Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive189

I was topic-banned from RT News for 6 months for "disruptive edits" and I challenge this assertion
I was banned from both RT News and its talk page because I was supposedly creating "disruptive edits" by asking for scientific, verifiable proof that RT is a propaganda station, asking for studies or some sort of quantifiable data.

Instead, I was topic-banned for "disruptive editing"; yet as anyone can see at the RT Talk page I was being very polite until one editor begun accusing me of having a fake account and of editing in poor faith.

I think my topic-ban is extremely unjust, and I also call about admins to review the sources behind RT's page, as 'Daily Beast' and Tumblr have never been valid sources, and yet the admin who is attempting to lock debate on the issue of valid sources (he says that RT is "undeniably propaganda"--but that's merely opinion!) has nonetheless attempted to railroad the debate one way, in a way that makes RT look like some sort of propaganda channel, when there is no proof to this scientifically or in quantification.

I ask that my 6-month topic ban be reviewed; It's truly unfair, and I received it all in an attempt to better Wikipedia and find good sources, (which reminds me another reason why Wikipedia is dying), which makes me not want to contribute very much here anymore (And I've been contributing, mostly to history-related articles, since 2012) if I'm going to be topic-banned every time I try and make a valid improvement, only to get railroaded by influential editors with admin friends. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the proper place for that but (a) please consider following the instructions above and using Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal and (b) you'd do a lot better convincing people if you didn't try to argue based on attacking the admin and arguing about how Wikipedia will collapse without you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Canada Jack
''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 Canada Jack

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 06:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


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


 * 1) Editing to restore the "original edit" which I point out is wrong.
 * 2) The discussions at Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people are largely self-explanatory. The issue is whether reliable sources should determine who should be listed on the page or some other terminology: the phrasing now is "international body that specifically deals in longevity research" but without identifying the GRG as the only actual source in play.
 * 3) The "no one has 'verified' the age" versus newspapers alleging "reporting" the age (I don't even know anymore) arguing continues here
 * 4) To determine which bodies are said international longevity researching specific-whatever, "We observe what news sources use" so arguing newspapers are unreliable as a source other than to parrot the GRG as a source.
 * 5) "Nice try, Ricky. NONE of the sources outside of GRG / Guinness claim that these birthdates are "verified"... unless GRG/Guinness has verified them!" which is false.
 * 6) "I never said they were the sole authorities, but media around the world use those two almost exclusively, so we should as well, that's all"
 * 7) It's the oldest living people, yet Canada Jack derails the discussion by repeating arguing about the insertion of Methusalah's age knowing full well that's irrelevant, but calling it the logical consequence and the can of worms opened by the lede saying "reliable sources" alone. The section needs an outside admin to just collapse it.
 * 8) Canada Jack has been  derailing the discussion by pointing to this article in the Canada Star. While never advocating for her inclusion, (a WP:NOTFORUM problem), he's repeatedly referencing it including just to make snipes on other discussions going on.
 * 9) " This page is for verified claims. The fact a claim was published doesn't establish its veracity."
 * 10) As noted above, there is an argument about the birthdate for Zhou Youguang (not a claim, just that little fact). The only way Canada Jack sees this is "His claim is accepted on its face by the media. But... there is no mention of Guinness and/or GRG as having verified the claim" in regards to his birthdate. As discussed before, no one cares a cent about this until Zhou turned 110 and then there's arguments everywhere that his birthdate must be removed until it's verified by the GRG or else there exists the possibility that Wikipedia is claiming that a supercentenarian exists that the GRG hasn't identified which I don't know why that matters.
 * 11) Finally, to summarize this mentality, "Are you seriously trying to claim that it is the Toronto Star which has determined that the proof is "not solid enough" instead of Guinness? That the Toronto Star, not Guinness, bestows the crown of "world's oldest person"? C'mon, Ricky, surely you can do better than that!"


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


 * The talk pages each notify the editor of the discretionary sanctions.

This is the typical parade of horribles and chaos caused whenever there is an ounce of push-back to even debating the language that doesn't explicitly or implicitly treat the GRG as the last word on the birth date of very old people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * In response, I first note that if Canada Jack knew he was wrong, the proper thing is to restore the correct version, not to ignore it until called out here but it's been changed again which doesn't matter with the RFC ongoing. I note that this is again a single issue: is List of oldest living people going to continue to be a walled garden that expresses a particular WP:POV about who is allegedly the world's oldest people or not? Our sourcing policy is clear: we are to have a single WP:NPOV everywhere and a single standard for WP:RS. The analogous WP:MEDRS either believes a fact or strips it away entirely; it does not create separate articles with different sourcing standards. Canada Jack's refusal to accept that is precisely the type of antics that brought about the original longevity ARBCOM case. There is literally nothing in his arguments that hasn't been argued for over a decade. Either we should report on Zhou's birthdate as a fact on his biography, put him in the relevant category, and put him in the (all the) relevant articles (which admittedly the oldest living people is not) or we treat that fact as a WP:FRINGE theory and ignore it entirely. The amount of inane arguing over an article that literally no one supports or has even thought to include longevity claims shows the level of hysteria over any pushback that does nothing but drive away all but the most hardened of editors here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , is it really robust debate to keep bringing up hypotheticals that you have no interest in actually putting down as a fact? I'm for debate but WP:BLUDGEON and WP:NOTFORUM are also relevant; we wouldn't want a page like "List of the best NBA players" or whatever filled up with navel gazing arguments about what "best" is and someone just throwing out argument after argument, none of which they actually want in the article. Is filling the talk page with comments like this about random alleged oldest people (facts that you yourself aren't arguing to be treated as true) in every single section (Canada Jack is arguing about the oldest guy in Israel in a section about the oldest Japanese man) disruptive itself? I don't see any indication that any of Canada Jack's questioning is actually in response to the RFC issue; rather it's repeated discussion after discussion with example after example (the same ones on oldest living people and at oldest people and elsewhere) regardless of relevancy of just "hi I found a single blog or a newspaper somewhere that said something so STUUUUPID, can't you see how there's some wrong newspapers out there". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


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

Discussion concerning Canada Jack
''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 Canada Jack
My reading of the "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" is that it was determined that verified super-centenarian lists from the GRG were considered a "reliable source," and that the non-yet verified lists (Table EE from GRG) were not a "reliable source." However, what we are talking about here is not whether GRG or Table EE is or isn't a RS, it's whether news media reports on longevity claims of those over 110 years old can be used on the "oldest living people" page, if these "reliable sources" suffice to be being included with claims which have been verified by GRG etc., the particular discussion on what the lede should say. The contention here from me and others is the only a recognized authority on verifying these claims should be used in considering these claims "verified," and that news organizations, while "reliable sources," are not able to properly assess these claims, no more than a newspaper, even the New York Times, would publish, say, the latest cancer claims without consulting oncology experts who could better assess and put into context such claims. As Guinness World Records oft stated: "No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood, and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity," hence the need for a rigorous, more scientific approach in assessing claims. Many news organizations recognize the expertise Guinness and the GRG have on this subject as they are cited, from publications around the world, as having "verified" particular claims. I could supply literally hundreds of examples from around the world of them being cited as authorities.

In attempting to change the lede to allow "verification" from news sources, thus removing the need for sole GRG/Guinness verification, a can of worms is opened, which is what the thrust of the discussion here was. I pointed out that by their own criteria of "reliable sources," dubious claims like that of a woman in Canada who will soon turn 120, would warrant inclusion on this page, thus destroying the credibility of Wikipedia. She would be the oldest person in the world. (News sources, citing Guinness/GRG, routinely identify a woman in New York, at 116, as the world's oldest.) I was never seriously proposing to include her on the page, I was using their own criteria to point out that a highly dubious claim would be admissible, and therefore their changes would be detrimental. This approach from Ricky and others are nakedly anti-GRG, those who argue as I do are routinely painted as shills for GRG, a tone I personally find perplexing - it's as if the approach here is to "get back" at GRG, for some undefined reason.

In sum: There should be no sanction/remedy as I have not engaged in discussion on the subjects for which a sanction/remedy is warranted. And, therefore, discussions on whether non-GRG sources should be considered for inclusion is a topic for which there are no restrictions.

As for his DIFFs...
1 was a good-faith edit, I reverted an edit to what I thought was the original edit as a discussion (the one I refer to) was on-going. He pointed out the error, and I made no further edit. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

2 discussions are on the subject Ricky (I believe it was him) initiated. If I am violating something for engaging in discussion, then surely Ricky, who initiated it, is too. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

3 Debating verification is not prohibited - the original decision was the one mentioned above - I'm not challenging GRG as a reliable source; I'm not arguing that GRG's Table EE is a reliable source.

4 He has made a what I consider to be an invalid line of reasoning, making a strawman argument by dismissing an argument I never made. Specifically, that if newspapers are "unreliable" as he claims I am suggesting, then how we can rely on them when they cite GRG/Guinness? But I've never argued the newspapers are "unreliable," just that they are not experts on the subject. Using his logic, if the New York Times cites a cancer expert, we can't say that that person, no matter his/her credentials, is an "expert" as the New York Times is not expert in the subject. I don't buy that line of reasoning, and that was not what I was saying. And, I never suggested we can only verify if cited by a paper, just that newspapers routinely cite GRG/Guinness, therefore they are considered (by media outlets around the world) to be experts on the subject. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

5 He says it is "false" that media outlets don't say a claim is "verified" without quoting GRG/Guinness. But he's never supplied an example of a claim being called "verified" without a mention of GRG/Guinness. I don't think he understood the point I was making. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

6 The quote simply states the obvious - they are considered by media world-wide as experts, so should we. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

7 As I pointed out repeatedly to Ricky, the section in question asked "Who is the world's oldest ever person?" I simply applied the "reliable source" argument - which is at the heart of the discussion here - to that case. It was a Reductio ad absurdum argument directly related to the "verification" and "reliable sources" issues. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

8 Again, as I earlier pointed out that, given the very criteria Ricky and others are proposing, this woman - Canadian Emma Laurent - would appear on this page even though she is three years older than who Guinness recognizes as the world's oldest. The point was to underline the consequences of the actions proposed - destroying the credibility of the page. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

9 Again, this is not debating what was resolved and for which there is sanction for discussing - that GRG is a reliable source; that GRG's Table EE is not a reliable source.

10 Ricky misrepresents the discussion at hand. The point was not whether Zhou was verified or not by GRG, the point was the only difference between the Laurent case and the Zhou case in terms of "verified" by "reliable sources" is that Zhou's article doesn't mention GRG/Guinness while Laurent's does - in saying Guinness doesn't accept the claim. He insists that this mere mention disqualifies Laurent for inclusion on the page and that the "non-mention" of GRG/Guinness in Zhou means it warrants inclusion. That makes no sense, as if Zhou doesn't appear on the Guinness/GRG lists, then they've not verified him either - so Ricky and others are employing a double-standard. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

11 Ricky made numerous false statements on the Laurent article (that Canada copied Haiti's verification of the case - there is no mention of that in the article; that Canada issued a passport on the strength of Haiti's information - there is nothing in the article which says that, indeed the word "passport" doesn't even appear; that the Toronto Star believes the claims is "not proven" when that was the description of Guinness's evaluation of the claim). The final claim is what the quote discusses - his contention that "not proven" means the Star has determined that and, by implication (given the out-of-context quote he used) The Star awards the crown of "world's oldest person," an obvious absurdity. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source. Canada Jack (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Canadian Paul
I'm a little concerned with individuals being brought to Arbitration Enforcement simply because they disagree with the way longevity articles should be handled. As noted below, only one of the diffs is actually an edit to the article and thus I do not see Canada Jack engaging the type of contentious, single-agenda editing that these sanctions were enacted to prevent (and I agree fully that there is so much of it that it easy to get frustrated/be sensitive about it). I understand Canada Jack's reasoning (even if I don't agree with it) and I don't see it as disrupting the project because the article itself is not being affected by it and if he can accept his views as not being the consensus, then that will be all there is to it. Bringing dissenting voices to AE (see also the failed AE request for Lugnuts) only serves to transform an already contentious topic into more of a WP:BATTLEGROUND than it already is. Canadian  Paul  18:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Canada Jack

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


 * Robustly defending your position on an article talk page is not disruptive unless the user is refusing to be bound by the eventual consensus or disruptively edit warring to advance their position. I'm really not seeing enough disruption in Canada Jack's edits to merit any action unless there is a clear indication that they will behave disruptively in future. please can you put these concerns to rest by confirming that you will respect the consensus that emerges on verifiability and that you will not take part in further edit wars? Spartaz Humbug! 18:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof
''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 NorthBySouthBaranof

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 01:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


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


 * 1) nominating the article for deletion
 * 2) participating in the AfD discussion
 * 3) participating in the AfD discussion
 * 4) removal of inquiry from his own talkpage (i.e. refusal to dicuss the issue)

The remedy states that: "Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed."
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

The nomination was about Chanty Binx (Google search results about her), a feminist who has gained Internet-fame after arguing with men's rights activists in Toronto in 2013. It is thus a gender-related dispute or controversy, and even directly Gamergate-related due to the "meme-status" which can be confirmed by combining the full name or nickname as indicated in the "Knowyourmeme.com" article and "Gamergate". I do agree with the outcome of AfD (it's best fit in the forementioned site, not Wikipedia). However, there's no doubt that the person in question is very notable in Internet feminism-related disputes and her video in Youtube, which I will not link for possible BLP reasons, has over 1 million views.

NorthBySouthBaranof also removed an inquiry by another user on his talk page (4th diff). This is aggravating in my opinion because raising an issue on someone's talkpage is the first, and these days without RFC/U, pretty much the only way for dispute resolution. Hence posting here. --Pudeo' 01:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion whether it's directly related to Gamergate is actually besides the point since the remedy is about "gender-related dispute or controversy -- broadly construed". I just mentioned that "inofficially" it even is related, well obviously, since Gamergate is about people opposing feminism and men's rights activists is about people opposing feminism so it has much of the same audience. And as I just mentioned, it's gender-related disputes broadly construed, I don't think there's any question that a an AfD about a feminist activist wouldn't fit in to the category. Nothing else to add.--Pudeo' 02:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


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

Discussion concerning NorthBySouthBaranof
''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 NorthBySouthBaranof
I stumbled on the page in question doing standard new-pages patrol. It was a wholly-negative biography of a living person sourced only to an unacceptable source (Know Your Meme) and utterly failed our basic content standards for biographies. The question of whether it might be a "gender-related controversy" didn't even cross my mind — the fact is, the page wasn't an acceptable biography of a living person. Even with other putative sources added, it appeared to me that there was no possibility of writing an encyclopedic biography of the person, so I nominated it for deletion and briefly engaged in discussion. It was at that point — one week ago — that another long-time user in good standing privately reminded me of the topic ban and that it might be construed as a violation. I recognized the issue, heeded the advice, disengaged from the deletion discussion and took no further part in editing the article, which has since been deleted by a clear and overwhelming consensus that it is unsuitable for the encyclopedia.

On the other hand, the "another user" Pudeo refers to is an obvious SPA troll/sock account with a grand total of three 0-byte articlespace contributions 7 months ago who somehow "magically" leaped into discussion of an AfD and a topic-ban. I decline to engage in any conversation with obvious trolls.

The record speaks for itself and the chips will fall where they may. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do want to comment that the "Google result" argument is absurd on its face. I don't make a habit of obsessively appending "Gamergate" to all my Google searches, like DHeyward and Pudeo apparently do. A simple Google or Google News search for the article subject reveals absolutely nothing to connect this to "Gamergate," and what a non-notable Canadian feminist has to do with "ethics in video game journalism" escapes me. I did not have not and never will read the "KnowYourMeme" article Pudeo refers to, because nothing in that article can ever have relevance to Wikipedia content. All I needed to see was that the only sourcing was to KYM, and that was enough to know it was unacceptable for Wikipedia.
 * The first person to utter the word "Gamergate" in the context of this article was Pudeo, here. The second person was DHeyward, also here. No other user in any point anywhere on the encyclopedia claimed any connection between this article and "Gamergate." If there is someone here fomenting "GG drama," that person is not me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The purported "Google News" hit DHeyward claims is a user comment on an entirely-unrelated article that nowhere mentions Binx. The fact that an anonymous Internet user calls a person "anti-GG" in an anonymous Internet comment thread does not make that person "Gamergate-related" — or else effectively anything in the entire world could be "Gamergate-related." You're seriously reaching here, DHeyward. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The IP appears to be mistaken on several levels; for one, the account they purport to link with me is not banned. Their paranoiac ramblings about some secret "mailing list" are similarly nonsensical. I ask that a clerk or administrator strike their comment as an unfounded personal attack.
 * If DHeyward wishes to comment about "drama," he had best look in the mirror. This is the true result of the topic ban — I have a malicious band of anonymous trolls following me around the encyclopedia searching for any excuse to create drama — even an AfD and an article that I haven't edited in a week. None was to be found on this subject until they interjected themselves. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
I noticed this at ANI (permalink). That report was opened by an account with a total of 7 edits made six months ago. The same account posted at NorthBySouthBaranof's talk. Asserting that NBSB's removal of that post was a "refusal to dicuss the issue" is very unrealistic. If there is an issue, why didn't an established editor raise it? Why didn't Pudeo or anyone else watching ANI discuss it with NBSB? The answer is that there is nothing to discuss—the article was an WP:ATTACK, should have been deleted, and was deleted.

The AfD proceeded smoothly and the community endorsed NBSB's action by deleting the article with a very solid consensus. I examined the article and would have advised NBSB to disengage if I thought the "gender-related dispute or controversy" claim was reasonable. I could not see such a dispute—it looked like a standard attack article where the subject protested during a lecture at a university and was heckled and criticized afterwards. Not a "dispute or controversy", but a flash-in-the-pan incident commemorated with an obviously inappropriate BLP. The article I recall did not phrase the issue as a feminist versus men's rights activists—if the Internet searches mentioned above show that such a connection exists, they should be discounted as it is not reasonable to go beyond how the topic was expressed on-wiki. Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward
This is obviously more GamerGate nonsense as the Google result shows and NBSB should know that GamerGate topics are off-limits. It's exactly what his Topic Ban covers. NPP and BLP are specious reasons for creating the GG drama of an AfD started by a topic banned editor. No different then those GG topic-banned editors proposing deletion of Quinn or any number of other articles related to GG. --DHeyward (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, my search is this and doesn't include Gamergate. It returns gamerGate though.  I had no idea who she was until I searched and GG nonsense came back.  --DHeyward (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Rhododendrites
I don't have any great reason to believe the subject of the AfD has any obvious connection with GamerGate, but it would seem to fit into the category of "gender-related controversy". The article was primarily about a video of the subject's conflict with men's rights advocates. She was engaging them on the subject of feminism and its relationship with men's rights and the interaction became heated. The article was also about the harassment she received afterwards, stemming directly from the video. Even a quick glance at the sources shows the subject to be inextricably linked to both feminism and antifeminism. In fact, she's probably best known for a meme based on the video used broadly to caricature/ridicule feminists.

However, there is an exception to such topic bans for "obvious" BLP violations (WP:BANEX). As far as I know that exception applies to GG sanctions, too. The article was about a subject of ridicule and harassment who is currently reported to be in hiding, and even the small amount of text in the article that wasn't a basic description of events included a negative judgment of her representation of feminists. Every one of the sources was unusable per WP:BLPSPS and the topic was a pretty clear WP:BLP1E.

As for whether all of this constitutes "obvious" violations, well, to be honest I'm not certain -- and for that reason I feel a little weird making this my first AE post. I don't follow AE much so don't have a great handle on what precedent is for gray area like this. But I did spend some time with this article and the AfD, and know that, at least from my perspective, I saw major red flags that some might consider "obvious". &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by PeterTheFourth
I participated in this AfD. I believe there are probably valid WP:BLP based exceptions to the topic ban if it is determined that this article falls under the purview of the topic ban, given that people were raising concerns that it was a attack page at the deletion discussion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by IP
If Mark Bernstein shows up then we'll have nearly the entire gang of "usuals" magically showing up to defend each other. May as well get rid of the topic ban since this all seems to be part of the plan.

For fuck's sake, he was already site banned under his previous account for his bullshit. Everyone knows who he is, what he is and how he'll continue to behave and give a giant middle finger to anyone not on his mailing list.

Statement by MarkBernstein
The unsigned comment above, attributed to "IP", is interesting. The phrase, "for fuck’s sake” -- is that perhaps related to the current Case Request, in which an exasperated admin said something like this?

If discussing whether or not Chanty Binx merits a Wikipedia biography falls under the ambit of "gender-based controversies", then in fact the biography of any woman who has every expressed an opinion falls under that ambit. If ArbCom had wished the topic ban to encompass "all biographies of women" or "all biographies", they were perfectly capable of doing so.

