< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 14:28, 11 December 2016 editDennis Brown (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions69,230 edits →Result concerning Abbatai: add← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 19:45, 22 January 2025 edit undoSmallangryplanet (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,198 edits →Request concerning שלומית ליר: Add additional comments by editor filing complaint (2025-01-22)Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}		<noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}}
			__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!--
	{{Redirect|WP:AE|the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae|MOS:LIGATURE|the automated editing program|WP:AutoEd}}
			--><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly>
	__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude>
			<noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!--
	<includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly>
			-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
	<noinclude>{{editabuselinks|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}
	</noinclude>
	{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config
	|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K		|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
	|counter = 204		|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}}
	}}
	{{TOC left|limit=2}}{{clear}}
			==שלומית ליר==
	==Doc9871==
	<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>		<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
	===Request concerning Doc9871===		===Request concerning שלומית ליר===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Volunteer Marek}} 04:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)		; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Smallangryplanet}} 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Doc9871}}<p>{{ds/log|Doc9871}}		; 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. --->
			<!--- 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. -->
	# Telling other editors (in particular me) to "shut up" (misspelling it doesn't make it better). Compare it to this which is what led to Doc's original topic ban, and statement by {{user|Bishonen}}
	# Discussing other editors instead of content, speculating about other editors motives and making groundless accusations. Making some kind of threat. Note that this is *exactly* the kind of comment that led to Doc9871's initial topic ban. He is just repeating it.
	# Discussing other editors instead of content. Doc seems to be more interested in insulting other editors than actually discussing article improvements. Note the edit summary.
	# More insults and incivility. Completely pointless and gratuitous too. Like, what's the point of this?
			*2014 to 2016: no edits.
	More minor, but indicative of the fact that the editor is ]
			*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.
	# Taunting other editors in edit summary
	# Taunting other editors (wasn't aware I lost any elections)
			;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
	And for good measure
	#. It's on his talk page, so by itself wouldn't be a big deal. But part of a pattern.
	; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
	<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
	# Doc9871 was topic banned for 1 month from all pages related to Donald Trump. Furthermore, the closing admin, ] stated, reflecting admin consensus on that report, ''"(Doc9871) is further warned that any disruption in the topic areas covered under Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 will lead to an extension and/or broadening of the ban"''. The diffs above show that such an extension and broadening are needed.
	;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 and re-iterated on (see the system log linked to above).
	*Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|The Blade of the Northern Lights}} which was originally imposed by {{admin|Bishonen}} .		*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)
	<!-- Add any further comment here -->
			Adding some more comments on 2025-01-22: The user in question says that they have been on[REDACTED] for years – and so surely aware of what does and does not count as canvassing. As recently as last month they were , as well as I've already mentioned. I understand that we are always meant to ], but we are looking at a situation in which a user (1) has extensive experience with Misplaced Pages and (2) is encouraging people, subtly and not so subtly to do things that are against our policies. ] (]) 19:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	Exactly the same problem as the one which led to his original topic ban. Almost like reading from a script. Doc9871 is incapable of discussing this topic without immediately resorting to insults and abusive language. This behavior derails productive discussion. It's also completely pointless as it offers no suggestions for article improvements. It's just gratuitous insults made for their own sake.
			; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	@Lankiveil - what "plea bargain" are you talking about? I just left a message on his talk page asking him to remove the personal attacks (like telling me to "shut up"). I actually dislike having to report people to WP:AE and try to give them plenty of opportunity to correct/revise/strike/undo. Is there something wrong with that? Hell, I get messages like that on my talk from admins once in awhile too ("you might want to reword that") ] (]) 18:29, 25 November 2016 (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 Doc9871===		===Discussion concerning שלומית ליר===
	<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 Doc9871====		====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.] (]) 14:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	*It's not a "personal attack" to say that Volunteer Marek (VM) is heavily biased against the subject. There is absolutely no question about his anti-Trump bias. So how is it a personal attack to point this out? It's just a simple fact.
			: 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)
	*Statements like this{{diff|Talk:Donald Trump|750926716}} show how VM, a very ardent anti-Trump editor, has been holding the article hostage for months, and abusing the process quite severely. It's '''not''' a "personal attack" to point this out. He claims that only things "central to the life of Donald Trump" can be included{{diff|Talk:Donald Trump|750926892}}, yet when challenged on what is "central"{{diff|Talk:Donald Trump|750927164}} he not only can't explain what that means, but instead suggests more, '''only negative''', info that should be included.{{diff|Talk:Donald Trump|750929019}} Please read VM's very pointed response more than once for traces of "incivility".
			First and foremost, I value accuracy and transparency and am fully prepared to address any verified errors or missteps. My contributions are made in good faith, with only the intention of supporting Misplaced Pages’s mission. I am a veteran editor on Hebrew wiki, yet am learning to appreciate the sometimes stark differences in rules in this section, so am doing my very best to keep up to speed and abide fully as I edit further here.
	*His assertion in the diff above that adding very reliably sourced material in the bios of the "goofy" celebrities who took to the media to announce they were leaving the U.S. would somehow automatically violate BLP should be of grave concern to every responsible editor here.
	*VM offered to let certain "personal attacks"... "slide" if I removed some statements (that were not personal attacks) to his satisfaction. Specifically: ''"All the insults and personal attacks"''{{diff|User talk:Doc9871|750932864|750838060}}. Nothing specific was mentioned that could have been reasonably ] were there a concrete issue. As a reward, I would not be reported here. I don't do "plea bargains" when they are not warranted.
			As a longtime editor on another wiki who finally decided this year to match pace on English wiki, I strenuously reject any accusations of EC gaming when a passing glance on my global log will confirm I have not radically altered my editing pace nor article focus. In regards to NPOV concerns, I will defer to the numerous comments below affirming that there is no policy violation by having an opinion, onsite or off, and must register mild complaint that NPOV accusations are being leveled here without any policy violation having been affirmed on any of these individual contributions.
	*There's been absolutely no "disruption"; rather just a bruised ego. I've done some good work on the article recently; decent enough that I have been thanked for those edits by multiple editors, including admins.{{diff|User talk:Robotic3498298502525|748785536}} It's all there in the article history. This is a meritless, spiteful report. VM's claim that I am NOTHERE after nearly 9 years and 23,000 edits is similarly meritless.
	*{{u|Future Perfect at Sunrise}}: I did not come up with the "goofy" thing. That's why I keep putting it in "scare quotes". ''"The answer is that this is an article about Donald Trump. Not about some goofy celebrities."''{{diff|Talk:Donald Trump|750929019}} Those were his words, not mine. First he tried to dismiss it all as "textbook trivia", then we discredit the sources, then the celebrities themselves.
			While contributions observed superficially (and without clear context of edit conversation and interaction with other editors) may appear to be agenda oriented, if I were granted more word counts, I would happily highlight the context of most edits made to make clear I was pushing back against previous bias efforts (past and present) by editors (including a number on the precipice of sanction in PIA5). Perhaps it would have been wiser to report what I felt was POV editing behavior instead of pushing back, but I only believed my efforts were to restore and preserve article balance, not disrupt it.
	*An indefinite ban as recommended by {{u|EdJohnston}} seems heavy-handed, as bans are to prevent disruption and not meant to be punitive. The last ban was for a month, and there's been no "disruption" until I dared to question VM's iron-clad notion of exactly what is UNDUE and "allowed" at the article. This has morphed from allegations of personal attacks into something else. I haven't done anything to any of the "goofy" celebrities' articles, gleefully or otherwise. The true disruption is that I'm a little too sarcastic for some at times, and I am supporting an unpopular subject. I admit I am biased for Trump, as that's obvious. I've not broken the rules here, but I expect to be punished for it anyway.
	*{{u|My very best wishes}} - I wouldn't exactly say that we "talked". It was more like you jumped in and took over a conversation to deliver several scathing lectures on a page that had absolutely nothing to do with you at all. You, who are not an admin and have never made an edit to that talk page before, decided to "set me straight". Any length of sanction is appropriate, yes? ] ] 09:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
			I am grateful for the admin guidance received so far and appreciate being better informed about certain grey areas. I meant no intention to remotely approach anything resembling canvassing and believed the commentary was allowable (most especially since it was on a proceeding I was neither participating in, nor linking out to). I understand now that this may be perceived as “call to action” which was not remotely the intent, most especially to an audience that is mostly academic and, to the best of my knowledge, does not edit Misplaced Pages. (I also humbly must point out that no report was made indicating any increase in activity to suggest editors had been canvassed). I have now been well appraised and will take great care and caution to ensure no further off-site commentary remotely approaches such this territory of concern. If there are any questions or doubts in the future, I will seek future guidance from admins before venturing into potentially questionable territory. ] (]) 01:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	*:{{u|My very best wishes}} - I’m surprised and extremely disappointed at the theory that I am basically incorrigible, needing a permanent ban on all things Trump because I had a little argument with a user on the talk page. I’ve been very insulted being told here that I’m a dishonest, unreasonable, irrational editor. That my "political sensibilities” have clouded my judgement so severely that I must be banned; that I am incapable of editing peacefully; and, most insultingly, that I am incapable of avoiding disruption in this topic area "even if they want to". We’ve gone straight from ''“Take back the insults, or else!”'' to excommunication for disruption. I expected a little better faith, for certain. ] ] 08:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
	*::{{u|My very best wishes}} - I definitely do not “dislike” VM, or anyone else commenting here. We all must agree to disagree. If we didn’t disagree on things there’d only be one “correct” political party or religion. The only editors I dislike are the trolls and the socks and the vandals. I’ve had various disagreements with many editors over the years, including more than a few watching this page. It’s all business, nothing personal. ] ] 09:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
	*{{u|Laser brain}} - What is editing "peacefully"? ] ] 12:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
	*:{{u|Laser brain}} - I'm incapable of editing peacefully... but only in this area, correct? ] ] 14:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
	====Statement by ]====		====Statement by Thebiguglyalien====
			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)
	(Just happened to stumble on this thread since, ahem, this page recently came onto my watchlist...) I think it's important to bear in mind that ''editors'' need not be neutral, and it's OK -- even desirable, when you think about it -- that they reveal any biases in discussions. It's only their ''edits'' that need to be neutral.
			https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-29/Special_report
			====Statement by Selfstudier====
	If we only allowed editors free of bias, we'd have no editors at all, literally. ''']]''' 08:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
			To the extent that it is relevant, the WJC report was discussed at ]. ] (]) 11:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	====Statement by Beyond My Ken====		====Statement by starship.paint (2)====
	Regarding the above: "If we only allowed editors free of bias, we'd have no editors at all, literally." It's not that we expect our editors not to carry any personal bias, since, with the exception of the bots, they're all human. What we expect is for editors to contribute to the encyclopedia in such a way that doesn't '''''promote''''' their biases, or skew facts and information because of them. Not necessarily an easy thing to do, and we all, I think, slip up on occasion, so the question becomes "How often and how badly." ] (]) 23:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
			I would to like to raise at ], where there had been an existing unsourced paragraph ({{tq|On the morning of October 7, a tour minibus...}}) that שלומית ליר added to ( / ) from the ]. '''The reference is relevant, but I believe it may not verify every detail in the Battle of Sderot paragraph''' (e.g. "Netivot", "Holocaust survivors"). The reference contains a short paragraph of text and a video that is 4:21 long. I can't watch the video in the reference, but I believe it is this same video that is 4:20 long which contains the same screenshot as the reference, on the same topic. Most of the video is an interview of the daughter of a dead victim who was on the bus (the daughter had been on the phone with the victim), except for 1:58 to 2:13 which appears to be a quote from the bus driver. The publisher themselves do not have too much reporting in their own voice (on the video), yet this reference was used to cite a paragraph entirely stated in Wikivoice. No attribution was made to the relative or the bus driver, or to the publisher. I can't be totally sure though, due to unfamiliarity with Hebrew. '''] (] / ])''' 13:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	====Statement by (uninvolved) Calton====
	Doc needs to read ] at some point. --] | ] 10:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
	====Question by Cas Liber====		====Statement by xDanielx====
			{{yo|Arcticocean}} I don't really see how NPOV can be read as requiring edits which support both sides of a controversy. Our content policies don't impose any positive duties; they only tell us what not to do. The text of the policy doesn't support the notion that a ''pattern'' of edits could be in violation, even if no particular edit is in violation.
	{{ping|Doc9871}}, why did you change sources ? From reading it, both sources can support the statement, but (a) why swap and (b) the edit summary? ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
	:I guess I can comment in this section, right? That diff, I believe, I was already punished for. I'm sure it was because the Breitbart source was unilaterally declared to be a non-RS, despite lengthy discussions on the RSN that didn't fully conclude that it is a non-RS that must be removed. I'll note that the actual reliability of the source doesn't always apply.{{diff|Debbie Wasserman Schultz|732919954}} ] ] 11:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
	::My question was, why did you replace the source with the Breitbart one in the first place? ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
	:The Breitbart source already was there - I didn't insert it. I re-inserted it because it was declared a non-RS. It actually was inserted back on July 17{{diff|Donald Trump|730234981}} by {{u|MelanieN}}. VM tried to declare it a non-RS here{{diff|Donald Trump|732481090}}, and I reverted him. ] ] 12:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
	::Both sources support the sentence. Hence the edit summary was wrong. And you'd have to agree that a definite RS is better than an arguable one. So it was a real ] edit, wasn't it? ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
	:I don't believe it was a real battleground edit on my part. An admin put that source in in good faith. One user gets to declare it a non-RS all on their own? On what basis? ] ] 13:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
	::No-one is declaring Breitbart a non-RS all on their own. There is a hierarchy of sources, some better than others. Easier to use more widely accepted ones rather than pushing it borderline ones. ] (] '''·''' ]) 11:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
	:VM's edit summary is unambiguous: "replace non-RS with RS".{{diff|Donald Trump|732481090}} It occurred to me that removing Breitbart sources in favor of more widely accepted sources was a factor in the swap, but the reason for the swap from Breitbart to CBS was due to it being declared to be a non-RS by VM in that edit summary. ] ] 11:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
			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)
	====Statement by John====
	I see enough here to concern me, and I was taken aback to discover this was the behaviour of someone coming back from a shorter ban.
	* a perfectly valid and referenced statement from the article, with the edit summary ""Non-scientist". Not a word. Do better, please."
	* me at my talk for using the term "non-scientist":
	* that different standards apply to descriptions of people with different political views.
	* is either consciously dishonest or the user has allowed his political sensibilities to cloud his judgement. As has been pointed out, could not reasonably be characterized as an attempt to plea bargain.
	* contains the highly disingenuous "I admit I am biased for Trump, as that's obvious. '''I've not broken the rules here, but I expect to be punished for it anyway'''" (my emphasis) Given the problematic behaviours preceding this complaint I would have been more reassured to see a more insightful and self-reflective statement than this.
	There is enough here to make ]'s suggestion of an indefinite topic ban seem like a reasonable one. This user seems to have been overwhelmed by his political zeal in this one area and to therefore be unable to edit objectively. --] (]) 11:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
	:As I pointed out, I'm involved in 3 additional currently active threads on the very same talk page.{{diff|Talk:Donald Trump|751415561}},{{diff|Talk:Donald Trump|750954086}},{{diff|Talk:Donald Trump|750920606}} I'm not surprised at seeing the same old enemies pile on here. I guess I'm just completely out of control and must be stopped. ] ] 11:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
	:And the "disingenuous" statement? I said I '''am''' biased for Trump! How is that highly disingenuous?! It would be disingenuous to say I am not biased for Trump when I am. I don't let that bias get in the way of NPOV. Big difference there. ] ] 11:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
	====Statement by My very best wishes====		==== Statement by Hemiauchenia ====
			This user has engaged in off-wiki canvassing regarding the IP conflict. Take the following recent tweet from the 12 January
	I talked with Doc9871 . Based on their responses, he does not see his behavior as problematic and will continue doing exactly the same. Therefore, the sanctions are warranted. ] (]) 14:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
			For posterity in case it is deleted it contains the following remarks: {{quote|If you can't handle the facts, just delete them Propaganda on
			@Misplaced Pages includes targeting Israel, demonizing it, and erasing inconvenient truths, from falsifying war outcomes to deleting Israeli inventions and attempting to erase the reality of Palestinian suicide bombers.}}
			Along with this is a screenshot of the current AfD ]. People are of course allowed to be caustic about Misplaced Pages off-wiki, but calling out a specific AfD with highly charged rhetoric, essentially inciting canvassing seems out of line. ] (]) 02:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			: For those concerned that this might be outing, שלומית ליר is very open about their real life identity on their userpage. See (). If you reveal your real identity on Misplaced Pages, your tweets about Misplaced Pages on your Twitter account connected to your real-life identity are fair game to mention. There's also reverse confirmation in this tweet . ] (]) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			====Statement by Cdjp1====
	:@Doc9871. Let's be rational. You have been banned already for making very similar comments. What else can you possibly expect this time? ] (]) 21:11, 1 December 2016 (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)
	::@Doc9871. I am only telling that your recent comments are exactly of the same kind as comments which led to your previous t-ban. Therefore, they are not OK, and you know it. You do not behave rationally, even though you are definitely a rational person. Why? I do not really know, but my best guess is that you do not like people who disagree with you and therefore want to make their life on-wiki miserable. ] (]) 13:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
	:::@Doc9871. You tell: this is strictly business, nothing personal. OK. But your comments were not about improvement of content, but negative remarks about other contributors made on article talk pages. So, that is your ]? OK. But I do not think that business is profitable, or serves any useful purpose. ] (]) 15:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
	====Statement by JFG====		====Statement by Sean.hoyland====
			It has been several days. Perhaps שלומית ליר could clarify whether their belief about the way Misplaced Pages works turned out to be a true belief or a false belief so that this report can progress. ] (]) 09:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	I have had moderate interaction with Doc on contentious political pages, and I don't understand the pile-on against him. OK, he's a bit sarcastic and rough around the edges, but so are many many many editors (especially those willing to engage into editing such topics, you do need nerves of steel and a good dose of humour); it's no problem at all. Our friend VM reporting Doc today can be quite abrasive himself, but has never been sanctioned for that. I see Doc as a good-faith contributor who shouldn't be t-banned for such peccadillas as reported here. This sounds more like a personal vendetta than a genuine attempt to quell disruptive behaviour. I would personally let him go with an admonishment to smoothen his talk page comments, that's all there is to it. That being said, let the wisdom of the admins fall where it may… — ] <sup>]</sup> 19:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
	====Statement by Sagecandor====
	<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
			====Statement by Vice regent====
	I've looked over the edits , and they are very troubling and disturbing. Looks like things are moving in the direction of a topic ban. I would also suggest a block due to ] and the complete disregard for ]. ] (]) 11:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
			I'm satisfied by שלומית ליר's above explanation regarding canvassing. People with bad canvassing intentions don't reveal their identity. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 04:19, 22 January 2025 (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 Doc9871===		===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)
	*If it doesn't sound too pretentious, I'll "recuse" from this complaint, since I was deeply involved in the previous complaint against and sanction of Doc in August. ] &#124; ] 16:46, 24 November 2016 (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'm looking less at the diffs about Doc's talk interactions with VM, but more at Doc's initial posting on the talkpage that sparked this latest altercation. His tone in gleefully proposing to stamp several BLP subjects ("bigtime celebrities") as "liars" (for not immediately following through with their declared intention of leaving the US if Trump won), combined with the way he's been speaking about them here ("goofy celebrities"), shows that his interest is not in creating fair coverage of the Trump campaign but in systematically discrediting his opponents. I'm not particularly impressed with VM's tit-for-tat counter-proposal of adding more coverage of Trump's misuse of Twitter either, but maybe that's another issue. ] ] 17:33, 24 November 2016 (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)
	*After reviewing , seeing the new complaint and noting the warnings issued by the other admins last time (], ], ] and ]), I propose an indef ban of ] from the domain of ]. It seems that Doc9871 behaves quite badly on talk pages and that behavior hasn't changed since the last time around. ] (]) 17:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
	*], do you have any diffs or other evidence that VM tried to make a "plea bargain" with you? If these events took place as you described them, I'd consider that a very serious matter indeed. ] <sup>(])</sup> 12:46, 25 November 2016 (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)
	:*If I'm reading the diffs right, is supposed to be the evidence for the "plea bargain" claim. I don't remotely read that as an attempted plea bargain, nor do I see how any reasonable observer could do so; it's clearly a notification by VM that if matters aren't resolved he's going to consider requesting formal action, not an attempt at a bargain.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 18:59, 25 November 2016 (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:
	::*I'll AGF that VM didn't mean it that way, but I can definitely see how that would be interpreted as a threat, especially in a charged atmosphere. Bravo for giving them a chance, just be a bit more mindful of the chosen wording next time. On the other hand, Doc9871's behaviour is problematic and most worryingly I don't see that they understand ''why'' it is a problem; without understanding the issue I don't see how they can improve even if they want to. ] <sup>(])</sup> 01:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC).
			::* ].
	* I don't see any reason not to permanently remove Doc9871 from this topic area, as they have proven repeatedly they cannot edit in it peacefully. Endorse an indefinite topic ban from ARBAP2. --] ] 12:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
			::* ].
	:* {{ping|Doc9871}} Broadly, I'd say focusing on content and not personalizing issues, focusing on being civil and professional rather than making posts dripping with sarcasm and invective, and focusing on logic rather than behavior coming from an emotional response and designed to produce an emotional response. It's been well-documented in this filing that you are incapable of editing peacefully. --] ] 14:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
			::* ] which was perhaps casting doubt on the relevant section, ''Massacre of pensioners'', and ].
	*It is pretty evident that an indef TBAN of Doc9871 from ARBAP2 is exactly what is needed here, and this is exactly what discretionary sanctions are for. Their behaviour hasn't changed despite previous warnings. This is long-term and ongoing behaviour that deserves appropriate action. ] (]) 08:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
			::* ], 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)
			*It's not for AE to decide content disputes, and that's mostly what this looks like. We can handle things like flagrant misrepresentation of sources, but how ''best'' to represent them is a matter for consensus discussion, not us to decide here. The canvassing was a cause for concern, but it looks like it was rather unintended and had little if any actual effect, and they've agreed to stop that going forward. (Note that doesn't mean anyone must stop criticizing Misplaced Pages or what happens on it; do all of that you like. Just don't encourage people to take particular actions based on that.) I don't see any further action as necessary at this point. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:+1 ] (]) 18:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			==Luganchanka==
	{{ping|Peacemaker67|Laser_brain|Future Perfect at Sunrise|EdJohnston}} This has gone awhile without any further comments, so let me stick my neck out and propose that the admins commenting here seem to have a rough consensus that Doc9871 ought to be permanently banned from this topic area. If there's no administrative dissent from this in the next 24 hours I'll enact the ban. ] <sup>(])</sup> 09:10, 10 December 2016 (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>
	*Agree. ] (]) 09:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
	*Yes, sounds okay. ] ] 11:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
	*After reading the further discussion, I continue to support an indefinite ban. ] (]) 18:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
			===Request concerning Luganchanka===
	==TheTimesAreAChanging==
			; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}} 20:26, 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>
			; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Luganchanka}}<p>{{ds/log|Luganchanka}}</p>
	===Request concerning TheTimesAreAChanging===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|MelanieN}} 02:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
	; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|TheTimesAreAChanging}}<p>{{ds/log|TheTimesAreAChanging}}
	<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->		<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]		;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
			<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
	; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :		; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
	<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->		<!-- 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.-->
	# Added a sentence to the article ].		# 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.
	# Re-added the sentence after it was deleted as controversial. They quickly reverted themselves, but then
	# added it back, describing the removal as "vandalism". This violated the prohibition against restoring controversial material.
	# removed longstanding material from ] as a "hoax"; not supposed to remove longstanding material without consensus.
			;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
	; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
			BLP CTOP warning given
	;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. -->
	*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 :
			At BLPN, there has been consensus that the version of the article describing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the second sentence of the article is problematic, as he did not actually have sexual contact with a child, only a police officer impersonating one. ]. Luganchanka has been persistently edit warring against this apparent consensus. For which he has been warned by {{Ping|NatGertler}} , which he subequently blanked There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article going back to at least August ], but Luganchanka persistently cites a "consensus" for its inclusion that as far as I can tell does not seem to exist, with Luganchanka aggressively editing to enforce its inclusion. ] (]) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- Add any further comment here -->
			: Luganchanka's response is disingenuous and misleading. Look at the ] discussion I linked above. Nobody other than Luganchanka thinks that Ritter should be described as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article. The dispute isn't about whether or not the convictions should be mentioned in the lead at all or not, it's specifically about the use of the phrase "child sex offender", and there is no consensus to include that as far as I can tell, despite Luganchanka's vociferous claims to the contrary. ] (]) 20:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	See their talk page for recent previous incidents/warnings:
			:: RfC opened ]. ] (]) 16:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	*] from Nov. 5-7
	*] (which refers to edit of Nov. 22)
	Reply to ]: You argue that it is better to warn a person than to threaten sanctions, and that a warning can allow the situation to be "easily resolved". I agree, and that is what I do, for a first offense. See the link just above in this section, where I did just that. The reason for this report is that the problematic behavior recurred after that warning. --] (]) 16:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
	], I hadn't noticed previously your "clarification" of items #1-3, which you seem to feel exonerates TheTimes. It was not necessary to cite here, although it may have been necessary at the time to clear things up for BullRangifer. Your explanation of what happened tallies exactly with mine. #1, he added something to the article: good faith, no violation. #2, he re-added it but immediately self-reverted, so again, no violation. #3, he then re-added it knowing it was controversial, and for good measure he described the previous removal of it as "vandalism", even though there had been a content-based edit summary with the deletion. Restoring content which had been challenged was a violation; arguably so was calling the removal "vandalism". Only after restoring the material (Nov 23, 00:16) did he start a talk-page discussion (Nov. 23, 00:55). (That discussion in itself is a piece of work, misquoting/distorting the edit summary that had been given for the deletion, and adding that the whole article would not exist "If it were not for the fact that women are extraordinarily privileged in modern American society." ) --] (]) 23:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
	*Additional comment: I deliberately kept my report here focused on technical violations of the DS by TheTimes, and so far I have not explicitly commented on the very strong partisan bias in his editing. But that bias is affecting his whole outlook toward Misplaced Pages. I bring this up because I just noticed a comment by TheTimes on Hidden Tempo's talk page. In expounding on his theory that AE sanctions are enforced in a discriminatory and partisan manner (or to use his words, "the exercise of administrative power in the area of American Politics is likely to be extraordinarily arbitrary and capricious"), TheTimes asserted that "Mighty close to 100% of the admins that voted almost certainly voted for Clinton." Another user then pointed out that most of the involved admins are not American, but TheTimes did not retract his characterization of the admins and their motivation, or his conclusion that "the fix is in for both of us." It appears that TheTimes is still interpreting everything through a partisan filter, even when that approach has no basis in fact. --] (]) 20:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	{{ping|Kingsindian}} A minor correction, but since you have now brought this up twice: You say ''"did you notice that TTAAC had indeed started a section on the talkpage, as you suggested he should have done?"'' As I noted above, TheTimes actually started that talk page discussion only AFTER they restored the controversial content. --] (]) 20:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
	; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :		; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
			<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
	<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->		<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	===Discussion concerning TheTimesAreAChanging===		===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 TheTimesAreAChanging====
	I will respond to Melanie's statements in reverse. The child rape lawsuit against a living person was indeed a hoax and dropped prior to the election, hence why it was largely ignored by the media and not currently included (for lack of consensus) in the main ] article. Clearly, the mention of that lawsuit in ] (which is already far too long and COATRACKY) reflected no "longstanding" consensus, but was merely an oversight. With regard to the "contentious" material I twice added to ]: If it had lasted longer than one day before being removed, would it then have gained the presumption of "consensus"? At least with regard to the content, it is quite clear that SPECIFICO and BullRangifer are gaming the system: '''Every single source''' on the topic notes that of the fifteen girls to comment on the matter, ''eleven''—the clear majority—"''were doubtful or dismissed the possibility that Trump violated their changing room privacy''" because, e.g., they were surrounded by chaperones at all times. By declaring it uncontroversial to quote the four girls that accused Trump, but "contentious" to mention the other eleven ''from the same source'', SPECIFICO, BullRangifer, and now Melanie are in effect arguing that Misplaced Pages policy actually ''requires'' us to intentionally misrepresent our own sources and mislead readers. That is an absurd and untenable position: If "consensus" dictates that the former recollections are within the scope of the article, '''by definition''' the same must be true of the latter. Moreover, if that is not the case—''if there is no reasonable limit to obstructionism''—then why can't I simply refuse to assent to the very existence of an article on ], per ]/]/ect.—or blanket delete the "Miss Teen USA" subsection, given that no sources describe Trump's alleged actions as "sexual misconduct" and the whole paragraph thus contravenes ] and ]? (If I were to do so, would the ] then switch to my opponents, or would I be immediately reverted?) In sum, if a source or claim is included in an article, then I don't see how it could possibly violate the spirit of any Misplaced Pages policy to accurately quote the source and disclose all of the viewpoints it deems credible; in fact, ''that'' is exactly what ] demands.] (]) 04:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
			====Statement by Luganchanka====
	Prior to her latest collection of accusations, SPECIFICO reported me directly to and filed urging that I be topic banned (which failed to gain any traction with the community because it was obviously retaliation for an ANI report I filed against one of her comrades, since indeffed): She should really stop forum shopping. SPECIFICO purports to monitor and police every aspect of my behavior, including the ideas I express on my userpage, but she still tends to leap to conclusions unsupported by the diffs in question. For example, the "battle cry" in which I supposedly "boasted" about "besting" my "opponents" actually read: In the same way, Doug Weller warned me not to refer to another editor as a "Nazi," but when I pointed out that the editor in question ''was'' an actual unironic Nazi with a userpage devoted to Holocaust denial, he conceded: Ect. Ect. Ect. Of special interest is SPECIFICO's version of the ] conflict documented in the ANI report: "''He tries to enlist @Oshwah to assist him in continuing his edit war&nbsp;... supposedly because 'his' version was 'stable'.''" (Why is "his" in quotes?) The notion that I advocated restoration to "my" version is simply an absurd caricature of ; in fact, I urged Oshwah to consider reverting back to a version predating ''any'' edits by yours truly! SPECIFICO should be very careful before she accuses ''anyone'' of "straw man arguments" or "misrepresentation of other editors."] (]) 00:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
			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)
	{{Ping|Soham321}} Yes, I am aware that my penchant for colorful, even vituperative language has gone too far and gotten me into trouble on occasion. Sometimes I have treated Misplaced Pages talk pages more like an online forum; now and then, I have even I have always tried to draw a sharp distinction between talk page rhetoric (or edit summaries, or my userpage—which SPECIFICO has mined for oppo-research) and edits to actual articles—hence the "''I take my responsibility to edit in a neutral manner seriously''" message SPECIFICO cites as evidence of the opposite—but I can see how my combative persona can be more of a liability than an asset, particularly when editing articles related to American Politics (where, I have now learned, content disputes are usually resolved by gaming and drama boards rather than substantive discussion). As a character witness, I point to the following comment by Guccisamsclub—an editor with politics well to the Left of my own, and whose opinion of me has fluctuated over time and may well continue to fluctuate, but with whom I have been able to collaborate constructively despite our disagreements: (In my defense, ] considered ] sufficiently Left-wing to invite her on a guided tour of Democratic Kampuchea, so referring to her as a "far-Left author" on my talk page—while poor form—is not much worse than ].) {{Ping|Bishonen}} Edit summaries are necessarily snappy and may not include room for nuanced discussion. See for my detailed thoughts on the "Founder of ISIS" soundbite:
	<blockquote>
	"To be fair to the peoples of the Middle East, there have been many real conspiracies by Western powers in that part of the world (see, e.g., ]), and there is obviously some element of truth underlying even the more outlandish allegations (such as the claim that Baghdadi is secretly an Israeli actor named Simon Elliot). Israel, after all, in return for quiet along the Syria-Israel border; there may also be some military assistance and intelligence-sharing—and there is no doubt jihadists have benefited from Israeli largess. Meanwhile, there is far more evidence that than there is to support the theory that Assad is somehow to blame for the Syrian uprising turning Islamist. When we include ridiculous claims such as John Kerry's assertion that Assad "purposely ced some territory to them in order to make them more of a problem so he can make the argument that he is somehow the protector against them," it's worth considering that the Western press may be more sophisticated than the Arab press but both can be guilty of propaganda."
	</blockquote>
	Why did I allude to Trump's inflammatory quote? Because, despite all of the "fact checkers" that tow the government line with one voice, nothing I wrote above is controversial to experts on Syria: I urge those laughing at Trump's crude rhetoric (or all the "backward Arabs" that think ISIS is a CIA-Mossad conspiracy) to consider first whether ''the official U.S. government position they are defending'' has any more factual merit.
			Please see the ], where there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior[REDACTED] 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)
	I never suggested SPECIFICO is "a paid Democratic party shill"—don't put words in my mouth. I have profound problems with the way SPECIFICO conducted herself during a recent edit war at ], and my description of her as a "hack" cannot be divorced from conduct such as :
	<blockquote>
	Case in point: SPECIFICO's "''good faith''" ally ] leaves comments such as and ; SPECIFICO does nothing. I write —and SPECIFICO as a "personal attack." Can you say '''double standard'''?
	</blockquote>
	This should tell you two things: 1. I don't attack editors because I am "angry," but because when I am attacked I have found it expedient to hit back twice as hard. (Given that that's no longer true with SPECIFICO stalking my contributions, I promise to cut it out.) 2. SPECIFICO is not a neutral arbiter. More importantly, SPECIFICO already brought these same diffs to another forum in a failed effort to topic ban me from ]; this thread has devolved from analyzing a specific DS violation that caused minor disruption into a witchhunt and personal attack on me, based on every unpopular idea I so much as expressed on my userpage. (Of course, my userpage also makes clear that I would be considered Left-of-center on issues like gay marriage, abortion, ect., but that's neither here nor there.) No editor would hold up perfectly under such scrutiny by a dedicated stalker and forum shopper.] (]) 00:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
			: Thank you to @] and @] for your feedback. If you see the ], discussions - {{tq|14 August - Vandalism by removing all reference entirely to Ritter being a "Convicted Sex Offender"}} and {{tq|First sentence}}. The latter discussion ended on 26th September, and resulted in the intro we had until a flurry of edits the other day, trying to move information on Ritter's sexual offence conviction, downplay it, whitewash it etc. My edits were aimed at restoring the edit reached by consensus, which had been in place for several months until the recent raft of edits with the clear aim of moving / downplaying Ritter's sexual offence conviction.] (]) 06:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	*I'm absolutely floored by SPECIFICO's behavior, to the point where I have no idea how to respond. As documented above, SPECIFICO brought her list of diffs directly to before trying her luck at and now AE—yet she accuses ''me'' of "stalking" her? It's simply surreal! I made a mistake and called her a "hack" because she wouldn't leave me alone on my own talk page, mostly out of frustration because I don't know how to deal with such an unpleasant editor. I wish I could take it back, but compare that to her vicious personal attacks just '''here at AE''': In full view of the community, SPECIFICO has accused me of promoting (over of all things!) and (She has made far worse personal attacks elsewhere, such as accusing me of —of course, I '''never''' suggested "that it's OK to punch a woman in the face," and am deeply offended that SPECIFICO would portray me in such terms!) Combined with the BLP violations and threats against other editors noted by Soham321, I submit that while I am guilty of violating DS one time with the revert mentioned by Melanie, SPECIFICO's conduct here should ]. I now realize just what an enormous mistake it was to allow her to bait me with a seemingly never-ending series of drama boards and personal attacks, and will do my best to avoid her.] (]) 02:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
			:: Thank you for this ], I really do appreciate your feedback and advice here!!] (]) 16:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) <small>(moved from ] — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC))</small>
	*<small>SPECIFICO recently ; rather than admitting error, she added a link to in which she claims I admitted to being "paranoid," as if that makes me an open target for abuse. Of course, this is very misleading: ] was indeffed as a result of the socking I exposed, so it obviously wasn't a figment of my imagination. The conversation in question involved me pointing out a suspicious IP to an admin, then deciding based on the evidence that it wasn't another Oneshot sock: If SPECIFICO wishes to imply that I file SPIs lightly, this is actually very strong evidence of the ''reverse''. Finally, my self-deprecating comment was clearly not meant to be taken seriously, nor did I admit to promulgating "''conspiracies theories''." (Does one person abusing multiple accounts even constitute a "conspiracy"?) Context matters; SPECIFICO's personal attacks are uncalled for.] (]) 04:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)</small>
