Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive160

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

Request concerning Arzel

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 02:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics :


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


 * 1) 1st Revert - December 27, 2014
 * 2) 2nd Revert - December 29, 2014


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS): Not applicable

I suggested that Arzel self-revert here.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

@Callanecc and Sandstein: The diff provided by Scobbydunk documents the addition of a new section. The diffs of the two reverts by Arzel document his reversion of that specific section. If your interpretation of 'specific' is that the reverted material must be the precise same words, punctuation, and formatting, then we might as well vacate the Arbcom decision, because the alternative would permit virtually unlimited WP:GAMING.

Having presented substantial evidence of Arzel has a long record of edit warring in order to force an article to reflect his preferred view at the American politics Arbcom case, I find it implausible that such a narrow interpretation of 1RR is what was intended when posted the remedy here.

@Collect: Setting aside you off-topic content discussion and erroneous WP:BLP interpretation, I'm troubled by what seems to be an accusation, directed toward me and/or Skoobydunk, of seeking retribution. Perhaps you would consider retracting that?- MrX 15:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but can you at least see that 'specific' would be open to interpretation? I ask because I think this should be clarified by Arbcom. If they intended 'specific' to mean 'exact', then they should have wrote exact in the decision.- MrX 16:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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

Statement by Arzel
I am quite a bit dissapointed with MrX regarding this. I engaged with him civily on his talk and rather than discuss he quickly submitted a complaint. I asked for clarrification as to what he thought was the problem, but did he discuss? No, right away to file a complaint. Seems to go against the purpose of collaborative editing.

As to the edit, if MrX's approach is the basis, then I am basically limited to one edit on any specific section or text if I remove anything. Seems like an almost impossible standard to live up to. I made one clear revert and then immediately started the first discussion on the talk page. Arzel (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to state that I am not trying to "game" the system as MrX is now stating. The result of the ARBCOM was for me to not edit war, to engage in discussion on talk pages and remain civil and not personalize the issue.  Now I suppose there can be some disagreement as to what consists of the 1st revert, but I do not believe that I have broken the agreement and would also point out that I am being civil and engaging on talk pages and have not personalized the issue in the least. Arzel (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Gaijin42
Completely uninvolved. Seems to be a pretty clear cut violation of the 1RR restriction, but I agree with Azrel's edit. We don't generally go around pointing out when websites get a story wrong, especially when they are basing their story on other reliable sources that also got it wrong. There are a few secondary sources bringing up Breitbarts error, but they appear to be doing so spitefully since they do not mention the other reliable sources that also made the same error at all. This is not a controversy of any lasting note, and is WP:UNDUE relative to the rest of the article Special:Contributions/Megajeffzilla appears to be an SPA created purely to war in this content. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to note that the Paul Krugman Hoax section was not a recent addition by Megajeffzilla, but has been on the article page for almost 2 years, since March 2013. The editor who originally added it and the ones who have contributed to the page for nearly the past 2 years thought it was significant enough to note, as it's endured a considerable amount of time on the page.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Scoobydunk
WP:1RR says that reverts are defined in the WP:3RR section which directly say "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Someone clearly added a section about the Paul Krugman Hoax and Arzel undid it, it was originally added here. There is no restriction regarding a time period when these changes have to be made. So it doesn't have to be something that was recently added, all that matters and is described by the policy is that the removal of someone else's actions whether in whole or in part, counts as a revert. When someone reverted Arzel's first revert, Arzel reverted it again. So that's 2 reverts in 2 days. Arzel is well aware of the reverting policy and has been in multiple conversations about edit warring which is why the sanctions exist to begin with. There is no reason to believe this was a good faith error when the person has a history of disruptive editing to the point of being restricted to a 1RR per week sanction.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
First of all the "Paul Krugman 'Hoax'" title impacts a living person. Secondly, it is established that Breitbart was not the originator of the "hoax" but that it simply used a reliable source, boston.com, which happened in this case to be grossly negligent. "Hoax" implies a deliberate spreading of an untruth - and the facts as brought out on the article talk page make clear that Arzel was, in this case, doing what Wikipedia policies require - removing a contentious claim about a living person (Krugman - the claim is about a living person quite undeniably) which was not properly sourced.

The only source clearly "at fault" in this was boston.oom which apparently failed to do any fact checking on a story it published.

I would also suggest that comments made in the wrong sections in the form of trying to counter comments by others here be deleted -- this board is not a place to "get even" with anyone, but to deal with actual problems. In the case at hand, I fear it is, indeed, being used to "get even" with Arzel. Collect (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning Arzel
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * I'd like other opinions, but I don't believe this is a violation of the restriction. For a revert to count as a revert under the restriction it has to be of a "specific edit" which only the second of these was. Unless someone can point to a single edit where the section Arzel removed was added (I don't want to search through the page history right now) then their first reported revert isn't one per the restriction. your statement here is incorrect if the first edit had counted as a revert under this restriction you would have made two in a week. However even if we do decide that the first reported edit was a revert per the restriction I think I warning would be in order rather than a block as it was Arzel's good faith belief that they hadn't violated it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Unless the submitter can show which specific edit (as required per the remedy) the first removal was a revert of, the first removal is not a revert in the sense of the restriction and the request is not actionable.  Sandstein   13:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * MrX, the remedy you invoke reads "Arzel is limited to one revert of any specific edit ...". The edit that added the section at issue,, does not add material that is identical to the material Arzel removed with the first reported diff. Therefore the first reported diff is not a revert of any specific edit, and the request remains not actionable, because we are limited to enforcing the remedy according to its wording. This request can be closed now, in my view.  Sandstein   16:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Callan and Sandstein. The remedy uses somewhat novel wording (revert restrictions are more commonly one revert per page in a specified time frame, whereas this is one revert of any "specific edit"). Whether the diffs presented would have violated the more common restriction is debatable but unlikely; they certainly don't show a violation of the remedy as written. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Uishaki

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 17:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA :


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


 * 1) 17:21, 26 December 2014 Participating in content dispute related to Palestine despite ARBPIA topic ban


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 15:30, 10 December 2014 Blocked 48h by EdJohnston for violating ARBPIA
 * 2) 15:02, 30 November 2014 warned by EdJohnston for violating ARBPIA
 * 3) 06:58, 31 July 2014 Blocked for one week for violating WP:ARBPIA topic ban


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 18:30, 30 July 2014 - Uishaki permanently blocked from WP:ARBPIA by, following a WP:AE discussion

Though the article Roman–Persian Wars is not directly related with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the repeating involvement of Uishaki in content disputes on Palestine related issues brings me here. This time it is whether to put a more geographically encompassing and politically neutral term Southern Levant or a more geographically-limited and politically charged term Palestine (the content dispute didn't involve terms like Land of Israel and Holy Land); Uishaki's involvement is clearly a pro-Palestine motivated issue. Considering Uishaki's topic ban on Israeli-Palestinian issues from 30 July 2014, the revert involving "Palestine" is a clear breach of his sanction.GreyShark (dibra) 17:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

notified.GreyShark (dibra) 17:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Statement by MichaelNetzer
@Callanecc: Is your statement to be understood such that an "Israeli-Palestinian issue" does not necessarily fall within the broader Arab-Israeli conflict? If so, it would seem like a first-of-a-kind interpretation. MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC) @Callenecc: It seems more proper to assume, under the terms of "broadly construed", that any and every issue between Israel and Palestine, whether its nature be, for example, cultural, educational, economic, religious, political or basic human-interest, must pertain to the broader Arab-Israeli conflict, by virtue of the conflict itself having given birth to, and continuing to drive the very existence of, and all interaction between, the two entities. This could be superfluous by now for the sake of this request - but may be significant for editors in the future to have a clearer understanding of sanctions limitations.

Statement by Zero0000
It isn't about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I don't see how it is about "Israeli-Palestinian issues" either. Where is Israel in the picture? Zerotalk 10:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani
I think Greyshark was quite within his rights to prefer Southern Levant, which embraces a larger area than Palestine(Palestine-Jordan). Khusroe's campaign took, from memory, Edessa, Antioch, Damascus, and Palestine, and thus Southern Levant (though ambiguous in usage) could be taken as more comprehensive. But Uishaki's edit is also backed by sources for the period. Greyshark tends to introduce period and hegemon administrative terms to replace the generic 'Palestine', using sources, but the POV (downcase the generic, historically default term Palestine) is evident ((Land of)Israel is only used by nationalists for the historic Palestine, and many dislike the fact that Palestine is the accepted term for the area in Western historical writing, which doesn't give a rat's rear for the perceived modern imnplications). The same could be said for editors who, irrespective of context, would prefer always to write Palestine, i.e., it reveals a POV. I think this is a content dispute, however, (one influenced by two POVs, unfortunately) and should not be the subject of sanctions.Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by I invented "it's not you, it's me"
On dec 10, Ed Johnston blocked Uishaki for an edit on Palestinian refugee, stating in the rationale that "This edit about Palestinian refugees in Lebanon violates your topic ban from WP:ARBPIA. These refugees have that status due to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The talk page at Talk:Palestinian refugee carries the ARBPIA banner." The same rationale would apply to an edit on Palestinians in Jordan, which carries the same ARBPIA Banner- an article which Uishaki has edited three times since this report was first posted:
 * 
 * 
 * 

SO even if the edit which prompted the  report  is outside the scope of their ban, these 3 edit s are very clearly within it.


 * @Callanecc: it would be quite astonishing if the Israeli-Arab conflict, which is a conflict between Israel, Egypt, Jordan Syria, Iraq, Lebanon AND the Palestinians could be "narrower" in scope than the  Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I await an explanation of how that could be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk • contribs) 03:28, 30 December 2014

Result concerning Uishaki
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * They are banned from edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict not "Israeli-Palestinian issues", you're going to need to demonstrate a much clearer link than what you have as I don't see how this is covered. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Arab-Israeli conflict is much narrower than Israeli-Palestinian issue which would apply to anything which has to do with the two countries. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The geographical term "Palestine" from Roman times is not part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The attempt to extend the ban in this manner is absolutely inappropriate and looks to me like trying to bludgeon a content dispute with process. Uishaki's ban reads: "Uishaki is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed.". So, no this diff is not a violation of that ban, not related to WP:ARBPIA and bringing it here was not really a good idea. If you are saying that Uishaki is systematically changing terminology to reflect an ideological POV that has nothing to with the subject of these articles that would require a lot of relevant diffs across multiple articles. However, from a quick perusal of Google books the terms "Palestine" and "Southern Levant" are both used in that context. So what you've got GreyShark is a content dispute - don't try to "win" such matters by using AE or ANi or other boards it's a bad idea and doing so repeatedly can lead to being hoisted on your own petard-- Cailil  talk 11:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Enforcement is usually targeted at the Arab-Israeli conflict, which we think of as 1948 and later. However there was one case from 2011 where a sanction was imposed very broadly on Chesdovi and Debresser regarding all references to Palestine since antiquity: "You are banned for six months from any naming issues concerning Palestine or Palestinian in both articles and talk pages, broadly construed. Moreover, for these six months you are banned from making edits having to do with any answer, also broadly construed, to the following question: What term should be used to designate the country of people who were from the region of what is today called "Israel and the Palestinian territories" from Antiquity, thru to the Middle Ages and up to 1948?"


 * This type of sanction should still be considered if we see an editor systematically adjusting the 'Palestine' terminology across multiple articles, even including those in the historic past. In that case we might deduce that their motivation comes from the current I/P dispute. Even so, if all we see in this AE request is a single diff at Roman–Persian Wars I don't yet see a reason to take action against Uishaki. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Under the new DS system our discretion to interpret areas of conflict was defined somewhat narrower than what had been used in the past. I feel that that example from 2011 is interpreted too broadly than is allowed under the current system. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Callanecc, do you have a link for the narrower interpretation? WP:AC/DS says "When considering whether edits fall within the scope of discretionary sanctions, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy." That seems to allow quite a bit of leeway. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it does, however when you compare it to the previous section where "broadly construed" meant whatever the enforcing admin believed was appropriate (and hence could 'get away with') it is somewhat narrower. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ed's interpretation, as long as the root of the issue was the modern-day Arab-Israeli conflict, for example an editor systematically removing the term "Palestine" to push a POV related to modern-day Israel. But there would need to be evidence that it actually does emanate from the modern topic area; if the editor in question was only interested in ancient Palestine, I wouldn't see ARBPIA as being applicable. Also, there have been cases more recent than 2011 in which editors have been sanctioned for watering down mentions of Arab history on articles that might not fit a narrow interpretation of ARBPIA but where the agenda was clearly related to the modern conflict (for example, this was one of the complaints regarding Gilabrand, though far from the only factor that led to her indefinite block and topic ban). In this particular case, Uishaki doesn't seem to be on the sort of campaign to remove mentions of Palestine that we've seen in the past, and the topic of the article in question pre-dates the modern conflict by a millennium and change. Although we're not here to consider content issues, we should consider Nishidani's comment that neither "Palestine" nor "South Levant" is definitely correct or incorrect, and that Uishaki changed their mind the next day. That doesn't scream tendentious editor to me. I recommend we close this as no violation, but with no finding of fault on the part of the filer whose interpretation was not completely unreasonable. If nobody wants to do it sooner (and assuming there are no objections), I'll do that in 24 hours or so. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the one edit to Roman–Persian Wars being reported here, by itself, is at least not a clear violation of the topic ban and does not require a sanction. However,  as the banning admin, you may want to block Uishaki for their subsequent edits  to Palestinians in Jordan, which is clearly a page relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict.   Sandstein   10:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. That is a clear violation of the topic ban given that the entire article is about Palestinians who have fled to Jordan as a result of the (modern-day) Arab-Israeli conflict, mainly the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. I've blocked Uishaki for a fortnight for those edits. Beyond that, I'm not sure there's much to be done, so I'm still inclined to close this this evening unless anybody objects. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that User:HJ Mitchell has blocked Uishaki for the ban violation at Palestinians in Jordan I agree that this request can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

John18778
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning John18778

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 23:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Review
 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence


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


 * 1) This is a BLP violation, as Roger Pearson is a living person. The source might call him a white supremacist (I haven't checked), but Wikipedia requires in-text attribution for labels like these.
 * 2) This edit removed three paragraphs of sourced text and replaced it with two paragraphs of unsourced text, including some unsourced editorializing ("poorly informed").
 * 3) Same as the first two edits, but made using the John18778 sockpuppet account.


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months: Sep 24, Sep 25
 * Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months: October 3


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

This report is about two users, John18778 and WeijiBaikeBianji, because the first is obviously a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of the second. I invoke the duck test for John18778, because this account's only edits are to restore WeijiBaikeBianji's preferred version of the article, which was done only one minute after the account was created. On the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Shockley#Pearson.2C_etc. talk page], WeijiBaikeBianji is the only person arguing for this version.

A few months ago, a different editor made a report about WeijiBaikeBianji's history of non-neutral editing on these articles, which seems to extend back several years. Admins concluded that all of the diffs reported there either had extenuating circumstances or were too old to be actionable. After that report was closed, WeijiBaikeBianji said here that the lack of sanctions against him proves there is nothing wrong with his editing. I ask that this time, the admins carefully consider what message they want to send.

Also note: this report is not actually my first edit. I've been editing these articles for a long time from a number of IPs, and I'm the same individual who reverted WeijiBaikeBianji's edits to this article.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Notification of John18778: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohn18778&diff=640719927&oldid=640713928

Notification of WeijiBaikeBianji: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWeijiBaikeBianji&diff=640720016&oldid=640605904

Discussion concerning John18778
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by WeijiBaikeBianji
I don't know who the complaining I.P. editor is. I know absolutely for sure that John18778 is not me, that he is not my sock, and that he is not someone I have ever communicated with before John18778 edited the article text today. For all I know, John18778 is a sock of the complaining I.P. editor set up to generate a pretext for a request for enforcement. I have no intention of restoring the edits from yesterday I committed that were reverted by the complaining I.P. editor here. I am not sure what technical means are available to Wikipedia administrators to figure out whether or not John18778 is a sock, but I can assure you without fear of contraction that the account is no sock of mine, nor have I had any communication with that editor other than a subsequent standard Twinkle greeting to the editor after the editor committed edits to the article under dispute. I will note for the record that it can be really hard to figure out what editing patterns are "non-neutral editing" unless someone digs into reliable sources deeply enough to know what statements are fringe statements on a particular topic and which are not. The article in question, William Shockley, has been under ArbCom discretionary sanctions for a long time and has long been very poorly sourced. I've long had a mind to clean it up, as will be clear from the article talk page. The complaining I.P. editor acknowledges in his complaint here that he hasn't checked sources for the article. He seems more interested in finding fault with me than with improving the encyclopedia. I have already indicated on the article talk page that I am willing to hear from other editors about reliable sources for that article and that my next editorial activity there will be to relentlessly check and double-check the sources already cited (which, I discovered yesterday, were often miscited as to the page numbers and as to "quoted" words that appeared in article text). Thank you for your kind attention to this matter, and best wishes for a happy new year.

Statement by Wajajad
I agree with Sandstein's recommendation as per possible punishments for WeijiBaikeBianji. If the SPI comes out and he's guilty of sockpuppeting, a block will be given, needless to say. On the other hand, WBB has been behind plenty of problematic edits and edit-wars in the R & I topic area, which was already fraught with controversy and bad faith arguments for some time. Something should be done about WBB's troublesome behavior and edits in the topic areas of Human intelligence and R & I. A topic ban from the latter area might be fit, taking into consideration the policy violations made in these edits.Wajajad (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning John18778
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * I've opened an SPI at Sockpuppet investigations/WeijiBaikeBianji. Given that sock-puppetry being proven or disproven could significantly affect the outcome of this request, I recommend we put any action on hold pending the resolution of the SPI. Having examined the three diffs in the report, it does appear that the complaint has some merit. Stating, in Wikipedia's voice, that somebody "has devoted his writings to promoting white-supremacist beliefs" and, again in Wikipedia's voice, calling somebody views "poorly informed" would seem to me to be at the very least a violation of NPOV. Also note that the IP appears to belong to a South African web-hosting service (meaning it's likely that somebody is using it to obfuscate their identity) so I've rangeblocked it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with the rangeblock of the filer IP and with the SPI, though John18778 is pretty clearly somebody's sock and could be blocked as a normal admin action. The SPI can only indicate whether there is a connection to WeijiBaikeBianji. As to them, I concur that their edits are problematic. In, they refer to a person's view as "poorly informed" in Wikipedia's voice without attribution, in violation of WP:NPOV. In , they assert without attribution that a living person has "devoted his writings to promoting white-supremacist beliefs", in violation of WP:BLP, and they misleadingly do so in an edit labeled as "minor" and with the deceptive edit summary "fix unmatched parenthesis error". This amounts to sanctionable misconduct. There seem to be no previous sanctions, so I recommend starting with a three months topic ban from the "race and intelligence" topic area for WeijiBaikeBianji – unless the SPI associates them with John18778, then additional sanctions will be needed.   Sandstein   00:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That was about my thinking; three months seems reasonable given the lack of any prior sanctions. As you say, John18778 is clearly not new but they haven't edited since the edits that prompted the complaint so I don't see any urgency in blocking them, and if a CU says they're not WeijiBaikeBianji they might be able to tell us who they are. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * John18778 has been blocked indef as a sock of User:Flyer322. So we can probably close this now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Request concerning MyMoloboaccount

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 17:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: At the very least DIGWUREN.


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


 * 1) 15:28, 3 January 2015 He/she is making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group were guilty of the Holocaust and harbouring Nazi sympathies. This is disruptive.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) There is a mention on his talk page that he/she is subject to a 1RR sanction User talk:MyMoloboaccount. This seems to be linked to a prior account - but I do not know details.


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS): He filed a successful request at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive151 at 14:05, 15 June 2014.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

I feel it is unnecessary the way he/she raises the temperature of discussions by labeling sources that he/she does not like as "Nazi". It is not the first time that people have complained about it - see User talk:MyMoloboaccount


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : 17:40, 3 January 2015

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

Statement by MyMoloboaccount
I am not under any 1RR sanctions, there were abolished long time ago.

As to Volksdeutsche population largely supporting Nazis during the war(with notable exceptions of vourse) this is well known and reasearched subject. There is nothing incivil is stating this, just as it isn't incivil to state that for example Suddeutsche Germans were overhwhelmingly supporting Nazis prior the war.

See for example the book Himmler's Auxiliaries: The Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle and the German National Minorities of Europe, 1933-1945 by Valdis O. Lumans Valdis O. Lumans. Professor of History. University Address: Department of History, Political Science, and. Philosophy. University of South Carolina ("pro-Nazi sympathies became more pronounced among the Volksdeutsche, some of whom founded local Nazi cells")

Or Gray Zones: Ambiguity and Compromise in the Holocaust and Its Aftermath Jonathan Petropoulos,John Roth "The Volksdeutsche actions caused the mass deportations of Ukrainian farmers and their families"

"I feel it is unnecessary the way he/she raises the temperature of discussions by labeling sources that he/she does not like as "Nazi"" Nazi and nationalist sources will remain Nazi and nationalist and can be named as such if there Nazi and nationalist. It has nothing to do about me "disliking them". If I a see a nationalist or Nazi source, I will remove it. This is not the first time we have problem with somebody inserting such a source into main text. I have identified and removed many Nazi and nationalist sources on Wikipedia before that were put to push POV edits(for example here where author was a Nazi war criminal Erich Weise)

PS:Note that the user below uses links and comments below by another editor Volunteer Marek instead of mine.This should be separate. This seems a reaction to WP:ANI thread where the user has been discovered to be using an obscure German author with connections to German nationalists like Hans Rothfels and Fritz Gause and published by publisher harbouring fomer Nazis, to insert in multiple articles statements about "nobody voting for Poland" and "Germans being native".--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

PS2:In addition to comments about Holocaust, Vrinan is now defending German nationalist sources[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=640823353 :I'd like to know how you have deemed German nationalist resources unreliable. Are there any studies describing their falsehoods or inaccuracies? Or is this some original research on your part?]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek
Personally, I find these two comments by Vrinan to be particularly troubling (note that these are comments made by an IP, which Vrinan admitted was them: on Talk:Einsatzgruppen alleges that a well known photo illustrating the Holocaust has been photoshoppe/faked, and similarly on Talk:Sonderkommando.

Edits of similar nature, including in articles themselves can also be found:  

and here is... well, see for yourself:

While everyone's entitled to their opinion Wikipedia should not be used as a platform for advocacy, especially of these sorts of opinions. Should a separate AE request on Vrinan be filed (I presume the topic of the Holocaust falls within the scope of "Eastern Europe") or is this sufficient? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sandstein - to elaborate a bit on what BMK said, yes, the Holocaust was pan-European in scope (or even universal) but the comments by this user (who mostly edits in EE topic area) concern a photo from Ukraine which is obviously covered by the EE discretionary sanctions. If I am not swamped with work tomorrow I will file a specific request concerning them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Vrinan
I noticed the recent (past few days) issue of deletion of historical facts from articles as I was browsing cities that existed along the Oder river. I first found that user:Volunteer Marek had deleted a decent amount of information from an article on Gorzow Wiekelpolski, information that pertained to its long and storied German past. I then noticed that he was doing the same to a number of articles. I attempted to discuss this issue with him, first in edit summaries, and then I posed to his talk page. He ignored my edit summaries and deleted my talk page comments, calling me a sock puppet, and saying I was dodging a ban. I brought this issue up at ANI due to his offensive uncivil behavior, but it seems the discussion has been derailed into one regarding the reputability of German nationalist resources. As user:Toddy1 said, that is a content issue. While the content issue is important, I also feel like the behavior issue should be addressed. Vrinan (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my edits to Holocaust related articles, none were substantial, the one to which Marek links involves me suggesting that the source of "established facts" be elaborated upon; there are a few different perspectives to the Holocaust, it is useful to tell from which one of these perspectives are the established facts being drawn.

I understand that the Holocaust is a hugely controversial subject, so I have not edited articles in any substantial way. I don't see anything disturbing about what I wrote on the talk page; I raise the issue of photo/evidence manipulation, something which has been demonstrated in the past. I also question the settlement upon 5 million non-Jews dead in the Holocaust (why not the many millions who died in Europe in the decade following 1939?). Finally I take issue with using the term Nazi or Nazism to describe a political philosophy and the follower of that philosophy. I strongly believe that encyclopedias should be unbiased, yet this term has clear negative connotations, and it has its origins in the anti-fascist movement. In the singular case of Nazi Party, I might support this terminology as a shorthand, but in the case of "Nazism" (National Socialism), I raised the question on the article talk pages, and the response seemed to be that if the sources took a moral stance against the subject in question and used belittling terms, Wikipedia should too. If that is Wikipedia policy, so be it. I have not edited those articles in such a fashion in a long time.

