Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 77

Amendment request: Falun Gong 2 (July 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) at 00:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Amendment request: Falun Gong 2 / Motion


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * 


 * Information about amendment request


 * Amendment request: Falun Gong 2
 * Lifting the misbehaving user's indefinite topic ban lead to disruptive behavior, despite promises.

Statement by TheSoundAndTheFury
Last month, User:Ohconfucius appealed to ArbCom to lift the indefinite topic ban that prevented him from editing Falun Gong-related articles.

In his request he stated "Arbcom can have faith that I can stay away from articles about the movement and from drama relating thereto. I am seeking to remove a topic ban not so that I can go back to editing articles on [Falun Gong]." He added "if it pleases Arbcom, I would add a voluntary undertaking not to edit any article directly connected with FLG." Instead, Ohconfucius said he wanted the ban lifted so that he could return to good standing and stop walking on eggshells when it comes to China-related articles.

On the basis of these promises Arbcom agreed to provisionally lift the topic ban for a period of one year, provided Ohconfucius not relapse into problematic editing patterns. One arbitrator noted the "request that Ohconfucius steer well clear of matters of controversy in this area."

Two weeks later, Ohconfucius returned to POV editing on a controversial Falun Gong article:
 * Deletes what appears to be verifiable information on the grounds that he didn't like the source, which he referred to as a Falun Gong "front-organisation." (The source cited was a major Israeli newspaper, but a translation of the article was hosted on a Falun Gong website).
 * Alters the source of torture allegations in apparent attempt to make them seem less credible (allegations were actually made by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and confirmed through extensive investigative reporting). Edit summary calls it a copy edit.
 * More of same. Edits article to (falsely) depict allegations from third party sources as coming from Falun Gong sources. Again, I imagine the intend was to make the reports seem less credible. Addition: I would specifically want to point out that the initial organ harvesting allegations came from two whistleblowers who have no connection to Falun Gong. After that, a significant amount of evidence has been amassed, including recorded phone calls to several Chinese transplant surgeons. Even the European Parliament has deemed the evidence credible in its resolution 2013/2981(RSP).

This is not the first time Ohconfucius has reneged on promises to refrain from editing on Falun Gong. He has on numerous occasions said he would stop editing in this area, and once even briefly "retired" with the apparent goal of trying to avoid sanctions (then promptly continued editing under another account). Given the opportunity he seems unable to avoid this subject, I suggest the topic ban be reinstated.


 * @John Carter: [edited] I would again like to bring to everyone's attention that Ohconfucius's topic ban was lifted on the provision that "[he] steer well clear of matters of controversy in this area". Indeed, it was his original suggestion that he refrain from editing the Falun Gong articles altogether. Cordially, TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @John Carter: I'm afraid your description of the FLG2 case is not entirely accurate. The three findings of fact against Ohconfucius in that case received overwhelming support; and I suspect support might have been even higher if a more complete and representative selection of diffs as evidence were presented. It is true that the indefinite ban passed only by a margin of 6-5, but this was mainly because several arbs wanted to first try an experimental 'Mandated external review' option. It failed — no one's fault. But eight out of nine Arbitrators voted for mandated external review for Ohconfucius.


 * I am also not sure what you mean when you say "there were clear indications that he could appeal...after only 6 months on good behavior." The closest statement to this effect was when the drafting Arbitrator noted: "The proposed topic ban against Ohconfucius is an indefinite topic ban. As currently worded, the ban could be appealed at any time, although I don't expect an appeal would be likely to be considered until at least six months to a year down the road." TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * @EdJohnston: Thank you for the clarification. You are right and my comment was not well thought out, as there was no explicit provision in the decision. Let me rephrase: I thought it was implicitly understood that the ban was lifted based on Ohconfucius's promise to not return to editing in this area. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * @Ohconfucius: We should all thank Ohconfucius for his honesty about his views. It would be very easy to write an equally long note rebutting and arguing against all the content-related points he makes. Some of them are interesting, some are quite incorrect. Overall, he demonstrates that he feels that he is on a mission to fight against the Falun Gong propaganda machine on Wikipedia. I have no connection with Falun Gong. I have edited the articles for some years, however. I remember when I first came to them, the forensic effort I made to clear up and expunge both pro- and anti-FLG propaganda. Those discussions are all in the edit history—though I don't suppose there is any point rehearsing them. I have always been interested in as close to a careful and meticulous referencing and sourcing methodology as possible. I have tried not to make accusations against others.


 * If Arbs would like me to provide a point-by-point discussion of my side of the story, like OhConfucius has, I can do so. If they would like me to defend the specific allegations against me, I can do so.


 * Most importantly, Ohconfucius's remarks have little to do with the accusations that were at hand here, which included the apparently deliberate, inaccurate modification of a reference to a Pulitzer-winning report. This isn't even a POV issue - it's just a modification of a source. Ohconfucius simply has nothing to answer for this, the substantive issue. Instead he presents a Falun Gong Theory of Everything and inserts himself on one side of a struggle for truth against a secretive and shadowy Chinese religious enemy. Give me a break. Determinations should be made on editing and behavior. My editing and behavior around this topic was thoroughly scrutinized during the last go-around.


 * Ohconfucius has said that Falun Gong topics are not so important to him, and that his only agenda is Wikipedia compliance. This seems difficult to believe. Look at the extraordinary analysis he conducted of certain alleged "covert FLG" people. That would have taken many, many hours. After being banned from Falun Gong topics, Ohconfucius retired from Wikipedia. Then he came back. Then, he requested his ban be lifted, stating that the request was to remove the blotch from his record, and because it hampered his editing on non-Falun Gong topics but which contain some mention of Falun Gong or Falun Gong-related organizations. And he further promised that he would not edit Falun Gong topics. Yet within a week he resumed the same pattern that he was banned for in the first place. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Revised evidence presentation (per Seraphimblade’s suggestion)
[deleted previous addition]

@Newyorkbrad, @Seraphimblade, @Floquenbeam, @GorillaWarfare, @NativeForeigner:

Thank you, Seraphimblade, for refocusing the conversation. I’ve rearranged my presentation of evidence to explain how Ohconfucius violated Wikipedia policies.

These are the edits in question:

I am not cherry-picking diffs. This is pretty much every edit I could find that Ohconfucius has made related to Falun Gong since the topic ban was lifted, and every one of them is problematic.

These are the policies and guidelines that I believe have been violated: WP:ATTACK, WP:NOT, WP:UP, WP:HARASS, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, and WP:CONSENSUS. Reasons are explained below.

If these are the edits he’s making while he’s under a scrutiny, I don’t want to imagine what he’ll do once his one-year probationary period is over.

Userspace pages
Ohconfucius maintains two pages in his userspace related to Falun Gong.

One page includes some material that might be related to Wikipedia editing, but large swaths of it are nothing more than polemical attacks on the credibility of Falun Gong with no encyclopedic value. It also includes serious accusations – not backed up with evidence – about the affiliations and motives of other editors. Note that this page was created after his previous anti-Falun Gong rant was deleted by an Arbcom member in May.

The other page is a record apparently intended to prove that certain editors are Falun Gong SPAs. He recently edited it to remove a No Index tag, with an edit summary that read “who’s afraid of the big bad wolf.”

The creation and maintenance of these pages is a violation of the following policies and guidelines:


 * guideline on user pages states that they should not be used for “Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities.” The guideline notes that such pages in userspace are generally removed, and that reintroducing them is considered disruptive.  Not only did Ohconfucius reintroduce an anti-Falun Gong rant after his previous one was deleted, but he insists this material be indexed by search engines.


 * The policy against Attack pages prohibits any page (including in userspace) that “exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject.” This includes keeping lists of enemies or records of other editors’ supposed ill-deeds, both of which Ohconfucius does (in addition to more his general attacks on Falun Gong and its supporters).


 * Keeping lists of “Falun Gong editors” and maintaining records of their editing patterns may also violate the policy against harassment. The “big bad wolf” edit summary also appears intended to taunt, harass, or intimidate.


 * What Wikipedia is not states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or advocacy. Maintaining polemical essays against Falun Gong violates this policy.

The pages also speak to the editor’s state of mind, suggesting a battleground mentality relating to Falun Gong pages and a tendency to nurture long-standing grudges against other editors. It also shows that Ohconfucius has difficulty assuming good faith, as demonstrated by his labeling of established editors who disagree with him as “SPAs,” “clandestine Falun Gong advocates,” and “meatpuppets”.

Kilgour-Matas Report

 * Deletes what appears to be verifiable information on the grounds that he didn't like the source, which he referred to as a Falun Gong "front-organisation." (The source cited was a major Israeli newspaper, but a translation of the article was hosted on a Falun Gong website).


 * Alters the source of torture allegations in apparent attempt to make them seem less credible (allegations were actually made by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and confirmed through extensive investigative reporting). Edit summary misleadingly calls it a copy edit.


 * Edits article to depict organ harvesting allegations as originating from Falun Gong sources (the initial claims actually came from two individuals with no affiliation to Falun Gong). Again, I imagine the intent was to make the reports seem less credible.

These edits violate WP:NPOV by removing or misrepresenting information that could reflect poorly on the Chinese government’s human rights record.

Shen Yun Performing Arts
On June 13 Ohconfucius blanked a list of lead performers & artists from Shen Yun Performing Arts by claiming this content violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY: Shortly before being topic banned in 2012, Ohconfucius edit warred to remove the exact same content. His edits and rationale for deletion were contested by several different editors, all of whom pointed out that the list of lead performers has legitimate encyclopedic value, and that similar lists are found on pages for other performing arts companies. By repeating the same edit now with no discussion on the talk page, I believe he has violated WP:WAR, WP:CONSENSUS, and has also engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 08:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is somewhat superfluous, but I just want to briefly comment on Ohconfucius's latest statement, in case the inappropriateness of his user pages is lost on anyone. Here's an analogy: the equivalent action from the reverse POV would be to create a page decrying Chinese nationalists on Wikipedia. It could quote liberally from academic works talking about the "Chinese worldview" and arguing that it is incompatible with Wikipedia's values; describe how it's virtually impossible to find Chinese people who can approach Falun Gong in an objective manner (academics actually have written about this phenomenon); using racial epithets; keeping a list of Chinese editors, and calling editors who don't declare their nationality as such "clandestine" Chinese nationalists and "Chinese proxies."


 * If anyone did this they would and should be sanctioned severely. Yet there is no substantial difference between this and what Ohconfucius does to Falun Gong (except that we're maybe more sensitized to racial, rather than religious, stereotyping, and recognize it more easily).


 * Just like Ohconfucius has branded me as a "Falun Gong SPA" because of my interest in this topic, while I am not affiliated with Falun Gong, I could perceive anybody who disagrees with me as an enemy with a covert agenda. I just don't see the point of doing that at all. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a battleground. Thank you. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
The committee might decline this on the grounds that they are not usually the first resort for enforcement. I did examine [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kilgour%E2%80%93Matas_report&diff=609679258&oldid=608564519 one diff] of those submitted here and I agree that Ohconfucius's change was not a good idea. A Wall Street Journal reporter, Ian Johnson, got a Pulitzer in 2001 for a series of articles including this one about deaths of Falun Gong adherents in police custody. His statement that the people died was based on his own reporting. Changing the wording of this to say 'Falun Gong alleged..' seems ill advised. Also it was a bad idea to mark this in the edit summary as 'ce'. I hope that Ohconfucius will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @TheSoundAndTheFury: It is inaccurate to say that Ohconfucius's ban "was lifted on the provision that "[he] steer well clear of matters of controversy in this area". You are quoting from [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=607117566&oldid=607088665 a comment by a single arb] who was simply making a request along with his vote. The motion itself didn't restrict Ohconfucius from areas of controversy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
The article and topic remain under discretionary sanctions, independent of the now-lifted sanctions against Ohconfucius. It is also unfortunate but true that the ArbCom having declared him as basically taking the side of the PRC in the last dispute is something which I can well imagine might leave a very bitter aftertaste for some time in someone accused in such a way. There has been, so far as I can tell from databanks, not much of a newsworthy nature on the topic in the past few years. I also agree that, unfortunately, it is possible for websites affiliated with organizations like FG to misrepresent/misquote sources in a prejudicial way. In such a case, I can reasonably say that it might well be reasonable to remove an alleged quote from a partisan source as being from a partisan source.

I have to say that it seems to me that reinstating the ban might well be ultimately counterproductive to the quality of the FG content here. The Sound and the Fury was not himself sanctioned in the FG2 case, but there was so far as I can remember a preponderence of evidence of he himself being a less than neutral and unbiased editor. That may also be worth considering here. And there is a very real chance that the existence of the discretionary sanctions, and the fact of there being two previous arbitrations on this matter, might well scare off many or most editors not previously invovled.

The edit summaries are and were problematic, and I cannot and will not attempt to defend them. But I do think Ohconfucius would be an invaluable editor to have around to help keep articles on this this highly contentious topic at a reasoanble level of quality. For all these reasons, I oppose the reinstatement of the ban. I think, on such potentially dubious potential misquotes (maybe?) from a group's internal propaganda opublications, such "questioning" of possible quotations is not unreasonable, and that there might also be a few rough spots in returning to edit such a contentious topic. These actions could well be accounted for on the basis of some lingering resentment as being labelled on the PRC side by ArbCom in the last case and "learning the ropes" about the topic again. Would there be, maybe, cause for discretionary sactions of some sort? Yes. A return to a full ban? So far as I can see, no. John Carter (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding Zujnie's points below. First, I question how qualified he/she is to compare the situation before and after Ohconfucius' ban, considering, so far as I can remember, Zujine had not been involved with the content at all prior to Ohconfucius' ban. Second, that he thinks Ohconfucius requested the ban be lifted on the provision he would refrain from editing in the topic, that statement is supported neither by the actual comments made or, even, common sense. Who would go through the effort of requesting a ban be lifted on a topic they would have no interest in editing in? Lastly, at least part of the alleged improvement (which I have not myself actually verified) could well be do to things other than Ohconfucius's absence, such as the reduced number of strident pro-FG POV pushers and, from what I can see in the databanks, a significantly reduced level of news coverage and developments related to FG. Having the topic itself be comparatively stable can and would in and of itself make it easier for the improvement of articles. For compelling reasons for his return, I think the fact that he is the person who played the greatest role in bringing FG's only FA article up to that level of quality is I believe possibly compelling enough reason.John Carter (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Simply noting that the ruling offering an "indefinite" ban on Ohconfucius only passed 6-5 at the time as per here, and in this case there were clear indications that he could appeal the indefinite ban after only 6 months on good behavior, and that several of the opposes were based on their having not supported the findings of fact against Ohconfucius involved. I am certain the arbitrators involved will review the circumstances of the case before passing judgment, and honestly regret the fact that my saying this seems to perhaps imply that there would ever be any real doubt of that. And noting that Zujnie as per contribution history has been involved in the content relating to human rights in China, including Tibet, to a great degree for some time now, and that includes some involvement in FG related content for much of that time. John Carter (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Having read Ohconfucius's comments below, I regret that he seems to be saying once again that he will refrain from editing the FG related content. I remember discussion with him and an arbitrator earlier regarding not banning HappyinGeneral from the topic, because both he and I thought HiG was perhaps the most reasonable of the then-extant FG proponents and we needed someone who had access to internal informtion, and on that basis HiG in our opinions should not be banned. I would also support in the strongest way possible rescinding of the onerous and I believe unwarrantedly judgmental finding of fact that he mentions below. I also wonder, possibly rhetorically, whether perhaps WP:BOOMERANG has ever been applied in a request for clarification or amendment before. John Carter (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also like to support Colipon's request below regarding modifying the phrasing of the restriction. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius

 * It is true that I have been editing, but I can only manage minor editing while my RL workload is quite heavy, but that does not mean I am choosing not to reply to this. I am currently preparing my response in private, so please bear with me for a few days. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I thank the Arbs for their patience. My response is being finalised, and I beg Arbcom's indulgence for another 24 hours. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 12:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I would start off by apologising for the length of this response, and the time it has taken me to get my thoughts together on the matter.