This complaint is not intended to prevent disruption.' It is itself disruptive. In point of fact, it’s being coordinated at the Gamergate boards, originally launched by that charming fellow whose user name recalls the sweet, sweet music of Nazi dive bombers exterminating Spanish civilians.

For shame. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Fascinating how Gamaliel’s close was just undone by an editor so new that they followed they unclose at WP:AE by taking a moment to create a user page. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by a procrastinating Brustopher
I've been trying to stay away from Wikipedia for the past month or so, but I really must oppose any block here. The article was utter crap, initially largely negative and a blatant case of BLP1E. Perhaps not a "blatant BLP violation" of the sort traditionally meant by WP:BANEX but definitely not a disruptive move that he should be punished for. I'd disagree with User:DHeyward that this is comparable with GGers AfDing Zoe Quinn, as this was a blatant BLP1E case where the article clearly should have been deleted. If NBSB had nominated TFYC or something along those lines at AfD while topic banned, that would have been a completely different story.

I'll also note that the GG topic ban is very broad and everyone and their mother seems to (presumably accidentally) breach it at some point or another. I've seen multiple editors that are far more sympathetic to GG than NBSB breach their "broadly construed" topic bans, but none of them ever get dragged to AE for it. I'd ask the peanut gallery to consider this next time they complain about NBSB allegedly being immune to sanctions.

NBSB clearly did the right thing according to BLP policy, and drew attention to a crap, obscure, negative BLP article that may likely have avoided attention had he not intervened. To block him for this would be petty, bureaucratic and encourage the persistence of bad BLP articles within the encyclopedia. Bosstopher2 (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning NorthBySouthBaranof

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



Request concerning AJB43

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 07:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA3 : "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict."


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


 * 1) 22:41, 29 January 2016 revert
 * 2) 21:43, 30 January 2016 revert
 * 3) 01:31, 31 January 2016 revert
 * 4) 06:43, 31 January 2016 revert
 * 5) 06:17, 1 February 2016 revert


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


 * informed by edit summary
 * acknowledges the information and denies it applies
 * informed on talk page
 * acknowledges the information, says "I read the link", again denies it applies.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Although talk pages are included in the ARBPIA3 general prohibition (it says "pages", not "articles", and this interpretation was confirmed at WP:ARCA), I did not list such edits. The only issue here is whether the page Occupied Enemy Territory Administration "could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". To clarify, OETA was the military government established by the British government in Palestine when it was conquered from the Ottoman Empire in 1917. It lasted until replaced by a civilian government in 1922. This was a key moment in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. To judge AJB43's denial, we only need to read AJB43's edit summaries and text to see that AJB43 is editing the article precisely out of concern for the Arab-Israeli conflict:
 * "It is not relevant to put the name of something [referring to Palestine] that is not a country here, it distorts the on the ground realities of today."
 * "The "State of Palestine" is a partially recognized non-entity that has no effective control of anything on the ground. Thus, it is not a country"
 * "Palestine is an only semi-recognized non-entity that doesn't claim what its borders are."

The 30/500 rule was introduced to keep PIA articles from being disrupted by SPA editors like this. Unfortunately, there are not yet (correct me if I'm wrong) the technical means to enforce it. Please enforce this case by a long block. Zerotalk 07:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * notified Zerotalk 07:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion concerning AJB43
''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 AJB43
I submitted the dispute for a third opinion earlier, and prior to this reporting.

User Zero0000 is the biased one here, reverting my non-partisan edits for personal, partisan goals. My edits are not out of concern for the Arab-Israeli Conflict, and could not reasonably be construed that way. My edits are made out of pedantry- the successor area to the OETA that Zero0000 wants to refer to as Palestine is in fact the Palestinian National Authority. This is about precise terms for an online encyclopedia, not a vested interest on my part.

If you look at Zero0000's user page, it explicitly states the term "Palestine," and displays numerous other examples of the user's interest in the Arab-Israel Conflict, including stating that Zero0000 has been to "Palestine (West Bank and Gaza). That is clear conflict of interest right there. I edit the article to show "Palestinian National Authority," but Zero0000 doesn't like this because personal opinions hold that it must be "Palestine."

This is spin at its finest. The user is the one who is reverting my edits and trying to have me banned because the user wants to interject politics into a Wikipedia article, in which POV has no place.

I appeal against any ban.

AJB43 (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)AJB43

Result concerning AJB43

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


 * I've just added the template Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement at Talk:Occupied Enemy Territory Administration. Our article on the Arab–Israeli conflict goes back to the 19th century to explain the conflict, and has three paragraphs on the time period beginning in 1917 which is when the OETA was active. It is clear that the OETA article is part of the broadly-construed topic area of the Arab-Israeli conflict. We should give the editor AJB43 the opportunity to back away from the dispute to avoid a block for violating the 500-30 rule.  EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Per AJB43's agreement to stop editing the article until he reaches 500 edits and 30 days tenure, I think this report can be closed without a block. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Per AJB43's agreement to stop editing the article until he reaches 500 edits and 30 days tenure, I think this report can be closed without a block. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

HistoryWrite
''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 HistoryWrite

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 09:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBPIA3 : 30 day, 500 edit general prohibition.


 * Details of charges

This editor has made hundreds of junk edits to "satisfy" the 500-edit rule for editing in the Arab-Israel area. I can't list them all here, please see its contributions, its user page, and read its comment "Malik, now that I have amassed 500+ nonsense edits, how will you justify your unilateral deletions of my contributions, and your rewriting of history with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict?" .

Almost certainly a sock, but I'm no good at identifications.
 * 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):

Edit quoted above proves both awareness and intention to subvert. Also got ARBPIA notice on talk page.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

This is intolerable. Less than a permablock would be too little. Zerotalk 09:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

notified Zerotalk 09:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning HistoryWrite
''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 HistoryWrite
In Wikipedia’s Arab-Israeli topics, I have made very important and cited contributions, among them:
 * “the Palestine Liberation Organization had been an internationally recognized terrorist organization”
 * “Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital”
 * “Jordan had occupied then annexed the West Bank and then attacked Israel in the Six Day War”

My contributions were based on historical facts, germane to the topics, and gave historical context to what have become pro-Palestinian propaganda Wikipedia pages. Yet, people taking decidedly anti-Israel points of views, deleted all of my contributions.

Ultimately, Malik Shabazz, to his credit, did not send me to arbitration, he gave me a warning, not about content, but technicality: ARBPIA3. Therefore, I wrote the following in my Userpage:

I am HistoryWrite. Unlike many who suppress their agendas, mine is clear and open. I am on Wikipedia to combat the Arab/Muslim-led political warfare campaigns and efforts to distort and falsely rewrite history in regard to Israel and the Middle East in general, and the Arab-Palestinian agenda in particular. Many efforts have been made to block my historical additions and a recent warning was given to me that I must have 30 days and 500 edits in Wikipedia in order to edit “controversial” pages such as the State of Palestine or the Palestine Liberation Organization.

As such, I now have more than 30 days, and here are my 500 edits that once and for all make me legitimate to write factual historical information, specifically regarding the most prominent contributions of the PLO (and many Palestinians): violence and terrorism.

My 1…500 edits.

Subsequently, I left a note for Malik informing him that I now have the required number of edits. However, to correct the context and meaning, the “500+ nonsense edits” refer ONLY to the numerical edits in my own Userpage, and DO NOT refer to ANY of my edits/contributions in Wikipedia in general, or the Arab-Israeli topic in particular.

The Wikipedia:ARBPIA3 would curtail Gore Vidal if he were to join Wikipedia today, although I’m sure the intent is rather to stop drive by attacks. My contributions have been substantial. Interestingly, if a person writes a 30,000 word article and hits save, that is one edit. Correcting a comma is one edit. Where’s the logic, but I digress.

Contributors are weighing in on many issues: WP:POVPUSH; User:FDJK001; “hundreds of junk edits”; “aggressive statement”; “POV-warrior gaming the system,” I’m “not a serious editor.” Those statements are either wrong or irrelevant to why I am here. [Note, Torven actually wrote that someone was banned for the same thing, when in fact, the operator was banned for abusively using multiple accounts.] What is most difficult to understand are why people like Guy and EdJohnston would okay a site ban prior first reading any statement of explanation from me.

I have been published in major newspapers and I have a relevant voice that will be heard. At the end of the day, I was warned, and now I have 500 edits. I would rather this arbitration deal with the propaganda that is allowed by the pro-Palestinian perspective, rather than banishing me on a technicality. Speaking of technicality, I was actually sent to arbitration after I had the 500 edits.

HistoryWrite

Statement by Nomoskedasticity
Surely the aggressive statement of intent on the user page is enough to demonstrate that this editor is not here to contribute to an encyclopaedia but instead to WP:POVPUSH. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Torven
I had to go digging for it, but this isn't the first time someone has tried to sneak into the circus this way. About six months ago, User:FDJK001 was banned for doing almost the exact same thing. Considering the user's talk page, I don't see much reason to view this situation any differently.Torven (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * User:FDJK001 was not banned for "almost the same thing." The user's page states: This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the operator has abusively used multiple accounts. HistoryWrite

Check his block log. Before the Checkuser results were posted to his page, he was blocked for, among other things, gaming sanctions. The intent of the 500/30 restriction isn't to make you crank out 500 edits as quickly as you can. It's to give new users time to learn how Wikipedia works, both technically and in policy, before they dive into an area that frequent disruption has turned into a minefield. For instance, I've been browsing the site for several years and actively following the notice boards for just over a year. I know some policies well enough, since it is impossible to follow some notice board discussions without them. At the same time, I had no clue how to ping a user until last week when DHeyward pinged me (which, by the way, if you are reading this, thank you for that). Seeing how more experienced editors post and interacting with them is one of the best ways to learn, and by trying to circumvent the sanctions, you have shown you have no interest in learning how to work with the community and are here simply to push your point of view. That won't get you very far, and may have already sabotaged your stated agenda. Also, this board does not use threaded discussions; everyone responds in their own section. Torven (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Darkfrog24
Non-involved non-admin here. To answer your question HistoryWrite, the logic behind the 500 edits rule is to force new editors to practice on non-controversial parts of Wikipedia before jumping into the deep end (and also to make it harder to use fake accounts). The rules here are byzantine and even experienced users can run afoul of regulations that they didn't know were there. If you'd spent your thirty days doing real editing you might have found out that the place to deal with the problems you see in the articles on Palestine is at parts of the site dedicated to a neutral point of view or run across a productive request for comment or found out what is meant when we say that Wikipedia focuses on verifiability rather than truth. Even if, let's say, you spent the past thirty days conscientiously reading Wikipedia talk page discussions (I'm doing something called assuming good faith), you didn't learn what you needed to learn. For example, you added this text about the PLO attacking civilians but you didn't cite a reliable source backing it up; it's an important step and you didn't know you weren't supposed to skip it. Five hundred edits on regular articles would have gone a long way toward proving that you were at least trying; they were meant to establish your reputation.

People here find your edits disturbing because it makes it look like you care more about technicalities than about cooperating with other Wikieditors. It's a little like someone cheating on their driving test. Even if your edits didn't involve running over anyone's grandmother, we're still not confident that you know what the blinking yellow light means. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
The ruling of ARBCOM says 500 edits. That's what this guy did. Just like all other stupid ARBCOM ruling that comes back to bite them such as 1RR or we can revert for no reason. Maybe next time ARBCOM will clarify and issue a ruling with clarify and think it through. But as the ruling stands, this person did nothing wrong. And of course, since he's pro-Israel, he automatically gets labeled a sock. I'm surprised I wasn't yet labeled a sock at some point. That is of course how it works in this area. Regardless, what Wikipedia doesn't need is yet another pro-Israel editor kicked away merely to prove to the world the bias of Wiki. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Nomoskedasticity, Have you looked at Nableezy or Nishidany or a million other of editor's statements? Why are only pro-Israeli statements fair game? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Darkfrog24 adding that the PLO targeted civilians is WP:COMMON and should not need a reference and while you state you are AGF, I fail to see it. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * maybe if you guys wouldn't be so militant about reporting every third pro Israel editor he wouldn't be so vocal?? Just a thought? Sir Joseph (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho
I'd classify this as WP:GAMING the system. If someone can just type 1 letter on their own talk page 500 separate times then there's no point behind this rule. Wikipedia we put emphasis behind the spirit of the rules more than the letter of the rules. The question is if he spirit of this is clear? If it is clear you should ban them outright and if it's not you should simply require that they get 500 more edits before editing in this topic area, and 500 that aren't the nonsense that took place here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Reviewing everything, that this gaming was in response to the reversion of this edit today and all the wikilawyering above, I can't see any call for any actual leniency here. This SPA and their behavior is exactly what ARBCOM drafted this rule to stop. It would seem apt to drop a indef ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning HistoryWrite

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


 * This is an unambiguous case of a POV-warrior gaming the system. An indefinite topic ban is the obvious solution. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's hard to imagine a better way to prove you are not a serious editor than to do stuff like this. I'd be OK with either an indef topic ban or an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thirded. Support an indefinite topic ban as well. The userpage itself lends itself to an indefinite NOTHERE block but I'm willing to WP:AGF that there is a chance at an edit that isn't going to confirm an indefinite block but basically one more edit is sufficient to make that case. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I can't bear the idea of piddling around with topic bans for this kind of crude gaming of the system. I expected such cases might happen when the 500/30 rule was first instituted (on Gamergate) — though I didn't expect it to be quite this open and unembarrassed — and I always assumed they would mean a WP:NOTHERE block. I have blocked the user indefinitely. I hope nobody minds. (I'll have to do the formalities, logging etc, tomorrow, my computer is about to shut down.) Bishonen &#124; talk 23:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Late to the discussion, but for the record I blocked for transparent gaming of the 500/30 rule. This is even more blatant, and the bad-faith contempt for the restriction indicates that they have no business on Wikipedia. I endorse Bishonen's indef.   Acroterion   (talk)   01:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As do I, as an individual. The rule was intended as a screen to keep out the newest disputants, but perhaps it might work also as a way of identifying the troublemakers.  DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Darkfrog24
''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 Darkfrog24

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 20:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188


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


 * 1) 23 January 2016 Despite many admin warnings to move on, in previous AE and after (, etc.), Darkfrog24 instead attempts harassment by tagteam proxy, trying to recruit a fellow frequent MOS/AT editor (who take the bait and is not a party here) to go after me vexatiously while DF24 cheerleads: "I'm going to be speaking very carefully because I'm the one under topic ban right now. (I.e., is aware they're crossing the ban's edge.) "If you want to ... just talk about frustration with SmC, that's one thing. If you have something concrete enough for a formal complaint, I'd be interested in hearing about it.  Some of this [material provided by DF24 on the banned-topic] may be corroborating."
 * 2) 23 January 2016 Darkfrog24 posts (in same discussion) material about me and the (temporary) result of my WP:ANEW request about DF24's logical-quotation (LQ) editwarring at MOS and mainspace – the very topic of DF24's ban.
 * 3) 28 January 2016 Further pursuit of same dispute, in user talk, projecting implications that I'm the one harassing, and I'm posting on talk page (I haven't, since DF24 asked me a question by name there, days ago.
 * 4) 22 January 2016 Canvassing admins, after the ban [more diffed in comments section, re: aspersions], to advise DF24 how "to oppose a longstanding Wikimedia MoS rule" and "do [something] about it", i.e. how resume the fight against consensus they were banned for. Editor even changed thread name to refer to their ban in posting this violation of it. A nearly identical message was posted on talk pages of several other admins (JzG,, , Thryduulf, etc.), but I have diff limits, and can't insert them all here. It's a whole series of ban violations, showing irreconcilable WP:NOTGETTINGIT and WP:GREATWRONGS. JzG sums it very clearly.
 * 5) There are other examples, but this should be enough, and I think admins here are already aware of them.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 22 January 2016 Topic ban, from aforementioned AE request, delivered by


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

DF24 received a for WP:ARBATC and warning ( overturned)  6 September 2015, resulting from the aforementioned ANEW request.
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months:
 * Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months: The one that resulted in their ban.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

DF24 is transgressing their ban and WP:ARBATC, perpetuating and more intensely personalizing the AT/MOS dispute central to the ban, seemingly for revenge. Was specifically warned against such behavior (diffs of other warnings also available).

Just before the ban, DF24 wrote: "The way I see it, I've done nothing wrong". AE already made the problems clear. DF24 blames for their ban, disputing everywhere the evidence I provided, as if AE admins were unable to assess it correctly.

When I raised these matters with Thryduulf (who said take it to AE), DF24 didn't take the hint (third diff), pursuing it on my own talk page while professing to not want interaction; this defies reason on several levels.

Admins suggested that, DF24 being a professional proofreader, that this an obvious productive area,. But DF24 says they mostly can't stand to do it, because WP's punctuation choices are not "correct English". . This fundamentalist, anti-linguistics view is central to the matter – MoS be changed, no matter what and how long it takes, because it is. This will not be cured by a block of any length. Over six years of tendentious, disruptive campaigning, yet DF24 admits our users don't care about this punctuation trivia anyway Keeping this up is WP:NOTHERE (at least regarding ARBATC).

Third party in the first two diffs (we're interacting well now) isn't involved in the LQ debate, and found the circular rehash of it at WT:MOS tiresome in September. He's just a -random AT/MOS editor – one to whom DF24 (noting an earlier argument between me and that editor about MOS) has repeatedly cast WP:ASPERSIONS about my mental health, after the ban, and after Ds/alert: ,. Also, a long string of dishonesty allegations (increasing after ban) without evidence, only links to DF24's previous claims and denials, , , , etc. Can prove this habit of incivility and gaslighting is much broader, but would need length-limit extension.

Given the personalized nature of DF24's continuance of the dispute, the attempts to recruit a previously uninvolved editor to tagteam (see also last AE's evidence of attempt to recruit a new editor to file anti-MOS:LQ RfC on DF24's behalf), and the fact that DF24 has been quite  in unrelated mainspace and other things since the TB, I suggest the best response isn't the promised block (could make grudgematching worse), but: "Walling-off" would remove DF's ability to involve more AT/MOS editors in style-warrior crusading, permits ongoing good editing, and obviates further admin action. DF24 needs to start up a new conversation with other guests in some different room at the Wikipedia party.
 * Remedy proposed :
 * Extended topic ban, from the scope of WP:ARBATC (i.e. WP:MOS, WP:AT, and related pages, which involve mostly overlapping issues and editing circles), with a longer time before appeal.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * 20:14, 28 January 2016 by SMcCandlish

The other stuff can be dispensed with quickly: "[SMcC] does not understand how I think or why I do what I do." Oh, I agree. I take pains not to imply any particular motivation for the Great Quotation Marks Crusade. DF24 seems to entirely believe what they're saying and that "opposing ... and doing something about" logical quotation at all costs is of vital importance for Wikipedia, even if DF24 knows the rest of the project doesn't care (see previous diffs). That it was arguably being done in good faith doesn't make the end result okay. This won't-let-go behavior is similar to that which resulted in another whole-topic ban against DF24 in a mainspace area. The "stop presuming to take credit for my work" thing is a non-sequitur, and another evidence-free aspersion. "[T]alk to Tony1, SlimV and Izno" – DF24 already canvassed the other MoS regulars in the last AE request, with no effect on the outcome. The rest of DF24's response is more projection and gaslighting, more "not me" reversal of DF24's own behavior. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Re: "If SmC pulls on someone else what he pulled on me" – i.e. presented evidence that AE accepted. (DF24's new diff is, as usual, just another link to DF24 asserting the same opinion in a previous discussion, not to actual evidence.) WP does not need someone to make it their mission on here to fire up a personalized dispute every time a particular individual and any other editor have an issue to air out between them that doesn't involve DF24. Darkfrog24 is effectively testifying against their own case, really effectively. Enough said. I'm going back to sourcing and other real wiki-work. If I'm needed for anything, please ping me. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Later responses as needed:
 * Re: Darkfrog24's "defense", I don't think I need to respond to much of anything in it in detail. It's all obvious deflect-and-misdirect handwaving, and a return to the claim that AE admins didn't already look at the evidence presented last time and determine what it meant. The editor clearly refuses to accept that pursuing the same take-down-MoS-editors-who-cross-me battlegrounding pattern that multiple admins warned them to stop pursuing is not okay just because they craftily avoid including the words "quotation marks". Using WP:CIVILPOV techniques to veil emotional-instability and dishonesty insinuations behind wording one can play "CYA" games with when called on it is WP:SANCTIONGAMING (the very "Are you okay?" post DF24 cites as exonerating, is actually just another example of the same "something must be wrong with you" insinuation pattern). A sensible answer would have been "sorry, I just hadn't fully dropped it yet, I have now, and it won't happen again." Instead it's just more attempts to turn AE attention to someone else so the gaming can continue.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I can certainly voluntarily avoid interacting with Darkfrog24 (was already doing so since Jan. 26). I don't think a mutual interaction ban is justified, and dropped my own suggestion of a one-way IBAN because it would be redundant with the wider TBAN proposed. No problem (much less two-way, or one-way from ) is occurring when I run into DF24  ARBATC-scope discussions, e.g. when mutually participating in some random WP:NPOVN thread (Jan. 26). Even in ARBATC discussions that do not touch on the quotation marks thing, I've often bolstered DF24's views, e.g.  & ;  &  (anon was me accidentally logged out ); ;  & ; ; etc., etc. – some of those during then-ongoing quotation marks disputation elsewhere; I was careful to not let my irritation with the editor's behavior in that topic affect my responses to them otherwise.  The problem isn't that DF24 and SMcC can't get along (even in ARBATC matters in particular), it's that DF24 just will not drop one ARBATC issue, and it's affecting their ability to be constructive in that sector, including now trying to get other ARBATC editors to manufacture WP:DRAMA with whoever DF24 is angry at over this pet issue (the target is incidentally me this time, but could just as easily have been Dicklyon or someone else). DF24's counter-suggestion of harassment by me, to deflect attention from their own, has no merit.  I've twice suggested (in both these AE threads) that DF24 should  be blocked, just separated from the conflict area and left to keep editing, and also defended them against an earlier accusation of TBAN violation, as well as omitted evidence from this filing of an additional violation on the basis that it was unintentional. Not exactly hounding, is it?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC) Clarified, 02:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: DF24's additional comments: "I want ... to speak at any formal complaint that might be filed against SmC ... to file one myself ... to participate ... with CurlyTurkey [against SMcC]" is a long way of saying, and laying out this plan right in front of AE. The admonitions against this aren't sinking in, even after a wider topic ban and an interaction ban are contemplated. So, I reinstate my original request  for a 1-way IBAN in addition to an expanded TBAN. I took it on good faith that DF24 was just angry at not getting their way, but below they state clearly that now it's an anti-SMcC thing in particular. Good faith assumption is now exhausted, per WP:SPADE/WP:DUCK.
 * Re: "in what way do you believe my conversation with Curly_Turkey was not consistent with the letter or spirit of the topic ban? ... it did not concern quotation marks or the MoS in any way" – This is clear in the AE request: Diffing material relating to the previous (ANEW) eruption of the LQ editwarring, in furtherance of generating additional disputation with one of the other editors in the LQ discussion, obviously isn't consistent with either the letter or spirit of the TBAN. Switch topics: Would it be okay for someone TBANned from GMOs or Israel/Palestine to diff old GMO or Israel/Palestine disputes and encourage another editor to launch new disputes against one's opposition on that issue?  not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Darkfrog24
''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 Darkfrog24
The topic ban covers quotation marks and WP:LQ. It does not cover SMcCandlish specifically or talking about other editors or their behavior in general.