My interest at present is to make sure that information pertaining to German history in the East is not deleted in some anti-German revisionist crusade. If users want to remove or question the information received from the East Prussian Plebiscite, that is fine. But there is no need to engage in wholesale deletion of content, as I have witnessed by both Marek and Mymoloboaccount. Vrinan (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Beyond My Ken
@Sandstein - While the Holocaust obviously did have significant consequences throughout Europe, Eastern Europe in particlar suffered. (See The Holocaust.) I think a good case could be made that some aspects of the Holocaust should be considered to be under the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions. BMK (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning MyMoloboaccount
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''


 * On its own, this comment does not strike me as sanctionable misconduct. It is criticism of another user's editing, yes, but in a manner that is mostly focused on content rather than on the other person themselves. The merits of the criticism are not ours to determine.  Sandstein   18:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Concerning the edits by, they should be discussed in a separate request if they are to be discussed any further. Off the cuff, I think that the Holocaust doesn't easily fit into the Eastern Europe topic area, because it was pan-European in scope and not limited to Eastern Europe.  Sandstein   19:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Per Sandstein, the remarks of MyMoloboaccount are within the bounds of proper comment, though caution is needed. Regarding the topic area: I believe that the actions of the Nazis in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Ukraine easily fit within the traditional scope of WP:ARBEE. The issues raised by User:Vrinan are more fully explained by him and others in this ANI thread (permalink) but they would need a separate AE request, assuming there is any case for sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Topgun

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 12:34, 11 December 2014‎ (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIPA :


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) 20:52, 2 November 2014 Violation of WP:PRIMARY, since the newspaper has only represented the view of Pakistani military commander.
 * 2) 21:01, 2 November 2014 Use of an image as a source that is hosted on an unreliable self-published source.
 * 3) 13:43, 9 November 2014 Same use of a WP:PRIMARY and a dubious source like above two diffs on a different page.
 * 4) 14:28, 1 December 2014‎ Apart from the violation above, this time he has misrepresented the source, when he also changed "Pakistani source" to "Neutral source", even after knowing that it doesn't, per
 * 5) 06:39, 11 December 2014 Reverted to preferred version, without following consensus on the talk and RSN. This edit also violated WP:NOTADVOCATE since much of its part, starting from "He ordered his staff officer ...." to "...Chawinda till the guns fell silent", is a view of a military men.(WP:PRIMARY)
 * 6) 09:09, 11 December 2014‎ Misrepresentation of source, linked URL is nowhere stating any results about the battle between two nations, and the highlighted text is talking about a cavalry regiment named, "25th Cavalry".


 * Edit warring
 * 1) 07:35, 3 December 2014
 * 2) 09:05, 3 December 2014 (Misuse of Twinkle rollback).
 * 3) 12:18, 3 December 2014
 * 3 reverts in 5 hours, but no comments were made on the article' talk.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) Blocked 9 times, mostly for disruptive editing and edit warring.
 * 2) WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141, reads: "Further edit warring or other types of inappropriate behavior will lead to sanctions."

  Apparent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude and usual habit of changing battle results without gaining consensus. I don't see how there was any need to revert any of my changes if he had only read the note that I left on article' talk every time. Accuses of "following" him if you have reverted his edit, and also accuses of "canvassing", if you have asked another editor(who edits similar pages),, or a relevant noticeboard.
 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Not to mention that how many times he has tried to misrepresent other editors. As usual, he keeps claiming that I haven't "even verified the source that atleast two editors have", Although he cannot name them, or provide the diffs where they have confirmed this dubious image. It has no mention outside this wikipedia page. As per WP:CONSENSUS, he had no consensus for any of these edits, yet he continues to edit war over them, despite everyone else(except Nawabmalhi),,,, told him not to use a self published and unverified picture. However he still hasn't presented any mention of this report outside wikipedia article. That means even if many other editors would tell him the same, he will still continue to use a dubious image as reference and tell others to follow WP:SOURCEACCESS, which is certainly impossible for dubious references.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * @Callanecc: According to my experience, whenever I would find that my edit has been reverted or I have reverted others edit, I would hope for a discussion in place of going for another revert. Maybe that's why I haven't reverted the recent edits of TopGun. With this case, things were very different. Since this case, I also think that I understand "consensus" better than I used to.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * @Cailil: I agree that I have made these mistakes, I could have done better. Until today I was unaware that I should have made neutral notification to other user, as well as more neutral AE case. I apologize for that.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Today I received a message on my talk from concerning Topgun's accusations of edit warring. I told the editor to address specific concerns on here; if they are addressable. I have recently checked, the article is 2014 Peshawar school attack, I couldn't find any evidence of edit warring by Rsrikanth05, who had been warned by TopGun, not to edit war. I should also mention that the article is not related to India or Bangladesh, it is only related to Pakistan under WP:ARBIPA.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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

Statement by TopGun

 * Sigh, this is a content dispute and many editors have said that the source is okay, I'm not even the editor who originally added the sources, did when he saw a sock vandalizing content against the sources and I asked him about verification before adding them where he responded positively. OZ on the other hand  hasn't even verified the source that atleast two editors have and turns to use a scanned copy of the newspaper provided by Nawabmalhi that I showed him as a courtesy, against me. Full details of the source are present and OZ hasn't even verified the source himself before filing this ridiculous report. Please consider WP:BOOMERANG for this hasty report to try get a content dispute bent to his favour. Please also note I filed this SPI where a concluded sock was vandalizing the article against sources. Now OZ comes along and starts restoring the sock version. After not getting consensus at RSN, and after a user points out that even the source he's giving states the opposite of what he's' saying, he brings the dispute here instead of DRN to have me out of the way so that he can edit and push his POV as much as he likes. Please also note that I have warned OZ for blatant canvassing of another Indian user (who had never edited the article before) who also told him to be neutral at his talkpage and he has been repeatedly going only to WP:INDIA to call in Indian editors that he thinks would support his POV instead of also notifying WP:PAK or choosing a formal noticeboard. OZ first called him to revert  where he had a dispute and then went to revert me the article where the editor he canvassed had a dispute with me .. how is that not canvassing? He has also fueled other disputes that had recently been stablized at Kargil war, Operation Dwarka, List of Pakistani wars etc, all of which I avoided reporting to an admin and articles that he never edited before, yet he seeks sanctions to work his way through when he does not get enough editor support. Kindly also note that the links OZ is presenting about old sanctions / blocks were with an abusive sockpuppet Darkness Shines and have been reverted. I find it quite telling that OZ is bringing those up knowingly. He also does not recognize that "no consensus" defaults to status quo and tries to revert again to his favoured version. I've already had enough of such editors lately, now he's appearing up at articles that I edit and he's never edited. I also find it utterly deceiving on OZ's behalf that he calls this a misuse of twinkle rollback in his statement while it was just that I forgot to give an edit summary and made my correction in the very next edit and in the next few seconds by making a null edit . -- lTopGunl (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Would some one also revoke talkpage and email access of Darkness Shines (an indeffed sock puppet who had hounded me for two years) who is sending OZ emails and I do not find the possibility of canvassing OZ to make edits on his behalf unlikely. -- lTopGunl (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , I added the source you quoted calling my edit disruptive just today to support the victory part and I quoted it in the edit summary. The infobox title was already sourced by Canberra times and The Australian, would you consider retracting that remark? -- lTopGunl (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Kindly see the diff .. he pinged him and told him to check his email. -- lTopGunl (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The source talks clearly of Indian defeat (25th cav in source was the unit at Pakistani side as per the source) and an editor from RSN said "The second, on pp.35-6, says that the Pakistani's defeated the Indians at Chawinda (& v.v. at Asal Uttar)" on the talkpage, I decided to add it to the article as well. My intent was anything but to spam. And like all other claims of OZ, this too isn't solely based on my opinion.. that doesn't make it disruptive.. just content related. Sorry but I do not think DS's actions ever come out in the wash. I got blocked and Ibanned due to his baiting as seen in the linked discussion; they never did get washed out and I find it quite disruptive that he still continues from within his block. The fact that he removed a large chunk of content while pinging shows that he wanted to hide the ping so that it would look he only blanked and is clearly watching this discussion . IMO, that's proof enough why he would email OZ and as if forwarding an email to you preserves any proof of originality. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To add to the contention, OZ is moving the goal posts by making the scanned copy of the image (which is not even required for the article) to be the center of the reference while it is not as per WP:SOURCEACCESS and keeps on changing my argument and refutes something that is not my argument rather a courtesy add on. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * @, My comment was solely to show blatant canvassing and esp to show the divisiveness.. since when does making a comment to show divisiveness by another editor (with diff and not just blank argument) makes me guilty of the same. I don't mind editing with editors from any country and I've done so since years. With all my actions backed up by actions of other editors I think bans and actions on this report would be exactly what OZ wants and is not the way to resolve a content dispute (and that too just for a singular instance of perceived issues?). I don't find it fair to be blamed of source misrepresentation when in each case I first consulted other editors. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If I had to wrongly imply anything, I'd not have mentioned myself that Strike Eagle "also told him to be neutral at his talkpage". I've been fully transparent. I find it will hardly be constructive to simply ban me from the major topic area that I edit.. you might as well go for a site ban then given the lack of WP:AGF here on the fact that for each reference I discussed I consulted another editor (I've quoted their statements or discussion links here). The reverts on 3rd December were 3 edits in total and other editors reverted to status quo as well reinforcing the consensus to keep that version... I wont say stayed within a legitimate number of edits as I do understand it was still an editwar but I had no intention of reverting further or continuing an editwar and they are stale so any bans or blocks would be punitive. If that decision on sources was solely my action, I would not have defended my stance this way. For DS, I don't see any public arbcom appeal. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you guys would have been familiar with the topic area, I've had enough editors having this WP:BATTLE mentality hounding and following and it doesn't make me divisive to raise the possibility of that reoccurring. My arbcom warning and blocks are rescinded so I see a pretty harsh attitude here for discussing bans and warnings on a malformed report effectively for the first time. OZ had not edited these three articles and started appearing one by one to revert me  .. I still didn't report him... how much more good faith can one assume than requesting only on his talkpage to stop. While I appreciate OZ recognizing his mistake, his response to me was quite different . I suggest that the admins leave the content dispute to the editors as there are multiple content venues to decide what a source says and is not a behavioural matter when two three editors quote it and take it differently. If I am wrong, I'm happy to accept it as a content matter but I will not accept the blame of misrepresenting which lacks WP:AGF and was not my intent. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that the sock puppet to whose version OZ was restoring was also tagteaming with DS  back in 2013 and recently socking at this article and was finally caught. I can't speak for OZ's knowledge of that but I do think the sockmaster Nuclearram (with yet a current pending SPI) may have been in contact with DS. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Kudos to you guys for killing the messenger, that I raised the way canvassing was being done and for only using sources in consultation with other editors :s -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , Two editors who were hounding me on Operation Chengiz Khan were both socks... so way to go for bringing that up (as I already did).. that warning was reverted by an AN discussion linked above for that reason (so no, there's no final warning or any warning on me before this). I don't see how a ban from afghanistan is related here, and how a ban from Pakistan only topics is going to help in this... although you've taken it upon yourselves to ban me for a content dispute, why is a topic ban on all topics being proposed here that hardly relate to the military topics? Also since I am a major contributor to the topic area, a blanket ban from all three topics (esp. Pak) instead of from the specific article or something would be pretty disruptive. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 05:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you going to explain any of your actions or will you be forcing me to go for an AN appeal as soon as you place this ridiculous ban? This also seems to be borderline canvassing to get OZ to oppose me in even a non controversial matter where an editor was reverting editors randomly and warned by me with diffs of his three reverts... OZ is pointing him to give input against me here in return. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , I didn't invoke the DS related discussions except for two things, 1) the fact that OZ knowingly brought up warning / blocks that were reverted and I had to link those discussions when those warnings and edits against not just one sockpuppet were being discussed (WP:NOTTHEM isn't for sock puppets of blocked editors or block evaders, it's when two valid editors are interacting and I think community has already given their input on that matter and there's no need to re evaluate it unilaterally and subject me to answer for things that community has already stood up for). I wasn't claiming impunity on anything post DS, 2) I had to mention DS emailing OZ... both of them were met with reasonable uninvolved input. I don't think I've mislead anyone in anyway but I do think it is only fair that I respond to allegations that are being placed on me without fully understanding both sides of the story. Also, if you see the RFC at the Battle of Chawinda, there's just as much support for my edit as is for OZ. It's going to be a really bad precedent to ban editors on basis of disagreement. It is clear cut WP:WIN logic to ban editors even if they are wrong in content. Editors are often wrong in content disputes, this has nothing to do with behaviour. You can however ban me because I strongly object here on comments that I disagree with... apparently that's what's leading to most of the fuss here. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 20:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * An RFC has been started at the talkpage of Battle of Chawinda where I have demonstrated and am further getting support for the consensus on a version that I edited or a similar one that says "Indian defeat" esp. on the one where I added a new reference to back up the claim of victory and an admin below called it misrepresentation.. so I guess your point of misrepresentation is unfounded. This is a content matter by any definition and admins have no authority over it. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the admins won't be too naive to see the pattern around this topic area and my reasons for the way I phrased my statement and further comments instead of taking them to be what they infact aim to convey. Vanamonde93 was blatantly canvassed by a disruptive editor who had no consensus but was hell bent on pushing POV as well as serial canvassing  . I did convince Vanamonde93 of that but the fact that he responded to canvassing and that he actually did emphasize in some way of going for the proposed edits for which he was asked to comment (he did not really support my stance). He did later agree to a compromise which is fine and I did not expect him to be making such a statement here due to that, but saying that he entered a dispute on my side (a WP:BATTLE statement in its own context) is totally incorrect. Maybe some one is emailing random editors at WP:IND with pointers to an obscure AE discussion as this? Sorry can't assume good faith when it comes to patterns after having dealt through a myraid of them and all turning out the same way, but still  will not comment on the editors who are commenting here either. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
Given the link provided by TopGun, I suggest DarknessShine's talk page access and email be removed. See also prior AN discussion. NE Ent 11:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The removal of the logged warning was in accordance with DS Appeals protocol; there was an eight day discussion at AN where the overwhelming consensus was the removal was warranted. NE Ent 22:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rsrikanth05
I interacted with TopGun only in the last 12 hours and I am absolutely appalled by their behaviour. TG accused me of edit warring, and left a warning on my talk page which Yunshui responded to and clarified that I was in no way, edit warring. Among other claims, TG stated that the warning was to prevent me from any further disruptive edits, and that I had edit warred by undoing his edit, which I had not. Major-General Asim Bajwa was linked, which TG linked as Major-General Asim Bajwa. I merely unlinked the latter as it was a red [irony is that both are now unlinked]. The other two EW examples cited was removal of a parent category who subcat was already present and removal of a link to Russian Federation which had earlier been removed by Koavf. Apparently, me doing it is a problem, others is not. Apart from this, I was also notified of the discretionary sanction, which although was good, I feel was unwarranted. Subsequently, I responded on the RfC [Battle of Chawinda], where TG automatically seems to assume that they know more than the other. Yes, I know the NLA trove is a digital archive, I have worked on digitisation of papers before. However, what is more appalling is when OccultZone posted about a discussion on the India noticeboard and TG immediately put forth a proposal to try and prohibit posting on such noticeboards in such a situation. Thankfully, such a restrictive proposal was met with no support. My only point here is that TG seems to believe in the 'If it doesn't work my way, then it is wrong' methods. The Holier Than Thou attitude is unwarranted on enwp and I have decided I will not edit any article TG has edited. Not surprisingly, the user who asks me to 'discuss' before I edit themselves is being accused of the same thing above. Apart from a Topic ban of atleast six months, I think an interaction ban would be required. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by AmritasyaPutra
I have little (tending towards zero) interaction with TG, but the article talk page does feel like WP:BLUD example. It discourages other editors from participating. I think keeping reference to DS minimum is good. He may not be able to reply here and the circumstances for this report mostly deal with TG behavior for which DS should not be held responsible. --<span style="font-family: Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif;color: #FF9933">AmritasyaPutra T 02:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93
I have only interacted with TopGun once, on Azad Kashmir. Initially, I entered the dispute on TG's side; a new editor was pushing an Indian government POV with a certain lack of discussion (I will provide diffs if asked; I don't currently want to clutter the page). However, that new editor eventually did join a discussion, here, which other editors eventually joined. Despite the original POV push, there was a genuine content issue there; a lack of compliance with a redirect guideline. There were many ways to solve this issue; however (and this is really my point) TopGun essentially restricted their contributions to contradicting other's suggestion, without once providing an alternative. This is not explicitly in violation of any policy; yet a glance through their contributions to that discussion shows an incredible battleground mindset, even when dealing with editors that entered the discussion on their side. DS had absolutely nothing to do with this particular fracas; he had been topic-banned well before. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Strike Eagle
I've known TopGun for quite some time now and all I can say is that he can't seem to doesn't want to shed his battleground mentality. I would like to say only about the recent issues though. He accused me of responding to canvassing(verified by admins here that there was none) and then reverts me in another article when I add reliable books as sources. He claims stability as the reason for revert...I don't know any policy which states stability means consensus. And then abuses the TW tool by making what obviously is an intentional revert without summary. Later he makes a null edit only to give the most vague edit summary I've seen in my entire life. He doesn't bother to clarify why my book sources are not reliable and his newspaper is more reliable. I still don't get how DS is related to this....apparently it seems as an effort by TG to divert people from his reckless abuse of reversion and self-proclaimed and declared results to wars...Thanks,  ƬheStrike  Σagle  

Result concerning TopGun
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''

On an initial look. This case is a bit of a mess. TopGun's block log has 8 entries from 2012. MastCell also stated in November 2014 that "a number of TopGun's blocks resulted from his interactions with an abusive sockpuppet (DS); TopGun would likely not have been blocked in some instances if this had been clear at the time". So that point of this complaint is muck raking. Also the list of diffs is mainly non-actionable. Only 2 diffs (and only 1 of the reverts from December 3rd 2014) come after a valid AC/DS notification. Also the point re: ignoring RSN consensus is moot since the discussion at RSN ended without consensus. Now after all that these are mainly matters for WP:RSN. Ocultzone's understanding of WP:PRIMARY borders (at best) on wikilawyering. The only matters that comes close to action IMO are the edit-warring on December 3rd and the misrepresentation of sources by TopGun. Regarding the latter this edit is indeed disruptive. The source quoted says nothing about a major Pakistani victory and is in fact a discussion of how both the armies used their armored formations poorly and how both proved adept with smaller forces. How this relates to a "Major victory" for anyone is very unclear. And I would indeed classify this as disruptive use of sources. I'd like to see input from other sysops before commenting further but I'm looking at the actions of both TopGun and Occultzone-- Cailil  talk 14:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * TopGun what evidence is there of DS sending emails to OccultZone?-- Cailil  talk 15:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * TopGun the source says nothing about ANY victory. You threw in a source that does not relate to the content. That's effectively spamming a contested piece of text with "references" that do not support the assertion. That's disruptive editing. I suggest you don't belabour the point. Also please take a step back there is no need to rush. If Darkness Shines is working with Occultzone it will "come out in the wash"-- Cailil  talk 15:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I too am looking at the behaviour of both users. I'm not convinced that there is enough (one edit war which didn't cross 3RR and the source misrepresentation) is enough to topic ban in itself. However the personal attack and divisiveness of referring to another editor you've edit warred with by their country ("another Indian editor" in TopGun's statement) in an AE report suggests to me that the topic area would be best served by removing TopGun from it. Regarding OccultZone, I'm not convinced (yet) that there is enough there to warrant a topic ban yet, also considering that they haven't been reported at AE before, though I wouldn't have an issue with a reminder to submit actionable and relevant evidence and to ensure that they cooperate with others when trying to come to a consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The things I find most pressing on TopGun's side are is misuse of sources (and defense of that) and indeed the casting of aspersions. OccultZone was admonished by the user (StrikeEagle) he contacted, TopGun's over-hasty and divisive action then (December 3rd) and now in misconstruing it in a way that implies impropriety on StrikeEagle's side (where there was none) is a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. On OccultZone's side this whole case is designed to rake as much mud and patch together as many things to make TopGun look bad (which was thoroughly unnecessary) combined with the non-neutral message to StrikeEagle which although not canvassing was bad form (see here). Given all that I'd be happy with a final warning to OccultZone re:WP:BATTLE (and unclean hands at WP:AE) and a topic ban for TopGun-- Cailil  talk 12:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See also User_talk:Callanecc. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Re: Darkness Shines, he implies that he has appealed his ban to ArbCom. I can see good reason to revoke talk page and email access but given that appeal I'd like to see an Arb comment-- Cailil  talk 12:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We're probably pretty safe in pulling it, they'll comment or add it back if they think it necessary. Given they haven't started a public discussion they'll probably do it in private. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Since there's been no further admin input, since the comments from myself and Callanecc, I'd suggest closing with a topic ban (from the India, Pakistan and Afghanistan topic areas) for TopGun, and a final warning re: WP:BATTLE for OccultZone. Unless there's further comment in the next 24 hours I'll make that close myself. Given the complexity of the Darkness Shines issue I'd suggest being conservative, however if the BASC does not unblock him and there is any further interference with this topic area an individual case laying out all the evidence and the timeline might (and I stress "might") be necessary-- Cailil  talk 13:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This report shows edit warring by User:TopGun on the Battle of Chawinda, a topic from the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and follows a previous AE complaint in late 2013 at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141. At that time the complaint was about edit warring at Operation Chengiz Khan, a topic from the 1965 war between India and Pakistan. The decision in the 2013 AE case was to issue TopGun a final warning. If it was in fact a final warning then this time around we need to do something. So I would propose a ban of at least three months from the topic of all the wars between India and Pakistan. I don't see enough problem with User:OccultZone's edits to do anything. His decision to go to WP:RSN was reasonable and is a good step to take to minimize edit warring. If a formal RfC had been held at Battle of Chawinda (which would have been sensible) my guess is that OccultZone's arguments might have prevailed. TopGun's effort to make this battle into a major Pakistani victory looks like an uphill struggle given the sources. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the area of your suggested ban, however given that the final warning was a year ago I wouldn't think that three months is going to do the job. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is an issue (see here) with how the final warning was removed from the log such that I don't believe it should have been as it was a discretionary sanction, so we should probably wait for that to be sorted out before we take action here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:53, 17 December 2014‎


 * I agree with Ed re: the 3 month ban. But I do see exactly where you're coming from Callanecc. Given that this is a first topic ban I think 3 months is a reasonable sanction. If TopGun returns and repeats old behaviour we can note here that recidivism will be looked upon harshly. If there is no consensus re: OccultZone then we have to leave that (however, I consider the conglomeration of actions on view here to be sufficiently belligerent to raise concern). There are a number of messy aspects to this case however and they revolve around TopGun and OccultZone's interactions with Darkness Shines. To my mind we either take the conservative approach of sanctioning TopGun alone, or we push this up the line to the Committee and let them deal with the whole scenario. Or we do a bit of both, sanction TopGun and let the committee confirm it or repeal it and let them sort out the DS and OZ situation (my preferred option if the conservative approach is not followed). None of these scenarios are good.-- Cailil  talk 14:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * IMHO DS is "kicking up enough dust" while blocked for admitting sockpuppetry to cause the complication. If one looks at the DS SPI there is significant concern re: !Vote stacking and hounding TG in the WP:ARBIP area for me to raise an eyebrow. Furthermore the interaction issue between both TG and DS is long standing (see here). To my mind none of this excuses TG's actions (especially while DS is blocked) but it may warrant examination. Future Perfect's contribution to the DS SPI is convincing that this is serious. Furthermore given that the BASC may not know (however unlikely that might seem) that this case is significant to DS's appeal perhaps sending the Darkness Shines aspects of this case to the Committee is actually the only thing we can do, given the danger of being countermanded and then creating a further mess-- Cailil  talk 14:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTTHEM tells blocked editors not to blame others for their predicament. Though TopGun is not here as a blocked editor, he seems to think a lot of blame for past events can be laid off on User:Darkness_Shines. I don't think Darkness Shines was forcing him to declare the Battle of Chawinda to be a major Pakistani victory in spite of the feeble sources for that conclusion, or to keep reverting when others disagreed. I suggest we do not ask Arbcom to sort this out. You could argue that the edit warring here was not enough to justify AE action, but pointing to Darkness Shines for extenuation is implausible. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely I agree there is no excuse for TG's actions. And I support sanction against him. I am however concerned that the wider issue will recur, but perhaps it's best to wait and see with regard to that and just close this with a 3 month topic ban for TG?-- Cailil  talk 18:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've imposed the topic ban, I think it's best to deal with any further issues then if they come up, or if something happens in the meantime we can address it then. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Steeletrap

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 23:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :
 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics
 * Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes (BLP discretionary sanctions)


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


 * 1) 02:53, 29 December 2014 - A series of edits to the article on Reason magazine that removed some secondary-sourced material as non-notable, while grouping two large paragraphs under a section heading for "Promotion of revisionist history and Holocaust deniers" with the effect of drawing special attention to the claims in that section. One of the people named in the section is Austrian economist and Ludwig von Mises Institute scholar Gary North. Steeletrap removed material about North and given the material about North that was retained, the heading could be taken as implying North was a Holocaust denier when the actual content of North's article does not show him expressing such a view.
 * 2) 21:27, 29 December 2014 - Removes a bunch of mundane biographical material about Justin Raimondo backed by his articles, while leaving more negative material backed by his articles. The removal include a piece written by Austrian Economics and LvMI co-founder Murray Rothbard. Misrepresents a piece by Raimondo where he explicitly rejects conspiracy theories in favor of mainstream news reports presenting information critical of the official story to claim he is a conspiracy theorist in the lede, in addition to adding the "conspiracy theorist" category. An additional change was replacing the "Early life" section heading with an unflattering section heading.
 * 3) 07:05, 23 December 2014 - Changes section heading about Stefan Molyneux encouraging adults who came from abusive homes to break off contact with their families to describe it as "Encouraging children to leave their families", adds to the lede that Molyneux has been compared to a cult leader, and adds a section based off a single source about a recently-filed lawsuit that is still pending.
 * 4)      - Edit-warring to restore these changes.