			:: As per ]'s comments:
	*And BTW, for the record: Did none of you notice that, in the the very next edit following my now-infamous "''vandalism''" quote, I was reverted by BullRangifer, ''who in turn implied I was guilty of vandalism''?: It's not exactly unheard of to refer to large deletions of content with vague edit summaries as "vandalism," though the term '''should''' be reserved for the clear-cut cases. But is that really more serious than SPECIFICO Soham321 of violating DS, then refusing to explain how Soham had done so and moving on to when she failed to elicit the desired self-revert by means of threats alone?] (]) 03:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
			{{tq|"Unfazed by "Emily's" age, Ritter asked "Emily," "you want to see it finish?" Ritter then turned on the webcam and ejaculated in front of the camera for "Emily." Detective Venneman then notified Ritter of his undercover status and the undercover operation and directed Ritter to call the police station."}}
	*If the innumerable personal attacks above aren't bad enough, SPECIFICO's assertion that I am merely because I responded to anonymous allegations against me is '''way over the line'''. ] has a specific meaning; accusing someone of "canvassing" is accusing them of a serious violation of WP policy—it's not just an insult to throw around indiscriminately at editors you personally dislike.] (]) 04:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
			https://casetext.com/case/ritter-v-tuttle
	*{{ping|SPECIFICO}} We've clearly gone beyond the realm of legitimate criticism into blatant misrepresentation. There are technical reasons why CU could not be performed. In the SPI, however, DoRD confirmed that the IPs So I was right! Maybe you've never filed an SPI before, but was no "''battleground taunt''" (in fact, I have no reason to suspect Oneshot ever saw it): If you file an SPI against a user, you '''must''' notify them on their talk page. I've provided similar notifications to everyone I've ever accused of socking, and no-one has ever suggested it was somehow inappropriate until now. Moreover, I would not have bothered commenting on the talk page of an indeffed user who would likely never see the message if it were not for the fact that I was required to do so. Between this and your continued insistence that should be read as a POV battle cry, it is apparent that you are not honestly representing my edits. Maybe you should take a step back and ask why that is.] (]) 19:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
	<small>I've just been informed that unlike ANI, there is no rule saying you must notify someone of an SPI. In fact, I thought it was courteous to give those accused a chance to defend themselves, but if an admin feels it is "''counterproductive''," who am I to argue?] (]) 19:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)</small>
	*P.S. Later in the I refer to "''Guccisamsclub—a Leftie that not infrequently gets the better of our exchanges''." Allow me to break that down, so I'm not misrepresented again: While I do call Gucci a "''Leftie''," there is no implication that I'm "''obsessed with animus and revenge''" against him; to the contrary, I acknowledge areas where he has corrected me, noting that he "''not infrequently gets the better of our exchanges''." Sorry—that's just how I talk! (Although not how I write articles.) Now, I can fully understand how an editor digging through my userpage for dirt with which to indiscriminately attack me might latch onto that and say it is "uncivil" to call another editor a "''Leftie''." To that I ask: '''Have we lost our collective mind'''?] (]) 19:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
			] (]) 18:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	*Before she edited as an IP. One of her first edits was to ask me because I disagreed with an edit she made to ]. That was a bad first impression; I am terribly disappointed that after four years editing under a named account, she is ''still'' resorting to these kinds of personal attacks—only on a much larger scale, as documented above.] (]) 21:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
			====Statement by NatGertler====
	{{Ping|MelanieN}} I'm glad you brought that up, even if you didn't quite do justice. I ''do'' suspect that the vast majority of admins supported Clinton rather than Trump, although I have no way of proving this. Crucially, if American Politics is being policed primarily by non-Americans that is unlikely to ''reduce'' the problem of bias; to the contrary, I would speculate that a more "international" (or—let's be honest here—Eurocentric) perspective on Trump would be more Left-leaning and negative, perhaps seeing Trump as the ultimate distillation of every "]" stereotype. (As an example, you're an American, and yet—despite our differences!—I consider you to be easily the fairest and most level-headed admin I've encountered in the area. Maybe it's in part because you are upfront about any biases you might have.) Idle speculation aside, the doesn't lie: Not only are editors perceived as "pro-Trump" more likely to be reported to AE than editors perceived as "pro-Clinton" (by a factor of 3:1), but there is also a very different rate of conviction. By my count, '''100%''' of "pro-Clinton" editors avoided any form of sanction, whereas '''94%''' (17 of 18, not counting Anythingyouwant twice) of pro-Trump editors ''were'' sanctioned (only Marteau narrowly avoided punishment). If you believe this is because admins are infallible and "pro-Trump" editors are just vastly more disruptive, then I would have to ask why there is such a disparity between the admin comments and the comments of regular users both in the request against me (5:1 regular users against sanctions; 3:0 admins leaning towards sanctions) and Hidden Tempo's appeal (regular users split 5:4 against topic ban; admins supporting it 3:1)—and why no admin overruled Boing! said Zebedee's ridiculous decision to block Hidden Tempo for accurately describing Hilary Clinton's "trustworthiness" numbers as "''feeble''" (Cf. '']'': ). As for "''the fix is in''": To me, that '''94%''' is a sobering harbinger of things to come.] (]) 22:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
			Editor's edits today focused on trying to main a negative descriptor of what subject believed, despite it not being in the three sources that were listed (nor in the old version they ultimately reverted to.) Efforts were first trying to simply restate the claim, then trying to source it to an opinion piece (problem) from the Washington Examiner (also a bit of a problem, per ]), then trying to state as a fact what had merely been stated in a non-prime article as an accusation. BLP concern was pointed out repeatedly via edit summary and on Talk page. Removal of unsourced contentious BLP claims and even false claims is not "whitewashing" despite how editor wishes to depict it, it is in accord with our practices. -- ] (]) 21:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			====Statement by (username)====
	{{Ping|TParis}} I did respond to Bishonen; you can see my full response above. In brief: Two of the three diffs concerned uncivil edit summaries I made in reference to SPECIFICO. I previously documented a much longer list of personal attacks SPECIFICO levied against me, but obviously two wrongs don't make a right, so I can't defend those remarks. The fact that SPECIFICO and I strongly dislike one another might be reason for an IBAN—although I am not advocating for that solution since I believe it would only cause more drama—but the edits in question were on my own talk page and only tangentially related to American Politics. With regard to my misappropriate of the President-elect's "''Founder of ISIS''" soundbite, that was just supposed to be a snappy edit summary. Of course I don't literally think Obama founded ISIS, but—as I —U.S. policy towards Syria may have inadvertently helped created the power vacuum that allowed the terror group to expand in size and influence. The source I ], may be controversial but he's notable and certainly not ]; indeed, he's previously been considered a hero to the American Left for his role exposing, e.g., the ].] (]) 01:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
			<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
	{{Ping|Peacemaker67}} So you're saying I should be topic banned for one revert without consensus? No-one here was suggesting anything like a topic ban until SPECIFICO—who has been following me around with a dogged persistence—attempted to caricature me as a POV warrior with a long series of diffs that largely failed to support her highly creative interpretation (as TParis noted). In particular, an edit summary in which I sarcastically referenced Trump's "''Founder of ISIS''" meme with full quotation marks is considered so shocking and inflammatory that TParis recommends a formal apology in addition to my repeated statements clarifying my intent—as well as a request that the edit summary itself be stricken from the record—in the hope that this might spare me. If this is just about the one revert—where I have admitted making a mistake and would have self-reverted had it not been quickly undone—then I would like to know why a full topic ban is a proportionate response to the disruption that one revert caused.] (]) 04:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	====Statement by AlexEng====
	I am entirely uninvolved in this matter, but I am the author of the ''Friendly Reminder'' banner on TheTimesAreAChanging's talk page. I just want to be clear that this was in fact a friendly reminder and not an indictment of the user's behavior. ]<sup><small style="font-size:50%;">(])</small></sup> 03:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
	====Statement by Kingsindian====
	I don't see why this is at AE. There's little or no disruption and plainly looks like a content dispute.
	FWIW, I think TTAAC is making a good case here and on the for their edits. However, "vandalism" has a specific meaning on Misplaced Pages: good-faith but wrong-headed edits aren't vandalism - so the term should be avoided. "Hoax" is also imprecisely used; there are questions about the case, but it has not been definitely ruled a hoax AFAIK. We all have opinions about political matters, but it's usually best to make arguments and keep the normative opinions out of discussions. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 10:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
	: I am rather surprised by the reaction in the admin section. The focus should be on disruption; apparently, one revert is now considered sufficiently disruptive to take action now? If such standards were applied uniformly, I wonder how many of the people working in politics areas will remain? I only give the example of another case on this very page, concerning My very best wishes (). Please tell me what would have been the result if one re-insertion before clear consensus means that admins should take action.<p> I know this: I certainly won't be able to work in the I/P area using these standards. There has been no refusal to discuss the matter on the talkpage by the parties, so why are the admins getting involved? Are we now children that we can't work out such minor things among ourselves and need to go running to mommy?</p><p> For the record, I have yet to find a single edit which I have agreed on with TTAAC in my time here, or with MvBW. So this is not about content; it is about using common sense and fair standards. A tight leash is sometimes appropriate, but Misplaced Pages has a thousand policies and a million ways of running afoul of them. The election is over; most of the disputes have already, or will cool down significantly.</p> I reiterate my solution above. TTAAC should tone down their language, avoid commenting on editors and avoid using imprecise terms. No other action should be taken. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 08:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
	:: {{u|Bishonen}}'s latest comment is about TTAAC's general conduct, not the points raised in the OP (which is fine, if one is looking to establish a broad pattern). I will try to disentangle the valid from the invalid points. I suggest that the focus be firmly on ''disruption''. <p>Bishonen gives three diffs and says that they demonstrate an unwillingness to collaborate, a battleground mentality and attacks upon other users. Of these, only the third diff is to an article. As far as I can see, the third diff displays no attacks on any editor. It cites an article by ] in ] for the content. (I don't like the thesis advanced by Hersh, but it is definitely a notable viewpoint.) The edit summary is not helpful, to put it mildly, but the edit itself is defensible. The other two diffs are from TTAAC's own talkpage. It is clear that TTAAC does not like SPECIFICO.<p></p> Now I will evaluate the diffs and people can decide whether my evaluation makes sense. Spend some time in any political topic on Misplaced Pages and you will encounter editors who you think are fools or worse. I certainly do not like many editors here and probably the sentiment is reciprocated. But one does not need to broadcast one's thoughts to the world; nobody cares whether you like editor X or not. In the same vein, keep your brilliant insight about Obama and ISIS to yourself. Again, nobody cares; just make the edit and give a reasonable edit summary. So, as I said before, TTAAC should avoid this behaviour. However, and this is the main point, I do not see any evidence of ''disruption'', either on article pages, or on talk pages. To the contrary, I see reasonable arguments made in defence of reasonable edits, mixed together with some heat which should not be present but commonly is present all over political topics in Misplaced Pages. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 07:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
	::: {{re|Peacemaker67}} You wrote: {{tq|The appropriate thing to do at that point was to take it to talk, not revert and call it vandalism as cover.}} Did you see section on the talkpage started by TTAAC? If you did not, does it change your evaluation? And if you did, do you think a single revert is disruptive enough to entail sanctions? <p>I have already said that the edit should not have been called "vandalism", but I fail to see how this kind of standard can be enforced in any political area. Why was this matter not thrashed out on the talkpage before bringing it to AE? I am opposed to this kind of intrusive enforcement which is untenable both in practice and in theory. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 05:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	:::: {{re|Peacemaker67}} Perhaps you have misunderstood, but there is no ] violation alleged in the complaint, because it didn't happen. TTAAC reverted themselves once (I'm guessing, to redo the edit with an edit summary -- which is ironic since the edit summary seems to have gotten him into trouble). Also, as I asked in my last comment, did you notice that TTAAC had indeed started a section on the talkpage, as you suggested he should have done? If you did not notice this fact earlier, does it change your view of the incident? ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 08:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
	::::: {{re|MelanieN}} I am aware of the sequence of events; I thought it was clear from my statement, but if it was not, I accept your clarification. TTAAC opened a section on the talkpage less than half an hour after the edit on the article. There were no intervening edits to either the talkpage or the article page by anyone else. As I said, the revert was not ideal (nor was the edit summary) - but I do not see this as disruptive, but rather in the spirit of ]. My own routine practice is to make an edit and simultaneously post on the talkpage. See the edit I recently on the page as an example of what I typically do. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
	====Suggestions by My very best wishes====
	{{hat|A couple of general suggestions}}
	This subject area is going to be very difficult, and for a good reason. I have two practical suggestions.
	#Please cancel editing restriction about "reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". That restriction has been heavily misused by some contributors to unilaterally remove well-sourced materials they do not like, which goes ''against'' consensus. If someone edit war against consensus or without talking, this is sanctionable ''per se''. One does not need additional editing restrictions.
	#Please enforce guidelines on article talk pages. If anyone is talking not about improvement of the corresponding article on ''these'' pages, this is already a violation, and especially if one is talking about another contributor (request just above). ] (]) 15:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	I interacted with TTAAC on a few occasions including disagreements. I think he does good content work on pages related to US history and politics. As about his overall editing behavior, I think he is just as "difficult" as all other typical long-term contributors to political subjects. Based on that, I would suggest no action, and certainly no topic ban in the wide area of US politics. Maybe a 3-month topic ban from anything related to US elections 2016 at most. ] (]) 17:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
	====Statement by Soham321====
	Agree completely with Kingsindian. This is a content dispute, nothing more. Specifically, with respect to Melanie's four points, i see nothing wrong in the first edit of {{u|TheTimesAreAChanging}}. With respect to the second and third points of Melanie, i have offered a clarification here: . TheTimesAreAChanging has agreed that my assessment about his edits was correct. With respect to the fourth point of Melanie, note that there is an ongoing RfC about the Jane Doe allegations taking place at this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations and any material pertaining to the Jane Doe allegations is not being permitted to be inserted into the main article. I see nothing wrong in removing material pertaining to the Jane Doe allegations from a different WP page pertaining to Trump until this RfC has been resolved. ] (]) 20:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
	it is inevitable that some 'heat' will be generated when editing contentious WP pages. The way to deal with this, almost always, is to tolerate it rather than to seek sanctions on editors one has content disputes with. At the top of the page it says that if you post a comment here then your own behavior can also be scrutinized. So let me scrutinize {{u|SPECIFICO}}'s behavior for edits pertaining to the same Trump page from which Melanie has given three out of her four diffs. SPECIFICO warns me on my talk page (TP) and again on the TP of the main article that i am liable to face Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions (DS). What had i done? I had only added a sentence to the butler's testimony from a reference already present in the main article, and given another reference which was corroborating what the reference already present said. Diffs of her 'threats': and . When i tell her on the TP that i do not believe i am in violation of Arbcom sanctions she responds by claiming the butler is 'biased' and liable to be senile: . Since the butler is still alive i believe this is a violation of ] and i point it out to her. And giving frivolous threats to another editor about facing Arbcom sanctions is disruptive behavior, plain and simple. I am mentioning all this not because i seek sanctions against SPECIFICO but because i believe the threshold for giving sanctions has to be considerably higher than some of us seem to imagine. ] (]) 01:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
	There is an interesting discussion taking place here: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Hidden_Tempo (be sure to check the edit history of the page to see a recent edit of Melanie that has been reverted by {{u|Hidden Tempo}}). The relevance of this discussion is that this is again stemming from a content dispute related to the 2016 US Elections which can easily be resolved by giving a warning to the editor to tone down their language; instead we are seeing the editor being threatened with sanctions. ] (]) 15:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
	{{u|MelanieN}} I have seen the two links you gave to the previous warnings. The one where he called the editor who had introduced an edit in the lead of the ] page, from a self-published blog, an 'idiot' is mitigated by two things. First, removing that edit from the lead of the Reagan page contributed to improving the quality of the article. Second, when he called the person 'idiot' he did not name anyone and it seemed he did not even know who the person who introduced this edit was (probably the edit had not been introduced recently) and this makes his comment less inflammatory than it would otherwise have been. Still he appropriately received a warning about using the word 'idiot'. The person who gave this warning has clarified in this discussion that this was only a friendly warning, not an indictment of the user's behavior. He did not protest against being given the warning, and we have to give him the benefit of doubt and accept that he agreed he had made a mistake by using the word 'idiot'.
	With respect to the first link you gave, he explained he introduced the disputed edit back into the main article on the basis of a 4-2 consensus, since he had seen disputed edits placed back in main articles on even weaker consensus. Of course, he is wrong and Bull rightly pointed out to him on his talk page why he is wrong. But i don't see him protesting when Bull tells him he is wrong meaning, again giving him the benefit of doubt, that he agrees with Bull.
	Nothing here deserves sanctions. Not his previous edits, because of which he was warned, and not his more recent edits because of which sanctions have been sought against him. This much said, i think we can ask him to tone down his language, specifically in edit summaries. I agree with Kingsindian's suggestion: "TTAAC should tone down their language, avoid commenting on editors and avoid using imprecise terms." The problematic words used by {{u|TheTimesAreAChanging}}, in my opinion, were 'idiot', 'hoax', and 'vandalism'. TTAAC, do you agree with the assessment of Kingsindian and myself? Do you agree to do what we are suggesting? ] (]) 21:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
	I agree with MelanieN's comment and request {{u|TheTimesAreAChanging}} to strike out the comment immediately. I will note that I was the "another user" Melanie refers to and by not arguing with me on what I was saying he, to give him the benefit of doubt, expressed agreement with what I said. Nevertheless I urge TTAAC to strike out the problematic comment immediately as an act of good faith to everyone here.] (]) 21:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	I am disappointed with {{u|TParis}}'s decision to retract his comments in this discussion. I thought they were very appropriate. ] (]) 01:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	{{u|Peacemaker67}}'s objection seems to be to a single edit of {{u|TheTimesAreAChanging}} in which the edit summary "rv vandalism..." was used. This edit, which was a revert, resulted in the insertion of some text in the main article. That text is still currently present in the main article which vindicates TTAAC's editorial judgement although I agree that the word 'vandalism' should not have been used in the edit summary by TTAAC. The other point is that TTAAC violated the 1RR restriction through this edit but given that TTAAC's editorial judgement pertaining to this edit has been vindicated, and TTAAC has expressed regret for violating the 1RR restriction on several occasions, does it really deserve a lengthy T-ban from all articles pertaining to US politics? I have one other concern. Given that this is an AE appeal pertaining to US politics, with several underlying content disputes, as is evident by reading the now retracted comment of {{u|TParis}}, I was disturbed to read Peacemaker67's comment in the 'Result' section of this discussion that "American politics in general is something that is just unfathomable to me." ] (]) 06:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	{{u|Kingsindian}} (KI) has now deleted the material {{u|TheTimesAreAChanging}} had re-inserted into the main article in which TTAAC had used the edit summary "rv vandalism...".KI explains on the article talk page for why he is removing this material. Nevertheless, my point about TTAAC having essentially sound editorial judgement still stands because this material was only removed a short while back (on December 7) while TTAAC's re-insertion took place on November 23 and there have been six other editors who made intervening edits to that article (after TTAAC's re-insertion, and KI's removal of the material). The material was removed in the intervening period by {{u|BullRangifer}} on the basis of , and re-inserted by {{u|Angelsi 1989}}. I am leaving a message on the talk page of one of these two editors about this AE discussion since I am not able to ping him properly to this discussion (because they don't have a user page); I have pinged the other editor. ] (]) 15:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	{{u|Peacemaker67}}'s new argument is that TTAAC called a journalist "insane" and this makes it a BLP violation which contributes to justifying a topic ban. The edit in which the "insane" word was used pertained to this comment: "According to Ben Tarnoff, writing in '']'', a key element of Trumpism is that it holds "the notion that people of color and women are less than fully human", and does so explicitly, unlike other elements in the Republican Party." (TTAAC removed the views of Tarnoff from the ] article; the 'insane' word was used in the edit summary when he removed Tarnoff's comments.)
	Of course the word "insane" should not have been used. And in fact the edit summary in which this word was used has been revdeled. But can the usage of this word in that specific context justify a topic ban or even justify any kind of sanctions. Let's consider the relevant jurisprudence:
	and ] (]) 06:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
	====Statement by (SPECIFICO)====
	{{ping|Soham321}} {{ping|Kingsindian}} -- Most Arbcom violations arise from "content disputes". The issue here is whether this user violated ARBAP2 Sanctions that have been put in place to ensure orderly and respectful discussions and resolutions of those content disputes. TheTimesTheyAreAChanging had been editing disruptively on politics-related articles for some time now. He narrowly avoided a block at a recent AN3. Instead of discussion, he launches into straw man arguments, equivocation, misrepresentation of other editors, and personal attacks. Until recently, His user page read like a battle cry, starting with boast that he which he removed after I referred to it at his AN3 thread. His entire user page is a bizarre political rant of the sort I've not seen on any other user's page. This user seems to work constructively on articles relating to video games and other innocuous topics, but he lacks the ] to work on these difficult politics-related articles. I recommend a topic ban from American Politics. Let's see whether this user can refrain from yet another round of personal attacks on me here. ]] 20:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
	Starting to collect some diffs on this editor:
	Here is a long talk page thread in which he launches into repeated personal attacks on editor {{ping|NYCJosh}} '
	Some of the many battleground edit comments -- and these are just from the past few weeks! etc. etc. ]] 21:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
	he removed a DS notice from his talk page with the edit comment "not interested, pal" He subsequently denied that he edits articles related to American Politics! He's been warned repeatedly by various users,and recently by Admins: {{ping|DoRD}} . Then, , he tries to enlist {{ping|Oshwah}} to assist him in continuing his edit war after Oshwah protected a page on which TheTimesAreAChanging was edit warring, supposedly because "his" version was "stable." {{ping|Doug Weller}} warned him and the attacks and disruption have only gotten worse. ]] 22:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
	Hi {{Ping|Bishonen}} Sorry, I forgot the link. It's and {{Ping|Oshwah}} observes that TheTimesAreAChanging has violated 3RR that he's received the DS notice, and that he will be blocked for further edit-warring. ]] 00:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
	I sure hope that y'all are reading all the comments and links before commenting. 4 Admins warned this user. Other editors politely asked him to stop edit warring on numerous American Politics articles (the ones he claims, in one of the links that he does not edit). Ad hominems, mansplaining, personal attacks and disparagement should not be OK in any article. Under DS users should know that such behavior will surely lead to a block. Actions have consequences. ]] 17:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
	I just happened to notice as a co-conspirator of one of TTAAC's "opponents." I had posted on this user's talk page before he was banned, so TTAAC's message came up on my watchlist. I also had TTAAC's talk page on my watchlist for the same reason, and I saw him straightforwardly tell an editor that -- a mind-boggling statement, considering that when I checked I found two articles on which we'd both edited that year. On one, ] he was page-banned for disruption. On the other he was edit warring unsourced content into an article with typical disparaging and accusatory edit comments and talk page notes. Of the thousands of editors with whom I've shared various pages over the years, I cannot imagine being obsessed with animus and revenge like that. I would like to request, in addition to a TBAN from American Politics, that the Admins also impose a one-way interaction ban so that TTAAC will stop stalking and harassing me. ]] 01:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
	, TTAAC is tendentiously canvassing Admin {{ping|Hut 8.5}} about another piece of TTAAC's conspiracy theories about one of his "opponents." Then, another battleground taunt on the target's talk page is removed (see edit comment) by Admin {{ping|DoRD}} after a TTAAC's second Checkuser request against his "opponent" was declined at . Then, , he goes to DoRD's talk page to misrepresent the taunt as a "notification." Another example of hostile misrepresentation is found here: , he casually refers to "SPECIFICO's forum-shopping" -- which apparently refers to my having commented on this AE and on his AN3 thread, neither of which I initiated, and which related to two distinct infractions. ]] 01:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
	There seems to be ample evidence for enforcement here, so this thread may be ripe for closure. Sadly, however, there's a fresh post on another AE thread at this page that shows TTAAC first denying the evidence here, saying that his own linked contributions have been "used to caricature me as some sort of POV warrior, which couldn't be further from the truth". This is followed by yet more of his political soapboxing, in this case about "Misplaced Pages's predominant liberal thesis" and lack of "pro-Trump Admins". This was accoompanied by some window dressing to his user page so that the current version contains somewhat less of the battleground and soapbox stuff railing against Misplaced Pages's mainstream representation of history. See . I hope this editor grows out of his behavioral issues, but at this time, it's clear that a substantial TBAN from American Politics is called for, to prevent ongoing drag that poisons the efforts of the vast majority of editors who are trying to stick to NPOV, engage in rational discussion of editing and policy application, and are dedicated to observing the restrictions of ARBAP2 for the good of the Encyclopedia. ]] 17:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	'''New violation''' -- A jaw-dropper, given TTAAC's having appeared to control himself for the duration of this AE thread: See the edit comment on a Trump related article -- a violation not only of ARBAP2 but also a violation of ARBBLP. TTAAC states matter-of-factly that a respected living author and political commentator is "insane". That kind of BLP smear is beyond the pale. A short-term block or TBAN is not going to change TTAC's behavior. The remedy must address the scope of the problem. ]] 14:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	is exactly the problem with TTAAC's behavior on WP. ] is required. Mature collaborative editors do not have "opponents" -- we have discussions and occasionally we have disagreements, and we follow behavioral norms and proven process to resolve them. Where would TTAAC get his view that SPECIFICO "doesn't like" him. I never said anything of the sort, so where does he get the impulse to feel everything personally and to project that attitude onto others? I have no opinion at all about him or 99% of the other editors here, because we're all strangers trying to work together on this Project. I have never ] Mr. TTAAC, but he's apparently unabile to understand that, to understand the meaning of "vandalism" here, or even to keep his opinions under his hat when they're off-topic and inflammatory. These are among the behaviors that make it impossible for TTAAC to edit without dragging the project down. After his BLP-smear edit comment on the Trumpism article, I posted the standard BLP DS template on his talk page. He immediately deleted it with . The reason I have devoted time to this thread is not that I "don't like" this person TTAAC whom I've never met and know little about. I'm here because disruptive editing is a huge drain on the resources of this Project and on all of our time and effort. It's the one thing that's worth the little extra time and distraction needed to quash it. There's a reason for ARBCOM sanctions. A brightline violation such as the one MelanieN documented, coming after so many prior warnings, has clear consequences. It's not something to be argued away with theories and charts of "left" and "right" editors and Admins. That is the kind of relativism that undermines a policy-based collaborative system such as WP. If we ignore violations, the result will be that the thousands of other editors who are trying to work constructively and respectfully will continue to suffer the deadweight loss of this kind of disruption. ]] 01:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	====Statement by shrike====
	I never edited this topic area (as far as I can remember) and I don't see here anything beyond content dispute.--] (]) 12:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
	====Statement by AnotherNewAccount====
	Hi. Uninvolved editor here. A suggestion: kick the entire topic area to ArbCom. The constant ructions been a constant thorn in the side of AE for months. It is too much of a battleground now for something not to be done. None of the current editors have clean hands, and a mass cross-partisan topic-banning of most of the current editors may well be in order. Only ArbCom has the will to do that.
	Some observations from clicking through the random diffs supplied in this case:
	*Poor behavior like that TTAAC is accused seems to be universal editing practice among editors in the topic area.
	*This "must-get-consensus-first" discretionary sanction is being exploited in bad faith by anti-Trump editors to retain potentially BLP-violating material aginst Donald Trump.
	*The article, ] is ripe for BLP violations of the WMF-gets-sued variety. I see that certain anti-Trump editors have attempted to remove material that casts doubt on several of the allegations, leaving potentially false allegations undiluted.
	:*It is not enough that this material is "sourced": it must be ''accurate''. Donald Trump has expressed a willingness to sue those who have made unfounded allegations against him, and this is of no help whatsoever to WMF's legal team if WMF is named as a defendant alongside the ''New York Times'', ''Huffington Post'', etc. A look through the talk page makes it clear that much of this is not a "good faith" reporting of mainstream news sources; several of the editors clearly have it in for Donald Trump. Kick this to ArbCom. Kick this to ArbCom. Kick this to ArbCom!
	'''Administrators:''' It is quite clear that many of you favored Hillary Clinton for president over Donald Trump. And it is clear to me that several of you are partial against those editors whose editing has favored Trump over those whose editing has been against Trump. I am quite certain that if TTAAC had been an anti-Trump editor you'd be looking for excuses to WP:BOOMERANG the reporting editor. I am not going to point fingers, but I am of a similar mind to that expressed by ] elsewhere on this page. I have no confidence in your collective impartiality. Retain some dignity for AE, and kick this to ArbCom! ] (]) 19:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
	===Result concerning TheTimesAreAChanging===		===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. -->
			*<!--
	*This does look like inappropriate behaviour to me. TheTimesAreAChanging which was by another editor who didn't think it was appropriate. At that point the issue should have been taken to the talk page, both per ] and more importantly the active sanction requiring that "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". Instead TheTimesAreAChanging chose to calling the removal "vandalism" (which it ]). This is a pretty clear breach of the active sanction. ''''']''''' 12:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
			-->
	:*{{ping|TheTimesAreAChanging}}: you really aren't doing yourself any favours with your responses here. If you do have a "combative persona", perceive other editors as "attacking" you and try to "hit back twice as hard" then you really shouldn't be editing in this topic area. ] and you should be working together with other editors rather than spending your time here fighting with them. This is particularly important in articles involving very divisive issues some editors care deeply about, such as this one. I can see how this style of conduct would explain your behaviour in regards to the edits which prompted this request - when one of your edits was reverted you perceived that as an attack and retaliated by reverting again, disparaging the earlier revert as "vandalism" and leaving rather aggressive talk page comment. If that is the kind of thing you do habitually when editing articles about recent American politics then I suggest you try editing somewhere else. ''''']''''' 20:47, 26 November 2016 (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)
	*This looks like a straightforward violation of the discretionary page restrictions on ]. A few weeks ago, Melanie specifically pointed out on the user's page that they needed to be careful about editing U.S. politics articles under page restrictions. This was in regard to TheTimes' reinstating challenged edits on another article (]), but you'd think they'd be able to keep the general, and specifically Trump-related, warning in mind. Also I think it's pretty egregious for an experienced editor to play the tired "vandalism" card in order to justify their revert. New users can be excused for claiming anything they disagree with is vandalism, as they often do, but it won't fly in this case. ] &#124; ] 17:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC).
			::I've blocked the user for 48h for violating 3RR based on the report at ].--] (]) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*Adding note: ], do you have a link to the ANI discussion you mention, where you say TheTimesAreAChanging narrowly avoided a block? (Minor point: you refer to him as "TheTimes'''They'''AreAChanging", but that isn't his name. It could be argued that it ought to be — that your version does more justice to Bob Dylan, and to rhythm — but that's the user's business.) ] &#124; ] 00:17, 25 November 2016 (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)
	:*More: Thank you, ]. (That's an AN3 thread, not ANI; you may want to change that in your post). I was aware before in a general way of TheTimesAreAChanging being embattled on Am Pol pages, and I had even looked at his userpage — it reminded me of ]'s, mutatis mutandis and without the wit. But I hesitated to act, even to warn, simply because there's so much unpleasantness on those article talkpages overall that it takes much study to be sure one person sinks below the general level. Anyway, I'm interested in your diffs, and note from them especially TheTimesAreAChanging's tendency to put personal attacks and BLP violations in edit summaries. Examples: <br>
			*:@], 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.
	:::13 Oct 2016: Not sure what a "hack editor" is. In the context, perhaps a paid Democratic party shill? <br>
			*: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)
	:::27 Oct 2016: That's like taking every opportunity for a battleground stance, even for something as anodyne as removing his own archive links from his own page. <br>
			*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)
	:::19 Nov 2016: Calling Obama the "Founder of ISIS". It has quotes round it, and yes, we all know it's a quote and from where, but why is it there at all?
			*: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[REDACTED] 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)
			*:::Ping to @] ] (]) 18:14, 22 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==
	::If ] has some explanation of these edit summaries that will make them sound remotely decent, collaborative, etc, I'll be interested to hear it. If he doesn't, I'm not sure he should be editing American politics at all, when it makes him so angry. I see him editing computer games and related pages in a pleasant and constructive manner (AFAICS); stick to that, perhaps? ] &#124; ] 22:31, 25 November 2016 (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>
	:::Having had a good look through this report and the diffs, I agree with Bishonen. Given an apparent ability to edit in other areas without exhibiting this type of behaviour, a topic ban on American politics seems the most effective remedy at this point. ] (]) 08:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
	*<s>{{Reply to|Hut 8.5}} Defending oneself to a character assassination is not a indicative of a "combative persona".--v/r - ]] 00:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	**I've reviewed the LENGTHY section written here, whew, and I really can only conclude that my predecessors here could not have read TheTimeAreAChanging's section to come to the conclusion that they have. Perhaps I am biased. I believe in the last years, I've made it known that I hold the perception that Wikipedians lean left and that is exemplified in the execution of AE complaints. However, I find SPECIFICO's latest example, , concerns the removal of an opinion blog calling Trump racist and sexist. I know a lot of people here, and in the world, consider that to be unambiguous truth and I may be inclined to believe it. But I question whether that kind of opinion piece would be acceptable on HRC's article. But, that's getting too deeply into the politics of it all.<p>I've seen mudslinging coming from all sides on this issue. Specifico characterized as a "gross smear". Specifico claims that in , TTAAC claims to "best" his opponents. What the diff actually says is that he believes he does a better job adhering to a NPOV. Specifico's portrayal of that is misguided...at best. Specifico claims that TTAAC is making a paranoid conspiracy theory in which is actually TTAAC saying that the proven socking has left them paranoid about more socking.<p>The other respondents in this AE report all say this is a content dispute. How the other admins in this thread come to "action needed" is beyond me.--v/r - ]] 00:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	***Bishon's comments are more convincing than Specifico's. I'd like to see TTAAC's response to that.--v/r - ]] 00:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)</s>
	*Part of the problem with the atmosphere of this project is that its nearly impossible to express a dissenting opinion on these topics without appearing to be allowing personal politics to influence an opinion. Meanwhile, those that hold a certain persuasion can speak their mind unafraid of being called partisan. Call it an unintentional chilling effect caused by either the real or my perceived leaning of my fellow sysops. I'd rather not comment than leave someone with the impression that I am trying to influence the discussion to go ''my way''. I admit this is self-censorship and no one's fault, but I've reread my comments and I just don't feel comfortable with, nor have faith in, how others may read them.--v/r - ]] 01:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	:*This complaint is not about TTAAC's political views or original research about alleged political bias among admins. As an Australian, I couldn't care less about TTAAC's political views as American politics in general is something that is just unfathomable to me. I am about as uninvolved as one could be with this situation. What is relevant to this discussion is whether TTAAC breached the consensus requirement that they were clearly aware of with using the edit summary "rv vandalism...". It clearly wasn't vandalism, and the use of the term was obviously intended to try to get around complying with the consensus requirement, because reversion of vandalism is allowed under the sanctions regime. The appropriate thing to do at that point was to take it to talk, not revert and call it vandalism as cover. I am more familiar with ARBMAC than this area, but it seems possible that enforcement hasn't been very consistent in the American politics space. We have sanctions for a reason, so that people comply and disputes are managed appropriately. If we don't enforce them, why have them? TTAAC didn't comply with the consensus requirement, and to ensure they do in future, I stand by my view that action is required. ] (]) 02:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	::*I've already sticken my comment, what made you feel compelled to retort?--v/r - ]] 03:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	:::*It isn't a retort, and has little to do with your stricken remarks, so perhaps I shouldn't have threaded it off yours. Sorry about that. ] (]) 04:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	::::*I'm sorry for my hostility, then. It appears to have been a misunderstanding.--v/r - ]] 05:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	*This discussion is about poor editing behaviour, not American politics. An understanding of the latter isn't necessary to accurately identify the former. I'll add that the BLP violation by TTAAC about a certain journalist being "insane" (noted by SPECIFICO) adds fuel to this, demonstrating failure to abide by community rules (even while TTAAC's editing is being subjected to greater than usual scrutiny). In conjunction with the 1RR violation and using the "rv vandalism" edit summary, it gives the impression that TTAAC doesn't think the rules apply to them. ] (]) 06:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
	*I think we are making too much of this, which may explain why it has dragged on so long with no action, with no admin willing to pull the trigger. I empathize with {{u|TParis}}'s frustration above. As a community, it appears (to some) that we are more aggressive in policing one side of politics more than the other, which is not surprising given the nature of the project. Unquestionably, TTAAC screwed up but the type of mistakes beg the question whether or not this requires we use the heavy tools granted to us by Arb here at AE. From my perspective, the problems seem rather run of the mill and not really what AE was set up for. Calling someone insane is indeed a BLP violation, for example, but we seldom act on it other than to warn. Reverting good faith edits with the summary "vandalism" is certainly wrong, but it happens at least at least once per minute somewhere at Misplaced Pages. All of this is a big stale. All of this happened in a topic area that still has people carrying signs in the street. I don't want to excuse bad behavior but I don't see where taking action here is going to actually improve the encyclopedia. Much of this is content dispute, much of it has already settled itself. I would rather see a strong warning given to TTAAC and move on. Anything more may be seen as punitive at this point, and it wouldn't be preventative and he seems to have been right on some of the facts in question, even if he was too aggressive in the way he edited. ] - ] 12:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
	**I basically agree with Dennis — I'm not sure we need to use power tools here. Compare my comment above, with emphasis added to the hesitations: "I'm ''not sure'' he should be editing American politics at all, when it makes him so angry... stick to , ''perhaps''?" How about we close with some advice? Together with a request that he show some respect for ] and for melody, and change his username to TheTimes''They''AreAChanging, or even AChangin'? (The name part is not serious, I don't think we should request it. It does get on my <redacted>, though.) It's not like TTAAC looks like a hopeless case, is it — surely the comments here will have some effect. ] &#124; ] 13:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC).