For all SMC's links, please just look at what I actually said, in its original context. Do not take his summary of matters at face value.


 * Diff #1: Saturday, user pinged me to ask if SMcCandlish had violated a topic ban placed against him in September .  I told CT that said topic ban had a two-month expiration date and had been appealed anyway.  In other words, CT asked "Did SMC break the rules?" and I answered "No he didn't." Curly also referenced SMC's behavior, which has been inappropriate. We were not talking about WP:LQ or quotation marks the MoS; we were talking about SMcCandlish.
 * 2 is just #1 again.
 * 3 I want SMcCandlish to leave me alone. I've told him so repeatedly, and so have others: It's time for you to stay away from me.  .  If it is necessary for someone to follow me around, appoint a neutral party.  Regarding my "one tenth" comment, I'm referring to things like this:
 * 4 I asked the admins about the specifics of the topic ban as they saw them and for constructive criticism regarding my conduct. The whole reason I am banned is because my understanding of the rules is different from theirs.  Asking questions about what is expected of me is the solution.

I did not make accusations without evidence. Plenty was provided    and there is more. He rearranges words or leaves them out to make my posts look like something they're not. Example, I actually said "The way I see it, I've done nothing wrong, but you clearly don't feel that way. So what do you see as a positive change that I could make here?" And here's why I cut back on gnoming:.

Example: SMcCandlish claimed that I removed a dispute tag "without doing anything to resolve the disputes." That's not true. I attempted to resolve the dispute by replacing the source, which I believed he had contested. Here's the two of us talking about it. Not true + He knows it = "Not being honest" is the nice way to put it. I'd need more space to refute every point.

SMcCandlish has not been shy about calling me a liar without cause or about making vicious claims about my motives. Here he is saying "I don't want Darkfrog to be allowed to say I'm not honest or speculate about my motives!" SmC is playing the victim.


 * January 2016: "" is not an aspersion against SmC's mental health.


 * September 2015: "" is not an aspersion against SmC's mental health. One or the other of them had said the situation was stressful, and I cracked a joke about how they would not need Valium.


 * September 2015: "" is not an aspersion against SmC's mental health. I've known him on Wikipedia long enough to tell that, last summer, he'd been acting in a manner that was unusual for him and speculated that something might be wrong IRL.

And yes, he does know that's what I meant: Scroll down until you see

Remedy: Tell SMcCandlish to leave me alone.

Response to SMC's further allegations: This editor does not understand how I think or why I do what I do. He wants you to believe that this isn't a response to his actions, that I'm just randomly mad and lashing out at just anyone. That's not true. (And speculating about my motives while saying that I should be banned from speculating about his motives is messed up.) Lots of editors don't agree with me on quotation marks. More than one editor commented on the last AE thread. SmC said and is continuing to say things that he knows aren't true.

What do I want here? I've already unwatched the MoS and quotation mark pages. I want to reserve the right to speak at any formal complaint that might be filed against SmC for his behavior or to file one myself and to participate in ordinary conversations&mdash;like the one I had with CurlyTurkey&mdash;under Wikipedia's ordinary rules. I'm trying to make the best of this topic ban. What I need is for him to stay away from me, cease acting as though I were his business in any way, stop presuming to take credit for my work, stop following me around, stop misrepresenting what I say. What's it going to take from me to get that? The question is not rhetorical.

Oh good God. . I can't even say "Are you okay?" without him imagining some ulterior motive.

Last week, I was not aware that I was not allowed to ask involved admins about the core issue underlying the topic ban. I stopped doing so as soon as EdJ and KillerC told me otherwise. This is what I mean when I say your understanding of the rules is different from mine. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC) I thought the topic ban already covered the MoS in general. I think you should talk to Tony1, SlimV and Izno. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

In case my meaning wasn't obvious, the want/need dichotomy is meant to indicate "I am willing to forego what I want to get what I need." As for what I want, I mean I want to reserve the right to do something like this: If SmC pulls on someone else what he pulled on me, I want to talk about it. I've done it before without incident. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

But it does currently cover WP:MOS and WT:MOS themselves, right? So what you're considering is an expansion of the gag order? Question: Do you believe my conversation with Curly Turkey concerned the MoS in some way or is this because of something else? Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You guys are right that there is a lot that I don't understand a lot about this situation. It seemed like asking questions about what I saw as the core issue underlying the topic ban&mdash;challenges to WP:LQ&mdash;would solve that problem, and I didn't expect it to be so controversial. (In my defense, the topic ban alert specifically says "ask me if you have any questions.") The way I see it, I just didn't know that asking involved admins about WP:LQ was covered by the ban, and I stopped asking about it as soon as I found out.  Answering a question about another editor's behavior also didn't look like it was covered. (It actually still doesn't.  If that's not the case, please inform me.)


 * However, the reverse is also true. I didn't guess that non-WP:LQ MoS issues weren't covered (and if they are, now would be the time to say).  That being the case...


 * Reasons not to expand the scope or duration of this topic ban


 * When MOS:IDENTITY came up for review, I took the lead, working cooperatively on an eleven-person team. The issue was controversial and many of us held disparate views.  The two proposals went through nine drafts:   I also did the considerable legwork of publicizing the proposals and posting notifications to the talk pages of all participants in the previous RfC that had inspired the revisitation.


 * But taking the lead on a big multi-person project was relatively new for me. More often, I'm doing things like this:   The discussion of animate vs inanimate pronouns for fictional characters eventually covered thirteen sub-threads.  I found a way to cut through the moot points to the chase.


 * It's a bit of a tangent, but I also don't think this TB should have covered the article space in the first place (for me or Dicklyon). I'd say Full stop is a good example of my work there. Removal of unsourced material  and of a six-year-old typo that flipped the meaning of a relevant sentence .  Took a bit of digging through a lot of archived pages, but I found the edit in which the error had been inserted, confirmed with the Wikieditor in question that it was probably accidental, and corrected it.  As for conflicts, discussions of WP:LQ at WT:MOS did occasionally include sources, but more often they dealt with beliefs and qualitative matters.  Which editors believe one system is better than the other?  Because the article space is subject to WP:V, conflicts stuck more closely to facts.  Which sources say what?  As such, they tended to end quickly:

Alert acknowledged, but I feel the need to say that my messages on your talk pages were a good-faith effort to make the best of the topic ban period. My questions were meant to assess the differences between my view of this matter and your own and so directly address the underlying cause. My best guess as to what the point of all this is is the threads concerning WP:LQ at WT:MOS.

I would feel better about this if any of you would acknowledge that you have read the evidence that I have offered that my accuser is not being honest with you and looked at the diffs in question in their original context rather than relying in his misleading presentation. I'm not saying you necessarily didn't; I'm saying I'd feel better if you affirmatively indicated that you did. Similarly, I'd like to thank you for the acknowledgement that I did not violate the ban as it was presented to me.

Since one of the reasons given is the belief that my contribution is a "net negative," I believe that MOS regulars and punctuation article contributors other than SMcCandlish should be consulted.

I will ask now: In the interest of avoiding further proceedings, in what way do you believe my conversation with was not consistent with the letter or spirit of the topic ban? From my perspective, it did not concern quotation marks or the MoS in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkfrog24 (talk • contribs)

Even though it's probably too late to change anyone's mind, I want the following on record. SMcCandlish is making most of this up, both here and in the original discussion. There are a few outright lies, a ton of exaggerations, and a whole lot of speculation presented as if it were fact. I personally believe that SMcCandlish deliberately spammed this page with a large amount of irrelevant information specifically to confuse and distract and to present me in a falsely bad light. I believe he deliberately posted so much in the hopes that no one would sit down and look at each diff in context, let alone allow me to refute his accusations when I have been told to keep at least my initial response to 500 words. It is not immediately obvious that the accused does not need to wait for permission to break the 500 word rule. It also makes it harder for me to tell which parts of his accusation you are reacting to and therefore which parts I should address. It's taken me a couple of days to think about it, but right now my best assessment of the situation is that you, the admins, are objecting to 1) my conversation with Curly Turkey and 2) the fact that I asked you about the right way to oppose a longstanding rule. If you were actually objecting to something else, please tell me.


 * 1) I think we might be on the same page on this point, but my conversation with Curly did not involve quotation marks or WP:LQ or even the MoS; it concerned SMC's behavior and ban status. Curly asked me if SMC had violated a September topic ban, and I said that SMC hadn't.  He also asked about SMC's tendency to accuse people of doing something while doing it himself, so I provided him with links to his posts on my talk page, specifically so that he could also see SMC's rebuttal.


 * 2) WP:LQ is challenged relatively often. It has come up more than 40 times since 2002. Depending on your definition of challenge, it's been challenged 6–10 times since the beginning of 2014, rarely by the same person.  Even long and heated debates do not usually result in anyone getting blocked or banned.  This was an issue before I joined Wikipedia, it's going to be an issue while I'm not at WT:MoS, and it's almost certainly still going to be an issue afterward.  I felt that one of my goals for the next six months should be to find out what I'm doing that's different, which I consider the underlying reason for this topic ban .  Since the topic ban alert specifically said I was allowed to ask questions, I asked the admins who participated in the last conversation, including yourselves, for their perspective.  It seemed better than to appeal, get unbanned, and then try to figure it out.  Please take this as what it is: a good-faith interest in how other people's interpretations of the rules differ from my own and a beginning of an effort to do better.

I also believe that you may have seen this for what it was if you hadn't just been exposed to SMC's screeds.

Speaking of questions, when someone comes to WT:MOS saying we should change WP:LQ, I say "Yes!" but when they show up asking how to use WP:LQ, I'm the first one there with the "Here's how." I disagree with this rule but I haven't been breaking or undermining it.

I also feel this procedure could be benefited by some established guidelines for appropriate notification on the order of WP:CANVASS. You guys may be no more subject to suggestion and bias than anyone else, but that does mean that "accuser is known to exaggerate" and "that's not exactly what happened" are going to have more weight coming from a third party than from the accused. Whether or not such a system is applied to my case, we should probably develop one. Whether it's for six months or twelve, I'm going to need a project and it's one of the ones I'm considering. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dicklyon
Darkfrog is correct that the topic ban was not quite broad enough to force her to drop the stick. That can be fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
Darkfrog's immediate reaction to the topic ban was to canvass opinion on how he could plan to carry on his campaign when the ban expires:, , , , ,.

I think that tells us something important about his determination to continue this, despite clear and unambiguous feedback that his efforts are not appreciated and not in line with Wikipedia ethos.

I don't see any alternative here but to extend the TBAN and send an unambiguous sign that no means no. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Darkfrog24

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


 * It's clear that Darkfrog24 has not understood why the topic ban was imposed, and so it needs to be restated and possibly broadened to cover all discussions about the manual of style and manual of style related topics on all pages, including their user talk page. It also needs to be said that, even if the topic ban is not broadened that further speculation, discussion or similar about how to proceed with the same campaign once the ban expires will in future be treated as a topic ban violation. Topic ban violations typically result in being blocked from editing.
 * I'm also tempted by an interaction ban between Darkfrog24 and SMcCandlish, either one way (Darkfrog24 may not interact with SMcCandlish) or two way (neither may interact with the other) as nothing productive is currently occurring when the two engage. I'd prefer a voluntary agreement that both stay completely away from each other, but if that is not forthcoming then an interaction ban could be imposed.
 * The 6-month date for appeals seems too lenient now, so if we add anything new here it should be for 12 months, and if we don't we should extend the date of appeal of the original topic ban to 12 months from when this discussion closes.
 * I want input from other admins on both suggestions before I do anything more here though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Thryduulf's proposal to extend DF24's indefinite ban to cover all discussions about the manual of style and MOS-related topics on all pages, including user talk, and to allow appeal of the ban in 12 months. Not sure whether an IBAN from SMcC is worthwhile. Perhaps we could just warn DF24 that they can be blocked if they won't stay away from SMcC. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Darkfrog24, up to this point you are only banned from quotation marks, not from all style discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Concur that the TBAN needs to be extended as proposed by Thryduulf, with an extension of the appeal timeframe to 12 months. I believe Darkfrog24 is capable of contributing constructively to article space but behavior since the limited TBAN has demonstrated that the expanded scope is necessary. I'm not in favor of an IBAN at this time—I believe the inability to discuss MOS issues will have the desired effect. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, unless there is further comment I will, in a day or so, change the topic ban to "You are topic banned from the manual of style, and manual of style-related topics, specifically including quotation marks and quotation styles. This applies on all pages, including your and other's user talk pages. You may appeal this topic ban 12 months after [date of implementation]." as there is no appetite for an Iban I'll not place one. your edits since the original topic ban have not been violations of that ban, hence you are not being blocked for violating them, however they demonstrate you have entirely missed the point. Despite repeated advice before and after it was placed, you have not let the subject drop rather you are skirting the edge of the ban and planning how to continue the behaviour that lead to it when the ban expires. This expanded topic ban is thus necessary to prevent disruption to the encyclopaedia. That you have made good edits in the topic area is not the point, the point is that the sum of your activity is a net negative. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As there has been no objections or other comments from uninvolved users, I'm enacting this as proposed. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Request concerning Jaqeli

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 04:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, as per AA2 general sanctions public notice all subjects Armenia and Georgia related, broadly defined


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


 * On 15 March 2015, Jaqeli was given a topic ban exemption to be allowed to edit Georgian scripts, Rhadamistus, Pharnavaz I of Iberia, and Pharasmanes II of Iberia for three months and then reappeal the entire ban which was removed on 29 June 2015. Nonetheless, during this time Jaqeli edited Georgians, Georgian dialects, Iadgari of Mikael Modrekili, Kuji of Colchis, Prince David of Georgia, Eduard Shevardnadze, Nikoloz Baratashvili, Lisa Batiashvili, Anna Chakvetadze, Davit Guramishvili, several Georgian letters, Bir el Qutt inscriptions, Doliskana inscriptions, and creating Zenobia, among other edits.

Despite being topic banned twice, Jaqeli seemingly exhibits the same behavior he has in the past.


 * 31 July - One month after the topic ban was removed, Jaqeli removes all mention that the Georgian branch is related to the Armenian branch, which is accepted by all reliable scholars and sourced with Cyril Tumanoff


 * 14 October - removed all mention of Ghadana of Armenia being Armenian despite the fact that the sources within the article itself support the claim


 * 16 January - Jaqeli removes Armenia from the article title under the excuse "no Armenia existed back then" despite the article having content about the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia and Zakarid Armenia


 * 18 January - Removing the native Armenian name and other native names and leaving only the Georgian native name. This dish popular throughout the Caucasus.


 * 19 January - Jaqeli removes an academic source about the family's Armenian origins and removes all mention of such from the article. Similar to his past edits on Mesrop Mashtots.


 * 17 October and 20 January - Jaqeli twice lists Georgia in the List of medieval great powers. I found this to be exagerrarated since it appears that the sources do not claim that Georgia was a "great power" or anything of that nature.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
 * and - Jaqeli was previously banned twice from Armenian and Georgian articles on 5 January 2014 for edit warring and battleground mentality on Georgian alphabet, and on 15 August 2014 for a wide range of edit warring and incivility, such as removing sourced content for the Armenian role in the Georgian language on Georgian scripts and Mesrop Mashtots.


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * As stated above, banned in January 2014 and August 2014 by User:Sandstein
 * Topic banned successfully appealed on 29 July 2015

The user appears to conduct a concerning WP:TENDENTIOUS editing pattern in Armenian related articles ever since the lifting of his ban. I find that every time he edits an Armenian related article, it is disruptive in one way or another. This disruptive editing pattern is similar to the very same disruption that has gotten him the AA2 ban in the first place. The user has a pretty extensive block log which includes several blocks from edit-warring and topic ban violations. Yet, despite all the blocks, warnings, and bans, the user continues to display a disruptive editing pattern.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Therefore, I believe that the user's AA2 topic ban should be reinstated for second and final time.

For past inquiries, please see Jaqeli's:
 * AA2 report of 2 January 2014 (verdict: topic-banned): Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive144
 * AA2 report of 15 August 2014 (verdict: topic ban reinstated): Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive154


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * I would expect a user who has been warned, blocked, and banned several times throughout their Wikipedia career, would know better not to repeat the disruption again, especially considering that the ban was lifted only a few months ago. Moreover, considering that there's such a bad history for this user, I frankly find it strange to let him off the hook just because he didn't talk about it enough. The way I see it, discussing about the removal of sourced content about the Armenian origins of a Georgian family, for example, is more of an issue of user conduct rather than an issue of content. We must also bear in mind that such disruptive measures are very similar to the types of edits he was banned for in the first place. To just let him off the hook over and over again is not creating a better and more stable environment in the AA2 topic area for these very reasons. Some strictures need to be in place so as to not risk destabilizing the topic area again. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Jaqeli
''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 Tiptoethrutheminefield
Regarding the AA2 report of 15th August (which I initiated), I was surprised after it to see Jaqeli continue to edit many articles related to Georgia. When I asked Sandstein about this, I was told that Jaqeli's editing restriction applied only to articles that contained material relating to BOTH Armenia and Georgia. In other words, Jaqeli had no restriction on editing Armenia-related articles and no restriction on editing Georgia-related articles. I do not think that most people would read a "topic ban from everything related to both Armenia and Georgia" in this very restricted way. And given that a lot of the pov editing that Jaqeli has now been accused of is removing evidence of any Armenia/Armenian connections, this very restricted topic ban could be perceived as actually encouraging pov editing. If any editing restrictions are going to be reimposed on Jaqeli, would the closing administrator make the wording of it quite clear as to what the topic ban refers to, and consider whether it should be "everything related to Armenia and everything related to Georgia", or perhaps " "every article that could reasonably be expected to be related to Armenia regardless of whether it currently has content related to Armenia". A lot of the uncontroversial content that Jaqeli has worked on or added and that is only Georgia-related seems quite useful, quite specialized, and nobody else is doing it (so it would be a loss if he is gone). However, there seems to be a fundamentally bad attitude within his editing aims in that he consciously wishes at all times and whenever possible to minimize or remove legitimate content that mentions Armenia from articles that primarily concern Georgian history or culture or that jointly concern Georgian and Armenian history or culture. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Jaqeli

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


 * I suggest restoring Jaqeli's previous topic ban from everything related to both Armenia and Georgia per WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log. The DS log entry has links to all the past discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears that the possibilities of normal discussion have not been exhausted. The filer, User:EtienneDolet, has made only one post to Jaqeli's talk page in the last six months. I would close this with no action, assuming that the parties will at least try to discuss. If there is no useful result, the complaint can be refiled. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Now restoring Jaqeli's topic ban from everything to do with both Armenia and Georgia. He has not been active since 24 January and we shouldn't wait longer for a response. If he eventually resumes editing and agrees to stop the behavior described here, then the ban can be reconsidered. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Now restoring Jaqeli's topic ban from everything to do with both Armenia and Georgia. He has not been active since 24 January and we shouldn't wait longer for a response. If he eventually resumes editing and agrees to stop the behavior described here, then the ban can be reconsidered. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

96.57.23.82
''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 96.57.23.82

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 13:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA3


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


 * 1) 16:44, 3 February 2016 Vandalism of project template
 * 2) 02:54, 4 February 2016 One of numerous examples of abuse and soapboxing in talk pages from which this IP is barred from contributing


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 01:19, 7 November 2015 Blocked for 72 hours for disruptive editing on Historicity of Jesus.
 * 2) 01:57, 10 August 2011 Blocked for one week for edit warring on Avraham Schorr


 * 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.