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision on Austrian economics linked to above.
 * Notified of BLP discretionary sanctions a week prior to earliest edits.
 * Previously warned here that editing material backed by people from the Mises institute would be a topic ban violation.

This had been raised at AN where there was clear support for some sort of block or extended topic ban against Steeletrap, but it was closed following a request by Steeletrap that a couple editors endorsed on the basis that it should be taken to AE. Steeletrap subsequently left a notice on my page suggesting that any request I filed could be used to accuse me of forum-shopping. Much of the editing Steeletrap has made on the above articles on libertarian topics are similar to those which were so problematic in the Austrian economics case.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Ahem, there are BLP discretionary sanctions in place that would cover the rest of Steeletrap's edits, I did cite them above and Steeletrap was notified of said sanctions. Not sure why people keep acting like the topic-ban violations are all that is being raised here.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, people I am noting the BLP violations that fall under BLP discretionary sanctions as well, not just topic-ban violations. My concern is fundamentally with the malicious editing of BLPs. The topic ban violations are just an additional cause for sanctions.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC) 
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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

Statement by Steeletrap
Justin Raimondo says Israel knew about 9/11 and did nothing about it. That's a conspiracy theory, according to WP and RS generally. It is a violation of NPOV to characterize these views merely as "questioning the official story," as Devil has. Gary North is clearly a skeptic about whether Jews were exterminated by the Nazis. Such skepticism is akin to skepticism that the world is round. It makes him a Holocaust denier, m unless he has recanted his views. Unfortunately, I have no confidence that the Committee knows what "Holocaust denial" refers to according to RS or that they will take time to look it up. (RS define people such as David Duke who do not explicitly deny but merely express "skepticism" of the Holocaust as deniers.) In any case, my header did not intend to refer to North; in fact, it can be read as referring to the other, more explicit Holocaust deniers mentioned in the article. (The content about the deniers has been in the page for months and was not added by me.)

I have no confidence in the ability of the Arbs to recognize any of these facts, since the Committee is generally quite lazy and uninformed. Steeletrap (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Nor do I have any confidence in their ability to look at the substantive intention of the TB rather than punishing me for clearly accidental and technical violations, which did not make anyone associated with LvMI/AE look bad, and which I corrected seconds later. Steeletrap (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thus, I have decided to leave Wikipedia. My decision will be the same no matter whether the Committee comes to a sensible or absurd decision in this case. Steeletrap (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

One quick clarification, in response to the straw man arguments by other users. Though my retirement is (following this comment) official permanent, it should not be used as an excuse to evade any sanctions. In my opinion, any sanctions in this case would be ridiculous. But the case has to be judged on its merits, without regard for my retirement. It would set a terrible precedent for users to be able to avoid sanctions simply by strategic "retirements." I care about this community too much to endorse terrible precedents for rule-making. Steeletrap (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The laziness of Arbcom continues to cause problems. The vast majority of "warnings" cited by Whisky came from people with vendettas against me who are not even admins; I didn't listen to them because I disagreed with their allegations that I violated the TB. I would bet my life that the Arbs were too lazy to look into whether the previous TB violations of which I was accused were actually violations. (Now, they will rapidly look them up to try to save face; but this attempt at face-saving will be biased, and they will not give a fair hearing to my view that the previous warnings were in relation to non-violations of the TB.) if they weren't, then clearly the fact that I "ignored the warnings" regarding them was justified and had nothing to do with the (accidental, technical, and immediately corrected) TB violations TFD, Srich, and other longtime ideological enemies of mine have pointed to in the present case. I think that the "Arbys" belong at the fast food restaurant, and not attempting to formulate and apply rules. In any case, I'm done with this community. While it's a great resource, it needs better people at the top. The arbs are remarkably lazy and prone to group think. Steeletrap (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC) They also tend to be hypersensitive and obsessed with their power; I guarantee my "block" gets extended simply because I hurt their feelings by calling attention to their laziness and indifference.

Statement by Bladesmulti
Steeletrap has been involved in pseudohistorical revisionism. One such example includes her changes on Exorcism, Steeletrap claimed that Exorcism is a pseudoscience. She edit warred, and blatantly misinterpreted the source in order to her preferred version. She also claimed that such claims requires no citations. Many other editors joined this page and told Steeletrap, that how wrong she is, she still seemed to have learned nothing, and further attacked other subjects, one of the editor remarked her thoughts to be anti-religious.

Such attitude is clearly unhelpful. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

3 weeks/1 month block seems like a nice decision. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
Though I am not always a great fan of Fleet Street as a Wikipedia source, this article from The Guardian will give a quick feel for what "deFOO"ing is.

I would have great concern should Wikipedia portray "deFOO"ing as an innocuous or even benign practice, I am sure that the balance of RS do not do anything of the sort.

As to the other matters I little or no knowledge of them, and hence leave them to others.

A Happy New-Year! Rich Farmbrough, 02:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC).

Statement by RAN1
This complaint has very little to do with the topic-ban. The first diff shows Steeletrap editing ‘’Reason’’. In it, she edits out a passing mention of the criticism received by ‘’Reason’’ in response to articles by Martin and North (used as a lead-in to the next paragraph), but not the information that North wrote such an article. Considering the sentence was a transition and had more to do with the criticism ‘’Reason’’ attracted, this is probably on the fringes of the tban. The second diff removed a deadlink attributed to Rothbard. The source was moved due to restructuring, and the original reference can be found here. Considering the URL was bad and the source is primary, and the other sources removed are mostly primary, the second diff has less to do with Steeletrap’s topicban and more to do with BLPPRIMARY and WP:BANEX. The third diff has nothing to do with the tban. Sanctions here should not be considered under this particular tban. —RAN1 (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Stalwart111
I don't think most of the edits represent a breach of the topic ban, and there's quite some background to my having formed that view. Some 1.5 years back I worked with a small group (including Steeletrap) to clean up a group of articles relating to the LvMI, on the basis that they had been created by obviously conflicted editors (though in good faith) with the aim of promoting the Institute. The articles included BLPs for North and Rothbard and were sourced (almost entirely) to self-aggrandising articles written by their colleagues from the Institute. I formed the view, then, that the group of articles represented a walled garden at least in general terms, if not specific terms (WP:WALLED). The suggestion that the articles were a walled garden or were otherwise closely related was vociferously argued against by a number of people including an editor recently banned by ArbCom for a long history of personal attacks and harassment which started way back during those initial discussions. Correct or not, the view that they were not "all the same" prevailed and has been the established consensus since; each BLP forced to stand or fall on its own merits. It should be pointed out that a lot of that "separation" resulted from work subsequently done by that group to find sources other that colleagues with which to source those BLPs (something later described as an "attack" on BLPs because while many of the non-independent sources were positive, many of the independent sources were critical. I think ArbCom's sanctions against Steeletrap were lazy and didn't take into account the long history in this particular topic area. While I agree that some of Steeltrap's methods have been aggressive, sometimes disruptive and often "take no prisoners", there are born of a genuine desire to resolve some fairly glaring COI, WEIGHT, RS and V issues in some high-profile BLPs. Were I implementing such sanctions, it would be done so from the perspective that all articles in the walled garden that is the LvMI on WP should be considered "connected" and a topic ban from the Institute should therefore be a topic ban from BLPs whose subjects owe their notability to the Institute and its supporters. But the community has decided otherwise and those leading the charge did so with a cloud of personal attacks against Steeletrap and others. To now turn around and say, "turns out you were right, they are closely connected and so you breached your topic ban" is grossly unfair.

From a purely technical perspective the suggestion that everyone who has ever supported an LvMI initiative or attended an LvMI event or spoken at an LvMI conference or lecture or worked closely with someone who was a member or leader of the LvMI is an "LvMI topic" from which Steeletrap is banned is a bit silly and that doesn't seem to have been the intent of the sanction. The intent seems to have been to ban Steeletrap from subjects/topics clearly related to the institute. I'm not sure what "persons associated with them" is supposed to mean with regard to "Austrian economics". That's a school of thought. Is he banned from editing the articles of anyone or anything or any group which has similar views or an aligned world view? Libertarianism and Austrian economics are not the same thing either. Again my point about the sanctions seeming lazy - catch-all phrases that Arbs thought would allow little wiggle room with no real understanding of the context or the very specific consensus (and very specific personal attacks) that went along with it. They are so vague as to be unworkable and this AE request (which I think is entirely good faith and I have a lot of respect for TRPoD TD'sA) is the direct result. Either make the sanctions clearer and make the associated warnings specific or withdraw them.

TL:DR? The sanctions were stupid and lazy to begin with and this is the inevitable result. Fix the sanctions or get rid of them.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 10:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Srich32977 is partially right with his parole analogy - in this instance it was the parole board responsible for the original conviction though. His "final warning" suggestion is a good one. Just realised my original statement exceeded 500 words, for which I apologise profusely (this is my first ArbCom-related comment anywhere).  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 21:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @HJ Mitchell, @Callanecc... So without acknowledging the stupidity and laziness of the original sanctions, ArbCom are going to double-down and impose a block for something that even they acknowledge might have been a misunderstanding as to the outer limits of a topic ban? Though good-faith, the warning from Beeblebrox doesn't gel with the history of the issue or with the topic ban that was implemented. It was suggested that he remove "any page related to the topic from your watchlist" to avoid temptation. But nobody seems to have actually defined what those "related" pages might be and (again) Steeletrap was told emphatically, repeatedly (over the course of 18 months) and by multiple people (to the point where they claim consensus) that articles like North's and Rothbard's and Molyneaux's were "not related" except by some tangential "school of thought" type stuff. This was raised in multiple ArbCom cases. Steeletrap and I have an interesting past and I have no "vested interest" in defending him (and I'm not) - this is a process issue that goes to the heart of ArbCom's ability to issue workable and stable sanctions that pass the test of time. Especially since his retirement makes anything moot anyway, ArbCom has a chance to self-reflect and fix the problem (including the other similarly clueless sanctions from the same case). If there are no objections? I suppose I "object" (not that it carries much weight) but more than anything I'm just disappointed.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 07:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @HJ Mitchell, I know you're not ArbCom but they seem to have washed their hands of it - leaving the "mere mortals" to enforce their unworkable sanctions. There's plenty of room for doubt because "Austrian school of economics" is a school of thought. It's the Austrian school of economics, not the Austrian School of Economics. You can't enrol there and take a class. Anyone who shares their philosophy could reasonably considered to be "related". It's like a topic ban on "classical music" interpreted to mean anyone who has ever picked up a violin. I don't think the topic ban was "unfair" (he should be sanctioned and I supported topic bans in this area long ago), I think the way it is being enforced is unfair but my opinion is that the unfair enforcement stems from the original wording, not the good-faith efforts of admins here.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 14:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Srich32977
As mentioned, Steeletrap edit-warred to restore BLP-violations on the Molyneux article. Sadly these were done even though a discussion was underway in which she did not participate. Her TBAN violations were self-excused as being "technical", or "corrected", "not TBAN-type edits", etc. But it was disruptive to give these excuses because the edits should not have been done in the first place. (Patient notice of these violations were placed on her talkpage (now archived).) Stalwart111's criticism of the original Arbcom proceeding (or the Arbcom process overall) does not help resolve what action(s) should be taken. (They are akin to parolees complaining to their parole officer that their original conviction was unjust. The parole officer's job is to enforce the conditions of the parole.) All this being said, I recommend that this AE be closed. Steeletrap needs to be warned, though, that should she return and make more problematic edits, she will be totally banned from editing. – S. Rich (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I will clarify my parole analogy. The Arbcom is the entity that issued a decision. If a block had been imposed, enforcement would be automatic. Since a TBAN is the sanction, it is up to editors to monitor and comment – and to ask for enforcement when violations occur. – S. Rich (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope you will consider that a formal warning bit of advice was given once before. Subsequently there were additional violations. Although they are not part of this AE, they were commented on in her talk page. (I was preparing to expound on them here when she retired.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC

For the AE advice, not a formal warning, given on 13 June. Also see old User TP (20 July, section 38 titled "TBAN"; 5 August, section 39 titled "August 2014; & 3 December, section 46 titled "Topic ban violation"). – S. Rich (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Endorsing a one-month any sort of block. Not that the length is important give her retirement, but the block-log will document the sanction and serve as a reminder to edit more responsibly should she un-retire. And, following unretirement, should problematic edits show up in other areas additional sanctions may be requested. – S. Rich (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Pudeo
Announcing retirement should not allow the editor to evade accountability, especially as such retirements are often done for drama purposes for periods as short as 24 hours. As pointed out by TFD in the ANI thread, even if it's not a violation of the TBAN, the MO of the disruptive editing is exactly the same as what resulted in the TBAN. And it does appear they in fact are violations of the ban as presented in the opening statement.

In the ANI thread, Steeletrap went on to accuse Srich of misogynist hounding and TFD of white nationalist bias and hounding diff (which couldn't be further from the truth) and finally bashed the ArbCom in the statement here. Now to consider the TBAN violation as a little mistake worthy of a simple warning after this kind of poison-the-well-and-run tactic would make AGF seem like a suicide pact. --Pudeo' 22:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by The Four Deuces
Steeltrap begins Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement by saying, "Justin Raimondo says Israel knew about 9/11 and did nothing about it. That's a conspiracy theory, according to WP and RS generally." That is to justify his 02:12, 29 December 2014 edit, "Raimondo is also a conspiracy theorist and a proponent of 9/11 Truth; he argues that the "official 9/11 narrative doesn't make sense." He explains the edit in his next edit, "(adding that raimondo is a conspiracy theorist.)"  The text is entirely sourced to Raimondo's article, "9/11: Our Truth, and Theirs The "official" 9/11 narrative doesn't make sense".  In the article Raimondo does not describe himself as a conspiracy theorist, nor are any secondary sources provided to support that judgment.

After Srich reverted the edit with the notation "Revert edits = TBAN pertains to Mises.org related individuals", Steeletrap reverted more or less to his version with the notation "undoing reversion but re-adding information I deleted about an Austrian economist.".

This is I believe a violation of synthesis and label. It is particularly egregious because it concerns a biography of a living person. Whether or not Steeletrap is in violation of his topic ban, he has merely moved to related articles and continued the same editing approach that led to his topic ban.

It seems that only an extension of the ban to all political articles would curb this behavior.

TFD (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Steeletrap
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * I'm not familiar with this case (I seem to have somehow ended up mainly dealing with the geo-ethnic bartlegrounds at AE), so I'd like to give Steeletrap a chance to defend herself and I'd like other admin opinions, but on the face of it the diffs do appear to show a topic-ban violation unless there's some subtlety I'm not seeing. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that they are violations of the TBAN. Even though it is pushing AGF given the other comments I am willing accept that this was a mistake (didn't realise it was covered by TBAN) and I'd suggest a warning making it clear that any further violation will result in a block (assuming that the retirement isn't permanent). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that such a warning might be the best course of action here. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright I'll close with a warning in 48 or so hours unless other admins have a different opinion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * With just the edits reported I don't think we're at the stage of BLP sanctions yet, though that combined with the TBAN vio is concerning and does call for a logged finally final warning in the AE case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please give me a link to the warning? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The more I look at this, the more I think some sort of substantive action is required. This is not Steeletrap's first violation by any stretch of the imagination. There might be good reasons that those adjudicating on previous violations decided that no sanction was required in those cases individually, but taken as a whole, they do show a pattern. Even if we weren't talking about obvious and repeated violations of the topic ban, the purpose of a topic ban (especially one imposed as a result of a complex arbitration case) is to remove the editor from the topic area because their continued presence there has been judged not to be conducive, yet the pattern here would seem to show that Steeletrap has no intention of moving away from the topic area, and will continue to violate the letter and the spirit of the topic ban if we close this with no tangible action. Srich's link to Steeletrap's talk page as it was on 31 December is telling: I count 89 (eighty-nine!) mentions of the word "ban", and it seems that every time somebody has tried to engage with Steeletrap informally about possible violations of the topic ban, she has responded with scorn and contempt. See, for example, 's comment (in his then-capacity as an arb): Perhaps you would find it more compelling if an actual arbitrator told you that your edits violated the topic ban? Yes they did. You are topic banned. That means you are supposed to stay away from the topics you are banned from. That includes bringing up the topic yourself or participating in discussions of it anywhere on Wikipedia. Further attempts to end run the topic ban and continue to attempt to influence topics you are banned from will result in blocks. I hope that is clear enough for all of you. My usual advice for anyone under a topic ban is to simply remove any page related to the topic from your watchlist and don't even look at any of it. That way it is a very simple matter to avoid violating the ban. and Steeletrap's response. I'm all for last chances, and even for multiple last chances, but at some point enough really is enough, and in this case I think we've reached that point. While Steeletrap has retired and I'm not doubting her sincerity, we have no guarantee of its permanence and she has explicitly stated that she doesn't want her retirement to exempt her from sanctions. I recommend a one-month block as long enough to give Steeletrap and everyone else a break, but not being so long as to suggest that her continued contributions (to topics from which she isn't banned) are unwelcome. It's a relatively sever sanction, but at this point I think it's proportionate to the repeated violations. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Having seen the number of warnings (thanks S Rich) I'm coming around to the same point of view, but I think imposing the most severe sanction we can is perhaps a bit much, I'd support a two to three week block but not a month. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The difference between three weeks and a month strikes me as dancing on the head of a pin but I have no objection to three weeks. A fortnight is too mild in my opinion given Steeletrap's apparent disregard for her ban and lack of intent to comply with it. She could easily have been blocked on multiple prior occasions; that she wasn't appears to be a combination of luck and WP:ROPE. (HJM on my phone. Will re-sign with my admin account in the morning). Whisky drinker  &#124;  HJ's sock  01:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC) HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Difference between three weeks and a month at the moment is a week and a half. I'll close with the 3 week block in around 24 hours if there are no objections in the meantime. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * We're not ArbCom. This page is run by admins. We mere mortals have quite a lot of leeway with discretionary sanctions, but when it comes to specific remedies like this topic ban, we have very little. We can only decide whether the remedy has been violated, and if so impose what sanctions we feel are necessary. I sympathise with the feeling that the topic ban was unfair, but that's not our call, and honestly I'm not sure that "banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased" leaves a lot of room for doubt. The place to clear up doubts or request alterations to the remedy is WP:ARCA. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Request concerning MrX

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 15:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced:

WP:NEWBLPBAN WP:ARBAPDS


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

Congressman Steve Scalise may have spoken at a conference hosted by David Duke over a decade ago. The main source for this claim is a blog, which found an anonymous post on the stormfront website claiming so. Scalise has subsequently admitted to speaking in some capacity, but there is significant room for debate about if he was aware or the groups relationship, or if he even spoke at a different conference entirely at the same location.

This section is now a massive portion of the subject's BLP based off of a one time event in 2002 and is screaming BLP violation all over the place. It deserves some mention per WP:WELLKNOWN, but not 30% of the article, especially when the core of the story is a SPS blog that found a post of stormfront forums, and ESPECIALLY if any defending comments keep getting removed.


 * 1) shows that MrX is clearly aware of the dubious WP:GRAPEVINE sourcing of this very defamatory claim
 * 2) Use of personal blog as a source for defamatory content.
 * 3) Removing sourced notable opinions commenting on the issue providing balance (Although WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV could have been better)
 * 4) Removing opinions again (that were better attributed) and restoring SPS blog as a source
 * 5) Addition of contentious material to lede without sourcing as required by WP:LEADCITE "Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons, must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement."
 * 6)  WP:COATRACK Addition of information about other people's membership in group
 * 7)  Removal of sourced statements from those directly involved in incident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrX&diff=640662726&oldid=640567495
 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

yes, MrX filed first. I had been considering this report prior due to the issues above, but wanted to keep things collaborative. However, if the ability for me to deal with obvious BLP issues is hampered then other avenues must be followed. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

MrX is aware of the American politics case since he just filed a report on Azrel and he is very active at WP:BLPN so should be very well aware of the BLP policies.

See discussion at : User_talk:MrX. I believe there is no desire for either party for an IBan (see overtures in that discussion in both directions about editing collaboratively), and in any case, one flare up seems insufficient for such a sanction. MrX has withdrawn his An3 Report, I should have reciprocated here yesterday, but based on the comments below I thought it was already going to be closed. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrX&diff=640666573&oldid=640663292

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

Statement by MrX
Greetings. My editing and discussion participation on Steve Scalise almost entirely complies with our policies and guidelines, notwithstanding that I am prone to occasional errors. Where I believe I may have erred is by citing CenLamar.com, a political blog of a law student. I cited it, not as a source of content for the article, but as a means for readers to locate the original source of the controversy. WP:BLPSPS advises against using blogs as BLP sources, however it was my recollection that this was not a hard rule, but a guideline subject to editorial discretion. As I conceded here, I should have used CenLamar.com as either a non-citation-footnote or an external link. It is worth noting that dozens of reliable (news) sources have cited CenLamar.com as website that broke the story, thus WP:USEBYOTHERS is a mitigating factor.

I stand behind my other edits and my conduct. They fall well within the bounds of editor discretion, and in no way violate policy. A review of the article history and talk page will show that I have been careful not to edit war on the article, and I have consistently discussed disputes on the talk page, expressed a willingness to compromise, and I have striven to represent all sides of the controversy according to WP:NPOV.

