <!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
.
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


===Discussion concerning Nocturnalnow=== ===Discussion concerning Luganchanka===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <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 Nocturnalnow====


====Statement by Luganchanka====
****** Merry Christmas to '''All''';
Here is my Christmas present to you all, from Canada.


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)
___________________________


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)
of ] i.e. ] Violation and Administrative abuse of CheckUser, as well as abuse of this request for enforcement process, are now the most serious 2 things to look at, in my opinion, about this request for enforcement.


: 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)
Please see the
section of this request.
<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>) invaded the privacy of ] (] with no cause whatsoever, unless NW just did not like the comment of the IP.
This publicized ( in the Result section here) action by <font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>) has the effect, even if unintended, of casting suspicion on that IP's comment and objectivity as well as casting suspicion that I or one of the other editors here (who are opposed to a topic wide ban) used that IP as a sockpuppet, thus implying that any or all of the comments opposing this request are less than valid comments.


:: 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>
Please advise me on my talk page where I can complain about this misuse of ].


:: As per ]'s comments:
A helpful editor at Jimbo's talk page has provided me with ] which led me to resource as well, so I no longer need this particular info.


{{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."}}
This is my reasoning regarding misuse of Check user:
Please have a look at this . I believe this usage breaks the spirit and letter of this Misplaced Pages , i.e."checks must only be made in order to prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption, or to investigate credible, legitimate concerns of bad faith editing." The reasons given by NuclearWarfare to the Checkuser are not within the scope of our policy, imo, and since the misuse, imo, happened within this
Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, I am addressing it in my statement as I feel possible Administrative breaches of Misplaced Pages policy are more important than the rest of this Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding an individual editor.


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


] (]) 18:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by NatGertler====
Since my statement has become extremely long winded, if you do not have time to read it, I suggest you read the Statement
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)
on Dec.22nd, which is much more concise and happens to hit the central points I make in my long statement.

___________________________________________________________________

This submission is without merit. Two commenters complained that I had not responded enough to the submission. Maybe that is because the submission has no merit. Now that I have gotten interested in the nuances of this process, I am probably talking too much so some will try to use my defensive words here against me, but when I see anybody... and I mean including Administrators..trying to push around average occasional and well meaning editors like me, I get really pissed off because I know that hurts the encyclopedia by turning it into an "insiders' game".

Now, some of you have been pushing for more of a response from me, so here goes nothing ( or something, hopefully)

Please note that Ed Johnstone put in a topic wide ban "Result" recommendation here only 8 hours after the submission.(cur | prev) 05:56, 19 December 2015‎ EdJohnston (talk | contribs)‎ . . (141,786 bytes) (+920)‎ . . (→‎Result concerning Nocturnalnow: Recommand a topic ban under WP:ARBAPDS) (undo | thank)... based upon what looks like some sort of U.S. Presidency advocacy false correlation, i.e. "A review of contributions suggests that Nocturnalnow has ."

Also, it strikes me ironic that the Submitter has been Blocked several times; me? never. Not under this Username nor which had thousands of edits going back 8 years. I think objective editors will soon come to the opinion that the Submitter is the editor who should be banned from the ] BLP, not me.

I offer my apology in general and specifically to ] for not having earlier addressed the 4 diffs identified by ]. I just got caught up in the suggested "result" which I saw on my talk page before I had a chance to make my statement, but that's no excuse. The diffs were me trying to reinsert what I saw as having been long standing content which ] was unilaterally removing without talk page consensus to remove it. In addition, re: the diffs, if its ok, I will borrow from what the IP says below, as he says it quite well, I think: "The contested edit does not violate BLP and does not come anywhere close to it. The content was originally POINTily removed by NorthBySouthBaranof( edit summary:"Undue weight and detail here '''as well'''".) minutes after NorthBySouthBaranof was accused by ] of including an UNDUE amount of content."
----------------------------------------------------------
In terms of discussion on the talk page, the Huma Abedin talk page is full of quite unexpected nasty, unpolite, and "fuck what you have to say; I am in control" type responses which have made many editors stay away completely. I do continue to discuss there but nobody likes to get accused of bad editing, associated with "defamatory" articles or called names. Here are just a few examples, I will "Bold" the kind of words I am talking about:
-----------------------------------------------------------
"The information in Misplaced Pages on the scandal, conspiracy or whatever you want to call it, as it is currently presented, is, in this author's opinion, vague and incomplete. If you, or anyone, have other ideas about how to better present that information I would be very happy to hear them.Starburst2000 (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

None of that "evidence" has any credence among mainstream media - it is a '''offensive''' fringe theory which deserves absolutely no credence in her biography. All of your "sources" are from the '''fringe right-wing echo chamber''', all of them '''fail''' the reliable sources policy and we are not going to '''pollute''' Abedin's biography with their '''garbage'''. Misplaced Pages is not a place to '''mindlessly''' repeat long-debunked and '''deeply-offensive''' partisan attacks on a living person. '''The end.''' NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)"
------------------------------------------------------------
This portion of the article has serious issues. As currently framed, it says that Bachmann has alleged that Abedin has three family members who have connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. That fact is either true or untrue, but it does not constitute an allegation of a conspiracy. There is not an allegation that Abedin is in some nefarious cabal; rather, the truth (or untruth) of those statements goes to the question of whether Abedin has more *sympathy* for the Muslim Brotherhood than your average state department official. As currently written, it massively fails NPOV - will change it to something that more accurately reflects what Bachmann, McCarthy et al. have questions about. WillMagic101 (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

'''Well, no.'''The reliable sources on this matter are unanimous in describing these allegations as '''scurrilous, unfounded conspiracy theories'''. We are required to give prominence to the point of view most widely held by reliable sources, and fringe theories lacking any mainstream credibility '''do not belong''' in the pages of the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newt is correct, this was all about a letter "asking a question" regarding Abedin's security clearance process. The question is neither an idea or a theory so I can not agree that it fits into our fringe theory policy in any way other than trying to ram a square peg into a round hole. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The "idea" is that she is in any way connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. That is a '''highly-defamatory''' implication and claim, and has been widely rejected and condemned in reliable sources. '''It must and will be''' depicted as such in this article. '''If you continue to edit against consensus to depict this biographical subject in a negative light, I think it'll be time to request that you be topic-banned under discretionary sanctions. You have done nothing here but try to smear this living person, and that's not what we as encyclopedia editors are here to do.''' NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor JR modus operandi seems to be to make contentious edits, slow edit war over a period of days, and never discuss anything. I'd argue that if that continues, a trip to WP:AN/I may be due.- Cwobeel (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.....Do you realize how ridiculous this is? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is becoming tedious to explain again and again why such material is really not useful for the BLP of Abedin. A good case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? - Cwobeel (talk)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is evident that a consensus of editors disagrees with your assertion that this '''trivial partisan nonsense''' has any place in Abedin's biography. '''That's really all there is to it.''' NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I should maybe mention that I previously had other User names with many thousands of edits, the most active one was for which I forgot my passwords after I took hiatuses from editing. This fact is noted at the top of my current and last User page and Talk page. I have written down my new password so I don't ever forget it again.

My contributions to American politics far outweigh any short term dust ups with a few editors whose paranoia and bias against ''suspected'' "conservative","republican", and "right wing" publications and editors is obvious for all to see on the ] and ] talk pages.

Wow, what a secretive little ] railroading job is being attempted here...really,really strange.
I'm pissed. If I had been away for a few days I would not have even seen this. I may have been set up on the recent flurry of edits referred to in this submission; you can judge that for yourselves.

This is the second very personal and persistant attack at this location by ], in my opinion.
NorthbySouth is the wrong person to bring this since he is quite manipulative in a sophomoric way in these venues as well as on BLPs. For example, he claims above that his last submission against me ended with a "strong warning", however, the actual closing words are ''"Closing: There has been a lull in the admin discussion. I'm closing this (as a noticeboard case) with no action. This is without prejudice to any admin who wants to impose 0RR or other restrictions, either on individuals or on the Huma Abedin article. If edit warring on this article continues then more admin action is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)"''

There was no "strong warning" against me whatsoever. ] is not a credible editor in my opinion; not at all, in fact,] was mentioned himself in his last attack as being just as problematic as anyone else.
In addition; NorthbySouth has been edit warring in total on Abedin more than anyone else and against many,many editors. Any superficial review of the ] BLP will substantiate this claim.
For Ed Johnstone to try to close this out in 1 day and leaving me a note saying '''There may still for time for you to respond''' is bizarre and without due process. He claims that I have "" yet the one comment I made on an Editor's talk page which he links to, says nothing of the sort????? Also, I am wondering why Ed would be using my words on an Editor's talk page against me or why he, as a non-involved Admin., would even be going there? Since he sees something in the comment he links to which is obviously not there to be seen, I do not think he is uninvolved enough to be making a decision on this matter. He must be very sensitive to my opinion about the glorification of the office of the U.S. President, but as anyone can see, I am not even editing Barack's BLP, although I did add some needed content To Bill Clinton's blp which was accepted as an improvement. Also, since many American children are told "one day you can be President", it is reasonable that most Americans, and even some American wannabes, might have a little bit of idolization of the office. Being a Canadian actually makes me more NPOV concerning U.S. politics, and that should be welcomed, I think, right? On the other hand, even if I DO have "wide-ranging ideas for correcting articles on American politics", isn't "correcting" a good thing? Doesn't that make our encyclopedia better? That is kindof what I did with my accepted edit on Donald Trump, changed "anti-immigrant" to "anti-illegal immigrant", which is how the cited source phrased it. No, Ed Johnstone's reasoning for banning me from U.S. politics, even if true, is absolutely the reason for ''encouraging'' my editing of US politics; i.e. to "correct" some sentences to comply with the sources.

I also am shocked that there even exists such a broad ban as to exclude American politics. If an editor is so bad, ban the Editor, but to ban someone from American politics is something that can result, even if without intent, in censorship; which has no place here, I think.

Plus, even if one accepts that there exists such a ban, I certainly, having not even received any kind of block, have not earned such a ban.

A couple of you guys should be ashamed of yourselves for attacking me like this on such flimsy and light purported evidence, much less trying to silence my edits.

My contributions to American politics far outweigh any short term dust ups with a few editors whose paranoia and bias against ''suspected'' "conservative","republican", and "right wing" publications and editors is obvious for all to see on the ] and ] talk pages.

Re: AFD=POINT:

A couple of editors insist on ''not'' AGF re: my ] to delete Huma Abedin. ], an editor with rollback privileges, voted "delete" on the ] to delete, as well as ], a blemish free editor going back 6 years. These 2 delete votes should be enough to AGF that the nomination was not pointy, I ought to know, the reasons I gave in the nomination were and are still valid, in my opinion, and AGF should be given in that regard, I believe.

NorthBySouthBaranof should be censored for misusing this venue, imo.

Appeal?

I am getting really pissed. Remember, before I said a word, and within 1 day, I was given a "result" on my talk page by Ed Johnstone; the result being a ban on all U.S. politics editing because I said on a User's talk page, which Johnstone characterized as proof of "wide-ranging ideas for correcting articles on American politics"....WTF???, is the wide scope of the ban a punishment for saying I don't idolize the position of the President of the USA? If so, then we have a really big problem. This process so far seems to me to be anti-democratic and slanted towards extremely passive-aggressive, word twisting, trap laying, rule touting, full-time, embedded, "insider" editors who like to throw their "insider" weight around and expect honest editors (who give up valuable time to edit) to listen to their robotic repetitious threats and kiss their puffy asses. Its absurd and tyrannical that an editor like me, never blocked and with thousands of problem free edits on multiple U.S. political topics, should even be threatened with such a far-reaching ban. If I am banned from all U.S. political articles, I would appreciate any editors letting me know what appeals are available in addition to Jimbo's talk page as mentioned before by someone. Hopefully there are other appeals I do not know about, or even better, I won't get banned at all because none is deserved.] (]) 03:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Improper use of in the Result section

I seem to remember that the invasion of editor's privacy by checkuser is heavily restricted. Perhaps someone can tell me on my talk page where to complain about this casual usage based upon some kind of vague suspicion that the IP might have Misplaced Pages experience???? Well I'm suspicious that the requesting Admin just did not like the comment being made. This action by NuclearWarfare is enough to throw him out of the "uninvolved" admin. group eligible to make a decision here as he has, by publicly requesting checkuser, thrown suspicion upon the objectivity and value of the IPs comment as well as a thinly veiled suggestion that I or one of the editors opposing the '''cruel and unusual''' punishment that is planned for me from day 1 of this process, is using that IP. This enforcement process, in my case, is the most shameful thing I've seen on Misplaced Pages...it should be closed immediately in my favour as well as with an apology to the IP for invading his/her privacy just because you could. ] (]) 04:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:Thanks to the second IP for ]. ] (]) 22:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

_______________________

****** Merry Christmas to '''All''';
Here is my Christmas present to you all, from Canada. ] (]) 15:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Gamaliel ====
On their previous visit here (see ]), Nocturnalnow wrote "I am absolutely willing to stop editing the Abedin BLP" and "I also am accepting the constructive comments here by Gamaliel and others about me needing to read more about and practice more of our editing process and policies re: BLP". Neither statement seems to have been true. This editor's disruptive behavior has escalated since then, including a blatant ] violation of nominating the article for deletion. ] <small>(])</small> 05:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing by Nocturnal now: ] <small>(])</small> 17:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

{{ping|Vesuvius Dogg}} It is a mischaracterization of {{u| EdJohnston}}'s comments to say that he is advocating topic banning Nocturnalnow "based on a single diff". This diff is merely an illustration of Nocturnalnow's battleground mentality. The ban is justified by the many examples provided in this and the previous AE request. ] <small>(])</small> 17:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

:{{ping|Vesuvius Dogg}} It's up to the uninvolved admins to decide the scope of the topic ban. I have no particular objection if the topic ban only applies to Clinton-related topics, as opposed to American politics in general. It's clear that they have a track record of battleground behavior in the former. I haven't personally witnessed their behavior on non-Clinton political articles, but given their lack of restraint on the Clinton articles, I have no confidence that they will act differently there. ] <small>(])</small> 04:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Johnuniq====
Nocturnalnow has a total of 420 edits, and 55% of those are to ] or ] or their talk pages. That's not counting comments on those topics on other talk pages or the ]. The editor needs a far wider range of experience before righting-great-wrongs at the Clinton-related articles. ] (]) 09:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
*Nocturnalnow's statement highlights the problem because it does not address the core of the issue. It is not hard to read the request where "{{tq|Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it}}" cannot be missed. Nocturnalnow may like to challenge the validity of the points made, but ignoring them altogether indicates that they should not be editing a contentious BLP because they are unwilling or unable to address concerns raised. After being unsuccessful with edits they wanted to make at ], Nocturnalnow created ] which uninvolved editors may want to read to judge whether ] or ] applies. ] (]) 04:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
*The most recent section at the ] is from 16 December 2015—it shows two comments from NorthBySouthBaranof and one from myself where we explain our reasons for reverting ] (diff #2 under "Diffs of edits that violate..." in the OP). Notcurnalnow did not respond, but instead repeated the edit (diffs ] and ] above). More than 24 hours has elapsed since my above "Nocturnalnow's statement ...does not address the core" comment yet there still has been no attempt to justify the four edits here or at the article talk. I don't mind that Nocturnalnow ] from Mouse001, but it is entirely unsatisfactory that such energy has been expended with no engagement with the objections to the core issue of edits at a BLP. ] (]) 09:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by an IP editor====

The POINTy AfD deserves at least a trout.