Falun Gong does not exist in a vacuum, as its leadership is at loggerheads with the PRC regime. Although Falun Gong claim the moral high ground, neither side has the gospel truth on its side although both claim it. FLG is certainly more of the victim in this game, but you can expect a violent reaction if you poke a wild animal enough times. Disliking both in equal measure, I edit without pro-Falun Gong nor pro-PRC government agenda. Other than living in a freer part of the country, I have no interest to conflict with. And because of my political experience and coverage on Wikipedia, I know it's quite possible (and easy) to make both look bad while editing here, albeit to different degrees. I know that that displeases the Falun Gong advocates no end. Falun Gong dislikes looking bad, and dislikes it intensely. I accept that my poor behaviour at times and edit warring that resulted in my topic ban in FLG2 was as a reaction to relentless POV-pushing by FLG proxies. I remain rather upset that Arbcom accused me of pro-regime bias in their FOF. Arbs agreed that my edits have the result of improving the appearance of the Communist Party of China, its members, and attempts by the group to take action against Falun Gong and its practitioners; and to discredit the Falun Gong movement. In retrospect, I ought to have sought to remove this blotch against my name instead of getting the TBan lifted. Maybe there's still time. The blotch hurts me a lot more than not being able to clean up Falun Gong bullshit. Anyone who may continue to think that one makes PRC regime look "good" by making Falun Gong "bad" has fallen into a logic trap that Falun Gong intended. Pity the arbs didn't bother to find some diffs of mine outside Falun Gong articles, where I make the PRC regime plenty ugly – any of the China-related articles listed in my contributions section would have done the job (2010 Nobel Peace Prize, Death of Li Wangyang will do). I'm no more pro- or anti- Falun Gong than I am pro- or anti- Liu Xiaobo or Li Wangyang. As long as there remains the adversarial relationship, there is the tendency to treat NPOV as push-pull zero-sum game, which it is not.

The Falun Gong have a formidable propaganda machine in New York under Gail Rachlin which grew out of the same Cultural Revolution mindset as the Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China, otherwise known as the "Propaganda Department". In a small way, I'm happy to say Rachlin's operation now qualitatively surpasses the regime's – it's much more reactive, and imaginative on the attack, but it's still paranoid and highly sensitive to criticism, like its counterpart. Operating in exile against a regime that is as brutal as it is opaque, there are no party lines to follow. Shen Yun becomes the vanguard, and propaganda gets dressed up deceptively as art. Li Hongzhi ordered followers to pick fights with the regime while he himself is safely in the US. His footsoldiers irritate the monster and add to their statistics. Ever imaginative, Falun Gong rides on the PRC's abysmal human rights record, their propaganda machine, in addition to hiding behind glossy silky dance performances, generates and spreads stories of Nazi-like atrocities that only a brutal totalitarian regime could conceivably commit. Like all smears, plausibility is key; never let the lack of evidence get into the way of a good story. One anonymous informant hiding behind dark glasses and waiting political asylum, without documentary or photographic proof. A small number of fairly high-profile European and Canadian politicians have been persuaded to hitch themselves to their bandwagon. For western politicians, there's mileage to be had and Brownie points to be earned.

Pointing to their motto but being cagey about the true and kooky nature of some of their teachings, Falun Gong hold themselves up as virtuous; anyone who dares to utter any criticism is labelled "evil". Their declared primary objective is the overthrow of the Communist Party of China – as can be seen from any issue of Epoch Times. Falun Gong hold themselves up as champions of human rights but actually only care about themselves; they are wary of other human rights defenders who are not Falun Gong. Anyone who dares to criticise them is thus a human rights abuser. Their proselytism is a defining trait, and they seek to discredit anyone who is not totally in support of them. Although the term "enemy" is usually reserved for the any observer who isn't completely on board is considered "the enemy" or a collaborator. They discredited cult-buster Rick Ross, vilified the sceptics He Zuoxiu and Sima Nan; poured scorn over the work of respectable academics like Margaret Singer, Heather Kavan by tarring with guilt by association to the regime. Initially welcoming him, they have scorned Harry Wu – probably the world's foremost authority on Chinese forced labour camps – since he declared that he found no evidence of the organ harvesting allegations. They spread rumours about Wu turning collaborator after his swift release from PRC arrest. Falun Gong editors quote extensively from texts written by "investigative journalist" Danny Schechter, whose discourse concerning Falun Gong is disconcertingly similar in tone and content to Falun Gong propaganda. Another favourite is Ethan Gutman, who writes for the neo-conservative Weekly Standard, and whose storyline repeating FLG allegations of live organ harvesting on FLG practitioners marries well with the journal's US-centric/anti-PRC agenda and rhetoric.
 * 'For' or 'Against'

Professor David Ownby was given considerable access to the movement for many years, and is probably the foremost expert on Falun Gong. Ownby's writings are neutral tending to sympathetic, and these have been frequently used selectively as it suits the FLG. Ownby, who deserves much praise for his professionalism and integrity, speaks these words from the heart with the deep sense of frustration that I share:

A libertarian with a long track record of interest human rights in my country, I would have been a natural supporter of the movement when I started editing Falun Gong articles in about mid-2007. I am known for being without an agenda (except for compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines), and for taking a stand for same, save for differences of interpretation. I have found myself caught in the middle of pro- and anti-Falun Gong factions, and had direct confrontations with self-declared FLG activists like and. But because of my continued research into the topic, and also the particularly bitter and long-running disputes I have had with these editors, I can see the FLG without the rose-coloured spectacles.

Latterly, since the aforementioned have been driven away by bans, more sophisticated undeclared/clandestine FLG advocates who are well versed in Wikipedia's policies appeared. The Homunculus and TSTF edit quite unlike the blunt hammer "must win" approach of Dilip rajeev and Olaf Stephanos. They no tolerate overt untruths as their predecessors did, which is welcome. However, their high degree of sensitivity to criticism (even nuances) – a Falun Gong trait – remains, and their editing and tactics are highly coordinated. Falun Gong editors will almost always attempt to portray critics' views as "outside of the spectrum of mainstream discourse", but they edit little else outside this namespace. And once FLG2 was launched, these have been bust accumulating non-Falun Gong edits to disguise where their true editing interests lie.

In the course of editing the article family and bringing Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident to Featured Article, I found many of their edits problematic: there were numerous factual inaccuracies, BLP policies violations, original research, dubious sourcing; they delete notable and reliably sourced information for unclear reasons (and accuse others of the same tactics for stuff they want keeping), misrepresent reliable sources, etc. The version that stands today is a cumulative effect of the two groups, but mainly the later group.

It's not likely that Arbcom need reminding that it's easy to edit a subject in isolation. Proper weight can often be achieved simply by counting the number of different sources for any given element. It's a lot tougher when one is wrestling with a polarised situation amidst information deficit and bullshit rhetoric from both sides – most of the conflict that ends here is a result of entrenched and opposite views. Even tougher is when, in this case, Falun Gong activists scrutinise each edit for wording or content that may be prejudicial to perception of the movement.
 * The NPOV premise

I do have a compulsion to raise red flags about NPOV wherever I happen to see it. TSTF is not a neutral party in this request – in the previous Arbcom case, I showed that my current accuser, TSTF, is a single purpose Falun Gong advocacy account (or rather there was only a very slim chance that TSTF was not a SPU Falun Gong advocate). We have had undeclared Epoch Times editors editing here before, and Wikipedia's openness makes this likely to continue. I'm not saying that TSTF is an ET writer, but his/her editing stance has all the hallmarks of one. As soon as the case was over, TSTF noindexed my user analysis. [He] uses three edits as evidence of my anti-Galun Gong bias without engaging me in discussion, and sought an immediate reinstatement of my topic ban. But we can exchange diffs about his alleged neutrality too – in one of the more recent edits, TSTF removed the assertion that the PRC government said that the movement is a cult, alleging "factual inaccuracy". But I don't see it. All I know is that the movement is hyper-sensitive to the "c-word".

Although I did not perform the analysis on the edits of Zujine, it is clear this user's main interest is also in Falun Gong. Over a period of time when I was not active on FLG, this "tag team" markedly shifted the balance of the 'Self-immolation' article which I took to FA as well as others; they overweighted with their pet sources and marginalised more mainstream sources that suggest more Falun Gong practitioners involvement in radical/extreme acts than perhaps they would wish. There is no denying the PRC regime may have attempted to propagandise every aspect of Falun Gong being an evil cult, but that does not mean practitioners were definitely involved; yet FLG try to deny Li Hongzhi ever said anything that could have incited the radicals. By the time of the Arbcom case and despite my efforts, most of the Falun Gong articles had reached a stage where the Falun Gong felt was acceptable and contained the propaganda damage. As in any hotly contested area, stability would be easily assured if one side had been left alone to edit them without any buttress or challenge, as has been in this case.

The organ harvesting allegations stem from the Epoch Times, a Falun Gong mouthpiece, when it published allegations of one anonymous "eyewitness" who would be seeking asylum. The fanciful smear against a Malaysian-owned hospital in the PRC specialised in treating thrombosis, Falun Gong spun this imaginative tale of clandestine human-parts factories, and furnaces to destroy physical evidence. There has never been a shred of evidence that this "factory exists" or that FLG practitioners were victims of same, yet the Falun Gong sources continue to bang the drum against the PRC regime which they despise.
 * Use of anonymous informants, often single, sources and synthesis

Another favourite trick is to credibilise and factualise their own by citing journals or news sites that cite or quote them. We tell our editors not to cite ourselves, yet it's the Falun Gong modus operandum. The circular referencing is dishonest, like money-laundering. How fortunate of them to be able to recruit David Kilgour and David Matas to lend credibility to their campaign to vilify the regime. The investigative report is a supreme act of synthesis even by the authors' own admission, and would have been removed on sight had it been written by Wikipedia the editors. Yet because it was compiled by two individuals with a modicum of credibility and fulfils the dual notions of WP:V and WP:GNG, it is allowed to stand.

Since the PRC regime suppresses critics, petitioners and activists and tortures them, they torture Falun Gong practitioners; since the PRC took organs from dead prisoners, it takes only a little stretch to accuse them of systematically harvesting organs from live FLG practitioners. The various extra-territorial court cases some practitioners mounted on Chinese leaders for torture and genocide, and the act of making them widely known, is intelligent propaganda coup against the regime. It's unheard of that world leaders would answer such allegations in foreign courts, so the default judgement makes them look guilty. Elements like this then get put into Wikipedia articles by Falun Gongsters or their proxies, and defended by heavy lawyering although such allegations would likely have been removed if it were any other Wikipedia biography. Ironically, Arbs accepted this diff to support their FOF that I was pro-PRC and anti-FLG. Humpf!
 * Logical inferences and synthesis:

It is a well-established that assertions stated as fact should be cited to relevant reliable sources. In this case, highly questionable sources removed are sites controlled by Falun Gong. Why bother to look any further? It's unacceptable, full stop. There is no obligation to allow citations that appear to be dubious irrespective of what underlies. We don't use Rick Ross' anti-cult archive, and we certainly should not use that of a Falun Gong front that selectively stores articles consistent with the Falun Gong discourse. The allegation at the heart is based on one anonymous witness. Even assuming that the document is bona fide and that it has been accurately translated, the single anonymous "witness" does not warrant the weight it was given. I could have trimmed it down to mention of the prohibition directly cited to a Hebrew source, but I decided out-right removal would be simpler.
 * The edits:

These three edits were drive-by edits based on old baggage. Although this edit summary was careless and lazy, the edit seeks to remove weasel words and synthesis that is too often used in Falun Gong articles, viz: "Authorities reportedly sanctioned the use of torture..." Falun Gong advocates constantly lay heavy background on how the movement (and not just petitioners and other non-Falun Gong activists who oppose the regime) is suppressed and its members tortured, as a prelude for the main article. The objective was not to make the torture allegations less credible, but more relevant; the live organ-harvesting allegations can be see for what they are so long as the facts are properly laid out.

This edit ought not to be controversial, for it is merely prudent to avoid weasel words, and be clear from whence "concerns" are arising. Until I corrected it, the lead remained unqualified. Perhaps TSTF is denying that Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (CIPFA) is a Falun Gong pressure group that lobbies on behalf of the Falun Gong... My edit summary is self-explanatory and I don't see anyone but hardened Falun Gong SPAs would have an issue with correction of such blatant problems. You make unusual claims, and it's only reasonable that you make full and frank disclosure of the key assumptions up front if you are trying to vaunt the claims' merits. K&M openly state that the evidence was all circumstantial and reiterate their findings in spite of it, so I think that detail is important enough for the lead.

Two of my challenged edits corrected obvious problems that are common in FLG articles. My edit could have motivated TSTF to improve the sourcing, but he has instead chose to run straight to Arbcom (well within his rights, you could say), whilst allowing my edits to stand for now. This course of action would suggest that [his] battleground mentality that existed previously still prevails.

TSTF and Zujine, both of whom did not oppose an appeal to lift the topic ban of their one truest and greatest Teflon foe (used advisedly) probably to avoid a WP:BOOMERANG, must now be rubbing their hands in glee at my apparent stupidity at not being able to keep my nose out. Yet it's plain they are both desperate to have the topic ban reinstated, making what appears to be bad faith accusations of broken promises and unmet expectations. Others commenting here have already drawn attention to these untruths. The Falun Gong SPAs are obviously upset now because of the threat I pose to the stranglehold of Falun Gong orthodoxy on Wikipedia. But retirement is not death. How many times have WP editors retired and come back? How many times have editors disappeared without a word and never come back? Plenty, in both cases. I retired several times from this topic area, and returned only after a relatively long period each time that nobody could reasonably accuse me of deception, yet it amuses me to be accused of breaching undertaking. Whilst I was foolish not to completely stay away from the topic, Arbcom never held me to my offer to stay away. TSTF implies there was a "proviso" to the lifting of the topic ban, but Arbcom never gives anything away, and I suspect TSTF knows it. The true proviso is that the ban can be reinstated immediately if there are transgressions. I failed to heed NYBrad's words of wisdom, and now I do have some regret. TSTF will probably feel he can adequately defend against "anti-Falun Gong" elements if I'm out of the picture indefinitely. With me on the loose, TSTF will never know when the next "unfavourable" change will be, and could feel the need to check on the FLG articles daily, instead of every two weeks, to ensure they retained their glossy veneer.
 * Conclusion

But in truth, and in summary, I now think having the topic ban reimposed would be a price worth paying in exchange for rescinding the finding of fact 2 (opposed by two arbs). I'm done with making Falun Gong articles compliant. Anyway, I have written much more than I intended, and would thank you for your patience. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 11:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You're right. It's a content dispute, pure and simple. The problem is how it's being conducted. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As further evidence of how the Falun Gong mindset differs from the Wikipedia mindset, and what any person potentially editing Falun Gong articles has to face, I offer the following quote from a scholar in communications:


 * And now, to specifically refute the "additional evidence":
 * 1) My latest FLG essay is no "resurrection" of my previous deleted article, but 3000+ words of "new material" based on my post hereinabove (as can be clearly identified in this diff), plus a bunch of relevant links I bookmarked. What I wrote is clearly marked as an essay, with relevant diffs (per WP:V). What I had written for ARCA encapsulates my experience and frustrations of editing in Falun Gong space, so I built upon it like many other user essays to share with others. I believe it is within the bounds of my freedom of expression, and that it is policy and guideline compliant. The onus would be on TSTF to prove that what I wrote was inappropriate or otherwise in breach of any Arbcom ruling. I am capable of leaving my personal feelings of subject matter at the door when I edit, and any attempt to cast editing based on my "antipathy" so expressed towards the Falun Gong in isolation is no evidence of malfeasance on my part.
 * 2) Soon after FLG2, TSTF took advantage of my inability to edit the topic to noindex my rant and on another page – both in my own user space (The latter page was submitted as evidence to FLG2). I reverted. Admittedly, the "vaguely menacing vibe" can be read in more than one way. It was actually meant as tongue-in-cheek advice to him not to be afraid of the "truth" [sic].
 * 3) Fancruft is fancruft, whether it's argued on a page of a J-pop idol or a Falun Gong frontspiece. I routinely perform such work across all namespaces, making between 5,000 and 10,000 edits a month – would Arbcom like 500 diffs to comb through?. I'm sure most editors know what I do around the place. Whether or not they agree with every little change I make is irrelevant. Yes, I sometimes get reverted.
 * The only thing my actions obviously offend is a Falun Gong believer's sensitivities, which I have demonstrated with scholarly quotes above; there may even be a little FLG orthodoxy that whatever I may do around FLG-space is "wrong" ;-). I am confident Arbcom would not be able to identify (on my part) any repeat of breaches of behavioural precepts that led to FLG2. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 02:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Zujine
In my view this issue is simple. Ohconfucius stated in his appeal that he would not edit Falungong articles. Based on my reading of the case, it seems the ban against him was suspended on basis of that promise, which he promptly broke. In that sense, the fact his edits were not neutral or accurate almost seems beside the point.