In my opinion, this request is vexatious, frivolous, and a direct reaction to my filing an edit warring report on Gaijin42.- MrX 18:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: To clarify, we didn't agree to an IBAN; we agreed to a 1RR on one article, for the next 30 days. Discussion here.- MrX 00:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no justification for an IBAN. Gaijin42 and I are quite capable of editing the same topics collegially, and absent evidence to the contrary, an IBAN should have never been brought up. We have already arrived at an amicable solution to curtail edit warring. As I mentioned on my talk page, and here for the record, I value Gaijin42's contributions to Wikipedia.- MrX 16:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
A clear case where neither editor appears to understand the futility of seeking out the drama boards to redress grievances about the other editor. To that end: a mutual ban on either mentioning the other's name or edits, or editing immediately following the other on any Wikipedia page of whatever kind, or of revising an edit by the other except for grammar or spelling  would seem better than the usual difficult-to-enforce IBans. Collect (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning MrX
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * Before User:Gaijin42 filed the report here, User:MrX had filed this report against Gaijin42 at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This request is not actionable and borders on the frivolous. All but the last diffs predate the alert and therefore cannot grounds for discretionary sanctions. The last diff, whatever its merits at a content level may be, is not a WP:BLP violation and therefore not grounds for sanctions.  Sandstein   16:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, all of the diffs but the last diff (singular) predate the alert, and I agree that the last is not a BLP violation. I disagree that the report borders on the frivolous; it is frivolous.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Gaijin42, the ARCA request by MrX does not demonstrate awareness of BLP discretionary sanctions, because that ARCA request was about American politics, which is not currently in its entirety covered by discretionary sanctions. The request is still not actionable because you have not shown that MrX was aware of WP:NEWBLPBAN before the time of the edits at issue. Incidentally, even your alert is invalid because it does not name the sanctions topic and does not link to the Committee's decision.  Sandstein   17:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This isn't actionable with regard to MrX. Both of them are now officially aware of NEWBLPBAN due to their participation here so we don't need to worry about alerting anyone. Regarding Gaijin42, this finding seems to suggest that this behaviour isn't out of the ordinary so I would consider imposing a two way (only because I don't believe one-way IBANs are useful, though apart from that I don't have an objection to someone proposing it) IBAN between MrX and Gaijin42 with a warning that Gaijin42 should expect the same (and a block) if they make any further frivolous reports. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No particular objection as concerns Gaijin42. But I am of the view that no sanctions should apply to MrX (including one end of a bilateral interaction ban), without it being clear that they engaged in misconduct and were previously aware of discretionary sanctions as provided for in WP:AC/DS. This has not been shown here, in my view, and therefore any interaction ban should not apply to MrX.  Sandstein   13:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point re not being aware (between sentences I seem to have forgotten that), it will need to be one way. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Given their agreement for a voluntary mutual IBAN 1RR I think we can close close this with no further action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As Sandstein pointed out MrX wasn't aware (per procedure) of the discretionary sanctions so evidence has to come from since they participated here and I don't think there is enough. Given that I'll close this with no further action around 24 hours if no one else comments. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Request concerning JzG

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 13:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) 17 December 2014: JzG/Guy misrepresents scientific consensus about effectiveness of acupuncture (in fact there appears to be no unified consensus, rather a range of views). Asserts "consensus view that the weak positive results are fully consistent with the null hypothesis" despite no evidence to support existence of such scientific consensus.  There is no single consensus evident in MEDRS's (or in clinical practice at academic centers, at many of which acupuncture is used) when it comes to efficacy for pain, cf. this; nor is there any source meeting WP:RS/AC.  Indeed, there is evidence of a mainstream view (from the highest-quality MEDRS in the field) that acupuncture is more than a placebo and a reasonable referral option (for more re which, please see here ).
 * 2) I'm not providing other diffs; I believe JzG would readily agree that this is a view he's repeatedly affirmed, and according to which he has edited that article numerous times.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: nothing pertinent.


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Here. (only done as a formality; user is a veteran admin active in topic area and is certainly aware of these sanctions)


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : It is tendentious to dismiss significant views, especially by admins whose views will tend to weigh more than most users; this is true no matter what side the view is on.  Apart from this misrepresentation of the literature, JzG/Guy is highly clueful, and a block or ban would be imo quite unnecessary.  All I seek is a warning, and that it be a formal one, since Guy is imo likely to dismiss it if it just comes from me (despite the sources mentioned above).  I also hope such a warning would serve to put other editors on notice, e.g., who has made a similar misrepresentation; see his ArbCom request (diff), as well as editors on either "side" who misrepresent scientific consensus.  I suspect Guy will dismiss this and ask for a boomerang, but the evidence is what it is.


 * Re /Guy's statement: His sources obviously weigh, but don't outweigh mine and prove no consensus (even if they pretend one exists).  He's right re qi but that's immaterial.  Also see here (scroll to "The emerging acceptance of acupuncture...) for a quote from Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, the "most recognized book in all of medicine".  That too is a stronger MEDRS than Guy's.  Also see e.g. National Health Service:  "There is some scientific evidence acupuncture has a beneficial effect for a number of health conditions." .  I don't say my sources are consensus, just significant views rebutting Guy's assertion.


 * I also don't have a high opinion of Guy's ES & reply to my notification. Not the incivility, but the dismissal of valid criticism. And no, this isn't about gaining an advantage in the ArbCom case; it's unlikely to be heard.


 * , I think JzG is still failing to take this seriously (see user talk thread), but I doubt that's significant. I see no other behavioural issues at this time.  (There are behavioral issues with QuackGuru, cf. just below, but that's for a different venue, if any.) --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * (who has a long block log) and I have had numerous disagreements, and I see he hasn't dropped the stick despite my having been on a long wikibreak. He has a habit of "wondering" about my COI status  even though I've answered him three times already  and my comments on COI are linked in my signature line.  Isn't this harassment?  (If anyone really wonders about anything else QuackGuru is saying, just let me know.) --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * For (and also ), re content issues and AE:  My complaint was about tendentiousness regarding content, so the two are kind of hard to separate.  Although I explained above why I gave just one example, I understand Sandstein's point about needing to show evidence of persistent tendentiousness.  Cailil, Sandstein was right to AGF about my relative lack of familiarity of AE.  I'm clueful about the topic area and WP:5P, but not so much about dispute resolution boards.  I'd hoped that neutral third parties here could "referee" a quick examination of MEDRS's, among other things.  Next time (whenever that is) I'll seek feedback before posting.  --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , point well taken (cf. also Sandstein's closing comment) about the purpose of AE. ... My reverts in July were (as the ES's indicate) to a consensus version with awkward but accurate wording, and were accompanied by plenty of discussion. A number of well-meaning editors made the same change -- one that that made it less awkward but also inaccurate -- and I always reached out to these editors, e.g. here. ... Why did I post at AE?  Because it was (as I understood at the time) noted as a good venue for addressing POV-pushing by several Arbs, here. ... I don't have significant concerns about Guy's civility, but I am concerned about his IDHT in the face of MEDRS's that disagree with the views that he depicts as consensus (but which is actually one of multiple major viewpoints).  --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 17:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Re COI: If anyone is wondering about it, please read my declaration: User:Middle_8/COI.  Alexbrn has always disagreed with the part of WP:COI that says one's profession alone doesn't create a COI in that topic area.  That aspect of WP:COI came to light during my own COIN (hence the "reframing").
 * - Re COI, yes, acupuncturists do stand to benefit or suffer depending on how the subject matter is depicted. That's true for other professions too, but especially so for acupuncture given the state of evidence for its effectiveness (i.e. pretty thin).  Note: In the "real world", practicing acupuncturists study and write MEDRS's about its effectiveness and are not generally considered conflicted.  --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , yes, you are familiar with my editing, so you know that the diffs you list below are cherry-picked, not as bad as they look, and are far from representative. I don't remove MEDRS's; this was a cut-and-paste error, which I acknowledged the same day it happened.  But wait:  you'd already asked me about those diffs awhile back, and I'd already answered, explaining that it was accidental.  Now, you're bringing it up again, seeking to depict it as part of a pattern???   Good grief.  ..... OK: For others, Here is a fully readable set of my candid replies from the first time I was asked about these diffs.  I can elaborate later if anyone's worried about it. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 17:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * - to the best of my knowledge, templating Guy was required, cf. Robert McClenon's comment here. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 18:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * and others: HEY!  You are getting way, way too focused on Guy's supposed incivility.  It's not as if he bit a newbie.  Yes, he can be an arrogant jerk (as he'd be the first to admit), but he gets things done, and you are poking him over nothing.
 * I really do not understand how stuff works at these boards, and it's making less and less sense. What I thought I knew about AE:  a way to cut to the chase.  All I wanted (however unrealistically) was an "adult" to either warn Guy to quit IDHT-ing about MEDRS's, or at least some good advice.  Not your department?  So IAR a little!  (And if you're going to scrutinize my edits, PLEASE subject  to 1/4 of that scrutiny -- on that Guy and I agree.) --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 18:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


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

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

Statement by JzG
Procedural note: Middle8 as an involved, indeed partisan, editor, probably should not be issuing AE notices to admins. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Middle8 accuses me of misrepresenting the scientific consensus. The consensus is that qi and meridians do not exist, there is no empirical evidence to support the existence or validity of acupoints, and the evidence for effect of needling is equivocal and problematic due to the difficulty of blinding to needle insertion.

Believers, of course, dispute this. That doesn't stop it being true. HSE, Ireland's national health body, summarises absence of evidence for existence of qi. What we do know, is that proponents of acupuncture routinely spin negative results as positive, see Pain Science for example. A systematic review of systematic reviews found no evidence that acupuncture is anything other than placebo. Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh also summarise the scientific consensus as I do. Ernst is arguably the most prominent credentialled expert on CAM in Europe; his studies on acupuncture are regularly published in the peer-reviewed literature (example). His view is actually mroe skeptical than mine, in that he considers the recent evidence with stage-dagger needles is conclusive and proves that insertion of the needle also makes no difference. You can read his views at his blog.

There are no accepted scientific or medical treatments that rely on the concepts of qi, meridians or acupoints. The acupoints and meridians did not appear in anatomy textbooks last time I checked (I no longer have a copy of Gray's so cannot verify this here and now). There are differences between acupuncture traditions as to their location. There is no consistent associated anatomy. To quote Ernst's 2006 review:

This is not markedly different from my summary, but it is different, markedly and significantly different, from the "consensus" as expressed by acupuncture advocate Middle8.

My personal view is that anatomy acupuncture [anatomy is only distraction therapy for med students] is actually a form of distraction therapy, a known effective psychological technique. Yes, it's a placebo, but a theatrical one, and sufficiently theatrical to engender known psychological effects.

This does not, of course, mean that my understanding of the scientific consensus is authoritative or unchallengeable, but it does mean that this request is frivolous, vexatious, and made in order to attempt to gain an advantage in a dispute (see case at ArbCom currently being considered).

Middle8 is asking you to legislate scientific consensus and establish that his beliefs are objectively correct, while the summaries I cite from journals and other sources are not. Journals are not a magic wand, of course: Chinese journals publish essentially no negative results of acupuncture at all, so the scientific community generally discounts them heavily in reviews. Most of Middle8's mainspace edits relate to acupuncture and TCM, many of them constitute edit warring and I see strong evidence of MPOV.

As an involved administrator I cannot sanction Middle8 for this tendentious behaviour. I think someone else might feel that the WP:BOOMERANG is a real possibility here. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @RAN1: you cite, for example, this and  as "uncivil". It's hard to see how one can deal with obdurate editors engaged in civil POV pushing without being blunt. That statement is blunt, not rude or uncivil. In the end, it profits nobody to use weasel words and play softly-softly, because we know from long and bitter experience that a clear and unambiguous statement is much less likely to be misunderstood or misrepresented. As to responses to Middle8's vexatious report, perhaps not trolling the admins is a better response than telling the admins to be delightful when being trolled? Just saying. We are, after all, dealing with human volunteers, not people paid to smile at the customer's every statement. It is fine to be blunt, direct, brusque even, just not rude, and I wasn't rude. Not that I wasn't tempted. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In response to your reply: that's what you perceive, viewing it out of context. In context, Middle8 acknowledged that he has a vested interest in acupuncture, but asserted that this is not relevant and that his edits are neutral (and thus implicitly that his judgment is dispassionate). These opinions are objectively wrong. Someone had to explain ti to him, and nobody else was around, so I did it. By the umpteenth attempt to explain why a vested interest is a COI and your edits that get reverted probably weren't neutral, you sort of run out of ways to gloss it up. Guy (Help!) 19:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kww
JzG has accurately represented scientific consensus. There certainly are groups that have different priorities and, as a result, put out different messages. That's the primary problem with something studied so many times: there will inevitably be false positives, and supporters will seize on those false positives as evidence that the vast bulk of studies are wrong.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, people are guilty of conflating two different concepts, and that conflation is causing us difficulty. Being a placebo doesn't mean it doesn't make people feel better: actually, a placebo specifically is a treatment of no actual value that makes people feel better due to psychological factors. All an insurance company or health subsidy looks at is whether a treatment is cost effective: if a placebo makes some percentage of patients feel better and the cost of that placebo is low, it makes sense for an insurance provider to pay for it. That doesn't make it a medically-validated treatment, it only makes it cost effective.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by QuackGuru
I am very familiar with Middle 8. We go way back. This is not Middle 8's first account on Wikipedia. See User:Middle 8/Privacy. Middle 8 appears to have a COI. See User:Middle 8/COI.

In late October 2013 the acupuncture page was junk with Middle 8 editing the page. Editors added numerous reviews and Cochrane reviews and updated the page. Middle 8 is laser focused on acupuncture. So it was no surprise that Middle 8 was not thrilled with the changes. Middle 8 signed a malformed RfC against me. See Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru2. See Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive259. See Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive845. User:Middle 8 is well aware of the sanctions. I think WP:BOOMERANG is the likely result for Middle 8. I propose an indef topic ban for Middle 8. Middle 8 is wasting our time. QuackGuru ( talk ) 02:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed QuackGuru's opening paragraph as it concerned a content issue rather than an issue of editor conduct. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  02:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Middle 8 continued to make unfounded claims at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 even after he signed a malformed RfC against me. See Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive825.

Middle 8 added WP:OR to the lead: ...and therefore preventable with proper training. The verified text is: "...it is recommended that acupuncturists be trained sufficiently."

Middle 8 deleted a failed verification tag but did not fix the original research he originally added to the lead. The word often was OR. The word many is sourced.

Middle 8 was edit warring over the specific numbers in the lede. The text he added was also original research.

Middle 8 added poor evidence and misleading text to the lede: "but have not been reported in surveys of adequately-trained acupuncturists." Only after User:Doc James commented on the talk page Middle 8 claimed he misread the text. Middle 8 has a pattern of making a lot of bad edits according to the evidence presented.

He deleted sourced text from the lede and body but he claimed the source does not support the statement. The comment he posted on the talk page shows he did read the source. WP:CIR to edit. Another editor finally restored the text after a long discussion.

During the discussion, Middle 8 was commenting about RexxS rather than the content: RexxS's ad hominem & general drama is a confession of weakness. Middle 8 was not assuming good faith with User:RexxS. Middle 8 continued to argue against including to the text. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_51. QuackGuru ( talk ) 06:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by RAN1
( Comment from uninvolved editor ) Middle 8 was officially [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Middle_8&action=history&tagfilter=discretionary+sanctions+alert notified about discretionary sanctions] twice in mid-2014, both instances with regard to fringe and pseudoscience. He should be well-aware of what DSes are and how they work by now, and is liable to being sanctioned here for his actions since then. His interactions with Guy have been civil afai can tell; however, it should be noted that he has a COI. He announced his COI sometime before April 2014, and continues to edit the article with controversial changes, with a notable string of long-term edit warring back in October (see: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=629402247&oldid=629315460] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=629415367&oldid=629407249] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=next&oldid=629566806] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=631035838]).

Guy's most recent edit to the acupuncture article is [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=607829904 8 months ago], with only two other edits this year, one a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=602036073 small addendum] and the other a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=602791098 revert], so nothing sanctionable there. Guy's talk messages re Middle 8 are civil, see [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=623902979] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=624074359] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=624410844] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=624468999] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=624644846]. The only instance of incivility on Guy's part was a user talk discussion on Middle 8’s COI, prompting these terse responses from Guy [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Middle_8&diff=623904019&oldid=623686740] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=prev&oldid=623904458] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=prev&oldid=623930704] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=prev&oldid=623983723] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=prev&oldid=624074137] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=prev&oldid=623990479]. The user talk indicates a few spots of incivility towards Middle 8, but not a pattern for it.

Ultimately, this looks like an attempt by Middle 8 to soapbox by AEing an admin, which unfortunately succeeded in pissing Guy off. I think an admonishment (if not a warning) for Guy for not keeping calm and an emphasized warning to Middle about how discretionary sanctions are for behavioral issues only, would be appropriate for this. --RAN1 (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I can understand how you can see the first one as being civil, however the second one is well into ad hominem attacks. Saying Middle 8 is reinforc[ing] the impression of someone who is unable to accept that their COI is relevant, and who mistakes their own biases for neutrality is inappropriate at best for anyone here. Given Middle 8’s previous posts before that (accusing skeptics of POV-pushing, calling editors who supposedly take contrary views to his on the basis of his COI pathetic, etc), it was pretty clear you were going nowhere in convincing him of your beliefs on his COI. The best course of action would have probably been to disengage. There are appropriate ways to deal with perceived POV pushing, even perceived civil POV pushing, but blunt talk page attacks is not one of them.
 * The point I made was about your long-term edit warring before and after acupuncture was protected, not the July discussion. I’ll take a look at it later, but that isn’t justified by previous consensus. The only relevant mention of POV and AE in that AC case is this: It is not the job of either arbcom or AE to rule on article content issues, beyond stressing that NPOV is non-negotiable. I can see how a fresh editor with no recent experience with AE might bumble a case, but your last statement along with the 2 notifications is evidence to the contrary, and you should really know better. Note that your interpretation of COI is likely not to be perceived by other editors or AE admins as accurate to COI, which may have something to do with the fact that a positive view of acupuncturing on WP would benefit your profession and a negative view would harm it. Just my thought, though. —-RAN1 (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I did read the context, but my point was that there are alternate ways to approach this (namely, discussion about how profession affects POV, noticeboards etc.). You deciding not to use them in favor of ad hominem remarks seems to be the issue here.
 * Regarding COI, Wikipedia does not apply that standard to COIs since Wikipedia's aims are markedly different than most MEDRS's. You should also be aware that AE does not "cut to the chase" in favor of any one involved party, and it's certainly not a place to get warnings for editors you consider disruptive free of scrutiny. Reporting stuff here results in an analysis of the behavior of all involved parties, including your own. I would imagine QuackGuru will come up eventually in the discussion once people have had a time to review his actions. --RAN1 (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Alexbrn
I'd class myself as "previously involved" in the Acupuncture article since I have edited there in the past, but gave up and effectively topic-banned myself because the article sucked too much and the Talk page environment was too toxic to allow a realistic prospect of improving it. Life has been better since. I have also had a number of exchanges with on the topic of conflicts of interest, both on the Acupuncture article's Talk page, and elsewhere – so I am familiar with Middle 8's editing history and stance.

This strikes me as an extraordinary AE filing since Guy's expressed view (with which Middle 8 obviously disagrees) is nevertheless perfectly respectable, and was made only on a Talk page. To request AE for this is a strain of Wikipedia's mechanisms.

I think this represents the latest in a pattern of behaviour over the last year which has also caused unnecessary strain:
 * Middle 8 has a COI and to their credit, took this to WP:COIN where the advice seemed to be that yes indeed Middle 8 did have a COI which should be heeded. However by reframing the question and ignoring the responses Middle 8 seemed to take from this a different view and writes in an essay (linked from their sig) that "I don't have the specific 'Wikipedia kind' of COI". as a justification for not being bound by WP:COIU.
 * In view of the above, there have been a number of contentious edits made to the article: deleting information about acupuncture's risks, and repeatedly chipping away at critical content in the lede.
 * Middle 8 endorsed a hostile RFC/U against and during the course of this it became apparent they had not even properly reviewed the case that was being made, which was based on weak or false evidence. This again strikes me as an attempt to use Wikipedia's mechanisms to "do down" an opponent without taking proper care. See the section here ("I overlooked this insufficient evidence when I certified the RfC").
 * During a content dispute Middle 8 has engaged in canvassing with the non-neutral announcement to would-be recruits that another (actually highly experienced) editor is "not grokking some basic stuff" and that "there's only one right way to read the paper" (which comment itself speaks of a problematic approach).

In deciding whether any WP:BOOMERANG applies to this filing, I think the above could be usefully considered. Alexbrn talk 10:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68
Double standards applied. When newbie editors respond to disagreements in confrontational ways in topics under DS, they get banned. However, when established editors and admins, like JzG, respond rudely to edits which go against their personal POV, they, perhaps get warned. Or perhaps not. You guys kill me. Cla68 (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Ncmvocalist
Cailil, just a note that RfC/U no longer exists.

Seeing I'm here, I'll also note:
 * 1) Yes, JzG erroneously asserted that involved editors are not permitted to issue DS alerts because, in fact, anyone can issue them. But that doesn't mean that Middle 8 was permitted to issue the DS alert when he, being an involved editor, knew JzG was already aware of DS here.
 * 2) To be clear, Middle 8 asserted "I know you know about this" when he issued the DS alert to JzG.
 * 3) Whether JzG intended to say "a stupid person" in the edit summary or to tell the person to stop acting so frivolously on his talk page (which is more consistent with JzG's actual comment) is ultimately a matter for JzG himself to clarify and apologise for if appropriate.
 * 4) A warning is cited below from Dec 2013; we are now in Jan 2015, and the DS system was subject to changes since that time, as the admins below are aware (which both current and former arbitrators are not up to speed with even last month).
 * 5) I don't think it is a benefit to the project to expect its contributors to demonstrate infinite patience at all times to tendentious editing, and that too when it continues in the user space. Similarly, does the level of frustration expressed by JzG on his user talk page equate to the problematic approach adopted by Middle 8 not just on JzG's talk page? Treating tendentious editing and an instance of incivility equally is risky business for arbitration enforcement, and the reason AE exists. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
I honestly cannot believe that it is even remotely being considered that it is sanctionable for an admin to say that they are an admin, as is discussed below. I also tend to believe that, as others have said, this is an attempt at winning a content dispute through intimidation, and I cannot believe that any reasonable person would think that would work, particularly with JzG, who I have never gotten the impression was intimidatable. We can expect some individuals to lose their tempers or civility a little in hot content disputes, like this one, but I don't think that the comments by JzG even remotely rise to the level of sanctionability. I am not sure however that the filing of this complaint for such probably minor infractions, possibly in an attempt to bully others, might not be sanctionable in some way, perhaps at least with a rebuke and/or stern warning for abusing the process. John Carter (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by jps
Someone really should do something about User:Middle 8. He is one of the primary problems at acupuncture because as a practitioner he believes strongly in its validity and is willing to WP:FORUMSHOP like this in order to enforce his ownership of that article. He has been doing this for nearly a decade. jps (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning JzG
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''

This is a content dispute and therefore not actionable. The arbitration process, and by extension arbitration enforcement, can only address problems of editor misconduct, but can't decide who is right in matters of content. While it is conceivable that persistent tendentious (aggressively non-neutral) editing could be considered sanctionable misconduct, one talk page edit is certainly not misconduct, whatever its merits may be. Assuming in their favor that they are not familiar with the purpose of AE, I would only warn the complainant that any repeated misuse of the AE process by making unactionable complaints may, in turn, be considered disruptive and sanctionable. Everybody who is commenting here should not comment on the merits of the content dispute; such contributions may be removed as out of scope.  Sandstein  17:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * On reading the case and reviewing Middle 8's editing history I'd be more inclined towards a harder WP:Boomerang. I see absolutely no reason at all to assume Middle 8 is unaware of AE's purpose - especially given that they were involved in an AE case about Fringe science in 2009 (yes that's 5 years ago but it's a world aware from being unfamiliar with AE in the context of fringe science). This looks like a straight forward attempt to "win" a content dispute by removing/chilling "the opposition" with process. I'd tend towards a sterner final warning for abusing AE and re: WP:BATTLE-- Cailil  talk 23:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * JzG: Just to note, any editor may issue an alert, regardless of involvement (see WP:AC/DS). Your status as an administrator is irrelevant. When acting as an editor on a content issue, you're just any other editor. No opinion on anything else yet. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  02:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hence WP:INVOLVED. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the complaint as currently written is asking us to rule on a content issue, which we cannot. If you believe that there are behavioural issues which we can address please present them as soon as possible. Given the incivility in the response to the notification of this AE request  (note that I haven't looked into the interaction between Guy and Middle 8 to see if this is explained by a pattern) suggests there might be conduct issues worth addressing (specifically civility) but evidence of those would need to be provided, I haven't looked beyond this. I'd also note that AE is unable to make decisions based on use of admin tools per WP:AC/DS, though actions or comments made while using them or while discussing using them may be admissible (I don't think there is a precedent on that? This is probably as close as we've come to any action by admins). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok having had some time to review Middle 8's contribs I agree that there is some clear evidence (cf. RAN1's fist para and Alexbrn's statement) of tendentious editing regarding Acupuncture possibly due the issues related to the COI, but that neither here nor there. There is definitely growing evidence that a ban is needed to prevent this disruption, however if other admins are happy to review Middle 8's contribs in detail in this request then I'd encourage other editors to present evidence regarding Middle 8's conduct since 8 May 2014 when they were first alerted to the sanctions.
 * With the current level of evidence I would be in favour of a logged warning for JzG to stay calm and remain civil in discussions as well as a warning regarding comments like "should not be issuing AE notices to admins" (in his statement above), given that they were previously given a logged DS [warning for comments somewhat like this. Regarding Middle 8 I'd suggest a logged warning/admonishment for tendentious editing, including edit warring and WP:BATTLE, with the evidence presented so far. [[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]] (talk • contribs • logs) 11:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know that this remark actually constitutes incivility in this context. While it's ad hominem, given what looks to me like a very bad faith abuse of the AC/DS alert system I think it is an understandable, if rash & regrettable, reaction. I missed the edit summary, yes this is incivility. While I'm against any action being taken against any innocent user who is being vexatiously "process wonked" in principle I think a warning might in fact be appropriate. Guy is 100% wrong about admins being warned by other editors & I think a reminder about that is appropriate here too (HJM's wording above is spot on). That said if there are wider conduct issues (which would seem to be historical) between Middle 8 and Guy this would be better handled by dispute resolution attempts (mediation etc) or RFC/U or RFAr such matters, seem to me, to be beyond the scope of this forum-- Cailil   talk 14:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, given Callan's link to JzG's previous warning, I'd be inclined to go with something stronger than a warning. Imagine if a non-admin had been warned to watch their tone, for example, and was then brought back to AE and responded to the AE request in the same manner that resulted in the first warning. But I'm not sure what we could do, and I'm not sure that AE has the authority to sanction an admin for mentioning their admin status in a content dispute. The policy just says we can't restrict the use of the tools, but I wonder if this is sailing a little close to the wind? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * AE can't sanction admin actions as such, but it can sanction incivility, which may include references to one's admin status. But on the whole, while there may be a case for warnings of both parties because of incivility and vexatious use of AE respectively, I don't think that either party's conduct as documented here rises to the level where an explicit sanction is called for. If there is a case for sanctioning Middle 8 along the lines of Alexbrn's comment, it should be submitted as a separate, well-formed request with DATED DIFFS. (I'm not even looking at undated diffs any more, there's been too many times where undated diffs from circa 1970 have been submitted as evidence at AE).  Sandstein   16:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sandstein. I think a warning (as laid by Sandstein) for both is appropriate-- Cailil  talk 00:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have anything useful to add or are you just trolling? You're very welcome to contribute if you'd like to present evidence or analysis of evidence against JzG. If that doesn't interest you, I suggest you withdraw your comment. Bear in mind that there is ample precedent for editors being sanctioned for disrupting this board. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed.  Sandstein   16:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I couldn't tell you the last time I actually saw real enforcement of the decorum provisions. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NW, it happens fairly regularly for comments made at AE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