This IP has been posting repeated abusive comments and soapboxing at Talk:Hebron. They have removed warnings from their talk page, and continued with the same pattern of editing. Yesterday, they vandalised the template at WikiProject Palestine/to do, causing an abusive message to be posted on the talk pages of all members of this project. A study of the IPs contributions suggests that this is a stable IP, allocated to one user, so a lengthy block should not affect other users.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning 96.57.23.82
''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.''

Result concerning 96.57.23.82

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



CFCF
''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 CFCF

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 17:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles :


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


 * 1) 26 Jan 2016 Inserts POV caption that does not describe the image "fruit and candy flavored e-liquid may appeal especially to younger users"
 * 2) 27 Jan 2016 Inserts off topic claim (about brain development (children) and is a [[Safety of electronic cigarettes | Safety claim) in the lede, at the beginning of the paragraph (prominent position), that is not in the body of the article. It is also already covered in the Safety article.
 * 3) 27 Jan 2016 Inserts editorial (primary non MERDS) into the article to counter a MEDRS secondary source.
 * 4) 27 Jan 2016 Adds image of illegal drugs and paraphernalia to consume them into the e-cig article relying on fringe source.
 * 5) 27 Jan 2016 Adds a blog post to an< activist site from a known anti-tobacco activist (Stanton Glantz, as described in multiple high quality RS. The first source Reuters ties his activism to e-cigs  ) that is currently the subject of an RFC. to prove his point. 1/31/2016 Edit Strike, reword, and add RS on activism.
 * 6) 27 Jan 2016 Adds off topic material against consensus in this section. This happened after this section was opened and he was notified.
 * 7) 7 February 2016 Creates a toxicology section on the main page instead of Safety of electronic cigarettes the daughter article that deals with toxicology. The section on the main page (a position of province) is in a summery section, and it is not on the Safety page. The given reason for creating the section is its prevalence in the popular press. We as editors should not give weight to the popular press on toxicology per WP:MEDRS.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
 * 12 Jan 2016 Previous AE section where CFCF was warned not to edit against consensus.


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

Discretionary sanctions mean that editors on a page must adhere to accepted editorial norms and follow policy and guidelines. CFCF is an experienced editor. He is very active on the WP:MEDRS page and had done a lot of editing to it. Because of this he is very knowledgeable on what is and isnt problematic. He should know better than to insert a editorial (primary) to counted a secondary MEDRS source. He should know better than to insert claims at the front of a paragraph in the lede that are not on the page, and not on topic for the page. He should know better than to use fringe sources to link e-cigs to illegal activity. He should know better than to write captions for images that are not about the image to bring in POV about children. But he has chosen to ignore MEDRS and insert POV after POV edit. He is also arguing to keep these POV edits in place. This one is very problematic as it points out a WEIGHT problem along with POV. This one where he argues an editorial in a journal is a position statement. This push to include pure POV without any discussion beforehand or consensus, one after the other is problematic. He has also added multiple images about children, as points out 40% of the images in the article now are about children and vaping, a very POV focused number considering the article states that use by them is low compared to other age groups. AlbinoFerret 17:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

In response to CFCF's post I will point out it is against WP:CAUTIOUS which the talk page has been following lately. Pushing POV edits without and contrary to consensus is problematic. I will also point out the deceptive multiple edit diffs he uses. AlbinoFerret 18:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Notified here.

Responses by AlbinoFerret
@MarkBernstein While Stanton Glantz may be a professor, he is also a recognised activist. As found in numerous reliable sources. The first source Reuters ties his activism to e-cigs  While the whole university site isnt an activist site, his personal blog on the site can be reasonably found to hold his thoughts and agenda. AlbinoFerret 19:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Cloudjpk has provided diffs against me. But none of them show anything really relevant to this current situation.
 * A year ago I discussed if a source with pharmaceutical funding was biased. I do find activists biased, and started a RFC to gain consensus on if the source should have in text attribution (not removal). Both diffs show how editors should solve differences on content on a contentious article, discussion beforehand. Sadly in CFCF's case that was not done.
 * I thank Cloudjpk for including this diff what it shows is I reverted CFCF editing against consensus of a closed merge discussion that was brought to AE and CFCF was warned not to edit against consensus.
 * The last link is pretty much ancient history (sadly dragged up to toss mud). The almost a year old section was about me being to active in the topic and editing to much. I took a 6 month self break from the topic. During which time I was just as active in other areas of WP, because I am mostly homebound and have lots of free time. I am no longer as active in the topic and have other interests, including being a NAC on WP:ANRFC where I have closed around 260 RFC's, but still find e-cigs interesting. AlbinoFerret  22:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe because of a prior Arbcom section that I was involved in concerning JzG/Guy that he is involved. I have left a message on his talk page. He disagrees and I hope that he recuse's himself from this section. AlbinoFerret 18:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Guy I will give a link to the Lancet source. I will also point out that it is an "editorial" as can clearly be seen right above the title. Regardless of the respectability of the Lancet, an editorial is a primary source and not WP:MEDRS. Editors should never rely on editorials to counter findings of a secondary source, in this case Public Health England a part of the UK Department of Health.

I will explain the Lancet POV problem. I point out that we have been here before. McNiel wrote a criticism of the Grana review,part of "peer review". The source was said to be primary. In the McNiel case CFCF was against including it. Here is one subsection from that discussion '''In the case of criticizing a negative review CFCF argued to keep the primary source criticism out, pointing out its not MEDRS. In this case CFCF wants the primary source criticism of a positive review in.''' This shows a big POV problem. AlbinoFerret 19:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog Yes I suggested that S Marshall start a new section like he had been doing on the talk pages until he took a break. I also think you are missing some of the finer points comparing the Stanton Glantz RFC with the later post by CFCF. The RFC is about a MEDRS review. Many may disagree with me, but thats why we have RFC's to see where consensus lies. But I wonder how many of those no comments would agree to add a blog page by him? Not many by reading the talk page, where the journal reviewing the source was a main reason to vote no. Blogs are not reviewed. Blogs of activists {as pointed out in numerous high quality RS), are not good sources to add anything, find a MEDRS secondary source. As for the Lancet, all I am reading here are excuses to bring in a lower primary source to counter a higher secondary source. That is just not done, we should hold to our high standards of MEDRS secondary sources. As I have pointed out above, the talk page has had these discussions before. Thats part of the problem, CFCF is applying MEDRS differently depending on the view of the source. AlbinoFerret  06:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No its not my opinion, that Glantz is an activist is found in numerous high quality sources. The first source Reuters ties his activism to e-cigs . It is a primary source, and unsuitable for use for any medical claims. It is not even a report, but a submission to the FDA on deeming regulations, something anyone can do.  AlbinoFerret  14:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Involvement is not just specific with a topic, it can also be with an editor on different topics. If an editor calls for sanctions against you on a notice board, it is likely that the two of you are involved because of this. This link contains quite a large section by me calling for JzG/Guy to be sanctioned. As does my comment in the GMO case calling for him to be included as a party, and likely face sanctions if he was included. Just as Jytdog cant say he is uninvolved as I presented evidence and PD against him at Arbcom. AlbinoFerret 10:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion concerning CFCF
''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 CFCF
These edits do not constitute anything apart from a departure from the point of view of AlbinoFerret. All edits are properly sourced and I can categorically refute each accusation:
 * 1) There are a multitude of sources to support that statement, I have used at least three separate WP:MEDRS-compliant sources.
 * 2) That statement is taken without any alteration from the Centers for Disease Controls website:, where is is repeated multiple times. I also chose to add the statement later in the article body, and suggested expanding the article by using the linked website, which is among the highest quality MEDRS-compliant sources.
 * 3) The Lancet is a recognized medical authority, this statement was written in their name and as such is compliant as per WP:MEDRS
 * 4) Using a review article as per WP:MEDRS I included a number of images adding to the quality of the article.
 * 5) This is not a blog post but a comment submitted to the CDC with numerous references and is backed by the University of California Los Angeles Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education. Neither is the inclusion of the authors material the subject of the RfC – but rather if citing him should require attribution as an "anti-tobacco activist". The current RfC reads in favor of no with a vote of 6 to 0 (I have not voted).

I believe it is also important to note that AlbinoFerret chose to revert these edits multiple times, I did not revert back, choosing each time to engage in discussion on the talk page. See reverts:, ,.

I am under the firm belief that I chose the constructive approach, following up any controversy with discussion, not reverting. CFCF  💌 📧 18:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Response to KimDabelsteinPetersen
 * (Kim has a declared connection to electronic cigarettes, disclosure can be seen at the top of the page: Talk:Electronic_cigarette)
 * 2. Brain development is negligible beyond adolescence, at least in the sense of being affected, this is a content dispute about a qualifier, and I do not dispute that it could be included, but the full phrase was removed entirely without discussion.
 * 3. That is a different situation, without the full backing of an editorial board. This is the same reason I chose not to include the multiple critiques in the BMJ Feature – Public Health England’s troubled trail, Analysis – Evidence about electronic cigarettes: a foundation built on rock or sand?. I'm glad to see I was as consistent in 2014.
 * 4. Following another editor removing the image I asked on the talk page if a cropped version would be better . Also note that this is one of two images from the same source which I added, the other which remains in the article.
 * 5. The FDA comment was reposted in full, available in pdf-format here:
 * CFCF  💌 📧 20:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Starke Hathaway
Having reviewed the diffs, I am not persuaded that CFCF has done anything more heinous than disagreeing with AlbinoFerret in a content dispute. My own independent review of the interactions between CFCF and AlbinoFerret leaves me with more concern over the behavior of the latter than the former. See this for instance. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This request has now been open for upward of two weeks with little to no action other than increasingly trivial additions to the complaint. Can an admin please close? I don't think there's anything more to see here. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by TracyMcClark
Once again CFCF has shown today on talk and article space that their purpose in the e-cigs area isn't to build a reasonable NPOV entry but to advocate their personal fundamental opposition to the subject. No surprise here considering the OP's advocacy in the past which already led to sanctions against tem.--TMCk (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein
Is it entirely reasonable to describe a site of the University of California San Francisco as "an activist site"? The author of this particular page is a full professor of medicine. This does have an unfortunate appearance. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by KimDabelsteinPetersen
In reply to the diffs and CFCF's reply to these:


 * 1) A "multitude of sources" here is unfortunately used to mislead, since what we are interested in, is the prevalence of this argument in the literature. In other words it is a WP:WEIGHT issue. Several sources do state this, but several sources also consider it moot. When combined with prevalence of Think about the children! in controversial issues such as this, then any editor should be cautious when relying on, or promoting such.
 * 2) The response by CFCF is incorrect, as the CDC page has the added correct context of ".. among youth". Translating such into a generic statement, ie. all agegroups, is problematic. Particularly when this has been pointed out. For background: Nicotine has a detrimental effect on a growing brain, but not on an adult brain (see Surgeon General (2015)).
 * 3) Here CFCF uses the language "recognized medical authority" where he should have written "recognized medical journal". The Lancet itself is not an authority or a recognized scientific body. What it cooks down to, is that CFCF wants to use a primary editorial source to dispute a secondary review from Public Health England. This is strange because he is against using similar sources in comparable situations.
 * 4) This one is problematic - CFCF wants to place an image of e-cigarettes using illigal drugs, despite the topic being extremely minor in the literature. This seems inline a ecig negative POV as the above.
 * 5) Here CFCF is using a pressrelease and a blog post to argue a point. Strangely he is arguing on the talk page that the pressrelease is a position statement?!

All in all it seems quite clear to me that CFCF is having difficulty in seperating his personal WP:POV from his work as a wikipedia editor on this article. And that is problematic.

Short response to : He may be a full professor, but it is still a blog, and the source is still opinion and primary. In fact that particular blog is part of Pf. Glantz activism/advocacy, something which he btw. is well known, and well regarded, for. See the discussion on the talkpage, as well as his BLP article for details. --Kim D. Petersen 20:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

And we've now turned from Think about the children!, to lets associate it with drug use. I'm not questioning the mention of this in the article, but more the WP:WEIGHT put upon it. And, if i wasn't aware of CFCF's status as a serious medical editor, i would seriously say that he has now turned to the next page in an advocacy handbook. --Kim D. Petersen 20:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Noticeable, with regards to the general POV and WEIGHT porblems, should also be the talk page discussion here Talk:Electronic_cigarette --Kim D. Petersen 20:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

In reply to the reply from CFCF: 2. The problem is location and weight combined with the lack of qualifier. 3. It really doesn't change anything. An editorial is opinion, it is not a position statement from a scientific body or a secondary review. And the other discussion is actually very like this, since that was the peer-reviewed opinion of several expert scientists within the topic-area, while the editorial board of a journal aren't a) expert in the topic, nor b) peer-reviewed. 4. Pictures carry content - one image from a reference may be uncontroversial, while another from the same reference may be significantly controversial. You really should know this. 5. What difference does it make that it is in PDF format?? It is still unpublished unreviewed opinion of some scientists, sourced from a blog! I'm shocked that you appear to think that PDF is a guidance to reliability. Anyone can send letters - that doesn't make it reliable. --Kim D. Petersen 21:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Cloudjpk
I agree with Starke Hathaway AlbinoFerret's complaint and his related history raises more concerns about him.

AlbinoFerret finds reliable sources he disagrees with biased: ].

AlbinoFerret deleted text he does not like He claims his change was by consensus, but he deleted a notable source without AFD discussion. He did not not move all the content back to the safety page as he claims. IMO this was gaming the system.

And none of this is new; this is a longstanding pattern  Cloudjpk (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved JzG
The "blog post" from an "activist site" is actually a submission to the FDA jointly issued by the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco and the Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University. It is extensively referenced and although not peer reviewed is clearly an expert opinion and not a mere "blog post".

One of the diffs cited as evidence of evil behaviour also includes this:

The CDC is not some random bunch of activists, and to pretend that citing the CDC is POV-pushing is plainly completely unacceptable.

The complainant also objects to an "editorial primary non-MEDRS" statement contradicting a "MEDRS" source. In fact, the edit in question was an article in The Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world, which pointed out that a figure estimated by Public Health England to be based on "an extraordinarily flimsy foundation" Now, The Lancet does not often go into bat against public health bodies, and Public Health England is not actually a MEDRS, there's been a lot of discussion on opinions by medical and public health bodies and they are not considered reliable to the standard of peer-reviewed articles.

I find it worrying that despite the lengthy arbitration, motivated reasoning of this type is still going on. Wikipedia really doesn't care how fervently you might wish that medical academics were in favour of vaping, the fact is that there are profound and well-founded reservations about it, and it is Wikipedia's policy that these must be adequately reflected in articles. The edits of which AlbinoFerret complains are all entirely defensible and to an independent onlooker they appear to be necessary corrections to pro-vaping activism. This is an area where the evidence base is ambiguous and there is still spirited debate within the scientific community, we definitely should not be trying to protray it as settled one way or another, and balancing statements of the type CFCF added are necessary to maintaining NPOV.

If there is to be an outcome here it should be a topic ban for AlbinoFerret for making vexatious complaints and attempting to abuse Wikipedia process to gain an advantage in a content dispute.

Statement by Kingsindian
I have no opinion on the request except to state that should not be commenting here as they are under a topic ban from the area. They are a new user, so they should be advised that topic bans apply to all pages. They should simply avoid commenting on this matter altogether. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 17:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by LesVegas
First of all, Guy is involved. I'm going to assume in good faith that he is saying he's uninvolved because he doesn't edit on E-Cig or tobacco articles, so he might think he's classified as impartial, but he has definitely been involved in several interactions with Albino Ferret and CFCF that I have seen. One of the more recent ones was when Albino Ferret commented about Guy's behavior at AE here on a GMO case. JzG was also involved in an E-Cig Arbitration Request case where he commented on Albino Ferret, said he supported a topic ban for him, and characterized the E-Cig topic as an unholy confluence of commercial vested interest, emotional commitment, immature medical knowledge and peripheral craziness. Guy and CFCF also both supported topic banning Albino Ferret here and Guy, CFCF, and Albino Ferret have all been involved in a very hot, and very recent dispute on MEDRS, with Guy and CFCF arguing against Albino Ferret's stance there. LesVegas (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Johnbod
Just brief comments provoked by the (unsigned) "Comment by uninvolved JzG" above.
 * The diff in the complaint above is neither "a blog post to an activist site[42] from a known anti-tobacco activist" (Per Albino Ferret) nor "a submission to the FDA jointly issued by the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco and the Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University." (per JzG). It is a press release from the "Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco" linked to a PDF of the submission, which is submitted by 9 academics whose affiliations are footnoted to the "Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco and the Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University." The diff (#5 in the list) in fact comes from the talk page of the EC article (a CFCF contribution) not the article itself.
 * JzG says "In fact, the edit in question was an article in The Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world, which pointed out that a figure estimated by Public Health England to be based on "an extraordinarily flimsy foundation" - as extensively covered on the EC talk page, the "estimate" is from a 2014 paper by 12 academics, which a report commissioned by PHE England from 6 academics (at 113 pages long, much the most comprehensive on the subject) endorsed as the best estimate available. The Lancet's comment has itself been widely criticized.
 * It is true that "balancing statements of the type CFCF added are necessary to maintaining NPOV" (JzG), but these need to accurate, and I don't think that either CFCF's edits nor JzG's comments are sufficiently so - in common with much else in the WP debate on the subject, including many of Albino Ferret's contributions. Hence the complaint. The ecig talk page is busy and time-consuming to follow but it is fairly effective at grinding through this stuff, and the process should be allowed to continue.
 * The actual press release/submission deal with very specific US regulatory matters, and US evidence of prevalence etc, and the authors are generally careful to keep qualifying their statements to reflect this. What the submission wants might be summarized as to bring US regulation to what the EU already has in large part. There is also some evidence that prevalence of ecig usage in youth is widely different between the US and elsewhere in the world (higher in US). All editors need to take care not to globalize US-specific material on this. Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Doc James

 * Per this edit the image was placed in the section on motivation and was very well referenced. Not seeing what is so horribly wrong with it?
 * Agree this is not the best place for that content and Albino removed it after a couple of hours
 * Agree that we should tend to stick with reviews rather than editorials.
 * This was added to the talk page and uses the CDC and the UCSF as refs. What is wrong with this?