The contested edit does not violate BLP and does not come anywhere close to it. The content was originally POINTily removed by NorthBySouthBaranof minutes after NorthBySouthBaranof was accused by ] of including an UNDUE amount of content.

The allegations against Abedin's family members came from their own magazine's masthead and were, obviously, proven true. This may be a minority viewpoint in NorthBySouthBaranof's so-called "reliable" sources but it is not fringe and obviously not discredited. NorthBySouthBaranof misrepresents the controversy to justify taking an extreme position in line with the Clinton machine's defenders while accusing everyone else of "partisan hackery", which does not lead to a constructive editing environment. If we are going to be strict about BLP, that is BLPVIO against the writers holding differing opinions.

Gamaliel intentionally misrepresents Nocturnalnow's statement from the last ANI to falsely imply that Nocturnalnow had agreed to stop editing. Nocturnalnow's full statement expresses a desire to continue editing.
: I am absolutely willing to stop editing the Abedin BLP, however, when I announced such an intention awhile back, an Editor who in my view has been also trying to improve the content expressed his disappointment with my leaving the BLP. That, plus my own reluctance to abandon what I thought is a non-NPOV BLP, led me to conclude I should continue editing Huma Abedin.

Gamaliel should be sanctioned for that deception. ] (]) 23:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Vesuvius Dogg====
I'm most definitely an uninvolved editor here, having never (I think) made even a minor edit to ] or ]. But I must object to ]'s recommendation of an indefinite ban against ] extending to all articles involving American politics since 1932 (see below) based on a single on a Talk Page which, to my eyes, hardly demonstrates the kind of bias which should prompt such a blanket ban. Can this admin produce any other diffs to support this punitive action? This seems excessive, even vindictive. Misplaced Pages's disciplinary response should be far more measured. ] (]) 17:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

:Again, I don't see a record of this editor involved in disputes involving American political topics extending back to 1932. I see him involved in Huma and Hillary, to be sure, but I can't find other diffs that would support an indefinite and very broad topic ban such as that proposed by EdJohnston. It would seem to me a slippery slope, an attempt to censor this editor and perhaps entrap them should a future edit fall under this bigger ban which is itself subject to loose and open interpretation. My feelings on this are (admittedly) colored by the current plea on ] page from a longstanding editor appealing the GMO ruling. I'm continually reminded that there are real people, with real feelings, behind these User names, that they clearly have a genuine commitment to building an encyclopedia (even if their bias gets the better of them in particular circumstances), who can find themselves feeling caught in a big and somewhat arbitrary net. I'm only asking you to be circumspect, and cognizant of the evidence at hand, when enforcing remedies, and to keep them proportionate to the perceived disruption to this medium. Thanks. ] (]) 18:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Mouse001====
There are numerous problems with this request and comments made on here. First of all, EdJohnston's attempt to indefinitely ban NocturnalNow from the entire topic of American Politics is wholly unjustified and an act of blatant censorship. In addition to that, Gamaliel appears to have misrepresented NocturnalNow's statement, as the IP editor stated. NorthBySouthBaranof, who persistently edit wars(some examples and ) and is obviously engaged in partisan editing, misrepresents NocturnalNow's activity for reasons stated by NocturnalNow, the IP editor, and my reasons below.

The text that is part of the edit war that is presented in all four diffs of this arbitration request should NOT have been removed by NorthBySouthBaranof after it was re-inserted for the first time, due to lack of consensus for removal per ] (the text was long-standing, as properly stated by NocturnalNow in his edit summary). NorthBySouthBaranof should have used the talk page to gain consensus, but instead he removed the material so he holds some responsibility for the edit war. NorthBySouthBaranof started using the talk page to gain consensus for the removal of the disputed article content after the second diff, so the first two diffs should be redacted from this arbitration request because NocturnalNow was justified in those reversions.

I do not believe that NorthBySouthBaranof's statements hold water or warrant a ban of NocturnalNow. I would encourage an administrator reviewing this arbitration request to see it for what it is; an attempt to further a pro-Hillary agenda by oppressing an editor who is trying to make positive contributions to WP.

--] (]) 03:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

:Yet another mischaracterization by NorthBySouthBaranof - 59 of my edits are not "overwhelmingly negative edits" on articles related to Hillary Clinton.--] (]) 05:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Cwobeel====
I think that the comments by Nocturnalnow in response to this enforcement request speak for themselves. After reading their comments, it should be obvious to an impartial observer that they are ]. A ban restricted to Clinton and Abedin articles may give them the chance to demonstrate otherwise, although given their poor understanding of what is a useful edit in a BLP, or their seeing this request as an attempt to "silence" them, does not bode well for the long term. - ] ] 00:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Case in point, their own words in today's post : {{tq|This process so far seems to me to be anti-democratic and slanted towards extremely passive-aggressive, word twisting, trap laying, rule touting, full-time, embedded, "insider" editors who like to throw their "insider" weight around and expect honest editors (who give up valuable time to edit) to listen to their robotic repetitious threats and kiss their puffy asses.}} Poor understanding would be a kind way to put it. - ] ] 04:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by D.Creish====
In the last month or so my only involvement has been reversion of the same inappropriate criticism of the congresspeople, twice inserted by the filer ] - ] ].

It does seem like a BLP double standard's applied here: those arguing for removal of well sourced criticism of Abedin support insertion of lesser-sourced criticism of her accusers. For example, it took a number of weeks and discussions to remove "conspiracy theories" from the referenced '''section heading''', when the term is used in only two cited sources: one an op-ed and the other a blog called ''The Sisterhood.'' Compare that with the content in offending diffs which ] was prevented from inserting: a comment from Newt Gingrich and content from the ''National Review.''

This double standard seems to extend to editors. I believe this is the second time NorthBySouthBaranof has brought action against ]. He has not been subjected to similar action yet his behavior is arguably more contentious as he's less willing to engage in compromise (as the talk page quotes from Nocturnalnow show.) In part, Nocturnalnow's behavior is a response to this.

The environment around this article is less than ideal. If it could be restricted to entirely perfect, non-partisan editors it would improve (although I might find myself ousted!) The second-best scenario would be to allow the partisanship on one side to balance the other, which is what we have here. The '''least ideal''' scenario would be to ban only one group of partisans, as the article would become either unreasonably negative or unreasonably positive. With the recent topic-ban of ] and this proposed topic ban of Nocturnalnow that appears to be the unfortunate direction we're heading. What I'd like to see enforced instead is the encouragement of genuine talk page dialogue - no stonewalling, no double-standards and less hyperbole. ] (]) 02:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by another IP====
] is not a person I know much about. The Dec 14 addition referenced Politico.Com and NationalReview.Com. Does NorthBy consider these reliable or unreliable sources... I am more concerned about whether sources backing info are reliable or not, than if individual users agree that we ought to include information.

That said, NocturnalNow ought to use ] to standardize the inclusion of these references.

Regarding engaging in talk page conversation, it appears that ] was not created by NorthBy until after the second edit cited above. I also notice that NorthBy did not bother to use the Ping Template to inform NocturnalNow that they were being addressed in the talk page.

The dispute here appears to be that NocturalNow is saying the info is long-standing and needs consensus to remove, while NorthBy is saying it is new and needs consensus to include. This kind of dispute seems to happen a lot. It seems like the recentness of edits or whether users like them seems to matter more than whether information is reliably sourced. I think Misplaced Pages should be more about analyzing the validity of the sources and less about either side playing games where they can try and lock a piece of information in or out based on stalemates.

I do not think it would be good for either of these editors to be excluded from this process. NB should have pinged NN before complaining about their lack of engagement in their talk page section, and should not have complained about edits made prior to beginning discussion or prior to notifying the person about that discussion. I think this request is premature and disagree with punishing NN until they have been allowed more time to actually engage in discussion of the topic on that talk page.

Far as I know, this request is the first observable instance of NN being informed by NB about a talk being in progress about their edits, efforts should have been made to include them privately before resorting to this. --] (]) 12:24, 22 December 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 Nocturnalnow=== ===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. -->
*<!--
*
-->
*We are seeing a rerun of the BLP problems at ], so soon after . I would advise an indefinite ban of ] from American politics since 1932 under ] on all pages of Misplaced Pages. A review of contributions suggests that Nocturnalnow has , including those about Hillary Clinton. It is not easy to see Nocturnalnow as being able to edit neutrally, given the way he handled evidence on the Abedin article. So a ban only from that article might not be sufficient. ] (]) 05:56, 19 December 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)
:*Ed, I'm honestly a little surprised to see you suggesting this indefinite topic ban &ndash; a restriction of this magnitude seems far more like something I would impose, not you! But having reviewed this complaint and the previous one, I think your suggestion is perfectly defensible. So too would be a more scope-limited ban, but I'm fine with Nocturnalnow working on something completely unrelated for a while and demonstrating a better grasp of BLP/NPOV before requesting that they be allowed to edit American politics again. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 22:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
::I've blocked the user for 48h for violating 3RR based on the report at ].--] (]) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* @], edit-warring ''to remove'' negative content at a BLP is an exemption to 3RR. I see that NatGertler mentioned this in their edit summaries and at talk. As voorts points out, it doesn't matter whether you're right when you're reverting an edit that is being claimed as an exemption, even if you believe ]whiyou are "ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article". The solution is to go to talk, discuss, and get consensus. If you'd like to respond, ping me to your response at your talk and I'll post it here. ] (]) 16:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@], if you really believe those two sections -- senior editors, indeed, ] was between someone with 13 edits and somcoen who wasn't ECR, for heaven's sake -- somehow prove consensus was strong, and you think that means you can ignore all the later ones -- at one of which you didn't even respond to a ping, where people were objecting -- then this is maybe looking like a ] issue.
*:But even if you ''had'' been somehow editing to support a consensus you believed was settled, you cannot edit-war contentious material into a BLP when others are objecting to it. The solution, always, is to go to talk, discuss, and reconfirm consensus. There is zero urgency to have this information in the article. Including something negative in a BLP is not something you should ''ever'' edit war over. ] (]) 18:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*Luganchanka's reading of the state of consensus on the talk page as supporting their edits is so far off base that it borders on being a CIR issue if it's sincere. Indef block from ] seems appropriate. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I see RTH's point about the "First sentence" section in isolation. I'd note that the link to ] isn't really appropriate here, as bringing the discussion to BLP/N was an appropriate action (if it was then brought to NPOVN, NORN, etc., ''that'' would be forumshopping). I'd like to see some actual contrition around the edit warring and frivolous accusations of {{tq|whitewash}} before writing this off as time-served. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 15:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::That's fair; I'll strike the link. My point in including it was that, when conversations fragment, we sometimes get these sorts of chaotic incidents. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Understood, I think that meaning was clear for us here in the admin section, but I could easily see a new editor misinterpreting it unintentionally. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I am not at all comforted by the fact that Luganchanka has proceeded to make ]. The cited BBC source does not state {{tq| masturbated and ejaculated on camera}}, saying only {{tq|graphic sex act}}. As written, this is essentially another BLP violation, building a case that a ban from this topic is needed. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Having reviewed the other sources, reliable sources do confirm the masturbation claim (, ) but not ejaculation, which appears to be supported only by ''New York Post'', a generally unreliable source. {{u|Luganchanka}}, in light of this clarification, can you please address your decision to include the claims as you initially wrote them? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::The detail is in the record of ''Ritter v. Tuttle'' (case No. 3:15cv1235 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2018)), so it isn't completely made up. But I would also like to hear from the user on this point as to whether there was secondary sourcing here. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Seeing ] here and ], ] at ], I see no comprehension of the use of primary vs. secondary sources, nor any reflection of their past errors in engaging with this topic. I believe that a block from the page is needed to prevent further BLP violations as they have shown no understanding of the relevant policies even after being given several warnings, reminders and opportunities to revise their position. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 18:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::{{yo|Luganchanka}}
*:::::::] calls upon users to {{tq|{{strong|{{em|not}}}} use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person}}. There are some narrow exceptions (when {{tq|primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it {{em|may}} be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source}}), but adding material to the article not found in reliable secondary sources is... suboptimal ''at best'' under our ].
*:::::::— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{yo|Luganchanka}} Would you please provide a direct link to the talk page section you are referring to when you say {{tq|there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior wikipedia editors}} regarding the lead? — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Luganchanka|Hemiauchenia}}
*:It does seem that the discussion at ] does indicate some support for that language i.e. ({{tq|convicted child sex offender}}) in the lead, with some general lean against putting it in the first sentence. So, while {{tq|There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences}} is true if it means the literal first sentence, I do see a rough consensus to include the material in the lead section in some way in that discussion.
*:That being said, the BLPN discussion had a bit of different tone and tenor from the discussion on the talk page. There was on the article's talk page, but Luganchanka, despite having been pretty vocal about this subject in the past, hadn't participated in that BLPN discussion. They instead grounded their edits in the argument that the article's talk page had consensus for the current content, and nothing on the article's talk page had changed that consensus. And that much was true. In any case, we've got <s>]</s>two different forums with two different answers here, which appears to be what's leading to the whole kerfluffle.
*:Then the analysis comes to whether or not the label is a straightforward BLP violation, requiring us to read the sourcing in the article. , which is cited in the ''body'' of the article (but not the lead), does state that Ritter {{tq|was convicted unlawful contact with minors and other charges}} in the state of PA (the PA statute is ; "unlawful contact with minors" is the verbatim name of the crime). When dealing with a sting operation, PA treats it as {{tq|an offense of the same grade and degree}} as if the criminal had actually contacted a child (unless it's a lesser crime than a third-degree felony, in which case it becomes a third-degree felony). This is an extremely common practice in the United States (there are lots of philosophical questions regarding ''mens rea'' and ''actus reus'' here, but that's not really relevant here). In any case, labeling this to be a child sex offense (or, alternatively, to simply use the name of the crime in the article) does not appear to be straightforward malice/POV-pushing/libel, and a reasonably informed individual might shorten it in this way. Whether or not that is ''wise'' or ''optimal'' to shorten it is the proper subject for content discussion.
*:Aside from the edit warring (which was not acceptable, and was aptly handled by a block), this looks like a content dispute. A heated one involving a living person, sure, but a content dispute nonetheless. I see good-faith—albeit passionate—disagreement. If the editors were to come together and engage in one forum (such as the article's talk page, where this has been discussed a bunch), rather than splitting the discussion over multiple pages, I feel like we might have our best shot at attaining a consensus going forward.
*:In short, it looks like the conversation fragmented, and consensus-building broke down. Edit warring ensued, which was bad, but we've already blocked for that in order to dissuade it going forward. A ] on the article's talk page for what the lead should look like is probably the best way to go forward here.
*:— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 15:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::RTH, are you objecting to a p-block from the article? ] (]) 13:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*Luganchanka has been blocked for a week by ] for BLP violations and personal attacks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Just noting that this was a regular admin action and I wasn't aware this was before AE. ] (]) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*::With this in mind, I think we should wait to hear from RTH but otherwise expect to move forward to an indef p-block on top of SFR's stopgap action, as we haven't seen anything coming close to an adequate recognition of the relevant policies and practices from Luganchanka and after several second chances and nudges, I don't see reason to expect them to change course. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


==BabbleOnto==
*<nowiki>{{checkuser needed}}</nowiki> I would appreciate it if a checkuser to take a look at 50.196.177.155, who has commented above. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 22:38, 21 December 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>
:*{{reply|NuclearWarfare}} What do you want to know about the IP? (please ping when you respond).--] (]) 22:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
::*{{reply|Bbb23}} Whether there is any evidence that an established user has used that IP address. Entering a dispute and citing Misplaced Pages policy while providing diffs at AE and ANI seems like...unlikely behavior from a new editor editing Misplaced Pages for the first time. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 23:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
:::*{{Inprogress}}. It's a crap shoot, but I might luck out. I won't be able to publicly disclose the named account, though, per the privacy policy.--] (]) 23:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
::::*Not surprisingly, nothing.--] (]) 23:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::*To be expected I suppose. Thanks ]. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 21:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:::*If admins favor a more limited ban, applying just to Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton, I could see the argument. Part of my concern is whether Nocturnalnow is able to edit neutrally about American politics. Consider a read of ]. The AfD was opened by Nocturnalnow after it appeared he couldn't persuade others to make the article sufficiently negative. (See also ]). Here is part of his response to this AE (above): {{tq|My contributions to American politics far outweigh any short term dust ups with a few editors whose paranoia and bias against suspected "conservative","republican", and "right wing" publications and editors is obvious for all to see on the Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton talk pages. Wow, what a secretive little kangaroo court railroading job is being attempted here...}}. ] (]) 04:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
::::*Yep, I'm convinced. Rereading the statements here was the icing on the cake. Thanks Ed. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 13:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
*I agree with EdJohnston's suggestion of an "indefinite ban of ] from American politics since 1932 under ]". This is likely to repeat if not dealt with. ] 16:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
{{hab}}


===Request concerning BabbleOnto===
==CFCF==
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|ජපස}} 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hat|CFCF is formally warned that any further instances of reverting other users enacting a consensus will result in sanctions. They are reminded that discussion not reverting is the correct way to resolve a dispute. They should note that any edit that undoes another user's edit is a revert and are reminded that 1RR or not, undoing a consensus change is clear disruption.] <sup>'']''</sup> 08:44, 23 December 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|BabbleOnto}}<p>{{ds/log|BabbleOnto}}</p>
===Request concerning CFCF===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|AlbinoFerret}} 14:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|CFCF}}<p>{{ds/log|CFCF}}
<!--- 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: ]
;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.-->
# Replacement of table removed during reorganization and merge. # Sealioning
# Refusal to ]
# Forum shopping and canvassing.
# 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.