As it appears that there is consensus for both parties to be warned and that we are not going to get consensus for anything further, I'm closing this before any more time and space is taken up with statements by editors on one side or the other on content issues. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Mike Searson

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 15:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control
 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced:

Offensive comment Longterm battleground approach to Lightbreather:
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) 08:42, 16 January 2015 Says of user:Lightbreather (LB) "Certain people with political agendas have placed politically charged articles in this project. Personally, I think this should only be the technical stuff. Reading the political bile some folks write makes me want to whack someone in the head with a shovel. An anti gunner writing a technical article about firearms is about the same as a child rapist writing about how to run a day-care center."
 * 1) 23:07, 6 November 2014 Deletes LB from firearms project. (Maybe this was because of her temporary topic ban, but he didn't delete another user who received an identical ban).
 * 2) 01:00, 24 June 2014 Refers to a comment by LB as "total but not unexpected bullshit".
 * 3) 21:44, 28 May 2014 Says that he's only OK with LB improving the neutrality of the NRA article if she's OK with him adding the text "Enjoys dancing in the blood of dead children" to articles on "anti gun organizations".
 * 4) 20:56, 27 April 2014 Passive agressive personal attacks.
 * 5) 19:52, 22 April 2014 Says gun control advocates (LB is one) have "an evil agenda where they want to disarm anyone who disagrees with them on their road to despotism and tyranny."
 * 6) 16:32, 19 April 2014 Call LB a "troll".
 * 7) 22:47, 17 April 2014 Says of LB "These groups have paid shills who operate on wiki spreading their lies, hate and racism."
 * 15:37, 17 April 2014 LB asked him to lay off with the personal attacks.
 * 1) 07:06, 16 April 2014 Says of LB "some people like writing misleading tripe"
 * 2) 20:13, 13 March 2014 Insults Lightbreather ("Are you that slow that you cannot see that?") when she asks for a citation.
 * 3) 07:37, 24 January 2014 Says LB is a "disruptive editor" and a "basket case"
 * 4) 18:12, 21 November 2013 The welcome he gives LB: "Welcome to the firearms project. I look forward to your positive contributions and trust that you will not attempt to push your POV"
 * 23:53, 11 June 2014 Typical welcome to the firearms project
 * 1) 01:31, 13 November 2013 01:31, 13 November 2013 Says LB is "the proverbial "bad penny" that constantly undermines the hard work of others and previously arrived at consensus. That user is screaming for a topic ban."
 * 2) Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813 03:29, 3 October 2013 Says LB is "too emotional or too biased to work with anything firearms related"

Other users
 * 1) 19:10, 10 January 2015 Deletes a comment with the edit summary "GFY". Urban Dictionary says it means "go fuck yourself".
 * 2) 18:59, 29 December 2014 "I read it before the best part of you ran down your mother's leg."
 * 3) 19:17, 29 December 2014 "Well, i took it out; why are you still running your cryhole?"
 * 4) 18:45, 29 December 2014 "thats how its spelled jackoff"
 * 5) 17:02, 29 December 2014 "gave direct link and a quote, to say it is not there means you are a liar pushing an agenda"
 * 6) 14:42, 29 December 2014? "first sentence in a linked source in a published book, editor who cammot see it is either psychotic or liar"
 * 7) 19:53, 28 December 2014 "cited in the article, where do these jackasses come from?"
 * 8) 17:00, 29 December 2014 Deletes complaint about personal attacks with remark, "WLB". Urban Dictionary says it means "whiny little bitch".
 * 9) 04:14, 20 September 2014 Following a disagreement, posts this comment on his user page: "Oh yeah, if you kick the hornet's nest on here, beware the deranged aspie dogpile!"
 * 10) 04:29, 26 September 2014 Deletes complaint about personal attacks with remark, "don't like it? stay off my user page"
 * 11) Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive856 Filed 26 September 2014
 * 12) 18:55, 7 April 2014 Insults editors (and lots of other people) who use terms he doesn't accept: "whenever I hear someone use the terms "high capacity magazine", "assault weapon" or "Saturday Night Special" I take offense as those terms are perjorative in nature and reflect low intellect. If it is a man who uses the terms I instantly realize he knows nothing about firearms and is a better source of information about tofu burgers, scented candles and foot lotion."

Old stuff


 * 1) 08:34, 23 January 2012 Says of editors on Wikipedia: "you often deal with critics who could be compared to eunuchs in a harem" "For now I still believe in the projectm except for some of the losers it attracts. I really don't care about losers, but sometimes it's fun to watch them dance."
 * 2) Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive595 08:26, 2 February 2010  He admits he was wrong for calling another editor things like "Fuckchop", "Douchebag", and "Barney Frank", blames it on the other editor for making him lose his temper. In other exchanges he calls the editor a "cuntrag" (even while he's accusing the other guy of making a personal attack), a "little twerp" and "some loser"
 * 3) Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive178 07:00, 17 January 2007 Ancient history? It shows he ain't ignorant of the rules. He whines about another user being "frequently sarcastic", making "bold personal attacks", harassing him and blanking his talk page of complaints. Seven years ago he knew all about WP:CIVIL and thought that this other guy was in the wrong. Since then he's decided it's the best way to act.
 * 4) 18 November 2006 More complaints about an editor who is "fond of deleting the libellous attacks he makes too and denies them after the fact". That guy has a familiar list of uncivil remarks from Mike Searson.
 * 5) Wikiquette assistance/archive108 More complaints about other users for "personal attacks".


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 02:06, 18 April 2014

I was shocked to see someone comparing another editor to a child rapist and expressing the desire to hit her in the head with a shovel. This is a guy who collects guns and knives. He's used crude and aggressive language with her for years. Sure, he's abusive with other editors too but the way he's treated Lightbreather is unacceptable. Or it should be. This is sick. It's obviously intended to drive her away and discourage anyone else with a similar viewpoint. That violates the ArbCom case and a bunch of WP policies. He's been asked to stop but keeps doing it repeatedly. He knows it's wrong because he started on Wikipedia complaining about personal attacks by other users. Enough is enough. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * I have zero "relationship" with Lightbreather, unless you count editing some articles in common and having a similar point of view. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * the other editor in a recent disagreement over a US military sniper, mentioned above. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I also have zero "relationship" with Darknipples, now the subject of two SPIs this month.
 * The January 16 message from MS says things about "certain people, "some folks", and "an anti-gunner". Who is he talking about if not LB? Which people are doing the things he's complaining about? Is the corollary of his last statement that "pro-gunners" writing about gun control is like child rapists writing about the age of consent? I dunno. The message, or a message, is that there ain't nothing good an "anti-gunner" can bring to a gun article. Maybe he thinks they should only be edited by gun fans.
 * The brief reply from MS is crazy. Maybe he thinks I hacked his cellphone to learn his schedule. I dunno how he got the idea there's a "group" behind this filing. I did it all by myself. Making unproven allegations, even against an unregistered editor though including registered ones, is another potential violation of the ArbCom decision. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * 15:50, 20 January 2015‎

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

Statement by Mike Searson
I am out of town with no pc access until monday. Which is why this group chose this time to ambush me. I will respond then. But will say this. I never compared any editor to a child rapist. The accusers took that among other things i said out of context and misreported them. Same with the shovel comment its a figure of speech from the military, another reason for their enmity. The discussion was about source material. As in published authors on the subject and the subject was the technical aspect of firearms. Read that entire conversation before passing judgement as well as the other diffs they cherry picked. Sorry to put you folks through this, glad they didnt bring up the time i broke that lamp in 1973, respectfully -- mike searson (no tildes on my phone) (Copied from User talk:Sandstein, 10:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)) I was out of town for the past week. I was attending a major trade show for the Firearms Industry (SHOT Show 2015), coincidentally, after I posted on social media I was at the show, this wrongheaded allegation by a user I do not know popped up. It may be a coincidence like some of the others below have stated, but coincidence is like God, I believe in it, but have never actually seen it. That aside, I will address the complaint. On the charge of comparing Lightbreather or any wiki editor to a child rapist; that is a bald-faced lie. The discussion was about source material to be used in technical articles about firearms and ammunition; it is there on the talk page for all to see. Likewise the shovel reference, it is an idiomatic expression based on an Archie Bunker joke from All In The Family and was not referring to wiki articles, but political articles used as source material. I'm a child of the 70s, I grew up with Archie Bunker and Bugs Bunny/Woody Woodpecker cartoons, sometimes the younger generation does not get those references, for that I apologize and if I stay here, will keep my colorful language to myself. When it comes to Lightbreather, her and I have had minimal contact since I offered her this apology some time ago:, there were a few instances where I gave her words of encouragement as she was getting dogpiled and even offered help on a GGTF(sp?) article. As she claims to still not be over whatever I said last summer, I'm not even going to look for them or put any more effort into it. I have no ill will toward that woman and hope she gets what she wants out of life. I removed LB from the project as her page showed she had left wiki. I should have realized that when some people say things, they do not really mean them. As far as Gabriel F's comments, that line has nothing to do with sexuality. It's basically calling someone a wimp. If you find tofu burgers, foot lotion, and scented candles associated with gay people; that is something projecting from your own heart, not my words. Maybe you need to look up the definitions of similes and metaphors and note that the key words in both are "Exaggerated comparison". And you might want to look up the racist term "Saturday Night Special" and its etymology before you throw that one around and note that it is the very journalists who use that term that I am referring to (here's a hint it involves the "N" word). As for what I said about the gun control articles in Project Firearms, I have no idea who put them there or how they got there, I am sure most were long before LB was active and some like this are particularly baffling:. I do not feel they belong there and neither do the majority of the members of that project, it should be noted I rarely edit those pieces and even then was only at the behest of non project members demanding I "DO SOMETHING". Personally, I could care less if I never edited another gun control piece on wiki. I only came here to work on the technical pieces and it would probably keep my blood pressure down. I was originally going to go through the whole list point by point, but clearly these people felt if they threw enough shit up against the wall some of it would stick; and based on many of the comments that followed, very few took the time to read more than the basic dif and not the full context of what was being discussed. I am sure those folks have already made their minds up and will do what they wish. I'll end on this, you can call me a loudmouthed son-of-a-bitch, a politically incorrect asshole, or just a dick...but I never bullshit anyone.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Lightbreather
He has also referred to me as a cunt in the past.

As for more recent crap, he just seems to enjoy baiting me (and other editors). For instance, what was the purpose of this discussion? Or his comments in this discussion? I didn't bite, nor did the other editor, but he does this kind of stuff regularly, and I don't appreciate it. Lightbreather (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the anonymous user making this request. Lightbreather (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the Editor Interaction Analyzer shows five gun-related articles that Scalhotrod and the OP IP have in common. Lightbreather (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Going to call it a night soon, but I wanted to add, I've always thought it bizarre that Mike Searson is the coordinator of the Firearms WikiProject. Is it a coincidence that gun-control articles on Wikipedia are under discretionary sanctions when the leader of the project that oversees these articles (more than any other group) is so biased and hostile? Lightbreather (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No one pinged you, and the comment was struck. How did you know that you were mentioned here? (Here's an interesting Editor Interaction Analyzer since our mutual topic ban was lifted one week ago; note especially the BLUE edits.) Anyway, I agree that there are "POV Editors" at WP:GUNS, where gun-rights sources are rarely questioned, but gun-control sources often are. And conservative/libertarian sources are rarely questioned, but liberal/progressive sources often are. (If the things Mike Searson has said about me sound hostile, you should see what he says about Dianne Feinstein.) The project's POV has resulted in a body of articles that are decidedly pro-gun/anti-control POV, as well as missing articles that ought to be added, though "wholesale" is exaggeration.

The point of your second paragraph is to belittle the OP and anyone who might agree with him/her. The fact is, Mike has a very sarcastic tone, that no-one should have to appreciate. His words don't seem harsh - they are harsh. It is not clear that his January 16 comment wasn't directed at me. (It is cousin to another brash editor's crass "cunt" comment that "wasn't" directed at me.) And your last remark in that paragraph reveals how impressed you are with yourself.

As for me trying to humor Mike Searson in my replies to him, considering that gun-control articles are under discretionary sanctions, and considering how I've been treated in the past when I tried to complain about civility on Wikipedia, and considering that I am a woman in a man's world (Wikipedia), and that for millenia women have learned to grin and bear it in response to aggressive male behavior - Are you really claiming that you think my offense is feigned? I'm not going to say what I'd like to say to you, but instead, I'll just say... ;-).

Finally, it does appear that the IP has some knowledge of WP, but it is not clear that he/she has an agenda beyond wanting to edit anonymously, which I sometimes wish I'd done from day one on Wikipedia when I see how people like Mike Searson and you treat those whose POVs are different from your own. Who wants to edit, anonymously or otherwise, in an environment where a project coordinator is likely to show up and allude to physically harming those whom he disagrees with? Lightbreather (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of your decision re Mike Searson, may I ask you to consider an interaction ban between Scalhotrod and myself? I would prefer a one-way, since past evidence has shown, as has the interaction analysis since the end of our topic ban, that he follows me around, but I would agree to a two-way if necessary. Lightbreather (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Question: Since Robert McClenon has asked for clarification on whether or not Ibans ever result from ARE, does ARE ever result in any action against editors other than the requestor and requestee? Lightbreather (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Beyond My Ken
The Editor Interaction Analyzer shows six five gun-related articles that Lightbreather and the OP IP have in common. BMK (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by GRuban
That's a pretty frightening comment; managing to involve not only guns, but a threatened assault with a shovel, and a casual mention of child rape, in relation to ... editing a Wikipedia project. Not an article about war, not an article about a person's life, just a project. I can't guarantee it's specifically in reference to Lightbreather, but given the long history, it does seem possible; and frankly, it really shouldn't matter whom it was about, it's a pretty frightening comment regardless. This is not your standard Wikipedia namecalling, this is beyond the pale. BTW ... y'all don't have to get out the tools for me. I admit it, I, too, am Lightbreather. I am also Beyond My Ken and Scalhotrod. That way I ... we ... get to play not just solitaire Chess, but solitaire Contract bridge. Come, join us, be Lightbreather with me! --GRuban (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Scalhotrod
Since I'm being mentioned, I'll comment as well. Mike has the unenviable position of being the coordinator for a project whose subjects happen to involve a lot of misinformation and outright ignorance of in the general public and media. I don't blame him in the slightest for not wanting political articles added in wholesale fashion to the project. I know first hand how easy it is to get sucked into the rhetoric and posturing of "debating a subject" within an article rather than just factually describing it. But the subject of gun politics is far from being alone in this aspect. Abortion, same-sex marriage, religion, and ISIS are all hot button topics that received attention from a great many POV Editors who feel that articles should state and say certain things.

That said, Mike has a pretty sarcastic tone that takes a while to appreciate or understand. If taken out of context, of course his words will seem harsh. The January 16th comment highlighted above is a perfect example of how Mike expresses himself. It was clearly not directed at one particular User and as the Project Coordinator, he's seen more than his fair share of POV Editors over his tenure. Anyone not realizing this is just entirely too impressed with themselves to think that Mike would find it necessary to comment about them specifically.

As for some of the additional examples, such as this one that Lightbreather pointed out. , come on?! You responded to Mike's comment with a "wink and smile" ;) and now you're claiming that you're offended. You've dealt with Mike enough that I think you understood his point and responded accordingly. To use it against him in this context is just plain wrong.

As for everyone else watching/commenting, this just seems suspicious when an IP User that started editing on December 21, 2014 is initiating an ArbCom Enforcement proceeding. Clearly there is some prior knowledge of WP and an agenda in play. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 08:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Question by User:Robert McClenon
Lightbreather has asked for an I-ban (interaction ban) with another editor. Does Arbitration Enforcement have the remit to impose interaction bans, or do they have to come from the ArbCom and/or the community noticeboards? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Faceless Enemy
I don't think he meant anything personal with his shovel comment. I don't feel it was directed at any specific editor (note the reference to "someone", not "certain people" or "them" or "her"). There are plenty of ways to phrase that so that it is targeted at another person, and I don't feel that it was phrased that way. As to "An anti gunner...run a day-care center." A bit overboard, but an anti-abortion activist may not be the best choice for technical information about abortions either. Likewise, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church is a bad source for information on LGBT issues. Of course, if any of the above can write NPOV stuff then whatever. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure whether it's relevant, but the requester has been blocked as a proxy. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GabrielF
Mike Searson has a longstanding pattern of addressing other editors with hostility. His insults reference the gender, perceived sexual orientation, or perceived disability of his ideological opponents. Examples are numerous: referring to editors he disagrees with as an "aspie dogpile", referring to an editor he disagrees with as a cunt, referring to a female senator the same way, making comments about the intelligence of other editors (see below), making comments that imply that editors who disagree with him are homosexual (see below).

Here's a representative quote:
 * whenever I hear someone use the terms "high capacity magazine", "assault weapon" or "Saturday Night Special" I take offense as those terms are perjorative in nature and reflect low intellect. If it is a man who uses the terms I instantly realize he knows nothing about firearms and is a better source of information about tofu burgers, scented candles and foot lotion

I have seen the term "Saturday Night Special" used in reliable sources such as newspaper articles, books by historians and journalists, encyclopedias, and transcripts of Congressional hearings and debates. It's an important concept to articles such as Gun Control Act of 1968. I do not believe that an editor can have a fair-minded, civil conversation about an article if he can't hold himself back from making sneering, thinly-veiled references to the sexuality of those who use terms discussed in that article. The pattern of comments creates a chilling effect that discourages other editors from participating.

Mike has repeatedly been made aware that these comments are inappropriate, including in the ANI thread linked above. The fact that this pattern of behavior has continued leads me to believe than an indefinite topic ban is an appropriate remedy.GabrielF (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mike has responded as follows:
 * that line has nothing to do with sexuality. It's basically calling someone a wimp. If you find tofu burgers, foot lotion, and scented candles associated with gay people; that is something projecting from your own heart, not my words. Maybe you need to look up the definitions of similes and metaphors and note that the key words in both are "Exaggerated comparison".
 * Whether one reads the quote as calling someone homosexual or as calling someone a "wimp" (and, of course, one is a common stereotype of the other), the fact remains that, as Mike himself says, he chose to respond to a term commonly found in the historical literature by making a personal attack on the masculinity and intelligence of the user of that term.GabrielF (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Mike has been asked by administrators to remove comments before. See, for example,. GabrielF (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Pudeo

 * The first 16 Jan diff is mispresented. Read the actual section: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms. They are talking about sources the project uses for technical details; Lightbreather suggets one source should be cautioned because of pro-gun bias. Mike Searson responds wih the shovel to the head comment about anti-gunners writing articles about techical details. The comment was not about Lightbreather, not even implicit. The rest of the presentation is one-sided and may contain more errors. Keeping in mind that Lightbreather has had problematic user conduct before such as during the Gender Gap ArbCom case (block log), one-sided presentation should not be taken at face-value without having a look at Lightbreather's conduct as well. --Pudeo' 06:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have opened a SPI on the filing IP: Sockpuppet investigations/Darknipples. --Pudeo' 07:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP has been blocked for 1 year as an open proxy; no sockmaster confirmed. I don't know if a group was behind this, but it certainly was someone's sockpuppet or alternatively there was extensive off-wiki communication. Lastly, I would point out that using rough humor and/or rude words is a civility issue where the first step is attempting resolution on the user's talk page. Per Mike Searson's new statement, Lightbreather seems to have taken this up on his talk page, which was replied to and after which they've had minimal contact. There was no evidence of other disruptive behavior such as edit warring. --Pudeo' 05:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
Re Pudeo's comments above: Regardless of Lightbreather's "user conduct", and regardless of who is behind the IP that opened this request, it is totally unacceptable for any editor to use language like "makes me want to whack someone in the head with a shovel". Excusing such an approach on the basis that it is someone else who should be whacked in the head with a shovel entirely misses the point. If it were an isolated incident, a warning would suffice. However, given the string of evidence presented, Mike Searson should be warned that further intimidatory language will result in an indefinite block. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush
I've not yet ploughed through all of the evidence. For now, I'd just like to note that one-way IBANs, as has been suggested as a possible remedy by some, simply don't work. They just lead to more problems. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A fair amount of the evidence is pretty old. I'm uneasy about the use of an IP to file this request, especially given recent events, but I guess it really doesn't matter who files a request if the complaint is valid. Yes, Mike Searson should dial down the colourful rhetoric, metaphors etc, which some people on his talk say is "army creole". There is a pattern and it is spread over a long time.