If we want to discuss whether Ohconfucius should be allowed to return to editing Falungong articles, a much more compelling case needs to be made to show, first, that he has recognised his past errors and won't repeat them (not off to a good start); and second, to assess potential risks and benefits to the project. Based on his track record I believe that no benefits could be derived, but there would be real risk for the Falungong topic area to again devolve into a battle ground. Over the last two years since Ohconfucius was barred from editing it has been refreshingly stable. Article quality has continually improved, with some pages achieving GA status. I doubt this could have been accomplished if our collective energies were instead directed toward addressing Ohconfucius' behaviour.— Zujine |talk 03:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * @John, I've been active in the falungong subject for the better part of five years. Ohconfucius has been banned for two. There was a period in which our editing on these pages overlapped. I was deeply unimpressed by what I witnessed from him in that time, especially his conduct on the FA you referred to. I understand you like this editor and have defended him at ArbCom on numerous occasions, but there was good reason for his indefinite topic ban. Besides, I'm guessing the Arbs are more concerned with recent events than with revisiting old evidence.— Zujine |talk 18:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be clear from his statement that Ohconfucius is not capable of editing Falungong topics in good faith or in a dispassionate way. That he would use even this forum to further his narrative against Falungong and make personal recriminations against other editors is evidence of why the ban on Ohconfucius should be reinstated.
 * Arbitrators may be interested to know that Colipon and Simonm223 are not neutral parties. Among other things they have both gone on record denying reliable reports of human rights abuses by the Chinese government, and encouraging other editors to "crack down" on and "fight" Falungong on Wikipedia. Colipon has already been sanctioned for his conduct on the topic and narrowly avoided an indefinite topic ban last time.
 * In his comments it looks like Colipon is trying to recast this as a problem of pseudoscience/NRM advocates. This is not an accurate depiction of the dynamics here. Instead, conflicts on Falungong articles often arise in relation to the Chinese government's human rights practices. The edits from Ohconfucius that prompted this case are pretty typical (but relatively mild) examples of this phenomenon.


 * ON A PROCEDURAL NOTE: This case started as a pretty simple request, but it looks like some editors want to expand the scope of the discussion. Maybe we could get a quick indication from arbitrators/clerks that each request for amendment should be handled separately. Otherwise this will spiral out of control, and it will be very difficult to assess the individual merits of each request.


 * Also, If Arbs are really interested in expanding the scope of this case or revisiting the evidence from several years ago, then please let us know. Obviously I would have a lot more to say if anyone took seriously the SPA allegations and other stuff getting tossed around. But hopefully the arbitrators all have sufficient power of discernment to see through the miasma. — Zujine |talk 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Colipon
There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that the accuser, TheSoundAndTheFury, is a Falun Gong SPA whose primary purpose on Wikipedia is to advance the interests of Falun Gong the movement. Unfortunately this only becomes apparent after prolonged interactions with the user. To 'prove' his conduct to be worthy of a site ban, I need to go through lengthy litigation and 'evidence-gathering'; having been through the arbitration itself, I am in no mood for another such futile exercise (plenty of evidence against this user was brought up here for anyone interested). I only urge Arbs to see this account for what it truly is.

The crux of the problem is, Falun Gong seems to be TSTF's only major interest on Wikipedia, and Falun Gong is of very little relevance to me or, say, a user like Ohconfucius. Frankly, Ohconfucius and I are just naive suckers who spoke up the most loudly in defense of our policies. We truly underestimated the extent to which Falun Gong is willing to go to tell the story in their preferred way; in retrospect it seems like my involvement here didn't do any good despite the best of intentions. Staying away from these articles would have been the smart thing to do from the beginning.

On balance and over time, it is only inevitable that the 'side' with much heavier personal investment in the subject area would prevail in crafting the articles to the way they want it to be. I have learned to become more at ease with this reality now; fortunately, editing Wikipedia is still a thoroughly enjoyable experience, as long as I stay away from Falun Gong. Last week, I took some time to read the Falun Gong articles to see how they have turned out since Falun Gong 2. It is sad that the articles have become even more strongly reflective of the Falun Gong worldview. They essentially read like glossy pamphlets for the practice much like those you get from walking down the streets of New York; they are totally sanitized ('censored', you could say) of criticism, controversy, or anything that could be seen or even remotely perceived to be prejudicial to the movement in any way, shape, or form.

In essence, the Falun Gong activists have 'won'. They have succeeded in driving away and frustrating all the users who are 'in their way.'

At this stage, I am so disillusioned that I think even a ban on the existing Falun Gong SPAs and their future incarnations will not do much, so long as 1. Arbcom cannot adjudicate on content disputes; 2. the editing of 'controversial' articles remain open to all users.

In reviewing all cases Arbcom have presided over in the encyclopedia's existence, Falun Gong seems to represent a cross-section of 'typical' topics that are subject to arbitration - namely:
 * It is a new religious movement
 * It promotes elements that can be characterized as pseudoscience
 * It has often marketed itself as a form of alternative medicine, self-help, and self-healing regime
 * It is controversial and often involved in 'real-world' litigation (suing others and being sued, much like Scientology); some of its controversies deal with racial and sexual-orientation themes
 * It has a very well publicized and self-declared political agenda to overthrow the Chinese Communist Party

It is not difficult to see why this is a minefield that any sane Wikipedia editor would do best to avoid! In my view, after reading the articles on such topics as Chiropractic, Scientology, "Race and Intelligence", and even "Israel-Palestine", I have to say Falun Gong articles are probably in the worst shape, relatively speaking, out of the arbcom sanctioned articles on Wikipedia. It remains a deeply neglected topic area and a stain on this encyclopedia, it is an untenable situation, but I have run out of ideas on how to fix it.

I took part in this discussion because, recently, in reflecting on the Tiananmen Square massacre and editing the corresponding article on Wikipedia, I have become more strongly critical of the Chinese Communist Party than I have ever been. That a 'finding of fact' dangles over my head that I am somehow "pro-CCP" or "pro-regime" is deeply insulting and brings out a visceral emotional reaction I have never felt. While Falun Gong 2 discussion is being renewed, may I appeal to the arbitration committee that the finding of fact be rescinded, or at least modified to the effect that it only concerns "edits which have the appearance of being anti-Falun Gong" and strike out the portion that mentions anything pro-CCP.
 * Appealing the "Finding of Fact" against me

This request is on the basis that "pro-CCP" bias is not shown in evidence presented -- several Arbs pointed this out themselves during the proceedings -- and that in any case, saying that something anti-Falun Gong is also pro-CCP only makes sense in the context of the Falun Gong's own dogmatic worldview. This finding of fact seems to suggest that Wikipedia 'buys' Falun Gong's explanation that this is a zero-sum game between itself and the CCP, which it is not. Colipon+ (Talk) 15:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223
When I first encountered OhConfucius I was more likely to consider them a partisanly pro-FLG editor than anything else. As such I find it patently ridiculous that OhConfucius is being labeled pro-communist party. If they have begun editing in a way which reflects the controversial aspects of the Falun Gong it is, if anything, a demonstration of a commitment to personal growth and to working within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. Simonm223 (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments of an anonymous user
[I hope it's okay for me to comment here anonymously. Frankly I find the tone here a bit intimidating.]

I was just reading up on the Falun Gong page and saw this quote from a Chinese historian who has studied the group. In addressing how the Chinese government has sought to brand Falun Gong as an “evil cult,” he says: “the entire issue of the supposed cultic nature of Falun Gong was a red herring from the beginning, cleverly exploited by the Chinese state to blunt the appeal of Falun Gong.” Presumably this is done to distract from the fact that it (the Chinese government) was imprisoning, torturing, and killing Falun Gong practitioners. Labeling Falun Gong as such is an effective way to make them appear unworthy of sympathy or support.

I found it interesting that a very similar tactic is being deployed by some of the editors here. In order to justify their own poor conduct, they’re trying to shift the blame and instill prejudice against Falun Gong.

Wikipedia is open to people of all backgrounds. Given the pretty homogenous make-up of our editors, I think it’s especially important that we welcome and encourage minority and marginalized voices here (as long as everyone can respect the rules of course). If I was a Falun Gong practitioner and was reading this thread, I would find this to be an extremely hostile and unwelcoming environment, and one where I would be prejudged in quite an offensive way regardless of what I might have to contribute. I think it’s important to affirm here that this is not the environment we should be fostering. 178.197.239.81 (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Shrigley
Ohconfucius's edits were responsible, routine cleanups of zealous IP editor drive-by advocacy. Although TSTF clearly follows Ohconfucius's edits and routinely reverts them, as an experienced editor, he would never make that kind of edit which Ohc reverted himself. The extent to which personality politics is clouding the judgment of everyone around what are really minor edits, should be obvious.

Shrigley (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't cite factual, libelous information about serious crimes to a Falun Gong advocacy website; duh. That group is known for falsifying facts, and appears to have extensively modified (such as by adding URL links), paraphrased, and excerpted from the perhaps-more-credible sources from which it quotes. When you translate, you also create a new work with new nuances and biases. Ohconfucius was encouraging uniform use of secondary sources, which is essential for neutral treatment of such a controversial topic.
 * Tweaks on a complex framing issue on which policy isn't clear-cut. On the other side of the coin, despite the fact that independent psychologists and academics like Margaret Singer and Maria Chang have characterized Falun Gong like a cult, FLG advocates love to point out that the Chinese government made this accusation first, or more often. Yeah, politicians and journalists have picked up and ran with Falun Gong's abuse-allegation sympathy drives sometimes. But it's also fair to say that the vast majority of Falun Gong's publicity (both gory and hyperbolic or mystic and anodyne) is self-generated.
 * The definition of laundry-list cleanup. While it might be unfortunate that Shen Yun's business model relies on pumping out huge amounts of fangirl fluff on the internet to hide its extremely politically- and religiously- polarizing content, Wikipedia has policies on fancruft, and Ohconfucius is applying them rigorously. It's also worth noting that Ohconfucius is well-known across all Wikipedia namespaces for his rapid and consistent Manual of Style upkeep, so we may not be even dealing with a Falun Gong-specific issue.

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Noting AGK is inactive on this item of business. I'll adjust the majority counter accordingly, should any motion be made. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting statement from OhConfucius. I also would welcome brief comments on whether this should be addressed here or by the admins on arbitration enforcement, though the procedural issue shouldn't get in the way of addressing the merits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Recuse. T. Canens (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also awaiting statements from Ohconfucius. To the issue Newyorkbrad raises, I don't see any issue addressing this here as that's where it's already been raised, but handling at AE would also be fine as the motion specifically allows reinstatement of the ban as an AE action if that were determined to be necessary. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ohconfucius: As you've continued editing since being notified but not responded here, I presume you do not wish to make a statement and we can proceed. If this is incorrect, please make your statement here at your earliest possible convenience. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To everyone involved here, this is not a referendum on either the content dispute over Falun Gong or the Falun Gong 2 case. This is a request addressing solely as to whether Ohconfucius' topic ban should or should not be reinstated. For those arguing that it should be, please write a brief statement indicating what particular standards of Wikipedia conduct Ohconfucius' edits are claimed to have breached and why. Ohconfucius' editing in controversial areas is not in itself grounds for the suspension to be revoked; there was no requirement to avoid such areas. For those arguing against reinstatement, please briefly address why any such edits were not a violation. Right now, this is a rehash of the content dispute and impossible to determine. We're not going to make a determination here over the content question or regarding any other questions, including questions regarding findings of fact in previous cases. If you want to appeal those, please file a separate request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to those who have made efforts to revise their statements. I'll be looking through those over the next few days. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For article edits, I don't really see any actionable policy violations, just content disputes. However, I very strongly urge caution. If Ohconfucius' pattern of commenting on editors rather than edits continues or speculating on their motives, I'll be in favor of reinstating the topic ban. In that vein,, I will be requesting reinstatement of the topic ban if you do not get rid of all of your userspace material on Falun Gong and leave it gone. It's not really a wise idea for you to be writing "essays" about, or "analysis" of, editors in the topic area. If you touch the topic at all, stick to discussion of specific portions of specific articles only, please, and avoid discussing other editors at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That didn't take long. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm still going through diffs, so I will hold off on an opinion on the amendment request. That said, I think it's important to note that, though OhConfucius mentioned voluntarily avoiding Falun Gong-related articles, the May 2014 amendment did not require this, and so discussion as to whether OhConfucius should have been editing these articles is somewhat irrelevant. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that Ohconfucius' edits warrant reinstating the topic ban, though there were cases in which Ohconfucius should have used more care in editing, whether it be reviewing sources or leaving clearer edit summaries. I'm a bit uncomfortable with the level of attention Ohconfucius is giving the Falun Gong articles, and would urge Ohconfucius to move on to other topic areas. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Awaiting statement. Do you have an estimate for when it will be ready ? NativeForeigner Talk 03:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * NF, I've recently discovered that ping only works when you sign a comment the same time you save the edit. Since you had to fix the ping template above, it didn't actually work.  However, I'll fix that: . --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, another thing I wasn't aware of with the new ping functionality. NativeForeigner Talk 16:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stay careful regarding Falun Gong. While you are allowed to edit in the area per the motion, I think it's important to draw a distinction between what is allowed and what is advisable, so use best judgment here. NativeForeigner Talk 17:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Abortion (July 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Haymaker (talk) at 16:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * 
 * 

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by Haymaker
I was edit-warring on this topic back in the day and was topic-banned by the above Arbitration Case. I'm not really interested in this topic any more and I have kept my nose clean for the last 2+ years. I would like to not have this decision hanging over my head and when I see cases of clear-cut vandalism on my watch-list, clean them up. I asked the admin who notified me of the topic ban and he said this was the place to go to ask about this. Haymaker (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @NativeForeigner: All things being equal, I'd like to be out from underneath them all together. I noticed that in the past some users had sanctions lifted for a probationary period of time. If a full reprieve seems like a bridge too far at this time, would a probationary trial be possible? Haymaker (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Thryduulf
There is a slight difference between reinstating a suspended topic ban (as proposed by Salvio) and topic banning again under discretionary sanctions if required (as proposed by WTT). That difference is that in the event of a topic ban being necessary in future, Haymaker will have had one ban under Salvio's proposal but two bans under WTT's. I am unaware that this would make any practical difference (and I think it unlikely the Haymaker will cause further trouble, making this is completely academic) but even more minor differences have turned out to have practical implications down the line. This is therefore just a heads-up for others to be aware the two proposals are not identical. I don't have an opinion on which I prefer. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Moved a comment by Haymaker to their section from the arbitrator section below. Please make comments only in your own section, ping people if necessary. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Adjusted majority to indicate AGK being inactive on this item. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Are you asking for us to fully abandon it, or to make an exception for minor/trivial edits? NativeForeigner Talk 17:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And yes, I agree with Salvio. NativeForeigner Talk 23:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BANEX, reverting obvious vandalism is already an exception to a topic ban; that said, considering you have not been blocked for over two years and that, in general, I'm in favour of second chances, I'd be amenable to supporting the standard provisional suspension, i.e. the topic ban is lifted, but for a year it can be reimposed by any admin in the event of fresh misconduct within the original area of conflict. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also support a provisional unban, like Salvio suggested. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Motion: Haymaker


For reference, the current restrictions on is:

Proposed:


 * The indefinite topic-ban of from the abortion-related pages is lifted.