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
<!-- 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 ]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> <!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above).
*Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
*Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here --> <!-- 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)
A discussion on sub articles in the e-cigarette articles happened here. Where it was pointed out that one of the sub articles was a coatrack not on its topic. A merge discussion was started by me, during which CFCF opposed the plan. The discussion was closed by an uninvolved admin with consensus for the plan. I carried out the plan. CFCF, without further discussion, and in violation of the arbcom warning to discuss reverted part of the move. When I reverted it back to remove duplication CFCF instead of discussing it on the articles talk page went to WikiProject Medicine and started a section with a non neutral post. and continued to argue in that section with false information trying to make his case. This is forum shopping, trying to undo part of the merge discussion that was closed against his position. This is disruptive behaviour. ] 14:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
==== Responses ====
<!-- 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. -->
The merge discussion laid out that there would be a moving of safety information from Aerosol to Safety. That was done in accordance with the closed merge discussion, it was merged back to Safety of electronic cigarettes. Nothing was removed from WP, the 4000bits mentioned by CFCF were not deleted but moved here. Since it was toxicological information it was placed in the Toxicology section of Safety. The post on Wikiproject medicine is indeed canvassing, it is non neutral and aimed at getting editors who agree with him to involve themselves. Had CFCF made a post requesting more eyes on the topic it would have been fine. But the non neutral post favors his desired outcome. Seeking to reagrue the case in the merge discussion is forum shopping, this post by CFCF is a personal attack ] 16:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


===Discussion concerning BabbleOnto===
Its just plain sad that Alexbrn has decided to dredge up a now 8 month old ANI section. In this case I have done my best to follow what should be done. Discussed, gained consensus, waited for the close, then carried out the consensus. What Alexbrn doesnt have is a single diff of any wrongdoing on my part in the case at hand. I will alss point out that the main complaint in that section is that I was over involved in the topic area. Since returning from a self ban I have involved myself in other topics. Including posting here on different topics and continuing as a NAC with about 236 closes to date. ] 17:18, 19 December 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 BabbleOnto====
Addressing Doc James question of "removal of all safety information" I will point out that while some things were removed to Safety. What replaced it is a long standing section from the Safety of electronics article. Its all "safety information, the move and merge did not remove safety information byt placed on topic safety information on the page. This was replaced on the Safety page by a summery (the lede of the Aerosol page). So to say that all "safety" information was removed is false. ] 17:00, 19 December 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.
S Marshall, I did not bring CFCF here for violating the 1RR, but violating the warning he received from arbcom. I believe lack of discussion before reverting is the reason for the separate warning. He did not discuss his revert any place, as the warning required. Reverting without discussion was pointed out to be as much of a problem in the arbcom case as the reverting itself. I am opposed to changing the 1RR on CFCF because of the reverting without discussion in this case that the arbcom remedies required. ] 17:35, 19 December 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.
Contrary to CFCF's latest statement here he did revert. Here is my edit that removed the table from the article. Here is his edit replacing it. While CFCF should be aware of what a revert is, I direct him to ] Where we find the definition of a revert "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." True, it was a partial revert, but a revert none the less. The so called discussion is a link to the closed merge discussion, that isnt discussing the material before reverting it. That is discussing the merge to begin with, with no mention that he was going to revert. ]


I now address the specific edits in the complaint:
{{u|Spartaz}} the table was not self reverted by CFCF. I removed it when the merge was done, then CFCF replaced it. I then removed it again. ] 13:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


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.
{{u|Callanecc}} and {{u|Spartaz}}, A comment by CFCF that this is his single edit to the articles is simply untrue. In fact one of them was a revert of tags placed by S Marshall. While the discussion was ongoing. The revert happened before he posted to the discussion on the tags. ] 14:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
:CFCF now points out that he has made 2 edits to the articles. Both reverts without discussing before doing them. This was also a part of the pattern discussed at arbcom. CFCF doesnt normally edit the articles to add content, his edits are overwhelmingly reverts and imho acting like an overseer reverting things he doesnt agree with. ] 14:39, 20 December 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?"
; 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. -->
Notice


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


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.
===Discussion concerning CFCF===
<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 CFCF====
Informing concerned parties, including those parties that bear interest in retaining factual information in the article is not forumshopping. I normally post about different concerns of objectionable edits or topics which need looking at on the ] several times weekly, as do many others. My post asked nothing beyond increased scrutiny and "more eyes" directed towards the merge. It is nonsense to suggest that this act of trying to get more people to engage to be disruptive{{mdash}}and this filing is utterly disruptive in that it tries to imply one may not inform anyone beyond the very small group of editors who already engage in the ecig article base. It serves to "scare away" any editor who is not of the mindset of the AlbinoFerret, and whether AlbinoFerret agrees with my analysis of the situation and wishes to paint my message as non-neutral is beside the point{{mdash}}that is his value judgement.


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)
The edits in question were not a simple merge, but resulted in the deletion of a significant portion of content of ~4000bits. I informed WT:MED about this, and other editors such as {{U|Alexbrn}} agreed that this was not <small><u>Edit:</u></small> <u>to be expected of</u> an ordinary merge. I also tried to engage in discussion with AlbinoFerret to explain how ] is an essay as opposed to the section on ] which is a guideline, but this is ignored in this filing.
*:Edited. ] (]) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


====Statement by ProcrastinatingReader====
Neither of the diffs provided provide any evidence of infarction upon discretionary sanctions, and I find it very concerning that they are made out to do so. The first is evidence of a content dispute, and the second is evidence of trying to improve the discussion by bringing in uninvolved third party editors. I can not imagine how informing the community of medical editors can be assumed to decrease the quality of discussion. ]<span style="font-size: .90em;">] ]</span> 15:54, 19 December 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.
:Filing gratuitous reports has been a widely employed tactic on these articles, and scaring away editors is extremely damaging to the quality of discourse{{mdash}}and I hope this can be dealt with appropriately.]<span style="font-size: .90em;">] ]</span> 16:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
::Also to clarify to users below, no reverts were made on my part, all that was done was that some content from a previous iteration was restored{{mdash}}and considerable discussion was present before I made any edit at all (see ). Your arguments amount to no edits being allowed from my part, which is definitely not the case. ]<span style="font-size: .90em;">] ]</span> 23:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
::{{U|S Marshall}}{{mdash}}I did not revert the merge, I restored content that was lost in the merge. I found the removal of safety information here to be problematic, which is also what I've expressed. I am not anti-electric cigarettes, but I believe that whatever we present on the topic should be balanced and adhere to the best possible evidence. If I come of as anti-ecig it is only in contrast to some very pro-ecig editors. The removal of any safety information should have been discussed. ]<span style="font-size: .90em;">] ]</span> 00:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
:::{{U|Callanecc}}{{mdash}}This is the edit in question: which I would considerer ordinary editing protocol as part of part of a large merge. It followed at 25000 byte change to the article and is very minor in comparison. I did not revert the merge. I had also previously expressed concerns about removing the safety sections from the article here:, so it is by no accounts true that I did not engage in discussion, going so far as to point it out early when I saw the draft at {{mdash}}this concern was not only ignored, but left entirely unanswered.<br>(Note also how I pointed out the exact edits to his sandbox that I later restored to the full merge version: ,, )
:::Neither do I believe the edit this should be considered a revert, nor do I recall being warning not to engage in editing of the article set without first informing about each and every thing I would do. This is in my view by all accounts an ordinary edit and not a revert. Also I may add that this is my single edit over a period of several months on these articles.{{mdash}}Issuing a warning is the same as saying these articles should not be edited at all by me and that I should not object to any edits by AlbinoFerret{{mdash}}a ''de facto'' topic ban, which is not what was assigned.]<span style="font-size: .90em;">] ]</span> 09:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


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)
=====Response to administrator comments=====
{{U|Callanecc}}{{mdash}}I had missed AlbinoFerrets responses, but I can attest that discussion concerning these exact sections occurred in <b>this diff </b>. ]<span style="font-size: .90em;">] ]</span> 10:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
:And note that the revert of the page move was in error{{mdash}}I restored it in under 2 minutes when I saw that there had been an independent close. I saw that I had been rash and restored myself without comment from any other editor, and according to ] self-reverts are not counted. The reason I contest calling the other edit a revert is because I did not restore to a previous version at any point, but regardless I have never been subject to a 0RR rule, and I have engaged in discussion. ]<span style="font-size: .90em;">] ]</span> 11:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
*{{U|Spartaz}}{{mdash}}Please note I did not revert the merge for more than one minute, see the two edits less than two minutes between them. This edit was wrong, and I also saw this at once, restoring as soon as I could (there was no intervening comment by any editor in this time). The resulting edit as made by me was only a 4000 byte restoring of content to the article . ]<span style="font-size: .90em;">] ]</span> 11:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


=====Responses to AlbinoFerret===== ====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, .
Response to {{U|AlbinoFerret}} ({{u|Spartaz}}), I never stated that the table was self-reverted, I readded it and you reverted that, yes. As for the tag removal I had forgotten about that single edit , I removed those tags, took part in the discussion, performing a single edit. Later other editors engaged and the result of the discussion is that the tags are no longer there.<br>This still amounts to two edits over a period of two months on my part, which is not any high volume of editing, and definitely not disruptive. ]<span style="font-size: .90em;">] ]</span> 14:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC) 
*Yes, I have made two edits to the articles in the past 2 months{{mdash}}both times engaging in discussion, and on this specific occasion you were well aware of this discussion (relinked the diff I posted above which specifically singles out the edits you made which I objected to ){{mdash}}though you did not respond to my concerns. Neither did the close cover the removal of information which I tried to make you aware of.
:The earlier edit a few weeks ago was part of a discussion involving the section ] in which I took part in what I see as a constructive collaboration with {{U|S Marshall}}, and where he expressed it as such. As there was discussion ongoing which I and others were taking part in and active work towards improving the article I removed the tags, while also stating my intent and rationale. Seeing as much content on the page is somewhat dynamic it is difficult to change anything if one is never considered to perform a single revert{{mdash}}and I would not have considered any of the edits I made to be full-scale reverts. I believe I have done my best if not well enough to engage in discussion and consensus building on both these occasions{{mdash}}pointing out what my concerns are, giving proper edit summaries, and not reverting after any of my edits have been reverted. ]<span style="font-size: .90em;">] ]</span> 15:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


1. BabbleOnto is now doubling down on the claim that I {{tq|misquoted the article}}. I didn't "misquote" the article - I didn't quote the article, and I explained what my comment meant in the rest of the (now collapsed) thread that ends . Also, I provided a clear explanation of why I thought they were second-guessing sources later in the thread, but BabbleOnto never responded to that explanation. They are now responding to the accusation of ] with pure ].
====Statement by Alexbrn====
As {{u|CFCF}} mentioned I did comment on this at ], but to be strictly accurate I only set out what I would generally expect to happen: I haven't examined the details of this particular merge (in general these are articles I am pleased to stay away from).


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 think both editors agree that the merge should not have lost information. One is saying information ''was'' lost, the other that it ''wasn't''. Which is it? Given that {{u|AlbinoFerret}} has already tried the patience of the community in this topic area, I would hope the merge was executed with scrupulous neutrality.


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.
I don't think a single posting to a noticeboard can count as ]. ] (]) 16:01, 19 December 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.
====Statement by Doc James====
So a merge is the moving of content from one article into the other. I guess the question is was there "removal of nearly all safety information"?


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)
The merge was poorly done . It does not say which content from which articles was merged and thus is not sufficient per CC BY SA.


====Statement by Objective3000====
Need to look into it further.
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)
] (] · ] · ]) 16:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
:@], this is also a problem at other CTOPs, and is likely to become more problematic. I assume due to off-Wiki forums. ECR might just produce more users gaming EC. I thought it would be useful to put your aside into the CTOP template at the top of CTOP TPs. But that assumes folks read it. Walt Kelly said something along the lines of: “If only I could write, I’d write a letter to the mayor, if only he could read." This discussion is likely better off elsewhere. ] (]) 21:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::Note: ] was just TBanned from the topic of COVID-19 and indef blocked until the accusations of off-wiki coordination made by them at ANI are retracted. Those accusations are like their suggestion made in their statement in this filing. ] (]) 12:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


====S Marshall==== ====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)
CFCF's on 1RR but not 0RR. He hasn't broken the letter of his restrictions. Decisions since the Arbcom case concluded have removed two obstructionist editors, and that's changing the dynamic of the page; so it's particularly important to allow the strongly e-cig-skeptic side to retain a voice here. CFCF is looking increasingly like King Canute when the tide started to roll in, but I think it's important to allow him space to dissent.<p>I'm personally of the view that with both QG and MW topic-banned, it's now time to relax CFCF's 1RR restriction. Part of the problem is that his 1RR is a trap for him: the article has improved so rapidly since the bannings that his only way to ensure compliance with the 1RR would be to go through dozens of edits line by line. It's a little too harsh now, I think, in view of recent events.<p>However, I don't think WT:MEDRS is the right place to go for support. E-cigs are not therapies or medical devices; they're relevant to the medical profession in the same way as alcohol is, but I think the extremely strongly medical approach that's been taken with the article to date has distorted its contents. There's such a huge disconnect between what the article says and what the vaping community expects it to say, that I'm not surprised the article has historically attracted SPAs.<p>I think CFCF was a bit unwise to unilaterally revert the merge, though. He continues to show a great deal of faith in his own judgment.—] <small>]/]</small> 17:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by IntrepidContributor====
*With my last two edits I believe I've fully addressed any licensing issues.—] <small>]/]</small> 20:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


I have been observing BabbleOnto and while there are valid concerns about bludgeoning, I think the proposed sanctions are too much. His engagement in the Covid lab leak topic is driven by commitment to WP:NPOV, which our articles fail to adhere to, and he made the mistake of arguing with editors who were never going to listen (resulting in what looks like sealioning on his part). He's not only editor to raise issues in the topic and engage in good faith discussion, only to find themselves pulled to AN or AE disputes after staying out of the seasoning traps and refusing to capitulate to threats. In a parallel AN case concerning another editor in same topic, I suggest there may be possible off-wiki coordination , but it can also be on-wiki ().
*I'm happy to confirm that CFCF has engaged in constructive dialogue on the page. I think his participation there since the Arbcom case has been a net positive for the encyclopaedia.—] <small>]/]</small> 23:11, 20 December 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.
====Rhoark====
CFCF was warned to discuss with the opposing editor before reverting. He did not do so before reverting AlbinoFerret's page move or restoring the contested content. That alone is actionable, regardless of whether there are legitimate objections to AlbinoFerret's edits.