I am just not seeing anything that causes significant concern. This appears to be an attempt by Albino to eliminate those who disagree with them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Beyond My Ken
I support Guy's suggestion of a topic ban for Albino Ferret for using Wikipedia processes as a weapon in pushing a POV. BMK (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by wuerzele
I carefully reviewed the diffs in this AE request and find the request more than adequately supported and actionable. CFCF's transgressions and non-neutral edits may not be obvious to the casual observer. I implore arbcom members to make the effort to look at the diffs REGARDLESS of their opinion about e-cigs:
 * 1) 27 Jan 2016 To insert the Lancet editorial (primary non MERDS) into the article to counter a MEDRS secondary source is obviously incorrect, already acknowledged by Doc James even though he otherwise found "no issues" with CFCF s behavior (but unsurprising giving tehir close relationship on wikiproject med).
 * 2) 26 Jan 2016 The caption CFCF inserted may sound good by itself, but is clearly WP:SYNTH at best because it does not describe the photo of colorful containers - this is unearnest editing.
 * 3) 27 Jan 2016 what AF described as "off topic claim" is hard to see at first, but since it is a Safety of electronic cigarettes claim and was also inserted in the lede, and not in the body of the article I can see the point. This is POV pushing.
 * 4) 27 Jan 2016 Adding illegal drugs to sway an article is something I have seen happen for years at Bitcoin, and is no mild form of tendentious editing.
 * 5) 27 Jan 2016 Adding a blog post again contradicts the MEDRS argument that CFCF so prominently enforces on people who disagree with him, a double standard.
 * 6) 27 Jan 2016 Adding off topic stuff against a talk page consensus is a clear DS violation.
 * 7) 30 Jan2016 To edit on WP:MEDRS to further his own arguments is one thing, but to participate in a slow edit war about a highly controversial issue, in what can be seen as tag-teaming with QuackGuru and Yobol respectively to make yobol's revert of the more cautious versions of and  stick is the very disruptive behavior he was warned about. --Wuerzele (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

His self evaluation is incorrect and worse: deceptive. I second the editor who made the case, that JzG is involved, supported by multiple diffs. by calling himself uninvolved he aims to legitimize his turning of the table against AF, the requester, by proposing a 3 mth ban. under "Result concerning CFCF", it says "the section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators". Furthermore, JzG has a history of involvement on many sites, and has gotten a away with blocking editors. 2015 arbcom members should be well aware of the review, as JzG was warned about his behavior making chilling effects. arbcom clerks, please move His comments.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Admin JzG describing himself as "uninvolved JzG" in his section is false:

Statement by Jytdog
I recently started working on the e-cig articles again for a while, and was really surprised by the level of bad feeling that is still there. When I came on the scene, the "pro-ecig" faction was trying to simplify the article (which it does need) and were proposing content without sourcing. (This section: Talk:Electronic_cigarette. S Marshall proposed it and AlbinoFerret and others signed off on it (Johnbod at least asked for sources!).  When I asked for sources I got rough treatment from  here and especially here, with the caustic: .  Again, I was just asking for sources and wanted the draft content to accurately reflect them.

When S Marshall went ahead and implemented it, finally with sources, it became clear that the draft text had basic factual errors in it. (like e-cigs are 20% better than patches for quitting, when no source said that). These things could have been easily worked out. Instead, drama and trying to force things through. AlbinoFerret actually did a pretty collegial job working with me to fix it once we had sources.

But the level of bad feeling is high. See this lovely side bar between AlbinoFerret and S Marshall on S Marshall's Talk page about the Mystery Wolf appeal. From S Marshall:  Asking for sources for a proposal is exasperating? S Marshall said he is taking a self-imposed break, which I think is wise.

About the point Albino raises about Stanton Glanz being an "anti-tobacco activist" and mischaracterizing the source as a "blog post"... Albino himself got fixated on adding an attribution for Glanz as an "anti-tobacco activist"  but nobody on any side agreed with him, and Albino even started an RfC on that and got no !votes supporting using that attribution, and all !votes opposing. (see here. But he brings that point as though anybody agrees with him - but not even other members of the pro e-cig faction agree.  Which just shows that his judgement is out of whack here.

About the Lancet editorial, it is frustrating to see this mischaracterized all around. MEDRS discusses editorials in the normal sense of published opinions written and signed by some individual(s), and it advises the community to treat them as primary. Rightly. The Lancet Editorial in question was by the editorial board - it was signed, "The Lancet". It is a rare thing for the journal per se to make a statement, especially one of the Lancet's stature. For the UK-based Lancet in particular to comment on the PHE report is ...something. It is not of equal stature to PHE itself (PHE is a "major health organization" per MEDRS and I would not consider any journal's editorial board - not even the Lancet - to be one), but the critique was important and should be mentioned. Both sides are distorting things in making the case around that source. Tensions are high.

About CFCF's behavior generally. I agree that CFCF has been too bold lately - there is too much churn and he is driving some of it. The overall churn is so fast and the tone on Talk so negatively charged that I have stopped paying attention to the article. But back to CFCF, there was no urgent need for CFCF to update the images in the article, for example, and he did emphasize the risks to children and the potential for use of e-cigs with pot in the images he selected. Pretty POV. Does that violate DS? Hard to see that, and I don't see that this is more worthy of AE than other behaviors I have seen in the brief time I have been back. I find the filing to be exaggerated and ramping up tensions yet more.

I think if additional sanctions were imposed to slow down editing and discussion for a while, it might be useful. Two talk page postings and one edit per day, per involved editor, and another admonishment to try to make edits and suggestions that opponents would be likely to accept - the whole "write for the opponent" thing? Something like that. Jytdog (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * continuing to call the posting a "blog" is not helping you - they reproduced a formal report they submitted to the FDA on their blog, yes, but it is not some random "blog" posting like, oh, this (random e-cig blog). You missed the point of what I said about the "anti-tobacco activist" which is that the label is yours, and yours alone.   And that you remain committed to this is also meh.  We need to think about how to dial things down and this weak AE is not helping.  Jytdog (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I was not trying to prevent change and you can bring no diffs to show that. Asking for the sources that support proposed content is WP 101 and your reaction to that very basic request, and your characterization of it here at AE, shows how twisted up you have become over this topic.  Your instinct to step away was good and you should stick to it.  If you persist here I will present a case to have you topic-banned or at least blocked - that will not be hard to do based on your recent behavior, which I do understand arises from your frustration, and which has been out of line. Please reconsider what you are doing here.  Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * yes it is obvious that you approached me with bad faith; thanks for acknowledging that. I acknowledge that asking for sources for your proposed content slowed you down and I understand that was frustrating.  I hope you have enough perspective to see that proposing content without sources is abnormal at best; you still haven't acknowledged that we all found it to be inaccurate, when we finally did have sources.  However much you find the current content "fundamentally deceitful" as far as I know there is nothing inaccurate in it.  The process of trying to improve the article in ways that satisfies everybody is hard.  And the article needs improving.  There is no doubt about either thing.   But the frustration you have expressed and are expressing is not helpful.  And you have provided no diffs supporting your claim that I was trying to prevent change, and you will not be able to.  To anybody reading what you are writing, you are only digging a hole for yourself.  Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * S Marshall the text you proposed was highly compressed and summarizing and needed sourcing. Period.  And as you still have not acknowledged, the proposed content was inaccurate. And  I did acknowledge the article needs improving - no one is disputing that.  Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes S Marshall. In response to my question to the specific sources for the specific content you were propising, instead of simply providing the sources for your proposed content you:
 * first didn't answer at all
 * then you insulted me and QuackGuru and hand-waved that I should go check how QG used sources...
 * said in your edit note that I wasn't paying attention and in your remark you provided me some random citation without connecting it to some part of the content you were actually proposing
 * wrote in your edit note and on the Talk page you "having trouble assuming good faith" and wrote . As I did then, I find this bizarre because you greatly condensed the content and added new things like the very surprising (and as it turned out, inaccurate) statement that .  For all your intensity about improving the article you were trying to force through content that just wasn't true.  I can only attribute this to you being so frustrated ....  but it is really disruptive and strange behavior. I am not going to go on with the rest of the diffs.  But these diffs are plain as day that instead of simply doing is what is normal and providing citations for the content you proposed, you were so frustrated and stuck that you wasted time abusing me (and insulting QG) instead of just ... providing the sources.
 * And then you just went and stuck it in the article, with incorrect information and all.

Your behavior through this little episode was really out of line - so much drama over a very, very basic WP thing. That you cannot see this.... whew. Jytdog (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by S Marshall
I've seen this and I think it's about the wrong editor. CFCF's general conviction that he's always right and his judgment is better than anyone else's is certainly annoying, but Jytdog is far more disruptive and problematic.— S Marshall T/C 08:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * JzG is not involved per WP:INVOLVED. He is a sysop who's had a lot to say at enforcement-related venues on this topic, but his participation at the editorial level has been minimal.  I do think he's wrong, in that unilateral measures against AlbinoFerret are extremely unlikely to improve the situation on that page.  If you follow his advice and take unilateral measures against AlbinoFerret then things will quieten down at the drama boards for a few weeks, but the cost of that decision is to crystallise the current text, which is a frankly disastrous thing to do. A large part of the problem we have on this page is that the current text is so biased that it's attracting people who weren't previously Wikipedians to try to fix it.  In the previous ArbCom case, QuackGuru the primary author was found by ArbCom to have been showing double-standards for sources.  Since he was finally topic-banned, first MysteryWolff (now also topic-banned) and now Jytdog have shown up to try to prevent change. I think Jytdog's here because he was topic-banned from his real area of interest, and decided to focus on electronic cigarettes instead; no stranger to drama, that one.  Anyway, obstructionism always works on Wikipedia because our rules give all the advantages to people who're motivated to retain the current text.  So nearly a year after all this drama kicked off, most of the defective text remains totally unchanged and it will continue to generate problems until fixed. The upshot is that a unilateral ban for AlbinoFerret will do very little to end the drama.  The only thing that'll do that is to fix the text, which can't be done with the current population of obstructionists on the page.— S Marshall  T/C 08:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , I can only judge your intentions from your conduct, but your conduct makes it pretty damn clear that you're there to delay and disrupt attempts at change. What you say and imply is that you're trying to slow down the pace of change to enable proper consideration of edits.  The rate of change is in fact already at a dead stop, and in the real world your actions have the effect of keeping it there.  This would be fine if the current content was fit for an encyclopaedic article, but it isn't; it's fundamentally deceitful.  It's phrased in dry, pseudo-academic language largely ripped from academic sources and carefully packed with footnotes, which is dangerous because gives an entirely false impression of a careful unbiased article, and your actions have the effect of preserving that. It is established fact that QuackGuru was the primary article author.  It is an established ArbCom finding that he exhibited such an extreme double-standard for sources that he required impeccable academic evidence for anything that might suggest e-cigs were less harmful than tobacco, but he would edit-war to retain anti-e-cigarette content that was sourced to an interview with a professional lobbyist published in a Welsh regional newspaper.  This is the text that your actions have the effect of defending.  I unwatched that page after an occasion when you joined in a discussion about a change I had been trying to implement for four months.  You began that discussion by demanding sources that were easily visible in the article text and had been discussed in the archives, which is the exact behaviour previously exhibited by QuackGuru (topic-banned) and Mystery Wolff (topic-banned).  And I totally lost all patience with you, because I've totally lost all patience with that behaviour.  Actually this is a perfectly simple article to write.  We have a Cochrane review, and we have clinical practice guidelines from major Western nations, and when we have those things we don't need any other sources.  We can strip out everything else and write the whole article in a few, simple paragraphs.  But we can't get from here to there because radical changes to QuackGuru's misleading and deceptive text are always opposed by you and other editors of your stripe.  And I've run out of AGF for the whole lot of you, so I've unwatched the page, which means you win but it's good for my blood pressure.— S Marshall  T/C 20:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * , apart from your great care with civility, you're behaviourally indistinguishable from a long series of editors who've been topic-banned. Your demand for sources that were already in the article may have been phrased as a patient and careful request for further discussion, but I always understood it as the innocent face on a continuation of four months of pettifogging bureaucracy intended to keep me running around in circles doing lots of work without result.  If you can't see anything wrong with the current article, then you're in good company with your now-topic-banned predecessors.   I invite you to take a fresh, honest, look at what the article actually says, in comparison with the sources that are actually trustworthy, and do it with your critical brain in gear looking for cherry-picked sources and skew.  And if you've got a mind that can do that and still not see anything wrong with the article, then I don't want to talk to you about electronic cigarettes  if you've got a mind like that, then I'd much rather talk to you about an amazing deal I can offer you on some swampland near Louisiana.— S Marshall  T/C 20:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And we're back here again. Yes, my proposed text was "highly compressed and summarising".  I'm here to write an encyclopaedia.  I have serious objections to the expansive, didactic, pedantic, pseudo-scholarly style of the article's current text.  I think the article should be intelligible to a vulnerable teenager who's wondering whether or not to take a puff.  It's presently written for degree-educated professionals who make decisions for a living --- most of whom will see right through the faux-academic style to the heart of the matter, which is that the article has no theme and no thesis and it reaches no conclusions.  It takes 13,000 words not to get anywhere at all.  It is a shit article, Jytdog, and my proposed edit unambiguously improved it. Yes, my proposed text did need sourcing.  The sources were already present in the article.  I pointed this out until I was cobalt blue in the face and you never even admitted that I might have a point.  No, what you wanted was for me to directly link the sources for you right there on the talk page, in my proposed text so that you could quibble them, as in fact you eventually proceeded to do.  And then you added your preferred minutiae and trivia into the text in the so-called interests of "balance".  Of course the real effect was to obscure the simple, intelligible points I made (based on the Cochrane review and the clinical guidelines from major Western democracies) with controversy based on cohort studies and reviews.  This is QuackGuru's method, and I see right through it.— S Marshall  T/C 22:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Summarised version of the bits of the above which are directly relevant to CFCF -vs- AlbinoFerret:- JzG's proposal will not resolve the problem. The root cause of the behavioural problems on this page is bias in the text.  It is uncontroversial that there is bias.  The primary author of the current version of the article was QuackGuru; and Arbcom have found that QuackGuru showed a double standard for sources; therefore, QuackGuru-authored text reflects QuackGuru's biases.  CFCF in good faith, and others about whom I can no longer assume good faith, are behaving in such a way as to delay and prevent substantial changes to the article, and therefore to preserve the bias which exists.  If you unilaterally topic-ban AlbinoFerret who is pro-change, then the effect of this decision will be to further crystallise the bias which is apparent to many knowledgeable readers.  This will continue to attract new editors who want to correct the text, as it consistently has for years.  These people will continue to be frustrated in this aim, and the ongoing drama will continue, until someone, somehow, forces change. Topic banning the worst offenders has not helped, because as soon as you get rid of one, another one pops up and is entitled to a fresh assumption of good faith.  There is nothing in Wikipedia's standard dispute resolution toolkit that can deal with the problem on this page and at some point, someone in authority is going to have to get creative.— S Marshall  T/C 12:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've read Mystery Wolff's complaint below and I confirm that: (1) I have implied that his topic ban is fully justified; (2) I have implied that he's not competent to edit in the topic area; and (3) I have been amused by what I see as his misconceptions and misunderstandings in the past. If these implication are seen as "mocking and taunting", then I will also be happy to correct that by saying these things more plainly, more directly and more seriously.— S Marshall  T/C 23:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Mystery Wolff
Remarking solely to the abusive and derogatory remarks made directly at me by S Marshall here inside this very AE, and on various user TALK pages, (and also the thinly veiled comments directly alluding to my personal nature, my competence and generalized editorship) I strongly object to their placement and usage here.

They are not fair, and its a continuance of tag-teaming, battlegrounding, mocking and taunting by S Marshall against my generalized editorship and others. This is NOT how Wikipedia is supposed to function. I will not be gamed and made sport of and be silent to attacks like this that are outside of Article space. This AE has a responsibility to the entire project, and not solely to any specific articles. Being gamed, and mocked derogatorily is disruptive, moreover it is corrosive to the health of the project.

Note to Admins: My comments are regarding that of S Marshall only, the ones talking about me, as I they were done here, I have no other option than to remark here. S Marshall has already been warned to not taunt me specifically and others also. He has said he can not work with me in other AE, and I am sorry but, its simply unfair and wrong to be spreading and canvassing...that I am someone, that can not be worked with on Wikipedia. If I need to take this to another venue, instructions are welcome, but I make these remarks in good faith now. Thank you. Mystery Wolff (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning CFCF

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


 * I propose a three month topic ban for AlbinoFerret for vexatious complaint and attempting to use Wikipedia process to gain an advantage in a content dispute, per my observations above. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Prokaryotes
''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 Prokaryotes

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 00:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms :


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


 * 1) January 25, 2016. Revert of January 25, 2016.
 * 2) January 25, 2016. Revert of January 23, 2016.


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * There is an edit notice that displays when editing the page, notifying users of the ArbCom sanctions.
 * User was a party to the ArbCom case:.
 * Received a "final warning" about GMO editing from :.

I think that this is a self-explanatory violation of 1RR by a user who has been extensively warned before. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Prokaryotes has now replied, and ironically presents this link: as indicating that I am "ignoring" editor consensus. However, the discussion is actually me reaching out to other editors with a compromise, and even saying that I "fully support" an edit that Prokaryotes had made. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Prokaryotes has now said that the two reverts here are his only recent GMO-related edits, a statement that can be seen as patently false simply by looking at the recent edit history at Genetically modified crops. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In any case, the central issue here is 1RR (as opposed to having an argument over content – and indeed arguments over whether the reverts were justified display a failure to understand the central issue here). --Tryptofish (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm very happy that the two administrators who have commented as of this time very clearly understand what is going on. Given Prokaryotes' demonstrated lack of understanding of why the 1RR violation is wrong, administrators may want to consider how likely it is that a block will really prevent anything, in that the behavior is likely to continue after the block is lifted. Perhaps a topic ban, something that was explicitly pointed out in MastCell's warning, is really what is needed. And the defenses from other editors illustrate how extensive the problem is. Albino Ferret is even saying that I don't understand NOR, or some such nonsense. There seems to be a belief that if editors on the POV-pusher "side" don't get what they want, then it's OK to violate 1RR to get the content that they want. The initial flurry of AE complaints just after the GMO case has passed, and editors should by now understand what ArbCom meant. AE needs to be firm about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Prokaryotes has self-reverted, which is obviously a good thing. I wonder if he can convince the rest of us that he understands why this self-reversion was needed, as opposed to doing it in hopes of avoiding sanctions? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ...Considering, for example, this? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Still a problem. Inasmuch as the self-revert was helpful, it seems to have come without any real self-awareness, more like a last-minute effort to avoid trouble here. This comment just made at the article talk page,, following a series of similar comments, is completely objectionable in context, and clearly demonstrates that the conduct is continuing unabated, self-revert or no. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@MastCell and other admins: I'm continuing to see ongoing problems. Prokaryotes argues incessantly against reliable sources based on bizarre reasons. He objects that one source is not reliable because it was written by one author instead of multiple authors:, and objects to another because "GM crops" are supposedly not to be used as foods:. This isn't good faith editing; it's trying to throw anything at the wall to prevent us from citing sources that go against his POV. The purpose of 1RR is not simply to assure that second reverts are self-reverted; it is to prevent editing that hampers consensus. Even though I filed this about 1RR, the editing is happening under DS. Where you ask Prokaryotes to demonstrate that he understands, please do not accept inadequate answers. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And I just remembered that your warning to him was already a "final warning". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Update, in case anyone is wondering about whether the problems have subsided. Please see: disparaging a source because the author previously retracted something and the reality. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * A Modest Proposal after Jonathan Swift
 * Definition of a "final warning": You have been warned, but you can keep on doing it. We will just give you another final warning, and another, and another.
 * Definition of "1RR": Make as many reversions as you want. Then proclaim at length that you were doing it for a good reason. Then self-revert, and keep on proclaiming that you were right all along.
 * Definition of "Arbitration Enforcement": Not to be confused with a system for dealing rapidly with violations of decisions made by ArbCom. A place where uninvolved administrators wait for other uninvolved administrators to show up, and for editors to argue at length about why various content considerations mean that 1RR violations are justified.

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Prokaryotes
''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 Prokaryotes
The second reference is in response to an ongoing OR investigation, which was triggered when an edit from January 23, 2016 readded content previously considered settled, was changed back to a WP:Synthesis/WP:OR. My edit summary, "per talk page, no consensus, dont readd without conclusion of current discussion, see also OR noticebaord discussion"

The OR discussion involves Tryptofish, i had to report him after fruitless attempts to sort this out @talk page, OR noticeboard report. Tryptofish is ignoring any editor arguments in this matter, or alternatives, and it seems he tries to use this request here to remove me from further participating.