 * Enacted --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * Proposed. I've left out the information regarding the probation as Abortion is still under discretionary sanctions so Haymaker can be re-topic banned with ease. I would support this if anyone wants to put it in though. Copy edits or changes welcome. Worm TT( talk ) 10:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good point about the discretionary sanctions. I'm willing to support this without the explicit probationary period. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Worth a try. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand Floquen's concerns but think that with the Abortion DS also in effect reinstating the topic ban will not be a difficult issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While I understand and sympathize with every word Floq has written below, the discretionary sanctions already in place make the risk minimal. If Haymaker doesn't behave themselves in this area they'll be kicked back out of it soon enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Per him and him and her and him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * For some reason the word "vacate" sticks in my craw, but at least I can recognize I'm being too picky and overcome it. Something more difficult to overcome is my cynicism about "I'm no longer interested in this topic, but this topic ban is hanging over my head"; we've seen that recently, and believed it, and grey areas were almost immediately explored when the topic ban was lifted.  Looking at the sheer quantity of abortion-related edits before the case, and the 45 edits made in the last 2+ years since then, I find it too hard to believe that resuming editing in the abortion area is not your intention. I don't believe this topic ban is a significant hindrance to your editing other topics. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators
 * I hate myself for becoming the type of person who asks this kind of question, but... is "vacated" really a good word for describing this? Doesn't that imply the previous decision was wrong?  Would "lifted" (or something else) be better? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (Supposedly inactive now but I can't help myself.) I think "terminated" would probably be the best word to use here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's also my understanding that "vacated" indicates a defect in the thing being vacated, and that "terminated" works the best due to indefinite not meaning permanent. I've made the change; if anyone strongly disagrees feel free to revert me. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "...from abortion-related topics is terminated"? Can we keep trying? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably not my place to re-word something I['m opposing, but I've changed it to "lifted", due to the unfortunate unintended double meaning (as someone noted in one of the mailing lists). Even "vacated" would be better than "terminated" here. Happy to be over-ruled with something better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Point well-taken on the entirely inadvertent double meaning of terminate. (Compare Judge Posner's jibes at the off-found law-review phrase "Roe and its progeny.") Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Argentine History (July 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  MarshalN20  T al k at 19:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Topic Ban
 * Topic Ban

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by MarshalN20
Hey! I'd like to take the article United States to featured status (current sandbox, with pictures and new lead section, is at User:MarshalN20/Sandbox4). Over the past year I have also led two articles to featured status, the Peru national football team and Pisco Sour, and will soon have a third one with the Falkland Islands.

I was not sure if editing the US history section would be an issue, due to the topic ban that prevents me from editing Latin American history topics (non-cultural) prior to 1980. US history is tangentially related to Latin American history. David recommended me to take the question here in order to avoid any misunderstandings.

I'd like to work in this article to keep demonstrating my true value as an editor. Regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 19:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's worth clarifying that I will use the WP:SUMMARY rule when writing the history section. The only two major topics that I can currently think about (related to Latin America that I will certainly mention, in one or two sentences) are the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War. The Monroe Doctrine (and its related practices) and Cuban Missile Crisis will probably only be part of a larger sentence, the former related to hegemony in the Western Hemisphere and the latter to the Cold War. There certainly are more, but I currently cannot imagine going into detail into any of it.-- MarshalN20 T al k 02:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by The ed17
Speaking as a participant in the previous discussion, opposed to MarshalN20, I think that a limited exception for the United States article is appropriate. Nearly all of the history section will not infringe on areas that caused the ban. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * It would be impossible to put together a complete history of the United States without touching multiple times on its interactions with Latin America. Many of those historical interactions would be before 1983, so those portions of the article would be encompassed by the ban. However, I would be willing to consider a limited exception for that particular article similar to the previous Falklands exemption, to be revoked in the event of misconduct. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Seraphimblade and would support an exemption to MarshalN20's topic ban in this case. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Me three. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Motion: MarshalN20 topic ban exemption


Proposed:


 * Notwithstanding the sanction imposed on in Argentine History, he may edit United States, its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn at any time by motion of the Arbitration Committee.
 * Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't this kind of thing used to be decided without having to have an actual motion? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems pretty low risk to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * With the expectation that the issues that led to the original decision will not recur on this article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Per brad. NativeForeigner Talk 00:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay,  Roger Davies  talk 07:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators
 * Floq-we make clarifications without motions, but this actually alters a previous decision from last year, hence the vote. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Cold Fusion is/isn't Pseudoscience (July 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  84.106.11.117 (talk) at 03:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * original ruling: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision
 * original ruling: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by 84.106.11.117
While supported by article content at the time the pseudoscience label was dropped from the Cold Fusion article some time before October 2011.

In the wild it looks like this. Any admin may now ban the Nobel laureate? This is how it should be? It makes no sense to me. What is this doing on my talk page? What does it even mean? Is this the new welcome message?

I've posted one on User_talk:Sandstein talk page to see what happens. Surely he needs such helpful information as much as I do?

further informations
Sandstein, a remarkably productive editor I should add, just demonstrated how the sanctions are being used to ban non-skeptical editors, applicable in one direction only.

Sandstein did not read my deletion review request. My request talks about the one sided nature of these Discretionary Sanctions, he responds by posting an info box on my user talk page informing me about these same sanctions. He used imaginary guidelines and retaliates with victim blaming.

I am not the topic of this Request for clarification, is about cold fusion not being pseudoscience while still subjected to pseudoscience sanction.

If the Sanction would work both ways, Sandstein should now be topic banned. This strikes me as a completely idiotic way of doing things, typical skeptic methodology. I would argue the Sanctions themselves are not useful to the project.

My split request was disposed of by skeptical consensus, rather than edit guidelines. I ignored this consensus per Notability guidelines. Notability is the only type of guideline that skeptic teams can not kill by consensus.

Rather than so much as lift a finger to help split the article team skeptic used every possible method and every excuse other than the split criteria to troll the process while crying about the way I avoided "scrutiny". Of course I did! If we look at Sandsteins edit log he has soooooo many contributions he effectively avoids scrutiny himself. I cant possibly read all that? Or can I?

AFD is suppose to be the point where the team of anti-pseudoscience crusaders have to use edit guidelines. In stead the admin deleted by consensus. (he was trying to clean up the backlog we should add) Asking for clarification, from the closing admin (we used irc), and by means of a deletion review is entirely sensible. Not reading it and requiring an account is not. Specially not in that order.

This is not to defend myself but to illustrate the victim blaming routine. How can Sandstein, being an administrator, need further tools to dispose of IP editors? Look how his argument is that I edited fringe topics, as if this should be sufficient evidence of my wrong doings?

If this is how the sanctions are being used, then it is not worth having them in general, in this specific case, using them outside the scope of pseudoscience seems even less useful.

note: It strikes me as odd for the committee to try to rule if something is pseudoscience or not. I think, if you have some precognition about a topic you should use the article talk page and provide reliable sources that make your vision evident.

Thanks for your time.

response to Robert McClenon
Sandstein explained why he mistakenly (but understandably) assumed I have an account, AFTER THAT you write this:
 *  The IP editor who filed the arbitration clarification request states that he or she has an account but edits from the IP address. There is no requirement to create an account in order to edit Wikipedia (except that editing semi-protected articles such as cold fusion requires an auto-confirmed account).  However, Wikipedia policies do state that intentionally editing logged out is inappropriate, as it avoids scrutiny, and may be a means for topic-ban evasion or block evasion.  I will ask a two-part question.  First, do any of the IP addresses editing this talk page have accounts?  If so, why are you editing logged out?  Second (as I have asked before), is there a good reason why any IP addresses who do not have accounts choose not to create accounts (which would permit editing a semi-protected article)? 

I repeat: I don't have an account. This is not what the article talk page is for and not what this request for clarification is about.


 * '' "A request for amendment or clarification was filed with the ArbCom, requesting a clarification that cold fusion is not pseudoscience and so not subject to discretionary sanctions. Since a Request for Comments is currently open on this page, the ArbCom request appears to be an effort to bypass the consensus process.  The proper vehicle for determining whether cold fusion is, within Wikipedia, considered pseudoscience is the RFC.

In the comment before that you write:


 * "The choice of those categories was not a trick nor an effort to steer the result, because it is exactly what is defined by ARBCOM."

You are trying to have it both ways.


 * "The article has been under semi-protection due to disruptive editing by unregistered editors for a long term."


 * 21:20, 18 June 2012‎ Dennis Brown Protected Cold fusion: Persistent sock puppetry See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist

Staged by skeptics?

It is argued that the 400 skeptics, with watchlist and forum shopping is not enough to protect a locked article from lone newbies. Skeptics who evidently don't even read what the editor writes anymore and refuse all outsider contributions. I'm not here to be persecuted without reason, neither is anyone else. That is why I request clarification.

84.106.11.117 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
84.106.11.117 is an IP address active since 16 June 2014 with few contributions, mostly relating to fringe-y topics such as alien abduction. On 11 July, they requested a deletion review of the article Fleischmann-Pons experiment, which relates to Cold fusion, which is in my layperson's understanding a fringe science topic. In the review request, 84.106.11.117 wrote that "I should note I'm not a new user, I just edit from my ip." As an administrator working at WP:DRV, I summarily closed the review request, suggesting that in discretionary sanctions topic areas where sanctions such as topic bans have been imposed, in view of WP:SCRUTINY, established editors should not make undeletion requests while logged out. I also alerted 84.106.11.117 about the discretionary sanctions applying to pseudo- and fringe science topics. In response, 84.106.11.117 copied the same alert notice onto my talk page and made this request for clarification, the point of which I don't quite see. In view of subsequent statements by 84.106.11.117 such as, it appears likely to me that we are being trolled by a returning, possibly previously sanctioned editor.  Sandstein  07:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, as long as we are here already: Would it be an appropriate use of discretionary sanctions, under these circumstances, to restrict the person using the address 84.106.11.117 from editing pseudo- and fringe science topics except with their main account (if they are not banned or blocked from doing so already)?  Sandstein   07:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was probably unclear. I agree that editing only as an IP is allowed and that we shouldn't force anyone to create an account. But I understood the statement by 84.106.11.117 to mean that they already have an account. My question was whether they might legitimately be directed to use that existing account when editing in the topic area covered by sanctions. Otherwise they might be able to avoid any sanctions that might apply to them under their existing account.  Sandstein   11:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
I watch Cold fusion and there is often commentary at Talk:Cold fusion regarding a possible new development—something which in the future may validate CF as a new energy source. Wikiversity was mentioned and I had a very quick look and found recently-edited pages like these: Wikiversity is nothing to do with Wikipedia, but the activity suggests to me that discretionary sanctions in the CF area need to continue. Whether of not CF should properly be called "pseudoscience" can be debated elsewhere as that is not relevant to whether the topic should be subject to discretionary sanctions. Any new energy source with many enthusiastic supporters but no usable power should be treated as if it were pseudoscience at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Cold fusion/The Wikipedia article/Comments on edits/Naturwissenschaften review/Reaction by Abd
 * Cold fusion/Skeptical arguments/Wikipedia talk/Shanahan

Statement by Robert McClenon
I oppose any request for the ArbCom to intervene and remove the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions from cold fusion. The article has been under semi-protection due to disruptive editing by unregistered editors for a long term. The talk page has been also disruptively edited, including personal attacks on skeptical editors, by unregistered editors. (There was also an edit war on the talk page, something unusual, where an unregistered editor began adding archived material, which was removed, and a revert war ensued.) I have also been watching the article and its talk page, and it has been more civil since editors have been templating the participants as to discretionary sanctions. The unregistered editors have been repeatedly asked if there is a reason why they choose not to create accounts. The usual response is either no response or incivility. This is to the point where the requirement to assume good faith is stretched, and there is reason to think that the unregistered editors are editing logged out either to create the appearance of greater numbers or because they are sockpuppets of a blocked or banned user. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a Request for Comments at Talk:Cold fusion in process to determine consensus as to which of the four ArbCom-defined categories cold fusion should be categorized as. This request, to ask the ArbCom to intervene, may be an attempts to bypass the consensus process, which is going against the unregistered editors who are proponents of cold fusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I request that this clarification request be denied, because the RFC is the proper way to determine whether cold fusion is pseudoscience, but that the incoming boomerang be allowed to return, and that the filing party, who has been properly notified, be either topic-banned from cold fusion, or blocked, or both. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the IP in question states that they do have a registered account, but choose to edit logged out, the remedy proposed by User:Sandstein is appropriate. There is no requirement to create an account (although creating an account would permit editing the semi-protected page), but there is a policy against intentionally editing logged out when one has an account, and the IP admits to doing exactly that.  That statement is relevant to the concern stated below of two arbitrators.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On further reading, I have comments about the statement by the OP: "I should note I'm not a new user, I just edit from my ip."  First, that statement was apparently misunderstood by Sandstein and by me.  If the OP did not mean that he was an existing registered user, then he does have a right to edit from the IP address.  Second, however, that statement that he is not a new user is incorrect.  He has made 32 edits since 16 June, which qualifies as a new user compared to experienced editors.  I will still ask, as I have at Talk: Cold fusion, whether there is a compelling reason why unregistered editors at Cold fusion choose not to create accounts (which would permit them to edit the semi-protected article) and instead persistent in making edit requests (sometimes amounting to edit demands) on the talk page.  If the IP does not have a registered account, then the IP is permitted to edit.  In any case, the request for a clarification by the ArbCom appears to be an attempt to game the system by asking the ArbCom to bypass the RFC.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Cardamon
84.106.11.117 is likely the same individual as 84.104.135.141, 84.106.9.95, 84.106.26.81, 84.107.128.52, and possibly others, going back to at least 2009. I notice 84.104.135.141 was blocked in December, 2009, and that 84.106.26.81 has two blocks.