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.
This is a gestalt impression that unfortunately is not easily illustrated through diffs, but I very much get a sense that CFCF regards the MED project as his posse. I often feel that project giving off a ]ership vibe, so I don't think going there can be excused as neutrally notifying an interested community - especially since he bypassed the article talk page and went to MED directly.


] (]) 14:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
It should also be noticed that the merge had been the closing consensus of an uninvolved administrator in an RfC with ample participation. This is starting to look like a pattern, as CFCF was edit warring against the close of another RfC in November. That's mitigated somewhat by being a poor close, but still there's a defined process for challenging a close, and it doesn't involve edit warring.


=== Statement by TarnishedPath ===
I think this ultimately stems from CFCF's attitude that he is so obviously right that consensus must be on his side, or else that consensus is superfluous. Nowhere is this more apparent than when he was edit warring on the MEDRS guideline itself to make it agree with his position in a content dispute. Besides ArbCom's finding of CFCF edit warring on e-cigs, digging through ANI finds CFCF edit warring on at least 6 other articles outside the e-cig area in the latter half of this year.
Please see ] where BabbleOnto edited ] restoring previously reverted content and ] using a shit source after they'd been told by multiple other editors in discussions ] and ] that the source was shit. Notably in the edit summary they wrote "{{tq|Read discussion page. Manual revert. No serious challenge has been made to these changes. Methinks an admin needs to get involved...}}" despite them being in a ] situation. If a clue is not gotten by the editor fast I'd suggest TBANs from both COVID and AP2 is warranted in order to cease their disruption. '']''<sup>]</sup> 04:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


:Noting the editor's continued behaviour at ]. Refer to ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't particularly care what is done about CFCF within e-cig discretionary sanctions, but someone needs to put him over their knee and convince him he's not the King of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 20:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
::and again at ] '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:CFCF's latest replies are absolutely typical of what I've come to expect of him. As evidence of having met the requirement of talking before reverting, he presents... the fact he participated in the RfC prior it closing against him. And then he wasn't really reverting against the RfC... it was some other kind of undoing, according to special pleading I don't really follow. This is exactly like the MEDRS guideline situation where he insisted he wasn't changing it, just making it agree better with what it was really supposed to mean all along. He seems unable to grasp why anyone else's opinions should ever impinge on his editing. ] (]) 02:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


===Statement by berchanhimez===
====JzG====
This user was given no less than 4 chances on the talk page to stop talking about bans/other editors and start talking about the content. They have continued crying about how they're scared of getting banned... yet they continue blabbing about other editors getting banned for their bad behavior ]. ''At a minimum'' a partial block from the talk page(s) in question is warranted, and it would be beneficial for a topic ban from the origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I closed the RfC which was not difficult, consensus was clear albeit with a relatively small number of opinions, and both sides of the long-running dispute were represented. I think it would be wise for AlbinoFerret to let someone else perform the merge, or at least to start a separate discussion on how to merge the contents. There's no rush. I find it hard to see CFCF's actions as anything other than entirely predictable pushback for a merge performed by a partisan, one which brought a relatively small proportion of the sub-article content to the main article. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


===Result concerning BabbleOnto===
====Minor4th====
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
-->
*{{u|BabbleOnto}}, please edit your statement down further to fit within the restriction. This also serves as an opportunity to rephrase your defense, which currently is not convincing at first glance. ProcrastinatingReader's description of the situation seems quite apt, particularly {{tq|BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible}}, which is currently a pretty fitting description of your response to them here, given that you zeroed in on the "superficially reasonable" part and ignored the much more serious parts of the testimony. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Ok, having read through nearly every edit that BabbleOnto has made, I agree with the complainants that not only does BabbleOnto engage in sealioning, it appears to be almost exclusively what they do. The discussion at ] exhibits perhaps even more concerning argumentation than the diffs provided in the initial report. Throughout these discussions, BabbleOnto tends to demand a standard of stating the obvious (with respect to the context of said sources) that is absurd, and continues to lawyer for such standards even when the situation becomes ]. When criticizing sources' ability to account for basic claims, I can find no examples of BabbleOnto themselves attempting to find sources that would resolve the issues they identify--this is uncollaborative behavior. There is a clear pattern of engaging in this behavior across recent US politics topics consistent with the scope of ]. The only saving grace to BabbleOnto's track record is that none of this has translated into disruptive editing of actual articles, just unproductive engagement on talk pages. I am currently in favor of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics; if they are actually here to build an encyclopedia and not to provide a punching bag for debate club, they can use this opportunity to learn more constructive patterns of editing in topics that they are less personally invested in. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{u|Valereee}} in line with their follow-up response, I take Objective3000's comments as potentially a basis for community discussion rather than a call for protective action on the lab leak talk page right now. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 21:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
* I have to agree, this looks like sealioning. {{u|BabbleOnto}}, you're new here, and I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt about your ability to learn to collaborate. WP works on collaboration and consensus, and sometimes consensus goes your way, sometimes it doesn't. You have to be willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you. And you absolutely must not insist everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers. I've seen editors at both the Thompson and the lab leak talks tell you they don't actually owe you an answer to your satisfaction.


:Do you think you can learn to do that? Because if you don't think you can, this may not be the right hobby for you.
CFCF was warned in the recently closed Arb case to consult the other editor before making a revert in the topic area and restricted to 1RR every 72 hours. CFCF is continuing to engage in the behavior that resulted in Arb imposing strict editing restrictions on him.


:<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)
His response does not indicate a willingness to take the community's and Arbs' concerns on board.
{{collapse top|title=Tangential}}
::@], 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)
:::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)
::::@], not ECP. ECR: non-EC are restricted from anything but making edit requests. ] (]) 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 ] 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}}


*{{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)
It might be appropriate at this point to begin graduating blocks or topic bans. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 22:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


==Marlarkey==
===Result concerning CFCF===
{{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)}}
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<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>
<!-- 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. -->
*Given that CFCF ] {{xt|reminded to contact the editor they are in dispute with before resorting to reverting}} and then reverted an edit which was enacting a consensus rather than try to discuss it with either the {{xt|editor they are in dispute with}} or on a talk page. That CFCF didn't believe it to be enacting the consensus and so immediately reverted without discussing is exactly the problem. If it were urgent that it be reverted I'd be willing to consider that a partial defence. Regarding what sanction is to be imposed, I'm on the fence between a warning that anything further like this will result a topic ban, or imposing 0RR <u>Edit: (and ban on a reverting page moves)</u>. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 04:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
**Reverting the page move should also be considered, while not specifically covered by 1RR it suggests a wider pattern of action without discussion. I can't see in any of the links {{u|CFCF}} gave above of where they attempted to discuss AlbinoFerret's merge before reverting it. Justifying it as "very minor in comparison" also makes me concerned that CFCF believes this type of action to be appropriate even after being warned/reminded by ArbCom. Regarding whether CFCF 'reverted' or not ] says {{xt|An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert}} and ] says {{xt|Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version}} so I'm comfortable in calling it a revert. The fact that CFCF brought up the issue during the RfC and there was either consensus against or it wasn't included in the close (I'm not making a judgement either way) makes me lean towards 0RR and a ban on a reverting page moves (or TBAN) rather than a warning. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 10:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
*I'm minded to go with a final warning at this stage but am a bit on the fence about it. I think Guy's point that the merge could be seen to be partisan is a mitigating factor but it would certainly have been better for CFCF to added the content they disputed being left out rather than reverting the merge. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 11:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
**Thanks to CFCF for clarification. I don't think we should punish for a self revert but the conduct was still disruptive. As such a final warning seems germane. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 11:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
***I think this has now reached an impasse. Callanecc is minded to impose a sanction and I am minded to extend a final warning. Can we please have further eyes on this or is {{u|Callanecc}} willing to settle for a final warning at this stage? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 09:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
****I'm happy with a logged final warning which includes the issues we both raised. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
{{hab}}


===Request concerning Marlarkey===
==Minor4th==
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|WeatherWriter}} 23:17, 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>


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Marlarkey}}<p>{{ds/log|Marlarkey}}</p>
===Request concerning Minor4th===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Alexbrn}} 17:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Minor4th}}<p>{{ds/log|Minor4th}}
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


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


; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
1RR violation:


''''''
#Yesterday: {{diff2|696035788|initial revert}} (@ 08:31, 20 December 2015) to modify lede to remove mention of "cancer", then today:
# - Mainspace PIA edit prior to EC status.
#{{diff2|696197930|revert}} @ 15:40, 21 December 2015‎
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request and acknowledgement of aforementioned edit.
#{{diff2|696201737|revert}} @ 16:14, 21 December 2015‎ (note also a ] in the ES)
# - 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.


''''''
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them.
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
{{diff2|696201106|Minor4th writes "... based on the DS and 1RR restrictions on this article ..." just prior to the final revert in the above sequence.}}
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request.
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
# - 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*.''"
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
This editor appears to want to remove the word "cancer" from the lede, and is edit-warring in pursuit of that apparent objective.
# - Self-revert of direct previous mainspace reversion that was prior to EC status.
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status...Made while this enforcement request was being typed up. This reversion by Marlarkey is of an edit with the direct edit summary of "Per ]". User is 100% disregarding CT requirements.


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : N/A. No previous blocks or topic bans.
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- 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 ]): at 15:29, 21 November 2024.
; Responses to the statements of others
{{replyto|Minor4th}} Your statement makes it seem you think you have access to The Truth&trade; of this matter, and so can edit-war to correct what you see as an "error". I think you're wrong and your use of sources here is selective and muddled. But this is not the place for that content dispute (which continues on the article Talk page), but to address the question of your 1RR violation. ] (]) 08:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
{{replyto|AlbinoFerret}} We do not need a ] to tell us what a journal article ''claimed'', since that question is one of textual interpretation, and obviously not a ] question subject to procedures like systematic review etc. However if you want a journal article than mentions "cancer" then check out the title of PMID 23430588. Generally, the medical literature uses the more technical ''caricno-''stemmed wording, which we should translate into lay terms for our audience. ] (]) 15:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
{{replyto|Masem}} You appear to be incorrect in saying Séralini avoided cancer claims. His paper mentions it has found "serious suspicion of carcinogenicity" and our 2012 ''Nature'' news source tells us: "Séralini has promoted the cancer results as the study’s major finding, through a tightly orchestrated media offensive". ] (]) 17:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


*{{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)
{{replyto|Atsme}} I did not violate 1RR. I take it you know consecutive edits by an editor count as but a ''single'' edit? I would also question your self-designation as "uninvolved" given you've just been party to a case investigating problematic GMO editors. ] (]) 19:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
===Discussion concerning Minor4th===
<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 Minor4th====
=====General response to enforcement request=====


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
<u>Diff #2 provided in the OP is not a revert. It is an edit.</u> The only revert in the 24 hour period by me was the single revert shown in Diff #3, wherein I also cited the BLP violation. There is no dispute that is a revert, and whether or not you agree that it remedies a BLP violation, it's only a single revert and does not violate the ARB restriction.


===Discussion concerning Marlarkey===
'''Clarification needed:''' If I am wrong about this, then I need someone to clearly explain how diff #2 is a revert. If that's the case then virtually every edit could be called a revert because nearly every edit changes some previous editor's work. If that's the rule then I'll abide by it, but that essentially means that editors can only make one edit (or several consecutive edits) per page per day in the topic area. I don't think that is what was intended.
<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>
=====Specific responses to comments=====
Alexbrn is edit warring in the word "cancer" in the lead contrary to the scientific sources - and that creates a BLP issue because he's attributing the conclusion "there's a strong link between GMO and cancer" to a scientist who did not make that conclusion. This is intentional to make the scientist look like a lunatic by falsely attributing outrageous claims to him. This is a prima facie BLP violation. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 17:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
{{ping|EdJohnston}} I agree to self revert, but I cannot concede that "cancer" and "tumors" mean the same thing in this context because that is false. If the closing admin or anyone making comments here does not understand the difference between "cancer" and "tumor" in this study, then you don't understand the study or the science. And if you don't understand the study, you don't understand the whole underpinning of the "Seralini affair." One must be able to properly evaluate the sources in this area to edit with competency.


====Statement by Marlarkey====
For reliable sources regarding "cancer" vs. "tumor", see the following related RS:
1. Retractionwatch :


{{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.
<blockquote>Seralini and his colleagues provide a timeline in the press materials of their version of events. One element in particular caught our eye:


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."
Wallace Hayes wrote an article to defend his position that raises doubts about his understanding of the study and raw data. He mentions in his defense he was unable to conclude that “there was a clear link between GMO and cancer.” '''An obvious error of W. Hayes as the term “cancer” has never been mentioned in the paper of Séralini’s research team. And it does not affect any aspect of the research on Roundup.'''
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.
'''Now, “tumor” and “cancer” are not necessarily the same thing. But the original paper certainly referred to tumors repeatedly''', and Seralini, as Nature reported at the time,</blockquote>


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.
2. Republication of the retracted paper , clarifying that the study was not a cancer study:<blockquote>This study constitutes a follow-up investigation of a 90-day feeding study conducted by Monsanto in order to obtain commercial release of this GMO, employing the same rat strain and analyzing biochemical parameters on the same number of animals per group as our investigation. Our research represents the first chronic study on these substances, in which all observations including tumors are reported chronologically. Thus, '''it was not designed as a carcinogenicity study'''.</blockquote>
3. Nature . This is the EXACT quote that Alexbrn proposed on the talk page when we started discussing this a couple of days ago, and now he is complaining that I am edit warring the word "tumor" in:
<blockquote>Séralini's team had found that rats fed for two years with a glyphosate-resistant type of maize (corn) made by Monsanto '''developed many more tumours''' and died earlier than did control animals. It also found that the rats developed tumours when Roundup was added to their drinking water.</blockquote>


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
(edited) <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 21:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


@EdJohntson - I was fixing a factual error, not just playing around with wording. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 06:02, 22 December 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."
'''' Kingifaces43's aspersions''' - Kingofaces43 is casting aspersions by calling my edits "advocacy" and describing me as being the subject of many warnings and disputes in this topic area. That is false on its face. Please look at Kingofaces43's continued aspersions against editors he doesn't like and how it promotes battlefield editing in this controversial topic. Sanctions against KOA are appropriate per DS. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 00:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The key is the final point - the scope of this article and whether the edits are validly cited in accordance with the topic of the article...namely a list of declarations of war.