I believe that in light of the ongoing OR discussion my second reported ref above should not be treated as a revert. Additionally, i suggest to use this request here as a chance to settle the current ongoing disputes, which would involve Tryptofish and a couple more editors. I state that i thought 24 hrs had past (look at my edit history, hundreds of edits in the past 24h, well it has now almost past).prokaryotes (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@KingOfAces, he is casting very serious aspersions, and here - where he essential frames everybody participating in the current discussion as a climate change denier, among his common theme as fringe. You be the judge Arb. prokaryotes (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional i want to state that these two actually four (see aboves Tryptofish response, though all related to the same single content) edits described below as edit warring are my only GMO related edits in a long time. While Tryptofish and KingofAces make GMO edits on a daily routine. prokaryotes (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@MastCell, your warnings were not related to 1RR, and given how easy it is to break 1RR, and given this situation a topic ban seems very drastic. Also to my knowledge a final warning should come from Arbcom not as a quick single admin decision, at least that is my impression when lurking around here. prokaryotes (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Aircorn, i have self reverted naw. Thanks prokaryotes (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@MastCell, can you clarify what you mean with "there is a strong pattern here"? It would be helpful if you cite a Wikipedia guideline. Besides me breaking the 1RR i am not aware of any wrong doing in my 2016 edits. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43
Was about to request this myself. First, I should point out there was also a previous revert 16:18, January 23 that technically doesn't cross the bright line of 1RR, but gaming of 1RR to keep edit warring has been specifically called by arbs as behavior to deal with by DS.. A common problem can be seen in their edit summaries like, "per talk page, no consensus, dont readd without conclusion of current discussion, see also OR noticebaord discussion" where they try to edit war in their preferred content change that did not have consensus on the talk page (yet citing it as if they did) in order to replace the longer standing consensus version. It's like a reverse WP:BRD where someone tries to claim the status quo cannot remain and their preferred addition must remain even when the new edit does not have consensus.

Prokaryotes' edit warring was also brought up in a separate case they brought forward here that was closed without much comment on them because Prokaryotes withdrew the complaint. Prokaryotes' edit warring had quite a bit of coverage at the ArbCom case too. They narrowly avoided a topic ban by one vote. . Opposing arbs generally said the behavior was a problem, but didn't quite reach the point of action at that time. Their edit warring and battleground behavior was the largely last straw on the camel's back that triggered the ArbCom case. Considering their behavior issues have continued even after the warning MastCell gave (mentioned in Tryptofish's request) that they were precariously close to enforcing DS after the case, it doesn't look like there's any other options left. I'd suggest 0RR at a bare minimum, but Prokaryotes has received sufficient warning on impending topic bans due to other things mentioned at the case such as casting aspersions, battleground mentality, a nearly passed ban, that a topic ban would better help prevent disruption at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks like Prokaryotes is doubling down on the battleground behavior they were warned about in this very board. For those not involved, I was referring to the real-world issues outlined in sources with general "anti-science" sentiment when it comes to scientific consensus on topics like vaccines, climate change, GMOs, etc and the common themes we see in fringe sources. My comments were mostly referring to subject matter (e.g., tactics). I wasn't addressing editors excluding the bit where I mentioned that some editors were misunderstanding the subject matter. That Prokaryotes takes those comments and tries to paint a very different picture about my comments such as painting everyone as a climate change denier is a huge stretch and continuation of the battleground behavior that almost got them topic banned. I shouldn't need to clarify that further at this point, though it is an ongoing problem in the topic that some editors try to manufacture drama like this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to echo Tryptofish's reminder that it's still a problem. Given the history and near topic-ban shown at ArbCom with this continuation of behavior even after the self-revert nearly 24 hours later, a short block won't prevent future disruption with that in mind. We're past that point. 0RR or the impending topic ban Prokaryotes was warned about multiple times can though. I'd rather give sanctions a chance instead of doing a GMO 2 case, but we need enforcement of the sanctions to get peace in the topic, especially when editors already warned they were on the brink continue that behavior. Otherwise, civil editors in the topic are going to burn out as battleground behavior and edit warring continues amongst even those that nearly were sanctioned by ArbCom. Admins should consider that the DS are meant to prevent disruption when the history shows it's only been continuing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

New developments
Admins, I've unfortunately got to go over the word limit with these new developments, so let me know if you want trimming, a separate case, etc. Essentially, we now have a trainwreck at ANI perpetuated by Prokaryotes. Because we didn't get timely action on this, Prokaryotes has resorted to going to different boards to engage in battleground behavior in a retaliatory fashion, which am I concerned was to avoid scrutiny while their case was open here. Regardless of intended reason (they've never responded) the case should have been opened here so we could actually get some focused scrutiny on my edits.

The short of it is that they are violating WP:NPA by purposely misrepresenting two of my comments at WP:NORN incorrectly claiming I am calling editors climate change deniers. The purposeful misrepresentation comes from me directly telling them before they opened the thread and after that those two comments were about content, not editors (i.e., sources describe many of the methods to oppose scientific consensus in this topic as being the same is climate change denial, vaccine controversy, etc.) mainly here here and here. I made it clear my only comments related to editors were: 1. Some editors were misunderstanding some technical details in sources. 2. Mentioning that Prokaryotes' false claim I was commenting on editors as climate-change deniers was a behavior issue (misrepresentation) I wasn't going to mention further so we could focus on content at NORN(more on this). They decided to double-down instead to call discussion on content personal insult.

Here are some of my other main comments relating to my intent on my comments if any admins are interested in what's going on with respect to my behavior. If an admin still thinks something is odd on my part, I'll gladly chat with them or even open up a case on myself if they thought it was needed. I don't think it's needed, but I'd abide by such a request so we could get a focused look on what I actually said (my cited comments should make it clear it's very different than Prokaryotes portrays though).

For Prokaryotes though, we have them opening up an ANI case shortly after this AE case opened, repeatedly misrepresenting my comments after being notified many times, false accusations of canvassing at WP:FTN just today, and an overall continuation of the battleground out-for-blood behavior at ANI that nearly got them topic banned at ArbCom with a split vote. That's a continued "lack of insight" as you described MastCell, and I'll also ping EdJohnston on these ongoing behavior issues. This is just continuing the same battleground behavior cited at ArbCom we've always had with Prokaryotes that still don't appear to be improving. Something needs to stop it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a note that the ANI Prokaryotes opened was closed with "Closing with no action as none is merited." . I do hope we don't need to go through this circus every time Prokaryotes' acts up, but it's unfortunately a trend now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by David Tornheim
The problem is not Prokaryotes. The problem is that Tryptofish, KingofAces43 and likely also want to change language that was already settled upon and had been stable since last August 2015-early September 2015. That language used the term "scientific agreement" to replace "scientific consensus". The stable language was the result of a compromise created and executed here by Jytdog and agreed to by Prokaryotes at this end of this lengthy discussion that I was also involved in. Others like myself saw the change as a slight improvement and allowed it to stand. That language was incorporated in the lead of the Genetically modified crops article here on September 4, 2015. Prokaryotes inadvertently had not revised the language in the body during that edit. That was the status quo ante consensus position on the language in the lead during this dispute. Now the three editors I named want to go back to the disputed "scientific consensus" language, despite significant opposition to the change here, and to the fact that the term "scientific consensus" is little more than WP:OR and WP:SYN explained here.

I will note that this all started when I tried to correct the portion of the body of the article that still had the "scientific consensus" language in it and had not yet been corrected to the agreed upon language with all the other articles back in September 2015. Shortly after I made the correction here, Aircorn put the word "consensus" back in here and in his edit notes suggested the need for yet another RfC. I explained here why I thought that was needlessly causing new problems and was against the former agreement decided months ago at Genetically modified food  I explained again the how the agreement came into being again at WP:NOR here.

In summary, the problem is not Prokaryotes, but the other three editors who are working against the agreed upon language and creating drama by so doing. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

wrote: "I was (and still am) unaware of any wikipedia consensus for changing scientific consensus to scientific agreement. I believe the most recent discussion on the issue...was at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies." The first post in that section by says: "Most GMF articles on WP, like this one [GM Food], contain the statement that: there is "general scientific agreement that food on the market ...."."  This shows that Aircorn was aware that the status quo on the articles had the language "scientific agreement", not "scientific consensus". It is my understand that per WP:PAG (please correct me if I am wrong), stable language in the article is assumed to have consensus by default, even if the previous talk page discussion(s) did not clearly achieve it. Per the essay WP:STATUSQUO, "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." Also in WP:BRD, it says "BRD will fail if...There is a preexisting dispute on the page, by editors with entrenched positions, and you are reigniting a debate that has achieved stalemate without consensus." That is exactly where things stood when the above three editors tried to change the "scientific agreement" language (the WP:STATUSQUO) to "scientific consensus". --David Tornheim (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for owning up to what happened. Very upstanding, and also to the suggestion that Prokaryotes self-revert which s/he did within 21 minutes of your suggestion. If Tryptofish had made that suggestion to Prokaryotes, perhaps this entire AE action could have been avoided. Much appreciated. It makes it much easier to work together when you show such integrity. Thanks again. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This post and this post on the other hand have just the opposite effect, and are directly contradicted by the cooperative behavior of Aircorn and Prokaryotes to resolve the dispute, where each is owning up to their own behavior. How are we to work together when some editors will do anything to try to punish another editor and try to justify a topic ban for someone who they disagree with? It's an attempt to sway consensus by removing anyone who disagrees on content. This WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and lack of accountability has to stop and is bad for the project. WP:BOOMERANG with a warning is justified for these lasts post and any like them for those continuing to press for more punishment when editors are working together to resolve disputes. This action could have been avoided entirely if the Plaintiff had simply pointed out and warned the Defendant of the 1RR rather than going straight to court. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

KingofAces43 mentions this AN/I incident raised by Prokaryotes as if it were problematic. However, many like me agree that the issues Prokaryotes raised are a very real problem that needs to be addressed. Prokaryotes should be applauded, not condemned, for staring that helpful discussion about the unnecessary use of ad hominem comparisons, which resulted in the very productive section with 's Suggestion which has quite a bit of support. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish above suggests Prokaryotes has done something wrong in suggesting that the use of pro-GMO advocate Pamela Ronald's research is not the best choice of WP:RS. I agree with Prokaryotes that s/he is right to object to use of Ronald. I provided ample evidence (in item 4) that she is a pro-GMO advocate in this RfC. made the same observation here and here and here. Others echoed that same concern at the RfC. Tryptofish's reaction reminds me of another editor's threat that things would get ugly if I did not remove mention of the article Can the Scientific Reputation of Pamela Ronald, Public Face of GMOs, Be Salvaged? from my talk page and that even mention of her retraction was "disgusting". I do not understand why pro-GMO scientists like Ronald get such an esteemed status and are not allowed to be criticized, while researchers like Seralini who are treated with such disdain for a retraction of a paper that was later republished and for which the process of the retraction was questioned,. As I mentioned at ArbCom here double-standards are applied to treatment of pro-GMO advocates compared to GMO critics. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by AlbinoFerret
I also have concerns that Tryptofish and Kingofaces43 are using AE to win a content dispute. Tryptofish has an opinion that Core policies like WP:OR/synthesis can be overcome with a local consensus. in a dispute over a synthesis claim. In fact both editors are arguing to include WP:SYNTHESIS in the GMO articles. Removal of those who wish to follow WP policy would aid in this quest to retain OR. AlbinoFerret 02:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Tryptofish, excuse me? POV pushers following a comment about me? That is an asperation to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a POV pusher. The only POV I have is that WP policies and guidelines be followed. If you think otherwise you best have some diffs.  AlbinoFerret  19:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears Prokaryotes followed Aircorn's very good advice and has self reverted the 1RR violation. AlbinoFerret  20:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Aircorn
I was (and still am) unaware of any wikipedia consensus for changing scientific consensus to scientific agreement. I believe the most recent discussion on the issue before I partially reverted David was at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies. AIR corn (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@David. It shows nothing except that Wikipedia is inconsistent. The wording "scientific consensus" has been in the controversies section since October 2013. You made an edit in good faith, I partially reverted in good faith because I did not think there was any consensus. Now we are having this discussion in multiple places. WP:BRD was followed and WP:STATUSQUO would have been too if Prokaryotes had not broken 1rr. AIR corn (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So I went back through the edit history again and see I made a mistake. I meant to change Davids edit to scientific consensus, but ended up changing the lead one instead. That was a mistake on my part and added to my confusion and possibly to others. Apologies to all. AIR corn (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes. You still have time to self revert. AIR corn (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Prokaryotes

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


 * This looks like an unambiguous 1RR violation. Insofar as I can parse Prokaryotes' response, it doesn't seem that either revert meets the criteria for 1RR/3RR exemptions. I already did the final-final-warning thing with Prokaryotes awhile back. Given that, and the fact that there's no evidence of any insight in Prokaryotes' response, I feel a block would be appropriate, but I will leave this open for other admins to comment. MastCell Talk 01:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is indeed easy to slip up and unintentionally violate 1RR. I've probably done it myself. If it happens, then the right response is: "Hey guys, I accidentally violated 1RR. My bad. I'll go ahead and self-revert". The wrong response is... well, pretty much anything else. Your response seemed to consist mostly of misguided self-justification combined with criticisms of other editors, both of which are inappropriate when you are the one who has violated a revert restriction. Like many admins, I'm generally willing to cut people a break if they accidentally screw up, but you have to meet us halfway by recognizing that you've screwed up and trying to fix it. This particular 1RR violation is moot, at this point, with the self-revert, but the lack of insight that I mentioned in my original comment is, if anything, more apparent, which concerns me because there's a strong pattern here and it's not heading in a good direction. The level of enabling in some of the "outside" comments here is likewise unhelpful, as is the general pro and con content argumentation. I'd be OK with closing this request without action (in light of the self-revert), but with a recognition that there aren't likely to be much additional leeway given to Prokaryotes. Thoughts from other admins? MastCell Talk 01:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This request has now been open for an extended, and counterproductive, period of time. More admin input does not appear forthcoming, so I'm going to close it as I think appropriate. The 1RR violation itself is moot in the setting of a self-revert, but the larger pattern of disruptive editing on the part of Prokaryotes is clear and continuing. This pattern includes disruptive stonewalling on talkpages, misuse of sourcing guidelines, edit-warring, personal attacks, and so on, all in service of an obvious POV. These behaviors are generally subsumed under the term tendentious editing. There is no clear indication of insight or progress on Prokaryotes' part. He is far from the only disruptive presence in the GMO topic area, but it seems unarguable that the topic area is worse for his involvement in it. I'm therefore going to close this request with an indefinite topic ban for Prokaryotes from pages and content relating to genetically modified organisms, broadly construed, under the existing discretionary sanctions. The topic ban may be appealed in the usual ways, as described here. If other uninvolved admins have concerns about this sanction, I am happy to discuss them on my talkpage. I want to add an apology for the length of time it's taken to resolve this request. Arbitration Enforcement is intended to streamline the process of handling disruptive behavior in trouble-prone topic areas, but too often it has the opposite result, as in this case. More administrative involvement would be useful, both as a sanity check on remedies imposed and to help shoulder the workload, which is among the most challenging on Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 19:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a plain 1RR violation. The talk-page consensus may be unclear, but that doesn't give anyone a license to break 1RR. If admins decide that a block is needed, then something between two days and one week would be appropriate. If people keep on reverting the lead of Genetically modified crops then more admin action is likely. Anything that looks like edit warring on GMO pages ought to receive a strong response. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

SageRad
''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 SageRad

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 01:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [] :

"SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."


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


 * 1) SageRaded removes tags from Charles Eisenstein; according to the article, Eisenstein has a column where they write "on topics including genetic modification and the patenting of seed".
 * 2) SageRad edits DuPont; according to the article, DuPont "makes and sells hybrid seed and genetically modified seed" and has made and sold pesticide.
 * 3) Further edit by SageRad to the Dupont article.
 * 4) Further edit by SageRad to the Dupont article.
 * 5) SageRad edits Talk:DuPont
 * 6) SageRad further edits Talk:DuPont
 * 7) SageRad edits Dow Chemical Company; according to the article "Dow’s Agricultural Sciences segment provides crop protection and seed/plant biotechnology products and technologies, urban pest management solutions and oils".
 * 8) SageRad edits Talk:Dow Chemical Company
 * 9) SageRad further edits Talk:Dow Chemical Company
 * 10) SageRad further edits Talk:Dow Chemical Company
 * 11) SageRad further edits Talk:Dow Chemical Company
 * 12) SageRad further edits Talk:Dow Chemical Company
 * 13) SageRad edits Talk:Yvette d'Entremont; according to the article, d'Entremont "works on debunking ideas about alternative medicine, the anti-vaccination movement, and the anti-GMO (genetically modified organisms) movement".


 * 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):


 * SageRad was mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
 * SageRad was reminded of their topic ban by Looie496.
 * SageRad was reminded of their topic ban by HighInBC.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

I'll requote the decision against SageRad, emphasizing the parts some people are missing "SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :



Discussion concerning SageRad
''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 SageRad
Yes, i agree. and others, yes, i will agree to this absolutely. Let me explain that with Yvette d'Entremont, i didn't know her as a GMO activist but now i do, and i will never edit her article again. With Charles Eisenstein, i never knew him to be a GMO activist and i still don't, but i'll take your word for it and never edit his article again. As for anyone else who i know to be a GMO activist, i will not edit their articles going forward either. As for Bhopal disaster, i don't believe i've ever edited that but i won't now that i know that disaster involved an agrochemical precursor. I think the only reference i made to it was to say that perhaps the section on PFOA at Dow Chemical should look like the section on the Bhopal disaster in format. But i'll not refer to it again anyway. I will continue to obey the topic ban as i have been, and not edit any pages that are about GMOs or agrochemicals and not edit any parts of other pages that may be about GMOs or agrochemicals. I've been editing according to those principles, and i invite anyone to point out if i unwittingly stray into any other topic that is about GMOs or agrochemicals. I hope this will please the interpreters and enforcers of policy to allow me to edit on other topics conscientiously. SageRad (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Seeing closing comments. Thank you for taking this time to do this.


 * As for "Science Babe" -- I will never touch that page again. That was too close for comfort although let me explain that i only understood her as being a commenter about food additives generally, but she was an attacker of one person who is considered within the topic ban. I don't know how to say it but my edit there on the style of the page about her was solely that. I didn't know she is considered a pro-GMO person. All i knew about her is she's got a lot to say about "chemophobia". And all i did for goddess's sake was to make a single comment on that talk page saying that the article had too much of a "promotional tone" and "peacocky language" -- i didn't edit the article itself and i didn't comment on anything related to GMOs or agrochemicals at all. So please, calm down people. I'll never edit her page again but seriously, what's the big tempest in a teapot about this?


 * As for other chemicals, i can still edit about other chemicals like PFOA and that is not in any way any attempt to "skirt the topic ban" at all -- you can't see into my head but i can assure you that my interests in this world include chemical contamination of rivers and land, and always has included these, and previous clarifications have made it clear that i can edit on chemicals other than agrochemicals. Polystyrene for instance. Completely unrelated to agriculture, to GMOs, to agrochemicals, unless you consider the little balls of Styrofoam in houseplants potting soil mixture to be part of agriculture.


 * As for Charles Eisenstein, that's so unrelated to GMOs and agrochemicals as to be laughable. I don't know anything about why anyone would even consider this too close for comfort, and it's a sign that this is really more about knocking me out for ideological reasons than any sense that i am causing problems in Wikipedia or making bad edits. That's laughable... i am seriously laughing at the attempt to make it seem like editing an article about Charles Eisenstein solely to remove a three-year old notability tag, was part of my "sinister agenda to skirt the topic ban and pursue my addiction of bad editing about GMOs (sic)" ... i have no such agenda or need or anything. This whole thing was a hardly-funny joke and i will be so happy to just be on my way and continue to edit about human history and experimental evolution and microbes, etc. SageRad (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I Shall Be Released please? SageRad (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Could we please be done with this? It's bad for my ability to sleep through the night. I'm observing the topic ban to a strict degree. I am a conscientious editor and i respect the policies more than most editors i know. I have not edited anything about GMOs or agrochemicals at all since the topic ban. Period. I'm not stupid. I know that violating my topic ban would be suicide. Someone obviously spent a lot of time trying to compile a case. I'm editing with integrity and not touching the areas from which i am topic banned.

None of the diffs provided show me discussing GMOs or agrochemicals at all -- because i have not. There are misrepresentations in the allegations that ought to qualify for them to be thrown out summarily. For example, when Kingofaces writes:

he's actually speaking of a conversation that begins with:

In other words -- it's not "a discussion on GMOs" -- it's a discussion on meta-level aspects of Wikipedia culture, mainly about the use of "fringe" as an aspersion, and how we deal with name-calling, and all that. It is not a discussion on GMOs, and his trying to frame it as such is a lie.

And, Kingofaces says:

but this links actually to this diff which has nothing to do with GMOs. Again, a lie.

And most of his issue seems to be that i speak against a harmful dynamic that i see going on.

As for DuPont -- my edits on that company (and Dow who have merged with them, hence ) have been about the chemical PFOA (like this edit ) which is not an agrochemical. It's a Teflon additive that did pollute water in West Virginia and in the Ohio River. That's not under my topic ban. And i also edited about Styrofoam to correct a trade name. Styrofoam is made by Dow but Thermocol is made by another company. I also made the same change at Polystyrene to correct that trade name (my edit). I made a further edit at polystyrene about biodegradation at another editor's request. I'm allowed to do this and it's good for the encyclopedia.