This series of IPs has POV - pushed on a number of fringe topics, including on Cold fusion since April, 2009. Cardamon (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I notice that the IP, as 84.107.128.52, was warned of the existence of discretionary sanctions on fringe/pseudoscience subjects by Robert McClenon, on June 23, 2014. This was a few weeks before the warning by Sandstein of which the IP complains above. Cardamon (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Second Quantization
I'm not following the full case or what has preceded this, but I gently remind the arbitrators that I already brought up the ambiguities in an older wording of the text 2 years ago, and the text was clarified by motion after that. Arbitration enforcement in the area of WP:FRINGE does not in any way hinge on something being viewed as pseudoscience rather than fringe science (or pathological science in the case of cold fusion), Second Quantization (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC) (formerly IRWolfie-)
 * Although I haven't looked at edits in the last 3 months, I think its worthy of note that in general over the years 84.* has made few if any useful edits or contributions ever (almost every edit being biased and being reverted etc). Second Quantization (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Noren
The same basic dispute as to what extent the prior Pseudoscience case applied (along with some other issues) was heard in 2009, and the Committee decided that "1) The cold fusion article, and parts of any other articles that are substantially about cold fusion, are subject to discretionary sanctions." It no longer matters whether Cold Fusion is included in the Pseudoscience case as the committee has ruled separately that Cold Fusion is subject to discretionary sanctions without regard to the Pseudoscience case. The committee later decided to merge the logging of that case with the pseudoscience case, but to my knowledge has not declared the 2009 ruling void.--Noren (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

While I share Robert's concerns about the editing patterns of IP users on that talk page, I think that we do have to make some effort to distinguish between IP users. The IP who filed this request and was banned geolocates to the Netherlands and appears to have a static IP. There is also a more prolific, longer term IP user(s) from Romania who uses a dynamic IP. That was the IP user who has been edit warring to dearchive stale discussions over the last six months or so. The Romanian IP as 188.27.144.144 asked about this filing on Talk:Cold Fusion, I don't think he's the same person as the filing IP. Other recent IP addresses that geolocate to Romania include 94.53.199.249, 82.137.14.68, 82.137.14.162, 193.254.231.34, 82.137.9.180, 82.137.9.236, 82.137.8.198, 5.15.53.36, 5.15.181.68, 86.125.186.149, 86.125.167.74, 5.15.53.167, 5.15.37.240, and 5.15.35.32. From April 1 to June 20, all the but one of the IPs who edited the Talk:Cold Fusion page geolocated to Romania. A country location is, of course, not proof that all of these IPs are the same person, but there does appear to be some quacking involved.--Noren (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Acroterion
I've blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring at Talk:Cold fusion. The block is solely due to the edit-warring by 84, I was led here afterwards by a review of their contributions. It is not intended to prejudice or pre-empt AE, but communication with them will have to take place on their talkpage.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Comment: Hi . There's no requirement in policy for people to create accounts to edit with. What they are not allowed to do is evade scrutiny by editing from an IP when they have an account. It is possible to be an established IP editor.  Roger Davies  talk 07:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ; I don't think the IP topic-ban you suggest would be appropriate at all. As I said before, nothing in policy requires anyone to create an account before they can edit.  Roger Davies  talk
 * I agree with Roger. It's forbidden to edit anonymously to evade scrutiny on one's account, but it's allowed to just not have an account and edit anonymously. There's no precedent for forcing someone to create an account and I don't like the idea of creating such a precedent in this way. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If the editor is sanctioned under their account, and is editing to evade the block, they could be sanctioned as normal for block evasion, among other things. But otherwise, there's no rule against logging out, and DS doesn't currently have any mechanism to force an editor not otherwise subject to sanctions to log in. I would echo Newyorkbrad's request that the IP answer at least "yes" or "no" as to whether they have an account, and whether such account is subject to any restrictions or sanctions. If that needs to be done via email for privacy reasons, please do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

14) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
 * I've been reviewing the language of the case. The current remedy authorizing DS reads as follows:


 * This remedy, and the accompanying principles outlined in the case, make it clear to me that it is appropriate for cold fusion to be considered subject to this decision. I see no need to amend or clarify the remedy or other aspects of the case.


 * As to The IP editing, I can't see that we can do anything about that unless we knew for a fact that the person operating from the IP was also the operator of a named account that was subject to sanctions already. I suppose a case could also be made that if they do have an account they are using a good hand/bad hand strategy to avoid scrutiny, but again without having at least some idea of the identity of the named account I don't know how we could arrive at any sort of actionable conclusion. On a personal level I do believe that one of these two scenarios is the most likely explanation, but without further evidence I don't see what we can do about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I ask the 84... IP to advise us if he or she has ever been subject to any sanctions or warnings for editing in this topic-area. This information can be provided via e-mail if a serious privacy issue is involved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * So, in short: cold fusion is covered by discretionary sanctions (thanks Noren) and I'd say there appears to be no appetite on our part to revoke them. So, probably, this request can be closed. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes,  Roger Davies  talk 06:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: American Politics (July 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Casprings (talk) at 02:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested


 * 1) Remedy 3


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AArzel&diff=618359621&oldid=617338070 Arzel]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVictorD7&diff=618360209&oldid=618354403 VictorD7] - Mentioned below but nothing suggested would affect him.


 * Information about amendment request


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics#Arzel_warned
 * Request another warning of Arzel

Statement by your Casprings
Very shortly after the closing of the American Politics case, Arzel has returned to WP:Battle. In a conversation with user:victorD7, he is clearly seeing the current conflict dispute in America (2014 film) as part if a WP:Battle. That conversation can be found here. The main evidence is this edit. [].
 * I think you are all right. I saw it and was mad.  I should not have filed this.  I apologies to all, including Arzel.  I ask to have this withdrawn.Casprings (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Arzel
I was not the one to politicize this issue nor did I start a battle. If anything Casprings was edit warring on the page and started the battle with Victor. Casprings certainly has made edits which are inflaming the situation such as this. My only edit to the actual page was a statistical explanation here which was then attacked by Casprings I think it is quite clear that Casprings wants to quiet me completely and this edit rings quite hollow. Arzel (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
This noticeboard is not well-suited for trivial cavils. I see no "battle" violation here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by VictorD7
This charge is absurd and should be dismissed as frivolous. The link in question is to my personal talk page, and Arzel is simply giving his opinion on the likelihood of making successful edits to the page. Acknowledging that "progressives" are disagreeing with conservatives is simply stating the obvious. Arzel made no article edits, and his limited participation in the discussion itself has been factual, civil, and entirely focused on content. He certainly didn't "insult, harass, or intimidate" anyone, or otherwise engage in Battleground type behavior. Unless administrators want to be deluged in a flood of frivolous reports, they shouldn't encourage them by wasting any time with this one. VictorD7 (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by EllenCT
is by User:Cadiomals what you were looking for? It is a deliberate rejection of basic truth designed to introduce bias towards the view from nowhere, by deleting true statements with implications which are uncomfortable for those who hold various political views. If you approve of it as a request for amendment, then please ask a clerk or me to draft what an appropriate request for amendment should look like. I continue to believe that a warning combined with a threat of a topic ban on the order of three to six months is appropriate, although it would be best to ask for imposition of the median of arbitrators' opinions on the appropriate punishment for such carelessness and deliberate bias. EllenCT (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * When I saw this request I assumed it would be our first opportunity to look at applying discretionary sanctions as outlined in the decision. Instead I see a request for us to issue a warning because of one fairly innocuous comment on a talk page. If that one diff is the sum total of why this request is being made I don't see any need to even discuss the matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Concur with Beeblebrox. And if this were actionable, which it doesn't appear to be, the proper forum would be arbitration enforcement,  Roger Davies  talk 08:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll admit to the temptation of invoking a boomerang, but, yeah, let's close this as "no grounds for us to intervene". Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that we don't need to do anything here. (Those bemused by legal analogies on these pages may cf. here.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing is happening here and the OP has withdrawn the request. Clerks, please close this thread. I have no idea what the diff offered by EllenCT is supposed to show. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We do not enforce our own decisions. Decline. AGK  [•] 23:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed that this would be an issue for arbitration enforcement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing that couldn't be handled at AE. Worm TT( talk ) 08:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control (July 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Gaijin42 (talk) at 15:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by Gaijin42
I am currently topic banned from Gun control per the ArbCom case above. Recently there has been two cases brought at ArbEnforcement resulting in two additional topic bans and warnings (including a boomerang topic ban for the filing party). During these cases I was explicitly mentioned at least twice, and implicitly mentioned several more. (As well as mentioning other affected users in the same boat as myself) (snips below). I did not comment due to my topic ban. However, it seems poor form to be discussing the actions and statements of those who cannot reply or clarify. For the current two cases, one is already closed, and the other appears that it will close shortly but in the future if a similar situation comes up, are topic banned editors allowed to reply on administrative boards where they are being discussed? I had asked some of the administrators at AE about this and replied that they could not grant an exception to the TB since it was applied by ArbCom.


 * "Removing the entire Background section and Legal challenges sections I added (which even now topic-banned Gaijin42 did not dispute) to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban page."
 * "The third link [30] is to a nearly 8-month-old ANI that nearly boomeranged [31] on the editor who brought it against me. (It is also another example of pro-gun editors - three of whom are now topic banned - talking about my behavior, without diffs.)"
 * "Perhaps one of the topic-banned pro-gun editors is harassing me." (An accusation, without evidence, against people who can't respond)
 * "My frustration right now reminds me of that I felt when I was a new editor to gun-control and in a "discussion" with about 10-12 experienced editors using jargon I'd never heard and referring to processes I knew nothing about."
 * " And the 1 (Gaijin42) who voted "complicated," and mentorship-else-ban is topic banned for Battleground conduct. Is it possible that I (1 new editor against numerous experienced) was the victim of battleground conduct at the article I brought up at ANI?"

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Question to commenting arbs/admins Thank you for your comments below. As there seems to be some situations in which a statement would be acceptable, and others in which it would be a ban violation, and the delimiter is somewhat vague, could you perhaps clarify if you think it would have been acceptable for me to comment in response to the statements I posted? (Obviously there are things that I could say that would be "too far/too much" but the crucial bit is would ANY comment have been so construed?) (Perhaps to use the terminology below, was I being discussed, or just mentioned? In particular the accusation that one of the topic banned editors was harassing LB is of interest) Gaijin42 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
In my opinion as one of the admins active at WP:AE, the policy-level exceptions to topic bans described at WP:BANEX also apply to Committee-imposed topic bans. Therefore, a topic-banned user may make such statements as are required for "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself". In the context of enforcement requests, this means that they may briefly respond to direct accusations of misconduct against themselves, especially as concerns allegations of topic ban violations. However, in view of the purpose of a topic ban, they should be as brief as possible, or they risk being blocked if an administrator decides that the seventh reply in an angry back-and-forth of mutual recriminations is no longer part of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.

Also, in order to help topic-banned editors respect their topic bans, administrators should suppress and, if needed, sanction allegations of misconduct against topic-banned editors if these allegations are not supported by useful evidence in the form of diffs (see WP:ASPERSIONS), or if the allegations are not helpful for resolving the problem at hand. This may often be the case because the topic ban will have made the allegations moot.  Sandstein  15:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Recuse Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * 's analysis is about right. Unless explicitly prohibited from doing so by the specific applicable t-ban, t-banned editors may respond briefly and circumspectly in DR fora to accusations directly concerning them. Indeed, doing so will often assist the process. They may not however use the door that has been partially opened to launch into sweeping and tangential counter-accusations against all and sundry. That said, there's probably not much more to add here.  Roger Davies  talk 07:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree in part; if an editor has been banned from a topic area, it means that his participation there has been so disruptive that it has been deemed necessary to expel him from it. The necessary conclusion is that all exceptions to limited bans need to be construed restrictively. For that, I interpret the "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" exception to only apply when an editor's actions are being discussed and not when they are merely mentioned. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio's analysis generally matches mine. Merely being mentioned should not allow for discussion, but it the editor is being actively discussed, I would expect them to be able to comment. Worm TT( talk ) 09:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I also largely agree with Salvio, and I think the discussion would need to be substantive, not just a mention in passing. I would add, however, that there would seldom be a good reason for other editors to bring a topic-banned user up in such a discussion, and it should generally be discouraged unless there really is good cause. A topic ban is not an excuse for other editors to take gratuitous jabs at someone while they're restricted from answering in return. (Not saying that happened in this case, mind, that's just a general statement of principle.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with the comments above; discretion should be applied by all parties that editors who are banned from a discussion are not disparaged or brought up needlessly; editors, even t-banned ones, have an option to respond towards direct discussions involving them, but it's not the place to rehash disputes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Salvio. Mention of a user does not necessitate reply, but topic-banned users who are being actively discussed should be allowed to respond. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, I do not think it would ever be acceptable for you to offer a statement in a discussion you are not the subject of. Please remain completely away from this topic area unless actions you have made are being discussed in an enforcement venue.  AGK  [•] 23:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Pseudoscience (August 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  jps (talk) at 15:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Link to relevant decision
 * Link to relevant decision


 * ARBPSCI
 * ARBPSCI
 * ARBPSCI
 * ARBPSCI

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * (notified)

Statement by jps
I have never liked the fact that ArbCom included content rulings in WP:ARBPSCI, but we have, in the past, simply let this slide as it never seemed to be problematic. However, now it does seem to be problematic in a conversation I'm having about a proposed name-chase for a list:,.

I respect John Carter's position, and I think he has a point with regards to how Wikipedia tends to enforce jurisprudence in practice, but I also think I have a point that ArbCom is not supposed to make content decisions. There is no other way, in my opinion, that these principles can be interpreted except as content decisions.

The easiest thing would be for ArbCom to vacate the offending Principles as outside of ArbCom remit. Alternatively, a statement that these principles should not be used to trump discussion about content could be done.

jps (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that there is precedence for changing this part of the ruling: ARBPSCI. jps (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@User:Newyorkbrad: Glad you think so. Now, whenever I see comments like this, should I just refer them to your talkpage and you can hash it out with them? jps (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thought not. So.... can we just remove those principles then? jps (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
This rather dovetails with recent discussion at Talk:Intelligent design, which I asked to review and summarize. He summarized it in the following table

He went on to say, “I think the clause that needs clarification would be: Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience. In my opinion, some good questions to ask the committee would be:
 * Does Intelligent design fall into the category of Obvious pseudoscience (obviously bogus) or Generally considered pseudoscience (theories that have a following but generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, like Astrology)?”

These suggestions were made here. As can be seen in the recent request for clarification regarding chiropractic, I personally have had no reservations about wikipedia using the word, and it was only after a comment by NYB that I saw "pseud-" words are specifically included in WP:WTW. I do believe it would be very useful for this to be addressed. Also, with the possibly annoying (to you arbs anyway) regularity that this particular decision gets brought up here and elsewhere, maybe it might be useful to ask for some guidelines specific to pseudoscience be prepared.

Other points perhaps worth addressing are how to, if at all, differentiate between philosophical hypotheses and the generally woo theories based on them, and maybe specific indications as to how this might be relevant to the social sciences. John Carter (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Re iantresman's comments below, WikiProject Skepticism/Encyclopedic articles lists the articles and named subarticles in the encycopedic parts of two encyclopedias of pseudoscience. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @NYB and arbs: should the questions of the use of the word "pseudoscience" in the title and lead as per WP:WTW and other matters be raised separately, or are the existing two current requests regarding that single decision here perhaps enough page area regarding that decision? Both matters seem to me anyway to relate to the unmodified use of the word pseudoscience itself. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding some of the comments below by others, while clarification of the existing policies and guidelines is basically what is being sought here, I do not see that even the recent change either directly addresses the matter of the relative prominence of such a potentially perjorative word to all other forms of description. Also, with all due respect, there is a serious question whether such a rapidly made change to far-reaching guidelines with such short consultation will stand. This is beyond the fact that the change was obviously made to "save" the use of a word several people, including recently one arbitrator, have at least implicity acknowledged as being a cause for reasonable concern. The questions of when, where, and how such "loaded" words should be used, when less emotive words are preferable, and the relative prominence or weight to give them, have so far as I can see not yet been addressed. And those are the concerns which are at the heart of the ID matter raised here. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Arbs: I think one question which perhaps is in some way actionable here is Adjwilley's question "Does Intelligent design fall into the category of Obvious pseudoscience (obviously bogus) or Generally considered pseudoscience (theories that have a following but generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, like Astrology)?”" If as is perhaps understandable ArbCom believes they should not be the ones to determine this perhaps they could request community input in clarifying guidelines in this matter. I would think such a clarification or revision might merit such a request of the community. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by iantresman
The problem as I see it, is as follows:
 * 1) Because of the Demarcation problem, there is no "obvious" pseudoscience.
 * 2) Yet Wikipedia gives the impression that there are gifted editors who are able to make this judgement using WP:SYNTH and a handful of often dubious sources (rarely peer reviewed).
 * 3) Wikipedia sets a high bar for contentious material, requiring several SECONDARY sources. Yet we readily label subjects as "Pseudophysics", and even as "fringe", when there are ZERO sources that may describe a subject as such, contrary to the requirement that the "Categorization of articles must be verifiable"
 * 4) Even where we have additional sources, eg. Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, editors cherry pick those subjects to fit their own agendas, and exclude subjects that are "inconvenient".
 * 5) In reality, in the outside world, individuals have their own opinions and reasons why they consider a subject to be pseudoscience. In general, mainstream science does not, and leaves the matter to the philosophers of science.
 * 6) Statements such as " is considered pseudoscience by a majority of scholars" is untestable, unverifiable nonsense, pretending to be science. Where have we heard that description before?
 * 7) For the record, I have no problems attributing a description of a subject as pseudoscience, but consider the general label to be wholly inappropriate as it generally fails WP:V and WP:RS.