The block log is clean, which perhaps says something given the contentious topic area. Given that area and the comments, it is difficult to comprehend how he has not been blocked before but perhaps some context is being lost. I know that he is aware of the DS but has he had prior warnings about this type of language/phrasing? Can we go from zero to the extreme of indef block/permanent topic ban without collecting £200? - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and fair enough. I think Sandstein's latest three-pronged proposal is overkill but your point is taken. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Mike Searson
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''

Awaiting a statement by Mike Searson. Notifying you of this request on which you may want to comment; if you do, please also indicate any relationship between you and the anonymous user making this request.  Sandstein  16:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Because Mike Searson doesn't seem to be active at the moment, I'll offer a preliminary assessment. The request appears actionable. The evidence indicates a confrontative attitude towards others. In particular, the recent edits of 08:42, 16 January 2015 ("makes me want to whack someone in the head with a shovel", comparing editors with different opinions to child rapists) and of 19:10, 10 January 2015 ("GFY" edit summary) are aggressive to a degree incompatible with working on a collaborative project to write a neutral encyclopedia about controversial topics. The use of aggressive, violent language aimed at a female editor in the context of disputes about gun control and gun violence by somebody who associates himself with a pro-gun point of view strikes me as particularly intimidating and inappropriate. The evidence of Mike Searson's past conduct shows that this is a persistent pattern of conduct, not an isolated incident. Unless fellow administrators see this in a radically different light, I am inclined to impose an indefinite topic ban.  Sandstein   08:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lightbreather, please let's keep this request focused on the conduct of Mike Searson. If you believe that there is actionable evidence of misconduct – in the form of diffs – that could require an interaction ban with respect to others, you can make a separate enforcement request about that.  Sandstein   17:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The worst matter here by far is the diff from 16 January, which is beyond unacceptable. That one is probably sufficient for a topic ban. Add that to the other ones under "Longterm battleground approach to Lightbreather" and it seems clear that Mike Searson's battleground approach is incompatible with further participation in this topic. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I think Mike Searson is a great editor, especially on species articles, but the interactions with Lightbreather here are not acceptable. I am especially bothered by what Sandstein refers to - the "aggressive, violent language aimed at a female editor..." Even if I took Scalhotrod's comments into consideration and assumed only the most benign intent behind those words, this would still be precisely what DS are supposed to prevent. I'm with Sandstein and Heim on this. Guettarda (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - courtesy the log, the answer is yes, at least in principle: AE has instituted i-bans in the past.
 * - there isn't enough here, in my opinion, to consider an interaction ban. And if it is warranted, it would be a separate request, though whether this is the best place for it is a different question; it would have to somehow spring from this arbcomm case. Guettarda (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Mike Searson hasn't edited since 16 January. I suggest waiting *at most* two more days to see if he'll respond. There is a case that he has engaged in talk page disruption, given the aggressive language. If this were an WP:ARBPIA complaint we would probably be talking about a three-month topic ban at this point. Interaction bans are tricky and might be considered if nothing else were available. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been going on for many years. Is there any reason to think that a three month topic ban will help? I would argue that we should be thinking indefinite, with the allowance of appeal, plus a one way interaction ban. Guettarda says he is a good editor with regards to species articles; that's the only reason I'm not arguing for a long term block. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 01:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In view of Mike Searson's interim statement reproduced above, I agree that we can wait until Monday UTC and should then decide based on his definitive statement.  Sandstein   10:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

My first thought was the same as NW's: that a lengthy block might be necessary. Several of the comments taken individually are beyond the pale, but taken collectively they indicate an extraordinary level of hostility far beyond the occasional loss of temper or lapse of judgement. We all get angry, and I could overlook an isolated incident, but this seems to be a pattern of drastically over-personalising content disputes. And while the gender of either editor shouldn't really come into it, it's hard not to notice such intimidatory behaviour being directed at a woman; certainly if a man behaved like that towards a woman in the street, at least where I come from, passers-by would intervene. While I'm willing to wait for Mike to make statement if he does so quickly, I can't see how such a statement could adequately explain the conduct raised here; it could present matters in extenuation and mitigation, but to be compelling that would have to include a lot of evidence that Lightbreather has behaved similarly appallingly. Unless Mike's statement casts a completely new light on things, I recommend a one-way interaction ban (ie a ban on talking to, commenting on, or mentioning Lightbreather anywhere on Wikipedia) and an indefinite topic ban on gun control and possibly a lengthy block. amended 03:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I am inclined similarly to NW and to HJ Mitchell. The stream of childish but vicious abuse spread across multiple edits on 28 December (not, I note, in relation to Lightbreather) does not speak well of this editor's ability to contribute effectively to even mildly contentious areas. The most recent (16 January) diff illustrates that the pattern of problematic editing is ongoing&mdash;if one feels that comparing one's adversary to a child rapist is acceptable, even in jest or as part of a dubious analogy, then one is not in a suitable state of mind for editing. Looking at Mike Searson's (initial) response, while I have concerns about the arrival of a 'new' IP with an apparently deep background appearing at this noticeboard, in the absence of supporting evidence it strikes me that he has greatly overreached with his self-serving assertion that this filing was deliberately timed to take place as an "ambush" during his absence. Searson has not apparently made a habit of notifying Wikipedia editors of his planned comings and goings, and regularly has gaps of between 'a few' and 'several' days in his editing activity. I see no indication to support any reason beyond coincidence that this filing seemed to hit one of his slightly-longer absences. As well, the idea that particular behaviors, attitudes, forms of address, or turns of phrase may be appropriate (or acceptable, or tolerated) in some situations, venues, occupations, company, or countries but emphatically not in others is not a new one. A nominally collegial, text-based discussion with fellow volunteers (some of whom may disagree with you) who are attempting to write encyclopedia articles reasonably calls for a different approach than then one evinced here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with GabrielF's description higher up on the page, and with HJ Mitchell just above. The amount of often sexualized aggression and hostility in the comments quoted by the OP is totally unacceptable. I don't care who it's directed at. Sneers like this… jeez. While a good deal of the stuff quoted is pretty old, this diff, singled out by Heimstern above as "beyond unacceptable", was posted just a week ago. At least a topic ban, for at least three months, from the firearms project is my recommendation. Six months would be better. Bishonen &#124; talk 00:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC).
 * The duration should be indefinite, with leave to request reconsideration after a certain period of time. Though those remarks are among the the worst I've ever seen from an established editor and I'm not fully convinced that a lengthy block is unnecessary, given the highly sexualised language and the references to violence. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with an indefinite ban or indeed a block. Bishonen &#124; talk 01:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC).


 * The additional statement by Mike Searson does not change my appreciation. That he may belong to a particular generation or subculture within one country does not change the fact that he engaged in aggressive, violent and arguably misogynistic and threatening commentary of a sort that is unacceptable in any collegial environment. I agree, in this respect, with what has been said above. I suggest an indefinite topic ban, an unilateral interaction ban with Lightbreather, and a block on the order of three months, all of which have already been suggested.  Sandstein   14:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Cwobeel

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 05:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:NEWBLPBAN :


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


 * 1) 21:52, 23 January 2015 Restoring an unsourced BLP page with the edit summary: "nothing here is contentious".
 * 2) 4:02, 24 January 2015 Restoring unsourced BLP content discussed at BLPN with a single source to the user-generated Internet Movie Database website.
 * 3) 4:05, 24 January 2015 Restoring unsourced BLP content discussed at BLPN with a single source to the user-generated Internet Movie Database website.
 * 4) 4:07, 24 January 2015 Restoring unsourced BLP content discussed at BLPN with a single source to the user-generated Internet Movie Database website.
 * 5) 5:10, 24 January 2015 Two edits (making a single comment) to defend IMDb as an acceptable BLP source and an invocation of Ignore All Rules.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 13:33, 12 December 2014 Alerted of discretionary sanctions by The Wordsmith
 * 2) 13:38, 27 December 2014 Admonished for WP:BATTLE by Cailil following an Arbitration Enforcement request.


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

A BLPN discussion was opened by the user Cirt. Cwobeel responded and maligned Cirt's actions: I leave it to you to continue blowing up the work of good faith editors for no reason other than being super-narrow in your interpretation of policy. Have fun. and While you are at it, go ahead and do the same with List of people who disappeared mysteriously, List of ice hockey players who died during their playing career and similar lists. There are many to keep your fun going. This seems to be more of the WP:BATTLE behavior that merited the first admonishment. I believe that the restoration sourced only to IMDb following these comments are indicative of a lack of competence and understanding of WP:BLP and WP:IRS.


 * (updated 16:22, 24 January 2015) Numerous credits have not checked out at Nicholas Cage's list including three 2008 Razzie nominations for "Worst Actor".. Two did not check out at the Susan Sarandon's list, included an award Boston Society of Film Critics: they instead awarded Melanie Griffith in 1988. I stopped on the Nicolas Cage one after 5 checks in a row came up dubious or not accurate. Adam Sandler's list doesn't seem to fair much better (Razzie 2008 again), but a large part of the list is negative awards. This is just to confirm the existence of problems on all three.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Notification made to Cwobeel

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

Statement by Cwobeel
We are talking here about innocuous articles listing the nominations and awards of known actors and actresses, nothing contentious that would warrant any type of intervention, and super easily sourced as I did here. I am glad to see that at least he is responding with improvements and adding other sources after me placing a refimprove template. OTOH, this editor needs to stop posting AN/I and AE postings against me over past weeks, and this last one is another example. This is bordering on WP:HAR. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that we have many BLP-related articles in WP, in particular lists, that are unsourced for non-contentious material. (See for example Susan Sarandon filmography, and Nicolas Cage filmography, and we just don't go around blanking them and redirecting them. In these cases the approach should be to place a refimprove or similar template. The Yank Barry case was contentious to start with. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

statement by Collect
Where a claim is made which another editor deems reasonably to be contentious, WP:BLP is sufficiently clear. I would present the following as indicative of an example where a "nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize" claim was removed as inadequately sourced to show just why this is a proper position for editors to embrace rather than oppose. Talk:Yank_Barry/Archive_1, Talk:Yank_Barry/Archive_2, Talk:Yank_Barry/Archive_4, Talk:Yank_Barry/Archive_5 etc. where I postulate that a Nobel Peace Prize is, in fact, a major award. It is not onerous to expect that reliable sources are findable for major awards. Collect (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge
Kww is an WP:INVOLVED admin and shouldn't be posting in the uninvolved admin section. I ask that uninvolved admins at WP:AE not rush to judgement. There is more going on here than this RfE might suggest. There is a long standing dispute in the community as to whether it's acceptable to delete content for no other reason than being unsourced. I think most are in agreement that it's perfectly acceptable for an editor to remove content in which they have a good faith belief that that the material is wrong or unverifiable. There is much debate in the community as to whether it is acceptable to blindly delete unsourced content for no other reason that being unsourced. See WP:PRESERVE. Also, see the discussion at WP:BLPN and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film as evidence that there considerable disagreement in the community as to whether such conduct is acceptable. Many editors consider blind deletions to be WP:DISRUPTIVE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Cwobeel
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''

The request has merit. WP:BLP provides that:
 * "Contentious material about living persons (...) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

The material at issue was contentious because at least one person objected to its inclusion. IMDB is a user-edited website and therefore not a reliable source. The BLP policy must not be ignored, and in addition, the evidence provided that at least some of the material added from IMDB was incorrect indicates that the edits were not in fact an improvement to Wikipedia (wrong information is arguably more harmful than no information). The statement by Cwobeel indicates that they intend to continue violating the BLP policy in this manner. They are therefore immediately blocked for a week to prevent this. I'm leaving the thread open to invite the opinions of other admins about the possibility of a IMDB, awards or BLP topic ban.  Sandstein  16:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support any closure of this AE that ensures that User:Cwobeel won't continue to add information sourced only to IMDB to these articles. Cwobeel's view that IAR applies was expressed in the BLP/N thread. There's no justification here for IAR, especially when it's been pointed out (above) that many of these award citations are erroneous. A BLP subject shouldn't expect to find obvious factual mistakes in their Wikipedia article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest a prohibition on restoring any material removed on BLP grounds without a) unimpeachable sourcing or b) consensus at BLP/N, to be enforced by blocks of rapidly escalating duration in the event of non-compliance. A total ban on any biographical content related to living people would be hopelessly broad and a siteban in all but name (if that's the sort of severity of sanction we feel is appropriate, we should be looking at a one-year AE block and/or an indefinite block as a normal admin action), whereas a ban on any specific set of articles would be too narrow and too open for gaming, in my opinion, to adequately address the issue. The restriction I suggest would seem to be a middle ground. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with this is that it does not prevent Cwobeel from adding problematic content if nobody reviews all of their edits, and they seem to have other ideas about what "unimpeachable sourcing" consists of than, well, most editors – a recipe for problems. I can't at the moment think of a better option than a ban from adding or changing any BLP content.  Sandstein   19:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But there are nearly 700,000 BLPs (~20% of the encyclopaedia) and almost every article is going to contain some sort of fact about a living person. If we're considering a total ban on biographical content about living people, we might as well block them until they bring their views on sourcing into line with the Wikipedia mainstream, because the alternative is endless wikilawyering and leaves them unable to edit most of the encyclopaedia anyway. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

In the context of potential damage, this isn't a huge BLP issue. (Adam Sandler isn't going to get a job over someone else if an award is attributed to him that he didn't actually receive.) The problem is that Cwobeel doesn't seem to understand the issue here. (There's a difference between "I'll stop" and "I understand, and here's why".) And I'm not seeing that in the links posted or in his unblock request. What bothers me most about this is how utterly pointless it is. But I can't disagree with the block. Guettarda (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of editors that don't seem to see the BLP issues involved with the "List of Awards and Nominations ..." articles. I agree with Guettarda that they aren't huge, but they are there, they are real, and this class of article has become a cesspool of unsourced assertions. While I agree with HJ Mitchell that any Wikipedia-wide BLP restriction is, for all practical purposes, a Wikipedia-wide restriction, it would probably be reasonable to craft a restriction tailored at award and nomination lists.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can think of wording that one couldn't drive a coach and horses through, please do propose it, but it seems there are concerns about the scope of the problem with Cwobeel's editing is broader than these awards articles. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would think a simple topic ban on lists related to awards and nominations for living people would be a good start. Additional restrictions may wind up necessary later, but that one would be a good start.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There seems to be agreement that some action is required, although perhaps not as broad as a BLP topic ban. I'm going with Kww's proposal and am imposing a ban from editing any list of awards or nominations of living people, with the exception of edits that consist only of adding accurate and reliable sources, subject to the usual exceptions. If BLP problems continue in other topic areas, additional sanctions may be requested or imposed.  Sandstein   11:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Appeal by Eurocentral

 * User who is submitting this appeal : 16:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sanction to be lifted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eurocentral,  Topic ban from Hungary and Romania

User Ed Johnson sanctioned me "due to your quibbling as to the country of origin of various historians who write about Romania" I consider the Ed Johnson action as an abuse. Usually, all the pages of Romanian and Hungarian history are strongly modified by some Hungarian nationalist editors (I noted Borsoka and Fakirbakir) who want to show the priority in history of Hungarians (action similar to irredentism). They started a war edit between Romanian and Hungarian editors. Their tactics are to erase all references of Romanian historians or all data who are against their principles. In order to avoid the 3RR and other wiki rules they acted alternatively. In this way they managed to blocked a lot of Romanian editors. I edited especially against the elimination of data of Romanian historians entering in conflict with Borsoka and Fakirbakir. I also edited in history of Hungary where I insisted to keep the exact data of Romanian historians.see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hungarian_conquest_of_the_Carpathian_Basin, The use of leader's names instead of the nation name. It is obvious for Romanians that some Hungarian editors try to avoid the names of Romanians (Vlachs) to be mentioned. Also in this AN3 complaint (permalink) I showed there about the alternative activity of Hungarian editors who erased all data of a Romanian historian who wrote against their principles. My opinion is that all data of all historians have room in wiki pages. Censoring historians are similar to vandalism.

Ed Johnson wrongly considered these as an action against "various historians"

I want the ban to be lifted (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Eurocentral (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I will do what are necessary and ad some diffs to reverts discussed; normally diffs are in connection to reverts; why did you write "diff of notification to appeal". What does it means?

Statement by EdJohnston
User:Eurocentral has placed the reviewers at a disadvantage by not providing any links to what he is talking about. I won't hold it against him that he can't spell my name correctly, even though it's clearly visible on his talk page, in the various sanction notices.

Back in October 2014, Borsoka reported Eurocentral for edit warring at Origin of the Romanians. See this report. As a result of that report, I took no action but I notified Eurocentral of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE.

You can see the tone of the interactions between Borsoka and Eurocentral at the RfC on the talk page. There are many charges of POV exchanged there. At the time, I believed that Eurocentral didn't want the opinions of Hungarian historians to be trusted, simply because they were Hungarian. Now that I review the material, I'm not so sure. But he still seems to believe that Hungarian Wikipedia editors are trying to enforce a certain POV.

Here is a statement he made about User:Borsoka on that page: "Borsoka wants to erase all references in Romanian but to keep all references in Hungarian. All pages of Hungarian history have references in Hungarian language. Another example of his subjective and nationalistic attitude. Eurocentral (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)" On my talk page he complained about gang tactics and irredentist editing by Hungarian editors.

It is possible that Eurocentral might have something useful to contribute but his limited English makes it hard for him to express himself clearly, and the net impression is of an ethnic warrior. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Borsoka

 * Just a side remark: I have never wanted to "show the priority in history of Hungarians" (actually I do not understand what this expression means), and I have not "started a war edit between Romanian and Hungarian editors". On the other hand, Eurocentral has for long been dreaming of an edit war between Hungarian editors on one side and the united forces of Romanian, Slovak and Ukrainian editors on the other . No other editors have so far joined him. Eurocentral also expressed his biased views of Bulgarian editors during a debate about his (not unusual) abuse of scholars' name in order to substantiate his own OR . Even a banned (and, by the way, Romanian) editor, who had (ab)used Eurocentral as his puppet, stated that Eurocentral "does not own the necessary skills for being a contributor here"; an other editor wrote of the "One Man Army of Eurocentral". Borsoka (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Eurocentral

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


 * This was a pretty malformed request, I've formatted it to something resembling normal. Eurocentral, you must notify the banning admin of this request, and add a diff of the notification to your appeal, or it may not be processed.  Sandstein   16:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Eurocentral, you must leave the banning admin a message that tells them you appeal the ban here. Then you must copy the diff (see WP:DIFF) of that message to your section so that we can see that you left the message. Please comment in your own section only, I've moved your comment up.  Sandstein   17:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to let the bureaucracy get in the way, given that Eurocentral is not a hugely experienced editor, so pinging should suffice. Nonetheless, I'm inclined to dismiss the appeal as it does not address the reasons for it and instead personally attacks two editors by accusing them of being Hungarian nationalist editors [...] who want to show the priority in history of Hungarians, accuses the sanctioning admin of "abuse", and is indicative of a battleground mentality. I also note that Eurocentral has violated the topic ban at least once, resulting a short block. This all suggests that the topic ban is not only justified but absolutely necessary.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with declining the appeal for the same reasons. The statement by Eurocentral indicates the sort of confrontative approach to encyclopedia writing that this topic area does not need.  Sandstein   19:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no substantive editing outside the topic area since the sanction was imposed. Show that you can edit constructively elsewhere, on less contentious topics. Show that you can edit without getting into nationalistic confrontations. Make it clear that you won't get into confrontations like this, establish a track record. Do that and your request to have your ban lifted might be taken more seriously. At present, it doesn't seem like you understand the problem people had with your editing. Guettarda (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Eric Corbett

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 23:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced:
 * Eric Corbett topic banned indefinitely from: (i) editing the pages of the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) discussing the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) participating in any process broadly construed to do with these topics.
 * Eric Corbett prohibited ... from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors.


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


 * 1) 16:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC) In a discussion at WP:WER about retaining and recruiting new editors, less than an hour after I asked if women had been invited to the conversation, and in direct response to that question, Eric Corbett showed up to criticize one of the proposals and compared the project to WP:GGTF
 * 2) 22:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC) After I tried to help Eric Corbett by suggesting his criticism wasn't about gender, he replied that "we create a fantasy world of institutionalised sexism...."
 * 3) 23:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC) He belittled me in an edit summary (favours from you LB I really don't need).
 * 4) 00:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC) After notifying him of this enforcement request, he replied that he hopes that I get banned.

Eric Corbett had not been active on the project's talk page since 14 November 2014, when he asked if she was making a legal threat.

I tried twice to simply have the comments removed at the talk page in question, but both requests for admin help were closed within a few minutes.

As usual, when it comes to complaining about Eric Corbett, I had a knot in my stomach when I came here because I know how many people defend him. I only came here after I tried twice to correct his misstep, using the "path of least drama" as puts it, at WER. Baiting has been mentioned here and there. Where did I bait Eric Corbett?

Also, when did I bring up GGTF? Not until after Eric Corbett had... in the very first sentence of his very first post at WER in over two months. Lightbreather (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"Piqued" has two meanings, one of which is to feel irritated or resentful. I was neither of those things. I asked if women had been invited to the discussion because it seemed like a perfectly reasonable question. The men involved in the discussion had come up with a pretty good list of things to consider for retention and recruitment. You even invited others to "add to the soup." For this reason it seemed to be a pretty good time to ask, too, as there was also a suggestion to submit the list to the Signpost.

However, the answers ran from defensive (I don't see a way to fault those involved) to not AGF (a good way to derail something like this is to add the hot-button gender element to it). And then Eric Corbett jumped in with, "This project seems to be heading down the same rabbit hole that the GGTF project now finds itself in." Lightbreather (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

My question to the WER discussants had NOTHING to do with outing. There are many women who edit openly as women on Wikipedia, many respected women editors. And some of those women are members of WER. My questions was simply to suggest that the group invite some women to participate. Lightbreather (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It was Eric Corbett who brought up GGTF first... in the very first sentence of his very first post at WER in over two months. Lightbreather (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@EVERYONE To explain the series of events from my eyes. I asked a question. The group might have simply answered, "Good idea. Let's do that," but it didn't. By the time Eric Corbett joined in, there were some already singing the "Wikipedia is genderless" chorus. My first response to Eric was to ignore the first sentence of his comment (comparing WER to GGTF) and to agree with him (I did and I do) that one of the list items should be clarified. Then I proceeded to give my opinion on how to improve one of the other list items. There was a little opposition to the suggestion, and Buster7 brought up Eric's "rabbit hole" statement about the GGTF. Seeing that we might be heading into another dispute about gender, I said 1) Let's not use terms like "rabbit hole," and 2) That I didn't think Eric was talking about gender. (Yes, despite opinions to the contrary, I was trying to keep the discussion from devolving into the other hot-button issue: civility.) And, for those who don't click through, this is what I said:
 * My purpose in asking the question that I asked earlier today was to remind the project members involved in this discussion that they ought to consider inviting some women project members to join in. That's all. There is a gender gap on Wikipedia, and we do want to narrow it, and one way to do that is to get more women involved in these kinds of discussions. I don't mean for that to be a critical comment - just a factual one.

To which Eric replied that "we create a fantasy world of institutionalised sexism or whatever and then we populate it with imaginary villains and heroes." WTH? And then Buster7 wanted to discuss whether or not "rabbit hole" is a negative figure of speech, and whether by using "let's" I was presuming to speak for the group.

Seeing the signs of a derailing of the discussion (should we invite some women project members to join this discussion), I asked for an uninvolved admin to remove Eric's comments per the GGTF ArbCom Remedies.

Please note that I only asked for his comments to be removed, and that I did not come here first.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Notified here.

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

Statement by Eric Corbett
The next thing will be a request for clarification I imagine, hopefully leading to another replay of the civility debates and ending up with me at last being banned. But for what? Merely mentioning the GGTF? Eric  Corbett  03:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I fully expected that the hard-line enforcers such as would do their utmost to stretch the meaning of "(iii) participating in any process broadly construed to do with these topics" beyond the limits of credibility, which is why I've been refusing to help with articles on female subjects. But if the editor retention project now comes under the remit of the GGTF then so be it, I'm guilty as charged. Eric  Corbett  15:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
An administrator already told Lightbreather they considered Eric's participation allowed: please see [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lightbreather&oldid=644023878#WT:WER] and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention. NE Ent 00:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The allegation the Eric "showed up" in response to Lightbreather's participation is not supported by evidence. The article info tool indicates Eric is the sixth most frequent participant, with the following data: Username ↓ 	Links  ↓ 	# 1  ↓ 	Minor edits  ↓ 	%  ↓ 	First edit  ↓ 	Latest edit  ↓ 	atbe 2  ↓ 	Added (Bytes)  ↓ Eric Corbett 	ec · topedits 	121 	30 	24.8% 	2013-05-22, 21:55 	2015-01-24, 23:48 	5.1 	36,359 NE Ent 00:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC) A block is inappropriate here. Conflicts should be resolved using the Path of Least Drama. As an administrator (Go Phightins) a) gave Eric a great light to continue and b) has admitted they erred, a block would be excessive. The simplest way to resolve is to simply remove Eric's post from the page (I'd have done it already but the committee chose to use the term "administrator" rather than "editor".) NE Ent 11:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Chillum
I have read through the diffs and I have seen what is at worst mild abrasiveness. I don't think this behavior rises to the level of sanction. Eric has been rather impressively holding back over the last several weeks and has even demonstrated the ability to not allow provocation to get the better of him. He has done this while continuing to contribute to the encyclopedia. I don't think much is to be gained for using enforcements against such mild behavior. <b style="color:Indigo">Chillum</b> 00:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * At the time I wrote the above the "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" section was not filled out. I assumed this was about the civility restrictions. I now realize it is about a topic ban. While I stand by what I said above I recognize I have not addressed the issue at hand. <b style="color:Indigo">Chillum</b> 01:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
There is nothing here other than the ordinary give-and-take of editing. Suggest a wrist-tap to the plaintiff for filing a frivolous complaint. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush
ShortBrigade says Suggest a wrist-tap to the plaintiff for filing a frivolous complaint. I'd suggest a well-aimed boomerang. People are not seeing the elephant in this room, which encompasses several other WMF-operated spaces (diffs on request). Alas, as I understand it, enforcement only works in one direction, unlike ANI. The volume is being turned up to eleven and "frivolous" doesn't even get near to covering it. - Sitush (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Go Phightins!
Insofar as I misread the topic ban as topics related to the gender gap, not merely GGTF, I erred in my initial assessment that there was absolutely no violation of the topic ban. Nevertheless, I chose not to block initially because Eric's participation was certainly not detrimental to the discussion, was only tangentially related to the GGTF, and even so, only because Lightbreather brought it up. Moreover, Lightbreather's decision to bring up the sanctions after arguably baiting or at least facilitating an atmosphere conducive to discussion of how the gender gap pertains to editor retention, a discussion in which I think Eric should have the right to participate. In short, when Eric began participating in the discussion, it was not about the gender gap, and only because of Lightbreather did it shift to that topic, at which point Eric's response catalyzed her reporting of him ostensibly violating a topic ban thereof. I do not support blocking Eric at this time, but as I told Lightbreather, I plan to continue to monitor the discussion on WT:WER.  Go  Phightins  !  03:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * – Upon reflection and re-reading of the topic ban and Eric's comments, I think you are right that Eric's edits do violate the strict construction of the topic ban, notwithstanding that they were not inflammatory and were appropriate in the context of the discussion, which was never supposed to be about the gender gap, and only shifted to that topic because Lightbreather made it shift that way. I would not feel inclined to block considering the circumstances, but another administrator would certainly be justified in doing so per the topic ban's stipulation that Eric refrain from discussing the gender gap topic. The argument to block on the basis of belittling another editor, however, I think is significantly weaker, especially considering there was definitely some two-way baiting going on here.  Go  Phightins  !  13:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Buster7
Editor Lightbreather came into the discussion piqued because no women were present. I just want to point out that no editor was invited to the conversation. No editor or group of editors was excluded. As is normal, it was many varied conversations that just bubbled up from the masses. It just so happened that none of those masses were women. It could have been handled in so many different ways that would have been forwarding and positive toward the issue that is important to Lightbreather. As a long time member and a co-ordinator at WER I feel some responsibility to maintain the proper decorum at the project. At no time did I feel that Eric had over-stepped the bounds of propriety. He never even got close.<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  09:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Delibzr
Most of the people don't know that the complaint concerns topic ban. Delibzr (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kudpung
As I interpret the exact wording of the arbitration, Eric is clearly in breach of the sanctions. What happens next I will leave for others to decide. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hafspajen
I believe that the whole discussion was about the tread: How many women have been involved in these discussions? started by the same editor who also started this one. Is based on outing. Outing is not allowed. Or you have to declare you are a woman or you chose to say - I don't want to say = he edits or she edits. This kind of discussions are forcing people to disclose their identity. I believe it is every editor's fundamental right to chose what they want to disclose or not, but in this way it's soon impossible. Or is this a project for finding out people's gender? The answer is: You don't know the answer. You will never know: How many women have been involved in these discussions? - not until every single editor disclosed their gender. Hafspajen (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
I suppose I'm hardly uninvolved since I have supported both editors in their various disagreements with others (Lightbreather, you may recall, had gotten somewhat unfairly in hot water in the whole gun debate thing and I mostly supported her arguments there), but this is indeed frivolous. Worse, it causes a chilling effect which I think is never OK--and I'm putting that mildly since I don't wish to use the H-word.