Seriously, my edit to Charles Eisenstein ???? This is out of control. Eisenstein is a wonderful thinker, author of Sacred Economics and many other books. He probably wrote something about GMOs sometime, but i've never seen it if he did. This is stretching. This is looking like McCarthyism. It's looking like an attempt to harm me for other reasons.

So, even though i said i wouldn't, i just went through all the diffs provided, and as i know, they do not show me editing anything at all about GMOs or agrochemicals. I know this because my conscience is clear. I have not edited anything about GMOs or agrochemicals at all since the topic ban. I ask for this case to be summarily dropped, as it's onerous and seems to be intended to "get me" for being outspoken on cultural issues within Wikipedia.

Note that i was quite aware of this decision which explicitly did not prohibit editing about companies that may also make agrochemicals or GMOs. Those were subject to DS and not the ban, and that was already clarified. I operated under that clarification when i edited about PFOA and Styrofoam. If anyone was unaware of this clarification, then now they are aware.

@Only in Death's comment: I have no "MO" except to edit articles well.

@DHeyward's comment: The only one being tarred and feathered here is me, and it's a joke.

@JzG's comment: Thanks.

@BMK, it's not okay to call people names who write in my support " peanut gallery to egg them on"

@Kingofaces43 -- I'm not "testing the boundaries". I disagree with the topic ban but i've obeyed it.

SageRad (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by AlbinoFerret
Having commented on the recent WP:ARCA section on increasing the topic bans to "companies that produce them" for the topic banned editors from the GMO case. I would like to point out the motion in section 11.25.1 that would have added the companies failed. As a result, SageRad is not topic banned from editing articles of companies that produce agricultural chemicals as long as he is not editing about agricultural chemicals/GMO's. None of the diffs provided are on agricultural chemicals/GMO's. AlbinoFerret  03:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that that the warnings predate the close of the ARCA section and one was specifically about that section and should be covered by WP:BANEX AlbinoFerret  03:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The "broadly construed" argument to include companies when editing non GMO and agricultural chemicals was rejected by Arbcom. Continuing the argument on AE (a Arbcom page) so soon after the motion failed is going against that finding. AlbinoFerret 18:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43
SageRad has also been commenting directly at ANI on a discussion on GMOs starting with this scaled back to this, quite obviously so they could claim they weren't directly entering discussion on GMOs.

Followed by:

With this gem of an edit summary, "There is a reason that i continue to compare the anti-fringe movement to McCarthyism." All these above occurred in this ANI thread, which was explicitly focused on genetically modified organisms, the scientific consensus around it, and how we deal with WP:FRINGE aspects in content discussion around it.

They also responded directly to me at WP:FTN when I asked for more eyes on this GMO discussion with this referring to McCarthyism again, which is another unambiguous violation followed by more commentary Regardless of meta-discussions popping up within the specific incidents, there they have been plenty of discussions on topic banned users in this topic to not even be commenting from the sidelines at admin boards when they are topic banned.

There have been some previous instances where SageRad has been chaffing against their ban, though not quite as bad as others sanctioned at the case. There still have been issues going on though with a previous AE case. I won't even suggest any particular actions to admins, but SageRad needs to stay out the topic plain and simple without finding ways to skirt the ban. I'm concerned there's a lot of the same soapboxing and hyperbole related to WP:FRINGE, etc. that got them topic banned from GMOs, but that might be something ANI handles if they can respect the topic ban. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a note on AlbinoFerret's characterization of ArbCom here, but ArbCom did not outright reject the idea that companies should be included. The votes outlined that they'd give editors a chance, but said topic ban broadening and DS should be considered when the editors start engaging in conflicts in the adjacent topics. That's very different than saying it was outright rejected and is some guidance in the votes that admins should read over when it comes to enforcement in this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
In response to Liz's warning about word limits below, I believe I can re-state my position more concisely: BMK (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * SageRad's topic ban should be viewed by the "broadly construed" standard as it has stood for quite some time now.
 * By this standard, a number of their edits are clear violations, as the articles in which the edits were made deal with GMOs as a subject, and in some cases the subjects are focused on GMOs.
 * I associate myself with Sarah SV's comments below.
 * SageRad's general behavior pattern is to complain about any action taken against his POV-pushing being "bullying" (upped above to being "tarred and feathered") . I believe this constitutes a state of mind which supports the contention that his edits were deliberate boundary-pushing.
 * If so, then something more serious than a stern warning is needed. I leave it to the uninvolved admins to determine what that is.
 * My apologies to Hugh, in that my restatement removed the responses he was referring to. They can be found in the history. BMK (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Darkfrog24
Very uninvolved non-admin. Most of these edits don't specifically mention GMOs, but SageRad is also banned from "pages relating to genetically modified organisms." According to AlbinoF, that does not include DuPont or Dow, but my own take is that it would include d'Entremont.


 * 1. No GMO mentioned. Is it the filer's position that SR is trying to indirectly talk about GMOs by minimizing mention of one of their supporters or detractors?
 * 2. No GMO mentioned
 * 3. No GMO mentioned.
 * 4. No GMO mentioned.
 * 5. Mentions PFOA, not GMOs. Does the article that SR recommends talk about GMOs?  If so, I guess it could be construed as a way to induce others to talk about GMOs, but it could also just be what it looks like.  AGF.
 * 6. No GMO mentioned.
 * 7. No GMO mentioned.
 * 8. Recommending the same NYT article. Again, depends on what it says.
 * 9. The edits made by OnlyinDeath do not mention or involve GMOs.
 * 10-12. No GMO mentioned.
 * 13. Maybe this one. SR is talking about the article in general and it mentions GMOs in the opening paragraphs but SR him/herself does not.

IMO #1 and #13 are the only ones that can be construed as violations, but it is reasonable that the filer would not know that DuPont and Dow are not covered by the ban, so I wouldn't call it deliberate spam either.

Yes, SR mentions GMOs or more specifically the discussion of GMOs on Wikipedia in this AN/I discussion; self-removes this part of the post about twelve hours later. I don't see the problem with "Resent your calling my response 'hysterical'" or those other posts. Bottom line: There is a lot of stuff in this complaint that's innocuous. The comment on the SciBabe article talk page could be is a problem, and the fact that it appears that SageRad's claim not to know that D'Etremont was involved with GMOs is untrue casts doubt on his credibility. The real clearest issue here is the participation in the AN/I discussion, which included GMOs even though it was not solely about them. I'd go with yes, SageRad was over the line here. If SR has been engaging in a pattern of such borderline activity, then action is warranted. If not, I'd just clarify the terms of the topic ban so that they explicitly state that SR is not allowed to participate in meta-discussions of GMOs on Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It sounds like technically SageRad's Dow and DuPont edits don't violate the ban, even though I'll agree with what I infer to be 's opinion that one would think these pages would be covered. I'd say this: Do the edits cause or constitute a problem?  Do they exacerbate a conflict or push a POV?  If so, then the admins should consider extending the topic ban, but it should be acknowledged that SageRad did not violate its existing terms with these edits. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC) BMK, I would agree, but there appears to be an exception specifically permitting topic-banned users to edit articles on companies like Dow and Dupont so long as they don't mention GMOs.  This is a case of three violations, not fourteen. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, SR's promise sounds solid to me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Only in Death
Re Darkfrog, SageRad is banned from agricultural chemicals, which are a major part of Dow's business. The only reason I did not report SageRad for those transgressions was they appeared to take the hint and backed off the article. The AE report I actually filed previously which was closed by EdJohnston despite being a blatant violation was a different matter, evidence of their attempt to canvass support for their POV pushing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * DF, SageRads MO is to show up at an article, declare bias, and attempt to skew it towards their POV. (Their contribution history contains the evidence of that). As they hold a viewpoint that corporations (GMO affiliated ones mainly) are bad and up to no good, this generally means trying to paint them in an unduly negative light. By coatracking, unreliable sourcing etc. Not restricted to companies, individuals who are pro science (and so, anti fringe/pseudoscience) get the same treatment. As SageRad has a basic lack of understanding of how NPOV, Fringe/Pseudoscience policies work, this means they get into the same arguments in multiple venues with multiple editors who have to explain things over and over again. Take a look at the NPOV and fringe noticeboards (and archives) for a sample. Not to mention the rubbish at Veganism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course, there is also jumping into POV discussions from 2009. Oh and then claiming intimidation in order to not edit there. Seriously, why are we putting up with this rubbish? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * SV's quoting of arbcom re Sanders is misapplied. Sanders is a politician who has made comments on GMO's (its difficult to find a current politician who wouldnt have been asked about them at some point.) His notability is completely unrelated to GMO's so could hardly be covered under 'broadly construed' unless someone directly edited his comments on GMO's. Yvette d'Entremont is another matter entirely, a huge proportion of her work and notability is tied up in her rebuttal of pseudo/bad science related to GMO's. Claiming she is in the same situation as Sanders is farcial. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein
The complaint is vexatious, and is apparently intended to lure admins at AE into carelessly extending a topic ban into domains which ArbCom explicitly rejected, for the purposes of gaining advantage in a topic dispute and of further securing Wikipedia for the American right.

Is perfluorooctanioc acid an agricultural chemical? It sure sounds chemical, doesn’t it? Does it have something to do with GMOs? Kind of sounds like it would! DuPoint and Dow do make some farm products! Obviously, a breaching experiment: ring the alarms!

Unfortunately for this complaint, some Wikipedians have knowledge of a variety of domains, and others are remarkably willing to look stuff up. A long time ago, I earned a doctorate in chemistry. Also, a long time ago, I was employed by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., though by Central Research, not by the agrochemical division. I can say with some confidence that perfluorooctanoic acid is not an agricultural chemical, at least not on this planet! (Speculation on the slippery nature of perfluorinated wildlife might amuse arbitrators more than this complaint.) DuPont has long been a world leader in fluorocarbon chemistry, and its perfluorinated polymer, Teflon, is a household word. Perfluorooctanoic acid is used to manufacture Teflon and related polymers, as a water repellent, and for related applications. There’s quite a decent article on this on a Web site called Wikipedia.

The question of whether the topic ban extends to non-agricultural chemicals, or to other operations of these and other companies, was explicitly raised -- by myself and others -- at ARCA. ArbCom's rejection of this broad construction was clear and unambiguous. The editor raising this question should be topic-banned from discussion of topic bans for GMO in order to avoid future disruption. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish
I have not looked at all the company-related edits, but the last edit listed in the opening filing,, is an unambiguous violation, because the lead section of the page clearly notes that the subject is notable for criticizing "the anti-GMO (genetically modified organisms) movement". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll just say that the comments by Spartaz and by SlimVirgin seem very reasonable to me, as to an outcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I support SageRad's assurances, and I support closing this as a result. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
SageRad has been active at, discussed during the case, and the dispute between Hari and d'Entremont is well documented - the dispute explicitly includes Hari's GMO fearmongering and when this is taken along with Dow and DuPont I would say it's time to start making firm statements that no, we do not mean get as close to the topic as you think you can get away with, we mean, stay away from GMOs, broadly construed.

I would not like to see SageRad blocked this time, but equally I do think he needs to actually leave that area alone, and in fact it might be helpful if he was to drop the stick entirely (e.g. stop kvetching about use of a site associated with David Gorski, with whom he has a dispute over GMOs). Guy (Help!) 00:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward
The result of "broadly construed" findings was to stop eactly this type of tar and feathering approach to GMO companies. Sorry but I find little coincidence in the editing of GMO company products in a negative tone and editing GMO products themselves. These editors need to get off the "ZOMG! these GMO companies are killing us in so many different ways!" treadmill and find a new hobby. --DHeyward (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Hugh
I see no topic ban violation in the diffs in the complaint. Uninvolved with GMOs, minor interactions with SageRad. Hugh (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ACDS authorizes topic bans constrained by WP:TBAN. I see no authorization for a page ban sanction animal. Topic bans are bans on topics not pages. Is your point that this sanction here is not a topic ban, it is some kind of page ban thing, exempt from WP:TBAN? Some read "broadly construed" as a sort of two degrees of separation, that is, any page that wikilinks to a article that is in scope is in scope, maybe some of that is going on in this complaint, topic ban creep. Hugh (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply above. You emphasized the word "pages" in the topic ban notice. What is that word's significance to you? Our project's policy WP:TBAN provides guidance on how to interpret the scope of a topic ban, my understanding is all topic bans. Do you think the topic ban at issue in this complaint is constrained by WP:TBAN, or does the use of the word "pages" in the notification make it into some kind of page ban or some kind of topic ban on steroids? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It is simply not true that a precursor chemical to an agricultural chemical is necessarily an agricultural chemical. This analysis invokes a "two degrees of separation" interpretation of "broadly construed" to industrial chemical production processes and is clearly a misapplication of WP:TBAN, which policy is specifically written to provide us with guidance on the detection of topic ban boundaries. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Dow (talk) -> Bhopal -> methyl isocyanate -> chemical precursors -> pesticides -> agricultural chemicals -> bingo! topic ban. Really? Hugh (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

"While none of the specific edits relate to GMO matters...I don't think SageRad has purposefully broken the ban..." We agree. "...the sanction was a ban from all pages related to GMO matters. This means that even non-GMO edits are violations...the specific ban relates to GMO related pages not just GMO edits." Please I would like to better understand your position, in particular with your application of WP:TBAN. To me it is clear that we are asked by written policy to consider that not all edits to given page are necessarily in scope of a topic ban. Do you believe an enforcing admin can toss some magic words like "all pages" into a topic ban notice and slap a topic ban that exceeds the authorization of policy? Doesn't WP:TBAN constrain the scope of all topic bans, no matter how cleverly worded the notice? What do you think? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68
As contentious as the GMO articles continue to be, I'd say a healthy dose of boomerang on some of the editors here following SageRad around trying to get him banned would probably help things out, but I doubt any of the responding admins will put any effort into doing so. Cla68 (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by DrChrissy
Given that this is an arbitration page, am I allowed to contribute here without violating my topic ban on GMO's (the same as SageRad)? DrChrissy (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning SageRad

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


 * While none of the specific edits relate to GMO matters, the sanction was a ban from all pages related to GMO matters. This means that even non-GMO edits are violations. I don't think SageRad has purposefully broken the ban but they should be aware that the specific ban relates to GMO related pages not just GMO edits. I'd be inclined to close with no action as soon as has confirmed their understanding of this point. Spartaz Humbug! 18:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The ArbCom has said that articles not essentially about GMO are not covered by the ban, so long as the edits themselves are not about GMO. The committee commented on this in relation to Jytdog's edits to Bernie Sanders; see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Doug wrote: "As for Bernie Sanders, we've always said that if an article is not basically about the subject of the topic ban, it can be edited provided that the edits don't touch anything related to the topic ban."


 * I think this is a problematic position because of the lack of clarity around the boundaries, but given this view we can't fault SageRad for editing Charles Eisenstein, DuPont, Dow Chemical Company and Yvette d'Entremont. But he did take part in an AN/I about Kingofaces' remarks about GMO editors, so I would say that he is skirting the boundary. I therefore support closing this with no action, but SageRad should be asked to make more effort to avoid articles and discussions related to GMO, including meta discussions. SarahSV (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We basically restated what WP:Topic ban says: For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as: [...] weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  14:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is in the wording of the sanction then. if you intended it to be standard topic ban than you should have used that language. Unless the committee actually intended to ban for any GMO related pages then the sanction should not say that. This is unfair on both SageRad and those concerned about their edits. Spartaz Humbug! 15:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks. We should probably expand WP:TBAN to say more about articles not about the topic but related. If, say, a BLP subject is known for supporting X, where X is covered by the ban, a topic-banned editor might make edits unrelated to X to make the subject look good or otherwise. I would expect this to be a violation of the ban, but according to the current wording of TBAN it wouldn't be. SarahSV (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  21:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a warning notice to the discussants that Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs which is highlighted in bold at the top of this page. It has rarely been enforced but I'm going to start posting warning notices on talk pages in the future. Several editors here have exceeded these limits and if you add more content to your statement, you should remove content. One reason I believe admins stay away from AE are the constant walls of text that need to be parsed through. I encourage other admins to start reminding editors of this page policy. Liz  Read! Talk! 21:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As pointed out by Mark Bernstein, perfluorooctanoic acid is not an agricultural chemical. But methyl isocyanate *is* since it's a precursor used in synthesis of pesticides. Pesticides are agricultural chemicals. So I consider the Bhopal disaster (a leak of methyl isocyanate) to be covered by SageRad's ban. He should cease editing about Bhopal on the Dow Chemical Company talk page or anywhere else. Also, general comments about the value of an entire article, when the person has taken a clear position on GMOs that is a well-known component of their views, is a violation. That means SageRad should stop making comments about the notability of Yvette d'Entremont or of Charles Eisenstein (where he removed the notability tag. If SageRad agrees then I'd close this with no block.  EdJohnston (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , can you say whether you agree? If so, we can close this. SarahSV (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * SageRad has agreed, so I'm closing. SarahSV (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ollie231213
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). ''


 * Appealing user : – Ollie231213 (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive186, logged at      Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015
 * Sanction being appealed : Topic Ban from Longevity broadly construed, imposed at


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator :

Statement by Ollie231213
The reason that I was topic banned was because, in the admins' words, I am "clearly here to advocate for a specific position on longevity articles rather than following our long standing policies and guidelines" and that I am "consistently editing articles, and voting in AfDs, to favor the position of the Gerontology Research Group [which] is incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia."

These are accusations which I strongly deny. The implications here are that I am not following Wikipedia policy and am affiliated with the Gerontology Research Group, both of which are false. I explained very clearly in my statement why I believed I was following Wikipedia policy, but these arguments appear to have been ignored.

Let me use an example here: we can probably all agree that an organisation like the New York Times is, generally speaking, considered a reliable source for many things on Wikipedia. However, what if we're dealing with a specialist topic area - astronomy, for example? Are you going to argue that the NYT is an equally reliable source on that topic as NASA is? What normally happens is that, for stories about astronomy, news organisations simply report what NASA has said. They don't do the research themselves. If the NYT published a story claiming that a new star had been discovered, but no authoritative bodies such as NASA had verified the claims, would we just add that to Wikipedia without even a footnote?

Well, the GRG is to gerontology what NASA is astronomy. Just look at how many times you see news organisations say "...according to the Gerontology Research Group" in stories about the world's oldest people - these are just a few:. Lots of other sources clearly consider the GRG to be an authority in the topic area. All I am saying is that Wikipedia should reflect this and base its articles on longevity primarily on this source and not on other less-reliable ones.

For example: Yasutaro Koide, recognised by the GRG and Guinness World Records as the world's oldest man, died recently aged 112. However, the previous day, a man named Andrew Hatch died at the claimed age of 117, according to this source (which might generally be considered reliable). However, he was not able to prove his age so was not recognised by Guinness and the GRG. So what happens here? Do we treat both sources as equally reliable and say that both were the oldest man?!? No, Guinness and the GRG are clearly more reputable and widely-recognised as authorities in this topic area than the Contra Consta Times. I'm not saying don't include Andrew Hatch at all on Wikipedia, but include him as a "longevity claim" and not as if his age is definitely true.

So, just to summarise: I made it very clear in my statement in the initial request that I am following Wikipedia's policies. I just want Wikipedia's articles on longevity to based on the best sources, and don't want unverified information to be included as if it is fact. My edits in the past have been in line with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:NOR, and WP:RSCONTEXT. I don't see how I can be justifiably topic-banned when I've clearly explained why I am following policy and am acting in good faith. And, should the ban be repealed, I promise to act in a more civil manner in the future. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Ollie's assertion that we should "base its (Wikipedia) articles on longevity primarily on this (GRG) source and not on other less-reliable ones." goes right to the heart of why he must stay topic banned. GRG is not a super source of absolute WP:TRUTH that must be used to the general exclusion of all other RS. --> I have explained very clearly what my point of view is here and explained why it is in line with policy. I am not suggesting that other sources be excluded, just that they are not given the same weight as sources which are considered authorities on the subject according to mainstream consensus. It should be clear to anyone wishing to write good encyclopedic articles that you cannot treat all sources as if they are equally valid. Again, how on earth can I be topic banned for simply suggesting that the most reputable sources on a specialist subject should be the primary source used to write articles on Wikipedia? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * P.S. I don't understand how this works - how is this a "fair trial" if just some editors turn up and comment but not others? Am I allowed to request input from someone who will likely defend me? (And a number of respected users have, by the way). If not, how do we get both sides of the argument? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @Spartaz If the only opinions that matter are those of the uninvolved admins, then why is anyone else even allowed to comment? I'm not going to canvass support but it seems totally unfair that there is no systematic way of dealing with appeals like this. Where's my lawyer? Other editors have expressed frustration at the behaviour of LegacyPac and others (see here). Now, can you please provide evidence that I am editing to "advocate for the GRG position"? The implication is that there is COI but I've clearly explained why that's not true.  -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @The Blade of the Northern Lights: So yet another editor involved in the longevity WP:BATTLEGROUND, clearly biased against me, arguing in favour of a topic ban, who does NOT explain why my edits have violated policy. It's a strawman to claim that I am arguing that the GRG is the "only and only true source"; I am not. I am saying that other sources clearly recognise that the GRG is an authoritative body on the topic of the oldest people in the world and thus, Wikipedia's articles should be based primarily, but not solely, on that source. If we want to make an article of the top 100 oldest people ever, then it should be based on verified data from the most reliable source that deals with age verification, not on a mish-mash of other sources like news reports on people claiming to be 135 or whatever and then compiled in a jumbled WP:OR, WP:SYNTH mess. This really should be common sense. How can sourcing articles on a specialist subject primarily to specialist organisations, most reliable on the topic, in any way "degrade the quality of the articles"? It's madness. Are you going to topic-ban people who insist that astronomy-related articles should be based primarily on the WP:BESTSOURCES, like NASA, the ESA, etc.? I should hope not, because those editors are the ones following core policy. Now, I repeat again: how is this a fair trial? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @Glrx You're quite right, I don't understand why this sanction was imposed, otherwise I wouldn't be appealing it! You also falsely represent my argument. My argument is that I was editing in line with policy. Do you contest this? If so, can you explain why? So far, no one has done so.