--Iantresman (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @John Carter. Thanks, I don't recall seeing that page and list before. --Iantresman (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @Second Quantization. I have no problem with classic examples of pseudoscience, such as astrology, where there are books and a preponderance of quality secondary sources. My issue with the more modern examples, where editors take a handful of primary sources, often from personal blogs, and judge for themselves (ie. WP:SYNTH) that they feel that a subject meets certain criteria, and that the editors decide that this means that a subject is considered pseudoscience. And then based on a dearth of sources, they write that "mainstream science considers...", or "the majority of academics consider..." where no such consensus is verified in reliable sources. Hence we should not be claiming that a list of subjects are considered pseudoscience, just because you and I may think that a subject meets some vague and subjective criteria. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't do it, and no science dictionaries do it. That Wikipedia does it uniquely, raises red flags. --Iantresman (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @dave souza. Thanks for that. This seems that Arbcom have made an extraordinary content decision: that despite the Demarcation problem, gifted editors can somehow clearly identify articles as "Obvious" or "Generally considered" pseudoscience .. "without more justification". Does this imply that uniquely, and contrary to Wikipedia core policies, editors do not need to meet the exacting standards of WP:V and WP:RS, when such contentiousness suggests that we should be using WP:V and WP:RS far more carefully? The Demarcation problem is a philosophy of science issue, not an excuse to subjectively label subjects under the guise of science. --Iantresman (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @dave souza. Yes I'm well aware of WP:ARB/PS (I started the case), and its "Appropriate sources". But the principles "Obvious pseudoscience", and "Generally considered pseudoscience", and "Questionable science", all seem to blur their requirements for WP:V / WP:RS, and how also how editors word their findings. eg. Articles which sources suggest would be "Questionable science" at best, and according to the description "generally should not be so characterized", are actually described as if mainstream science as described them as pseudoscience. This has been going on since I started with Wikipedia, and the reason I brought the original WP:ARB/PS case. --Iantresman (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @jytdog. I oppose your amendment to deal with the term "pseudoscience", because (a) of the demarcation problem (b) there is no general agreement of the term "pseudoscience" (c) there is no general agreement on the reliability of sourcs (d) science itself does not label topics in this way (e) it is, and always has been one of the most contentious areas of Wikipedia (f) the label adds little to a topic, when there is already much non-judgemental and well-sourced critical material available. --Iantresman (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @ My apologies and thank you for the clarification. I oppose the WP:FRINGE/PS statement "Proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification." as it clearly contravenes WP:V and WP:RS. Any topic that is "obvious bogus" will have numerous reliable secondary sources that will both verify this view, and allow it to be checked. There is no reason why this labelling uniquely does not require justification (verification). --Iantresman (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @ and jps. Perhaps jps could clarify whether he is asking for clarification on the orignal principles in WP:ARB/PS, or on the naming of the List of psuedosciences,,, as this may change the emphasis of the discussion? --Iantresman (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Second Quantization

 * ArbCom made no content decisions that I can see nor have they set any policy. They have some principles that underlie their decision, but that is not a content decision. We are not obliged to follow, read or care about their principles they operated under. There is no reason any editor should pay one iota worth of attention to what is written there since it's not indicative of what editing policy we should operate under. Some editors under the misapprehension that arbcom dictates content policy put undue emphasis on the ideas of some arbitrators some time ago. So this is a non-issue; we are under no obligation with respect to that behavioural decision. Second Quantization (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is the specific text Arbitration/Policy: "The Committee does not rule on content". They can suggest ways of seeking remedies, but they can not provide remedies. This is policy, Second Quantization (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @Iantresman "Because of the Demarcation problem, there is no "obvious" pseudoscience." Demarcation is one of ongoing philosophical research but is an issue for the borderlands between science and non-science, not for the obvious cases. There are certain examples that meet most criteria of philosophers, and are recognised by the scientifically literate as obviously pseudoscience. Astrology, Time Cube etc are obviously pseudoscientific. Care to provide a specific example of point 4)? For 7), on the contrary, where I've seen it used it's generally well sourced. Second Quantization (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by dave souza
Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience identified four groups, two of which could apply to intelligent design (ID):


 * 1. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
 * From the outset, it was obvious to experts on science and science education that ID is not science, but creationist religious views relabelled as science. That said, it clearly had and to some extent still has a following outwith science, essentially among creationists or proponents of its predecessor creation science.


 * 2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
 * The scientific community, educators and philosophers of science have clearly shown that ID is a religious view presented as science and is not science, failing to meet the methods an standards of science. Several mainstream sources have specifically described ID as pseudoscience.

In talk page discussions there has been clear consensus that ID is pseudoscience, but continuing wrangling over wording in relation to sources determining that ID is not science without specifically using the word "pseudoscience". I therefore propose the following additional group:


 * 5. Non-science claimed to be science:  Arguments or beliefs presented by proponents as science, such as intelligent design, but which are specifically described by the scientific community as not being science or as pseudoscience, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Once a topic has been categorised as pseudoscience, the article should conform to WP:PSCI policy including "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included." This is policy. . . . dave souza, talk 21:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * John Carter draws attention to the point that "pseud-" words are specifically included in WP:WTW which is a guideline, not policy, and as it says at the top, is "a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." Common sense clearly indicates that pseudoscience is a well established term, one which forms part of Wikipedia policy, and is a word which may be necessary in clearly describing a topic as pseudoscience.
 * The boxes included in John Carter's comment appear to invite Arbcom to set specific wording for articles, determining article content in a manner going beyond the WP:ARBPS decision and beyond policy. This prescriptive proposal is wholly inappropriate, and unnecessary given the clear policy. Obviously the best way to achieve the policy is a matter for article talk page discussion to achieve consensus. . dave souza, talk 21:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @ Iantresman as of 11:31, 22 July 2014; perhaps you've not read Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, or failed to recall the various principles listed including, for example, Appropriate sources. Obviously the various policies apply. . dave souza, talk 14:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by logos5557
I am uninvolved, practically; just came here to greet jps's (was known as scienceapologist previously) allusion to one of my comments. I suppose you can safely refer confused ones to this. Logos5557 (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by jytdog
With respect to 's concern about surface contradictions with the WP:LABEL section of WP:WTW, last night I proposed an amendment to deal with the term "pseudoscience" and after a series of only-approving comments, tonight I implemented it. To save clicking, here is what I added:

"'With regard to the term, 'pseudoscience': per the policy Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views 'should be clearly described as such.' Per the content guideline, Fringe theories, the term 'pseudoscience' may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science, supported by reliable sources. In addition, there is an Arbcom ruling on pseudoscience topics that explicitly authorizes use of the term 'pseudoscience' in specified contexts.'"

There is no more surface contradiction (if that amendment sticks).Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC) (struck the reference to Arbcom "authorizing" any content. Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC))

With regard to the request for clarification, I support the request of to vacate the 4 principles. It is not clear to me on what policy or guideline each of those principles were based, and the Finding of Fact #9 that "Wikipedia contains articles on pseudoscientific ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics." seems to me, to be all Arbcom needed to define the field in which DS may be applied. In light of thinking through this more, I have changed the amendment above at WP:LABEL Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

the amendment to the guideline, WP:WTW (which itself is a fork of the WP:MOS guideline) simply brings it in line with a) the WP:NPOV policy (specifically the WP:PSCI section) which is quoted in the amendment and specifically says that pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such"; and b) the guideline, WP:FRINGE, which explains WP:PSCI. Your argument is with NPOV policy and with FRINGE, not with me or this amendment clarifying the style guideline; WP:WTW was simply out of step. Thanks to John Carter for pointing it out. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

the statement that you now oppose from WP:FRINGE/PS, namely "Proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification", is based directly on one of the four principles that are the very subject of jps's original post, seeking clarification. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Markbassett
Meh. I think the article is unretrievably biased, mitigated by it's obviously so, but for arbitration consideration I will say that the relatively recent (April) add of "pseudoscience" to Intelligent Design seems just phrasing difficulty resolvable on existing wiki principles and revisit bullets I said in Talk:


 * There seems misunderstanding or overenthusiasm of the Talk Lead and Arbitration material. At point 1 and FAQ Q2 it says avoid portraying ID as science or theory as it is not accepted by the relevant bodies as such, and to use words like concept or assertion. It does not say to add "pseudoscience".


 * WP:UNDUE Pseudoscience seems simply not the word that the academic community commonly labels ID. The most frequent and prominent scientific body positions seems simply to reject it as not science, and outside of them the label in general use seems creationism.  There are relatively fewer and minor mentions of pseudoscience, so it seems undue weight to give that prominence and incorrect attribution to portray that as the wording from scientific bodies or as a definite fact in Wikipedia voice.


 * WP:OR Talk history makes it look like "pseudoscience" was just something editors pushed in from word-smithing and their desires rather than from cites or article accuracy. Logical arguments can be made that it applies (or not), but that is a generated conclusion and not a simple fact or something that would be usable for wiki article as neutral and fair reporting of common use or prominent outside source.


 * The wording pseudoscience also has two minor issues in article construction First, the article starts with labelling it 'creationism' and the body has much about that, so the phrase pseudoscience comes off as a confusing disconnected and unsupported oddity.  Second, the article stripped the phrasing 'theory' out which conforms to guidelines but now the article does not portray anything that looks like attempting to be science so that core issue is not presented.

Hope this helps pull discussion back to better sources and some edits ... Markbassett (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The background principles adopted in this arbitration decision (which dates from 2006) do not govern how lists in mainspace are organized in 2014. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @jps: No. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fascinating though this is, I'm not seeing a significant actionable issue here. The 2006 case reflected the thinking of the 2006 ArbCom in 2006 circumstances and, in any event, cases do not create precedent.   Roger Davies  talk 09:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As has already been said, principles are not remedies and are not authoritative. Those that are citing them as policy (in distinction to guidance) should stop. At the same time, the fact that they are causing problems in one discussion on one article talk page among a handful of editors does not, to my mind, justify extraordinarily vacating a third of a previous decision. More precisely, it does not counterbalance the significant arguments in favour of the committee keeping an intact record of its previous decisions. In fact, I imagine I would not even strike through the text of the principles, which would make it clear to readers that they are no longer in force, because that would disturb this old case and its actors. Given that the associated topic area will always be contentious, to do so is to invite trouble. Decline. AGK  [•] 23:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The Guide to arbitration states that "Principles highlight the key applicable provisions of policy, procedure, or community practice and, where appropriate, provide the Committee's interpretation of such provisions in the context of the dispute." They are intended to provide context for the case, not to act as remedies. I would echo AGK's point that they should not be cited as policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Per my colleagues, I don't see anything we need to do here. Worm TT( talk ) 08:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Infoboxes (August 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by   Sandstein   at 13:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * (notified)
 * Administrators commenting at WP:AE (informed)

Statement by Sandstein
Per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes, "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes."

At WP:AE (permalink), administrators, including myself, disagree about whether this recent edit by Pigsonthewing violates this restriction. Pigsonthewing argues that they did not violate the restriction because they edited, rather than added, an infobox. I am not persuaded by this because the edit added an Infobox template that wasn't there before.

I ask the Committee to clarify whether or not that edit violated the previously mentioned sanction.  Sandstein  13:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Arbitrators, thanks for the clarifications. This settles the matter for me. I've communicated to Newyorkbrad that I think that the tone of his reply is not in keeping with his usual reputation for professionalism.  Sandstein   09:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Montanabw
This is really hair-splitting. Andy's first edit was here. No infobox. The article in question had a manually-created "infobox" made out of an image template that in terms of syntax, was this. Andy then took ONLY the existing parameters plus one very logical addition -and put them into a template here. In essence, he took an improperly formatted infobox and made it into a proper one. I really find it absurd that the someone wants to take this to a drama board. Criminy. Montanabw (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Boing!
Sandstein seems to be on his own on this one with his over-literal definition of what an infobox is - there's a clear consensus that Andy was simply fixing an existing badly-formed one. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll only add one comment in response to Neotarf's comment below, and that is that "Yet the main argument for supporting the proposed topic ban for Nikkimaria was "I like infoboxes"" grossly misrepresents the various reasons expressed for supporting a ban. There were many people there, and to dismiss everyone's opinions like that is at best disrespectful — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Kurtis
Always remember:

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Kurtis (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Neotarf (uninvolved)
Not so fast.

While ArbCom has fiddled with its Latin, ANI has burned, and Wikipedia has lost yet another admin, based on the comments of arbitrators that have been made here so far.

In view of the above development, if you can wait 12 hours or so, I will attempt a Cliff's Notes version. In the meantime I would have to say, much as it pains me to do so, that Sandstein is right, and that Andy did violate the letter of his ban, if not the spirit. If you want to see the difference between an image box and an info box, see the Merkel images at "Infoboxes: After the war" and the difference in treatment between the German Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia. —Neotarf (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to focus on what it is that bothers me so much about this.

Nikkimaria, who has just now resigned as an admin, has been around the infobox subject for a long time. When other users decided it was pointless to stick around and try to edit classical music/opera/composers articles because of the Infobox Wars, Nikkimaria stuck it out, and tried to resolve the issues that had driven the other editors away. My impression is that Nikkimaria has acted a bit like Fram did in the Richard Farmbrough case.

One of the recommendations that came out of the ArbCom case was that a community discussion be held. This has not been done.

Instead, it seems like the individuals who styled themselves as "pro-infobox" have decided to go after individuals they view as having opposed them in the ArbCom case. If you look at the diffs that were presented in the ANI proposal to topic-ban Nikkimaria, some of the diffs were more than a year old, predating even the ArbCom Infoboxes case. Others had nothing whatsoever to do with infoboxes, but involved some dispute about edit summaries. This whole Nikkimaria topic-ban proposal is starting to look like "He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue!"

But there really is no "pro-infobox" faction. Nobody is against infoboxes. Some have said that many current boxes are not fit for purpose because of poor design. Yet the main argument for supporting the proposed topic ban for Nikkimaria was "I like infoboxes". This conflict is starting to damage the Wikipedia again. It is time to move to the more formal community discussion recommended in the case decision, but I have no idea how to jump-start it. A lot of ideas are at the "Infoboxes: After the war". There are more rationales and background at the talk page for the case decision, if anyone cares to wade through that morass.

This particular request may be finished, but the Committee may wish to consider whether they have some further role with the Infobox topic itself.

Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * When I started researching Infoboxes: After the war, I initially reached out to a lot of people, and knowing nothing about infoboxes, asked for suggestions about who else I could contact for more information. The so-called "anti-infobox" people were initially wary, and wanted to know if I could be neutral.  So I went back in my edit history and found that I had both added and removed infoboxes from articles. At that point, many were willing to communicate with me, some on the record and some only for background.  I found out that some of them had actually added hundreds of infoboxes to articles.  And while I find both Andy and Gerda seem to be very nice people, some of these contacts also told me they were quite freaked out by Andy and Gerda's editing styles, but were afraid to say so.


 * From the so called "pro-infobox" people I got nothing. No one would agree to talk to me.  One did send me an email that basically said, "hell no", but otherwise, it was crickets. The so-called "anti" people have written all kinds of essays reflecting on the infobox usage and which kind is best for which article.  But I have yet to see anything from the "pro" people.  I had hoped that perhaps Boing had a good rapport with this group, or that someone else would take a cue, and that some kind of communication could start going forward, but after today, that looks unlikely. The person with the most to gain from some kind of dialogue at this point is Andy, but he is not a neutral enough figure to initiate anything himself, unless behind the scenes.