			===Request concerning BabbleOnto===
	==Kamel Tebaast==
			; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|ජපස}} 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- ] 07:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1482134028}}
	<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 Kamel Tebaast===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Nableezy}} 18:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
	; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Kamel Tebaast}}<p>{{ds/log|Kamel Tebaast}}
	<!--- 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.-->
	# first revert		# Sealioning
	# second revert		# Refusal to ]
			# Personalizing an argument.
			# Railroading the discussion.
			This is all after I warned them about ] sanctions, and . Very nearly a ] on the subject. I see no reason to continue tolerating this kind of obstinate ]. Additional diffs available on request from admins, but looking at the user history should suffice to indicate the problem is obvious, I hope.
	; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :		; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
	<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->		<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
	# Indefinitely blocked and topic-banned
	# topic banned
	;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. -->
	*Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see above for previous sanctions
			*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above).
	*Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, through email with The Wordsmith
	; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :		; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
			<!-- Add any further comment here -->
	This editor has already been topic banned twice in less than 6 months. This is his second 1RR violation since having the last topic ban lifted. There is a much larger report covering all of his recent "contributions" to this encyclopedia, and the pettiness and bad faith exercises in those edits, but that will take a bit to compile. For now, here's a fairly clear 1RR violation. This user has proved himself incapable of abiding by the rules to edit in this topic area, and I really hope an admin doesnt indefinitely block and lift that block 2 days later after an off-wiki private discussion that they refuse to release any details about, and then lift the topic ban and allow this person to continue wasting our time.
			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)
	:Putting scare quotes around the right of return is not "solid editing". KTs edits since returning from his topic ban have ranged from mildly bad to outrageous. Id like to say more about this here but I think the more substantive complaint requires an email to the arbitration committee for privacy reasons. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 20:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)</small>
	{{ping|The Wordsmith}}, the users very first edit coming off the topic ban was to a wikilink because it said the word "Palestine". He then, without ever once disputing that the agency in question was actually part of the British government of Palestine, proceeded to continue playing ] on the talk page for a week. Along with that, he was arguing on the same talk page that the village in question was named after an ancient site that wasnt even discovered until several years after the village had been established and named. All because he did not want to include the well sourced fact that the name was taken from a nearby Arab settlement. See ]. Following that, KT proceeded to attempt to overwhelm the biography of a computer scientist and mathematician with irrelevant material, turning it into a proxy battle between Ephraim Karsh and Tom Segev, neither of whom are the subject of that BLP (. The rest of this cant really be discussed here. But, in sum, this person has repeatedly demonstrated that the agenda driven motives in his edits and the distinct lack of respect for Misplaced Pages policies, content and behavioral. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)</small>
	Yall should really institute a rule that involved editors may not comment on an enforcement request. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 19:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)</small>
	{{ping|Lankiveil}} yes, this itself is minor. And maybe Im being lazy in seeing yet another minor violation and reporting it instead of actually putting together a more comprehensive report. But Kamel Tebaast is a terrible editor, an uninformed hyper-partisan who has contributed nothing of any substance to a single article in this topic area and has instead spent his time engaged in full out battle on behalf of his cause. He has personalized disputes beyond anything I have seen in however close to the decade Ive been here. He has been petty and vindictive, disinterested in abiding by even WP:BLP, willing to turn completely unrelated topics into proxy battlegrounds on either the topic or against editors he holds to be his antagonists. So yes, this is minor. But in the five months since this person has been allowed to edit in this topic area, a month after he began editing in topics since abandoned because his aim of being a warrior for the cause of Israel on Misplaced Pages is fairly clear, he has been topic banned twice for two of those months, and since returning has proceeded to demonstrate just how bad this person is for any project purporting to have the aim of creating reliably sourced neutral encyclopedia articles. As you have oversight Id be happy to email you regarding the private information that made me more willing to report a minor violation.
	{{ping|Lankiveil}} sent.
	; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :		; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
			<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
	<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->		<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	===Discussion concerning Kamel Tebaast===		===Discussion concerning BabbleOnto===
	<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <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 Kamel Tebaast====
	Nableezy is correct about one thing: I did violate the 1RR. I wish I could self-revert, which I would, but it is obviously too late.
			====Statement by BabbleOnto====
	They should place warnings: '''DON'T EDIT WHILE ON MEDS'''. My only excuse is that I'm on heavy medications prior to a surgery tomorrow. I mistakenly thought that I had made a revert on another article. In any case, the revert in discussion was solid and should not to be construed as disruptive editing. If my intent was disruptive in nature or aimed at violating policy it would be one thing. This wasn't.
			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.
	:{{ping|The Wordsmith}} I made a technical mistake. As noted, I would have immediately self-reverted had someone pointed it out to me. However the 10 minutes between my edit, the revert, and the filing at AE did not allow. I did not revert the same text, so I was obviously not edit waring. I don't understand why I shouldn't be given the same opportunity everyone receives to correct such a minor technical error. <span style="font-size:smaller;:'arial bold',;border:1px solid Black;">]]</span> 16:44, 29 November 2016 (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.
	====Statement by Shrike====
	Usually users that violate 1RR given chance to self revert.The Kemal was not given such chance and he does accept it as mistake I think warning about being careful in the future will suffice--] (]) 18:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
	<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
			I now address the specific edits in the complaint:
	====Statement by Monochrome Monitor====
	It's unfair that he was reported without getting a chance to self-revert. This is contrary to the spirit of wikipedia, where rules are preventative and not punitive. This is simply a "gotcha!" complaint, catching KT (drugged or not) in the act breaking the 1RR rule. Well, from my experience the 1RR rule is easy to break, and nableezy has reported me similarly for doing so without letting me self-revert even though I expressed intent to. But this isn't about me, I'm just saying this because I don't think nableezy understands what 1RR is for. It is not to punish your enemies but to encourage healthy debate, and these vexatious AE reports have a chilling effect.--]<big>_</big>] 21:21, 28 November 2016 (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.
	{{ping|Nableezy}} Why revert completely if there are parts you dont object to? Why not just remove the scare quotes as you describe them?--]<big>_</big>] 22:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
			2. I don't see how this is refusing to get the message (IDHT). The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it. I replied with what I actually said. What part of that interaction is saying "I didn't hear that?"
	{{ping|Malik Shabazz}} Can we keep this civil?--]<big>_</big>] 22:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
			3. Admittedly probably the strongest of the four allegations. I'm not pretending I was perfect in all of my comments. I should have kept my criticism strictly to their argument. I ask you to read it in context and keep in mind you're viewing a hand-picked assortment of my worst edits, and this is the worst they could find. Also consider that conversation accused me of , perhaps you can see I lose my cool sometimes too.
	{{ping|Zero0000}} If they revert themselves, what's the problem? There is no "impunity" if they self-revert, and even you call it a "mistake". It's a fact that the vast majority of 1RR violations are accidental. Alerting users to their mistake doesn't mean you can't report them, it just means waiting a bit before doing so. The result is the same, their edit is removed, just without getting AE involved. Making people less likely to go to AE is a GOOD thing. The fact is that many users, like myself, never go to AE, and others, like Nableezy, go whenever an "enemy" slips up. (I will gladly take that back if someone can produce an example of Nableezy reporting an editor with his POV for a 1RR violation) If anything we rely too much on 3RR and 1RR violations as "hard indicators" of misconduct, warranting punishment regardless of the circumstances. But ] is a thing and if anything we should be more reliant on what are currently "soft indicators", namely, being a jackass. The worst offenders who act against the spirit of[REDACTED] by gaming revert restrictions would fall under that category, but those who politely apologize and self-revert do not.--]<big>_</big>] 23:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
			4. I'm not even really sure what "railroading the discussion" means. Thus, to keep this section short and to save words, I don't know what I'm being accused of doing wrong here.
	{{ping|Zero0000}} I'm not familiar with his baggage but the vast majority of editors (and things in the universe) are not "useless".--]<big>_</big>] 04:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
			All of this has stemmed out of arguments over two sources. I have tried to find compromise, I have tried to negotiate, I have tried to build consensus. I've been going through the proper channels, I've been participating in the RfC, I've been discussing it on the ANI, I source every claim I make, for a month now I've been trying to constructively explain my side and defend my argument against challenges. It's incredibly frustrating to now be facing an Arbitration Enforcement on grounds that '''I'm''' not working with others. ] (]) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	====Statement by Malik Shabazz====
			*:Edited. ] (]) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	Boo hoo! I was drunk, so I'm not responsible for my umpteenth violation of the rules. I'm on the side of the angels, so I deserve a <s>second</s> <s>third</s> fourth chance. I only broke the rules because the evil nableezy caught me, so it really doesn't count. What a bunch of pitiful whiners! —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
			*:Sorry, the sub-header for this section says that only admins can edit this section, I didn't realize I was allowed to reply here.
	====Statement by John Carter====
			*:Yes, I will. I intend on taking an extended break from wikipedia, as well. ] (]) 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC) <small> Moved from uninvolved admin section; you can answer questions, make comments, discuss, but all your input needs to be in your own section. ] (]) 17:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
	I don't know that I've ever seen someone say they may have been temporarily impaired as a result of medications for surgery. If it is true, and I assume it is up to the AE enforcers to determine how much credit they give it, that it was due to such a unique set of circumstances, having myself been in a similar spot in the past, I can see how it might not be unreasonable to maybe allow a single instance of misconduct related to that slide, provided that there is no recurrence. If there ever is recurrence, throw the book or computer at him. The fact that the editor apparently wasn't given a chance to self-revert might also be considered in the decision. FWIW, I edited a wikisource page on a treaty when I was in the same situation, not here, but that was under probably different circumstances. ] (]) 22:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
			**::{{TQ|an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.}}
	:My thanks to {{user|Irondome}} for his offer of mentorship below, which seems to me to be one of the better options available here. ] (]) 16:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
			**:: What I meant was that I'm willing to respect the consensus and not make any further edits or argue any more contrary to what the consensus decided. It seems to me that saying I have "Issues around understanding policy" and asking me to "learn policy" has subtext that says "Until you agree with this consensus, and you won't be allowed to edit at all." Is respectful disagreement with this consensus allowed? I'm afraid if in order to avoid a ban I have to ''personally agree'' with the consensus, beyond just respecting it, then there's nothing I can do. I still do disagree with the consensus's result. Nonetheless, I'm not going to edit or argue further, I'll respect it as a legitimate.
			***::: Re:{{tq|no, you don't have to agree. You just have to accept and move on.}}
	====Statement by Debresser====
			***::: Then I accept the consensus. I'm not going to argue in those discussions any further, though I still personally disagree, I understand a consensus has been reached which is other than my opinion. Nor will I edit disruptively or against the consensus. I appreciate the admin who noted I largely kept my disagreement in the talk pages, not editing the articles themselves. I plan on staying away from the topic in general for quite a while.
	To me it is clear that Kamel Tebaast made one edit in the evening and a completely different one in the morning, and probably just forgot that he had made an edit the previous evening. In addition, the edits are sound, and I see nothing contentious about them. Nableezy's post here seems like his umpteenth attempt to get an editor from the "other camp" blocked for no real violation. I think this report should be dismissed and that's it. ] (]) 22:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
	====Statement by Sir Joseph====
	I echo what Debresser wrote and what I would like perhaps added to the rulebooks is that if you are bringing an AE action for a 1RR you also need to show that the user had notification of the 1RR and time to revert. There is a huge chill in the air in certain areas and it's just not nice to be around anymore. We need to bring back the "fun" of editing and not harp on every edit. 🔯 ] <sup><font color="Green">🍸]</font></sup> 00:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
	:I think to settle this matter, the mentoring offer should be looked into as a valid option. 🔯 ] <sup><font color="Green">🍸]</font></sup> 20:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
	====Statement by Zero0000====		====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.
	A lot of nonsense is being written here. Editors who are known for editing in good faith are frequently given a chance to revert their mistakes before getting reported, but bad faith editors like Kamel Tebaast do not deserve such a courtesy. Establishing this as a "right" would fundamentally alter application of policy and would allow bad editors to violate 1RR/3RR with impunity, knowing that they can back out safely if they are challenged. As for my charge of bad faith, one can mention his edit-warring and bad faith argumentation at ], immediately after {{u|The Wordsmith}} removed his topic ban. At the talk page there you can see him trying to argue that this location was named after an ancient site not known to exist at the time, and refusing to accept multiple sources that clearly identify a government department. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:41, 29 November 2016 (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)
	{{Re|Monochrome Monitor}} What we must not allow is an environment where a bad editor can violate 1RR with the knowledge that they will get a chance to back off if the the edit is challenged. There is no such right, and if someone is reported for a 1RR violation it is their own fault alone. Nableezy already allowed KT to revert himself once recently; how many chances should he get? The admins who work here are capable of seeing the difference between a good editor who made an innocent mistake and a bad editor whose violation was not innocent. Note that "not innocent" is different from "deliberate"; someone who breaks 1RR without intending to during a pov-push is also not innocent. However, I personally think that 1RR is the least of KT's sins since he came off his topic ban. He should be re-banned because he is a disruptive useless editor. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
	====Statement by Irondome====		====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, .
	I am willing to mentor, as a last resort. This entirely depends on whether KT gets the fact that they need help before community patience is collectively exhausted, and community consensus would support such a move. I have in the past briefly mentored one member of the community who is now positively contributing to this discussion. POV is irrelevant if one sticks by the rules, is intellectually honest and is capable of self-reflection. The medical issue I am keeping an open mind about, and am inclined to be understanding. Even so, it was a terribly ill-timed co-incidence of events. Now, <span style="font-size:smaller;:'arial bold',;border:1px solid Black;">]]</span>, would you accept mentoring? My terms are strict, and I would not hesitate to hand over to admin action if you broke a mutually accepted mentoring agreement. I have watched this issue from the sidelines for some months, and am aware of the overriding problems to an extent. What does the community say? If agreed by all parties, I will present my conditions here. ] (]) 01:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
	====Statement by Sagecandor====
	I would tend to ] on this one, for if we all try to do that a little bit more towards each other, our community will hopefully be the better for it. A warning logged somewhere with a permanent link back to this discussion would be appropriate. ] (]) 11:30, 11 December 2016 (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 ].
	===Result concerning Kamel Tebaast===
	:''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'm holding off on judgment for the moment, but suffice to say I'm not happy about this case. I had hoped (perhaps naively) that KT would stay out of trouble for the near future. {{Ping|Nableezy}} You say you have additional evidence. I would like to see it, at least the portion that does not have privacy concerns. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 15:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
	**KT has indicated that he's going to be offline for roughly a week to recover from his medical procedure. Unless there is some compelling reason, I intend to hold this request open until then. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 16:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
	*This seems to be on the extremely minor side of things, and I don't see any reason not to AGF where the explanation is concerned; the user should be aware that using similar excuses in the future will probably not elicit a very sympathetic response. ] <sup>(])</sup> 09:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC).
	**{{reply|Nableezy}} If there is non-public or suppressed information that you'd like me to look at, please forward it to me via confidential email. ] <sup>(])</sup> 03:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC).
	:*] has that he is back, and this request can proceed. ] (]) 11:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	* Based on solely this instance, I see no reason to take action. In the future, a good-faith message on the editor's talk page asking them to self-revert should be made before this is brought to AE. There are likely broader issues here, though, and we need a more comprehensive report to look at those. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 14:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
	*] says he has forwarded some private information to ], who is an oversighter. We should probably wait to see if Lankiveil believes it should affect the decision here. ] (]) 22:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
	**Unless this evidence specifically relates to suppressed edits, {{U|Lankiveil}} likely can't act upon the information as per ]. (I ran this by an arbitrator before saying this, and they agreed.) This likely needs to be sent to the arbcom listserv if there's privacy concerns. We can't handle it on-wiki. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 22:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
	***I've received the email, and it ''is'' stuff that needs to be kept confidential (sorry, I can't go into any more detail), but in my mind it doesn't affect the substance of this particular request for enforcement. I'd still be in favour of closing this with a stern "don't edit while drugged up" warning, this other matter that Nableezy has made me aware of will be handled through the usual channels for this sort of thing. ] <sup>(])</sup> 08:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC).
			2. On this they say, now, that {{tq|The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it.}} This is repeating a misreading they made in the original thread, where they mistook a statement I made about another editor's comment as if it were about theirs. In this "defense", I see no attempt to read thoughtfully what other editors say in reply to them and revise their understanding accordingly; all I see is zero-sum mentality and ].
	==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Hidden Tempo==
			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.
	{{hat|1=The appeal is declined. ] (]) 04:13, 8 December 2016 (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.
	; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Hidden Tempo}} – ] (]) 05:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
			It is exhausting to deal with this kind of quasi-CPUSH (not quite civil, but certainly push) behaviour. The Talk page in question has seen a recent influx of single-purpose or nearly single-purpose POV accounts, and in terms of editor energy, this one certainly seems not to be a net positive for Misplaced Pages as a project. Perhaps if they edited away from Covid and US politics, their track record might improve. ] (]) 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	; Sanction being appealed : 6 month TBAN from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed. Imposed , logged .
			====Statement by Objective3000====
	; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Bishonen}}
			Just a quick aside to Valereee's aside: {{TQ|Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn....}} ] currently has posts from 19 editors lacking the edits for extended confirmed. ] (]) 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:@], this is also a problem at other CTOPs, and is likely to become more problematic. I assume due to off-Wiki forums. ECR might just produce more users gaming EC. I thought it would be useful to put your aside into the CTOP template at the top of CTOP TPs. But that assumes folks read it. Walt Kelly said something along the lines of: “If only I could write, I’d write a letter to the mayor, if only he could read." This discussion is likely better off elsewhere. ] (]) 21:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Note: ] was just TBanned from the topic of COVID-19 and indef blocked until the accusations of off-wiki coordination made by them at ANI are retracted. Those accusations are like their suggestion made in their statement in this filing. ] (]) 12:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			====Statement by JoelleJay====
	; Notification of that administrator : ''The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a ] of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.''
			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)
	===Statement by Hidden Tempo===		====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 ().
	{{hat|1=Inside this collapse box is the original statement by Hidden Tempo in this appeal. Kept for reference since it is what most people responded to. Beginning after the box is the revised version I asked him to create to meet the 500-word limit. ] (]) 02:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC) }}
	Regarding the reasoning that I deserve a ban because I called Volunteer Marek's edit "filth" () this user has been harassing me for over a month, following me from article to article, violating ] and ] almost every time.. I also asked him to stop harassing me , which he ignored and continued to reply to my talk page edits and proceeded to continue ]. I submit that I do not deserve a ban on the grounds that I removed a harassing editor's message from my talk page, or that I used the word "filth" to characterize said harassing message.
			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.
	Bishonen's second point is that I should be banned because I apparently violated ] (as Volunteer Marek, the harassing editor alleged multiple times) with . However, my edit does not fit any of the requirements outlined in that policy. I have never voiced support for any political candidate or revealed my own political views, and yet have been accused of doing so by Bishonen and Volunteer Marek. In that edit, I provided links to RS for each statement. Was my frustration with the lack of neutrality on the ] talk page apparent? Undoubtedly. Did this fit any of the 5 requirements for ] to be violated? Absolutely not. I submit that no violation of this policy took place, and strenuously object to a topic ban on these grounds. Bishonen also claims that my comments are disruptive and "foment strife," but is this not what this project is based upon? Healthy discussion and the melding of a variety of opinions are how articles are improved. I welcome (civil) conflict, and challenging the status quo brings about positive change. Whether or not I am viciously attacked by other editors is out of my hands, and therefore provides no justification for a topic ban.
			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.
	Bishonen's final reason for my topic ban is that I violated ] violations with the aforementioned edit: ''"Plus, you phrased wholesale attacks on Clinton and her family members ("Chelsea Clinton using Foundation funds to pay for her wedding") in a way that's not supported by the sources you linked to."'' With this accusation, Bishonen submits that my statement(s) (oddly characterized as an "attack" by Bishonen, therefore violating ]), meets the standards for a BLP violation. In actuality, whether or not an edit is reflected accurately in the source material is entirely subjective, and is in fact the very reason we have talk pages in the first place! While providing insight to another user as to why his edit has been reverted, I used the discussion as an opportunity to provide him with clarity as to why he is unlikely to succeed. I pointed to the pervasive and ingrained <nowiki>{{neutrality}}</nowiki> issues with the ] and ] pages. The source material ( ) clearly alleges that ] used Clinton Foundation funds to pay for her wedding. If Bishonen doesn't agree, that is her right, but a six month topic ban to voice that disagreement is not the proper course of action. I submit that I committed no BLP violations with the edit that she cited on my talk page, and thus should not be subjected to an extraordinarily lengthy TBAN on these grounds.
			] (]) 14:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	Lastly, the banning administrator, BIshonen, has admitted to being unable to comprehend "a good deal" of American politics, since she pejoratively describes our political system as "strange.". This self-admitted lack of understanding calls into question her ability to accurately interpret complex American political issues, such as the ] and other issues I raised that she feels are BLP violations, especially if English is not her native language (note that this is in no way designed to be insulting or an attack, rather a legitimate concern of detecting nuance). For these reasons, I am appealing the 6-month TBAN, and requesting for a modification of this ban (reduction) to a 48-hour TBAN. While I vehemently maintain that I have done nothing wrong, I may benefit from a break from editing this weekend. Thank you for the consideration, and I apologize if I have violated any rules of etiquette or protocol, as this is my first banning and first appeal.
			=== Statement by TarnishedPath ===
	EDIT: Just another note, I would also like to take this opportunity to request an IBAN for myself and Volunteer Marek to help keep talk page discussions copasetic, whatever the result may be of this appeal. Also, in light of Bishonen's apparent distaste for American politics (see above edit), I believe this poses a natural ] problem and adds to the notion that this lengthy TBAN should be either nullified or at least drastically reduced as I previously suggested. Thank you again.
			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)
	] (]) 05:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
			:Noting the editor's continued behaviour at ]. Refer to ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	@{{u|Johnuniq}} Forgive me, I'm new at this. Do I reply here? I absolutely oppose the inclusion of "Frigidaire" as a nickname of Hillary Clinton. I feel it's undue, as I know a great deal about Hillary Clinton and have never heard this nickname. In addition, I believe the user provided one flimsy source. I've developed a bit of a reputation on the talk pages for being a "Hillary hater" and/or "Trump supporter," but I've always strived for neutrality, regardless of my own personal feelings about the former candidates. I had hoped that never revealing my own political views would help lend credence to my status as an objective editor, but it seems I've failed miserably. To answer your other question, if I could do it again, I would've started a new section regarding these topics, rather than bundled the issues in the "Frigidaire" subsection. I attribute my penchant for long responses to the repeated "soapboxing" allegations, and maybe if I could find a way to trim and/or better compartmentalize my suggestions to improve articles, my responses wouldn't be confused with soapboxing. However, I maintain that the issues I raised were well-backed by the sources that I cited within the response, thereby avoiding any BLP violations. In retrospect, I should have used the phrases "alleged" and "accused of" to make it perfectly clear that I was not convicting anyone of any crimes on the Misplaced Pages talk pages, but instead stating the facts that the Clinton Foundation was in fact accused of ethics violations. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to respond. ] (]) 06:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
			::and again at ] '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:@{{u|Johnuniq}} The Frigidaire nickname wasn't well-sourced, and as I stated in the comment, even if the nickname should be included, it's academic for me. The main problem I have is that there is a Clinton Foundation subsection, but absolutely no mention of the ongoing FBI investigation into the Foundation and (possibly) multiple ethics violations reported on by multiple reliable sources, and likely even admitted by the Clinton campaign itself in the WikiLeaks email that I sourced. I used the analogy that trying to get such a minute detail into the article when there are other monumental issues with the article is like trying to get a stain out of the carpet when the house is on fire. I'm also unsure which source I provided that was partisan. Is ] not a reliable source? ] is very frequently used as a citation on political pages, despite many conflicts of interest (financial and otherwise) with the Clinton campaign that I've discussed previously, but do not particularly want to bring up here as I don't want to be accused of more BLP violations. ] (]) 07:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
	::@{{u|Johnuniq}} @{{u|Bishonen}} @{{u|JFG}} @{{u|Soham321}} Am I able to reply to @{{u|MelanieN}}'s statement here? I would just like to point out that not a single political view was stated by myself in any of those diffs. I never voiced my support for a former candidate, or any opinions concerning, economics, illegal immigration, social issues, healthcare, foreign policy, taxes, energy, entitlement spending, or any other political issues. According to the , politics concerns affairs associated with running a "government, organization, or movement." Therefore, voicing my thoughts about the state of American journalism is not a political view, even if I use the words "liberal" or "conservative." Additionally, I am offended at the accusation that I propagated any "conspiracy theory." At the time of that edit, I was unaware that I was required to use sources (even on the talk pages) for every statement that may not be immediately obvious to an outsider. However, after I became aware of this, I began using sources on the talk pages. I am more than willing and eager to share a plethora of sources backing each and every single statement (re: ], ], ], Hillary's trustworthiness poll numbers that I referred to as "feeble") etc., thereby more than disproving any misuse of the phrase "conspiracy theory." Lastly, I would like to point out that using the word "mountainous" to describe the number and severity of a presidential candidate's alleged ethical and legal struggles is not a policy violation. This is entirely subjective, and that is the exact reason that I raised these issues on the talk page instead of taking the liberty of adding content directly to the article before reaching consensus. MelanieN may disagree with my opinion, but a disagreement is not a BLP violation or in breach of any other Misplaced Pages policies that I am aware of, nor is raising the concern of . ] (]) 23:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
	:::@{{u|RexxS}} I'm sorry you feel that your intelligence was insulted, but that was not my intention at all. I am simply disagreeing with @{{u|MelanieN}}'s thesis that I am voicing political views, when in fact I am not (by the Wiktionary definition of "politics"). I also do not agree that my edits are biased. As I discussed with @{{u|Bishonen}}, the reason that my edits may appear to favor Donald Trump and somehow denigrate Hillary Clinton is due to the status of the articles. My opinion is that Donald Trump's article is currently burdened with the "too long" template because every minute negative detail of his campaign has been crammed onto the page. My opinion is that Hillary Clinton's article, in contrast, is very readable (albeit skeletal), but oddly vacant of some of her career-defining moments and events that many would view as negative. Every possible proud moment of her life and positive attribute is thoroughly documented and discussed in detail. Therefore, I do not argue for potentially negative material to be added to Trump's page simply because there is nothing left to add. It's all there. For the same reason, I do not advocate for positive material to be added to Hillary Clinton's pages - every last bit is represented, including UNDUE material. I truly think that's why I have been unfairly accused of having a "pro-Trump/anti-Clinton" bias. But as {{u|JFG}} pointed out, we all have inherent bias as contributors, here.<br></br><br></br>
	:::I take great exception to your statement that I committed a BLP violation by referring to Hillary's trustworthiness poll numbers as "feeble." It's an that found that just 11% of America trusts Hillary Clinton (as of August, 2016). Is 11% not worthy of the word "feeble"? There's no BLP violation there. There just isn't - it's a factual statement, echoed in the source material, which has direct pertinence to the subject matter of the article. That goes for my concern of ] issues on political articles, as well. I cited Time Magazine as reference, so I fail to see how that qualifies as "step too far." My statement is backed by an extremely reliable source (in a non-partisan article), and qualifies as more than "a shred of evidence." Thanks for reading and I apologize for the lengthy edit. ] (]) 02:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	::@{{u|RexxS}} I think we have both made our views on this topic abundantly clear at this point. I would just like to note that I have read ] several times to better familiarize myself with the criteria for a violation to have occurred. As you said, "unsourced and poorly sourced" material should not be added. Both statements in question were well-sourced, and I never edited the article's subject matter to include the sourced material. Instead, I visited the talk pages in an attempt to reach consensus, and offered a nicely written (in my biased opinion, of course) proposal to say a few words about the ]. I invited other editors to take part in improving my draft, and was instead met with accusations of POV, tendentious editing, and being "snide." Only @{{u|MelanieN}} was kind enough to offer constructive feedback. Hopefully that exchange provides a better idea of who I am and how I'm treated by a select group of contributors. In any case, as {{u|Soham321}} stated, I am relatively new to the project, but still cannot reconcile your description of my talk page edits as a "BLP violation" after reading the page multiple times. They don't appear to fit any of the requirements outlined on that project page, but please correct me if I'm wrong with the exact passage (remember, my allegedly "contentious" edits are well-sourced) that makes even ''mentioning'' Secretary Clinton's trustworthiness poll numbers a BLP violation, rather than just a normal disagreement of ] on a talk page.<br></br><br></br>One more thing - despite the obvious tense nature of a TBAN appeal, I would appreciate it if we could be a bit more civil. I don't think it's very appropriate to threaten and appear to relish the opportunity to block me with language like "I'll see you at ANI" and accuse me of feigning indignation. I believe I've been exceptionally polite throughout this process thus far, and don't believe my prior actions in question should be reason to deny me the same courtesy. Thank you.] (]) 04:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
			===Statement by berchanhimez===
	:@{{u|My very best wishes}}, what "unsubstantiated complaint" that created "disruption" are you talking about, here? I'm really confused, now. I will acknowledge that we seem to be deviating from the basis of my appeal, though. I was banned for three reasons according to Bishonen (1) referring to Volunteer Marek's harassing message as "filth," 2)violating ], and 3) violating ]. I believe I have sufficiently refuted all three of these claims against me, so maybe we could get back to the main meat of this TBAN. My proposal for an edit on the talk page of the ] article is still open, and I would very much like to have my TBAN rescinded soon and rejoin the collaborative effort while it is still active. This would of course be done with the understanding that I must always source any potentially contentious material that I propose (including on the talk pages), adopt a less combative attitude, take the suggestions of @{{u|JFG}} and @{{u|Soham321}} to heart, and focus on improving articles piecemeal rather than engaging in long diatribes to voice my frustration with my perceived neutrality issues. Many thanks. ] (]) 06:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
			This user was given no less than 4 chances on the talk page to stop talking about bans/other editors and start talking about the content. They have continued crying about how they're scared of getting banned... yet they continue blabbing about other editors getting banned for their bad behavior ]. ''At a minimum'' a partial block from the talk page(s) in question is warranted, and it would be beneficial for a topic ban from the origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			==== Statement by Shibbolethink ====
			I am heavily involved in this overall dispute as someone who has gone back and forth with BabbleOnto. I wanted to add that, in general, my feeling from interacting with this user is that they ''could'' be a good contributor to this site, and absolutely ''could'' follow the PAGs. They have shown an ability to be courteous . I think the issue is that in FRINGE and other contentious areas like COVID-19 origins, they have shown a tendancy to become "hot-headed" when tensions rise, and to reference an us vs them mentality (and numerous examples from others above). It seems they have also been egged-on, and made more combative from other PROFRINGE users (and probably some anti-FRINGE users as well who do admittedly ]) in that topic space (e.g. )
			We are told often to use narrowest possible restriction to protect the project. In this case, '''I think that would be a COVID-19 origins TBAN''', where most of the disruption has been. The user states they have learned what to do when consensus is against them. If they fail to show that lesson in AP2 articles more than just the 10 or so edits they've made in those articles, an AP2 TBAN would be appropriate at that time (]). Just my 2 cents.—&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 22:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I'd like to extend my gratitude and appreciation for the insights and contributions of @{{u|JFG}}, @{{u|Soham321}}, @{{u|TheTimesAreAChanging}}, @{{u|SashiRolls}}, and @{{u|MelanieN}} to this appeal. @{{u|Bishonen}}, I think we have all thoroughly addressed all three violations upon which you based your TBAN. I have been blocked, then unblocked hours later after demonstrating that I am much more familiar with ], and it seems we are largely in agreement that my edits do not warrant my standing in the corner for an additional 6 months. It also seems that there is a perceived double standard for my edits, as other contributors have launched direct, vicious, and sometimes obscene attacks against living persons without receiving any repercussions whatsoever.{{diff||751003601}}{{diff||750790280}} It appears the general consensus is that I should tone down my language, and ensure that my approach to editing is focused solely on the topic at hand, not the editor, suggestions which I agree with and am ready to abide by. I also think it's obvious that my intentions to edit articles are pure, as the alleged violations occurred during attempts to gain consensus on talk pages, rather than repeatedly making contentious edits to the articles themselves. And as another user pointed out, the word "feeble" was used to describe a percentage, not a living person, making any possible BLP violation a rather small one. I think we also agree that the seriousness of using the word "feeble" was certainly dwarfed by the aforementioned attack on ] as a person, using rather colorful, hyperbolic, and purposefully derogatory language to describe the man. As I have gained the confidence of at least <s>two</s> one admin (<s>@MelanieN</s> and @{{u| Boing! said Zebedee}}) that I am now better equipped to follow BLP policies and play well with others, I request that my topic ban be reduced to 48 hours as I requested previously, and have it lifted immediately as that amount of time has already elapsed. Thanks very much.
			====Statement by (username)====
	:P.S. Please also note that I have formally requested an IBAN for @Volunteer Marek due to repeated ] violations and harassment, and may pursue an IBAN for Objective3000 as well, as he continues to disparage me on virtually every talk page edit I make. Note that this user is choosing to do the same thing even on this page, erroneously claiming that my use of the word "feeble" was in reference to a former presidential candidate's health, when I clearly stated (and is obvious to every other user thus far) that I was referring to a poll regarding that candidate's trustworthiness perception. These IBANS will help stop other contributors from attacking me personally and possibly trying to provoke further conflicts, and maintain peace on the talk pages.
	:EDIT: MelanieN asked that I strike her name from the list of administrators who agree that I've learned my lesson, but I'd like to point out that she did admit that the BLP violations alleged by the banning administrator (Bishonen) are not blockable offenses. My tiffs with other editors are in the past, but I don't believe ] problems were one of the three items listed as a reason for my 6 month ban. ] (]) 06:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
	I read the ban notice, @{{u|Bishonen}}. I maintain that I have addressed all of your reasons for the ban, and neatly refuted them all. I tried to reduce them to more digestible well-defined points in an attempt to prevent the appeal from getting bogged down by vague, sort of amorphous complaints about me. Anyway, I think the obvious trend in this appeal is a clear consensus among users that a 6-month TBAN is unwarranted. The two exceptions are one involved user who has attacked me in the past, and another who came to my talk page to try to sweat/grill me about my IBAN request for that user - and then you suddenly rematerialized here shortly afterward to indirectly reference the information gleaned from the aforementioned user's bizarre edit. Unfortunately for me, user consensus doesn't get bans overturned - uninvolved administrators do. And so it seems that in this case, 2 outnumbers 7 (so far). I think there were some great points made by other contributors to this appeal, especially in regards to double standards and which reliable sources Misplaced Pages trusts. At least I know I'm not crazy.
	Journalists and organizations that donate millions of dollars to/secretly meet with/collude in formulating debate questions/provide advance debate questions to one candidate are to be considered respectable, unbiased, non-partisan, highly regarded organizations that are worthy of our boundless trust. That whole "left-wing mainstream media" thing is nothing more than a POV myth. However, if an organization doesn't donate to any candidate or (in the case of Fox News, as an example), that source is to be considered nothing more than right-wing propaganda/sensationalist/a wing of a political party, and should never be used. If you dare reference one of these sources, you can expect to be shamelessly attacked (along with former candidates themselves) and accused of being , with absolutely no action taken against that user. Misplaced Pages says that that's just fine, and I can accept that. I won't be pleased if part of the reason for my TBAN being upheld is responding to ] violations with alleged ] violations. I'm not fine with that, but again, it's not up to me...or the assortment of editors who also deem that standard to be patently unfair.
	BLP Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this edit are the author's own and do not reflect the view of the Wikimedia Foundation or Misplaced Pages. Any people or organizations referenced are purely hypothetical unless otherwise explicitly stated, and are not meant to bear any similarity to any living persons, companies, or entities.] (]) 19:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
	:Yes, I've been very busy trying to undo what you've done, here. As an admin, to crush a Wikipedian with a 6-month TBAN may be as simple as changing a few characters in html, but that Wikipedian then must undergo a long, arduous process to even have the ban removal to be considered. Since I firmly believe that I am in the right and you are in the wrong (and your opinion seems to be in the vast minority and have gained little support), I have no problem posting 3,500 words in my defense. Whether or not your relationship with MVBW is "unbecoming" or not is completely unknown to me. I was merely pointing out the serendipitous nature of this user scrounging around for information on talk pages, and then you (as you admit) post your second comment in the discussion a short time later and attempt to use that information against me, tangentially.