Statement by John Carter
I see absolutely no merit whatsoever to this complaint. I specifically stated that this discussion be taken to AE, but that as an individual I and I believe the other editors who have been given the authority to remove disruptive comments on the page apparently saw nothing that merited such action. The only possible grounds for declaring a violation are Eric mention of the GGTF, and, honestly, that seems to me to be an extremely weak basis on which to impose sanctions. I also note that Jimbo's talk page has historically been declared out-of-bounds by AE given his status. While I do not necessarily think that the ER group has the same status or authority as Jimbo, I do think that there might well be merit to having at least one other page where comments which might be otherwise less than appropriate be placed, and that the talk page of a group whose stated goal is to keep editors would be an appropriate page to serve that purpose. As I have indicated there already, several people have already been effectively declared as having the authority to remove comments that are counterproductive, including a few active admins. If the comments ever get regularly excessive there, then it may be necessary for AE or ArbCom to be invoked, but I have no reason to think it will ever get to that point, and that it is appropriate to allow some editors to express their concerns somewhere other than Jimbo's talk page somewhere on wikipedia. John Carter (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Eric Corbett
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * Frivolous complaint in my opinion. In view of the history between the users, I would say that the talk from LB about 'trying to do Eric a favor' was pretty provocative, as were also her requests for admin to remove Eric's comments (repeating the request when she didn't like the first uninvolved admin response). Eric's comments seem mild enough, and not in breach of his GGTF topic ban. Bishonen &#124; talk 01:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC).
 * Is your stated intention to apply a one-week block a supervote, Sandstein? But in fact where I mentioned the topic ban, I've realized I missed where Eric Corbett mentioned GGTF without being prodded into it: here. Sorry about that. He shouldn't have, but a bare mention = a week's block? A warning is sufficient IMO. Lightbreather's other complaints are straight from the bottom of the barrel. EC's supposedly "belittling" edit summary here was in response to this. I could easily have said as much myself. EC's edit summary response might make LB self-reflect a little about her own belittling condescension ("I tried to do him a favor by saying that he wasn't talking about gender" — consider the history betwen them!), rather than complain. And EC's pettish response to LB filing an AE report is "[a violation of] his restriction from 'insulting (...) other editors'" (per Sandstein)? Please. This whole complaint is overblown, and I think you're overreacting too, Sandstein. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC).
 * This does look a bit silly. Eric could perhaps not bring up the GGTF, but the mere mention of it is not a violation of his topic ban. Lightbreather could perhaps look past the person who made the comment and reply to its substance or ignore it, but I don't believe she is subject to an applicable arbitration remedy so there would be no grounds for a boomerang, even if I didn't feel that it would be excessive. In some respects, I'm glad this has been brought for outside input before it deteriorated any further, but I wish it had been taken to a forum that wasn't about imposing sanctions. Full disclosure: I met Eric IRL once and I've interacted with him off-wiki, but the same is true of possibly thousands of editors, including several that I've sanctioned. I believe I am objective on this matter. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  03:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I too am inclined to think that this complaint is making a mountain over something that could not even be charitably described as a molehill. However, can someone explain to me why Eric's edits do not fall under the scope of the topic ban (parts 2-3, if not specifically part 1)? Thanks, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 05:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the complaint has merit and is not frivolous. By writing that "This project seems to be heading down the same rabbit hole that the GGTF project now finds itself in", Eric Corbett violated his topic ban from "participating in any process broadly construed to do with [the GGTF]"; see also WP:TBAN, which clearly extends topic bans to discussions. By writing that "Hopefully it will result in you being banned", which is an insult, Eric Corbett violated his restriction from "insulting (...) other editors". Considering Eric Corbett's long block log, I intend to apply a one-week block unless my colleagues show me something I've overlooked.  Sandstein   11:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a frivolous complaint, in my opinion. Thin, but not frivolous. The real question is what's the appropriate remedy? Normally this wouldn't merit more than a warning. Normally Eric Corbett's block log would merit a block. But here's the problem - short blocks don't seem to bother Eric - and why should they? Longer blocks would be disproportionate, and not in the interest of the project. I'm at a loss here. Guettarda (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A technical violation but not one I suspect was done in bad faith. It appears an existing discussion was going on and it was swayed into the forbidden topic area by the poster of this report. I suggest a stern warning that the topic ban is to be interpreted strictly in the future and to beware of such pitfalls. <b style="color:Indigo">Chillum</b> 16:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Most admins above recognize this request as actionable, but many think that the topic ban was violated only in a minor way, such that a warning suffices. I disagree. Whether the "prohibited from belittling" restriction was violated is indeed disputable, but the violation of the GGTF topic ban - by mentioning the GGTF in a discussion - is in my view not open to question. That being the case, if the topic ban is to have any meaning, it must be enforced as it is written. A warning is not necessary because the topic ban itself served as a warning, and a warning is not possible as a sanction because the enforcement provision envisions only blocks and not warnings as sanctions. A one-week block would be appropriate in view of Eric Corbett's long block log and also because the enforcement remedy provides for first-time blocks to last up to a month, which makes one week short in comparison. Also, a shorter block is likely not to be enough of a deterrent. Moreover, if action is not taken here, I consider it likely that Eric Corbett will continue to test the borders of his topic ban. However, in consideration of the concerns voiced above, I am now imposing only a 48 h block for this first reported violation of the topic ban, but subsequent blocks may be considerably longer. In reply to Bishonen, this is a supervote insofar as AE actions do not require and are not based on consensus, but Eric Corbett is free to appeal the block. I am closing this thread as resolved, but any admin is free to reopen it if they consider that other actions need to be discussed.   Sandstein   18:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Request concerning John Carter

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 17:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Ebionites 3 interaction ban :


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) 18:16, 8 December 2014 John Carter directly commenting on a post I made to Fearofreprisal's talk page re outing. Please note that the statement makes no sense on its own; the part about things left on the doorstep is clearly a response to my previous post.
 * 2) 23:34, 24 January 2015 John Carter making disparaging comments about me to Eric Corbett and putting words into ArbCom's mouth about how I am regarded by the Committee.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
 * 1) John Carter AE block for previous I-ban violation

John Carter opposed my recent amendment request to relax the terms of the I-ban restriction: Ebionites 3 I-ban amendment request Therefore, John Carter should also be obligated to abide by the original terms of the ban restriction.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Simply put, John Carter can't insist on a strict adherence to the terms of the I-ban and then go around trash-talking about me like this. There is nothing frivolous about defending my reputation as an editor against aspersions by an ex-admin who has already been sanctioned for doing it. Ignocrates (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@: I requested by email that the I-ban restriction be relaxed during the HJ case after pointing out that John Carter had already violated it twice. I didn't push the point because ArbCom responded by temporarily relaxing the restriction within the case. You can verify this for yourself on their email archives along with the two diffs I provided as evidence. Ignocrates (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@: This looks like speculation about my motives based on transitive logic, and that's all it is - speculation. This diff has nothing to do with John Carter, and this diff has nothing to do with me. It is stirring the tea leaves to find a pattern that isn't there. The issue of outing came up at ANI months ago when was T-banned, in part, based on his user name and what the patrolling admin believed that signified about his motives as an editor. Ignocrates (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

17:47, 25 January 2015
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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

Statement by John Carter
This request frankly to my eyes shows how completely and utterly out of control Ignocrates' obsession with me is. It should also be noted that the first link provided was in response to what was to my eyes an apparent attempt by Ignocrates himself to impugn me, indirectly, and clarifying that his implicit accusation had no basis. The second was in regard to my own earlier retirement and to the causes of it, in which his conduct played a role. In short, the first was in response to a violation on his part, and the second was about me more than anyone else. First, as I believe I have already to the eyes of the ArbCom itself in his recent request for amendment, he has apparently been doing little if anything for the past several months than stalking me. And I also indicated in that discussion, which can be found to have been withdrawn as receiving no support whatsoever here, he has himself done for the past several months little but making similar comments in his ongoing stalking of me in the last few months. The WP:DIVA hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and incompetent irrationality this editor has displayed in his own recent actions, combined with his rather obvious recent history of stalking to the apparent exclusion of pretty much everything else, to my eyes cause serious questions as to whether this individual might now qualify under WP:NOTHERE, considering he apparently has few if any articles which relate to his sole topic of interest, his modern, non-notable, view of "Jewish Christianity" with which to occupy himself and has thus reverting to almost exclusive stalking, and I think that there are more than reasonable grounds for his being sanctioned for his persistent and transparently obvious STALKing and other hypocritical misconduct, in violation of his own interaction ban from the same case. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding Ignocrates' obvious misrepresentation of facts most recently added above, I did not at any time advocate a strict observance of the i-ban, I pointed out how the i-ban has not been adhered to, which is a separate matter. He seems to once again be displaying his inability to perceive reality. I indicated he had been stalking me, and that others including sitting arbitrators had told him to stop STALKing me, and in his arrogance he ignored them. He is apparently still engaging in his stalking, and now seems to have convinced himself that I am to blame for his inability to adhere to his own interaction ban or STALKing. I state once again that I believe Ignocrates' inability to view his own conduct and the criticism of it by others, including the arbs, in a reasonable light raise serious questions regarding his own grasp of and ability to abide by policies and guidelines, and believe that boomerang sanctions against him for his ongoing misconduct should be considered. John Carter (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The evidence of Ignocrates' stalking is obvious in the comments I made at the page of ARCA to which I linked to, although the link is to the withdrawl of the request, here, specifically including a statement by a then sitting arbitrator, Worm, regarding Ignocrates' obvious stalking, and I regret the statement Sandstein quoted below was directed at Fear, not at Ignocrates, based on the conduct which got Fear topic banned in the Historicity of Jesus arbitration. Therefore, I can see no basis for saying that it is a violation of the ban, because it was not directed at Ignocrates. I regret the rush to unsupported and irrational judgment exhibited by someone who is supposed to review the material before passing judgment. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To the closers: What level of evidence is required to verify STALKing? Also, at what point do we consider the possibility, as I raised at ARCA, that since the time of his "semi-retirement", basically since the last time he edited an article, he has shown no apparent interest in actually in any way contributing to wikipedia except with his opinions, and that almost exclusively in areas in which I had already been involved and which he had never shown any prior interest, seemingly motivated by my involvement? Frankly, can any person be expected to be on his toes every second, when he knows that there is someone out there who has no apparent interest in the project other than looking to trip him up, for no apparent other reason than vindictiveness? Are these matters which should be raised at ANI, or does a history of doing virtually nothing but stalking me into areas of contention itself, possibly for the purposes of tripping me up one way or another, qualify as sufficient cause to think that WP:NOTHERE may be applicable? Also, although it might be argued to have been considered "acceptable" because of NativeForeigner's lifting the interaction ban as long as the comments were constructive at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Workshop, I wonder, does his casting aspersions on me as having a bad history with Kww as per Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Proposed decision, which is more than a bit of an overstatement, qualify as not abiding by the terms of the modification considering it is not constructive, rather over-simplified, and rather clearly intended to disparage? John Carter (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (IAR editing your section) You need to provide diffs that show Ignocrates interacting with, provoking, or commenting with regard to you or something else that shows that they have no intention of sticking to the terms of the interaction ban. It's unlikely to affect your fate, but it might be grounds for sanctions against Ignocrates. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Rules are made to be broken. :) I believe that his comments here, which clearly relate to the ANI thread linked to and also once again demonstrate a dubious overriding concern over the alleged "reputation" of editors is yet another in his obvious stalking attempts. Also, it is worth noting that I have requested at WP:ARCA clarification if I would be allowed to take further instances of obvious stalking to ANI, even if it does not necessarily violate the i-ban directly, which would permit further community input regarding both the recent history of editing, and any concerns that might raise, as well as the nature of that recent history. John Carter (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
WP:BANEX: "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum." This AE filing is a frivolous request. NE Ent 18:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Fearofreprisal
Here, John Carter says of Ignocrates "The WP:DIVA hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and incompetent irrationality this editor has displayed in his own recent actions..."

This appears to be the same kind of personal attack against Ignocrates for which John Carter was sanctioned in Ebionites 3

Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning John Carter
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * The request has merit. It appears clear to me that at least the following part of John Carter's first reported edit violates the interaction ban:
 * "And, honestly, to you directly, if you stopped engaging in the degree of self-dramahtizing and somewhat self-aggrandizing behavior you seem to rather regularly engage in here (...)"
 * In addition, John Carter's statements in response to this request also violates the interaction ban in that it contains accusations of misconduct and such statement as "(...) the hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and incompetent irrationality this editor has displayed (...)". The second diff provided as evidence also seems clearly aimed at Ignocrates. While WP:BANEX does make an exception for legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, the previously mentioned statements are not covered by this exception because they are not about the topic of John Carter's interaction ban, but about John Carter's disagreements with Ignocrates, the prevention of whose continuation was the reason for the interaction ban in the first place. Because the previous interaction ban violation by John Carter resulted in a two-week block, this one should result in a longer one, say, a month.
 * As to John Carter's complaints about stalking by Ignocrates, no evidence in the form of diffs is presented for that, so I see no grounds on which we could take action in this regard. Checking the edits of an interaction-banned editor to verify that no prohibited interaction occurs is, in my view, not "stalking".  Sandstein   18:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree there is merit to the request, and I agree that since the last block for violation of the remedy was a fortnight, this one should be a month. That said, interaction bans only work if both parties to them keep their distance. It seems to me that Ignocrates has been careful to keep just enough distance to avoid attracting an enforcement request, and would do well to avoid John Carter entirely, including monitoring his edits to find perceived violations. Unless somebody presents diffs to suggest that Ignocrates has gone beyond following John Carter's edits and has outright violated the ban, I'm not inclined to take formal action, but I would suggest they be given words of advice. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, another violation, and their comments here (eg quoted by Sandstein and Fearofreprisal) make it clear that sanctions to enforce are necessary, given previous block was too weeks I agree that this one should be a month. I can't see enough evidence against Ignocrates to do anything, though I agree that advising them to stay away and ignore would be the better idea. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm a little more circumspect here. I agree with HJM, Ignocrates has been "careful" with their line-stepping. That first diff which shows John Carter breaking the IBan is him reacting to what is the dictionary definition of wikihounding. That doesn't excuse John Carter's outburst but it has to mitigate it somewhat. I'd suggest if (and I'm not entirely in agreement that it should) action has to be taken I'd leave any block at the same level as last time. I'd also point out that following someone one is banned from interacting with to pages they edited directly before hand (with the clear intention of poking the bear) is not merely breaking the spirit of an IBan it's wikistalking. (the edit by Ignocrates is this one which was made in the context of two threads on John carter's and fearofreprisal's talk pages - while Ignocrates did not use John Carter's name this is a clear example of hounding). Wikistalking / monitoring the edits of those one is banned from interacting with and then complaining about it in order to punish the other party is the definition of having "unclean hands". As such it's my opinion that in this context this report should be closed without action and with a clear warning to both. A) to John to ignore Ignocrates. And B) to Ignocrates for wikihounding and using AE to win a personal battle-- Cailil  talk 12:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Furthermore IMO the second diff is not actionable under IBan - it's poor form and a very bad idea in context but not actionable. The first is also over a month old (from time of filing) December 6th 2014. That's 50 days without Ignocrates seeing a problem, IMHO we would be bending over backwards to punish John Carter here with a block when some other remedy might have a calming effect, if it addresses problems on both sides-- Cailil  talk 12:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've taken a look at Ignocrate's contributions and they haven't edited an article since November, and it does indeed appear that they have been stalking John Carter and skirting around the edges of the interaction ban. This does not, though, excuse John Carter's own misconduct. Thus, I've blocked both parties for a month. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Pigsonthewing

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 22:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes :


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


 * 1) Jan 25 2015 Please see this diff and Template_talk:Geobox where has recently proposed removing the Geobox template (an infobox in all but name) from 159 articles and replacing it with Infobox settlement. According to the active topic bans page "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes.", so this is a clear violation of his ban. I leave it to others to decide what to do. Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) Date Explanation
 * 2) Date Explanation


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

This can be parsed two ways, both of which mean Andy has violated his current ban. 1) If a Geobox is not an Infobox, then the 159 articles in question have no infoboxes and Pigsonthewing is proposing adding Infobox Settlement to all of them. OR 2) If a Geobox is a kind of generic infobox (which Andy seems to say), then he is proposing to both remove the Geobox, and then add Infobox Settlement. For the Wikilawyers out there who say this is a replacement, and that is somehow different than a removal followed by an addition, I note that Geobox Borough and Infobox Settlement are NOT functionally equivalent (and to me "replacement" implies substituting an equivalent, which is not the case here). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

I also note that Andy has a long-running history of removing / trying to remove Geobox from various articles where it is used (and if Geobox is removed from a group of articles, he then removes the relevant code from the Geobox itself). Given that he has proposed the deletion of Geobox itself (which failed), my assumption is that his long-term plan is to remove enough uses and code piecemeal that he can then TfD and delete Geobox itself (despite earlier failures to do this). See my evidence in the ArbCom case on Infoboxes Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Final comments - 1) since this issue has been addressed before, PLEASE link that clarification at the ArbCom current sanctions page and at the original decision page. It is already a daunting task just to ask if someone has violated their sanctions, no need to waste everyone's time but not providing links to prior clarifications. 2) I find it funny that the Geobox template, which was originally envisioned as being one large template which could be used for a wide variety of geographic features (i.e. one template that could fit many kinds of articles) is now being targeted by Andy "in favour of the few centralized ones he favours" (to quote Fut. Perf. below). Kafka would have enjoyed this. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Notified here diff Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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

Statement by DePiep
The original poster quotes: "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes". Can I get a link to the original statement (with authoritative status)? -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * regarding #below, can you be more specific as to how WP:ARCA would be applicable here? I could not make a head or toe connection. -DePiep (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that EdJohnston (at 00:07, below) responds to this. Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * re below "recommend against a block or other sanction" - in this I disagree. The behaviour we are talking about is not isolated (ask me if you need more links). Also, there is no guarantee that Andy will follow the (intermediate) pacification you describe. Meanwhile, a lot and more editors are strained to the edge in patience with this behaviour. . All in all, a block for disruptive behaviour should not be excluded (and why exclude it at all? If you trust it, then it's OK without -- if you don't trust it, then it is needed!). -DePiep (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Must say, I am surprised to read about this issue geobox. Last months I've had a dozen or two rough encounters with Andy, mostly on TfD pages. And now I discover this post, new to me today, by about another, parallel line of behaviour.
 * So, independent from my recent meetings with Andy, this history exists. And on top of that: descriptions ofr "fait adccompli", "asinine" and [accusation of] "rig[ging] the figures in your favour". I myself have examples of good will editors being chased away from a discussion by Andy.
 * I wonder why this can go on so long. If the corps of admins could not steer this into good waters, I don't know why the arb is shy. What more does arb need? -DePiep (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to self: could have to do with Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. -DePiep (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Littleolive oil
Copy of my cmt on Arbitration request talk page:

As I understand, coding is incomplete on Geobox, an info box-like structure but technically not an infobox. Andy is suggesting a remedy for that probelm. Further, as far I know he is not discussing the removal of a specific article info box which is what his sanction seems to have been specifying, but is suggesting a technical fix for a problem. I believe his usefulness in such technical situations has been established. At any rate the issue of how far his sanction extends is presently at arbitration. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC))

Statement by HJ Mitchell
The discussion currently at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment is relevant. Two previous enforcement requests have held that the restriction does not apply to discussions about merging or deleting infoboxes, and the amendment requests asks ArbCom to codify this. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Edited for clarity. 00:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We've been through this before. Nothing has changed. ArbCom's absence of a decision is not a decision in itself and it's hardly Andy's fault that the arbs have largely sat on their hands over this. Andy clearly hasn't violated the remedy as written, and it's not up to AE admins to second-guess what the arbs meant—it's up to them to provide clarification if they can't write remedies properly; clarification they have thus far declined to provide, so the status quo prevails. As for whether Andy is causing disruption, that's a different question; one I don't know the answer to. If he is, then block him for that if it will prevent further disruption, but causing disruption and violating arbitration remedies are different things—it's entirely possible to do one without the other. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda Arendt

 * Clearly, replacing one kind of template by a better kind of template, which is not adding nor deleting, is no violation of the present (!) restriction.


 * Infobox consolidation is in the interest of Wikipedia, but you may wish to argue that this is of no relevance here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @Sandstein: Your memory is wrong. The nominator was not well informed, as he admits (see above). The decision can not be overturned by a proposal to change it, as RexxS explained (see below). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I remember the : "Odd; I strongly agree with AGK that the remedy as written was clear, but at the same time I disagree with his interpretation of it. Since neither of us is a fool, I guess that's evidence that the interpretation of it isn't as clear as either of us think. So far, the things Andy has done that have brought him before WP:AE ... don't violate the restriction, and don't really look like attempting to test the boundaries of it either." - I conclude: the remedy is not clear. After it has been interpreted one way for more than a year (that discussions about templates don't fall under the restriction), we can't sanction what would be a violation of a different interpretation without first a clarification leading to a clearer wording.


 * @Ruhrfisch: You are not the first to mention Kafka in the context of this case. I am one of the authors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
from 21 July 2014 makes it abundantly clear that the Arbs never intended Andy's restrictions to include replacing one infobox with another. These are the Arbs' responses to Sandstein's suggestion that replacing an infobox with another was sanctionable: "This is not worth discussing"; "that wasn't adding an infobox"; "I agree that this was not the addition of an infobox and did not breach the restriction"; "This edit was not in violation of his restriction".