 * Thank you to the committee for your indulgence in keeping this open a while longer--it was worth a shot. I won't be following this page any longer. You can lead a horse to water, but sometimes it dies anyway. I'll leave it to someone else to see if that works out in Latin. —Neotarf (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Answer to Neotarf by Gerda
@Neotarf: I ignore your first comment. The second: what could I answer to questions about "after the war"? I was not part of a war. People who question my editing style please speak to me, not you. I haven't provided evidence against other users in the case, and I will not. That was my answer to your question, if I remember.

See also WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox (written mostly in June 2013 and part of the case) and Chopin --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Recuse. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Recuse given I was involved in the AE request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * "The mountains will be in labor, and a ridiculous mouse will be brought forth." This is not worth discussing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Roma locuta, causa soluta. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know Greek or Latin, so I'll just say it in English: that wasn't adding an infobox. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty clear that there was an infobox there. Just because it didn't use the infobox template doesn't mean it wasn't an infobox. Worm TT( talk ) 09:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything more to be done here. Clerks: please archive. Worm TT( talk ) 14:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that this was not the addition of an infobox and did not breach the restriction. Still, I do see why that could at least be in question, so I don't find the request for clarification unreasonable in itself. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This edit was not in violation of his restriction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I also don't see this as actionable as the parties now seem to agree. This can be archived now, I think,  Roger Davies  talk 09:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As this is settled, clerks: please archive. AGK  [•] 23:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Holding to consider further developments.  AGK  [•] 12:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Race and intelligence (August 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps at 13:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence
 * 2) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * TrevelyanL85A2 notified
 * Mathsci notified

Amendment 1

 * Basis: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence
 * Request: That  is indefinitely prohibited from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of .

Statement by Penwhale
Back in September 2013, a motion was made to change certain one-way interaction bans into two-way ones. More relevantly, SightWatcher (who was also restricted in a similar way to TrevelyanL85A2) was used as a basis for the IBAN between SightWatcher and Mathsci. However, possibly because TrevelyanL85A2 had been blocked indef (concurrent with a 1-year AE block), no action was taken in regards to TrevelyanL85A2's situation.

''Note: TrevelyanL85A2 is currently still under the block, although it is currently being discussed at WP:AN. Mathsci is currently still banned due to the motion passed in October 2013.'' - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 13:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply to WTT: I expected that some arbitrators may see that. However, Mathsci is eligible to appeal his ban (and has been eligible for a while), so this request - even though possibly pointless for the moment - merely brings what might have been omitted last September in line (although I do not know whether the clause would have passed anyway last September if it were included since TrevelyanL85A2 had not made his first unblock request until October). - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 14:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply to NYB: Again, I expected views that it might be considered premature. But I wanted to make sure that this issue gets addressed should Mathsci becomes unbanned. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 15:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by other editor
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Recuse as initiator and due to RL acquaintance with TrevelyanL85A2. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 13:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm generally in favour of 2-way interaction bans rather than 1-way, but I really don't see the point here. Mathsci is indefinitely blocked, that supersedes the IBan. If an when both parties are unblocked and show that the 1-way interaction ban isn't working, I'd consider changing it - but for now, I don't see the point. Worm TT( talk ) 14:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If and when Mathsci requests an unblock, we can discuss conditions of the unblock. Is there a reason this isn't premature/unnecessary until then? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This should be addressed by the committee when/if Mathsci requests an unban from the committee. T. Canens (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If Mathsci were ever to request the ban being lifted, this could certainly be considered as a condition for the ban being lifted (provided it is lifted, this is not a guarantee it would be). Until and unless Mathsci appeals to be unbanned, though, the point is moot. Right now, Mathsci may not edit at all. If that ever changes, lesser restrictions might serve some purpose. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If Mathsci is unblocked, then we consider this. Otherwise, I don't see the point of this right now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with all of the above. there's no need for this at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Infoboxes (August 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits at 12:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes."


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (Andy Mabbett; initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * n/a


 * Information about amendment request

I request a relaxation of the above restriction, so that I can include an infobox in each of a limited, specific, set of new articles, as described below.

Statement by Andy Mabbett
My GLAM collaboration work with the BBC is well-known and has resulted in much positive publicity for Wikipedia, and the creation and donation of valuable content, including the first-ever broadcast material released by the BBC under open licence (281 files uploaded, so far, of a planned 1,000). As part of this project, I plan, over the next few weeks, to create articles for many of the 160 (approx) red links for notable people in the sub pages of List of Desert Island Discs episodes (a BBC show). I wish to include an infobox in each of these.

Should anyone remove one of the infoboxes, I will neither restore nor discuss it (unless asked a question directly).

I invite suggestions as to how to deal with the unlikely case of someone stalking my edits to remove the infoboxes en mass; or to pre-emptively mass-create the articles described. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits at 12:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You mean "last week's infobox upsets" in which I was found not only to have done nothing wrong, but to have been relentlessly stalked by another editor? This request - made over a year after the original case opened - has been in hand for a while before last week (as RexxS, with whom I discussed a draft will confirm), and is timed to coincide with a long-planned mass-creation of articles. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you yourself said "Seems pretty clear that there was an infobox there. Just because it didn't use the infobox template doesn't mean it wasn't an infobox." (you'll recall that the issue hinged on a false accusation that I had inserted an infobox where none had exited previously); and the request for enforcement was closed as "No action taken; no violation.". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333
I'm a complete outsider to all of this, but the creation of these articles is a positive thing for the project. I think this request is a little premature - I would focus on making sure those articles are well written, broad in coverage and factually accurate above and beyond any forms of presentation. If you have already created a large (say, over 100) corpus of new articles, and you can't find anyone else who wants to put an infobox in, that would be the time to consider this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush
No, just no. You've recently tested the margins regarding infoboxes and (rightly) got away with it. This is an attempt to extend those margins too far. You have a strong view regarding infoboxes that is not necessarily shared by others and allowing your proposal will almost inevitably result in another edit war spanning multiple articles even if you do not war yourself. You're are asking for permission to fire the first shot and, because you are seen as something of a standard-bearer for the pro-infobox faction, this request is likely to be the start of something nasty. If anyone else chooses to add infoboxes to your new articles and take the risk by association that goes with their action then more fool them, but there is no deadline and they are entitled to try.

PotW, like it or not, anything involving infoboxes and you is akin to a honeypot. I'd strongly advise that you do not even string the letters together for the foreseeable future, anywhere on-wiki. There is much other stuff that you can do and it seems that you are doing it. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda
Did you know that the so-called infobox war was over in 2012? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you know ... that soprano Ada Cherry Kearton was married to wildlife photographer Cherry Kearton and recounted their travels in her autobiography On Safari?

This is on the Main Page right now, one of the articles from the list in question, the infobox added by Voceditenore.

The other articles will also get infoboxes because such articles normally have infoboxes in Wikipedia. If a restriction is in the way of improving the project, something seems wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

A recent edit was described above and below as "testing" and "grey area", - it was not. "", thank you for seeing that clearly, Floquenbeam, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * It's a "definitely not" from me. Aside from being almost banned over the infobox dispute, you were recently testing the borders of your restriction; so, as far as I'm concerned this request is much too soon. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I more or less agree with Salvio. I was not on the committee during the original case, but I know it has been an incredible time sink and that there was good reason for the topic ban put in place. Also the request as framed seems to be putting the cart rather far in front of the horse. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely not for now from me too, for the reasons articulated above,  Roger Davies  talk 09:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am afraid it is a no from me too. Decline. AGK  [•] 23:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Decline. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We've already got more than enough trouble surrounding infoboxes. I can't support risking more at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Given last week's infobox upsets, this is pretty dire timing Andy. I have to agree with my colleagues, that a relaxation should not be happening at this time. Worm TT( talk ) 08:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Andy, I wouldn't agree that you'd been found to have done "nothing wrong". The edit was in the grey area, otherwise there would not have been discussion of it. Yes, the committee agreed that you had not violated your restriction - but "nothing wrong" is a step beyond. I don't see that you needed to make this request now, before the dust settled, it was inherently poor timing. Worm TT( talk ) 12:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Appeal request: Prem Rawat (August 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  — MOMENTO  (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :

Discretionary sanction
 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * Momento(initiator)

Notified The Blade of the Northern Lights. MOMENTO  (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request


 * Information about amendment request


 * Prem Rawat []
 * I am requesting removal of the topic ban.

Statement by Momento
On Nov 15th, 2012 I was indefinitely Topic Banned from all Prem Rawat articles for “Persistent Battleground Behaviour” by The Blade of the Northern Lights. TBOTNL gave no warning to me nor did he provide any diffs to support his claim I was engaging in “Persistent Battleground Behaviour”. Fifteen months later when I appealed my ban at WP:AE he provided three diffs to justify continuing my ban with the disclaimer “I'm not giving my own point of view on the truth or validity of any additions or removals”.  I believe the three edits TBOTNL provided are fair, correct and in accordance to all Wiki policies and spirit. The first edit I made was the result of a discussion by two other editors who came to the conclusion that “the current version gives undue weight to the fringe opinion that Rawat is a cult leader.” I waited two weeks for any objection to their opinion and then I proposed making the appropriate change. When no one objected to the proposed edit I waited a further 24 hours and then made the edit. There were no objections or reverts. The second edit I made was on the talk page in response to a proposal by another editor (“Good suggestion. I'm happy with that”). The edit proposed was to remove a superfluous material, the majority of which was a quote from Prem Rawat. There were no objections or reverts. The third edit involved removing excess opinion, both positive and negative, not necessary to express the crux of the matter which was that “Rawat's affluent lifestyle was a source of controversy in the early 1970s” which I retained. There were no objections or reverts. None of the edits I made, or the talk discussion that preceded them, show “Persistent Battleground Behavior," incivility or tendentious editing and the attached synopsis of the other edits made at the same time show that I was editing according to the best policies of Wikipedia. My criteria for every edit was to improve the accuracy and readability of the article. I am a writer by profession and knowledgeable on the subject of Prem Rawat. I have removed both positive and negative material that bloated the article without adding value. At the time of the editing Prem Rawat was being watched by 446 editors and seventeen editors edited the  article in the preceding month and none of them objected to my edits.

Additional statement by Momento
I do not believe I'm being treated fairly here. I came to Arb Com believing that my appeal would be judged on the simple criteria - does the evidence presented by TBOTNL support his claim of “Persistent Battleground Behaviour” and justify his application of an indefinite Topic Ban. Instead, the evidence presented is being ignored and other unknown criteria are being used which I am unable to address. I thank NewYorkBrad and Salvio for giving me the opportunity to respond to their concerns. Thanks. MOMENTO (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Final statement by Momento
Well I guess that's it then. I'd better get a word in before I am swept out the door. I thought my nightmare had ended when Arb Com finally recognised that Will Beback and fellow travellers had been waging a campaign of harassment against NRMs for years but his legacy lives on. Anti-NRM editors can still abuse, edit and sanction with impunity. I have made hundreds of good edits since my last one year topic ban which was, no surprise, instigated and manipulated by Will Beback and his cronies. Now three years later Arb Com has once again ignored my appeal for help and rubber stamped a sanction that has no evidence or merit. It is a fraudulent sanction that stakes its legitimacy on a string of sanctions instigated and/or manipulated by an admin who is known to have used his position and his influence with other admins and Arb Com to harass and sanction dozens of well meaning editors whose only fault was to belong to an NRM, you know who you/they are. Of course I could always appeal to Jimbo but I have a feeling that it will fall on deaf ears. I would like to thank NewYorkBrad and Salvio for making a tiny effort to understand what is really happening. Special mention to Seraphimblade for his prompt decline of my appeal for "my lack of judgement", you were right, I shouldn't have expected an unbiased, evidence based hearing. And a cheerio to Olive, Francis and TBOTNL, you have demonstrated the best and worst of Wikipedia. MOMENTO (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Epilogue
A quick brain teaser. Here are two links, one to the Prem Rawat lead after my last edit and one to today's version. See if you can tell which one sounds like a professionally written encyclopaedia and which one reads like a tabloid cut and paste using Wiki as a source. Best wishes. MOMENTO (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @Seraphimblade - I misunderstood the instruction above - "You can paste the template into your user space, or use an off-line text editor, to compose your request in private". Should I remove it? MOMENTO (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC
 * @Seraphimblade - Editing a variety of articles is not a requirement to launch an appeal. I have no interest in editing other articles. My area of expertise is the history and teachings of Prem Rawat and as long as I am editing according the guidelines for WP:SPA I should be accorded the same rights as any other editor. MOMENTO (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Seraphimblade - As regards my "lack of judgement" in using a sandbox to prepare my appeal, the instructions above say I can use my "user space ... to compose my request in private". Neither my user page nor my talk page is private. The only private user space I can have is a sandbox. MOMENTO (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Seraphimblade -As you may have seen Gaijin42 has started a discussion on the talk page which concludes "Currently we are directly instructing users to violate their bans as they try to appeal them." Please reconsider your position on "my lack of judgement. MOMENTO  (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @Gaijin42 - Perhaps you, Seraphimblade or another editor can explain to me what is allowed and what isn't and I can amend my appeal accordingly. Thanks. MOMENTO (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Gaijin42- Thank you for having the integrity to open a topic on the talk page to point out "Currently we are directly instructing users to violate their bans as they try to appeal them." Let's hope Seraphimblade will now reconsider his position on "my lack of judgement". MOMENTO (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @The Blade of the Northern Lights - Your statement doesn't address the issue of this appeal - "Do the three edits you provided show evidence of “Persistent Battleground Behaviour” warranting a 22 month topic ban". MOMENTO (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Newyorkbrad - It's very easy to accumulate a list of sanctions when the fact that you've been sanctioned before is reason enough to be sanctioned again. The evidence presented here shows how easy it is to be sanctioned without a shred of evidence. This vicious circle will never end unless someone decides to judge me on what I actually did according to the diffs of the case. MOMENTO (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Newyorkbrad - I'm male. It's hard to specify what I would do differently going forward until I hear from the other Arb Com members. I'm hoping they'll have valuable input about my editing and how I could be a more productive editor. MOMENTO (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Newyorkbrad - I'm not sure who you're asking for a link to my AE appeal but here it is. MOMENTO (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @Worm, GorillaWarfare,Salvio - So far no one has been able to agree with TBOTNL's claim that I was engaging in “Persistent Battleground Behaviour”. So far no one has even been able to mention the phrase “Persistent Battleground Behaviour”. In fact, no one has been able to produce a single diff that shows even "Very Occasional Battleground Behaviour". The worst that anyone has been able to say about me is that I put material in my sandbox, I've been sanctioned before, I'm a SPA and I've got an attitude. So why are you denying my appeal? The claim that the Prem Rawat article would suffer if I am editing is demonstrably untrue. TBOTNL stood by for months while an anti Prem Rawat editor waged war on several editors and soon after my ban another editor (admonished during PR2) made 53 edits in two days without one word of discussion on the talk page, removing strongly sourced material from an unimpeachable authority along the way which has still not been reinserted. MOMENTO  (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Salvio - Regarding your comment - "your focus is non-neutral, as evidenced by the diffs provided by TBONL" -if you had looked at the other edits I made around that time you would see that I was also removing pro Rawat material. MOMENTO  (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio - Thank you for giving me a chance to address your concerns. You're correct, it doesn't matter what you call it, what matters is whether it is evidence of wrong doing. These edits don't show “Persistent Battleground Behaviour” and they don't show "tendentious editing". Nor do they show edit warring or incivility, nor are they reverts or done without considerable discussion. They are three innocuous edits that even Sandstein wrote "I wouldn't have imposed the topic ban based on the evidence presented here by the sanctioning admin. The diffs they provide are not on their face problematic, and valid editorial reasons are imaginable for them".Regarding my comment about your statement - "your focus is non-neutral, as evidenced by the diffs provided by TBONL" - my emphasis is on your view that something non-neutral is "evidenced by the diffs provided by TBOTNL. TBOTNL's diffs are not evidence of non-neutral editing, one removes positive Rawat material, one removes negative Rawat material. As for whether I was also removing positive Rawat material I provided this link in my initial statement to a summary of the seventeen edits I made in the week before I was banned and the reasons behind the edits But here are three of those edits that show me removing pro-Rawat material and Rawat's own words. 1) I removed this glowing praise "One witness said that Rawat "played the whole time he was there ... he played with squirt guns, flashed pictures of himself for all to see, and took movies of everybody ... Love flowed back and forth between him and his devotees." 2) I removed the opinion of Rawat supporters that - "there is no conflict between worldly and spiritual riches, and that Rawat did not advise anyone to "abandon the material world", but said it is our attachment to it that is wrong...Maharaj Ji's luxuries are gifts from a Western culture whose fruits are watches and Cadillacs," a spokesman said. Some premies said that he did not want the gifts, but that people gave them out of their love for him. They saw Rawat's lifestyle as an example of a lila, or divine play, which held a mirror to the "money-crazed and contraption-collecting society" of the West". And 3) I agreed to the removal of "Rawat said, "It has nothing to do with me, it is an attempt to harm the Divine Light Mission. When someone grows, others get jealous of him, and the Divine Light Mission has just blasted like an atomic bomb all over the world".. In fact, in the week before I was banned I removed more pro-Rawat material than anti. Thanks. I am more than happy to respond to any charge of improper editing if diffs are provided. MOMENTO  (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Francis Shonken - Regarding your claim that "In the mean while editing environment in the Prem Rawat area has greatly improved". You are right but not because I was banned but because PatW was banned. PatW, is a fiercely anti Rawat critic who has been warned for incivility and battleground behaviour nineteen times on his talk page and countless times on the PR talk pages but numerous admins including Will Beback allowed him to continue undisciplined, making only one 24 hour block in 2008 despite years of spiteful ranting. In the three months before I was topic banned without warning PatW was warned twice by The Blade of the Northern Lights for his incivility. On August 25th - ‘'everyone, especially you PatW, needs to cool it. I get that each "side" here is frustrated with the other, but it's not that hard to review what you're saying and remove the invective from your post before hitting the save button”. And again on September 3rd on PatW's talk page - “(Pat) you have to be more tactful in your approach. I came very close to banning you from the topic, but I've decided I should give you at least one personal note to alert you to the fact that you're on my radar screen". On the same day as TBOTNL allowed PatW to continue his attacks a new uninvolved editor remarked - “I came to this page to see if the allegations being made about Momento's editing were true, but what strikes me as more egregious are the constant personal attacks by PatW and Surdas.  Because of the hostility and unconstructive comments by those two, I'm unwilling to get involved at this point. As for your comment "allowing to update the article after unanimous talk page deliberations". After I was banned you made your first appearance to the PR article in two years and made 53 edits straight in two days without one word on the talk page, removing strongly sourced material from an unimpeachable authority along the way which has still not been reinserted. TBOTNL was aware of FS's edits, the removal of impeccable soured material and the injection on numerous POV edits and did nothing. I hope the Arb Com now have a clearer picture of how TBOTNL allowed extreme editing by PatW and Francis Schonken whilst topic banning me for 22 months for being a victim of this harassment. MOMENTO  (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth - Sorry to disturb you. MOMENTO (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Gaijin42
Separate Momento's userpage content into two issues. 1) content. 2) location.