	:I am indeed native speaker of English. I don't see how that's relevant, though. When I said "I attribute my penchant for long responses to the repeated "soapboxing" allegations," it was probably poorly phrased. I was trying to convey that since I often post long replies, many may confuse my replies with "soapboxing." But, as I've shown before, my edits don't meet any of the five requirements for soapboxing to have taken place. ] (]) 02:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	::This is exactly what I've been talking about {{u|EdJohnston}} and {{u|Bishonen}}. {{u|My very best wishes}} is freely permitted to post this kind of attack on living persons and other editors: ''"Yes, users who support D. Trump tend to be more disruptive. This is nothing new. Users who support fringe theories, extremist groups and non-orthodox politicians tend to be more disruptive."'' During her fierce campaign for a ban/block against me, she is completely unhindered during her efforts to equate those who supported Trump during the election with those who support "fringe theories, extremist groups..." No diffs of course, this is her just saying whatever pops into her head. She also says those who she believes to have supported the President-elect "tend to be more disruptive" with absolutely no diffs. I found the remark offensive and unsubstantiated, and asked her to go ahead and strike it out, which she refused. And yet, she received no sanctions and nobody ran crying to the ANI board to beg an admin to block her. However, if a user refers to 11% of Americans as a "feeble" percentage as I did, that user is blocked for a BLP violation and practically had to beg to even continue to defend himself in his AE appeal. Is that really the kind of website that Misplaced Pages strives to be? This is what passes for neutrality, here? ] (]) 02:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	For the review of @{{u|EdJohnston}}:
	My 6-month topic ban by @{{u|Bishonen}} was given for “persistent tendentious editing, soapboxing, and ] violations on Trump- and Clinton-related pages” . What follows is a description of how I have vastly increased my familiarity with each policy, and how I will ensure that these violations do not reoccur (assuming my appeal to have this TBAN lifted is successful).
	Regarding ] of talk pages, I see how some of my wording and advocacy for certain issues to be included in politics-related articles can be characterized as “tendentious.” I was perceived as having an inherent pro-Trump/anti-Clinton bias, not having a neutral point of view, as well as owning a ]. To prevent these accusations from being leveled in the future, I plan to spend more of my time editing other areas that I also care about improving, such as American football and articles related to film studios and their executives. Also, I will be phrasing my talk page edits more carefully and succinctly, so as not to be viewed as ]. Additionally, I think I will have more success with my proposed edits by staying on the topic itself, rather than straying into other subjects.
	I acknowledge that while proposing the inclusion of certain topics (mainly information related to ], and the ]), my edits also often included long rants about ] on Misplaced Pages, based on what I consider the tendency of political pages to lean sharply to the left, as well as the pattern of accepting liberal sources as “reliable,” while eschewing conservative-leaning sources. While I admit that my views regarding this issue are unchanged, I will use alternative avenues to express my concern and approaches to address this trend, instead of the talk pages of the articles themselves.
	Regarding the BLP violations, I believe these accusations are the result of my a) often not providing diffs to the source material providing supporting evidence and b) using careless and hyperbolic language when describing living persons. Now that I have a better grasp (as evidenced by my recent block , and subsequent unblock by @{{u|Boing!_said_Zebedee}}) of what constitutes a BLP violation, I am confident that my days of violating ] are over. I believe another reason for my 6-month topic ban was for having ] issues with other editors. To prevent this from happening in the future, I plan to adopt a less combative attitude in my edits, take the suggestions of @{{u|JFG}}, @{{u|Soham321}}, and others to heart, and focus on improving articles piecemeal rather than engaging in long diatribes to voice broad frustrations with perceived neutrality issues. If I feel provoked and/or attacked, I now know my options to prevent escalation, and allow administrators to handle disputes rather than attempt to “fight back” and possibly violate ] in the process. I would again like to point out that my attempts to improve articles are pure and intended to be collaborative in nature. This is evidenced by the violations occurring exclusively on talk pages, while seeking consensus, and not from my implementation of contentious edits outright. Thank you for the consideration. ] (]) 23:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	Some new information has come to light that I believe needs to be considered here, @{{u|EdJohnston}} and @{{u|Peacemaker67}}, regarding @{{u|Bishonen}}'s overall attitude towards blocks/bans as well as her relationship with {{u|RexxS}}, who recently claimed to be a "disinterested editor" during his plea for a stiffer punishment for me. This is also a reply to {{u|Soham321}}, when he pointed again to the fact that Bishonen finds American politics "strange" and "incomprehensible", and thus may not be the best administrator to hand down punishments regarding American politics. In any case, I was told that any follow ups to accusations/questions do not count against the 500 word limit?
	The banning administrator, Bishonen, appears to have a very cavalier and lax attitude toward blocks and bans. She has said that a user's handle is enough reason along to block that user , freely admitted to being "hard as nails"
	, and has joked about blocks, saying "'''You think I won't block him if he does it again? Ha, we'll see.'''" while reassuring RexxS that his desired block of another user will be enacted, should Bishonen find it suitable. This is after RexxS joked about another administrator being a "patron saint of blockers.". One of the most disturbing and vile edits from Bishonen comes from when she voices her opinion after another administrator rejected a block. Bishonen has an alternate stance on these punishments (vulgarity redacted for the sake of maintaining decorum): '''"F**k that, just ''block'', you know?"''' .
	RexxS, who again, claims to be a "disinterested editor" in fact has an ''extraordinarily'' cozy relationship with my banning editor, Bishonen. Bishonen openly showers praise on RexxS, alluding to the "'''cleverness of young RexxS'''" , and RexxS enjoys helping Bishonen with her administrator duties, and even helping her mull punishments for his fellow Wikipedians ,. As an aside, the relationship is fostered when RexxS trashes the "poor writing" of another user, boasting that he is grateful that he "didn't attend a stately funded university" and going on to say that he is a "contemporary" of British royalty . Finally, in an edit that he summarizes as "Just me being mean," he actually encourages Bishonen to be more liberal with punitive actions, charging that she is "too soft" on people with whom he disagrees, who he derides/attacks as "these POV-warriors" . Yesterday, RexxS made an untrue claim against me, opining that I am "acknowledged as a Trump supporter, not a neutral editor" , which he bases off another user's opinion that has been placed into the form of a table. I politely requested that he strike the false characterization of my political views (''still unknown, and only theorized, by every user on Misplaced Pages''), which he refused and advised me to "stick elsewhere.". After again asking him to strike the comment, he again argues for leaving it in, and then offers this as less-than-kind parting note: "'''unless you've led an unbelievably sheltered existence, you'll know that the sticking suggestion could have been a lot worse.'''" . While I believe that this very poor behavior and violations of ] (and likely other areas) require administrator action/enforcement, I am willing to accept an apology in its place, should he decide to strike both comments as well as all of his edits on my AE appeal, as it has been revealed that he should not have been participating in the appeal due to his undisclosed quite comfortable relationship with Bishonen, and the implications of impartiality that go along with that. In the interest of letting bygones be bygones, and avoiding any ] problems, I am happy to part ways on this note.
	With all due respect to @{{u|Bishonen}}, I believe these diffs more than proves that she has been playing a bit "fast and loose" with her administrative powers and perhaps has wielded these powers against me in the same reckless fashion of which she has treated other editors. In addition, her very close relationship to @{{u|RexxS}} poses additional problems, as he has passionately argued for my ban on this page, requested a block against me on the ANI page (can't find the diff at the moment), and gave himself the disingenuous label of "disinterested," when in fact he works closely with Bishonen to enforce rules across the project and salivates at the thought of her issuing bans/blocks, as they trade pet names for each other . Considering all of these factors, @{{u|EdJohnston}} and @{{u|Peacemaker67}}, I would greatly appreciate a second look at my ban, and would kindly and respectfully ask that you please take into account the above diffs regarding Bishonen's handling of her sanctioning powers, and also disregard any comments from RexxS when making your final decision.
	@{{u|JFG}} and @{{u|TParis}}, I wouldn't try to drag you into this, but your opinions regarding this revelation would also be much appreciated.
	P.S. {{u|Peacemaker67}}, you stated that you would like to "see evidence" of me being "capable of editing neutrally and constructively in a less contentious area." I provided several diffs on your talk page demonstrating this, and I think it's only fair that I post them here as that fact seemed to have been factored into your opinion regarding my appeal., ,,,,,,,
	===Statement by Bishonen===
	I don't think Hidden Tempo's analysis above does justice to my reasons for banning them. But I've already dialogued with them on these matters, so I suggest reviewers read their user talkpage, especially and , and form their own opinion.
	Another thing: I've started to think a narrower scope might have worked, such as "topic banned from all pages related to either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, both broadly construed". I hadn't quite realized how narrowly focused this user has been on promoting Trump and attacking Clinton (IMO) ever since they started editing, and on really very little else in American politics. On the other hand, there might be a risk of the disruption simply moving to other political areas. What do people think? ] &#124; ] 10:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC).
	*Further notes:
	*I don't for my own part accept Hidden Tempo's suggestion that the six-month AP2 topic ban be shortened to 48 hours, which he thinks is enough because his "tiffs" with other editors are in the past. It's sort of the nature of the beast that sanctions ''are'' placed because of the past — the recent past, naturally, as in your case, HT, because we don't care about ancient history — and that it's up to the person who behaved badly a day ago or a week ago to convince the admins that they're now a reformed character. I'm sorry to say you haven't convinced me — for one thing, the word "tiffs" doesn't exactly sound like taking previous problems seriously (now please don't run away with the notion that that word choice is my only objection!). Also, how are the disagreements in the past? I haven't seen you reach out in any way to Volunteer Marek or Objective3000 on this page or elsewhere. Quite the opposite. But then, the review here isn't to be carried out by me. If other admins here like the idea of 48 hours, that'll be fine by me. And, hello? I'm still hoping somebody, anybody, will comment on my tentative suggestion, above, that a narrower ban, such as "topic banned from all pages related to either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, both broadly construed", rather than from AP2, might be enough. Uninvolved admins, where are you?
	*{{ping|Hidden Tempo}} re your recent statement {{tq|"I think we have all thoroughly addressed all three violations upon which you based your TBAN"}},. As I've already said above, I don't think your analysis does justice to the basis for my ban. In the ban notice, I stated that '''"you have been sanctioned for persistent tendentious editing, ], and ] violations on Trump- and Clinton-related pages. Compare the warnings on this page and elsewhere."''' You haven't engaged with that, but have instead repeatedly insisted that I banned you for two specific edits (together comprising the "three violations" of which you speak), namely on your own page and on ]. And you're still insisting on it. I did refer to these two edits on your talkpage, in immediately ''above'' my topic ban notice, though rather mildly with respect to the "filth" edit summary (I said merely that I was "mystified" by it, as Volunteer Marek's post that you were removing seemed civil enough to me), and I gave the ] post as an ''example'' of the way you've been disrupting political talkpages and fomenting strife. You focus on my mention of these two edits to the exclusion of not only of all the other advice and information I've attempted to give you on your page, but of my actual ban notice as well. Taking off from your own definition of a tiny basis for my ban, rather than from what I ''said'' was the basis of my ban, you have spent a lot of ink on this page explaining elaborately why there was in your view nothing wrong with either of the two posts you have chosen to comment on. You call on policies from ] (which you believe I've violated) to ] (which you say your ] post didn't violate) and throw in ], in a way that makes me seriously doubt you ever read it. I don't understand why you shrink my ban rationale in that myopic manner. Didn't you read my actual ban notice?
	:I note your call for an IBAN between yourself and Volunteer Marek. I won't support that, simply because of my poor experience of IBANS. From what I've seen they're a recipe for never-ending acrimonious ANI and AE serials. But other uninvolved admins, who may still weigh in here (sigh), might think differently, and institute an IBAN. I don't think that's likely to happen, but of course I won't object if it does.
	:I won't comment on your view that my calling American politics "strange" shows I have "distaste" for it which in turn "poses a natural ] problem" and therefore I'm not in a position to be placing bans per the ] discretionary sanctions. Well, I won't comment beyond recommending you to click on ] and read it. I'll leave it to the uninvolved admins to take stock of your opinion of my unsuitability for adminning in this area, if they ever do show up. PS, hey, ] just turned up! Thank you! ] &#124; ] 16:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC).
	*Final response to ]: I beg your pardon? You post here some 16—17 times, in a fair bid to talk the hind leg off a donkey with some 3,500 words, and then according to you I ''suddenly rematerialize'', to post my second comment ever in the discussion, which you hint has some sort of unbecoming relationship with something on your talkpage, which I have no intention of researching because I don't care? I've had enough of your sneers, sir, and I'm completely done with trying to explain anything whatever to you. And no, I'm not a native speaker. Are you? What does "I attribute my penchant for long responses to the repeated "soapboxing" allegations" mean? ] &#124; ] 20:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC).
	*] has asked me on my page if I want to reconsider the topic ban in view of Hidden Tempo's new and improved appeal text. Please see my reply . (Summary: I'm dithering a bit but basically coming down on the side of "no".) ] &#124; ] 16:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC).
	===Statement by JFG===
	Having edited quite a bit in contentious political pages, I noticed Hidden Tempo sometimes behaving in not-so-civil ways, but aside from getting impatient, I don't see anything illegitimate in HT's contributions. He makes cogent and reasoned arguments about existing contents or noting lack thereof. He appropriately refrains from making controversial edits to articles without discussing them on talk pages; in fact he seems to be criticized here for posting lengthy arguments on talk pages. He discusses systemic bias in some mainstream sources, while proposing other sources for different viewpoints; what's wrong with that? A 6-month ban is absolutely overkill, perhaps a week would help him cool off and study some of our neutrality and civility policies. The suggested i-ban with VM might help keep things civil too, maybe that would be useful for a couple months. Banning this contributor for 6 months could be construed as censorship, and God knows WP doesn't need more accusations of bias one way or the other. My personal advice to HT: rather than ranting about your perceived imbalance of coverage, do make concrete and small proposals to restore balance one edit at a time. ]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 11:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
	Here is a followup to {{u|MelanieN}}'s comments and {{u|Hidden Tempo}}'s response. Admitting to one's own POV on talk pages should be ''encouraged'' in the spirit of full disclosure and ]. I have zero problem working constructively with editors harboring strong personal opinions on both sides of any political issue: such discussions, when conducted in good faith, tend to result in stronger, precise, neutral and more defensible consensus wording. Melanie: you and I have done this a few times during the campaign season, although I suspect we did not agree politically on which candidate would be the best fit for the country at this time. What irks me are editors who keep crying NPOV at every turn while harboring a transparently obvious POV of their own and forcefully denying it; I much prefer to deal with straightforward opinionated people.
	Speaking of opinionated editors, I would like to quote {{u|EEng}}'s cogent remark in {{u|Doc9871}}'s case above: {{tq|If we only allowed editors free of bias, we'd have no editors at all, literally}}. — ] <sup>]</sup> 00:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	===Statement by MelanieN===
	Disclaimer: I am ] at the Clinton and Trump pages, so I am commenting here only as a regular editor who is familiar with HT's work. (I am going to refer to HT as "he" because I have seen him identify himself as a "man" or a "guy" in several posts.) Regarding talk pages, HT claims: "I have never voiced support for any political candidate or revealed my own political views." In fact he reveals his political views all the time. His POV against Clinton, against mainstream media, and against Misplaced Pages is clearly in evidence.
	* Against Clinton: "mountainous scandals" "HRC feverishly resisted releasing the transcripts" Here's a post in which he (without irony) simultaneously attacks Clinton ("dealt a massive blow to her already feeble trustworthiness numbers") and requests others to "keep our own personal politics out of it, as some of the POV I've seen here by viciously (and at times, defamatory) attacking a presidential candidate and his supporters is downright disgusting and has no place on this page".
	* Against media: "Whether or not the San Francisco-based Misplaced Pages organization regards a liberal newspaper as 'reputable' is of no consequence to me."" At an AfD for the article ]: "Creating articles based on whatever topics that a bunch of radical left blogs and newspapers deem newsworthy sets a dangerous precedent." On his own talk page, he complains that Misplaced Pages accepts as sources Slate and Huffington Post - "some of the most disgusting, profane, unapologetically openly left-wing websites…run by the most alarmingly radical liberal bloggers "working" today" - while not allowing Breitbart and the Drudge Report. At an article talk page: "this page and countless others are littered with citations from CNN. CNN is owned by Time Warner, Hillary's 7th largest campaign donor. They were also caught feeding debate questions to the Hillary campaign in order to help her cheat, and fired Donna Brazile for it. We count Washington Post as a "RS," despite the fact that they admitted to hiring a special "Trump Unit" composed of 20 reporters whose sole job it was to dig up dirt on Trump. We use CBS as a reputable source, despite the fact that John Harwood was caught colluding with the Hillary campaign, brainstorming questions to ask the Republican candidates in the primary debates. POLITICO is regularly cited, despite the fact that Glenn Thrush, the editor, was caught sending articles to the Hillary campaign for pre-approval before publishing. Something doesn't add up here." (He later denied this was intended to suggest any "conspiracy theories.")
	:A particular target is the New York Times, "a far-left wing newspaper". "The overwhelming majority of the American media and populace (as well as various sets of data) agree that the NYT is an avowed liberal newspaper, providing a leftist ideological perspective from the front page to the editorial page." "The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican candidate for POTUS since Eisenhower. Sixty years ago. The headlines throughout the campaign have been ludicrous, and at times disgusting." They also mischaracterized a New York Times's letter to subscribers as "apologizing for dishonest coverage of Trump."
	*Against other Misplaced Pages editors: "This article has obviously been heavily contaminated by editing from Hillary supporters, and possibly paid operatives from the DNC." "There seems to be a handful of activist editors who are sanitizing all pages related to the DNC and the corruption of Hillary Clinton, and it appears something needs to be done to bar these users from editing and violating WP:POV and WP:DUE until their emotions cool down." "As far as fighting the uber-liberal Misplaced Pages leadership and highly active DNC representatives combing political articles, working diligently to revise history and scrub news that reflects poorly on Democrats from their pages, I have neither the time nor the resources to take on such a monumental task."
	*Against Misplaced Pages itself: He repeatedly cites the fact that "Misplaced Pages is based in San Francisco" as the reason why Misplaced Pages pages have a "liberal" slant. When it was explained to him that it's the WikiMedia Foundation that is based in SF, and that enwiki content comes from worldwide Misplaced Pages volunteers and not the WMF, he replied "whether or not I can prove that Misplaced Pages has bought into the Silicon Valley Facebook/Microsoft/Google/Apple, etc. long and storied tradition of devout liberalism is beside the point."
	In my opinion his POV is so strong that he is unable to be neutral. In particular his attitude toward Reliable Sources (that a "liberal" source, which in his opinion includes most of the mainstream media, should not be considered reliable) is completely out of line with Misplaced Pages's definition (reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). Also, his repeated attacks on the good faith and neutrality of other editors (always generic and collective, never individually targeted as far as I have seen) are a problem. For these reasons his Clinton and Trump talk page contributions are, at best, unhelpful. I apologize for the length of this post, but I think quotes and diffs are helpful in this kind of review.
	: Additional comment: Since I am involved, I did not intend to recommend outcomes here. But I must disagree with the hints from ] and ] about a possible block. I can't see that HT has done anything to deserve a block. I also disagree with bringing ] or ] into the discussion. To my mind the SPA tag describes a person who from day 1 focuses entirely on one article, often with promotional intent. Many of us focus on one general area of interest to us, especially during our first few hundred edits; that does not make us SPAs. And I don't see any BLP violations in his negative comments about Clinton. Negative comments about aspects of a politician's campaign may be POV, but IMO they do not violate BLP.
	: BTW I wasn't the one who brought up "conspiracy theories". Another editor, ], commented (a few posts after the HT link that I cited), "This page is taking on the tone of a conspiracy site," to which HT replied "Is it? In what way? I did a quick scan of the talk page and haven't found a single conspiracy theory raised, as of yet." And that was the end of that thread.
	::Well, now I see that ] disagrees with me about whether the comments were BLP, and did in fact issue a short block. I guess that's why ] administrators (like me) do not make this kind of decision. --] (]) 21:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	:::] RE: ''As I have gained the confidence of at least two admins (@MelanieN and @Boing! said Zebedee) '': Please don't put words in my mouth. Yes, I did say that I didn't regard your comments about Clinton as a BLP violation or blockable. I also said that your attitude toward what constitutes a Reliable Source is completely out of line with Misplaced Pages's, that your repeated attacks on the good faith and neutrality of other editors are a problem, and that your talk page edits are, at best, unhelpful. And besides, as I keep pointing out, I am not here as an admin. I'd appreciate your striking me from the sentence I just quoted. --] (]) 05:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
	===Statement by Johnuniq===
	:<small>''Taking the hint from the sections above, I have moved my comments from the discussion below, without the pings to ensure they don't provide another notification. ] (]) 07:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)''</small>
	@Hidden Tempo: I'm wondering about ] at ]. Would you write that differently if redoing it? Why or why not? Do you think "Frigidaire" should be listed as a nickname at ]? ] (]) 06:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
	:@Hidden Tempo: Yes, I believe you reply there. I don't think we need to discuss this at length but I will register my surprise that someone who so emphatically opposes "Frigidaire" would post that comment. Re inserting "alleged"—that is not relevant for ]. No page at Misplaced Pages can be used to insert dubious claims on the basis that "alleged" was used and a partisan source provided. My comment is generic as I have not examined the claims/sources beyond noting the confrontational tone of the overal comment. ] (]) 06:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
	*Hidden Tempo suggests Bishonen's TBAN is not supported by commentators here. That raises the question of whether an appeal at WP:AE is settled by vote of those commenting or by agreement among uninvolved admins. My reading of ] is that it is the latter (see the ] section below).<p>Uninvolved admins will consider comments made by editors but may take into account any background circumstances. For example, {{u|SashiRolls}} is involved with situations ] where it is claimed that a pro-Clinton website was very inappropriately added to ]s. Also, an editor under a ] may want such TBANs overturned. {{u|Soham321}}'s views may be colored by incidents ]. There is an active request regarding {{u|TheTimesAreAChanging}} above where Bishonen posted an unfavorable assessment two weeks ago.<p>Hidden Tempo suggests that {{u|My very best wishes}} is "permitted to post this kind of attack on living persons and other editors". The section at ] is very short; it offers an opinion with no attack on living persons (see ] for what that means) or other editors (see ] for that).<p>Just above I asked about ]. HT's response above (search for "Frigidaire") is not compatible with the comment which included '{{tq|I promise you that you will never see "Frigidaire" on this page longer than the 3 and a half minutes (max) that it takes somebody refreshing their watchlist every second of every day to notice what you've done, and immediately revert it. You have to pick your battles, and this one is like trying to get a stain out of the carpet when the house is burning down.}}'<p>The pugnacious but flawed manner in which HT is promoting their position shows that the topic ban was appropriate. ] (]) 09:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	*@{{u|RexxS}}: You posted in what is now Soham321's section. Re "breach of WP:BLP": do you mean BLP? A BLP violation involves abuse of an identified living person, not a group of unindentified Misplaced Pages editors. ] doesn't cover a claim of disruption by editors IMHO. A case could be made that ] applies as it mentions "group of contributors". However, people claim editors are "disruptive" all the time. ] applies, and going on and on with such claims could be sanctioned but a one-off assertion scores very low on the scale of personal attacks. ] (]) 23:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	===Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging===
	<small>''NB'': This comment is in part informed by a similar AE request against myself; unlike Hidden Tempo, I committed a revert that might well merit some sanction (it's much too late to self-revert), but—as with Hidden Tempo—the thread rapidly devolved into scouring my userpage and user talk for political opinions or mildly uncivil rejoinders that could be used to caricature me as some sort of POV warrior, which couldn't be further from the truth—and came from one particular critic whose hands were far from clean.</small> In response to MelanieN, I caution against expanding the definition of "''conspiracy theory''" to include documented facts such as Brazile's collusion with the Clinton campaign, as well as speculation that ''CNN''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s coverage might be skewed by the political donations of its parent company. (Is every Marxist media criticism now considered "''conspiracy theory''," too?) I checked every diff provided by Bishonen and MelanieN, and it seems they neglected to provide even a single example of Hidden Tempo making a non-neutral edit to any article. Despite this, MelanieN is convinced "''his POV is so strong that he is unable to be neutral''." Perhaps, but a 6 month topic ban should not be handed out lightly or as a ''preemptive'' measure. It would be impractical and impossible to ban everyone with a political opinion from editing in American Politics, and yet having an opinion seems to be the crux of the rationale for sanctioning Hidden Tempo. (If you want to go down the rabbit hole of declaring ''everything''—even sourced, attributed claims from Wikileaks—related to the ] a ] violation, one might say that accusing Hidden Tempo of "''conspiracy theory''" violates ]. ''Why not focus on article improvement and consensus building rather than the alphabet soup of Wiki-policies?'') Furthermore, if we are serious about ] it might even be helpful to have a rare voice of dissent from Misplaced Pages's predominant liberal thesis. (''Or do you know of any Trump-supporting admins?'') To be fair, it does seem that Hidden Tempo (still a very inexperienced user) has a problem with tl;dr screeds, but the fact that the vast majority (over '''60%''') of his edits have been relegated to talk pages also begs the question as to how much disruption he could possibly have been causing to merit such a strong punishment. Finally, while I question the wisdom of the topic ban, I recommend that Hidden Tempo voluntarily spend some time learning the ropes on less controversial, heavily-patrolled, and stressful areas of the encyclopedia—for his own good.] (]) 10:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	I realize that Hidden Tempo was only blocked a short time for calling Hilary's trustworthiness numbers "''feeble''," but I still think that that example raises serious questions about unequal treatment by admins. By way of comparison, ] recently started a massive edit war at the ] ], in which he and left numerous inflammatory comments such as and Despite this, Oneshot was not blocked and engaged in with an admin (Oshwah) in which no block was even threatened. (As Oshwah remarked: ) ; not one of Oneshot's BLP-violating comments was ever redacted. In fact, Oneshot's behavior was defended by several editors, including Kingsindian (), Snow Rise (), and SPECIFICO (who lavished praise for Oneshot's and two hours after my topic ban proposal gained in a move considered ). Oneshot was later indeffed for massive sockpuppetry, but the point still stands: It seems we are sending the message that you can say virtually anything about a conservative pundit like D'Souza—and about —but the minute you dare to question Hilary's trustworthiness numbers you are blocked. This can only have a chilling effect on the representation of diverse views on Misplaced Pages.] (]) 01:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
	===Statement by My very best wishes===
	@Hidden Tempo. You said you previously edited on WP for years . Did you previously receive any blocks, warnings, etc, while editing from other accounts or as an IP? Most people who commented here were misled: they thought you are a new user. ] (]) 15:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	:@Hidden Tempo. It seams that you are threatening a contributor today in , even after shortening your AE statement. You tell: "I would like to give you an opportunity to strike that comment...". And if she/he does not do it, then what? ] (]) 18:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	{{hat|Collapsed, but kept as something other users referred to}}
	First of all, I think Tempo is not a new user. They are way too familiar with bans, policies and who is doing what.
	Secondly, Tempo creates a lot of disruption using very small number of edits. If there is a case for ''preemptive'' t-ban, this is it. Do not do it, and you will see what happens.
	<small>Finally, there are claims about unfair treatment here and elsewhere . Not true. Yes, users who support D. Trump tend to be more disruptive. This is nothing new. Users who support fringe theories, extremist groups and non-orthodox politicians tend to be more disruptive.</small> ] (]) 12:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	*I think Hidden Tempo is unable to interact constructively with other users including admins. Hidden Tempo immediately starts accusing each contributor who had happen to disagree with him on something. That is what triggered his topic ban, and that is exactly what he continue to do on this noticeboard. Based on their responses, he is going to continue complaining about other users if this appeal is granted . Does he understand the problem? No, he does not. He tells "Not accusing anyone of anything" . How come? Is not an accusation of people who never interacted with him before? Also note a misleading edit summary ("All opinions are welcome, as long as they're leftist in nature"). But the comment is not about all opinions are welcome. It tells exactly the opposite. ] (]) 16:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	**Indeed, he just shot another round of accusations in his AE statement. ] (]) 20:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	===Statement by SashiRolls===
	<!-- 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. -->
	I believe now I should post a quiet message in the involved editor section. Obviously I'm sort of involved since I was also discussing -- without much luck -- some ideas on the page where all this trouble seems to have started. Sometimes reading, yes, I winced because this or that was sharp, but c'mon seriously... you have to have a thick skin to try to say anything in political space. Or have read Gogol before google.
			===Result concerning BabbleOnto===
	These inquiries, this inquisitiveness, these show trials don't strike me as helpful types of appeasement. Nobody here is Hitler: we can try to be a peaceful community, no? Malicious BLP violations and sharp invective, such as what I've read on various pages, including in the citations in JFG's statement above, has gone too far. When passions lead people to curse about politicians on WP talk pages or &ndash; worse &ndash; about other editors, there is fear under the surface. What is this fear? I agree with Eeng, being upfront about one's POV is good. I would never chose a name like Fairness, for example. Zero credibility. ^^
	I agree with My very best wishes' observation that the center of the political spectrum has a big advantage over the wings in this wiki-building process because of the "nature" of WP:RS since antiquity. Logically, then, this frustration should be more acutely perceived by those on the wings. Yet it is those in the center of that widening gyre that seem to curse the loudest. So where are we now? Things fell apart, the center didn't hold. It's time to heal quickly and move on.
	It's custom to go back into forgotten history and cite Copernicus in the mainstream vs fringe debate &ndash; possibly to distance ourselves from all the entanglements that Diderot and d'Alembert &ndash; publishing abroad &ndash; faced ("Because of its occasional radical contents , the ] caused much controversy in conservative circles, and on the initiative of the Parlement of Paris, the French government suspended the encyclopedia's privilège in 1759");
	but I think it's better to look at more recent history, a time when one wrote for the drawer, as Mandelstam and Bulgakov called it. Not exactly , those times were they? Please, peace: let the prisoner go if he promises to play nice. I really don't think this is any of our business., ] (]) 20:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
	:I've read the recent comments by ], ], ], and ]. Defending a user against a topic ban is not a waste of time. Especially, as Soham mentions, editors with a clear acuity that may only be manifesting itself on Trump/Clinton pages because of the current level of access accorded to those who do not share the "consensus" view on these figures who are actually somewhat "dissensual". ] (like ]) seems to think -- my apologies if I'm wrong -- that I, for example, have an ax to grind against Clinton. This is not true. I would never have edited any Clinton pages had I not read so many "placed stories" during the election about other candidates. (By placed stories I mean stories that were written by those spinning for one candidate or another.) I was, indeed, surprised that a number of issues during the campaign were never treated on the campaign page, or more particularly the ] page, where an RfC {{maroon|still !!}} has not been closed concerning the Caracol project in Haiti, broadly covered in mainstream sources. Just the mention that there was controversy regarding this story was vehemently blocked (by ] -- mentioned above -- among others), which was astonishing to me given to the sheer volume of reporting that has been done on it (and which I put onto the talk page in an effort to move consensus towards mentioning it). I do believe a slim majority of editors voted in the end for inclusion of that material, but the RfC was never closed, so we couldn't move forward. It's against the ] to cast aspersions, doubt good faith, and so forth. And yet, despite my call on the HRC presidential campaign page, no admin ever went to close out that RfC, not even ] who clearly saw that call.
	:I don't want to fight POV wars or see POV wars being fought, and yet, there is truth to what has been said here on AE about issues such as "gaslighting", "smear", and tag-team type editing. A type-A, warrior-type mentality is prevalent here on Misplaced Pages (at least in the spaces at issue). Is this because most editors are men? Maybe, maybe not. (I think it may be, though don't get me wrong, I know from experience that women can often be very powerful and combative POV advocates on fora too) I think it's related to the fact that we are engaged in faceless interaction which does not promote accountability, so someone like Calton can in a way he would never dare do IRL, because he would be quickly reminded of social norms of politeness and professionalism. The first line of our article on ] says: "Fake news websites are websites that publish hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation to increase web traffic through sharing on social media". Reliable sources have spoken of the Clinton outlet ''Shareblue / Blue Nation Review'' as "pravda-esque" for making up stories/headlines like "Why does Bernie Sanders keep denigrating Hillary’s supporters?" It is included on at least two sites, which include sites engaged in what might be called "hard spin".
	:] greeted me in the political "arena" by asking me to delete the word "spin" from a talk page back in July (see the top of my talk page), and now I find him using that same word as though it were innocuous: "The article content that has nothing to do with fake news, and furthermore it is difficult to see how any rational observer could see otherwise. Political spin is not "Fake news." Now, I guess I & others are meant to conclude that I'm an irrational observer... that's how such ABF selective spinning (what some have called "gaslighting" I gather) works. When I first read ] on the HRC campaign page, I knew he was someone eloquent who had a clear understanding of what was at work, and that is why I am supporting him here, as I have supported others who have raised these issues (sometimes in "politics", sometimes in other areas). My POV: I don't often agree with the assessments of ] and ]. I do see they are both very often willing to get called into these matters (to such a degree that I wonder how much time they can have left for building an encyclopedia rather than wearing the enforcement uniform). I bear neither of these administrators any ill will, but think that they might be -- in good faith -- missing something very important. PS: ] is disingenuous. WP is a forum, different from the Athenian forum and different from reddit (or a php bulletin board), but a forum -- under the surface -- all the same, especially here on this project page.] (]) 18:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	::Having no idea who Calton is (other than from his user page, from our limited interactions on the Haitian-US Relations page (IIRC), and from Bishonen's talk page, where she urged him not to intervene on AE and to calm down ), I'm not quite sure what to make of his aggression except to see that he is known for it. I have been transparent through this process (as transparent as the tban allows me to be, since it does prevent me from talking about some aspects of my own alleged POV). I showed transparency in my statement by referring people to my talk page and by ''mentioning'' users whose actions I referred to in my statement. This is more than can be said for Calton and ] who have gone behind user's backs.
	::As a point of fact, Calton is wrong: I did not vote for the candidate he thinks I voted for, nor did I vote for the winning candidate. My actions on Misplaced Pages have been to counter disinformation and the recycling of what I've called "placed stories" above (a good example is the copyright violation I had to IAR to remove from the page I am temporarily banned from). The administrator involved who decided my case chose to take no action on that matter, though of course it was brought to his attention, as has this matter. Whether Calton would cuss me out in the real world workplace or not is a question worth examining: If he were ''my boss'', I would suck it up and deal with his attitude '''if''' I thought the project my employer was working on was an interesting one worth my continued effort and there was potential for the work environment to improve. Were he my ''co-worker'', such outbursts would certainly not serve him well in staff meetings, he would lose far too much credibility and might quickly find himself headed for the minority or the door; and were he to make threats like those in his statement as ''my subordinate'', in the best case scenario he would remain employed if he were <u>regularly correct</u> despite his difficulties with normal social rules. In my limited experience with the user, that is not the case. At worst, he could well end up fired with a restraining order preventing him from returning to the work place.
	But Misplaced Pages is not an ordinary workplace. Nobody gets paid, and -- as Bishonen says -- it has its own gallows on the jobsite. ] (]) 19:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	===Statement by Boing! said Zebedee===
	I won't add my comments in the Results section, as I have issued and lifted a short block. Because of that I think it's better to leave the consensus to others.
	*As for the block, {{u|MelanieN}} opined that the action was not block-worthy. That's a fair opinion, and for the specific action I think it was marginal. I did what I thought was best at the time for getting {{u|Hidden Tempo}} to understand the problems with personal editorializing and why it is forbidden. I'm not sure how successful that was.
	*Hidden Tempo says he has "''gained the confidence of at least one admin (@Boing! said Zebedee) that I am now better equipped to follow BLP policies and play well with others''", but that is stretching it a bit. Hidden Tempo said in the block appeal that "''I am not able to use any words in my edits that are not also in the source material, even on talk pages, without committing a BLP violation''", which is over-literal and does not really show proper understanding, but it was sufficient to convince me that we would not see a repeat of the immediate problem and that it was safe to unblock so that this AE appeal could progress.
	*Part of the problem, I think, is that Hidden Tempo appears to see things in very literal terms. That unblock request was one small example, but I'm seeing a lot more here in this appeal. For example, we see the belief that the TBAN was for two (or whatever small number of) specific edits, when it was in fact for more general behaviour for which some specified edits were offered as examples. Another example of literalism is in Hidden Tempo's claims that, because he has not specifically said who he does or does not support between Trump and Clinton, he should be seen as editing neutrally. Editing with a POV is a far wider issue than just explicitly stating your position on a subject, and it's close to impossible to hide your POV by simply not stating it.
	*I'm also seeing lots of lawyering here on specific examples, without really standing back and considering the whole picture. It's important to consider specifics, certainly, but the discussion of those specifics needs to be done in the context of the whole.
	*On the topic ban itself, I can see merit in {{u|Bishonen}}'s suggestion to narrow it to just Trump and Clinton. But I can envisage subsequent lawyering as to what, specifically, is covered by those two subjects. It's 50/50 from me on this one.
	*IBAN with Volunteer Marek? I largely oppose IBAN's, for the same reasons as Bishonen, and would oppose this one. Topic bans are, in my view, significantly more effective and more efficient.
	I'm sure there was something else I wanted to add, but I've forgotten what it was. But that's probably enough words for me anyway. ] (]) 12:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	===Statement by Timothyjosephwood===
	Someone step up and decline this appalling waste of time before we spend a few thousand more words on a forgone conclusion. ] 14:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	:To be clear, there is almost nothing to be gained by repealing the topic ban because the user has made almost no meaningful contributions to the topic area to begin with. They are a net negative and instead of showing that they can productively and collaboratively contribute in other areas, they have come here to spend, what is apparently an overabundance of personal time, on yet more endless debate instead of doing literally anything else.
	:Spending so much effort on appealing the TBAN shows me nothing beyond the fact that their primary intention on Misplaced Pages is to engage in a political debates, and not to build an encyclopedia. If they can be reformed, then a TBAN is an opportunity to do so. If they cannot, then they are no loss to the project. What is however a loss to the project, is spending more otherwise productive time from otherwise productive editors on this appeal. ] 19:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	::] ] 20:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	===Statement by Soham321===
	{{u|Johnuniq}} the background of editors who have offered comments on this AE appeal should be scrutinized. In this connection he mentions me and also {{u|SashiRolls}}. As proof of the fact that my "views <s>are</s> <ins>may be</ins> colored" (Johnuniq's words), John gives the link to an unsuccessful July 2015 appeal of mine pertaining to a topic ban imposed on me by Bishonen. In this connection I have the following to say:
	*I wonder whether John is guilty of ] when he refers to the July 2015 incident to claim that my "views <s>are</s> <ins>may be</ins> colored". By this yardstick, since John made over 45 edits on Bishonen's user talk page, and Bishonen has made 21 edits on his user talk page, and a scrutiny of these edits reveal that John and Bishonen are on friendly terms, does it imply that John's own "views <s>are</s> <ins>may be</ins> colored"?
	*There is no T-ban of any sort imposed on me as of now; i am an editor in good standing. I have pointed out elsewhere that in my opinion the reason why the T-ban was imposed on me, and why my appeal against the T-ban was unsuccessful, was because of my unfamiliarity with ].
	*The fact that I do not show up on discussions involving every topic ban or block appeal imposed by Bishonen (or any other Admin) shows that I only offer my views in specific "deserving" cases. (I did not comment in the recent discussion involving Peeta Singh in which a T-ban was imposed by Bishonen since I thought it was a deserving T-ban and there were a sufficient number of editors and Admins supporting the T-ban so I thought my comment in this appeal would be unnecessary.) Is it John's contention that because of my past history, I should not in future offer my comments on any block or ban appeals in AE or ANI (even though I am currently an editor in good standing with no T-bans imposed on me) since my "views <s>are</s> <ins>may be</ins> colored"? If this is the view of the community I will be happy to oblige.
	*The only reason I intervened in discussions involving {{u|Hidden Tempo}} and {{u|TheTimesAreAChanging}} is because I consider both these editors to be intelligent and knowledgeable and I believe it would be WP's loss if they were to stop editing. I have not come across a single edit in article space made by these two editors which violates ]. I completely endorse {{u|JFG}}'s suggestion that a disclosure of one's POV should be encouraged, not discouraged. See and . ] (]) 15:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	{{u|EdJohnston}} writes that Hidden Tempo(HT)'s words "There is a veritable army of Hillary supporters and Trump detractors on these pages that have already taken care of that" violate WP:BATTLEGROUND. This, together with Ed's claim that HT criticizes sources that Misplaced Pages generally trusts as being left-wing, seem to be the reasons for why Ed believes the topic ban was justified. In this connection I have the following to say:
	*The comment was made by HT on his own user talk page during a dialogue with Bishonen who was complaining about his editing and who would go on to impose the topic ban on HT. The message you are sending by holding HT to account for what he said to Bishonen during this dialogue is that one should not enter into any extended dialogue with an Admin communicating with your on your talk page about your editing history since your words in this dialogue can be used against you to justify any Admin action taken against you. And this comment of HT on his own user talk page was made in a specific context; this is And this is a more extended quote from that comment of HT: {{Quote|Do I ever make edits that make Hillary look better and Trump look worse? Admittedly, no. But guess what? I don't have to. There is a veritable army of Hillary supporters and Trump detractors on these pages that have already taken care of that. There is literally no potential NPOV edits that could be made on Hillary's bio or campaign page to make her look better, and vice versa for Donald Trump's. The President-elect's page has multiple issues, and has more than earned its neutrality and length templates. Every possible event, statement, and left-wing blog's opinion (yes, some blogs are left-wing, and no that's not a political view) is represented on his page.}}
	*HT had less than 275 edits to his name at the time the T-ban was imposed on him. He cannot be expected to be familiar with ]. The fact that HT made the comment not on any article talk page or talk page of another editor but on his own talk page during an extended dialogue with the Admin who would go on to impose the T-Ban on him, means that Ed should be viewing this comment more leniently in my opinion. ] (]) 16:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	{{u|Masem}}, since you apparently believe Hidden Tempo is guilty of ], I place for your consideration of {{u|My very best wishes}} (MVBW) which I believe violates both ] when he accuses Hidden Tempo of not being a new editor on the ground that HT is "way too familiar with bans, policies and who is doing what."; and also violates ] when he writes that "Yes, users who support D. Trump tend to be more disruptive. This is nothing new. Users who support fringe theories, extremist groups and non-orthodox politicians tend to be more disruptive." And this is Hidden Tempo's response to MVBW's comment:. Slightly battleground, on account of using the world "disgraceful", but not nearly as violative of ] as his accuser in my opinion. ] (]) 18:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	I am also concerned about a possible ] violation by {{u|My very best wishes}} when he wrote the following in this AE discussion: I'd like to know {{u|RexxS}}'s opinion on this in light of his strong defense of ] in this AE discussion. ] (]) 19:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	In her , {{u|Bishonen}} to a comment on her talk page giving details as to why she thinks the 6 month topic ban on TP is appropriate. Bishonen's comments reveal an extraordinarily naive understanding of American politics. Consider Bishonen's words (from her talk page diff): {{Quote|But it doesn't sit altogether well with me that he speaks of being "perceived" as having an inherent pro-Trump/anti-Clinton bias, and proposes to take measures "to prevent these accusations from being leveled in the future...''after'' HT submitted the short version, he's still, after all that has gone down, standing by his claim that he is a "neutral editor"...Hidden Tempo's claims that, because he has not specifically said who he does or does not support between Trump and Clinton, he should be seen as editing neutrally.}}
	*Every knowledgeable editor editing an article pertaining to US politics will have a POV (to put it in a sophisticated way), or a bias (to put it more crudely). It is impossible not to have a POV in US politics if one is knowledgeable about US politics.
	*Neutrality is something separate from having a POV. One can make neutral edits while having a POV.
	*An editor need not be pro-Trump or anti-Trump, or pro-Clinton or anti-Clinton as Bishonen seems to see it. An editor may agree with Clinton on the issue of medical insurance, while agreeing with Trump on the issue of the need to retain jobs in the US. Likewise an editor may agree with Clinton on many issues, and with Trump on many issues; and also disagree with both Clinton and Trump on many issues. My point is that this is not a black-and-white thing as Bishonen seems to see it.
	*Earlier Bishonen had written that she finds American politics "strange" and "incomprehensible":
	*{{u|Peacemaker67}} who is also endorsing the 6 month topic ban does not give any specific reason for why he thinks this ban is appropriate other than the fact that he has read Bishonen's reasoning for the topic ban. Earlier, Peacemaker had revealed his own naive understanding of US politics when he wrote that
	*I am concerned that Admins who admit they have a naive understanding of US politics are evaluating AE discussions having underlying content disputes pertaining to US politics. I think this is a fit case for ArbCom to consider: whether an Admin who openly admits to being naive about US politics is competent enough to evaluate any AE case with underlying content disputes pertaining to US politics. ] (]) 17:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	{{u|Lizzius}}, I never asked for any ban or block on the person I complained about in ANI (which was after they refused to retract the unnecessarily inflammatory comments they made in this case after being requested to do so) . The fact that they promptly retracted their inflammatory comments in this AE discussion (by hatting it themselves) after I filed the ANI case shows that they took my complaint seriously. ] (]) 19:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	===Statement by Calton===
	There seem to be a lot of political editors who are looking at this AE as a chance to ride their particular hobbyhorses or try to "work the refs"in their own AE cases.
	Like {{user|SashiRolls}}, for instance, whose pinging within their above grievance-fest brings me here. They've received their own for their inability to keep their crusading under control. (The talk pages for August and September for ] and ] are particularly instructive: for the latter, do a search for "smear"to get some flavor of SashiRolls's crusade, and ). The final straw was their edit-warring attempt to unilaterally override a discretionary sanctions zero-revert RFC, proclaiming other editors were conducting "an offensive against ".
	SashiRolls's claims of neutrality can be judged by looking at their actual behavior, like their attempt at guilt-by-association they try to rationalize above (the bogosity of the actual content, I'll probably be dealing with at the ] soon). Their sense of victimhood can be gleaned by their willful and self-serving misreading of as "cuss them out": click the link and see for yourself. And if I had wanted to "cuss out" SashiRolls, I would have done so, and I would certainly not have the slightest hesitation in doing so in person, whatever their clumsy attempt at baiting tries to imply.
	In short, SashiRoll's comments should be given short shrift and -- given the way things are going -- SashiRolls might be making their own re-appearance here soon enough. Which, of course, will be part of the concerted efforts of the Bad People to censor SashiRolls. --] | ] 15:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	''Having no idea who Calton is...'' And yet you pinged me here. Don't you recall? And as much as I respect her, a) I don't work for ]; and b) ] topic ban violations were AFTER Bishonen's warnings.
	''As a point of fact, Calton is wrong: I did not vote for the candidate he thinks I voted for, nor did I vote for the winning candidate''. More reading comprehension/mind-reading failure from SashiRolls: I have said not a word nor made even a suggestion of "who voted for", so it's kind of hard to be wrong about something I've never said. What I '''have''' done is point to your topic ban on Jill Stein and the battleground behavior which prompted it, which contradict your unconvincing (and continuing) claims of neutrality. That continuing behavior -- as well as the (probably) willful/(possibly) bungled misreading of basic texts as you just illustrated will (in my opinion) inevitably lead you back here, no matter what seem to be your efforts to "work the refs" in advance. --] | ] 04:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
	=== Statement by RexxS ===
	I am an uninvolved editor, a British citizen living in the UK, with no experience of, or interest in, the field of US politics.
	I've just had the unpleasant experience of being harangued on my talk page by Hidden Tempo.
	He makes a point of referring to how the facts make Trump and Clinton look in his post. I believe that is a breach of his topic ban. I'm afraid that his investment in arguing his case here has made him forget that one of the purposes of his topic ban was to prevent him from spreading his fixation across the encyclopedia and to give disinterested editors such as myself a break from it. It appears that the sanctions applied so far are not having the desired effect, so I request that some escalation is considered to drive the point home to him. If his present conduct is representative of what we can expect his behaviour to be should his topic ban be relaxed, I can't see any alternative to extending it beyond six months to prevent further disruption. --] (]) 18:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	:
	: {{reply to | Soham321}} (moved from his section)
	: If you ask me directly, I certainly wouldn't say that users who support Trump are more disruptive. Although if you take a look at ], he does seem to have assembled quite a bit of evidence to support the assertion that Trump supporters are more disruptive by a factor of more than 3 to 1. As an aside, he seems to indicate in that table that Hidden tempo is acknowledged as a Trump supporter, not a neutral editor as he's been claiming. Nevertheless, the table may be contentious in that we don't know how comprehensive James Lambden's survey is, so my opinion is that saying {{tq|"users who support D. Trump tend to be more disruptive"}} is a breach of ]. If you find an example of MVBW repeating it several times after having it pointed out to him – as Hidden tempo did in his BLP violation – then I'll support a similar action. Cheers --] (]) 23:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	===Statement by (username)===
	<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
	===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Hidden Tempo ===
	I am sympathetic towards the points raised by {{u|Hidden Tempo}} with one exception. I find edit summaries on his talk page like "Removed slanderous personal attacks and out-of-context POV remarks.", "Deleted repeated harassment and false accusations from User: Volunteer Marek", and "Removed more filth from the well-known tendentious editor "Volunteer Marek." to be unnecessarily inflammatory and overly aggressive. Two wrongs don't make one right. Even if he believes the other party is being unreasonable, the WP best practice is to continue adopting restraint when it comes to any kind of content dispute. I am willing to be lenient because this is a relatively new editor who is probably unfamiliar with the rules of WP editing. I would recommend to Hidden Tempo to start reading the material in ] ] (]) 06:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
	{{u|MelanieN}} gives a lot of diffs which she argues reveal HT's strong POV, but none of these diffs seem to refer to edits in article space. Does this mean that HT's edits in article space are neutral? Everyone has a strong POV when it comes to individuals like Trump or Clinton. When HT slams the NY Times, he is not making a fringe argument; he is making an argument which the President Elect has made. Finally, i have not scrutinized Melanie's edits in detail for her POV but in the ] page, she has made exactly one edit and this consisted of undermining the credibility of a person who was supporting Trump: ] (]) 23:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
	*Looking at Hidden Tempo's contributions and his comments on this page, he gives the impression of being interested only in US Politics (over 90% of his contributions), and with a strong bias toward toward Trump and against Clinton. I can find no edit where he has found criticism of the former and none where he has anything positive to say about the latter. That in itself would not be so bad, as there are likely other editors with diametrically opposite viewpoints, but his inability to understand how sources are used on Misplaced Pages – "{{tq|Is Fox News not a reliable source?}}" with no clue about the fact that context determines reliability – or to listen to the advice given, tells me that the encyclopedia would be better off without his presence in the field of US politics for a while longer. In a similar way to the ], I'd want to see evidence that he has learned how to contribute positively in other areas before letting him back into a controversial area. And before he turns to ''ad hominem'' attacks on my opinion, as he has to Bishonen - whose English is perfect, by the way - I live in the UK and view US Politics as an dispassionate outsider. English is indeed my first language. --] (]) 13:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
	** Having seen {{diff2|752887740|Hidden Tempo's recent post }}, I'm now completely convinced he shouldn't be editing US politics, and arguably shouldn't be editing Misplaced Pages at all. Does he not realise that wikilawyering that "not a single political view was stated by myself" in the face of the obvious bias in his contributions simply insults our intelligence? If he ''were'' simply voicing his thoughts about the state of American journalism, we could just direct him to ], but he has regularly labelled reliable sources as "left wing" in a systematic attempt to discredit them as sources. There is no acceptance on his part of the fact that mainstream newspapers which have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy meet our requirements for reliable sourcing. Similarly, repeating in this very thread a BLP violation like {{tq|Hillary's trustworthiness poll numbers that I referred to as "feeble"}} and thinking that including the word "alleged" is a get-out-of-jail card for other violations is indicative of a contempt for other editors' ability to see past words and scrutinise actions. Finally, repeating the calumny of {{tq|politicians paying people to scrub/protect their Misplaced Pages pages}} in this context without a shred of evidence to support the allegation is really a step too far. I see no likelihood that he recognises the legitimate concerns that Bishonen expressed prior to imposing the topic ban. --] (]) 01:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	*** {{reply to |Hidden Tempo}} do you really think that more wikilawyering about definitions of "politics" is going to strengthen your case? It isn't. Your edits convey a political view and a clear bias. No amount of denial is going to alter that fact, especially when other editors can simply look through ] and the and see for themselves. Your edit summaries are particularly enlightening. Your edits don't just '''appear''' to favour Trump and denigrate Clinton, they '''actually do''' just that, against a background of you claiming that you're "neutral". Who do you think you're kidding? You take "great exception" to my statement that you committed a BLP violation? Really? You'd better read our ] policy, with particular reference to its scope, which includes talk pages and pages such as this, and pay particular attention to this: {{tq|"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."}} I take it you understand what "contentious" means? If you think that you repeatedly calling a person's trustworthiness poll numbers feeble isn't a BLP violation, then I'll see you at ANI where I'll be asking for a block for you to prevent further disruption. Remove it or suffer the consequences. Next, your extremely reliable source, Time magazine, in 2015 and before, but says nothing about editors being paid to edit in the arena of 2016 US politics that you chose to work in. When you bring up that accusation during your disputes there, we can all see that you are attempting to tar your opponents with the "paid editor" brush, despite not having a ''shred of evidence'' (as I accurately pointed out first time) that any of them are receiving payment. Your faux indignation at being caught out using such disreputable tactics merely serves to highlight your continued poor behaviour. --] (]) 03:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	**** {{reply to |Hidden Tempo}} Your source never once mentions the word "feeble". That's your choice of adjective and is not "allegedly" contentious, it is contentious. If you can't or won't understand after being told so many times that it's a BLP violation on a talk page and on this very page, then you've no business editing Misplaced Pages. I've seen far too many ] to be impressed by niceties, so don't plead that one. --] (]) 16:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	:::::{{re|RexxS}} I have trouble following your reasoning. Apparently HT was paraphrasing a reliable source mentioning 11% support for the candidate's perceived trustworthiness. Quote: {{tq| Just 16 percent of voters say that Trump is honest and trustworthy, but only 11 percent believe the same about Clinton. }} Calling that a "feeble" score is now an insult? What if he used "low", "weak", "very low", "historically low", "unprecedented"? He didn't use "pathetic", "ridiculous", "abysmal", "daunting" or "miserable". "Feeble" is quite a feeble term; how low shall we set the bar on acceptable vocabulary now? And 6 months is not a feeble ban! — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	:::::: ] is a "]" policy. There's no gradation like "slightly contentious"; a term is either contentious or it isn't. In this case it is. Again, this is clear wikilawyering, attempting to push the boundaries of what is acceptable comment on another living person. The bar is set at zero: we allow no contentious terms at all. Hidden Tempo has made a habit out of creating his own negative descriptions of a BLP subject without a single source to justify the choice. Now it needs to stop. If you also don't understand how our BLP policy works, then I suggest you refrain from commenting on it. --] (]) 18:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::Comment: Un faible taux de participation = a low participation rate. faible = low, weak, etc. Wow! ] (]) 18:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	::::::: {{re|RexxS}} I understand BLP rather well, thank you very much. And I maintain that this particular case is in no way a BLP violation. First, "feeble" is not an insult, it's not even derogatory. Second, this adjective was not qualifying Ms. Clinton but her trustworthiness score in some reliably-sourced poll. An 11% score of anything can be called "feeble", "weak", "low" without passing judgment; this is just a statement of fact. Were this score 89%, it could be called "strong", "high", "commanding". Were this score 45% it could be called "average", "passable", "unimpressive". Were this score 23% it could be called "weak", "mediocre", "disappointing". And no matter how HT qualified the given score, that was not derogatory towards Ms. Clinton. As you said, BLP is a bright-line policy, and this edit does not touch the line because it does not touch the person. That HT needs to stop editorializing and ] on fellow editors, I wholeheartedly agree, and I have given him relevant advice in my statements above. That he should be t-banned for 6 months is utterly disproportionate.
	::::::: Shall we examine the jurisprudence? In a recent case, {{u|Scjessey}} was censored for {{diff||750790280||calling Mr. Sanders a "dick" on a talk page}}. That's both a clearly insulting word and unambiguously addressed at a notable living person, so the BLP violation is patent. Nevertheless, the offending editor {{diff||750978409||wrote in his defense}}: {{tq|The phrase "being a dick" is not a BLPVIO.}} Was he t-banned? No. Was he even admonished? Slightly. Was there further action and drama? No. His edit was erased and the world moved on. (Funnily this happened as Scjessey was replying to an argument by Hidden Tempo. Then, unable to call Sanders a dick any longer, Scjessey called him a "{{diff||751003601||petulant, power-crazy candidate who fanned the flames of hate against Clinton and depressed her vote}}". Wow, BLPVIO much?) So let's discuss Hidden Tempo's problematic behaviour here, but let's not judge him by a much stricter standard than more experienced editors or apply drastic sanctions indiscriminately; lest we be accused of ]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::If I may, as a semi-involved editor, the first definition of "feeble" is: "lacking physical strength, especially as a result of age or illness." This has been a long-running claimed characteristic of HRC by DJT and has an added meaning here. As far as the non-action against Scjessey, perhaps that wasn't handled correctly. It's not relevant. ] (]) 00:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::: To clarify, I am in no way advocating sanctions against {{u|Scjessey}}: he was probably feeling frustrated and clumsily let this show in a heated talk page debate. That's all fine and dandy by my book: tell the involved parties to keep cool, hat the discussion, revdel the truly offending comments if any, and move on. I actually became aware of this incident because I ''defended'' Scjessey's edit by {{diff||750917410||calling TPO and NOTCENSORED}} on somebody who had erased his "being a dick" comment. — ] <sup>]</sup> 02:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::: It ''is'' relevant that Hidden Tempo has been held to a higher standard than virtually any other editor in American Politics. Above, I provide a similar example where an editor calling a conservative pundit "''a pathological liar, delusional, mentally-unstable, an adulterer''" passed without incident, and was not even redacted. Hilary shouldn't be the sacred cow! (''Disclaimer'': No hidden meaning intended.)] (]) 01:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::BTW, here are some examples of "''feeble''" being used in a sentence, from :
	::::::::*She's still ''feeble'' from her long illness.
	::::::::*We heard a ''feeble'' cry for help.
	::::::::*Business is suffering because of the ''feeble'' economy.
	::::::::*He made a ''feeble'' attempt to explain his behavior.
	::::::::*He offered a ''feeble'' excuse for his behavior.
	::::::::*"Dislike" is too ''feeble'' a word for how she feels about him.
	:::::::::Only the first (and maybe the second) sentence uses "''feeble''" to literally refer to a person's physical stamina. To suggest that "''feeble''" has no other common uses is silly. Why not try ]? (Also, Hilary did collapse at that 9/11 memorial, and it probably wasn't—as the ''Wash Post'' —because Putin had her poisoned. Am I getting blocked for that?)] (]) 01:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::Sorry, but that's misleading. WaPo did not allege anything of the sort. A sports columnist reported that someone else made this allegation in the Sports Section. And yes, HRC did have a collapse -- which is why the use of the word is relevant, particularly in the context of the history of Hidden Tempo's numerous edits disparaging HRC. ] (]) 02:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
	.
	*User Hidden Tempo made only 275 edits in the project so far. Most of their recent edits were made in a highly contested political area under discretionary sanctions. Many of these edits, including ones in article space are arguably POV-pushing. I do not think anyone should even consider appeals by such users on WP:AE. ] (]) 23:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
	::Dear {{u|My very best wishes}}, every editor is free to edit in only their preferred domain without being accused of ]. Every editor is free to admitting their own POV and discussing systemic bias honestly on Talk pages without being accused of POV-pushing. You have been accused of such in the past but you should not deserve a lengthy ban for that. As long as an editor knows to distinguish his personal opinion from what is acceptable to write in Misplaced Pages's voice, they are a valued contributor. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	::: Well, no. An editor who only edits in one "preferred domain" is by definition a ] – with all the concerns that raises – and should not be surprised if that's pointed out to them. Your other point, that editors who know how to distinguish their personal opinions from their contributions to articles are valued contributors, is likely true. Unfortunately, Hidden Tempo has shown no such self-awareness in a contentious area subject to discretionary sanctions, which has inevitably led to his current topic ban. --] (]) 01:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	::::], HT has so far made less than 300 edits on WP. Why should it be so strange that he has not edited in diverse areas of WP? Many if not most editors on WP would be branded as SPA accounts if only the first 300 edits of an editor are used to call him or her an SPA. This is now coming across as ] to me. ] (]) 01:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	::::: Now, you're really insulting my intelligence. In my first 300 edits, I edited dozens of articles on different topics and even created a new article. If you make all 300 of your first edits in one narrow area, of course you're a SPA. If you have any evidence of me BITEing new users, let's hear it. Your transparent attempts to smear me is a familiar tactic to discredit those you disagree with. I'll treat your baseless accusation with with the contempt it deserves. --] (]) 02:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	::::::{{u|RexxS}}, i went and examined your first 500 edits on WP. With respect to your edits in article space, they seem to have a narrow focus on anything related to diving. This apples even to the algorithm whose WP page your edited. ] (]) 03:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	::::::: That's odd, because I think they have a very ''broad'' focus on ''everything'' to do with diving from Ambient pressure to Zippers on drysuits. But then there's ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], as well as loads of talk pages. I'm not seeing your point. --] (]) 04:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::The WP articles on ] and ] refer to diving in the article content. You did make a few edits to some non-diving articles (usually 1-2 minor or non-lengthy edits in any such articles), but the vast majority of your first 500 edits in article space--including all your major/lengthy edits-- were in articles having anything to do with diving. ] (]) 04:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::*Did you, me or RexxS receive a topic ban after making our first 250 edits and did we complain about this on WP:AE? No. So, please stop wikilawyering. ] (]) 05:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	**This is someone who made very few content edits, but already managed to receive a topic ban, and for a very good reason (there was nothing "out of process" here). What she/he suppose to do? Edit quietly something that does not cause anyone's objections in another subject area, gain a lot more experience and politely ask ''later'' to remove the t-ban, after proving that they can constructively contribute. But what they actually do? They brought an unsubstantiated complaint here, which creates even more disruption. Do they create disruption on purpose? I do not know, but they soon can be indeffed. ] (]) 05:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	* I only comment here as many of the same issues around this situation mirror what I experienced in the Gamergate situation, in that I was many times accused of having a pro-GG POV for trying to write a more neutral article which required going against the strong opinions published by sources, as well as writing lengthy points in talk page discussions to try to explain this. In contrast, I carefully avoided anything close to personal attacks despite numerous editors personalizing the situations at me; whereas HT does seem to engage in personalizing the issues. There is one piece of advice I can give and that is to back off from the topic area and edit elsewhere, if only to calm down and let the situation simmer down.
	* However, to points raised by EdJohnson below, I see some problem commentary. (and more details here ), the bulk of sources we do deem as RSes are considered left-leaning - or more to the fact, we generally have purposely decided that right-leaning sources doesn't qualify as RSes because of sensational reporting. HT's statement about our trusted RSes broadly being left-leaning is not false. And with more and more sources adopting ]-types of reporting, where facts and opinions are intermingled, it becomes more and more a problem. Couple that with our generally acceptance of RSes primarily from the left, and we quickly can become an echo chamber for a popular press view. I do not edit anything in American politics, but in monitoring boards like RS/N and BLP/N, there clearly is a tendency for editors to take controversial claims about right-leaning persons or groups made in our body of RSes (which are broadly left leaning per above) and state these as fact; this moreso happened over the last election cycle. We as editors have to be more aware of that, and while HT's approach may not be the best way, HT and others should have every right to discuss potential systematic political-scale bias of this nature on talk pages with other editors without being called out as a POV warrior. --] (]) 17:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
	** One problem with that analysis is that the US-centric ] produces a ranked list of 33 news sources, then labels 26 of them "left-leaning" and 7 of them "right-leaning". Of course, outside of the USA, most editors would not agree with that categorisation, and you'd have a problem trying to convince mainstream UK editors that the BBC ranks so far to the "left". In fact it's in a group at the median of the rankings. The next problem is that a ]'s reliability depends on context. There is nothing inherently "reliable" about the New York Times, CBS News, or Breitbart. It must depend on context. They may have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but I hope that nobody is going to use them as a RS for whether taking folinic acid improves the symptoms of autism spectrum disorders.
	** So if you start from the premise that four times as many sources are "left-leaning" than "right-leaning", it's easy to conclude that we have a preponderance of "left-leaning reliable sources" and that it must create a problem. But that doesn't follow – if we conform to our sourcing guideline ], we must "{{tq|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.}}" Hidden Tempo's attempts to correct what you see as "our trusted RSes broadly being left-leaning" is a breach of WEIGHT and he is rightly taken to task for it.
	** Misplaced Pages is not the place to right great wrongs, like an editor thinking that the press doesn't support his political view. Hidden Tempo has not demonstrated the ability to drop that stick, and – coupled with the way he treats those editors he see as his ideological opponents – there are no grounds for allowing him back into the contentious area where his problems arose. He needs to demonstrate his ability to work collaboratively and temperately before that can happen. --] (]) 13:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	*** There's a whole separate policy discussion that needs to happen regarding this new political systematic bias (moreso because we have purposely opted to not treat many right-leaning works as reliable due to sensational journalism) that is inappropriate to have here. A key issue is to remember that it's not just the political leanings of sources, but that they have more and more engaged in new journalism, which makes them less neutral as they write stories now around a viewpoint and treat that viewpoint as fact; UNDUE/NPOV does not readily account for this. Without getting into that, I see HT's situation as butting up against editors who are able to stand firmly on the UNDUE position because that's how we've worked in the past, but we need to change that to avoid following the non-neutrality that media sources are more often adopting. But again, how we do that is a completely separate issue for elsewhere. I don't think HT's approach is always the right away to address their concerns on the affected articles (BATTLEGROUND comments seem to be appropriate from reviewing contributions), but the points they have raised on sourcing bias are extremely valid points to discuss on talk pages of controversial topics to make sure we're not repeating opinion as fact, or if we are ignoring facts that don't fit the popular opinion. If HT's actions are going to be reviewed for block or ban purposes, it should ''not'' be because they have offered arguments about sourcing and media bias in political topics. Other behavior is of concern though. --] (]) 14:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	**** I would not disagree that there's a debate to be had about the impact of ] on UNDUE, and I wouldn't object to hearing Hidden Tempo's views on that in the appropriate place. But he can't challenge what is current established policy by fighting against it in individual articles and their talk pages, especially where they are subject to ]. That quickly becomes disruptive and leads inevitably to friction with other editors who have opposite political views as well as uninvolved editors who try to enforce our sourcing policies as they stand. I'm sorry, but I firmly believe that HT's posts in the controversial area are inextricably linked with his other behavioural concerns. He needs a break from that. --] (]) 15:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	***** HT doesn't appear to be affecting too much mainspace content, and staying with the 1RR of the DS (not even toeing that line from the last 100 contributions); the complaints here appear to be about two issues: volumes of talk page content that are seemingly from a contrary POV, and battleground behavior. The latter is a problem, but the former, having been accused of the same during the GG ArbCom case, is not something that should be a blockable offense, as it was determined for myself. I do offer the same advice I was given then - just to back off and be more economical with words when one is that tenacious, or even just to step away for a brief period, but using talk pages to discuss article topic issues, even if wearing their POV on their sleeve, is exactly why we have talk pages, and absolutely should not be a block or bannable offense. I do agree that the POV aspects are tied to HT's battleground nature, but let's focus on what is clearly problems, which is the personalizing issues w/ battleground mentality. --] (]) 16:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	***** {{ping|Soham321}} If there is (at least) one editor being accused of BATTLEGROUND, there is often at least another editor or more that also should have behavior evaluated under BATTLEGROUND too - it takes two to tango for all purposes. There are times it is a single editor clearly at fault, but my skims of relevant talk pages involving this case show overall behavior that is trending towards BATTLEGROUND, though have not spent any significant time to narrow down exactly which editors are problematic. --] (]) 20:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	::::::@Masem. I do not think my comment was inappropriate, I as tried to explain to Soham321 , however if you or any other admin thinks it was indeed inappropriate, I can strike it through or remove - no problem. I only wanted to help. ] (]) 20:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::I don't make any specific accusation towards a specific editor other than HT here, only that when skimming the affected talk pages, there is a ''sustained'' BATTLEGROUND atmosphere. A more in-depth review of all actors at play would need to be done to point any more fingers. --] (]) 22:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	*I experience the kind of stonewalling that Hidden Tempo does anytime I try to edit an article in the broad range of politics. Editors will stretch reliability to publish slander about Conservatives while arguing reliable sourcing and undue weight on Liberal topics. Hidden Tempo hasn't handled it well, but this project is rife with, as RexxS has said, those of a diametrically opposite viewpoint. Are right-leaning editors more disruptive? I'd say perhaps on the surface. The other 'side' has, from my own experience, appeared to be more organized and better at using civil POV pushing to get under the skin of right-leaning editors. It's a tried and true tactic. I've had editors argue that my sources weren't reliable before I'd even posted them. I've had editors argue that my sources were invalid (paraphrasing) "duh, because faux news lies". I've seen editors push vigorously to label BLPs or Orgs as "Conservative" but then resist labeling like article of the left. I've seen Media Matters for America opinion pieces used for sources where Fox News was opposed. <s>There is more going on here than simple name calling - and I've never seen someone sanctioned for calling an editor's remarks "filth". We have long standing editors on here who have done much worse. I, myself, said "ass" earlier today - where is my sanction?</s>--v/r - ]] 21:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	:*I don't think any of this seemingly broad-based characterization of editors that you may think are left-leaning relates to Hidden Tempo's TBAN. ] (]) 21:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	::*You'd be wrong. I am very clearly saying that 'filth' is not sanctionable, and that obvious poor behavior often has a hidden provocation that deserves equal attention in these topics.--v/r - ]] 22:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	:::* I can confirm what TParis is saying, just at BLP/N and RS/N alone, as well as taking what I experienced at GG in mind as well. --] (]) 22:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	::*You'd also be wrong to post in the uninvolved editor section of this case, ], it seems to me. Diffs if necessary.] (]) 22:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	:::*Apologies if this is correct, although I did identify myself as semi-involved even though I don't think I was involved in any particular incident mentioned. In any case, I'll bow out. You might also be considered involved as you and HT were in at least one heated section at ] ] (]) 22:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	*{{ping|Soham321}} I won't go so far as to call your poor characterization of Bishonen's response deliberate, but I think it is fair to say you missed the point. In fact, I would urge you to re-read the diff Bishonen provided (you will find she actually said the opposite of what you posited in terms of editing with a known bias), but also to revisit the beginning of this uninvolved editors thread, where you posted similar thoughts and received replies in the same spirit. I apologize for adding more to this ocean of words for all to sort out: I was following up on Soham's at ANI, which involved another out of context quote and was thankfully treated as seriously as it should have been. As for the remainder of this case, we all edit Misplaced Pages knowing we are subject to the policies that govern content creation, and it is clear in reviewing the history Bishonen highlighted that Hidden Tempo's editing patterns simply aren't compatible with following those policies in this contentious area. There may be larger issues with the mainstream media and reliable sources as a whole, and TParis's concerns certainly lie adjacent to that broader issue. However, so long as we are a network of collaborators held together by common policy, excusing bad behavior in not the way to get the change we think we need. ] (]) 18:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	===Result of the appeal by Hidden Tempo===
	:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''		:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
	<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the discretionary sanctions log below where their sanctions is logged. -->		<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
			*<!--
	*Please note that I have issued a short block for ] for continuing the BLP violations here in this AE appeal (in the form of repeating the use of derogatory adjectives which are not used by any supporting sources, and trying to justify that use even when personal editorializing is clearly forbidden by BLP policy). So I would ask that any consideration for closing this be delayed until either the block expires or Hidden Tempo agrees to stop repeating the BLP violations. ] (]) 18:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
			-->
	::To update, after discussion on Hidden Tempo's talk page in which the problem seems to have been understood, I have unblocked. ] (]) 22:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
			*{{u|BabbleOnto}}, please edit your statement down further to fit within the restriction. This also serves as an opportunity to rephrase your defense, which currently is not convincing at first glance. ProcrastinatingReader's description of the situation seems quite apt, particularly {{tq|BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible}}, which is currently a pretty fitting description of your response to them here, given that you zeroed in on the "superficially reasonable" part and ignored the much more serious parts of the testimony. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	*I would decline the appeal of the topic ban. have reviewed the ban per ]'s recommendation above:{{quote|1=But I've already dialogued with them on these matters, so I suggest reviewers read their user talkpage, especially and , and form their own opinion.}}
			*: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)
	:Based on my reading of the talk page, and noting how Hidden Tempo criticizes sources that Misplaced Pages generally trusts as being left-wing, I agree with ]'s six month topic ban of this editor from American politics post-1932. I don't see any reason it should be lifted or narrowed. We do tend to parse the language that editors use on talk pages to figure out if they are capable of editing neutrally, or if they view the article as a battle zone. doesn't put him in a good light: "There is a veritable army of Hillary supporters and Trump detractors on these pages that have already taken care of that." The word 'army' disagrees with the advice here: ]. Letting Hidden Tempo continue to participate on these articles is a recipe for ongoing warfare. ] (]) 15:58, 5 December 2016 (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)
	:*So far I'm the only admin to offer an opinion in this section on granting the ban appeal. If it turns out that I am the closer, I want to make the offer to ] that I'll reconsider if he is willing to revise his 4200-word statement so that it fits within the 500-word limit. Otherwise my intention is to deny the appeal. It's my hope that if he undertakes a shorter version, he might come up with better arguments that are more aligned with Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 16:34, 6 December 2016 (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.
	::*At my request Hidden Tempo prepared a new version of his statement to meet the 500-word limit (see ]). I think this is an improvement and I hope the people who have commented on this appeal will take a look to see if they want to revise their opinion. ] (]) 02:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	* Bishonen's reasoning is sound, and this is a proportionate and appropriate sanction to control someone who is not, I think, terribly accepting of dissent. Given the contentious nature of the recent election, and the ongoing dramas about the President-Elect, I think that anybody who engages in tribal infighting in US politics articles is likely to end up in the same boat. Misplaced Pages is unlikely ever to become a post-factual encyclopaedia, a political blog, or a platform for extreme partisans. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
			: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.
	*Having looked at Bishonen's reasoning, and HT's shorter version (thanks EdJohnston), I am convinced that the TBAN is appropriate and proportionate. If HT is capable of editing neutrally and constructively in a less contentious area, I say let's see evidence of that. Six months is long enough to determine if HT is able step back from battleground behaviour and be a net positive for WP. I was a little tempted to support the narrowing of the TBAN as Bishonen suggested, but such things can provide too many temptations to wikilawyer around the edges and just create more drama. I also have little time for IBANs. ] (]) 03:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
			:<small>As an aside, I'm going to recommend what I always recommend to new editors who end up here: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn. Go edit in noncontentious topics, where other editors are a lot less exhausted and have the energy to be more patient with new editors.</small> ] (]) 18:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*Closing. The appeal is declined. Three admins have commented in this Result section on whether to grant the appeal: ], ] and myself. None of us favors lifting the topic ban. Thanks to Hidden Tempo for coming up with a shorter and more persuasive version of their appeal. ] did not say when the ban could be appealed again, but I suggest three months from now. ] (]) 03:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
			{{collapse top|title=Tangential}}
	{{hab}}
			::@], 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)
	==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Peeta Singh==
			*:BabbleOnto's response understanding this as a suggestion to take a break from Misplaced Pages as a whole isn't quite what I was hoping to see. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{hat|Appeal declined. ] (]) 06:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)}}
			*:@], an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.
	<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>