Weatherwriter reversions of my edits serve to support a political opinion on a page which is about facts.
{{u|Tryptofish}} - I have agreed to self revert and stated that I did not intentionally violate any editing restriction - but it's improper to ask for a concession on the substantive issue of whether "cancer" = "tumor." <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 19:50, 23 December 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
{{u|Masem}} has evaluated the situation exactly right. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 19:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


] (]) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
{{u|Montanabw}} has correctly described the edits and distinguished a legitimate edit from a revert. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 21:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


====Statement by David Tornheim====


On another point, following me reviewing the information in this complaint by WeatherWriter...
Alexbrn is violating consensus. I will explain further after doing more research. --] (]) 17:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
"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
AlexBrn is just as guilty of edit warring (see list of diffs below). But worse, he has attempted to edit-war in the cancer claims both without consensus and in light of misrepresentations about the study. The discussion continues on the Seralini page and the lede, a discussion I started . Others are currently working together to try to come to a consensus decision ( and ). AlexBrn's claims of "consensus" like , and are not helping. AlexBrn's attempt to force in the language "claimed there was a strong link between ]s and cancer" is not helping. The original study does not even mention any connection to cancer. AlexBrn correctly pointed out that the revised <i>republished</i> study does speak of a "serious suspicion of carcinogenicity"; however, the Abstract clearly states that the study "was not designed as a carcinogenicity study." And in the sentence before and after the quote about a "suspicion of carcinogenicity", it is reasserted that it is a toxicity study and not a full carcinogenicity study. The texts says a full carcinogenicity study "would be a rational follow-up investigation". () In responding to the Editor who was hired to retract the original published study, Seralini said:
] (]) 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)


:In fact you clarified your position in a statement published in FCT: “To be very clear, it is the entire paper, with the claim that there is definitive link between GMO and cancer that is being retracted” (Hayes, 2014). Yet we made no such “claim” in our paper. We drew no inference and made no claims about “cancer” ; nowhere did we claim a “definitive link between GMO and cancer”. It should be noted that tumorigenesis is not synonymous with cancer. Tumours can be in some cases more rapidly lethal than cancers because their size can cause hemorrhages and possible impairments of vital organs, as well as secretion of toxins.


Ok, having now reviewed ]'s page history, its talk page discussion, and Marlarkey's contributions more generally, I find that:
:
:* 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==
AlexBrn's edit-warring in cancer claims without consensus and with disregard for misrepresentations about the study is in violation of ]:
<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===
* Revision as of 07:27, December 20, 2015 -- AlexBrn added language "claimed there was a strong link between ]s and cancer,"
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Schazjmd}} 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|DanielVizago}}<p>{{ds/log|DanielVizago}}</p>
* Revision as of 15:44, December 21, 2015 -- puts the language back in after being reverted


* Revision as of 16:02, December 21, 2015 -- again puts the language back in after being reverted.


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
--] (]) 17:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Re {{u|Mystery Wolff}}'s post:
* I agree that Minor4th's edits are GoodFaith and should not be sanctioned.
* I disagree about GMO Page Protection. I do not believe I have sufficient space to explain why here.
--] (]) 08:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Tryptofish====
For purposes of evaluating whether edits were reverts, I do not think that, in this context, it is useful to treat "tumors" as different than "cancer". (There are such things as benign tumors, but the source material here is about cancerous tumors.) I also think that we need to be careful about invocations of BLP. I'm no lawyer, but it is hard for me to believe that a successful defamation claim would result simply from saying that a scientific journal article made some conclusions about carcinogenicity; I suspect that the defamation was more about accusations of scientific fraud. --] (]) 21:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
:I agree strongly with Looie's comment about the need to start setting boundaries (in a dispute that I think is metasticising more than Seralini's rats). I also consider the special pleading that has been rife in this discussion, that maybe Seralini said that the tumors were benign tumors, and that ''that'' makes edit warring justified, to be a distraction. This isn't an AE about which sentence should use the word "cancer". It's an AE about disruptive conduct. --] (]) 19:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
::Looking back here, in terms of the advice from the administrator about conceding the point, it sure looks to me like no one is conceding anything, and that's all the more reason to set boundaries. --] (]) 18:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

==== Statement by JzG ====
This was not an accidental violation, IMO. For some reason that entirely escapes me, both Minor4th and David Tornheim seem to want to use technical jargon (tumour, mutagenic) in place of the plain English preferred by many of the reliable sources on which we base the article. The claim that this is a ] violation is without merit, since it is not our claim but that of the reliable independent sources (). It's worth remembering that a significant part of the criticism of this study centres on its prior release to journalists via a press briefing. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the source of the link to cancer is Séralini himself - many of the news articles are, after all, illustrated with a photo of Séralini holding up a rat with cancer. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: the diffs you present do not constitute more than one revert to the article. Nor are they problematic: they restore consensus versions following discussion on Talk, in each case removing POV ]ly added by one or more apparent partisans. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: MEDRS does not apply in this specific instance because we are not claiming that thr Séralini affair does or does not cure cancer, we are covering the Séralini affair as a drama that played out in the popular press, largely because of Séralini's media manipulation (dramas solely within the scientific press are rarely notable). We don't need a MEDRS to say how the popular press represented what they were spoon-fed by Séralini, to go back to what is defensible from the paper is fallacious precisely because Séralini's message, i.e. the Séralini affair, went far beyond what could be defended from the actual study results. Which is why the paper was retracted, and why we have the article in the first place. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

==== Statement by Looie496 ====

This is now the fourth enforcement request derived from the GMO case, none of which have produced any action. Admins should consider that each violation that slips by will only encourage further violations, increasing the magnitude of the enforcement actions that will ultimately have to taken. Worse, it is likely that the violations that are ultimately sanctioned will come from editors who don't really want to violate the remedies but feel forced to in response to violations from others. In other words, failure to set clear boundaries is only going to end up hurting the editors you are trying to be nice to, because they are going to keep testing the boundaries regardless of how far they have shifted. ] (]) 13:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

==== Statement by Capeo ====

The RS say "cancer" so cancer is what we should say. That's why we prefer secondary sources over primary ones. We need not reflect Seralini's equivocating that he never said cancer when his entire emphasis, and the impetus for the criticism and notability of this whole affair, was the cancerous tumors in the rats that he showcased more than any other thing. There's no BLP violation in following the RS characterization of the paper. ] (]) 14:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn already stated this but there's no MEDRS claim so there's no need for MEDRS compliant sources. This is about describing why the paper was controversial and what AlbinoFerret called a letter to the editor is actually the editor in chief of the journal describing why the article was retracted. A person more than qualified to contextualize the paper. And what AlbinoFerret calls gaming is usually called consensus. ] (]) 15:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

{{u|Masem}}, this isn't an article about the paper itself. It's and article about the controversy surrounding it and the main cause of the controversy is that, despite Seralini's equivocating, the paper connected GMOs to causing "cancerous" tumors, which is wording Seralini has used in interviews on his own web page. This connection was reinforced by Seralini himself as the tumors were the emphasis of his own press releases. The fact that he backed off on it after being called on it has no bearing on what caused the controversy itself. Even the republished paper is still loaded with pics of rats with tumors despite his claims and he rightly got called out about it yet again. ] (]) 16:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

And I have to laugh that people are talking about MEDRS when a retracted paper republished in a zero impact journal isn't a MEDRS in the first place. ] (]) 17:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Masem, the paper has zero scientific notability at this point and falls firmly into WP:FRINGE. Its only notability is the reaction to it connecting GMOs to cancer. The article already mentions that Seralini claims he never said cancer. Generally speaking we need to mention why this event is even notable in the first place in the lede before anything else. That's aside from the fact that Seralini says things like " In our study, we never mentioned the word cancer, because there were tumours, which varied from more or less cancerous." That doesn't even make sense. And Seralini outright claims the very WP:FRINGE POV that his paper proves GMOs are toxic and cause tumors. This isn't a scientific topic. It's purely fringe and should be treated the same way we treat other fringe topics. ] (]) 17:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Masem, it says nothing about it being a "cancer study" and makes no claim that is was. It says simply what the RS say, which is the only reason it is notable, which is that it connected GMOs to cancer, which is what we should say. That can then be followed up with Seralini's denial and why RS completely rejected said denial due to Seralini's own sensationalist emphasis on the tumor results over all else. Tumors he himself called cancerous. ] (]) 18:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

This is actually from the retractionwatch source Minor4th posted above. They note Nature reported that Seralini "has promoted the cancer results as the study’s major finding, through a tightly orchestrated media offensive that began last month and included the release of a book and a film about the work." ] (]) 19:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

==== Statement by AlbinoFerret ====
Looking at the sources, a letter to the editor, a news article in a journal, one in the popular press. I question if these pass ] because the sources are coming to a biomedical conclusion (cancer). Are there any MEDRS sources that use the term cancer?
This is also a problem mentioned in the Workshop, multiple editors reverting. Sadly the abs didnt put a stop to multiple editors jumping in and reverting. What it ends up doing is editing by mob rule, whoever has the biggest group wins instead of discussion. That is gaming the system. ] 14:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@{{u|Alexbrn}} As pointed out in Masem's post below, The original paper did not mention cancer. Sources coming to that conclusion should be MEDRS compliant. ] 17:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

==== Statement by Kingofaces43 ====
In addition to the reverts and gaming of BLP described here, there are also violations covered by pseudoscience/fringe discretionary sanctions. Those sanctions deal with behavior issues closely tied with content. Improper escalation (such as this BLP invocation) is also covered in this . Even in Minor4th's section above and the article, they have violated ] in the manner they have tried to argue that reliable sources are "WRONG" from personal opinion and trying to unduly validate the ] point of view of the BLP subject. The events of the controversy are already accurately described by multiple reliable sources even without ] in mind.

Especially given the variety of issues here they are still digging in on (and lack of enforcement so far in other cases), we've reached the point at least with this editor that the time of warnings being useful has long passed considering they've followed drama on this topic for awhile now. We need the sanctions to be enforced to stop disruptive behavior like this or remove editors with ingrained problems. ] (]) 16:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

*Just a note that Atsme below is highly involved in following the drama on this topic being extensively involved in the ArbCom case, especially after many editors involved in ] and fringe topics tried to deal with their problem behaviors at fringe BLP topics (e.g., ). Not directly involved in GMOs per se, but highly involved in purusing editors that have tried to deal with their behavior problems at ANI, etc. in the past. Peripheral editors like this are a problem in this topic (as seen by the number of people that come to GMO enforcement cases), but I'm not sure if or how that can be handled. ] (]) 16:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
::{{ping|Atsme}} I'm not going to engage your behavior issues here further However, those issues are going to be mentioned when you claim yourself to be uninvolved when inserting yourself into topics at ArbCom or noticeboards related to editors you have been very involved with dealing with your behavior. ] (]) 22:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

], the key detail you missed was that Seralini did try to make the association to cancer, both in media interviews after publication and within the paper (i.e., waving around a bunch of pictures of rats with tumors with no controls or statistical tests). When a ] is criticized for their actions and they backtrack contrary to actual events that they never said something, we don't give that point of view any weight at the article or here at this board. The characterization that Seralini did not try to portray a link between glyphosate, GMOs, etc. and cancer is distinctly a fringe point of view.

I'll also ping {{ping|EdJohnston}} to read the above since they've been pinged recently about Masem's summarization. Additionally, we so far have a few policy violations by Minor4th, some of this case being muddled by the fringe content aspect, and comments like Atsme's that are trying to go after Alexbrn for responding to Minor4th's advocacy in a reasonable manner. We're in a situation where some editors will push and push the line, and other editors will go after the editor who tries to respond to that in these boards. I don't have any solutions for that, but any thoughts on how to potentially handle this situation we've had in the last few requests here? ] (]) 18:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Atsme====

I am an uninvolved editor regarding this article. I don't edit articles involving GMOs, etc. but I do edit BLPs. I ask that the admins who are following this case to please make note of the following before drawing their conclusions:

ALEXBRN REVERTS (uses TW to avoid individual reverts which also needs to be noted, and also uses rather evasive edit summaries to diffuse attention to the fact he is edit warring and changing the context of a statement):
*
*

*
*
*

It appears Alexbrn has also violated 1RR and has established a patterned behavior of edit warring. Just look at how the edit history plays out which is why I can't understand why Minor4th has been targeted as the sole violator:
;December 21st
*Minor4th (cur | prev) 16:14, December 21, 2015
*Alexbrn (cur | prev) 16:03, December 21, 2015
*Alexbrn (cur | prev) 16:02, December 21, 2015
*Alexbrn (cur | prev) 15:44, December 21, 2015
*Minor4th (cur | prev) 15:40, December 21, 2015
*Alexbrn (cur | prev) 14:53, December 21, 2015
;December 20th
*Minor4th (cur | prev) 23:38, December 20, 2015
*(two in-between edits by another editor)
*Minor4th (cur | prev) 13:27, December 20, 2015
*Alexbrn (cur | prev) 08:31, December 20, 2015
*Alexbrn (cur | prev) 07:34, December 20, 2015
*Alexbrn (cur | prev) 07:32, December 20, 2015
*Alexbrn (cur | prev) 07:27, December 20, 2015‎
*Alexbrn (cur | prev) 07:02, December 20, 2015
Thank you for attention to this matter. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 16:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

;Admins, your attention, please
The diff Kingofaces included to discredit me was unwarranted and worse, based on a false allegation of me being a SPA in an old AN/I case. My edit history has long since proven my purpose on WP and that the allegation was false and unwarranted. I tried to get ArbCom to address his behavior but since it was not within the locus of the case, they dismissed it. I have not mentioned his name in this incident prior to now so why is he allowed to besmirch my reputation, and attempt to discredit my statement here as an uninvolved editor? If it's not considered bullying, it is certainly harassment and actionable behavior either way. He has been warned more than once, but because he keeps getting away with it, he keeps bringing it up. Ignoring it does nothing but embolden him all the more, and that isn't what should be happening right under the noses of multiple admins. Please stop his disruption and attempts to divert attention away from this very important case. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 21:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

*Kingofaces, your harassing me does not make me an involved editor but it does draw attention to your bullying. I'd offer you a backhoe but you're digging a pretty deep hole without one. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 23:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

*{{u|EdJohnston}}, since you are the admin overseeing this AE request, please take the appropriate action against Kingofaces for his unwarranted attempts to intimidate me by dredging up diffs that have no relevance to this case, and that clearly demonstrate his intention to besmirch my reputation. According to WP:Civility, such behavior is actionable, especially when it is repeated over and over again as Kingofaces has done...and he's doing it right under your nose. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 23:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

*{{u|JzG}}, with all due respect....as I've been advised by an admin in the past - ''even if you believe you are right you cannot edit war.'' As you know, the number of reverts are not a requisite for an editor to be blocked for edit warring,. It's rather obvious who made the most edits/reverts/changes and created a battleground, and it wasn't Minor4th. Also, Kingofaces violated WP:CIVILITY policy by dredging up diffs in his relentless attempts to besmirch me and diffuse my participation in important discussions. The fact that his behavior continues to be ignored is shameful, especially at this venue, and is beginning to smell a lot like the stench of bias and double standards. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 19:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
*{{u|Alexbrn}} whether you violated 1RR doesn't really matter. Admins know the rules about battleground, gaming strategies, group support, and the like. I'm simply stating facts and presenting diffs to support them. You were edit warring, and doing so is just as actionable as violating 1RR so there is no need to belabor or argue the point. Furthermore, your strawman argument that I was named in the GMO ArbCom case has nothing to do with your battleground behavior at the Seralini BLP. I never edited that article - you did. My recommendation here is a good trouting for the edit warriors, and an iBan against Kingofaces for his unconscionable behavior toward me and his aspersions against Minor4th on this noticeboard, not to mention other venues. He has a serious issue in that regard, and it will require admin intervention to correct it. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 20:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

==== Statement by uninvolved Masem ====
Reviewing the base situation from someone uninvolved with GMO articles, but otherwise able to look at the scenario from a scientific viewpoint:
* A professor, whose past publications and statements have appeared to make him critical of GMO, publishes a reviewed paper that from lab studies that certain GMO products cause rats to develop more tumors and die sooner than control specimens. The paper appears to purposely avoid attaching the word "cancer" to the results.
* The paper on publication is criticized by many third-parties (attracted by the established aspect of the professor's criticism of GMO), claiming that the linkage of GMO to "cancer" (their words) was not shown by appropriate scientific methods. The paper is ultimately pulled, even with the editor-in-chief commenting on the claim about timing GMO to cancer.
* The professor restates that his paper was not a cancer study, and before it was pulled, has the work amended to make this clear.