If the only issue is the location (IE he should have made that content directly as part of this appeal, not in a draft) then I strongly suggest that that particular issue be taken out of consideration, as the instructions at the top of this page explicitly say "This is not a discussion. You can paste the template into your user space, or use an off-line text editor, to compose your request in private. Do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive."

If on the other hand, the content of that page would not be a valid/appropriate appeal even if it had been in the correct location, then by all means proceed using that as a bit of evidence against his appeal.

Also if one thinks that that content was not indented to be part of his appeal at all, and was just a naked violation, then obviously use it in that situation as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by olive
If those responding here have looked at the AE on Moment, have looked at the diffs Blade presented in context of other edits, if past sanctions are being used to support a decline, if tendentious editing is also being used to support a decline (and with due respect, there probably is no more obscure way to present evidence against an editor, since evidence of tendentiousness does not, as Salvio pointed out, require any diffs, and remember, Blade had not been too in touch with the article when he made his blocks,  (yes, more than one, three at first,  and one of those 3 editors had made only  3 or so edits in several years while a fourth editor, the one who had been warned multiple times, and whose behaviour was abusive was not sanctioned until later), if  one does not ask why it was that Jimbo Wales went right to the Prem Rawat article  and added a pejorative to the lead which he had tried to add in the past and had been reverted, and if no one here believes that an uninvolved editor came to the article and saw that editors, with possibly the influence of an outside influence, began to improve collaborative skills, then I have nothing more to say except emphatically, Blade, a good admin., made a mistake. Momento was showing improvement and should be given another chance, and the atmosphere on that article was designed to bait him.

And while bold, I'd like ask, do any of you believe that Timid Guy was the first that Will Beback tried to remove, or was he the last, in along line of those who got in his way. Will Beback (who was a regular editor on this article and who was banned from any NRM articles). Why was he banned, and does that mean that those who faced him day in and day out on NRM articles should be reevaluated?

No one is perfect and editors, just people, make mistakes: Will Beback a hugely productive editor, Blade of the Northern Lights, by all accounts a good admin, and Momento a knowledgable SPA editor. Momento had improved and I see no evidence here that proves he hadn't except the few  diffs of the original sanction taken out of context.

He's asked how to improve further. Maybe someone could advise him?

Salvio:Thanks for the advice on how Momento can address concerns. I was interested in that advice coming directly from an arb familiar with this case and who was hopefully neutral about Momento. I believe the original advice came from Mastcell.

The arb clarification /appeal system seems to be a guilty unless you can prove innocence system.
 * This decline rests on the idea that Blade's sanction of three editors of which Momento was one, was called for. Its easy to prove guilt In the Wikipedia system. Its harder to show innocence and its almost impossible to show improvement that requires and understanding of what the base line behaviour was, and what other factors come into play on a talk page.

This isn't my appeal, but I am heartened by the fact that arbs actually responded in a substantive way. That's a net positive in my mind. Thank you. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC))


 * Francis and arbs: I found Momento very easy to work with. I didn't have an agenda one way or the other either nor did I necessarily agree with him. Further, the lead of that article hardly looks neutral. How many times can you say cult in one paragraph?  And as well academics in the field of NRMs like Chryssides are not overly anxious to use the word since its a known pejorative with overtones that are non-specirfic. So three times in a lead seems overkill. Having both watched that article and spent time on the talk page I dissagree with Francis vehemently.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC))


 * Per Francis' comment on discussion of other editors: : Editors do not exist in isolation from one another, in vacuums. Context is critical. People are hurt, damaged, angry, tired, and also just make mistakes. Looking at all of the behaviours, the talk page, and the edits on an article is  necessary. Diffs are important, but so is context.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC))

Short statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights
At the last AE appeal, User:MastCell summed up the concerns I have quite well. I haven't paid an enormous amount of attention to the Prem Rawat topic area since December 2012, but I'm failing to see how this request addresses any of those concerns. Not sure if there's anything else you need to hear from me, except that I stand by my decision on the matter. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 18:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Francis Schonken
Momento is a WP:SPA. Not a single mainspace edit since his topic ban in November 2012

In the mean while editing environment in the Prem Rawat area has greatly improved, allowing to update the article after unanimous talk page deliberations. I'm involved while I contribute to those edits and discussions, was part of the Prem Rawat ArbCom cases etc. Currently all views on Rawat are represented fairly in talk page discussions and edits to the article, and the respect not to edit the article before unanimity is reached is held by all participants.

Momento is a tendentious editor difficult to work with (just speaking from general experience), doesn't fit in an environment where people allow themselves to be persuaded by arguments given by others (as it is now in Rawat-related articles). He hasn't shown otherwise in the intermediate period of topic ban. He doesn't even show to understand why he was banned. I support the commenting arbitrator's inclinations not to lift the topic ban under these conditions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment", i.e. (in my understanding):
 * no content discussion, not on the lede of any mainspace article, nor on any other content of the encyclopedia
 * not on behaviour of anyone else but Momento (his newly added comments on a fellow editor are irrelevant for the above amendement, except that they show Momento's bad choice in current behaviour: slurs on editors, whether justified or not, don't show an improvement on better fitting in in the dynamics of content editing)
 * IMHO Momento can't see the bigger picture (e.g. Writing for the opponent is totally lost on him), and it's that that hasn't improved a bit afaics. For Momento the bigger picture limits itself to the teachings of a single person. That makes him an excellent follower for all I know, but a terrible editor (and indeed, difficult to work with in this environment). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (disclosure:) above I already mentioned my involvement: for completeness: in 2008 I was blocked 48h for edit-warring with Momento on the Prem Rawat article I'm OK this might diminish the weight of my statement here, just expressing my current view. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @: regarding Momento's "...and did nothing" above: that's not true is it: you warned me — which I took at heart, leading to the current more positive editing environment in the area. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@: In your latest edit above you added: "...I came to Arb Com believing that my appeal would be judged on the simple criteria - does the evidence presented by TBOTNL support his claim of “Persistent Battleground Behaviour” and justify his application of an indefinite Topic Ban. Instead, the evidence presented is being ignored and other unknown criteria are being used which I am unable to address...": Don't forget its who you are now who is going to be allowed or not to edit in the topic area again. It is who you are now who is weighed whether or not a net benefit to the encyclopedia. The sum is easy: useful edits to the encyclopedia since topic ban: zero. Antagonistic behaviour against fellow editors (past and present) as of the start of these amendment proceedings: level: high to very high. Sum = near bottomless energy sink for other editors. The factors making that sum are things you can start changing as of today. And then you'll see your current or next petition to be reallowed in the Prem Rawat topic area will be a piece of cake. I wish you good luck. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Nobody suggested you drag in PatW. Afaik, PatW didn't ask her topic ban be lifted, nor is there any indication such request would be more successful than yours. Nobody is assessing you "in comparison to" PatW, so I don't see how you ever thought that could have worked as support against TBOTNL's claim of “Persistent Battleground Behaviour”. Trying to make PatW's past behaviour look much worse than yours is really not helping your case, independent from whether that past behaviour was de facto worse or not, while all we see is you at your worst criticising others (which is about the opposite of you showing your best behaviour, and that's what we'd presumably rather like to see).
 * 2) Instead of dabbling in PatW's past, maybe it would be more advantageous for you to have a look at Rainer P.'s successful topic ban lifting — Maybe the differences aren't all that big:
 * 3) The biggest difference is probably the past. The past can't be changed. Thus far your main line of defense in your appeal has been to try change the perception of that past, which is almost impossible (as also Littleolive oil pointed out, quoting Mastcell). Here's the small difference with what happened in Rainer P.'s ban-lifting discussion: after elaborating to some extent he was "unjustly" banned, further on in the discussion he wrote this little sentence which made a world of difference (in my view) for influencing those that deliberated the case: "I still think the ban was inappropriate to begin with, but I have no inclination to fight over this" (bolding added).
 * 4) Although also qualifying himself an SPA, here's the small difference: after his topic ban he contributed to Wikipedia outside the Prem Rawat topic area. These other edits were very limited ("almost none" as observed by the reviewers), but again there's a world of difference: Rainer P. showed he can contribute to the encyclopedia outside his main field of interest, unproblematically. I think in making the right impression this is exceedingly more valuable than trying to change a perception about the past.
 * 5) In the whole ban-lifting case Rainer P. didn't need to blacken any of his fellow-editors (past or present). Really, it is possible to sketch a context without the murky stuff.

Statement by {yet another user}
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Moments is, as recently as this month, maintaining and editing a Prem Rawat related page at User:Momento/sandbox. I'm not inclined to lift a topic ban when it's actively being violated. Momento, it was made very clear to you at AE that you would need to show productive editing in other areas unrelated to Rawat before modification of the sanction would be considered. Decline. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally,, I note that you have not notified the sanctioning administrator, . That is required when filing an appeal; please go do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Littleolive oil, I'm not sure what you think I misread. The exception to a topic ban for appealing is not to edit regarding an appeal anywhere, but rather on the appropriate pages. For an appeal at ARCA, the pages that may be edited are this one to present the case, and talk pages to provide any necessary notifications. Maintenance of a userspace archive with updated counts of editors, records of appeals, etc., is not appropriate when topic banned. It's a somewhat common misunderstanding and it's not one I'm going to block for, but it doesn't show the good judgment I'd want to see before considering modification of a sanction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * With due respect, I do not view the issue concerning sandbox edits as significant, given that the only edit to that page in months was drafting this appeal. What is more troubling, at least to me, is Momento's multiple instances of sanctions before the topic-ban; this was not a sanction imposed for a first offense, or at least what the AE administrators perceived as a first offense. Speaking of AE, may we have a clear link or links to the relevant AE or DS discussion(s)? Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Repeating, we need clear links to the relevant prior discussions in order to evaluate this request. It would also be helpful for Momento to tell us how he or she would edit differently going forward from in the past if this request were granted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * NYB, there's a lot here, but the discussion I felt most enlightening, especially pointing to Momento's general attitude, was his recent AE appeal Worm TT( talk ) 10:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm rarely willing to overturn topic bans. When I do, it's because I get the impression that the topic ban is no longer necessary. In this case, the topic ban still appears necessary and removing it would be a bad thing. Decline. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 10:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It can sometimes be difficult, when it comes to tendentious editing, to point to a single diff (or a group of few diffs) and say "gotcha", especially when the editor in question seems to be using the letter of a policy against its spirit which makes this type of tendentious editing all the more insidious. A good example of this  and one which might also guarantee plausible deniability  would be the repeated adoption of stricter criteria for the inclusion of positive (or negative) items of information about a subject, so as to make our coverage thereof more (or less) favourable. Also, WP:TEND should be read in conjunction with the principle that editors  especially SPA  ought to take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral. Moreover users sanctioned for disruptive behaviour are expected to improve their behaviour; failure to do so may lead to increasingly severe sanctions, even for comparatively less serious violations of policy. In this case, your conduct *has* created the impression that your focus is non-neutral, as evidenced by the diffs provided by TBONL and, so, also taking into account your recidivism, I see no reason to overturn TBONL's decision. Finally, since you have not demonstrated that the restriction is no longer necessary to prevent disruption, I cannot support lifting it at this time.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So far no one has been able to agree with TBOTNL's claim that I was engaging in “Persistent Battleground Behaviour”. So far no one has even been able to mention the phrase “Persistent Battleground Behaviour”. The fact that an admin correctly identified what appeared to be disruption but failed to employ the correct "nomen juris" does not invalidate the fact that there actually was actionable disruption. What he called "persistent battleground behaviour" I call "tendentious editing", but it does not alter the fact that the sanction was, in my opinion, warranted. Regarding your comment - "your focus is non-neutral, as evidenced by the diffs provided by TBONL", actually my comment was that your edits gave the impression that your focus was non-neutral, which is rather different, as a matter of fact. And I stand by my comment, but if you wish to provide evidence of your removal of pro-Rawat material, then I'm interested. Finally, in response to Olive's request for advice, Momento has already received the standard suggestion to edit in an unrelated topic area for a bit, to demonstrate his knowledge of policy and willingness to follow it and after six months come back and ask for the sanction to be lifted. However, he has clarified that he is not interested in following this procedure. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not think removing the topic ban would be wise here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Decline per above. Carcharoth (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Decline. T. Canens (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Decline. L Faraone  04:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)