			*:@], I'd support a tban, but is AP2 enough? It seems like COVID and fringe science need to be included? ] (]) 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::AP2 + COVID? I see the same behavior at the Brian Thompson article and Havana Syndrome, so COVID alone doesn't seem adequate. Oddly, the intersection of "medicine and politics" would appear to cover all affected topics but maybe that's too bespoke? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:@], re:{{xt|It seems to me that saying I have "Issues around understanding policy" and asking me to "learn policy" has subtext that says "Until you agree with this consensus, and you won't be allowed to edit at all." Is respectful disagreement with this consensus allowed? I'm afraid if in order to avoid a ban I have to personally agree with the consensus, beyond just respecting it,}} no, you don't have to agree. You just have to accept and move on. ] (]) 23:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I think {{u|BabbleOnto}} is actually getting the right idea. You do not have to ''agree'' with consensus. There are some consensus positions here I don't agree with, and some I think are rather silly. But, until and unless they change, I respect and abide by them all the same. If I try to challenge them, and it becomes clear that such a challenge was unsuccessful, there comes a time to just shrug, realize you can't win 'em all, and ]. Since they seem to have gotten that point, I think maybe see how things go, and if they return to disruption, I think they're quite clear on what the results of that will be. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:In my experience sealioning is a habit editors have an extremely difficult time breaking. I was going to agree with Rosguill re: a tban from AP2 + COVID, maybe appealable after 3 months and 500 productive and unproblematic edits. This editor is basically ONLY editing in CTOPs, they're doing it disruptively -- we're talking about an editor with only 177 whom other editors are describing as exhausting to interact with! -- and the specific kind of disruption is both frustrating and tedious to prove ''and'' frustrating to try to get attention to because who you need so many diffs to prove it. That plus the apparent difficulty in breaking that habit, which btw they were continuing ''during this case''...I dunno. ] (]) 14:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I certainly understand your point. I am a little hesitant to sanction for "sealioning", as often it is difficult to tell where enthusiasm ends and disruptive tendentiousness begins, and I certainly do not want to have a project where people are afraid to advocate viewpoints contrary to a current consensus. That said, if everyone else feels sanctions are warranted, I won't object terribly strongly; I just generally prefer someone to get a chance to show if they've gotten the point (or in some cases, to conclusively demonstrate that they have not). ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Generally I'm with you. Let people show they've dealt with the issue. Reblocking is pretty easy in most cases. But sealioning...well, it's such a difficult issue to prove/assess, and there are so many people doing it who don't even have the self-awareness to fix the problem that I kind of feel like it needs a tougher approach than I'd normally argue for. Not a hill I'm going to die on, but if the editor is back here or at ANI for the same issue, I am going to be extremely unhappy with them.
			*:::@], do you understand what we're talking about when we describe your participation at talk pages as ], and why we think it's such a problem, particularly in contentious topics? Do you think you can avoid participating in that way at article talk pages? ] (]) 20:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			==Marlarkey==
	; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Peeta Singh}} – ] (]) 07:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
			{{hat|Marlarkey p-blocked from ] and formally warned to be more mindful of policies, guidelines and best practices when editing CTOPs, particularly PIA <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			<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 Marlarkey===
	; Sanction being appealed : ] related articles based on allegedly tendentious editing, pushing a nationalist agenda, and ignoring information about Misplaced Pages's policies from experienced editors and administrators. <br />
			; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|WeatherWriter}} 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	Discussion prior to ban: ]<br />
	Discussion regarding the ban: ]<br />
			; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Marlarkey}}<p>{{ds/log|Marlarkey}}</p>
	; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Bishonen}}
			<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	; Notification of that administrator : ''The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a ] of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.''
			;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
	===Statement by Peeta Singh===
			<!--- 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 :
	Since day one, I have been targeted by users: @Apuldram, @Utcursch, @Uanfala, @Sarah Welch, @RegentsPark, @Kautilya3 and @Salma Mahmoud. They have attempted to get me blocked neumorus times because I improve Punjab and Sikh-related articles. After many attempts, they've falsely alleged me of POV-pushing and got me topic banned. In my defence, I would like to emphasis, that i'm not POV-pushing, but only editing information based on reliable sources.
			<!-- 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.-->
			''''''
	I don't understand how contributing towards improving Misplaced Pages is being construed. I've followed the rules, improved articles and spent countless hours expanding Misplaced Pages.
			# - Mainspace PIA edit prior to EC status.
			# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request and acknowledgement of aforementioned edit.
			# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request.
			# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Accused another editor of vandalism.
			# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Says, "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration."
			# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary.
			# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary.
			''''''
	Before I edited the ] article
			# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
	At ] after I edited the article. Was I construed for adding information with reliable sources?
			# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request.
			# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request..."''Someone has reverted my removal of Israel - Hamas *AGAIN* so I've taken it out *AGAIN*.''"
			# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
			# - Self-revert of direct previous mainspace reversion that was prior to EC status.
			# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status...Made while this enforcement request was being typed up. This reversion by Marlarkey is of an edit with the direct edit summary of "Per ]". User is 100% disregarding CT requirements.
			; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : N/A. No previous blocks or topic bans.
	Before I edited the ] article
			<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
	At ] after I edited the article. Was I construed for adding information with reliable sources?
	Before I edited the ] page		;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): at 15:29, 21 November 2024.
	At ] after I edited the article. Was I construed for improving the Wikiproject Punjab page?
			; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
	Was I construed for creating template such as ] and ] so it improves the standard of the ] article?
			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)
	Was I construed for following the guidelines and considering ]? ,
			*{{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)
	They're bullies that challenge almost all my edits on Misplaced Pages , . They have tried getting me blocked since I've began. They've made all sort of false allegations. They've accuse me of ] but continue to add the term India at any and every article where it's not relevant, even sometimes with irreverent sources ? They push the ] theory? Why don't the guidelines apply to them?
			; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	Here is the comment of an IP regarding @Uanfala ]
			<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	Here are the comments of ] regarding @Ms Sarah Welch
			===Discussion concerning Marlarkey===
	] (]) 07:44, 3 December 2016 (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>
	====Appeal by Peeta Singh====
			====Statement by Marlarkey====
	Being new here, I've made mistakes and who doesn't? However, seeing my contribution I would like to be allowed to edit Punjab and Sikh-related articles under the supervision of ] or some other admin (except: @Apuldram, @Utcursch, @Uanfala, @Sarah Welch, @RegentsPark, @Kautilya3 and @Salma Mahmoud). They're POV pushing, but i'm being targeted. I might not be as skilled with quoting the guidelines or even as experienced, but I haven't gone against the guideline so much that I should be imposed with an '''indefinite''' topic ban.
			{{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.
	My proposal is that I be sanctioned to edit Punjab and Sikh related articles but with the condition of asking permission from ] or some other admin before editing every Punjab and Sikh-related article. That way I won't make the mistakes i'm being accused of.
			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."
	] (]) 00:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
			1. Hamas is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hamas should not be included in the article
			2. Hezbollah is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hezbollah should not be included in the article
			3. Russia vs Ukraine are both nation states - the question then is whether there has been a declaration of war.
			In the case 1 & 2, the removal of these two entries is WP:NPOV and the inclusion or otherwise in this article is in no way a comment on the conflict in question - only whether they constitute a declaration of war by one nation state on another. Which they do not because they are nation states.
	===Statement by Bishonen===
	. ] &#124; ] 13:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC).
			In the case of 3, the inclusion of Russia vs Ukraine only relies on whether there has been a declaration of war. The citation I gave is documented evidence of Russia announcing that a state of war exists between Russia and Ukraine.
	===Statement by Ms Sarah Welch===
	My name appears twice in @Peeta Singh's appeal, but @Peeta Singh and I have not been in any edit disputes in recent weeks. The user has not offered any edit-diffs, therefore I do not understand the grounds for "since day one" allegations. @Peeta Singh is a relatively new account, one with first edit on October 15 2016. The admins and editors mentioned by @Peeta Singh have been rightfully concerned with copyvio, OR, POV-y edits etc. They have been welcoming and helpful, in good faith, despite the disruption by @Peeta Singh. I say disruption, so I must provide some evidence. Here is some:
			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
	was the state of Template:Punjabis before @Peeta Singh's first edit to it. Since then, @Peeta Singh has edited this template between November 11 to December 2, and edit warred with @Filpro, without a trace of discussion effort on its talk page. @Peeta Singh has that Template to "Culture of the Panjab" with link to . This insertion of "Panjab nationalism / Khalistan" POV-y by @Peeta Singh is not isolated or rare. It has been noted with concern by other editors such as on October 22 2016 by @Apuldram, on December 2 2016, etc. This pattern of WP:TE has not subsided after those caution and requests, rather continued.
	@Peeta Singh alleges "I improve Punjab and Sikh-related articles". But consider ], an article about the third of ten Gurus of Sikhism. The article is a stub. @Peeta Singh has edited it, but did not attempt to improve content or cite new reliable sources, but edited it with the "was not India at the time of the Guru". You see this in many edits by this user. Again in the ] article, this editor "Indian subcontinent" to "South Asia", without explanation. That edit was by @RegentsPark, but @Peeta Singh (without citing any reliable source or discussing it on the talk page). Then some more. In other words, @Peeta Singh's editing history suggest the intent is not content improvement of important articles related to Sikhism or Punjab that are currently a stub, it is persistent removal of relevant encyclopedic content from current articles, removal of any connection of Sikhism with India or Indian subcontinent, and then placement of a certain POV without adequately citing any scholarly reliable sources. This suggests WP:NOTHERE.
			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."
	See @Utcursch's note to @Peeta Singh on OR, Battleground and more . I also share @Utcursch's concerns about @Peeta Singh's WP:TE on Gurmukhi script article.
			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.
	Based on evidence such as the above, and more can be found by wading through the edit history of @Peeta Singh, I support @Bishonen's sanctions. ] (]) 17:07, 3 December 2016 (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
	:@Dennis Brown: Indeed. Please see '''statement by @Salma Mahmoud''' on @Bishonen's talk page today, on @Peeta Singh, because it is relevant to this AE case. I support uninvolved admins expanding the ban, as @Peeta Singh's edits elsewhere such as that plugged in Khalistan as an alias for Punjab, on December 1 2016, suggests that the disruption by @Peeta Singh is systematic, has been on-going and has continued through very recently, the CIR and other concerns seem much broader. ] (]) 22:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
			] (]) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Statement by utcursch===
	I have not "targeted" the Peeta Singh, and as far as I can tell, neither have others whom he calls "bullies": ], ], ], ], ], ]. All these users edit a wide range of articles, and presumably happened to notice Peeta Singh's controversial edits on their watch list.
			On another point, following me reviewing the information in this complaint by WeatherWriter...
	I noticed Peeta Singh's changes to the article ] and ], which were on my watchlist. First, some background for the uninitiated: According to a colonial-era theory, some of the Indian "]s" are of "]n" descent, because unlike the other Indian castes, they are supposedly tall, fair, strong etc. Although no longer tenable in mainstream scholarship, this theory remains popular among some people whose ancestors were classified among the "martial races" by the British administrators. For example, some Sikh nationalists claim that ]/] Sikhs are "Scythian", and therefore, different from other Indians (who are ], ] etc.) This apparently bolsters their demand that these people need their own independent nation-state.
			"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[REDACTED] then please just say so. GRRR
	I'm not sure to what level Peeta Singh believes in these things, but he sure seems obsessed with removing the term "Indian"/"Indo-Aryan" from Punjab-related articles, and in some cases, adding wildly inaccurate claims of their "Scythian" association.
			] (]) 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.
	I'm not concerned about anyone's personal feelings about Sikh/Punjabi nationhood, but the user's repetitive addition of erroneous information is what bothered 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.
	* Peeta Singh insisted that Punjabi is a "Scytho-Punjabi" language. In addition, he insisted that Punjabi is an official language of Canada. When opposed, he claimed that "there's an hidden agenda to Indianize the article" .
			::::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===
	* He claimed that that Gurmukhi was a "Scythian script". When countered, he came up with with his own original research (he had already been advised to read ] by 3 different users by this time). He also claimed that the "users of Indian origin" were "deceiving the public".
	By the time I posted my first message about ] / ] on his talk page, Peeta Singh had already received 5+ notices from ''other'' users. I've not interacted much with him after our last debate on Punjabi and Gurmukhi articles two weeks back, so I cannot say whether the topic ban is justified or not. But a look at his talk page history suggests that he has received multiple warnings by other users (he recently several warnings). A cursory look at his contributions since our last interaction indicates that he has not given up contentious editing:
	* He has again attempted to remove the term "Indo-Aryan" from the ].
	* He insists that the Sikh religious symbol ] is an emblem of Punjab and that it "represents the people of Punjab". He has also added Khanda to the newly-created templates {{tl|PartofWPPUNJAB}} and {{tl|Punjabi quick links}}, which he has transcluded into several Wikiproject Punjab related pages that have nothing to do with Sikhism.
	* On 12 November, I had explicitly told Peeta Singh about the ] guideline. Despite this, he has continued to remove the term "Indian" from lead sections of biographies, replacing it with "Punjabi". He has also created empty categories, such as ]. Earlier, he has updated Wikidata descriptions to replace "Indian" with "Panjabi".
	By the way, the user has already been ] for ignoring warnings. ] &#124; ] 00:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	:I have previously apologized from my use of the term "Indianize" at ] The incident ] has mentioned is from when I had just joined Misplaced Pages and had no knowledge of the guidelines. I have learnt since and not furthered the "Scytho-Punjabi" and "Scythian script" theory. After this episode I started referencing my content with reliable sources. My agenda has not been to promote the Punjab nation/Khalistan theory but to improve Punjab-related topics. If the term Punjab nation/Khalistan was relevant I added it. ]? If there's a problem with me using the terms Khalistan, Scythian and Punjab nation then topic block me from them.
	:The Misplaced Pages guidelines clearly says "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead '''unless it is relevant to the subject's notability'''." Example ] (Punjabi politician and actor) or ] (Punjabi actor). Aren't they POV pushing here or don't they have an agenda? Rather than following the guidelines and considering ] they reverted my edits numerous times and without a reason. , , , , Are the guidelines only for me?
	:I explained to @Filpro why I added the Khanda and requested @Filpro and @Salma to follow the ] and discuss this issue. , But it seems they had other plans.
	:Everyone sees my contribution as POV pushing but why not theirs who act as the ]. ], why only target me?
	] (]) 04:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	=== Statement by Uanfala ===
	I was pinged in this discussion but I'm afraid I don't have much to say as my interaction with Peeta Singh has been limited. I'm a bit surprised that they think I've been targeting them – our exchanges have so far been amicable. However, I have had to revert most of their edits to ] and ]. I can't say there's been any agenda behind them as the issues mostly had to do with being unaware of the subject matter and how it is generally treated on[REDACTED] (for Punjabi), or with not being careful when checking an online source (for Saraiki). Here Peeta Singh hasn't been disruptive (or at least not nearly as much as half of the users who edit in this area), but they certainly need to spend some time learning how things work before making any bold edits. – ] 14:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Peeta Singh ===
	I'm sorry, but {{user5|Peeta Singh}}'s command of the English language is so weak that I don't believe he understands when he improving an article and when he is making it worse. Could somebody please explain to him the meaning of "construed", as I don't believe it exists in the first person passive. Looking at his ], it is clear that he has not taken on-board any advice he's been given, even from clearly uninvolved experienced editors such as {{u|Doug Weller}}. His contributions reveal a lack of awareness of Misplaced Pages policies from simple mistakes like to edit-warring his preferred version into an article against two other editors , (note the edit summary!). Of most concern, though is his attempts to replace the word "Indian" with "Sikh" and to add {{para|nationality|Sikh}} to infoboxes. That does indicate an attempt to push a Sikh-nationalist POV, and Misplaced Pages isn't the place to be doing it. His appeal is riddled with grammatical, spelling and comprehension errors, not to mention his inability to distinguish between ] and ] in his first question here. If nothing else, surely ]? --] (]) 14:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
	:
	: I followed {{u|Ms Sarah Welch}}'s link to Wikidata and was dismayed. I've just spent half an hour ] by confusing {{Q|Q22424}} (Indian state), {{Q|Q4478}} (province of Pakistan) and {{Q|Q169132}}, (geographic region divided between Pakistan and India). The problems he caused on Wikidata are not directly relevant to his topic ban here, but they are indicative of the difficulty he has in separating the three concepts and his fixation with ]. --] (]) 00:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	::Thank you for doing this. It confirms my own experience and the need for the topic ban. ] ] 05:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
	===Result of the appeal by Peeta Singh===
	:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''		:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
	<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the discretionary sanctions log below where their sanctions is logged. -->		<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
			*<!--
	*Peeta Singh, I believe the ban is justified. You've been warned repeatedly about the Sikh nation idea yet you apparently continue to push it. Everyone is welcome to edit Misplaced Pages but you need to demonstrate that you're not here merely to push a POV. Edit articles on other subjects. Demonstrate a broader commitment to the project. Then you will have some standing asking for the ban to be lifted. (Note: Though I'm mentioned in the list of 'targeted by users', to the best of my knowledge the only interactions I've had with Peeta Singh are two warnings I placed on their talk page ,. Which, unfortunately, they chose to ignore.)--] <small>(])</small> 14:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
			-->
			{{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)
	*Taken at face value, the actions by Bishonen seem reasonable and within our policies as there clearly was a problem. The appeal itself gives no indication that problematic behavior will stop, nor does it provide a path forward. With these two facts in mind, it is my opinion that the appeal should be declined. I would not oppose stronger sanctions due to CIR and other concerns. ] - ] 20:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
	*Looking at the discussion above and the user contributions, it is obvious that this action is necessary and the appeal declined. If anything, I'm not entirely sure that the sanctions will be sufficient and I echo Dennis Brown's sentiments on stronger sanctions if they can be worked within the purview of AE action. &mdash;]''']''' 07:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
			Ok, having now reviewed ]'s page history, its talk page discussion, and Marlarkey's contributions more generally, I find that:
	==Maslowsneeds==
			:* Marlarkey has repeatedly violated ] at ] since having received a CTOP notice
	{{hat|1=Blocked 48 hours for ] ban violation by ]. ] (]) 14:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC) }}
			:*Irrespective of whether it is correct or not to include the Israel-Hamas war, Israel-Hezbollah war, or wars between states and non-state entities more broadly, WeatherWriter's edits to the page are plainly not ], which has a specific (and serious) meaning on Misplaced Pages
	===Request concerning Maslowsneeds===
			:*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.
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Calton}} 03:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
			:*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==
	; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Maslowsneeds}}<p>{{ds/log|Maslowsneeds}}
			<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>
	;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] :
			===Request concerning DanielVizago===
	; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
			; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Schazjmd}} 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	Topic banned from post-1932 American politics and people closely related. Topic ban notified
	# Restores a reverted attempt to add mention of a political website ] to an article on fake web sites. Is warned about the explicitly political content of the edit being a violation of his topic ban by two different editors, one an administrator ( and )
	# Adding "Pravdaesque" to article -- taken from the above edit -- about the same political group ], AFTER the above warnings about the topic-ban violation
			; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|DanielVizago}}<p>{{ds/log|DanielVizago}}</p>
	; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
	<!-- Add any further comment here -->
	The editor strenuously denies that the topic ban applies, saying that the issue is either or . The editor also implies that the edit doesn't apply to topic bans because he was restoring an edit, not adding one.
	; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	Since the editor's first reaction to any advice or notification is to go on about "being attacked","harassment", "bullying", and "cyberstalking" ( ), no, I . Feel free to do so.
	:Notification added to user's talk page at .
			;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
	===Discussion concerning Maslowsneeds===
	<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 Maslowsneeds====
	====Statement by (username)====
	<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
	===Result concerning Maslowsneeds===
	:''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. -->
	*
	*Appears to be a straight violation of the American Politics topic ban. , since it says that the goal of the ] site was to get Hillary Clinton elected. Even if Maslowsneeds was just restoring material removed by someone else, he is still responsible for whatever he adds. And the thread at ] is not very reassuring about the editor's intentions for the future. It seems to me that a block is necessary. ] (]) 19:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	* is clearly political, and Ms. Bish chose to warn instead of block. The edit at , shortly after the warning, sources a NYT article that mentions a political figure in the title and is in the "politics" section. Both are obvious breaches of the topic ban and in line with the issues that prompted the ban. The responses on the editor's talk page are clearly disappointing and point to a significant likelihood of recurrence. ] ] 00:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	* '''Blocked''' for 48 hours. The absolute best you can say of it is that Maslowsneeds ''might'' have been testing the limits of the ban. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	The user has the TBAN again. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 19:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
	:Indef blocked by Bishonen. ] (]) 21:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
	==Gilabrand==
	{{hat|1=Blocked for 3 months, and any recurrence of sockpuppetry will turn this into an indefinite block and probable siteban. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:19, 9 December 2016 (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 Gilabrand===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Supreme Deliciousness}} 03:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Gilabrand}}<p>{{ds/log|Gilabrand}}
	;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: :
	<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
	; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :		; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
			# Added ] to a BLP, after CTOP notification and several talk page messages notifying DanielVizago that the category is not to be applied to articles about individuals (per category description, {{tq|This category is for issues relating to misandry. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly misandrist.}});
	<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->
			# and Removing sourced content from ] that states misandry is not a major an issue as misogyny;
	# Edits history and other information about an Israeli settlement in Israeli-occupied territory: "Had Ness was '''established by the Herut Beitar settlement movement'''. Home ownership was approved in March 1982, after the '''] was passed in 1981. Families began to move there in 1987."''' "Many '''residents of Had Ness''' run guesthouses and zimmers."
			# 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}});
	# Edits Israeli-built ski resort article located in Israeli-occupied territory
	# Moves an Israeli settlement in Israeli-occupied territory		# 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 :		; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
			*None
	Looooooong list: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AGilabrand
			;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
	; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
			*I alerted them on
	<!-- 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. --->
			; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
	===Discussion concerning Gilabrand===
			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.
	<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 Gilabrand====
	When the topic ban was discussed with HJ Mitchell, he specifically noted that I could edit Israel-related articles as long as my edits were not about the conflict. I have been editing now for over a year and not once has anyone challenged or reverted any of my thousands of edits. With respect to Had Ness, you attribute to me all kinds of horrible motives, but I just happened upon the article because a clown friend of mine said he was going there to perform. I had never heard of the place and googling it came across an actual reference to it in a scholarly book. Looking at the article and seeing the history section was unreferenced, I added it. There was nothing about the conflict. It was just a historical statement of fact. I also saw that the spelling was wrong, and moved the article to reflect a more correct spelling (again, not perfect, as the "h" sound in Hebrew has no parallel in English). I have tried exceedingly hard to stick to the rules over the past year and I find it sad that there are editors like SD who have been on the warpath for years and are basically holding Misplaced Pages articles hostage. The one and only reason for my edit was to add a reference where there was none. ] (]) 17:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
	Oh, and for the record, I was not the one who added the material about the guesthouses. I removed a chunk of uncited PR material that was promoting a specific guesthouse. So SD should actually be thanking me for ruining their economy...
			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)
	====Statement by Sir Joseph====
	None of the edits have anything to do with the IP conflict. All of the edits were improvements to the article. This is just yet another "gotcha" style enforcement action. Furthermore, why are these articles subject to ARBPIA enforcement?
	:Well they certainly have something to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict: "Had Ness was '''established by the Herut Beitar settlement movement'''. Home ownership was approved in March 1982, after the '''] was passed in 1981. Families began to move there in 1987."''' "Many '''residents of Had Ness''' run guesthouses and zimmers. " . She is editing texts specifically about Israeli settlers in occupied territory. Other edits she is editing settlement articles, which she shouldn't be touching at all. --] (]) 17:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	::And? Are we now going to put all settlements and Arab villages under ARBPIA? Her edits have nothing to do with the conflict and are an improvement to the article. This is just you trying to get a pro-Israeli editor banned. It's a petty and vindictive action. This is not what AE nor Misplaced Pages is about. She changed the name from Had Nes to Had Ness, and you bring her to AE for that? 🔯 ] <sup><font color="Green">🍸]</font></sup> 17:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	:::All Israeli settlements in occupied territories are under ARBPIA, Yes. Her edits are directly about the Arab-Israeli conflict specifically talking about the Israeli settlers and when they moved to the Israeli settlement in the occupied territory and when the Israeli settlement was founded and by which settler movement. She is topic banned for a reason. --] (]) 17:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	::::Since when are all settlements and Arab settlements under ARBPIA? You need to go to ARBCOM and clarify that. You're just nitpicking trying to push your POV and make Misplaced Pages more toxic. Please don't respond to me anymore here, I will not reply to you. Stay in your own section. I reiterate that no actionable edit occurred. 🔯 ] <sup><font color="Green">🍸]</font></sup> 17:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	I refer admins to the statement above: "Disruptive...groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions." We have edits from "ages" ago, that are not in the ARBPIA area and this is a groundless complaint merely brought to shut down an adversary. 🔯 ] <sup><font color="Green">🍸]</font></sup> 17:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
			; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	The suggestions below begs the question if editing Arab villages and towns would also fall under ARBPIA, or is it just Jewish towns? 🔯 ] <sup><font color="Green">🍸]</font></sup> 14:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
			*
	Just for clarification, and since {{u|RexxS}} mentioned it, the ARBPIA templated was only added yesterday. 🔯 ] <sup><font color="Green">🍸]</font></sup> 17:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
	==== Statement by RexxS ====
	In response to {{u|Sir Joseph}}, it is not helpful to a topic-banned editor to encourage them to make edits which others could interpret as a breach of the topic ban. Topic bans quite often contain the phrase "broadly construed" and most editors will interpret that in terms of ARBPIA to include editing topics about settlements in the occupied territories, whose existence is inextricably linked with the Arab-Israeli conflict. ] is a clear example. The consequences for you of being wrong are zero; whereas the consequences for a topic-banned editor of following your advice if you are wrong are serious.
			===Discussion concerning DanielVizago===
	The convention on Misplaced Pages is for a topic-banned editor to check the talk page for a notice such as {{tl|ARBPIA}}. The presence of the notice is a clear signal to keep away. The absence of such a notice is not, however, a green light to edit the article. The usual practice, in the event of any uncertainty, would be to seek advice from a knowledgeable-admin – perhaps the one who performed the ban – whether they considered the article covered by the topic ban. In my humble opinion, it's probably best for an editor who is topic banned "broadly construed" to assume that all settlements in the occupied territories are subject to ARBPIA. Nobody's going to get sanctioned for following that advice. --] (]) 22:44, 7 December 2016 (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 AnotherNewAccount====		====Statement by DanielVizago====
	'''I suggest lifting the ban.''' I did see a while back Gilabrand was sailing somewhat close to the wind of the topic ban on occasions, but the nature of the editing tended to be gnomish stuff like category editing, WikiProject bannering, image adding etc. None of the edits have been problematic, and she has been editing for over a year without incident since being unblocked. She has not touched the "battleground" parts of the topic.
			====Statement by caeciliusinhorto====
	HJ Mitchell wrote:
			Since this report was opened, DanielVizago has continued to make questionable edits adding articles to ].
	<blockquote>I would suggest, as a ball-park figure, that six months would be an appropriate amount of time passed before I would be wiling to consider lifting the AE block.</blockquote>
			* , categorising a living person who has been accused (but not charged, let alone convicted) of sexual assault as a rapist (cf. ])
	She seems to have surpassed that requirement with a goodly amount of decent editing. The fact that it's taken this long for anybody to notice and complain here is evidence of the benign nature of her editing to date. ] (]) 19:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
			* adds the category to a disambiguation page on the basis of one of the people listed on that page, who had in fact been convicted not of rape but of
			* and edit categorise two sexually-motivated murderers as rapists despite no evidence that they ever raped anyone in the article (cf. ])
			] (]) 10:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	====Statement by Huldra====
	To put it bluntly: anyone assuming good faith with Gilabrand, is a gullible fool. Seriously. She lied about IP socking while banned, was forgiven and let back, and "repaid" by socking again. See ], where ] was found to be one of her socks. I was taught to ], but I have run out of cheeks, w.r.t Gilabrand.
			====Statement by Simonm223====
	So no, I simply do not believe that, say, that first diff is an innocent mistake. Having said that, as long as she ''only'' does copy- edits, I do not mind that she edits articles under ARBPIA.
			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)
	I think a block is in order, but not a long one, (she has done constructive work, too). Say, 1 to 3 months?
	====Statement by Malik Shabazz====
	I don't think it's very nice that Gila refers to her friends—any of them—as clowns. Isn't there a policy or guideline against that? —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 06:02, 9 December 2016 (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 Gilabrand===		===Result concerning DanielVizago===
	:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''		:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
			*I've p-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor communicating. ] (]) 12:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I want to hear what they have to say, but I'm going to need a fairly convincing explanation as to how they're here to build an encyclopedia and not to POV-push men's rights activism content where it doesn't belong. The IDHT and spammy behavior and the BLP vios on top of that aren't super encouraging, either, but if they decide to communicate, I'm happy to reassess. ] (] • she/her) 22:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I'd like to hear what they have to say, too, but I'm also not averse to letting this archive with no further action since the p-block is an indef. I've left another message at their talk. ] (]) 13:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->		<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
			*<!--
	*Context for reviewing admins: the topic ban was imposed in ; Gilabrand was indefinitely blocked at the same time and unblocked just over a year ago. I see I noted at ] when I logged the topic ban {{xt|This topic ban is indefinite and will continue in the event that Gilabrand is unblocked}}. I'd prefer this complaint be adjudicated by other admins (and make no comment on its merit for the time being), but I'll monitor this thread. ] &#124; ] 13:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
			-->
	*Hello ], please post in your own section. And the shows Gilabrand removing the following material from the ] article: {{talkquote|Had Nes was founded in 1989, when the area had already been unilaterally annexed by Israel, via the 1981 ]. It was named after 3 settlements, Holit, Dekla and Neot Sinai, evacuated from the ] as a result of the ] in 1979. }} It is hard to claim that removal of the phrase 'unilaterally annexed by Israel', when referring to the ], is unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In my opinion . the move of ] to ] looks innocuous, though I take note of the view that anything done to articles on Israeli settlements in occupied territory may be questionable for a topic-banned person. ] (]) 19:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
	* This looks like an example of testing the boundaries. A settlement in the Golan Heights will be viewed by many as certainly within ARBPIA, it is not the job of topic-banned editors to make this determination by testing the boundaries. Gilabrand needs to pay very close attention to the words "broadly construed" and adopt a policy of not touching an article unless it is either unambiguously and unarguably free of ARBPIA (so with no connection whatsoever to Israel's disputed borders, for example), or asking for advice before editing. My view is that the very next edit to any article which is arguably related, should lead to an immediate block. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	:: I am persuaded by Peacemaker67. Though the last block was a while ago, it is very clear that Gilabrand is still determined to edit in this area and is also still unable to restrain the strong POV which led tot he restriction. I have blocked for 3 months, see . <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
	*I'd be inclined to provide a warning that edits to settlement pages are within the broad topic area if not for the portion of the first diff highlighted by {{U|EdJohnston}} above. Topic bans cover any edit, not just any page, and it's beyond clear that removing the phrase "unilaterally annexed by Israel" is within the topic area. Given the number of previous blocks for topic ban violations, I see no choice but to block here, probably for a long period of time. This editor has long since exhausted their share of good-faith errors related to this ban. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 14:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
	*Looking at the whole thing from the beginning, I think (as noted by EdJohnston then Rob) it is self-evident that removing the phrase "unilaterally annexed by Israel" is a violation of the TBAN, which was "broadly construed". Any assumption of good faith around the edges of that is surely long gone. Given the back story (which reaches back to 2008) regarding blocks relating to this topic, I don't support Guy's suggestion of a final warning, as I think whatever rope there was has been played out. I suggest <u>at least</u> a three month block is an appropriate response, with the TBAN still in force indef after the block expires. Given the past history of socking, any socking during the block to result in an indef block. ] (]) 07:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
			]
	==Solntsa90==
	{{hat|1=Blocked for three months for failing to adhere to community standards in the ARBEE topic. ] (]) 19:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC) }}
	===Request concerning Solntsa90===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Sagecandor}} 21:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
			==Ekdalian==
	; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Solntsa90}}<p>{{ds/log|Solntsa90}}
			<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>
	<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
			===Request concerning Ekdalian===
	;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] and ] :
			; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 03:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
			; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Ekdalian}}<p>{{ds/log|Ekdalian}}</p>
	; ] 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. -->
	# Removing "debunked" from descriptor about conspiracy theory affecting ]s.
	# '']'' apparently not good enough source for this user in disputes -- adds "claims to have debunked" instead of "debunked" before the newspaper.
	# - adds '']'' in violation of indef topic ban from all related ] topics.
	# - again inserts '']'' in violation of topic ban.
	# Insertion of unreliable source against talk page consensus, later by {{u|Neutrality}}. -- see previous topic ban from '']'' .
	# - again adds '']'', this time ''after'' edit-summary warning by {{u|Neutrality}}. Again in violation of topic ban from all pages related to ].
	# Edits in subsection directly related to ] - AFTER notification by {{u|Neutrality}} of topic ban violation on all pages related to ], and AFTER the Arbitration Enforcement notification.
	# Edits in subsection directly related to ] - AFTER notification by {{u|Neutrality}} of topic ban violation on all pages related to ], and AFTER the Arbitration Enforcement notification.
	# Edits in subsection directly related to ] - AFTER notification by {{u|Neutrality}} of topic ban violation on all pages related to ], and AFTER the Arbitration Enforcement notification.
	# Edits in subsection directly related to ] - AFTER notification by {{u|Neutrality}} of topic ban violation on all pages related to ], and AFTER the Arbitration Enforcement notification.
	# Edits in subsection directly related to ] - AFTER notification by {{u|Neutrality}} of topic ban violation on all pages related to ], and AFTER the Arbitration Enforcement notification.
	# Edits in subsection directly related to ] - AFTER notification by {{u|Neutrality}} of topic ban violation on all pages related to ], and AFTER the Arbitration Enforcement notification. And after the proposal by {{u|EdJohnston}} of three-month-long-block.
	; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
	<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
	# Six-month topic ban from "from the article ] and its talk page." (Note behavior recently inserting '']'' at .)
	# Blocked for violating unblock condition related to ].
	# Indef topic ban from ] - therefore insertion of '']'' is violation of this sanction.
	;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
	<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
	* - Discretionary sanctions alert by ] as to Eastern Europe and related topics (])
	* Indef topic ban from "the topic of ] on all pages of Misplaced Pages including talk."
	* Discretionary sanctions alert by {{u|Neutrality}} as to both (i) pages regarding with living or recently deceased people (]), and (ii) pages involving post-1932 U.S. politics (])
	; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
	<!-- Add any further comment here -->
	; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
	*Notification given at .
	<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
	===Discussion concerning Solntsa90===
	<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 Solntsa90====
	The article on ] has literally nothing to do with Russia, except for media claims that this originates in Russia--still nothing to do with Vladimir Putin--and the fact I'm using an RT News source as a citation.
	'''The burden of proof will be on you to prove that this topic is directly related to Vladimir Putin.'''
	I didn't violate my topic-ban; You're just attempting to get rid of me on a contentious issue. ] (]) 15:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
	My edits aren't even related to Russia. The burden of proof will be on whoever issued this complaint to prove that my edits were on an article directly related to Russia or Vladimir Putin, of which neither were; This is all happening because I dared to use RT News as a source. ] (]) 15:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
	====Statement by Neutrality====
	I agree with and fully join in Sagecandor's request regarding Solntsa90. I see this as a flagrant violation of his topic ban(s), and one more example of an ongoing pattern of behavior that indicates a complete inability or unwillingness to edit productively in the topic area of American or Eastern European politics. Particularly illuminating is his statement, , dismissing "a few editors have an objection" because "Consensus is not needed on valid sources, of which RT is." Solntsa90 seems to believe that ''his'' understanding is baseline/predicate. He doesn't seem to appreciate that others might have rational views to the contrary. Nor does he seem to understand that generally, the burden of showing a source's reliability is on the proponent of the source.
	Even if this isn't quite a ] case, it certainly is one that calls for:
	* A broad-based, long-term topic ban. Since targeted sanctions haven't work, there should be consideration of a ban of Solntsa90 from all pages, project-wide, touching "government/politics related to the United States, Russia, or Europe, and journalism/media/news related to the United States, Russia, or Europe, broadly construed," or something to that effect.
	* Some sort of 1RR restriction that bars Solntsa90 from reverting anything but obvious vandalism.