While "tumor" and "cancer" may be synonymous in some areas (such as everyday language one might use with friends or family), this seems like a matter of scientific precision in a hotly contested area (GMO) and the need to distinguish between the two (as the professor apparently took steps to do and had to clarify this), even if others in the scientific community felt the tumor study was really an obfuscated cancer study. So for our article to claim, factually, that the professor wrote a cancer study ''is not appropriate''. It's an edge case of BLP, as we are putting other people's words to speak for the professor's intentions when he has made it clear in verified manners of what his intent was (not a cancer study), even though we are otherwise not talking about specific claims about the professor himself that BLP normally covers. It is still is fair to include the fact that other scientists took the paper as a cancer study and thus were very critical of how the study was done that they saw the linkage of GMO to cancer, but in introducing the paper for the first time in the lede and in the body, it should not be called a cancer study if the professor has been very clear this was not the intent. Even if every other scientist in the area commented that the professor's paper was a cancer study but the professor remained insistent it wasn't, we should still be respecting the claim of the professor first followed by the claims by everyone else to stay consistent with BLP. If anything this is more a situation that falls under ], where we clearly have a controversial statement (if the paper was a tumor or a cancer study), so there's a proper way to approach this.

In terms of the actions of the editors, I do think that the BLP issue is there, but it is very much an edge case which did not need immediate attention as most BLP violations typically require but instead more discussion and possibly more eyes on it. Actions by both editors should be at least trouted and warned against, particularly as at the time across these changes there was an active discussion. --] (]) 16:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

(Moved replies to Capeo and Kingofaces43 to ] due to statement length)

==== Statement by uninvolved MarkBernstein ====
* Masem is correct: the distinction between "tumor" and "cancer" is indeed significant, and is not merely semantic evasion. I have not reviewed the paper or the subsequent literature, but if Masem’s review is correct, {{ping|EdJohnston}}’s preliminary conclusion cannot be.
* With respect, I disagree with JzG that we should prefer “plain English” to technical terms such as “ tumor" and "mutagenic". Jargon should be avoided where possible, but precise language is sometimes necessary. Evidence has been presented that the test animals developed tumors, but not that these tumors are in fact malignant; it makes sense that the article reflect this until the question is settled.
* You can’t settle this without assessing the scientific evidence; if you try, you may embarrass the project.
* As other editors have said above, you can’t punt the issues indefinitely without nullifying the GMO decision. The latter might be the best course of action, though this is probably not the place to do that.
* Does misstating or misrepresenting -- perhaps unintentionally -- the conclusion of a scientific paper written by a living person violate BLP? I cannot think that it does, reserving possible exceptions for malice and for unreasonable or incredible distortion. If scientific articles are to be simultaneously edited by experts and by laypersons, misunderstandings will arise. Do we want to place every scientific and engineering topic under discretionary sanctions? A considerable portion of the technical literature, after all, is written by people who are currently living.
* 1RR as currently understood may prove unfeasible in contentious technical areas. As JzG demonstrates, one editor may reasonably perceive a merely semantic distinction where another editor perceives a substantive correction. This invites games of gotcha.] (]) 17:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Montanabw====
Looking at the history and the current version of this article, it appears that Minor4th made an appropriate correction and it was the other user who was edit-warring and attacking Minor4th. Minor 4th made an edit, was reverted and then restored the edit -- that was an edit 1RR, not 2. I think that a warning should suffice on this one, as it is clear that NPOV and proper phrasing of a BLP trumps other matters. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by uninvolved Mystery Wolff====
I am now familiar with GMOrganisms and related pages from this AE page due to my short time needing to check it for another article set. Reading the comments I believe I agree most with Montanabw above, except I do not believe Minor4th should be warned because its not 1RR. Also 1RR is such a tight standard good faith NPOV and really minor edits, should be allowed. The BLP points are also well taken.

But what I really think is that what I will call the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly solution should be deployed. WP:?<br />
In the movie of the same name North and South are fighting over the same bridge, each day, lots of deaths, no progress, cease fires to clean up the bodies and rinse and repeat. The only solution to stop the carnage and deaths, was to blow up the Bridge. <br />

This situation is just going to keep on going for GMO and related. So I think the Admins should just agree to blow up the bridge, and '''put in Full Protection of the entire set of articles. Then on a once a week move schedule, an admin will move into the articles, the agreed upon changes out of TALK.''' Nothing is going to be earthshakingly different that article and the outside readers won't benefit from a more stable viewable article.

Its just far to big of an Enclopedia to see these same topics coming back and back to AE. 3 times in 2 weeks, at least for GMO. And just like GBU, there seems to be more and more bodies that can get banned for GMO. Just blow up the bridge. Take away the thing they are fighting over. You can generated more ARBs more AE's and more methods to techically bypass the DS and warnings. Or just blow up the bridge, send to full protection. Given the science and controversy I don't think it will every come out of Full Protection, but that is OK, because of the sheer time savings to all. <br />
Summary: Send to full protection.....Blow up the bridge per WP:GBU. ] (]) 14:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

===Result concerning Minor4th===
:''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 difference between 'cancer' and 'tumor' in the lead doesn't appear enough to justify Minor4th's claim of a BLP violation. Even if you insist that 'cancer' should be 'tumor' the first time around, the word cancer still appears multiple times elsewhere in the lead, and also appears in the title of one of the references provided (Arjo et al):"..an in depth analysis of the Séralini et al. study claiming that Roundup™ Ready corn or the herbicide Roundup™ cause cancer in rats". Since Minor4th is only tweaking the wording and not fixing a factual error, this series of edits is just a plain 1RR violation by Minor4th. A block should be discussed unless Minor4th will concede the point. ] (]) 01:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

== Volunteer Marek-personal attacks and incivility ==

<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 Volunteer_Marek===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|MyMoloboaccount}} 07:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

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

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced:
* will result in a block or other sanction. This is a logged warning issues under the ] authorised by the Arbitration Committee's ] (which you are "aware" of due to alert). The procedure to appeal this sanction are ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 05:54, 14 September 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 : ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
# Added ] to a BLP, after CTOP notification and several talk page messages notifying DanielVizago that the category is not to be applied to articles about individuals (per category description, {{tq|This category is for issues relating to misandry. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly misandrist.}});
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->
# Hostile and insulting description of another users edits, that is unconstructive and incivil # 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}});
# Hostile attack instead of trying to discuss the issue, from start confrontational and incivil, uses swear words to attack another editor, calling his edits stupid
# Accusses other editor of lying, obvious incivility # Added "bimisandry" to ], citing 4 sources, none of which include that term;
# 14 Jan 2025, weird edits adding ] with piped names to unrelated articles, then those names directly to the category page;
# restored the "bimisandry" edit to ], then a 5th ref that includes the term but is just a blog; I left a 4th-level warning on talk page;
# (after final warning) adds <nowiki>] and ]</nowiki> to ]; those two individuals don't have articles and there is no mention in this article of their charges or convictions, even though the category solely consists of {{tq|articles of female individuals who have been convicted of rape in a court of law.}}


; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
*None
<!-- 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. -->


;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
*Was warned about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on
*I alerted them on


; 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.


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)
VM has been warned several times about being incivility he engages in with other editors and personal attacks. He was warned by admin twice to stop being incivil and abusive towards others. In the past I have requested this as well several times,.
The above examples are only recent. If required I can provide examples going back a month or more.This is an ongoing and persistent issue.


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
While there will be always disagreements about wording of article, sources or content, such disputes should be done in civil way worthy of encyclopedia. Shouting at other editors, using swear words, naming their edits as crap goes against this principle. VM was warned to stop being incivil and attacking others and in my view he violated his warning in the examples I have provided.
*




; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->


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


====Statement by DanielVizago====
1. The edit describes the article, i.e. content. One might disagree with the assessment (I do wish there was a template which said "Unfortunately, currently this article is crap" that could be slapped on appropriate articles but alas!) but feigning offense and trying to use that to win a dispute is far more disruptive than the use of the word "crap". And yes, the article was bad to begin with. MyMoloboaccount, who has never edited this article before (AFAIK) jumped in the middle of my attempts to fix it, because of the dispute we had at another article, ]. I believe this pretty much defines the concept of "revenge reverting"


====Statement by caeciliusinhorto====
2. Well, for this one you just need to actually see the comment itself. Here is the diff again . MyMoloboaccount changed text ''""The Warsaw Pact's largest military engagements were aimed against its own members—in ] and in ]"'' to the obviously non-neutral ''"The Warsaw Pact's largest military engagements were aimed at internal security of member states during ] and in ]"'' (describing the bloody repression of the Hungarian uprising in which thousands of people were murdered and tens of thousands repressed and tortured as "a matter of internal security" is not only tasteless, but obviously POV). The edit also made a grammatical mess of the sentence and resulted in a statement which contradicted itself. I'm sorry but this is pretty much the definition of over-the-top POV pushing and calling it what it is is perfectly warranted.
Since this report was opened, DanielVizago has continued to make questionable edits adding articles to ].


* , categorising a living person who has been accused (but not charged, let alone convicted) of sexual assault as a rapist (cf. ])
3. MyMoloboaccount did in fact use the edit summary "minor changes" (and here again) to ... "label", edits which were non-minor, and in fact were a pretty blatant attempt to POV the article. is the relevant exchange on talk (which for some reason MyMoloboaccount failed to link to - wonder why) in which he tries to evade the question and continues to pretend that his edits were "minor". The conversation clearly indicates lack of ] on the part of the user. In my time on Misplaced Pages, this kind of behavior has been generally regarded as extremely disruptive and dishonest and has quickly led to a block, especially when done by an editor who's been around for a long time and should know better. To make highly POV changes and hide them behind false edit summaries, and then complain when someone points out that your edit summaries aren't exactly 100% kosher, really takes some chutzpah.
* 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)
MyMoloboaccount repeatedly edit warred to reinsert text which misrepresented sources - even after I've asked him about it several times on talk. And even after I've explicitly pointed out to him that the text misrepresented the sources. And even when I asked him point blank about which part of a particular source was suppose to support the text. The relevant talk page discussions (or actually, lack thereof, on the part of my MyMoloboaccount) are (note lack of response), (basically evading the question) and (same as the diff above - but note that here I am forced to ask the same question for the third time without a response).


====Statement by Simonm223====
The above discussions clearly indicate ] behavior on the part of the user. For the record, this kind of pattern has been noted before by others, for example by ] (for example and , there's more though it might take a bit of time to find it). Likewise, this isn't the first time that MyMoloboaccount has tried to misrepresent sources on Misplaced Pages (see and for detailed explanations). Dealing with such a user, although they pretend at "civility", is extremely frustrating and it is a textbook example of someone who is not engaged with the project in good faith and is in fact... well, driving people crazy, with ].


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)
Also, for the record, it should be noted that while the user MyMoloboaccount may appear to have a fairly clean block log , the actual block log, in all its full page glory is . The lack of blocks between the new and the old account has to do with the indefinite block that was in place in between (the indefinite block which was lifted after, I'm sorry to say, to a significant extent because I personally argued for its lifting because I believed that MyMoloboaccount/Molobo deserved a second chance. No good deed... like they say) (or maybe that was a bad deed, I didn't realize it at the time, and now I'm just getting my comeuppance?)

Anyway, Happy Holidays and Wesolych Swiat.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 09:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Spartaz. Ok, look, Spartaz, do what you think is appropriate and whatever it is I'm not going to hold it against you. I've been on Misplaced Pages a long time and I've donated a lot of my free time, which I value highly, to the project. The way I see it, I'm doing Misplaced Pages a favor by editing here, not vice versa. Of course Misplaced Pages drives one crazy. The backstabbing, the gratuitous lynch mobs, the lying-with-the-straight face and most of all the thick thick hypocrisy, all more than present in this request and its comments. I realized long time ago that the only way I could continue participating here is by approaching in a way which did not implicitly accept, perpetuate and enable all of those things, in as straight forward manner as possible. Not bullshiting people but not tolerate all the bullshit that falls in one's lap either. So yes, my comments are always direct and to the point, I state my objections explicitly, I express my frustration when someone's obviously not acting in good faith, and I speak the way that grown ups in the real world speak (yes, even in professional settings). Of course this being Misplaced Pages people will try to use that against you to win disputes and as a way of furthering their agenda. Shrug.

So no, I don't think I made any "personal attacks". I used words which some people will try and pretend they find offensive. I was critical of another editor's editing behavior. But neither of these are personal attacks. Saying to someone "you POV'ed the article" is NOT a personal attack and you won't be able to find a Misplaced Pages policy that says so. Maybe I didn't put it in the most diplomatic way possible but so what? If I had said "you're a bad person because you POV'ed the article" or some version of that THAT would've been a personal attack. But calling people out on their atrocious behavior and disruptive editing (and I'm sorry but MyMoloboaccount WAS blatantly misrepresenting sources, using false edit summaries and then playing coy about it and pretending they didn't know what the issue was) is not a personal attack and in fact, given how Misplaced Pages works, it is sometimes necessary to actually improve article content.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 17:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Erlbaeko====
Note that the same pattern of personal attacks and incivility can be seen in other articles/topics. See e.g. ]. Also note that I notified him about Syrian Civil War sanctions on 27 August 2015, ref. .
Volunteer Marek attacks an editor saying "Will you please stop lying so blatantly?" I would not have had a problem with that if it was a lie, but it is not. I checked the statement and it's only slightly inaccurate. I replied . I see no justification for that attack, and no apology was ever given. ] (]) 11:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
:Also note that Volunteer Marek attacked the new editor on the article by calling him a "brand new throw away accounts to help out in the edit war", and by insinuating sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry (without any convincing evidence). The editor has explained that he is a Misplaced Pages veteran and documnets that he started editing 7 and a half years ago . ] (]) 11:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by LjL====
I have also been at my wits' end with this editor, but eventually I had decided to do nothing about it for my own well-being. But given that finally I'm not the only one wanting to complain, I'll add diffs for the things that had seemed to show ] and ] issues, with my emphasis on them (but to be honest, other behaviors from this editor were more of a burden to me, it's just trickier to put them together and understand the situation):
* {{tq|Can you '''stop being dishonest'''? There is NO "overwhelming consensus" as you claim above. You're '''making shit up'''. There is NO "clear consensus" as you claim above. '''You're making shit up'''.}}
* {{tq|'''For fuck's sake''', this is suppose to be an article about a terrorist attack IN FRANCE, which killed more than a hundred people IN FRANCE in a greatest tragedy since WWII. It is NOT about Poland's politician's hang ups about refugees from Syria. It is NOT about '''your own personal hangs up''' about refugees from Syria. How about we keep the article on topic that it's actually suppose to be about rather than go off on '''POV tangents to pursue personal political agendas'''?}}
* {{tq|LjL, MyMolobboaccount, EVEN IF you guys were right about previous consensus - which you're not, '''you're making shit up''' - my last edition concerned an official statement MyMoloboaccount shows up and removes it. I undo. '''LjL jumps in to edit war just because'''. And then you claim consensus for that too. Please '''stop being ridiculous'''.}}

Please note that the "consensus" the editor challenges multiple times in the above quotations was repeatedly established, and ultimately summarized , and he was virtually the only editor disrupting it. ] (]) 14:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

:I do, like {{u|Kingsindian}}, also wonder what exactly {{u|MyMoloboaccount}}, the OP, was now blocked for (without notifying this discussion, even though he was purportedly ), since neither the block log nor seem to make it very clear what edits caused the block (I do not see obvious edit warring in the involved page's history). I think it would be appropriate at this point if the blocking admin, {{u|Arthur Rubin}}, made a statement here. ] (]) 15:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Flushout1999====
::I can confirm the bad behavior from Volunteer Marek. However I believe this talk page speaks by itself. He managed now to make it a total mess creating new sections not related to the content which should be present in the main article, but just creating them in order to attack the other users along his personal opinions. Also he avoids persistently to discuss reliable sources' content which are not according to his personal beliefs, starting to apply denigratory labels, being uncivil and keeping to say that there is a "misrepresentation" as an excuse to revert entire paragraphs, while never providing links nor going into details (like making at least some citation) in despise of the most common editing discussions rules, as the ones reported here . -- ] (]) 16:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Kingsindian====
(I am uninvolved here, but have edited a little bit of other EE articles.)
This is a transparent attempt to win a content dispute using this board. All three descriptions by MyMoloboaccount are seriously misleading. VM's conduct on the talk page is not ideal, but MyMoloboaccount's conduct is as bad or worse, which directly led to VM's conduct.