You were a clerk last year and were clearly aware of that decision. In addition, you had accepted at that replacing an infobox was never intended to be part of Andy's sanctions: "Given the clarifying comments and discussion I have no problem with this being closed with no sanction. Thank you to everyone who commented it definitely helped to define this sanction. As I've said before whilst I take a fairly hard line to what is and is not a violation (and no ill will intended Andy) I am very happy (and generally prefer) to be proved wrong in cases like this. Thank you all, Callanecc"

I find it astonishing that you have forgotten so quickly. Now, I suggest you do the right thing and rescind your unfounded call for sanctions on an editor who has clearly not breached the terms of his sanctions. --RexxS (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You should know that policy is never made by *not* passing a resolution. And you're quite wrong about the reason we're here again. It's because - as predicted - those who disagree with Andy find making complaints about him a useful tactic to try to remove opposition to their view. Ruhrfisch has a track record of conflict with Andy dating back to the infobox arbcom case and can't be considered as making this meritless request in good faith. DePiep is presently engaged in stalking Andy's edits, automatically opposing his TfD nominations and needs to be told to stop. These sort of attempts to game the system illustrate how anyone under any restriction will have those restrictions thrown at them time and again over unrelated issues. I find it most disappointing that you, Callanecc, are jumping on that bandwagon. The decisions from last year have not been overturned, and you need to abide by them. --RexxS (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You should know that policy is never made by *not* passing a resolution. And you're quite wrong about the reason we're here again. It's because - as predicted - those who disagree with Andy find making complaints about him a useful tactic to try to remove opposition to their view. Ruhrfisch has a track record of conflict with Andy dating back to the infobox arbcom case and can't be considered as making this meritless request in good faith. DePiep is presently engaged in stalking Andy's edits, automatically opposing his TfD nominations and needs to be told to stop. These sort of attempts to game the system illustrate how anyone under any restriction will have those restrictions thrown at them time and again over unrelated issues. I find it most disappointing that you, Callanecc, are jumping on that bandwagon. The decisions from last year have not been overturned, and you need to abide by them. --RexxS (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Pigsonthewing
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * At WP:ARCA, User:Courcelles offered a motion that, if passed, would clearly have allowed the type of work that Andy wants to do on Template:Geobox. It seems that motion has stalled and is unlikely to pass unless somebody changes their mind. Instead, it is likely that Arbcom will open a review. We could close this by advising User:Pigsonthewing to avoid participating in any discussions about revising templates until the committee has made its final ruling on the pending matters. In the meantime I would recommend against a block or other sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ed on this. Guettarda (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, that motion has not passed, and no arbitrator has voted on it for around a week tell us that the Committee has decided that Pigsonthewing should remain bound by the restriction for the moment at least. For that to mean anything we need to enforce the restriction, in this instance, there is a clear violation. As such I believe a 48 hour block is in order. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Gerda makes the point that this is replacing, which, if we accept, is the same as removing and adding. That the motion specifically included this as part of a motion to clarify (and relax) the restriction suggests that the original intention was actions such as this would be covered. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Why do we have to be here again? Rexx is right this time: this was clarified last summer, and both we here at AE and subsequently the arbs told Andy that this sort of thing was okay. Callanecc, sorry, but you were there. I don't remember all the intermediate stages of this drama and haven't followed the currently open amendment request, but unless the arbs have in the meantime told Andy unambiguously something that overrides the outcome of that case from July, that outcome must still stand. The scope of the infobox arbcom case was behaviour in disputes over whether or not specific articles ought to have boxes. The question that Andy has been dealing with since, to what extent different box templates ought to be unified and reduced to a small set of templates, is quite orthogonal to what that case was about, and therefore outside the scope of the sanction, no matter how much we might wikilawyer over whether "replacing" is the same as "first removing, then adding". That said, there may well be another issue here: Andy's campaign of trying to discourage the use of certain box templates in favour of the few centralized ones he favours may well be showing signs of the same disruptive tendency of steamrollering opposition through sheer single-minded tenacity that was ultimately also at the heart of the problems about the "boxes yes or no" issues. Still, it's a different question. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was, but since then the Committee has decided not to pass a motion (which specifically included TfD) stating that the interpretation was correct, in fact more than one arb said that the intention was to prevent disruptive behaviour (hence not in mainspace and mainspace talk). The fact that we are here again suggests that the behaviour is disruptive, so it's not really a different question at all. The arbs who have commented have told us that the sanction extends as far as the behaviour is disruptive. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember that in a previous case I was of the view that replacing an infobox with another means adding and removing one, which would make this case a topic ban violation. There are arguments in favor of and against this view, I suppose. But arbitrators at WP:ARCA are divided as to whether or not to accept a motion that would allow the conduct at issue here. This indicates to me that the Committee is not currently ready to explicitly allow this conduct, and that they all seem to assume that the conduct is covered by the current sanction (else the motion would be unnecessary). On this basis, I think that the edit at issue violates the topic ban currently in force and should be responded to with a block. The ArbCom remains free to modify this as necessary in the course of any review they decide to undertake.  Sandstein   11:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Still disagree. The motion proposed by Courcelles on the amendments page was framed as a clarification of the status quo, not as a loosening of the restrictions, so even if it was not passed, the fact that something would have been explicitly allowed if it had passed, does not in any way imply that it is not allowed as long as it didn't. In fact, the discussion by the arbs shows clearly that they were fully aware that Andy had been routinely active at TfD all the time, making proposals of merging infobox templates just as he did now, and wasn't getting blocked for it. That's the status quo. They now decided they are going to have a review, which may or may not lead to a tightening of the restriction in order to include such activities. If and when they do this, such participation in TfDs will be forbidden; that will be a new sanction, which at this time is not in place. To Callanecc: if the "sanction extends so far as the behaviour is disruptive", I'm also not convinced of this yet. It may well be, but so far we have exactly one diff here, showing that Andy made one proposal that one other editor disagrees with (who appears to be just as much entrenched in this type of issue as Andy is). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This has gotten intensely legalistic, for an obvious reason, but let me attack this from a different direction:
 * Andy was previously sanctioned (with much back and forth on details since) for bad behavior related to infoboxes. Generally, Andy's behavior around the edges of the sanction, while subject to back and forth, has been not abusive.
 * In this instance, is Andy being abusive or behaving badly?
 * I don't see so but have not tracked everything down yet. Can we get a rundown of whether this is truly bad behavior, or if we're just going to get legalistic around the edge of a ban?  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Nishidani

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 11:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Here


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


 * 1) 14:09, 7 January 2015 Blatant case of WP:POVPUSH by changing "Israel maintains that the blockade is legal and necessary to limit Palestinian rocket attack" -> "Israel has sought to justify the blockade as necessary to limit Palestinian rocket attack" based on a new source while an official Israeli source from IDF website is present. The word “maintains” appear in sources [11],[12] and [114]. There was no mention of this change is Edit Summary.
 * 2) 11:54, 7 January 2015 WP:LIBEL of Naftali Bennett and WP:CHERRYPICKING from Times of Israel. The article balances Bennett’s share of that tragedy which Nishidani failed to include. WP:ALIVE page states “The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism does not apply to biographies” and “Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page”.
 * 3) 18:33, 24 January 2015 Introducing information by jfjfp which is not WP:RS and was discussed here and here. Nishidani often uses WP:RSN and asks other editors to verify their sources on the noticeboard as well. 2nd revert after Ashurbanippal highlighted non WP:RS.
 * 4) 15:45, 16 December 2014 The sentence "It is known among Palestinians as "shit"" is upgraded to 2nd sentence in the lead. Later, a mediation was declined. WP:POVPUSH


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

The editor was banned indefinitely in WP:ARBPIA2 the topic ban was lifted by appeal


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
 * Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * An arbitration request was not filed earlier as I wasn't aware of the existence of such system on WP.
 * During my investigation I have seen additional questionable edits by Nishidani. I will add them later in the evidence.
 * On Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 Nishidani WP:EDITWAR an WP:UNDUE lead. Several proposals for a WP:BALANCE by either adding pro-Israeli sources or removing sources were declined. Talk page. In response to my hope of settling our differences, Nishidani replied "Me settle? Never. I do admit to squatting, though. regularly every morning." Lovely! This wasn't one diff but on going difficulties.

This isn't about revenge or 1RR, this is about an experienced editor pushing his WP:NPOV in blatant way. He have accused me before of hounding and I have made it very clear that I don't touch any of his edits, as much as i may not like them, if they are grounded. From WP:HOUND "This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor". This isn't my goal and I have stressed it many time. I have been forthcoming and reasonable but was dismissed by him a few times. IjonTichy suggested I will get a WP:CLUE and this is exactly what I have done. I have interacted before with a few editors from Nishidani 'camp' and differences were always settle quickly and in mannered way (for example Al-Aqsa). I intentionally didn't bring up WP:PERSONAL as I understand it is part of editing. This isn't revenge or retaliation. A long-timer like Nishidani knows exactly what he is doing and Diff 1 is as blatant WP:POVPUSH as it gets. My frustration, as well as of editors such as Igorp lj, WarKosign Plot Spoiler and probably other from WP:WAREDIT is tiresome especially since Nishidani's edits are so extreme at the WP:POV they represent. Ashtul (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Nishidani has a special gift of presenting information in a misleading way. It happen in the previous AE and it just happen in this very arbitration.
 * 21:08, 19 January 2015 During an arbitration (that led to my block), Nishidani's comment was in the grey zone between misleading to completely false. (a) What he claimed as 2nd revert wasn't the 01:29, 18 January 2015 edit but 14:51, 18 January 2015. (b) He neglected to disclose I've removed within minutes sources that he questioned or without damage. Now he pretends Ashurbanippal is a sign he didn't break WP:RS.
 * I would like to ask the administrator to refer to the diffs presented so far and explain how they are not blatant. Nishidani have been topic banned before but it seems like he forgot that important lesson.
 * Nishidani, can you please explain how are you edits justified? I had no problem with the word 'sh*t' but I did have a big problem with locating it before any useful information and go to WP:WAR for leaving it there. Ashtul (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Replies to other editors
If any editor can explain me this and this edits, I will drop this request.

@Sandstein This isn't about dispute over content but repetitive editing behavior. Diff1 is an example of WP:Disruptive editing while diff 4 is just the tip of the iceberg of the WP:WAR that took place. I collected more evidence and I will share some more - I believe this is enough to prove WP:Tendentious editing, WP:POVPUSH as well as WP:WAR. Ashtul (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here he edited back his own version of WT:Legality of Israeli settlements statement saying “ref to its legal status under international law in lead is normative”. So, he knows there is a norm but still chose to improvise a longer version.
 * A year after an extensive discussion took place on the talk page, he deleted ‘false’.
 * Here he felt one translation of a racist Israeli poem wouldn’t be enough.
 * Here an article from a no-name journalist on +972 (not RS) is introduced to say As-Seefer is nearby which can be done by simply looking at a map. Seem like a way to force pro-Palestinian article into the page.
 * Here he chose to take out the statement "in which Israelis and Palestinians work side by side in dozens of factories" and added "on Palestinian land from the villages of Qarawat Bani Hassan and Deir Istiya". His edit summary - “update”.

@Cailil As Nishidani said here and in the previous AE against me, I am a newbie. If I was aware of AE before, I would have used it. Nishidani was very teritorial over the Skunk page as he is over Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 now. Nishidani's and co. trying to dismiss this as retaliation is incorrect. If Nishidani can explain diff1 and why he changed "in which Israelis and Palestinians work side by side in dozens of factories" into "on Palestinian land from the villages of Qarawat Bani Hassan and Deir Istiya" I will cancel this request myself. Those two cases are great indicators of his WP:POVPUSH as well as WP:Tendentious editing. An editor with his history, had all the warning one may look for. Ashtul (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz, this isn't about a single edit but a repetitive behavior and not to mention the WP:WAR on Skunk_(weapon). We had a few exchanges on Al Aqsa and they all lasted 1-2 edits.

@Nishidani, I met a friend from Beit Lehem who smelled the Skunk quite a few times. I show her the page the way it was before and even she agreed it was not WP:Neutral. Ashtul (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, can you please give a sensible explanation to diff 1? or why you would change "in which Israelis and Palestinians work side by side in dozens of factories" into "on Palestinian land from the villages of Qarawat Bani Hassan and Deir Istiya"?
 * Many of the other changes included are result of WP:AGF that was lost when I saw these (in addition to your approach on Skunk page). Ashtul (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, I didn't try to make this personal b/c overall I think you are good. On Alon Shvut you changed the agreed upon text!


 * It is OK for an editor to be biased, aren't we all. It doesn't have to be I/P, it can be Airbus vs. Boeing. But some of the changes you have made cross all possible red-lines. All my encounters with other editors were resolved in a matter of 1-2 edits, but with you, somehow it never get solved. Which is exactly why I started to look at your past edits and was startled to find out the amount of POVPUSH you practice. If you can explain how the two edits I have mentioned in my previous edit don't exhibit WP:Tendentious editing and WP:POVPUSH I will drop this request. Deal?


 * Nishidani, you are an excellent editor and it is easy to see you have tons of experience. I have a lot of respect for you and in a way, you are my mentor. This doesn't the fact many of your edits are blatant POVPUSH. Please answer my previous question and we can be done here. Quite simple, isn't it? Ashtul (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Nishidani, The IDF link isn't and wasn't dead. Your statement about neutrality is a sad joke as even though I am not a linguist and English is not my first language, what I do know is that "sought to justify" in nowhere close to neutral, not to mention the removal of the word "legal". Sorry but I'm not convinced. This edit is not simply adding information that supports your views (like many other editors do) but POVPUSH through modifying an existing sentence.
 * As for the other diff, I didn't but mean for Bennett but this one. You don't see a source for "Israelis and Palestinians work side by side in dozens of factories." put a tag next to it. Replacing it with "on Palestinian land from the villages of Qarawat Bani Hassan and Deir Istiya." is just... well, I don't have words to describe it. (I worked there for about a month a few years ago and I can tell you it is true).
 * I apologize for wasting your precious time but the fact arbitration requests keep on being filed against might tell you, you are doing something wrong.
 * I might not be near a computer for the rest of the night Ashtul (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Statement by NISHIDANI
What's going on here? My talk page is subject to assault today (here, herehere here), with the usual jibe I am or host anti-Semitic crap; red-linked editors are popping up everywhere I edit to revert, and now this? Of course, as User:Ashtul notified me, this, coming straight after the expiry of his one week ban, after I requested something be done about his stalking of me, is not 'retaliation'. I would note that if I have broken 1R, the proper thing to do is to advise me, to allow me to make amends. I can't see at a glance that I have done so.

This is an example of WP:Battleground as well as WP:Hound. Ashtul appears to have confused me with Ashurbanippal against which the request for an 1R violation should have been made, as the evidence above itself shows. I.e.,

Ashurbanippal, along with several other red-linked systematic reverters flooding in recently, just broke 1R at Battle of Shuja'iyya. The editor duly self-reverted immediately after I had notified him. Impeccable behaviour.Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ist revert 06:56, 27 January 2015, reverting an edit I introduced on the 24th of January‎
 * 2nd revert 09:54, 27 January 2015‎.
 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBPIA - 1RR

As for the pretext that Jews for Justice for Palestinians is not RS, there was no significant response, except for an obiter dictum from, uh, User:Brad Dyer. I have occasionally used it on several articles over several years, and have yet to have it challenged, even by experienced POV pushers. This place is getting chaotic, flushed with newbies on a mission. Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As to 'shit', it is standard practice per WP:NPOV to give both Israeli and Palestinian names for battles or things, in the lead. I can't help it if RS say that what Israeli Defence Force calls, quite accurately, 'skunk' liquid, is called by Palestinians sprayed with it, 'shit'. That's their word, and per parity, quite appropriate to the lead, however vulgar. Again, that is a content dispute, or rather an unseasonable discontent dispute, to misquote Shakespeare.Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 'this is about an experienced editor pushing his WP:NPOV.'The only thing wrong with this description of what I do, Ashtul, is the possessive pronoun 'his'. After several months you still have not understood that NPOV is not 'pushed'. It is a pillar of Wikipedia. With an area where a state of war exists, both versions of the reality of events must be incorporated. I stand by the principles I applied in developing Susya, where I edited comprehensively both sides of the historical and contemporary reality. As the edit history will show, most of the edit-warring consisted in removing material about the Palestinians, by editors who, though 'pro-Israeli', never troubled themselves to help me write the difficult synagogue section. Your objections at Skunk (weapon) Carmel, Har Hebron and  elsewhere (you created umm al-Kheir, Hebron this morning by plagiarizing the Carmel article to keep two communities within 30 yards of each other separate, and remove all mention of Palestinians in the former article) is that Palestinians should not be mentioned, but put on a  reservation, as it were, in separate articles, though they form, per sources, an integral part of each site's history. That is a political POV. Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The repeated, it's now every other month, filing of requests to get me sanctioned on frivolous grounds, is problematical, if only because a few stray diffs, on content disputes, constantly raised against one editor, leave behind an impression, even if the cases are dismissed, that there's no smoke without fire. For just a few of the recent ones, see here, here and here. The worst part of this attrition on everyone's time is that editorial incompetence is patent, and still tolerated. Just look at the first two diffs of Ashtul's new charge sheet, in his response section.
 * I restored the standard consensually determined voice and gloss of all wiki settlement articles, per ARBPIA and post-Arbpia negotiations. Ashtul doesn't know, and cannot recognize that
 * The removal of ‘false’ was correct. Ashtul has not read, though he cites it, the extensive discussion on why that was, factually, and in terms of both sources and NPOV, improper. 4 of 3 editors agreed to that. People shouldn't edit this cesspit unless they thoroughly understand NPOV, the rules, and bring knowledge, rather than a chip on their shoulders, to the subject. Ashtul's editing is vexatious, directed at wherever I edit, uninformed of the subject, and the report is retaliatory. Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If I edit in that a Palestinian who stabbed several Israelis was a terrorist (neutral and objective) as here, Ashtul and co do not object. They let that pass. It coincides as a fact with an Israeli POV as well. But If I note, using a comment with attribution by one of Israel’s most outstanding minds, who happens also do be a peace fieldworker in the West Bank, that an illegal outpost, widely known for its cruelty to shepherds, was founded by 'fanatics', this is jumped at as proof I am pushing a Palestinian POV. In both cases, I couldn't care less whose POV is scratched on the back.Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Collect. At Battle of Shuja'iyya, the article in the lead stated as an ascertained fact that Palestinian deaths ran to 120. The other day I made this edit, implying the guesstimate range was from 66 to 120. In this weird environment, that edit would be considered by POV pushers as subjectivizing to Israel's advantage the mortality figure, when, like so many edits, it is simply trying to make this encyclopedia reliable, regardless of which side is being documented.Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your problem Ashtul is that, while you sound, and probably are, a nice guy, you can't read for nuts, and cause huge time loss on futile edit challenges that distresses people like myself who've 8 years of commitment to one of the hardest areas in Wikipedia which everyone thinks a death zone. I'll show you, by replying to your request to clarify the first two diffs, why you can't grasp elementary points, and cause needless stress and grief at time wasted to editors like myself.


 * Diff one: 'changing "Israel maintains that the blockade is legal and necessary to limit Palestinian rocket attack" -> "Israel has sought to justify the blockade as necessary to limit Palestinian rocket attack"


 * The IDF link you cite for the phrasing you wanted is a deadlink. One of the many sources I introduced, Human Rights Watch, neutral and critical of all sides, wrote:’ 'Israel has sought to justify its broad restrictions by citing security concerns.'


 * Well, neither Human Rights nor any other neutral international organization think that a blockade broad restrictions that denied the import of light bulbs, candles, matches, books, musical instruments, crayons, clothing, shoes, mattresses, sheets, blankets, pasta, tea, coffee, chocolate, nuts, shampoo and conditioner, soda, juice, jam, spices, shaving cream, potato chips, cookies, fishing ropes and rods, ginger and chocolate etc.etc. did so just to limit Palestinian rocket attacks. When this is the case, the Human Rights Watch (critical of both Israel and Palestine)'s phrasing ‘sought to justify’ governing ‘broad restrictions’ is adequate to the reality. No one can seriously maintain with a straight face that denying potato chips or tampons to the enemy will stop rocket attacks. That's my call. Others may disagree.


 * diff 2 which is, you claim, evidence I libelled an Israeli politician by cherry picking the evidence.
 * That is an absurdly crass interpretation of the diff. The article already contained both Bennett and other people’s defence of his actions at Kfar Qana (see the left side of that diff) . My fresher diff just gave more background detail missed by earlier editors. What is absolutely unacceptable here is that, had you read the diff sequence, you would have realized that rather than cherry pick the evidence, I earlier had already supplied testimony from an impeccable (to me) source namely from ( David Zonsheine) defending Bennett’s honour, a few minutes before.
 * I’ve wasted another fucking afternoon defending my integrity instead of building articles or preparing gardens for the spring. Get off my back, learn to edit, read policy, and, if possible, some books on the subject of the history of that area. It’s bad enough coping with the trouble you cause on articles without having to face down outrageous and arbitrarily vindictive accusations. It's not enough to say you'll drop the charges amicably if I come through with the goods. Editors must neither hound, raise spurious charges, nor be vexatious, and this is particularly true of the I/P area where attempts to keep serious editors are mostly doomed by the endless fatigue of IP or inexperienced editors intent on defending one's side national dignity, while blind to everything else.Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To Admins. I don't think this is just a content dispute. The evidence Ashtul presents represents his discontent with edits that he has failed to show are violations of NPOV, cherry-picking, etc. He may mean well, but he is making content disputes by consistently refusing to read and master the relevant policy pages, which I have frequently asked him to review, and by hunting, as he admitted, my edit history in the belief I am harming the national interest. I think this is a tad more serious than might at first seem to be the case. I'm not being vindictive, but this is a hard area, and these patterns of frivolous vexation shouldn't be tolerated. Nishidani (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your new diff again is a content dispute, accompanied by the disingenuousness that plagues your editing. You cited a diff with an edit summary suggesting I was libeling Bennett. I demonstrated the totally inaccuracy of your interpretation of the diff, which looks malicious. You say now, you didn't mean that one (sure!), but another one on a completely different topic (Kiryat Netafim). I removed some WP:OR suggesting some harmony between Kiryat Netafim's Jews-only settlement and the villagers of Qarawat Bani Hassan. After all Kiryat Netafim 's sewage is all pumped on Qarawat Bani Hassan, and the village challenges its landuse. That is normal editing. You keep inventing stuff, all discontent with the information I add, and technically therefore content disputes. You have no case. I believe that having to cope with you over dozens of pages, when you can't even show cause on anything here, is unfair.Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Nomoskedasticity
This request by Ashtul comes on the day Ashtul's 1-week block expires. The block came as a consequence of Nishidani's request at AE concerning Ashtul,. The hands are not clean, and the request is tainted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
As Nomoskedasticity says, this is a transparent attempt at payback for Ashtul's recent short block that he never accepted. The charges consist only of weakly argued content disputes. Zerotalk 12:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

comment by Collect
Appears to be a vanilla content dispute. Example 2 is not "libelous" AFAICT, and 3 may not be "best source" but the statement is attributed to a specific person, and should be verifiable otherwise  as Battle of Shuja'iyya contains the same and similar claims. The Guardian states 120 deaths of Palestinians. Content dispute utterly. Collect (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz
As Ashtul's comments make clear, this is a content dispute. Ashtul should we warned against using this forum as a means to gain the upper hand in content disputes. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Nishidani
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * At first glance this looks like a non-actionable content dispute to me. While our content policies such as WP:NPOV do have a conduct aspect, there is normally a wide range of defensible opinions about whether a source or text is neutral or otherwise appropriate for inclusion. That is the range in which consensus must be found among editors, and which cannot be reviewed by the arbitration or arbitration enforcement process, because we don't make content decisions. Editorial behavior only crosses the line into sanctionable misconduct if an editor's actions show that they are not here to in good faith help write a neutral encyclopedia, but to promote their point of view at the expense of neutrality, often by means of such conduct as edit-warring, source falsification or tendentious editing, that is, making edits exclusively in favor of one point of view. The evidence submitted here does not support a finding that this might be the case here. While I have and express no opinion on the sources cited and the texts edited, they do not strike me as so obviously unreliable or partisan that a sanction for misconduct could be seriously discussed. I would close this with a reminder to the filer that AE is not to be misused as a weapon with which to win content disputes, but only for genuine concerns of misconduct.  Sandstein   12:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree this is not actionable and is probably a retaliatory AE filing, and that a warning would suffice. By way of clarification, there are issues here but only normal content matters, ones better suited to RFC or RSN etc. However, the hostility and entrenched belligerence "on all sides" of this topic area make that nigh impossible. The problem, like many many nationalist disputes, is the treatment others as "the enemy". This is an unsustainable mindset to bring to writing an encyclopedia or writing collaboratively in general. My point is that Ashtul's own attitude, and others who behave in the same way, is what gets in the way of the issues they see in this area actually being resolved-- Cailil  talk 14:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Because it appears uncontested among admins that this is not actionable, I'm closing the thread relatively early to avoid unneeded drama and excitement among the spectators, so to speak. I'm warning Ashtul not to misuse AE again. If there is evidence of other misconduct by Ashtul from after their recent block, it would need a separate request.  Sandstein   22:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)