	]<sup>]</sup> 22:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
	===Result concerning Solntsa90===
	:''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 agree with Neutrality. ] (]) 02:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
	**Well, after I am convinced that SoIntsa90 simply can't play by the rules, and does not, or does not want to, understand how consensus and RS works. Much in that comment is on the sly--for instance, "the issue here" could point to "here" as "in general"--in the US, in the West, whatever--but it probably means "here on Misplaced Pages", and thus the "editorial team" that's on whoever's payroll is us Misplaced Pages editors. It's bad enough that the whole liberal media conspiracy theory gets so much air time on Misplaced Pages talk pages, including by SoIntsa90, but this is also a total violation of AGF and a toxification of the entire process. Enough already: I'm blocking now for a short period considering this one particular violation, and add my support for an AE block to EdJohnston and Peacemaker. ] (]) 16:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
	*The ban from ] was mentioned by ]. That particular ban was for six months and it has expired. But the pattern of problems continues. I would favor a three-month AE block for continuing problems with neutral editing in the area of ], since they have got themselves named twice in the ] for ARBEE this year alone. See . The log includes three blocks for edit warring and a two-week block for harassment. ] (]) 04:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
	*I agree with EdJohnston that the editing pattern persists despite previous blocks. Enough rope has been played out. Three month block for the ARBEE issues. ] (]) 07:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
	*Closing. ] is blocked for three months as an arbitration enforcement for failing to adhere to community standards regarding the ARBEE topic. While Drmies issued a shorter block above for a specific violation, he did express his support for my proposal of an AE block. ] (]) 19:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	==Ag97==
	<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 Ag97===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Sagecandor}} 17:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
	; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Ag97}}<p>{{ds/log|Ag97}}
	<!--- 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: ] and ] :
	<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->		<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
	#]
	#] as superseded by .
	; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :		; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
	<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->		<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
			# - Restoring recently added disputed content, contrary to ]
			# - Casting unsubstantiated aspersions and poisoning the well against another editor.
	Sneaky minor edits at ] to minimize fact it is fake, even though it impacts BLPs including living people who were endangered by a shooter with a rifle:
			# - Poisoning the well against another user without any evidence of misconduct.
	# - Removes large amounts of content from intro on ] page about BLP, reverted by {{u|TheTimesAreAChanging}}.		# - Restoring recently added disputed content again and essentially asking to get consensus for it, contrary to ].
			# - Performs a blanket revert in order to make a ], just because their previous edit was reverted, despite it being the version that was arrived upon by a month long discussion on , also saying "LE also wants to discuss and revisit the content proposed by the sock" , LukeEmily later elaborated that they are okay with the version that Ekdalian was actually reverting
	# - Words conspiracy theory as if factual, "and tie a number of pizzerias ..."
	# - Removes "discredited" from lead of conspiracy theory, calls this "minor change to lead".		# - Same as above but edit warring
	# - changes "determined to be fake" to "called "fake news" ..." in scare quotes, calls this minor change to lead".		# - Edit warring and casting aspersions saying that reverting editor is acting like the blocked sock {{noping|Nobita456}} "stop behaving like Nobita please"
			# - Attacks and tries to poison the well against another editor also says that "WP:ONUS doesn't mean you need to achieve consensus with editors condemned by admins for persistent POV pushing! "
	# - changes "debunked" to "described as false", removes word "debunked" from section on "debunking".
	# - ] retaliation. User starts talk page section about their edits, immediately responds with same in reverse with same passive aggressive wording.		# - Restores the aforementioned attack saying "Related to the content only, related to WP:CONSENSUS to be precise; accept the truth, I don't want to report minor incidents" when told to focus on content
			# - calling a ] edit as vandalism and issues final warning for vandalism
	#] - Inserts discussion of theory into related article which treats the conspiracy theory as a matter of debate rather than debunked falsehoods, despite the fact that both sources they cited explicitly describe the claims as "fake."
	# - "the only debunking that occurred is that several media sources published articles saying that the theory is false and has been debunked."
	; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :		; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
	<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->		<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
			# Explanation
	# - Warned about BLP, by {{u|Paul Erik}}.
			# Explanation
	# - Warned about Fringe Topics related to BLPs, by {{u|Neutrality}}.
	# - Warned about edit-warring, by {{u|NorthBySouthBaranof}}.
	# - 48-hour block for edit-warring/3RR violation on ], by {{u|Kuru}}.
	;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 ]):
			*Has a <nowiki>{{Ds/aware|ipa}}</nowiki> template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. and notified of WP:ARBIPA by Dennis Brown in 2022
	<!-- 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. -->
	# - Discretionary sanctions alert for content related to post-1932 American politics, by {{u|MrX}}.
	# - Discretionary sanctions alert for content related to living persons, by {{u|Neutrality}}.
	; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :		; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
			I also note that Ekdalian has a history of aggressive edit warring in the contentious topic as a part of slow running edit war.On , many of their most recent edits have been reverts to prevent content addition as well. It has gotten to the point where experienced users like {{noping|Sitush}} have called them out for it because they usually misrepresent the consensus or comments by editors such as Sitush to claim that consensus already exists when there is none, they do not provide diffs when asked to substantiate their claims either. They have been reprimanded in past over similar conduct about misrepresentation and exaggeration by {{ping|Dennis Brown}} on this venue as well. They have a history of attacking other users and trying to poison the well against them instead of ] as diffs above prove.
	<!-- Add any further comment here -->
			I am not seeking any topic bans but Ekdalian should be at least told not to misuse the talk page for adding more fuel into heated disputes, and use the revert button only when it is necessary. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 03:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	*New evidence: Complete and utter inability to understand ] and ] with this amazing bit of ]:
	**{{tq|"the only debunking that occurred is that several media sources published articles saying that the theory is false and has been debunked."}} --
	:This is incredibly disruptive to talk page progress. ] (]) 01:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
			I'm unimpressed by your defence of #10, it was an unsourced change, sure disruptive but not vandalism (which has a very specific meaning). Please refer to ]. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 07:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
			; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
	* - Notification given about arbitration enforcement discussion.
			<!-- 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 Ag97===		===Discussion concerning Ekdalian===
	<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 Ag97====
	This is absolutely ridiculous. I made several good faith edits that improved the ] article. I gave clear reasons for all the changes, and can defend all of them. I am very willing to defend any of my edits on the talk page. This is an attempt to block me by ]. Neutrality has threatened me, saying "Ag97 has previously been blocked for a 3RR violation on this very article. I think it is time for AE on this. Neutralitytalk 16:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)." Neutrality previously got me blocked for edit warring, even though he himself was guilty of edit warring just as much as me. I find it very concerning that ] is attempting to bully me by using his administrator rights to threaten to block me for disagreeing with him. All of my edits were made in good faith, were justified, and improved the article. Nothing was intended to be sneaky, my edits were accurately described, and improved the article by rewriting phrases using more neutral language that more accurately describes the cited references. If ] has a content dispute with me, he should discuss it on the talk page, rather than trying to get me blocked. This is nothing more than an attempt by ] to silence someone he doesn't agree with. ] (]) 17:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
			====Statement by Ekdalian====
	NorthSouthBaran 's accusations are also inaccurate. I never posted anything that was false, I said "conspiracy theory" and never claimed that the theory is true. The words "conspiracy theory" are sufficient to explain that the claims aren't true. No other Misplaced Pages article describes conspiracy theories as false, so why should this one be an exception? My edit was justified, as I explained . NorthSouthBaranOf and Neutrality have no right to get me blocked for disagreeing with them.] (]) 18:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
			I have nothing to say as such! I have been serving Misplaced Pages since 2013, particularly related to contentious caste articles, fighting against caste promotion, POV pushing and vandalism. Heated debates are common in the contentious topics. I have neither violated 3RR, nor abused any editor! Yes, in case someone has been topic banned and condemned by admins, I do mention the same so that NPOV is not violated. Many admins are aware of my activities including SPI, anti-disruption and anti-vandalism. Thanks & Regards. ] (]) 06:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:First of all, foundational Misplaced Pages policies mean neutral point of view. All other false conspiracy theories on Misplaced Pages, such as 9/11 or Sandy Hook, and never described as false, even though that is uncontested. So why should this article be written from a biased point of view when no other Misplaced Pages article about a conspiracy theory does that? Secondly, this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page, where many people agree with me. ] (]) 19:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
			:Action (warning) may be taken against NXcrypto for being unable to identify vandalism (refer to point number 10), and wasting the time of our admins! Thanks. ] (]) 06:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Nxcrypto, it is a clear case of vandalism. The user intends to misrepresent and project their caste as ] (higher status among Bengali Kayasthas) by intentionally changing Eastern (Bengal) to Western! Moreover, the user has done similar vandalism in multiple articles only in order to promote Western Bengali Guhas. Thanks. ] (]) 08:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Addition: I just want to point out that it is completely absurd that people want to block me from Misplaced Pages for having a discussion on a talk page, as what MjolnirPants wrote. It seems that I am being attacked by people who are angry that I disagree with their opinion. ] (]) 22:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)		*In response to Bishonen's comments, I would like to inform here that Sitush is referring to my response at a time when {{u|Nobita456}}'s sock was driving a discussion and I had filed an SPI! Therefore, I was delaying the discussion in order to eliminate the sock from the same. Sitush has been quoted out of context! Thanks. ] (]) 12:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{u|Orientls}}, the user has already been blocked for vandalism; I have years of experience in this area and quite sure of what I have mentioned! Thanks. ] (]) 06:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{ping|Bishonen}} I have clearly mentioned that I am not sure! But, {{u|Orientls}} seems to be so sure that they have stated that I am 'falsely' accusing him of meatpuppetry! How can you be so sure that there has been no mail exchanges? Orientls, do you think you are God? Regards. ] (]) 06:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			====Statement by Orientls====
	::Addition: I attempted to negotiate with Neutrality on his talk page. He responded at first, but once he started losing the argument, he got angry, deleted my arguments, and got me blocked as retaliation. I got blocked because I accidentally violated the 3 revert rule. That was not done intentionally, and since then I have not broken any Misplaced Pages policy. Now Neutrality is trying to get me blocked for the second time for the same offence. ] (]) 17:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
			I find this comment by Ekdalian unpalatable: "The user intends to misrepresent and project their caste as Kulin Kayastha." How are you so sure of their caste? I don’t see where they have self-identified as such, and you also accuse them of attempting to project "their caste'" with another one by "vandalising" Misplaced Pages, which is a serious accusation against a new editor. I think an editor of your tenure should be able to recognize what constitutes vandalism because those edits are not vandalism, you should also refrain from speculating about the caste of editors.
	====Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof====
	I view as problematic as well; the user inserted a lengthy discussion of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory into a related article, ], without mentioning that the theory has been widely debunked, discredited and is viewed as false by all mainstream sources. This ''despite the fact'' that the two sources they cited explicitly call the theory "fake."
			reasoning seems odd, especially when Sitush himself states: "CharlesWain began this discussion. They are not a sock, are they?" , implying that you were opposing changes proposed by an editor who was not a sock by misrepresenting Sitush's comments. I also think canvassing was inappropriate, particularly with its problematic heading, "Kind attention: Bishonen and admins active here." It sounds as if you are trying to recruit people to back you up here.
	The user in question may well be editing in good faith, but it is clear that they do not have a good understanding of Misplaced Pages content policies, particularly those regarding fringe theories and false claims about living people. They are clearly editing from the POV that the claims are "not proven false," which is at best a ] viewpoint and at worst an overt attempt to spread libelous, ludicrous nonsense which has already resulted in one extremely dangerous incident. A number of the user's have had to be suppressed, and I suggest that the continuation of this behavior warrants a topic ban. They have demonstrated that they are not here to edit this topic in compliance with policy but rather in an effort to spread false claims about people, or at the least create the impression that there is some substantive debate about their veracity, as against the unanimous declaration of ] that they are malicious lies. ] (]) 18:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
	:Ag97 does not seem to understand that this is not a matter of personal disagreement, but a matter of alignment with foundational Misplaced Pages policies. That the claims of this conspiracy theory are false, malicious lies is an ], not merely someone's personal opinion. Editing related articles to make it sound like Pizzagate is a subject of actual debate or that there is any truth to the claims whatsoever contravenes this policy. We must describe Pizzagate as mainstream reliable sources do — a fake, fraudulent conspiracy theory. ] (]) 18:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
			Honestly, I’m not surprised by the diffs cited in the report, especially if your conduct at ARE is like this where your edits are under scrutiny.
	====Statement by Neutrality====
	I agree with Sagecandor and NorthBySouthBaranof. Ag97 has been extensively reasoned with, alerted, warned, and sanctioned, all to no avail. I consider the (repeated) BLP violations to be serious. Some sort of topic ban or revert restriction or both, applicable to American politics in general or conspiracy/fringe theories in particular, would seem to be in order. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
			{{ping|Bishonen}} While the filer himself made it clear that he is not "seeking any topic bans", Ekdalian deserves a topic ban following this . By calling an editor with almost 4k edits a "comparatively new user" and falsely accusing him of "meatpuppetry", Ekdalian has proven he is not capable of editing here without poisoning the well and making personal attacks. ] (]) 03:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Also: This hardly needs to be said, but Ag97's statement that I somehow "threatened to block him for disagreeing with me" is completely meritless. What I , on December 2, was the following:
	{{quote|Let me be perfectly and unequivocally clear. You have two simple choices. You can either stop edit-warring in violation of our fundamental policies and guidelines. Or you can continue this conduct, and I will pursue and very likely obtain Arbitration Enforcement remedies against you. The choice is yours, but I strongly recommend the former.}}
			====Statement by (username)====
	::Ag97 , to his incorrect notions about Misplaced Pages policies, and proceeded to consistently and flagrantly violate BLP, even after being blocked ''for the exact same conduct on the exact same issue''. So here we are. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
			<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
	====Statement by Timothyjosephwood====
	The failure to understand that ''criticism of a source'' does not constitute ''a source'' is...fairly run-of-the-mill for these topics. The immediate jump to ] and ] is concerning.
	]s characterization of as a "lengthy discussion" is at best wrong. It is, in fact, a single sentence, and that may be a little ].
	There has been a tendency on the article to want to pack in as much tentative and doubt-casting language as possible: {{tq|The theory purported to claim that the "person" reportedly did the alleged "thing" which was a false unfounded hoax, not true, and very likely a fib.}} At at least a few instances of this has needed to be simplified. So there's definitely a middle ground there somewhere.
	Not sure there's been an insane amount of disruption, but not sure that discussion is really possible, since in about six seconds it went from zero to {{tq|This user is purposefully rewriting the article to remove neutral language and make it biased, reducing the overall quality of the article. In addition, he and his friend Neutrality have threatened to use their administrator rights to block me from Misplaced Pages in retaliation for voicing my opposition and concerns about their changes}}. ] 18:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
	:. ] 20:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
	==== Statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge ====
	I have to admit that I'm a bit perplexed why this RfE was filed.
	* Personally, I wouldn't have removed the sentence about Bush but editors are allowed to make ] edits. Whether the edit improves the article is matter for talk page discussion, not RfE. Further, the filer describes the edit as removing "''large amounts of content''", however, I count only one sentence being removed. Can someone double-check my math?
	* This edit changed the word "''ties''" to "''tie''" and adds "''contain coded messages referring to ]...in ]''". I don't see how this edit words this conspiracy theory as factual.
	* This edit does remove "''discredited''" but leaves in ''"described as a 'fictitious conspiracy theory''". I'm not sure if there's a substantial difference between the two versions of this sentence, but the edit summary should have been more descriptive.
	* This edit changes the sentence that reads:
	{{cquote|The theory has been described as a "fictitious conspiracy theory" by the District of Columbia Police Department and determined to be fake by multiple organizations including Snopes.com, The New York Times,and Fox News.}}
	to:
	{{cquote|The theory has been described as a "fictitious conspiracy theory" by the District of Columbia Police Department and called "fake news" by multiple organizations including Snopes.com, The New York Times, and Fox News.}}
	I don't see any substantial difference between these two sentences. A more descriptive edit summary should have been used.
	* Another minor change of little significance.
	* Personalization of dispute. This is the first diff that actually shows the editor doing something wrong.
	* I wouldn't have made this edit. This is trivia within the context of ]. That's the only thing I find objectionable about this edit. I don't see how this treats the conspiracy theory as a matter of debate. The edit plainly labels it as a conspiracy theory. Since when is being called a "conspiracy theory" a good thing?
	This seems to me to be a frivolous RfE.
	] (]) 19:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
	====Statement by MjolnirPants====
	I'm not disowning what I said previously, but replacing it with a simple statement of fact: Since this editor started in at the article, almost all effort put into the article has been trying to convince them that reliable sources are reliable, and unreliable sources are not. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 03:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
	====Statement by Exemplo347====
	The fact that this Arbitration Enforcement action is taking place does not seem to have given the subject of it any reason to reflect on their actions. I'd urge a swift resolution to this, if only for the sanity of editors who are having to deal with his editing - it's like having to follow a puppy around with a pooper scooper. ] (]) 21:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
	:This editor is now trying to cause similar issues with other articles. I'm not sure how much longer "Assuming Good Faith" is going to hold up. ] (]) 15:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
	====Statement by Acroterion====
	I've been keeping an eye on things Pizzagate for a couple of weeks. A few days ago I revdel'd a good bit of old defamation at related pages, some of which has since been oversighted, and I placed extended confirmed protection on the articles after semi-protection didn't do enough to stop disruptive editing. I've warned and blocked a few people for flat-out BLP violations. The pattern here is reminiscent of GamerGate, in which lots of new editors and previously inactive editors converged on the topic to insist that their POV, however discredited, was being suppressed in favor of material supported by mainstream sources, and that Misplaced Pages could not ignore what they termed "alternative media." The means by which both topics have been promoted are similar, and there is a good bit of overlap in the places where they are being promoted. The difference is that rather than shaming campaigns, doxxing, swatting and individual threats, Pizzagate involves enthusiastic defamation in the grossest terms and actual people with guns conducting "investigations." It is this enthusiasm for defamation, either overt or by omission that is being promoted here by Ag97 using similar arguments that somehow neutrality demands that we take lunatic fantasies seriously. Given the fact that the articles document real-time events we should not for a moment allow Misplaced Pages to be used as a platform for promotion of a pernicious assault on individuals who are unpopular with conspiracy enthusiasts. While some of hs edits are unproblematic or productive, Ag97 is using Misplaced Pages as a battleground for promotion of these attacks. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 23:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
	====Statement by MrX====
	I'm not surprised to see Ag97 here; I'm only surprised that it took so long. I gave Ag97 a DS alert when, after a two year lapse from editing, they burst onto the scene with to ], writing "Clinton was accused of rape by ] in an interview published on the news network ]." sourced to ] and freebeacon.com. This was followed by a series of poorly-sourced edits in which Ag97 attempted to add material to several articles claiming that protests at Trump rallies were "done by paid instigators working for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign" sourced to the inimitable ''Washington Times''.
	Here, Ag97 expresses his disdain for Misplaced Pages editors:
	:"*'''Yes''' - Wow Misplaced Pages is one big joke. This is supposed to be neutral? You losers are still refusing to list Trump as the successor? You are in a state of denial. Your candidate lost, Trump is going to be president. Get over it! There is no logical reason whatsoever why Trump shouldn't be listed as the successor. Even Melania Trump is listed as the successor on Michelle Obama's article. For every single senate race, their successor is listed. On every. single. other. politician's. article on Misplaced Pages their successor is listed!! I don't know if you people are paid CTR shills or just radical leftists who hope that by throwing temper tantrums you can change the result of the election. Well guess what losers, it's not going to happen! And by tainting these high profile articles by showing your bias and not even attempting to be neutral, you make all of Misplaced Pages look bad. Shame on you."- ]] 00:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
	==== Statement by Eggishorn ====
	Having literally never posted in connection with ArbCom sanctions, I hesitated to stick my nose in here. That said, I think posting {{Diff|wp:Articles_for_deletion/David_Seaman_(journalist)|diff=next|oldid=753988588|label=this edit}} to a contentious AfD discussion on a closely-related topic after this AE opened might be relevant to the discussion. Thank you ] ] ] 18:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
	==== Statement by Ian.thomson ====
	Lots of ground has already been covered by others and I think enough evidence has been presented. With a single exception (that does not outweigh everything else), all of Ag97's behavior at Talk:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) has been tendentious: he has ] to imply that Pizzagate is real (pushing for citing a ] on Wikileaks), while ] of mainstream sources that don't support the conspiracy theory.
	that InfoWars is not a fake news site, because ] says it isn't, going as far as to , and ... because a noted conspiracy theorist says that his website isn't fake news (unlike, has said Jones, the New York Times). , , but . At a minimum, Ag97 does not need to be handling anything relating to Pizzagate. From what else I'm seeing here, he doesn't need to be handling anything relating to US politics, conspiracy theories, and possibly BLPs.
	TL;DR: ''Ag97 doesn't get that InfoWars is fake news, but demands we cite an out-of-context email. Him editing pages relating to American politics, conspiracy theories, or BLPs is like having a homeopath edit medical articles.'' ] (]) 01:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
	===Result concerning Ag97===		===Result concerning Ekdalian===
	:''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. -->
			*I will point out that I was ] by Ekdalian. That said, I'll state that I don't think NXcrypto's diffs are anything much; it's surely a stretch to call them "casting apersions" and "poisoning the well" and the like, especially in the IPA area where the tone is often sharp. The comments by Sitush are a little more concerning, though. ] &#124; ] 10:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC).
	*These Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) edits are quite damning: marked as minor, they blur the difference between fact and conspiracy. Edits on Pizzagate (dab) show they either have no clue about the BLP and its project-wide application, or no interest in such knowledge. Editor has no business editing in the area of US politics, as other edits and warnings have shown, and I strongly support a one-year ban from that area altogether. If others feel that the ban should extend to all conspiracy theories, I have no objection to that. ] (]) 18:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
			==Alex 19041==
	* This feels like the start of Gamergate all over again, but with a much larger spotlight on this to start, it should be easier to devolute things. I do agree that some of the diffs of Ag97 are problematic after warnings, but I don't think all edits are incorrect. There is a difference between "fake news" (in the current context of websites running purely ficticious stories) and a "fake conspiracy theory" (as this theory appears fully legit by those that believe it, so it's not "fake". Debunked and/or proven false, yes, in that any validity to the theory has been investigated and found non-existent, so that the edits that attempt to change that wording are a problem, but I do see Ag97's point about the "fake conspiracy theory" being inaccurate wording.(*)) I'm not sure if the edit on Podestra's page is a problem: as long as we have the article on Pizzagate, his ties to it are unfortunately notable, but the language Ag97 added did establish the ties as "alledged" (though I would use "debunked" or "disproven" to follow the above comments based on sources). But overall, editing behavior and battleground mentality definitely needs to be addressed as that's still edit warring on articles clearly within the AE scope, and limited term topic ban seems appropriate here given past warnings/blocks. --] (]) 20:11, 9 December 2016 (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>
	** Just to add noted at (*) above, I see that "fictitious conspiracy theory" is exact wording from the police per published stories; I think that's still awkward wording to use w/o the quotes and attribution (as again, it implies the theory itself is a completely fictional thing no one believes is true, but there's clearly those that think it still is despite the wealth of investigation from authorities to disprove it). --] (]) 20:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
	* I concur with {{user|Drmies}} that while each edit is perhaps defensible on its own, taken together they are pretty damning in trying to make this theory look more credible than it really is. If this were an isolated incident of poor judgement from this user I'd be inclined to just tell them to be more careful in the future and not to do it again, but given the user's history and the comments described by MjolnirPants and MrX, I'm convinced that we don't want this editor on BLPs or in this topic area at all. I'd support a year-long topic ban from both US politics and conspiracy theories. ] <sup>(])</sup> 09:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC).
	*Per Drmies and Lankiveil. I consider that this is pretty egregious battlegrounding over a conspiracy theory, and the demonstrated lack of understanding or interest in our BLP rules is very concerning. I'd support a one year TBAN on US politics and conspiracy theories, broadly construed. ] (]) 08:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
			=== Request concerning Alex 19041 ===
	==Abbatai==
			; User who is submitting this request for enforcement: {{userlinks|Est. 2021}} 16:05, 21 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|Alex 19041}}<p>{{ds/log|Alex 19041}}</p>
	===Request concerning Abbatai===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|EtienneDolet}} 04:10, 10 December 2016 (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|Abbatai}}<p>{{ds/log|Abbatai}}
	;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]		;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] & ]
			<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
	; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :		; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it:
			<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
	#
	#		#
	;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 ]):
			* ]
	*Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{u|Coffee}}. Received a block for violating topic ban on by {{u|Coffee}}. Topic ban extended to 6 months on by {{u|Coffee}}.
			* ]
			; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
	; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
			* ]
	This is one of the shortest reports I've filed simply because the POV is self-evident and the user's history is so disruptive that it just had to be reported. Abbatai removes the word 'Nazi' in this when it comes to Azeris, but in the lead of an Armenian ] a few minutes later. A bit of a history lesson here: the ] and the ] were both foreign units of the ]. Armenians (like Dro) and Azeris all fought alongside the German Army during those days. However, according to Abbatai, the Azeris should not be designated Nazis, but the Armenians should. It can't get any clearer POV pushing than that. Given this user's disruptive POV pushing history, there should be serious consideration as to whether he should be topic-banned once more.
			===Discussion concerning Alex 19041===
	; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
			<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 Alex 19041====
	::{{ping|My very best wishes}} Yup, and the "should be fixed" part is where AE comes in. While one ethnic group retains the characterization of fighting for the SS and the other for Nazi Germany, that must have a consequence in terms of POV-pushing edits, especially considering the user's disruptive history. I guess he hasn't learned his lesson. Even you had to admit it by saying "it should be fixed". ] (]) 05:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
	===Discussion concerning Abbatai===
	<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 Abbatai====
	====Statement by My very best wishes====
	. Including info about the legion of the Wehrmacht seems be appropriate. However, trying to "over-explain" it, i.e. saying "Wehrmacht, the armed forces of the ]" was excessive and should be fixed. But this looks to me as a minor content dispute.
	. Telling "SS Volunteer Formations" means basically the same as "Nazi troops", but more precise. Therefore, I think that was actually an improvement by Abbatai.
	I do not see any reason for sanctions based on these two diffs. ] (]) 04:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
	====Statement by Sagecandor====
	<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
	The edits and -- when contrasted with each other as noted by the original poster -- is definitely problematic. The by {{u|Coffee}} was only back in May 2016. Then a block , then an extension of the topic ban . Last topic ban was 6 months, suggest one year. ] (]) 11:14, 11 December 2016 (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 Abbatai===		===Result concerning Alex 19041===
	:''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. -->
			<!--
	*There may or may not be POV concerns, but looking at these two edits together, I'm hard pressed to sanction. I looked at this yesterday before My very best wishes commented here, but he sums up my feelings well. If they are POV problems, they aren't obvious and I think it might be reaching into someone's head and trying to figure out their motives on what seems like reasonable edits. That doesn't mean they are "correct" or he has no POV, just that I don't see the problem with the evidence given. The second edit in particular seems good faith given that the term is used throughout the article. I can't see issuing sanctions here. ] - ] 14:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
			--><span id="Est._2021:1737475502593:WikipediaFTTCLNArbitration/Requests/Enforcement" class="FTTCmt"></span>
			*To recap what's already been said at the initial hearing this got ], it has been identified that Alex19041 is not extended-confirmed, has now been made aware of the 30/500 editing restriction for PIA, has acknowledged that they should not make any edits to the topic, but has not quite acknowledged that they also should not make comments relating to the topic outside of article space. If they can acknowledge that, an IBAN would be unnecessary as they will not be engaging further with the discussion at-issue for some time. If they can't acknowledge that, we'd likely need to escalate to blocks, as there's no reason to expect the IBAN to be observed. Some concern was also raised that Est. 2021's replies to Alex 19041 included personal attacks, although it should be noted that Est. 2021 has made an effort to remove potentially-problematic statements from their prior comments at ARBCOM (sections on their talk page containing similar language have been removed entirely, which is within their purview on a user talk page). <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	==YahwehSaves==
			*(came here from the ill-fated ArbCom case request). I agree with Rosguill. Some assurance from Alex 19041 and from Est. 2021 that they will leave the problematic edits behind would be good.] (]) 21:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{hat|Unanimous support for 30 day topic ban on all things Donald Trump, implemented by Bishonen. ] - ] 14:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)}}
			*I agree that the reported user needs to show some understanding that as a non-EC user, they need to leave this ] alone ''across all namespaces''. However, sanctions are for serious, ongoing problems, three unwelcome talk page posts made over the course of an hour does not strike me as sufficient cause for a formal iban. If there's more to it than that, it needs to be made clear, with diffs. ] ] 21:48, 21 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>
			==]-related pages==
	===Request concerning YahwehSaves===
			<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|JFG}} 00:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
			===Request concerning ]-related pages===
			; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Beeblebrox}} 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|]-related pages}}<p>{{ds/log|]-related pages}}</p>
	; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|YahwehSaves}}<p>{{ds/log|YahwehSaves}}
	<!--- 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 --->
			I ''think'' this is the right place to ask for this? Requesting an expansion of ] to cover all articles related to ], as it has unfortunately become a political hot-button issue as the POTUS made it a prioroty on his first day back in office to sign an executive order to revert the name of the mountain back to "Mt. McKinley".
	; ] 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. -->
	# {{diff||752616027||2 December 07:55}} Changed descriptors of Donald Trump in lead sentence
	# {{diff||752670494||2 December 16:30}} Reverted by {{u|Spartan7W}}
	# {{diff||752955613||4 December 09:57}} Gave his suggestion on Talk page (unsigned), didn't get any response
	# {{diff||753999220||10 December 08:33}} Changed descriptors in lead sentence again, without prior consensus
	# {{diff||754007929||10 December 12:10}} Reverted by {{u|JFG}} with a very clear admonition to take it to the Talk page: {{tq|Sorry, this is being discussed on the talk page; please make your case there before changing Trump's descriptors again}}
	# {{diff||754112460||10 December 22:44}} Reinserted non-consensus descriptors in lead sentence, violating DS despite prior warnings and reverts
			In the past twenty-four hours there has been heavy editing/disruption in articles and on related talk pages and protection has been needed at several. ] was probably hit hardest, but ] got some too, as has ], which is explicitly not even part of the executive order. I wouldn't be surprised if the same issue is happening in ] related articles, but haven't checked for myself. ] ] 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
	<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
	User was blocked several times in the past for disruptive editing and socking.
			:Yeah, just checked Gulf of Mexico. 28 new talk page sections in the past day, was already ECP protected two weeks ago per ].
	;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
			:I kinda think a single admin could do this, but I am editorially involved and probably slightly too infuriated to be objective. ] ] 22:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
			::Thanks for the replies, that's kind of what I thought, but again didn't want to act on it as I'm editorially involved. ] ] 22:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	*{{diff||752873571||User alerted about DS/1RR on 3 December 21:59}}, mentioning specifically the ] page
	; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :		; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
	<!-- Add any further comment here -->		<!-- Add any further comment here -->
	There is an ongoing discussion at ], started on 1 December, about how to describe Donald Trump in the lead sentence. {{u|YahwehSaves}} posted his suggested wording there on 4 December (unsigned) but didn't gain consensus. He then proceeded to change the lead sentence again despite having been warned about discretionary sanctions on his talk page and enjoined in edit summaries to gain consensus before applying his suggested descriptors.
	; 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 YahwehSaves===		===Discussion concerning ]-related pages===
	<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 YahwehSaves====
			====Statement by ]-related pages====
	I believe JPG is not acting in good faith but is exaggerating himself in this matter: he has had some of his own edits in the introduction removed and deleted. I don't see anything wrong with my edits-editing in this situation, many editors have sought to "improve" the article lede as such and were reverted.
			====Statement by Isabelle====
	The talk page subject (only involves a few editors opinions: real concensus cannot be reached on this and is too time consuming in this matter - its common knowledge Trump is a "business Magnate, TV personality, and author" rather then just a "businessman" and "politician" (so called politician: does not hold and never has held, a government office). ] (]) 00:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
			Since I've protected Denali's talk page, I will comment here. I agree that we will be seeing serious issues in the coming month, considering all the shit the new president is throwing at the wall, but I believe the administrators are well equip to deal with this at the moment. I believe {{u|Valereee}} has protected the Gulf of Mexico's talk page, and I've dealt with Mount Denali's. We might need to apply more extensive protection during this coming month to stop the vandals, but current tools will do just fine. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: Dennis Brown: If you don't mind being cordial and not indifferent and referring to me as a they ("didn't they"): I'm not the problem or the person causing the problem, the problem is no one is allowed (many have tried in "good faith") to change the lede sentence(s); Trump is more than a ''businessman'' and "politician" when ] (is referred to in talk as part of the Titles For Trump section for a so called consensus) does not have - is a "politician" in his lede opening sentence. Also, opening lede sentence saying Trump is the President-elect when he is the ] (presidential electors vote on 12/19/16 to finalize and Congress declares (certifies) publicly on 1/6/17 the President-elect). Are talk pages voting pages for "support or oppose" something-or someone as it is in this article? (in info boxes (]'s state of birth ("Born")) is excluded) certain MLB players including Hall of Famers (eg ], ]) are given MLB All-Star credit for 1945 when there was no official MLB All-star selection (or game played) in 1945 (because of WWII))... an editor will definitely get his/her corrections deleted and may get maltreated, blocked. ] (]) 04:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
	====Statement by Sagecandor====
	<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
			====Statement by Valereee====
	Agree that these: are disruptive and go against the model used for virtually all other person articles on this site. ] (]) 00:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
			Pinged here: yes, I've semi'd Talk:Gulf of Mexico, yesterday for 24 hours, today for another 31. I dislike protecting a talk, but it was a burden for editors working there. ] (]) 23:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:100+ edits today on the article, which is EC protected. I feel like that's a lot. ] (]) 23:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	====Statement by My very best wishes====
	Diffs #1, #4 and #6 are different minor modifications of intro made during a period of 8 days. These modifications are justifiable and minor. Other diffs are actually edits by other contributors or not a matter of concern. The user took part in discussions on article talk page. However, #4 + #6 are a 1RR violation, exactly as Dennis said below. ] (]) 04:30, 11 December 2016 (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 YahwehSaves===		===Result concerning ]-related pages===
	:''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. -->
			*<!--
	*The first five are non issues. He was bold, he was reverted, he took it to the talk page, no one argued against it so a week later he inserted, then he was reverted. That is pretty much cookie cutter ]. The last edit is a problem, although it was 14 hours after the first instead of 24. This doesn't mean {{u|YahwehSaves}} acted proper, they didn't and clearly admin have the authority to block or topic ban here. What bothers me most is YahwekSaves's reaction to all this. Let me be clear: You can't revert more than once in 24 hours. You can't keep reverting every few days. You can't use "too time consuming" as a defense, nor can you use the argument that you think those titles were obvious. This is an Arb protected class of article, meaning the rope given editors is quite short. If your attitude was more conciliatory, it would have been easy to recommend a strong warning but you have forced my hand and instead I feel that a 30 day topic ban is what is needed here. ] - ] 02:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
	*Agree with Dennis Brown, most of this isn't sanctionable. However, there are two clear 1RR violations. I see that Yahweh Saves has deleted one of their retorts, but I still see the need for a short-term sanction so the message gets across clearly. I'd support a fairly narrow one month topic ban on articles related to Donald Trump, broadly construed. ] (]) 05:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
	*I agree with the above admins, and will place a one-month ban from the topic of Donald Trump in a moment. Yahweh, please note that no discourtesy is intended by referring to you as "they". Your username isn't gender specific, and it's common practice on Misplaced Pages to use the ] to refer to an editor when their gender isn't known. This practice is more polite, in my opinion, than to call everybody "he", considering some of us are women. ] &#124; ] 10:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC).
			--><span id="Est._2021:1737475502593:WikipediaFTTCLNArbitration/Requests/Enforcement" class="FTTCmt">—&nbsp;] (] <b>·</b> ]) 16:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
	{{hab}}
			:@]: AMPOL already covers "Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed". I think that "broadly construed" would include Denali and Gulf of Mexico in the current moment. In any event, I think you'd want to go to ARCA, not here, for an amendment. ] (]/]) 22:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Also, ] is already ECP and ] has semi-protection. There's no protection on ], but I'm not seeing anything in the page history that would justify it.l ] (]/]) 22:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*AE couldn't expand the scope of an existing CT designation; only ArbCom could do that. But I don't think we need to. If the disruption is related to a current American politics controversy, that's clearly related to "post-1992 politics of the United States", and so is ''already'' in scope of the existing CT designation. So, I'd say just treat it as such. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 19:45, 22 January 2025