The major diff is . By no stretch of imagination can this be called "minor changes", as stated in the edit summary. This alone should raise doubts about MyMoloboaccount's conduct.

Let me first point out the kernel of the matter. The Warsaw Pact was ''in part'' a reaction to NATO. That is not ''all'' that it was: historical events rarely have a single cause or motivation. There were plenty of nefarious motives as well. The writing on this issue needs to be nuanced. The Laurien Crump source is accepted by all sides as a good source, and it needs to be presented carefully.

Let's now go through the diffs:

* The first diff is a description of the article. Anyone who has worked in any contentious area on Misplaced Pages knows that many articles are POV crap. Whether or not that is correct in this instance, this is hardly an offence.
* The second diff, contrary to MyMoloboaccount's account, "instead of discussing the issue...", indeed discusses the issue, with some rather minor incivility. The edit made by MyMoloboaccount was indeed atrocious.
* In the third diff, the problem is that text which was disputed earlier, was reintroduced with a misleading edit summary by MyMoloboaccount. The actual issue, minus all the heat, is that a nuanced version of the text can be written which is supported by the sources.

In such topics, people have their own POV. It is unavoidable. People have to work together in spite of this.

By the way, why is MyMoloboaccount blocked? The block log says something about AE, which I can't fathom. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 12:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Arthur Rubin====
I cannot see by MyMoloboaccount as being in good faith; the claim that the Warsaw Pact was intended to support ''internal'' security of the nations involved is contrary to fact and to the wording of the Pact. The pact was written as to protect ''external'' security of the nations, and reliable sources suggest the secondary reason was to protect the Soviet Union against threats from the other signatories. (I'm not sure the references to West Germany are sourced. I don't want to get involved in editing the article.) The statement must be considered Soviet ], and ] (except as opinion) is not permitted on Misplaced Pages.

I am not commenting on Volunteer Marek's alleged incivility. However, if addition of propaganda is considered ], VM should not be cited for edit warring, as removal of vandalism is a permitted exception. — ] ] 19:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

:If I were to investigate all of MyMoloboaccount's diffs, I would probably suggest a topic ban from (at least) ], and all actions taken by the ] under the Pact. Do we want to continue? — ] ] 19:14, 26 December 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 Volunteer_Marek=== ===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.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*I'd like to hear any justification/explanation {{u|Volunteer Marek}} can offer for those diffs. At first look they appear to be clear personal attacks and incivility and breaches of Cannanecc's warning. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 09:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
**My comment appears to have crossed with the statements.
**Diff #1 - Its a more than a bit disingenuous to say you were describing the article when your edit summary is clearly aimed at MyMoloboaccount. This looks like a clear violation.
**Diff #2 - ''Gimme a fucking break. Can you at least pretend that you're trying to be neutral here?'' Clearly personalising a discussion and at the very least this skirts the civility policy - depending on how tolerant you are of swearing. To me, its too strongly worded and sweary.
**Diff #3 - Nothing actionable here IMO.
**The rest of VMs statement is attempting to tar MyMoloboaccount rather than addressing his own behaviour and has been ignored. My judgement is that this actionable and that a block and TB are appropriate. I'd suggest 24hours and a 1 month TB from eastern European areas. Other options are of course available.... ] <sup>'']''</sup> 09:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


*I've p-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor communicating. ] (]) 12:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
==930310==
*I want to hear what they have to say, but I'm going to need a fairly convincing explanation as to how they're here to build an encyclopedia and not to POV-push men's rights activism content where it doesn't belong. The IDHT and spammy behavior and the BLP vios on top of that aren't super encouraging, either, but if they decide to communicate, I'm happy to reassess. ] (] • she/her) 22:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
*:I'd like to hear what they have to say, too, but I'm also not averse to letting this archive with no further action since the p-block is an indef. I've left another message at their talk. ] (]) 13:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

===Request concerning 930310===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Legacypac}} 11:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|930310}}<p>{{ds/log|930310}}
<!--- 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. -->
# Voting Keep on an effort to consolidate, arguing that it is easier to compare info on separate pages
# Voting against Misplaced Pages policy on RS and for the GRG being exclusive "verified" source.
# "the anti-supercentenarian crew AfD-nominated.." (us vs them mentality)
# "Updated article due to repeated destruction of article by ]"
# Updated article due to repeated destruction of article by Commanderlinx
# Undid revision 692532327 by CommanderLinx (talk)Undid vandalism
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Margaret_Ann_Neve&diff=prev&oldid=692526144 (Undid revision 692422449 by CommanderLinx (talk)Undoing destruction)
# (Undid revision 692337985 by Legacypac (talk)Destructive edit undone)
# This is the most ridiculous crap I have ever heard. (on an SPI)
# It's more like some POV-Pushers have been more actively caballing and canvassing to scare off neutral, third-party input. This particular comment by you, EEng, reflects a long-standing pattern of edit-warring and battle-grounding on this subject. 930310 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
# starts ANi thread against a "group" of editors and gets no sympathy. Says "I propose that a topic ban regarding longevity related articles is given to both of them since they are obviously only out to destruct articles about longevity and show clear disrespect for the deceased by saying things such as the ones mentioned 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.-->
# Explanation
# Explanation

;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. -->
*Participated in the ArbComm case relevant here
*Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on on talk page in Aug 2015
*Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on .

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Editor is a long term, single purpose account only editing in the Longevity area. They disrespect other upstanding editors as seen in the diffs and edit summaries. They tried to have 2 to 5 editors topic banned at once in ANi and the idea of boomarang was raised. The off Wiki canvassing and spas continue to be a major problem in this topic, but at least we can use these discretionary sanctions to topic ban POV pushing editors like this one that pretty consistently argue against Misplaced Pages policy. Regularly specifically names and agrees with recently topic banned editor Ollie231213 and engages in the the same abuse toward policy. Thank-you for your consideration of this report. 11:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
; Response to Alansohn's allegations: As an editor that enjoys cleanup (including Neelix, pageants, and recently longevity) and editing ] (also a DS area), I've attracted more then my fair share of attacks at ANi, 3RR and even a failed effort to brand in SPi by POV pushers and edit warriors. I don't maintain a tombstone list, and am not always successful in XfD, 3RR reports etc but there have been thousands of deletes/redirect effected based on my nominations. I continue to edit with a clean record while people that see me as an opponent end up blocked, topic banned, etc. I've also never been interested in off wiki coordination. Perhaps a case against Alansohn should be prepared next for he also engages in the same agenda pushing behavior as Ollie and 930310 ] (]) 20:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->

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

===Discussion concerning 930310===
<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 930310====
*'''Statement 1''' Hardly surprising that this user goes on an attack towards me as well. There are so many instances of you having done this because of users you don't like so I won't even bother with making any comments to protect myself towards this nonsense. I have been a user on Misplaced Pages for almost ten years, and if people check my history I did not register or was a SPA back then, which I am not now either. So how can I be nominated for being such? I post or edit where I feel like and currently longevity related articles are my main interest. Is there anything wrong with having interests? ] (]) 12:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

*'''Statement 2''' Regarding some of the examples used as evidence against me:
:1. Disagreeing with another user is certainly not against Wikipeda policy, and in fact, if we look at a number of LegacyPac's ], he is receiving widespread opposition.
:2. It's actually LegacyPac who is violating Misplaced Pages policy by not paying any attention to WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:VALID, and WP:WP:BESTSOURCES. To quote from the latter: "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements." It's quite clear from looking at other reliable sources that the GRG is considered an authority on the subject. Arguing that Misplaced Pages should reflect this is ABSOLUTELY NOT a violation of policy. Read ], it explains the situation perfectly.
:3. Actually, loads of other users have openly admitted that this is a "them Vs us" situation. See ].
:4. All I did there was improve an article.
:5. Ditto.
:6. I apologize for this. One shouldn't call policy-based edits "vandalism".
:7. Ditto.
:8. In this instance my actions were justified since LegacyPac removed sourced information because he disagreed with what was written in the source. A clear violation of WP:OriginalResearch.
:9. I could have been more tactful here. The argument for suggesting I was a sockpuppet was however very weak.
:10. The anti-GRG editors (as mentioned above) have made a clear and concerted effort to "prune" longevity articles (see ), and in a number of cases, they have received widespread opposition from uninvolved editors (], ], ], ], ], and ].
:11. A number of uninvolved editors have expressed frustration at the actions of the anti-longevity editors.
: ] (]) 13:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by EEng====
The user's contribution history practically defines "SPA". . Not visible via those links is fact that his/her userpage and sandbox were for years two of the many ]/] longevity lists that have finally purged: ] ]. ] (]) 13:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by Alansohn====
These allegations regarding 930310 -- together with the more disturbing result above regarding ] -- are clear examples of what comes off as a rather clear tag team mentality by both ] and ]. The instances cited here of "edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it" are examples of Orwellian thought crimes. Just take the first two examples:
*
*
Both of these are examples of situations where 930310 challenged one of the mass of repeated AfD nominations by EEng / Legacypac, cited relevant Misplaced Pages policy and now have this used as "evidence" against them. I can't even figure out how either of these can be viewed as violations of policy under even the most strained view of Longevity-related policy violations. These are quintessentially appropriate votes in each case.

The repeated SPA allegations from EEng appear to be intended as a provocation, in the same manner as what was done to Ollie231213.

Any objection to boomerang nominations for EEng and Legacypac? ] (]) 19:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by 7&amp;6=thirteen====
I concur entirely with ] and his reasoning. Eeng and Legacypac have incessantly waged a war of attrition on longevity-related articles. It is the ] of the day. And Legacypac at least got nasty when others try to derail their express train. So much so that even Eeng told him to cool his jets. Topic banning ought to be last resort. I for one have basically avoided the topic, not for lack of interest, as I am afraid of affronting ], as we have "discretionary sanctions" with little or no warning or guidance as to what is expected. You can shut off all dissent. Or if you are applying sanctions you should do it even-handedly, whatever standard it is that you are applying <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 17:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by JaconaFrere====
] has been on a tear at AfD, belittling other editors who vote keep on any longevity or pageant articles while removing other editors fairly passive statements as personal attacks, and accusing experienced editors such as ] single-purpose editors because they opposed their position on an afd. A boomerang for ] is in my opinion long overdue. ] (]) 02:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

====Statement by David in DC====
930310 offers ] for the proposition that there's something wrong with efforts to prune the longevity walled garden. But the thread proves something quite different. I started the thread on the WOP wikiproject page in an effort to get the logjam resolved by cooperation and consensus. Please review the thread carefully. The chirping of crickets after my initial posting and subsequent plea for dialogue is telling. ] (]) 19:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

===Result concerning 930310===
:''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. -->
*<!--
* This is a clear case of SPA vs. Misplaced Pages. Regardless of any issues with the filing party (which should be addressed via a separate request if people feel so strongly about it), the involvement of SPAs has been highlighted as a specific issue with the walled garden of articles around longevity. A topic ban for 930310 is entirely in line with policy and the arbitration finding. I propose a TB with appeal allowed after 3 months if 930310 makes significant contributions outside of the contended topic area. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
-->
:'''Comment''' Being a SPA, which I do not consider myself to be, is not against Wiki-policy. The reason as to why I am editing longevity-related articles is because I am interested in them. I have explained clearly why I believe that I am acting in line with policy. What specifically have I done that is in violation of policy? ] (]) 19:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Winkelvi==

<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|Winkelvi}} – -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 01:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

; Sanction being appealed : Indefinitely topic banned from ] and related pages
{{u|Winkelvi}} has been indefinitely topic banned from ] and all related pages. , logged at
].

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

; Notification of that administrator : .

===Statement by Winkelvi===

No discussion from sanctioning administrator, no questions asked, no AGF, no response to my follow-up comments; I feel the admin qualifies as involved; sanction is for a BLP and related topics, however, complaint from admin is not about the article but discussions with the article subject as an editor; I believe the issue can be solved without a sanction.

'''Statement:'''

*The so-called attacks happened prior to Bishonen’s talk page warning. Follow-up comments clearly stated I was trying to apply AGF. The comments I made to Rick Alan Ross about him as an editor after Bishonen’s warning were observations and never designed or intended to be attacks. Bishonen was offended by my comments about the repeated use of "my bio", but I don't see how, when read in context and with objective eyes, they can be seen as an attack. They were AGF advice.
*Sanctions are a black mark on an editor going forward. I request the opportunity to self-monitor rather than being sanctioned. How I have edited the article has ''never'' been an issue.

*My comments to RAR were in regard to the editor, not the article subject. There is a distinction. I and several others have felt he has been disruptive '''as an editor''' and a ]. He has never given indication of intentions to be an editor contributing to Misplaced Pages beyond his continual requests and demands for changes at the article. There are discussions at the article talk page now and in the past about RAR's continual requests for content to deleted or reworded more favorably. The talk page now and in its history shows several editors have felt the same.

*Because my comments have been to and about '''RAR the editor''', I question the validity of the BLP sanction per policy. The ban is in regard to BLP article disruption.

*The statement from Bishonen: {{tq|"I have exemplified in several warnings how you have made up "policy" out of whole cloth..."}} I may have misunderstood policy and/or misstated policy according to my understanding of it, but making it up? No.
*{{tq|"I believe you when you say your intentions are good and you have nothing against Ross; but it really doesn't make any difference at this stage"}}. Why doesn't it matter? Bishonen admits I have good intentions but the next statement is my good intentions don't matter, I am to be disbelieved. This tells me Bishonen has made this personal based on emotion.
*{{tq|"This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator"}} Based on the emotion and personalization outlined above, I don't see how she is an uninvolved administrator. ] states that editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases they have strong feelings about. Her comments in the sanction notification shows she has VERY strong feelings about my comments regarding RAR. It’s further demonstrated here: {{tq|" the last straw for me"}}, {{tq|"I will not put up with…”}}.