"WP:AE" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:AE (disambiguation).

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
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 WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives v t e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347

שלומית ליר

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

Request concerning שלומית ליר

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

שלומית ליר (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA

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

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

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

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

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 2023-04-05 and re-iterated on 2024-11-25 (see the system log linked to above).
• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 2024-12-18 by Femke (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Adding some more comments on 2025-01-22: The user in question says that they have been on[REDACTED] for years – and so surely aware of what does and does not count as canvassing. As recently as last month they were advising users on Hebrew Misplaced Pages as to how best to get their edit counts up, as well as promoting the "most biased articles" survey I've already mentioned. I understand that we are always meant to WP:AGF, but we are looking at a situation in which a user (1) has extensive experience with Misplaced Pages and (2) is encouraging people, subtly and not so subtly to do things that are against our policies. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:45, 22 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)

First and foremost, I value accuracy and transparency and am fully prepared to address any verified errors or missteps. My contributions are made in good faith, with only the intention of supporting Misplaced Pages’s mission. I am a veteran editor on Hebrew wiki, yet am learning to appreciate the sometimes stark differences in rules in this section, so am doing my very best to keep up to speed and abide fully as I edit further here.

As a longtime editor on another wiki who finally decided this year to match pace on English wiki, I strenuously reject any accusations of EC gaming when a passing glance on my global log will confirm I have not radically altered my editing pace nor article focus. In regards to NPOV concerns, I will defer to the numerous comments below affirming that there is no policy violation by having an opinion, onsite or off, and must register mild complaint that NPOV accusations are being leveled here without any policy violation having been affirmed on any of these individual contributions.

While contributions observed superficially (and without clear context of edit conversation and interaction with other editors) may appear to be agenda oriented, if I were granted more word counts, I would happily highlight the context of most edits made to make clear I was pushing back against previous bias efforts (past and present) by editors (including a number on the precipice of sanction in PIA5). Perhaps it would have been wiser to report what I felt was POV editing behavior instead of pushing back, but I only believed my efforts were to restore and preserve article balance, not disrupt it.

I am grateful for the admin guidance received so far and appreciate being better informed about certain grey areas. I meant no intention to remotely approach anything resembling canvassing and believed the commentary was allowable (most especially since it was on a proceeding I was neither participating in, nor linking out to). I understand now that this may be perceived as “call to action” which was not remotely the intent, most especially to an audience that is mostly academic and, to the best of my knowledge, does not edit Misplaced Pages. (I also humbly must point out that no report was made indicating any increase in activity to suggest editors had been canvassed). I have now been well appraised and will take great care and caution to ensure no further off-site commentary remotely approaches such this territory of concern. If there are any questions or doubts in the future, I will seek future guidance from admins before venturing into potentially questionable territory. שלומית ליר (talk) 01:07, 22 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 Vice regent

I'm satisfied by שלומית ליר's above explanation regarding canvassing. People with bad canvassing intentions don't reveal their identity. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:19, 22 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:

• Adding a citation for a claim that Hamas terrorists shot dead a group of Israeli tourists.
• Replacing map with a photograph of victims of violence.
• Removing an outdated maintenance tag which was perhaps casting doubt on the relevant section, Massacre of pensioners, and again.
• Adding specification to claims of the use of human shield (specifying who has made the claims), therefore giving greater weight to the claims, in a context where the claims were already described at considerable length; adding another reference to that claim; and adding another.
• Adding an image contentiously captioned 'Weapons Found in a Mosque', then again Rockets hidden at a house, both to the first line of the article.
• Adding, without sufficient context, an assertion that a philosopher has determined that one side of the conflict is culpable and expanding other coverage of culpability of that side.
• On the talk pages, there has been a tinge of failure to AGF although I would be prepared to look past that (it was like meeting like). I am skipping a few further and insignificant talk page comments.
• There are then edits to LGBTQ rights in the State of Palestine: inserting a reference to execution into the first sentence of the lead; adding more references to news coverage of executions of LGBT+ people by the other side of the conflict. At Houthi movement, there is then an expansion, again of the article lead, to add references to terrorist attacks (with follow-up).

Assessing the edits as a whole, it is difficult not to conclude that the respondent user is failing to meet their contentious topics obligation to edit neutrally in this topic area. As the number of edits is so far limited, if a sanction is imposed, it could justifiably be light-touch. arcticocean ■ 20:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@XDanielx: Thanks for commenting. Most of the edits do not have a neutral, encyclopedic POV. There is an effort to influence our articles away from neutrally describing the subject without taking sides, contrary to WP:NPOV. Even if each edit in isolation is insufficient for sanctioning, taken as a whole the edits show an inability or unwillingness to edit neutrally. One non-neutral edit shouldn't be sanctioned; twenty is a different story. This is not about the percentage of biased edits but about the weight or amount of them. Therefore, the assessment wouldn't really change even had the editor made some 'neutral' edits along the way. I'm happy to concede that editors cannot be compelled to balance edits of one bias with edits of another, but I don't think that comes into it. In a nutshell, this is about Misplaced Pages:Advocacy. arcticocean ■ 08:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• The offwiki canvassing is a problem...שלומית ליר, you're fairly inexperienced here. Were you aware WP:canvassing is not allowed? Valereee (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  For transparency, שלומית ליר reached out to me, and I explained multiple policy and advised her to go ahead and respond here without waiting for individual feedback from her email to arbcom, which may or may not happen. Valereee (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• I take it that per Barkeep49's brief oversighting of potentially-sensitive content in this report (Special:Diff/1269845558), and then restoration of the same (Special:Diff/1269848988), concerns of outing have been investigated and the report can proceed on its merits? _signed, Rosguill 19:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's correct. I got a request, I didn't really feel it was OUTING, but as I indicated in my edit summary OS is a tool of first resort. I consulted with the OS listserv and received some responses quickly agreeing with me and so I unsuppressed and restored the material. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• It's not for AE to decide content disputes, and that's mostly what this looks like. We can handle things like flagrant misrepresentation of sources, but how best to represent them is a matter for consensus discussion, not us to decide here. The canvassing was a cause for concern, but it looks like it was rather unintended and had little if any actual effect, and they've agreed to stop that going forward. (Note that doesn't mean anyone must stop criticizing Misplaced Pages or what happens on it; do all of that you like. Just don't encourage people to take particular actions based on that.) I don't see any further action as necessary at this point. Seraphimblade 16:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  +1 Valereee (talk) 18:13, 22 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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)

  Ping to @Red-tailed hawk Valereee (talk) 18:14, 22 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)

• Edited. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Sorry, the sub-header for this section says that only admins can edit this section, I didn't realize I was allowed to reply here.

  Yes, I will. I intend on taking an extended break from wikipedia, as well. BabbleOnto (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC) Moved from uninvolved admin section; you can answer questions, make comments, discuss, but all your input needs to be in your own section. Valereee (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  • an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.

    What I meant was that I'm willing to respect the consensus and not make any further edits or argue any more contrary to what the consensus decided. It seems to me that saying I have "Issues around understanding policy" and asking me to "learn policy" has subtext that says "Until you agree with this consensus, and you won't be allowed to edit at all." Is respectful disagreement with this consensus allowed? I'm afraid if in order to avoid a ban I have to personally agree with the consensus, beyond just respecting it, then there's nothing I can do. I still do disagree with the consensus's result. Nonetheless, I'm not going to edit or argue further, I'll respect it as a legitimate.

• • • Re:no, you don't have to agree. You just have to accept and move on.

      Then I accept the consensus. I'm not going to argue in those discussions any further, though I still personally disagree, I understand a consensus has been reached which is other than my opinion. Nor will I edit disruptively or against the consensus. I appreciate the admin who noted I largely kept my disagreement in the talk pages, not editing the articles themselves. I plan on staying away from the topic in general for quite a while.

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)

Statement by Shibbolethink

I am heavily involved in this overall dispute as someone who has gone back and forth with BabbleOnto. I wanted to add that, in general, my feeling from interacting with this user is that they could be a good contributor to this site, and absolutely could follow the PAGs. They have shown an ability to be courteous . I think the issue is that in FRINGE and other contentious areas like COVID-19 origins, they have shown a tendancy to become "hot-headed" when tensions rise, and to reference an us vs them mentality (and numerous examples from others above). It seems they have also been egged-on, and made more combative from other PROFRINGE users (and probably some anti-FRINGE users as well who do admittedly WP:BITE) in that topic space (e.g. )

We are told often to use narrowest possible restriction to protect the project. In this case, I think that would be a COVID-19 origins TBAN, where most of the disruption has been. The user states they have learned what to do when consensus is against them. If they fail to show that lesson in AP2 articles more than just the 10 or so edits they've made in those articles, an AP2 TBAN would be appropriate at that time (WP:ROPE). Just my 2 cents.— Shibbolethink 22:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

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: 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. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) I'm don't think we need to have this discussion here and now, but I don't disagree it's bitey and needs to be used only where necessary. I was just asking the question of someone who is working at that article: is this an article talk where it's necessary? Valereee (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• BabbleOnto, are you planning to answer my questions above? Do you think you're able/willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you? Are you able/willing to stop insisting everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers? Valereee (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  BabbleOnto's response understanding this as a suggestion to take a break from Misplaced Pages as a whole isn't quite what I was hoping to see. _signed, Rosguill 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  @BabbleOnto, an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.

  @Rosguill, I'd support a tban, but is AP2 enough? It seems like COVID and fringe science need to be included? Valereee (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  AP2 + COVID? I see the same behavior at the Brian Thompson article and Havana Syndrome, so COVID alone doesn't seem adequate. Oddly, the intersection of "medicine and politics" would appear to cover all affected topics but maybe that's too bespoke? _signed, Rosguill 17:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  @BabbleOnto, re:It seems to me that saying I have "Issues around understanding policy" and asking me to "learn policy" has subtext that says "Until you agree with this consensus, and you won't be allowed to edit at all." Is respectful disagreement with this consensus allowed? I'm afraid if in order to avoid a ban I have to personally agree with the consensus, beyond just respecting it, no, you don't have to agree. You just have to accept and move on. Valereee (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• I think BabbleOnto is actually getting the right idea. You do not have to agree with consensus. There are some consensus positions here I don't agree with, and some I think are rather silly. But, until and unless they change, I respect and abide by them all the same. If I try to challenge them, and it becomes clear that such a challenge was unsuccessful, there comes a time to just shrug, realize you can't win 'em all, and move on. Since they seem to have gotten that point, I think maybe see how things go, and if they return to disruption, I think they're quite clear on what the results of that will be. Seraphimblade 14:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  In my experience sealioning is a habit editors have an extremely difficult time breaking. I was going to agree with Rosguill re: a tban from AP2 + COVID, maybe appealable after 3 months and 500 productive and unproblematic edits. This editor is basically ONLY editing in CTOPs, they're doing it disruptively -- we're talking about an editor with only 177 whom other editors are describing as exhausting to interact with! -- and the specific kind of disruption is both frustrating and tedious to prove and frustrating to try to get attention to because who you need so many diffs to prove it. That plus the apparent difficulty in breaking that habit, which btw they were continuing during this case...I dunno. Valereee (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  I certainly understand your point. I am a little hesitant to sanction for "sealioning", as often it is difficult to tell where enthusiasm ends and disruptive tendentiousness begins, and I certainly do not want to have a project where people are afraid to advocate viewpoints contrary to a current consensus. That said, if everyone else feels sanctions are warranted, I won't object terribly strongly; I just generally prefer someone to get a chance to show if they've gotten the point (or in some cases, to conclusively demonstrate that they have not). Seraphimblade 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Generally I'm with you. Let people show they've dealt with the issue. Reblocking is pretty easy in most cases. But sealioning...well, it's such a difficult issue to prove/assess, and there are so many people doing it who don't even have the self-awareness to fix the problem that I kind of feel like it needs a tougher approach than I'd normally argue for. Not a hill I'm going to die on, but if the editor is back here or at ANI for the same issue, I am going to be extremely unhappy with them.

  @BabbleOnto, do you understand what we're talking about when we describe your participation at talk pages as WP:sealioning, and why we think it's such a problem, particularly in contentious topics? Do you think you can avoid participating in that way at article talk pages? Valereee (talk) 20:27, 21 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 19 August 2024 - Mainspace PIA edit prior to EC status. 19 August 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request and acknowledgement of aforementioned edit. 19 August 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Accused another editor of vandalism. 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." 21 November 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary. 21 November 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary. 13 January 2025 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. 13 January 2025 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. 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*." 13 January 2025 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. 13 January 2025 - Self-revert of direct previous mainspace reversion that was prior to EC status. 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) One of the edits by Marlarkey listed above from 13 January 2025 has been removed by ScottishFinnishRadish for Marlarkey not being ECR logged. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:37, 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[REDACTED] 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)

• I alerted them on 28 Dec 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified

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)

]

Ekdalian

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 Ekdalian

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NXcrypto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ekdalian (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:ARBIPA

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

1. 12:51, 11 January 2025 - Restoring recently added disputed content, contrary to WP:ONUS
2. 21:55, 11 January 2025 - Casting unsubstantiated aspersions and poisoning the well against another editor.
3. 12:01, 13 January 2025 - Poisoning the well against another user without any evidence of misconduct.
4. 19:11, 15 January 2025 - Restoring recently added disputed content again and essentially asking to get consensus for it, contrary to WP:ONUS.
5. 15:05, 16 January 2025 - Performs a blanket revert in order to make a WP:POINT, just because their previous edit was reverted, despite it being the version that was arrived upon by a month long discussion on the talkpage, also saying "LE also wants to discuss and revisit the content proposed by the sock" , LukeEmily later elaborated that they are okay with the version that Ekdalian was actually reverting
6. 17:42, 16 January 2025 - Same as above but edit warring
7. 19:42, 16 January 2025 - Edit warring and casting aspersions saying that reverting editor is acting like the blocked sock Nobita456 "stop behaving like Nobita please"
8. 14:31, 18 January 2025 - Attacks and tries to poison the well against another editor also says that "WP:ONUS doesn't mean you need to achieve consensus with editors condemned by admins for persistent POV pushing! "
9. 18:47, 18 January 2025 - Restores the aforementioned attack saying "Related to the content only, related to WP:CONSENSUS to be precise; accept the truth, I don't want to report minor incidents" when told to focus on content
10. 18:29, 19 January 2025 - calling a WP:NOTVANDAL edit as vandalism and issues final warning for vandalism

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

• Has a {{Ds/aware|ipa}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. and notified of WP:ARBIPA by Dennis Brown in 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I also note that Ekdalian has a history of aggressive edit warring in the contentious topic as a part of slow running edit war.On Bengali Kayastha, many of their most recent edits have been reverts to prevent content addition as well. It has gotten to the point where experienced users like Sitush have called them out for it because they usually misrepresent the consensus or comments by editors such as Sitush to claim that consensus already exists when there is none, they do not provide diffs when asked to substantiate their claims either. They have been reprimanded in past over similar conduct about misrepresentation and exaggeration by @Dennis Brown: on this venue as well. They have a history of attacking other users and trying to poison the well against them instead of focusing on the content as diffs above prove.

I am not seeking any topic bans but Ekdalian should be at least told not to misuse the talk page for adding more fuel into heated disputes, and use the revert button only when it is necessary. Nxcrypto Message 03:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed by your defence of #10, it was an unsourced change, sure disruptive but not vandalism (which has a very specific meaning). Please refer to WP:NOTVANDAL. Nxcrypto Message 07:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Ekdalian

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 Ekdalian

I have nothing to say as such! I have been serving Misplaced Pages since 2013, particularly related to contentious caste articles, fighting against caste promotion, POV pushing and vandalism. Heated debates are common in the contentious topics. I have neither violated 3RR, nor abused any editor! Yes, in case someone has been topic banned and condemned by admins, I do mention the same so that NPOV is not violated. Many admins are aware of my activities including SPI, anti-disruption and anti-vandalism. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Action (warning) may be taken against NXcrypto for being unable to identify vandalism (refer to point number 10), and wasting the time of our admins! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Nxcrypto, it is a clear case of vandalism. The user intends to misrepresent and project their caste as Kulin Kayastha (higher status among Bengali Kayasthas) by intentionally changing Eastern (Bengal) to Western! Moreover, the user has done similar vandalism in multiple articles only in order to promote Western Bengali Guhas. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• In response to Bishonen's comments, I would like to inform here that Sitush is referring to my response at a time when Nobita456's sock was driving a discussion and I had filed an SPI! Therefore, I was delaying the discussion in order to eliminate the sock from the same. Sitush has been quoted out of context! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Orientls, the user has already been blocked for vandalism; I have years of experience in this area and quite sure of what I have mentioned! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Bishonen: I have clearly mentioned that I am not sure! But, Orientls seems to be so sure that they have stated that I am 'falsely' accusing him of meatpuppetry! How can you be so sure that there has been no mail exchanges? Orientls, do you think you are God? Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Orientls

I find this comment by Ekdalian unpalatable: "The user intends to misrepresent and project their caste as Kulin Kayastha." How are you so sure of their caste? I don’t see where they have self-identified as such, and you also accuse them of attempting to project "their caste'" with another one by "vandalising" Misplaced Pages, which is a serious accusation against a new editor. I think an editor of your tenure should be able to recognize what constitutes vandalism because those edits are not vandalism, you should also refrain from speculating about the caste of editors.

This reasoning seems odd, especially when Sitush himself states: "CharlesWain began this discussion. They are not a sock, are they?" , implying that you were opposing changes proposed by an editor who was not a sock by misrepresenting Sitush's comments. I also think canvassing was inappropriate, particularly with its problematic heading, "Kind attention: Bishonen and admins active here." It sounds as if you are trying to recruit people to back you up here.

Honestly, I’m not surprised by the diffs cited in the report, especially if your conduct at ARE is like this where your edits are under scrutiny.

@Bishonen: While the filer himself made it clear that he is not "seeking any topic bans", Ekdalian deserves a topic ban following this new message. By calling an editor with almost 4k edits a "comparatively new user" and falsely accusing him of "meatpuppetry", Ekdalian has proven he is not capable of editing here without poisoning the well and making personal attacks. Orientls (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ekdalian

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

• I will point out that I was canvassed to this discussion by Ekdalian. That said, I'll state that I don't think NXcrypto's diffs are anything much; it's surely a stretch to call them "casting apersions" and "poisoning the well" and the like, especially in the IPA area where the tone is often sharp. The comments by Sitush are a little more concerning, though. Bishonen | tålk 10:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC).

Alex 19041

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 Alex 19041

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Est. 2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Alex 19041 (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 & WP:IBAN

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

1. 21 January 2025

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

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#IBAN Request
• User talk:Alex 19041#January 2025

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• User talk:Alex 19041#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Discussion concerning Alex 19041

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 Alex 19041

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Alex 19041

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

• To recap what's already been said at the initial hearing this got at ARBCOM, it has been identified that Alex19041 is not extended-confirmed, has now been made aware of the 30/500 editing restriction for PIA, has acknowledged that they should not make any edits to the topic, but has not quite acknowledged that they also should not make comments relating to the topic outside of article space. If they can acknowledge that, an IBAN would be unnecessary as they will not be engaging further with the discussion at-issue for some time. If they can't acknowledge that, we'd likely need to escalate to blocks, as there's no reason to expect the IBAN to be observed. Some concern was also raised that Est. 2021's replies to Alex 19041 included personal attacks, although it should be noted that Est. 2021 has made an effort to remove potentially-problematic statements from their prior comments at ARBCOM (sections on their talk page containing similar language have been removed entirely, which is within their purview on a user talk page). _signed, Rosguill 16:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• (came here from the ill-fated ArbCom case request). I agree with Rosguill. Some assurance from Alex 19041 and from Est. 2021 that they will leave the problematic edits behind would be good.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• I agree that the reported user needs to show some understanding that as a non-EC user, they need to leave this CTOP alone across all namespaces. However, sanctions are for serious, ongoing problems, three unwelcome talk page posts made over the course of an hour does not strike me as sufficient cause for a formal iban. If there's more to it than that, it needs to be made clear, with diffs. Beeblebrox 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Denali-related pages

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 Denali-related pages

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

] (] · ] · ] · ] · filter log · ] · block log)

Search CT alerts:  • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:CT/AP

I think this is the right place to ask for this? Requesting an expansion of WP:CT/AP to cover all articles related to Denali, as it has unfortunately become a political hot-button issue as the POTUS made it a prioroty on his first day back in office to sign an executive order to revert the name of the mountain back to "Mt. McKinley".

In the past twenty-four hours there has been heavy editing/disruption in articles and on related talk pages and protection has been needed at several. Denali was probably hit hardest, but Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute got some too, as has Denali National Park and Preserve, which is explicitly not even part of the executive order. I wouldn't be surprised if the same issue is happening in Gulf of Mexico related articles, but haven't checked for myself. Beeblebrox 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, just checked Gulf of Mexico. 28 new talk page sections in the past day, was already ECP protected two weeks ago per WP:CT/AP.

I kinda think a single admin could do this, but I am editorially involved and probably slightly too infuriated to be objective. Beeblebrox 22:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, that's kind of what I thought, but again didn't want to act on it as I'm editorially involved. Beeblebrox 22:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Discussion concerning Denali-related pages

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 Denali-related pages

Statement by Isabelle

Since I've protected Denali's talk page, I will comment here. I agree that we will be seeing serious issues in the coming month, considering all the shit the new president is throwing at the wall, but I believe the administrators are well equip to deal with this at the moment. I believe Valereee has protected the Gulf of Mexico's talk page, and I've dealt with Mount Denali's. We might need to apply more extensive protection during this coming month to stop the vandals, but current tools will do just fine. Isabelle Belato 23:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Valereee

Pinged here: yes, I've semi'd Talk:Gulf of Mexico, yesterday for 24 hours, today for another 31. I dislike protecting a talk, but it was a burden for editors working there. Valereee (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

100+ edits today on the article, which is EC protected. I feel like that's a lot. Valereee (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Denali-related pages

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

• — Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: AMPOL already covers "Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed". I think that "broadly construed" would include Denali and Gulf of Mexico in the current moment. In any event, I think you'd want to go to ARCA, not here, for an amendment. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, Denali is already ECP and Denali National Park and Preserve has semi-protection. There's no protection on Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute, but I'm not seeing anything in the page history that would justify it.l voorts (talk/contributions) 22:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• AE couldn't expand the scope of an existing CT designation; only ArbCom could do that. But I don't think we need to. If the disruption is related to a current American politics controversy, that's clearly related to "post-1992 politics of the United States", and so is already in scope of the existing CT designation. So, I'd say just treat it as such. Seraphimblade 22:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)