*Bishonen did not AGF with me or communicate beyond threat, but I have no animosity and acknowledge her concerns. This was a wake-up call. My appeal is offered with the utmost sincerity. If any solution other than a formal TBAN is possible, I’m listening.
:*Reply to Bishonen: I absolutely can and will, however, I do request specifics, {{U|Bishonen}}. As someone on the autism spectrum, specifics are necessary so I can abide the letter of the proposal and and have a full understanding of what you mean by it. I think I already do understand what you are proposing, I just want to be sure so there will be no missteps on my part. And thank you, for this reasonable solution. I truly do appreciate it. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 17:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
::*Reply to {{U|Bishonen}} regarding this: {{tq|"I want you to take Rick Alan Ross and its talkpage off your watchlist, never open a discussion about him or his article on any noticeboard or talkpage or anywhere, never take part in any such discussion that somebody else has opened, and, in fact, simply not mention him again."}} I absolutely can and will do all of that. My interest in the article is relatively new (I don't even remember how I happened on it -- possibly via recent changes?). While I care about the integrity of the article as I do any article, I don't feel like I have a super-vested interest in it as I do with other articles in Misplaced Pages. So, yes, I have no qualms trusting certain editors to keep an eye on it for the issues that have plagued it for years.
:::I do, however, see a possible problem down the road with this: {{tq|"...simply not mention him again"}}. If someone mentions this case, if someone brings him and me up as an issue at a noticeboard, I would likely have to respond (or may do so just as a natural response to an attack, poking, or query). That part of it might get sticky and/or leave room for those seeking to harm my editing capacity. Please understand that I am not balking at anything you've proposed. I'm just thinking ahead to any situations that might arise that could make that one part of your stipulations difficult or impossible to follow. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 17:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
:::*{{tq|"you may then have to mention him. That'll be fine. But I hope nobody will. I don't see why they'd want to, other than to make mischief."}} Precisely the kind of scenario I was thinking of. Yes, you would hope anyone wouldn't do such a thing, but we've all seen similar happen, haven't we? Based on what you've said here, I have no reservations whatsoever in agreeing to this proposal. I've already removed from my Watchlist the RAR article and another I had edited that mentions the editor in question. Thank you again, {{U|Bishonen}}. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 18:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

===Statement by Bishonen===

Rick Alan Ross has learned during his time on Misplaced Pages to use the proper channels to express concerns about his bio, and seems quite resilient to reasoned criticism. But I can only imagine how unpleasant it must be to experience the treatment W has been meting out to him, and after several bootless warnings I felt compelled to step in. Having a Misplaced Pages article about oneself at all is surely a dubious pleasure, ''a fortiori'' for people who are at all controversial, and we ought to be careful not to make it nastier than it has to be.

I have responded , in detail and with diffs, to several of the claims Winkelvi makes above, for instance the claim that he has only been talking about "RAR the editor, not the article subject". W may feel that, or remember it like that, but it's not how it has come across.

It's only a small topic ban — from one bio — which I should think will make little practical difference to W's editing, as he has lots of other interests on Misplaced Pages. But presumably that's not what upsets him; it's that he feels it's a stigma ("a black mark"). I can certainly sympathize with that, and it's a common feeling about any sanction. ], would you rather make an informal undertaking from yourself to give RAR a wide berth — to avoid referring to him at all? I think that's the form the "self-monitoring" you suggest ought to take. It shouldn't be something like "I'll be nicer to RAR", IMO, because you obviously think you already ''are'' being sufficiently nice to him, and you have been unresponsive and often downright angry when several editors have urged you to act and talk differently. I'd be quite happy to rescind the ban if you undertake to leave RAR alone on your own responsibility. (It's enough if you say it here; no need for anything more formal than that.) Indeed, I can remove the ban from the , if you like. It's not a mysterious technical thing like the block log, but merely a list that anybody can edit. It may be verboten to remove a listing, but I wouldn't mind trying and seeing what happens. Please think about it. ] &#124; ] 17:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC).
:*Rp to ]: You're only supposed to edit in your own section, Winkelvi; I've moved it up there. I want you to take ] and its talkpage off your watchlist, never open a discussion about him or his article on any noticeboard or talkpage or anywhere, never take part in any such discussion that somebody else has opened, and, in fact, simply not mention him again. I understand you feel a responsibility for the article, but it's quite well watched, with several editors as keen as you are to prevent it from turning into a puff piece, so I hope you'll feel able to trust them to take care of it. ] &#124; ] 17:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC).
::*Reply to W again: If somebody should mention Ross and you together in the same context somewhere, you should allow yourself to respond if you feel the need, and of course you may then have to mention him. That'll be fine. But I hope nobody will. I don't see why they'd want to, other than to make mischief. ] &#124; ] 18:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC).
:::*That's fine, thank you, ]. Of course you're free to remove whatever you like from your talkpage, including my ban message. I'll take care of the ban log in a while. Pinging ]: I think we're done here, as the filer and I are both happy. AFAIC this can now be closed. ] &#124; ] 19:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC).
::::*'''Note''': The ban has been rescinded and I have removed it from the log. ] &#124; ] 20:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC).

===Statement by involved Cullen328===

On April 9, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation passed a resolution calling on all volunteers at WMF projects to treat "any person who has a complaint about how they are described in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect". As Bishonen has shown, Winkelvi has adopted a consistently belligerent and confrontational attitude toward BLP subject Rick Allen Ross, who has had legitimate concerns about our biography of him. Winkelvi has persisted despite several warnings by other editors. ] ] 07:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

:From what I can tell, your presence here is disallowed by policy, {{U|Cullen328}}, as you and I have been involved in a contentious dispute only a couple of days ago. If I'm correct about how policy reads for this type of proceeding, you should recuse yourself and, if allowed, delete your comments. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 17:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
::I do not claim to be uninvolved, {{U|Winkelvi}}, and I will allow my statement to stand unless an uninvolved administrator advises me otherwise. The "contentious dispute" you mention is this very matter. ] ] 17:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

===Statement by marginally involved Collect===

I first saw the BLP at the BLP/N noticeboard - and I sought to depuff what appeared to be improper puffery, to word material in a neutral manner, and to try to make the negative material conform with ]. and the like. WV repeatedly added a "COI" tag to the BLP long after RAR clearly had ''ceased'' any edits on the BLP. While it is clear that RAR does call it "my" BLP, it is a matter of common sense that he was referring to the BLP ''about'' himself, and not asserting any editorial ownership of the BLP. WV, alas, seems to regard RAR as some sort of enemy of the state ("''He is trying to sanitize the article on him. This has been pointed out numerous times by several editors. Why it isn't obvious to some is a puzzle, indeed."'' and "''Ross isn't a contributor. He's the subject of an article he's trying to control"'' indicate a teensy bit of adversarial view). Where a person takes an ''adversarial view'' about a person who is the subject of a BLP, it is likely wise for the community or an impartial admin to impose restrictions on them. ] (]) 14:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

===Statement by largely uninvolved Blackmane===
was the most recent ANI thread concerning Winkelvi and RAR. In summary, WV sought to have RAR topic banned from the article but observations from commenting editors indicated that RAR was in fact compliant with the various relevant policies. A topic ban was proposed by another editor but was soundly rejected. A block of RAR was also proposed but also soundly rejected. WV's behaviour in the thread descended quite rapidly until ] closed it with no action. It wasn't pretty, so a topic ban from the RAR article was a fairly light sanction all in all. ] (]) 14:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

===Statement by uninvolved Figureofnine===
I became aware of this situation because I watchlist Winkelvi's user talk page. We are emphatically not wikifriends, and I have found his behavior problematic in the past. However, in this instance, while I am not endorsing his conduct in this matter, I feel that there is an important principle here that may be overlooked. My reading of the discussions is that Winkelvi has a problem with Ross as an editor, not as the subject of this article. Now, perhaps I have overlooked something to contradict this impression, but that is my observation. I do not believe that Ross has necessarily done anything wrong either. Since seeing this issue arise I have gone to the article talk page and interacted with him. He seems reasonable. He is the subject of an article and understandably is sensitive and concerned about it. Indeed, I found that there was one inaccurate rendition of a source, which I corrected at his request. However, I urge all admins involved to carefully distinguish between whether Winkelvi has behaved in an untoward fashion toward the subject as the subject, or as an editor. We run into these kinds of situations sometimes in COI situations and I think that distinction is important. I think that such Tbans should only be applied when is antagonism to the subject as the subject, not because the editor feels that the subject is behaving poorly as an editor. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 15:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to be crystal clear: I am not endorsing Winkelvi's actions. What I am suggesting is that his actions be viewed as directed toward a fellow editor, not toward the subject. If penalties are warranted (I am agnostic on that), they should be dealt with as offenses against a fellow editor. I have my own neutrality concerns regarding the overall approach of the article, and have started a discussion on that point. The talk page discussion has tended to get stuck in micro-issues. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

===Statement by Francis Schonken===
Supporting Bishonen's action without further ado. I'm involved (although usually quickly bored with the topic area, as I explained elsewhere before). I think what R. A. Ross (that is the subject of the article, and the talk page editor) needs is a somewhat more impartial introduction to how Misplaced Pages works, overcoming former obstacles which after ten years of anon and other frictions seem well underway to become more manageable. Winkelvi's efforts are largely outside that dynamic, rather preferring to send the subject on a wild goose chase than actually address issues the Misplaced Pages way. --] (]) 15:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure what Winkelvi understands by {{tq|"No discussion from sanctioning administrator, no questions asked, no AGF, no response to my follow-up comments"}}, but you only have to look at his talkpage to see the response from 'Shonen (), made over two hours before he made that accusation here. In her response, she points out her two previous warnings on 24 November, ({{diff2|692323535|first}}, {{diff2|692330656|second}}) that Winklevi {{diff2|692331533|reverted as "b.s."}}, and her {{diff2|696374244|third warning}} on December 22. She also patiently explains why she is not INVOLVED, and draws his attention to multiple other editors who have complained about his actions, and his negative reactions to each. When talking does not convince an editor that he needs to step away from a topic, then a topic ban is the next logical step. Without any understanding from Winkelvi that he needs to revise how he is interacting with others, any lifting of the topic ban would be counter-productive and we'd just be back here in another few weeks. --] (]) 14:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

===Result of the appeal by Winkelvi===
:''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. -->
* However passionately Winkelvi may believe he is upholding the standards of Misplaced Pages, it is unquestionably the case that his input in respect of Rick Ross, both as a subject and as an individual editing Misplaced Pages, is not helping. In fact it goes beyond not helping and into actively hampering efforts to draw the fine line of neutrality in covering controversial biography subjects. Bishonen is not, in my experience, given to capricious imposition of long-term restrictions. I do not think this is a particularly controversial ban and would encourage Winkelvi to leave it at least six months before appealing. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
:*<s>See and the latest comment in Winkelvi's section. It appears that both Winkelvi and Bishonen are OK with this appeal being closed as declined. </s> On the merits I share JzG's view. I hope Bishonen will clarify if she wants to undo this ban as a discretionary sanction. ] (]) 19:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:41, 19 January 2025

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

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

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

    Standard of review
    On community review

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

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

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

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

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Important notes:

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

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

    A couple of reminders:

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

    Closing a thread:

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

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

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

    Lemabeta

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

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

    Request concerning Lemabeta

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

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


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


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

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

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

    Here

    Discussion concerning Lemabeta

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

    Statement by Lemabeta

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

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Lemabeta

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

    Boy shekhar

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

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

    Request concerning Boy shekhar

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

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


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

    Discussion concerning Boy shekhar

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

    Statement by Boy shekhar

    Statement by Vanamonde

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

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

    Result concerning Boy shekhar

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

    שלומית ליר

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

    Request concerning שלומית ליר

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    Notification diff


    Discussion concerning שלומית ליר

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

    Statement by שלומית ליר

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

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

    Statement by Thebiguglyalien

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

    Statement by Selfstudier

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

    Statement by starship.paint (2)

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

    Statement by xDanielx

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

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

    Statement by Hemiauchenia

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

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

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

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

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

    Statement by Cdjp1

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

    Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning שלומית ליר

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

    Luganchanka

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

    Request concerning Luganchanka

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

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


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

    18:28, 12 January 2025 BLP CTOP warning given

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

    20:27, 12 January 2025

    Discussion concerning Luganchanka

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

    Statement by Luganchanka

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Statement by NatGertler

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Luganchanka

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

    BabbleOnto

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

    Request concerning BabbleOnto

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

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


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

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

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

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

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    diff

    Discussion concerning BabbleOnto

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

    Statement by BabbleOnto

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

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

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

    I now address the specific edits in the complaint:

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

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

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

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

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

    Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

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

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

    Statement by Newimpartial

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Statement by Objective3000

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

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

    Statement by JoelleJay

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

    Statement by IntrepidContributor

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

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

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

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

    Statement by TarnishedPath

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

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

    Statement by berchanhimez

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

    Result concerning BabbleOnto

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • BabbleOnto, please edit your statement down further to fit within the restriction. This also serves as an opportunity to rephrase your defense, which currently is not convincing at first glance. ProcrastinatingReader's description of the situation seems quite apt, particularly BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible, which is currently a pretty fitting description of your response to them here, given that you zeroed in on the "superficially reasonable" part and ignored the much more serious parts of the testimony. signed, Rosguill 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Ok, having read through nearly every edit that BabbleOnto has made, I agree with the complainants that not only does BabbleOnto engage in sealioning, it appears to be almost exclusively what they do. The discussion at Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman)/Archive 2 exhibits perhaps even more concerning argumentation than the diffs provided in the initial report. Throughout these discussions, BabbleOnto tends to demand a standard of stating the obvious (with respect to the context of said sources) that is absurd, and continues to lawyer for such standards even when the situation becomes WP:1AM. When criticizing sources' ability to account for basic claims, I can find no examples of BabbleOnto themselves attempting to find sources that would resolve the issues they identify--this is uncollaborative behavior. There is a clear pattern of engaging in this behavior across recent US politics topics consistent with the scope of Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/American politics. The only saving grace to BabbleOnto's track record is that none of this has translated into disruptive editing of actual articles, just unproductive engagement on talk pages. I am currently in favor of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics; if they are actually here to build an encyclopedia and not to provide a punching bag for debate club, they can use this opportunity to learn more constructive patterns of editing in topics that they are less personally invested in. signed, Rosguill 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      Valereee in line with their follow-up response, I take Objective3000's comments as potentially a basis for community discussion rather than a call for protective action on the lab leak talk page right now. signed, Rosguill 21:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I have to agree, this looks like sealioning. BabbleOnto, you're new here, and I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt about your ability to learn to collaborate. WP works on collaboration and consensus, and sometimes consensus goes your way, sometimes it doesn't. You have to be willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you. And you absolutely must not insist everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers. I've seen editors at both the Thompson and the lab leak talks tell you they don't actually owe you an answer to your satisfaction.
    Do you think you can learn to do that? Because if you don't think you can, this may not be the right hobby for you.
    As an aside, I'm going to recommend what I always recommend to new editors who end up here: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn. Go edit in noncontentious topics, where other editors are a lot less exhausted and have the energy to be more patient with new editors. Valereee (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    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)

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