 * @Guy: "All you are doing is reinforcing the impression of an externally coordinated campaign to manipulate Wikipedia in support of an ideology." --> Oh look, YET ANOTHER user who doesn't actually respond to any of the arguments I've made, but instead just accuses me of editing with an agenda. So who is it really who is editing with an ideology? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @Glrx:


 * You say "However, not being on the list does not contradict a claimed age. It doesn't even show that GRG investigated a claimed age and rejected it for some reason. So GRG's list is not "the oldest living people in the world" but rather "the oldest living people that GRG found and can document" --> My suggestion for the List of the oldest living people article was to have two separate tables: one table of the oldest people verified by the GRG and another table of other claims reported on by other sources but not included on the GRG table. It's true to say that just because someone is not verified by the GRG that they are not as old as they claim, but equally, there's a chance they may not be. The simple fact is this: if you try to compile one single list of the oldest people by adding in people reported on in different sources but whose ages have NOT been verified, then you will a list containing a number of people who aren't as old as they say they are. It is surely much better to have a list of the oldest people who whose claimed age is definitely genuine than a table of those who might or not be.


 * "Now say the old lady in Pasdena dies, and the coroner issues a death certificate that says she is older than the oldest person on GRG's or anybody else's list. The Los Angeles Times then prints a story that includes the age on the death certificate. The Los Angeles Times may even claim she was the oldest known person in the world because it does not know of anyone older. What should WP do? It has some reliable sources, but apparently Ollie will take issue with the reliability of those sources." --> Well, which source is the authority when it comes to world records? Guinness World Records. And GWR work with the GRG. I think the solution is fairly clear: the titleholder as recognised by Guinness should be treated as the "official" world's oldest person, and any other claimants reported on in other sources should be treated as "claims". That's exactly why I suggested having two tables as mentioned above.


 * "The original AE found that Ollie was violating WP policy in AfDs and articles by continually taking the view that GRG should be the most reliable source. In the appeal above, Ollie makes exactly that claim. There has been no change since the ban." --> And the ban was wrong. I've made my reasoning crystal clear and explained why my actions DO NOT violate Wikipedia policy. Plenty of other users (including administrators) share my view. This is a content dispute, nothing more. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @NuclearWarfare: Neither The Blade of the Northern Lights or JzG are uninvolved. And this is why I repeat my concern: plenty of other users would support me here but they are not voicing their opinion possibly because they don't even know this is happening. It doesn't seem very fair that just any old editor can turn up and give evidence because at the moment we are only getting one side of the argument. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @Glrx: "You were topic banned not for your beliefs about GRG's stature as a source but rather for your disruptive behavior with other editors" --> That's clearly not the case. The two admins who voted in favour of a topic ban in the AE discussion both did so on the basis that I was here to "advocate for a certain position", nothing to do with my behaviour. In my original statement in that discussion I addressed the issues that were put forward, and apologised for uncivil behaviour. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @Spartaz: "We have had edit wars on BLPs because pro-GRG editors refuse to accept that alternative sources meet the standard to say that a famous Chinese linguist is 110 years old" --> So because someone is famous they should be given special treatment? I'm not saying don't include him at all, but don't include him on the same list as people whose age has been verified. But again, this is a content dispute. It's not "subverting standards" to insist the same rules apply to everyone. And no, the GRG don't charge a fee for someone to be verified, if that's what you're suggesting. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @Guy: What utter, utter bollocks. Would you care to provide some evidence to support your assertions? Consensus in outside sources is very different to yours. It's absolutely astounding that senior editors on Wikipedia - the place where many people turn first to find information - have no concept whatsoever of the idea that not all sources can be given equal weight in certain contexts. The GRG is an organisation that attempts to build a list of the oldest people in the world, and other sources (news sources, Guinness World Records, etc) turn to them when reporting on supercentenarians. Just because someone goes to their local newspaper and says "I'm 115!" doesn't prove they're 115. From WP:RS: "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." To claim to be 115 years old is an extraordinary claim. The vast majority of such claims are actually false. What happens if a news source reports on someone who claims to have been abducted by aliens? Well, it's in a reliable source, so according to your logic we should write on Wikipedia that aliens must exist then! No reputable, scientific organisations recognise the claim as valid, but because we can't treat them as more reliable, that doesn't matter. AND BAN ANYONE WHO OBJECTS! -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @Glrx 1. If dozens of newspapers are reporting the Guinness World Records titleholder and a few are reporting questionable claims, then Wikipedia's due weight policy would suggest that Wikipedia should go with what the majority of sources are saying. It's a total fallacy to think that we have to treat every single bit of information in every source equally, especially when the sources contradict each other.
 * 2. My behaviour doesn't constitute a topic ban. The incivility issue went both ways with Legacypac and I've promised not to continue to be uncivil.
 * 3. The issue with the area of longevity is that some editors on Wikipedia have a strong dislike of the GRG and the so-called "longevity fanclub" because of past experiences with other editors. But I cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. People like Guy are coming up with all sorts of unfounded conspiracy theories that are unsourced (e.g. that the GRG are peddling pseudoscience) and claiming that I am COI-editing, but I've clearly explained why my actions are well grounded in Wikipedia policy, and that actually, it's those who think that due weight and good sources policies shouldn't apply. "I don't like it" isn't a reason to overthrow Wiki policy and rules which apply in other areas, including the three core assertions of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:RS. No one is saying that the GRG is the one and only source on supercentenarians, but what I am saying is that the larger issue is that science requires extraordinary claims to have extraordinary sources, and there is general agreement outside Wikipedia and within the scientific community that age claims to 110+ are enough to require age verification. Someone going to a newspaper and saying "I'm 115!" should be treated the same as someone who goes to a newspaper and says "I was abducted by aliens!". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You can also run an IP check and see that I was not involved in the Zhou Youguang editing. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @Blackmane Did you even bother to read my reasoning? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @Blackmane: It is not up to Wikipedia to say "this source is better than these other sources so we're giving it its own list" --> It's not Wikipedia saying that, it's other sources saying that. It's Guinness World Records saying that. It's numerous media organisations saying that. What you are not appreciating is that the GRG actually attempts to 1. Verify the age of longevity claimants, and 2. Build a list of the oldest people in the world. Most other sources do not do that. Wikipedia's policies clearly state that different sources do not have to be given equal weight, and that more extraordinary claims require stronger levels of sourcing. Claiming to be 110+ is an extraordinary claim given the rarity of it, and the area of longevity is littered with fraudulent claims. As Norris McWhirter once said: "No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity". If Wikipedia's list of oldest living people is to be of any value, emphasis must be placed on age validation. If someone is listed on the GRG website, we can be confident that their claimed age is true. On the other hand, if someone has just gone to their local newspaper and said "I'm 110", but no reasonable attempt to validate the age claim has occurred, then there are clearly some doubts as to whether the claim is true. It's believes that more than two thirds of claims to 110+ are false. All I am suggesting is that we have one list of validated claims (where we know the people are as old as claimed) and another list of unvalidated claims (where there is some doubt). But again - and this is my real point- this is just a content dispute. Whether you agree with me or not, my arguments are based on logic and on Wikipedia policy, NOT, as most people would have you believe, because I am trying to "advocate for the GRG position" in some COI situation. All I want to do is make sure that Wikipedia's coverage of the subject does not get filled with fraudulent age claims and false information, and I get topic-banned for it? It is absolutely outrageous, and the way in which these appeals are carried out - with no kind of fair judicial system - is frankly quite appalling. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @Blackmane: Not going to challenge the arguement I've made then? Just like most others here haven't? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @Thryduulf: Saying I'm "POV-pushing" again suggests I am acting in bad faith and/or COI editing. But I'm not. At what point does arguing a point of view "POV-pushing"? It becomes POV-pushing if you are trying to argue a point of view which is not in line with mainstream consensus, but my point of view very clearly is. Ironically, it's those trying to push the view that "longevity isn't notable" and that "age validation isn't important" who are guilty of POV-pushing because their views are not, yet they escape punishment. What an utter shambles. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz
I don't have anything to add beyond what Ed and I said in the original AE. Ollie, the only opinions that have any weight here are the uninvolved admins. Everything else is just noise. Do not canvass others to come and support you. It won't affect the outcome but would be obvious evidence that you are not editing per our accepted norms. Spartaz Humbug! 18:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For some reason I didn't get a ping from NW below. The issue with GRG is an entrenched view by a section of editors that the GRG takes precedence over our existing sourcing standards - to the point where we have had edit wars on BLPs because pro-GRG editors refuse to accept that alternative sources meet the standard to say that a famous Chinese linguist is 110 years old. See this previous AE, this discussion of Zhou Younguang's age and this other discussion. By actively promoting a pro-GRG stance Ollie is subverting our existing standards for article inclusion. His removal from the longevity area and the impact of similar AE to reinforce the fact that pro-GRG edit warring and acceptance of wider community norms appears to be allowing a more considered approach to Longevity areas. I have no doubt that without it, we could easily have seen Zhou_Youguang have his birth date excluded because being 110 makes him a super centarian and GRG hasn't (for a fee I believe) verified his age. Spartaz Humbug! 13:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Addendum - please see edit warring in history here of Zhou Youguang's article with a logged out editor trying to remove the date of birth to the point of protection because it is not GRG verified. Also [here] Spartaz Humbug! 13:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that I don't believe Ollie has been contributing as an IP, the example provided was context of why promoting a GRG POV is harmful. Spartaz Humbug! 18:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Legacypac
Ollie demonstrates a lack of understanding of wikipolicy in his appeal. If, as he say,s "GRG is to gerontology what NASA is astronomy" we can safely treat GRG as just one of many RS. Our Astronomy article does not even mention NASA (that I can see) and the lead says "Astronomy is one of the few sciences where amateurs can still play an active role" NASA is definitely a great authority but hardly the primary or final authority in astronomy.

If someone wants to write up Andrew Hatch (super old guy) we have good sources and would report he claimed to be 117, has lots of id that verifies that, but did not have a birth certificate because birth certificates were not issued in his region (just as the contracosta times did), they should write it. For completeness, they should also note that GRG would not validate his age. But Hatch is a total red herring as no editor has tried to include him in any table or assert he was the world's oldest man (that I'm aware of).

Ollie's assertion that we should "base its (Wikipedia) articles on longevity primarily on this (GRG) source and not on other less-reliable ones." goes right to the heart of why he must stay topic banned. GRG is not a super source of absolute WP:TRUTH that must be used to the general exclusion of all other RS. (I commented on the AE request that led to the topic ban, not sure if that makes me involved or uninvolved) Legacypac (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights
It will be quite unsurprising that I see no reason to overturn the sanctions here. The amount of energy that's been expended arguing that the GRG is The One And Only True SourceTM on this subject is so enormously wasteful that allowing editors back in who want to continue that fight will only degrade the quality of the articles on human longevity. I don't see where the implementation of sanctions violated any policies, nor do I see how lifting them will be in any way helpful. Therefore, I strongly recommend this be closed with no action and a reminder that brevity is actually a virtue. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 19:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In response, 1. Wikipedia isn't a court of law and 2. my previous points, especially that one about brevity, are reaffirmed. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 05:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I would also note Mabidex's charming statement below is hardly indicative of an editor who will be useful in this topic. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 19:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Glrx has done an excellent job of summarizing the GRG; essentially it's a source which has a good deal of use in this topic, but does not have exclusive domain in the field. The fundamental problem is what I described above, that there has been a depressingly persistent campaign to elevate the GRG's importance as being above that of any other possible source material. Efforts to use the GRG research in proper context (e.g. not using absence on the list as evidence against a particular age, or that happening to be on a table does not inherently confer notability) are met with a massive amount of resistance from a horde of SPAs, and compounding their vigor is that many of these have some connection to the GRG and/or Robert Young (most of which is laid out at this AfD). The original case page lays out the gory details, and while the cast of characters is somewhat different the techniques are exactly the same. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 23:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
I am unsurprised that Ollie rejects the findings of independent admins reviewing his conduct - that is pretty much the definitive rationale for enacting a sanction, since people who accept independent views rarely end up here.

Ollie, find some other area to edit. Leave this topic completely, forever. All you are doing is reinforcing the impression of an externally coordinated campaign to manipulate Wikipedia in support of an ideology. We're bored with it. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Gerontology Research Group functions as an off-wiki gathering place for promoters of "agecruft" - they are convinced that achieving the age of 100 makes one inherently notable, and that the GRG is the fountain source of all wisdom on matters pertaining to age. We have had years of disruption by members and supporters of this site pushing their external agenda against Wikipedia consensus. Its focus on agecruft is less of a problem than its fringe activities in "life extension" - a field littered with blatantly pseudoscientific claims, playing largely to a market of old rich people whose judgment may not be what it once was (if you are thinking that there will be quite a few actual fraudsters involved, you're almost certainly right). is a leader of this group and was banninated for repeatedly making anonymous edits evading his topic ban. So: GRG think they are the sole authority on supercentenarians, and the sole arbiters of the notability of same (in practice, they always consider them notable, because that is all they are interested in), and there are also numerous other fields where this group can be considered to be offsite co-ordinators of POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ricky81682
I'm an involved admin on this matter. To give you a perspective on this discussion about the Gerontology Research Group, see this lengthy RFC. The claim was made by Ollie and others that the GRG needs to be identified and separately marked as a different level of reliable source (along with other sources which by random "luck" are never actually used anywhere). This is was but one of many examples of lengthy and disruptive arguing (including an RFC Ollie proposed to ban all newspapers are unreliable sources but only for reporting the ages of very old people). That is why the "GRG is the equivalent of NASA" is frustrating nonsense. The extent and months and months of arguing and arguing on this topic were enough and we are all better off if we don't have to repeat the same arguments with people who clearly only view the GRG as accurate on these very minor factual points. See Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people where even today yet again there is another lengthy round of arguing by people who simply repeat the idiotic mantra that "all newspapers are unreliable for old people's birth dates" by bringing up complete garbage nonsense and to use the GRG again (the language in flavor now is "international bodies that specialize in longevity research" so there are other sources when pushed about it so they aren't just saying the GRG but everything else then gets deleted so it's really just the GRG yet again). Review the old ARBCOM case and you'll see that it's been a decade of problems like this: the only resolution came when ARE started topic banning the people who simply refused to accept the idea of other sources on the topic being considered reliable on a general level (not that the tables aren't just repeating the GRG anyways). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strike that. I don't need to reiterate the actual discussion. I'm involved here, I'm not going to deny that. The main issue is that it is one of many sources. Note that during this lengthy RFC, Ollie argued for a number of sources but when push came to shove, it is only the GRG that actually matters. Today, we have another, similar argument about the lede sentence at Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people where the term is now "international bodies that specialize in longevity research" and again citing numerous organizations which again will ultimately be the GRG. Even if the GRG were the equivalent of NASA, we wouldn't then say that anything the Cosmonauts did should be ignored, we'd treat them as equally reliable sources and lengthy and lengthy discussions to fight that issue again and again are not productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 3)

 * Not sure whether this is the place to put this, but I wanted to react to Spartaz's statement that "promoting a GRG POV is harmful" regarding the Zhou Youguang case: I have searched the GRG website, but have found no comment or statement regarding Mr. Youguang on there. Therefore, I assume that the GRG has no point of view about the man, so I am not sure how anyone can claim that IPs are 'promoting a GRG POV' there; instead, I would rather argue that there are fancrufters who are now being confused with the GRG (or possibly used as its scapegoat). As a result, (by both sides) the GRG is once again dragged into a discussion which should, at its core, be about "validation" versus "reliable source". Fiskje88 (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Glrx
Ollie231213's appeal does not show an understanding of why sanctions were imposed. Instead the argument is that GRG should be as respected as NASA and therefore implies the sanctions were improper. The ban should stay. Glrx (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

. I have not been following longevity topics, but here's my take.

Ollie represents that Gerontology Research Group should be the respected authority on the age of very old people. It and the Guiness Book of Records should be given more weight on the topic than other reliable sources.

Ollie apparently founds that belief in GRG's strict requirements for documenting age. This Smithsonian article describes GRG and its procedures. The article describes GRG's requirements for 2 to 3 pieces of documentation. The article also points out that people often make false claims about age, and GRG's documentation requirements often uncover or prevent such frauds. Unfortunately, the documentation requirements also exclude many potentially bona fide old people. For example, there are good records in Japan, but almost no records in Africa. Even in countries with good documentation, some people are not on the list because they want their privacy. If nobody tells GRG that a very old lady is living in Pasadena, then that lady won't be on the list. Or maybe the little old lady has a birth certificate but she doesn't have her marriage certificate, so GRG won't put her on the list.

Consequently, if someone is on the list, then there are presumably reasonable supporting documents for the individual's age. Volunteers, not professionals, validate these age claims. Wikipedia apparently accepts GRG's Table E as a reliable indication of an individual's age. However, not being on the list does not contradict a claimed age. It doesn't even show that GRG investigated a claimed age and rejected it for some reason. So GRG's list is not "the oldest living people in the world" but rather "the oldest living people that GRG found and can document"; GRG calls the table "Validated Living Supercentenarians".

Now say the old lady in Pasdena dies, and the coroner issues a death certificate that says she is older than the oldest person on GRG's or anybody else's list. The Los Angeles Times then prints a story that includes the age on the death certificate. The Los Angeles Times may even claim she was the oldest known person in the world because it does not know of anyone older. What should WP do? It has some reliable sources, but apparently Ollie will take issue with the reliability of those sources.

The original AE found that Ollie was violating WP policy in AfDs and articles by continually taking the view that GRG should be the most reliable source. In the appeal above, Ollie makes exactly that claim. There has been no change since the ban. Glrx (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Editors don't get topic bans for their beliefs; they get topic bans for their behavior. Your behavioral issue was not following WP policies. You open with the claim that you were following WP policies, but the body of your appeal does not address WP behavior policies at all. You close with "I made it very clear in my statement in the initial request that I am following Wikipedia's policies." That is not the case either. The charge in the original AE was "Ollie231213's conduct at various AFD discussions is bordering into uncivil territory with numerous personal attacks." There were four diffs. Your response was not about the uncivil diffs, the original research issue, or your continued engagement at the RFC ("Apologies if I sounded patronising or disrespectful but part of the reason why I'm sounding repetitive is because I keep getting faced with straw man arguments, and I want to make sure we understand where we are both coming from here. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)"). You were not on topic for the AE. You did mention some WP policy, but they were not policies about behavior but rather sources. You believe GRG is the superior source. That's fine. Editors may believe what they want. Editors usually have a right to discuss their beliefs and persuade others to their position, but there are limits because other editors have rights, too. WP does not tolerate edit wars where one group keeps putting its version in an article and another group keeps replacing it with something else. Neither does WP want disruption on its talk pages. When there's disagreement, WP policy wants the groups to discuss the issues reasonably and adopt a consensus view even if that view is wrong. Maybe there is compromise; maybe one side prevails for now. The consensus view today is that GRG is a reliable source for some information but it is not the superior source that you want it to be. You were topic banned not for your beliefs about GRG's stature as a source but rather for your disruptive behavior with other editors. The issue at this board is not whether your viewpoint about weighing longevity sources is right or wrong but whether continued disruptive behavior is likely. You have not addressed your behavior at all. Instead, you continue to argue that GRG is the best source even though this is not the forum for a content argument. The implication is that you want this board to admit the original topic ban was wrong, approve of GRG as a great source (something that it cannot do), and give you license to edit war or demean editors who disagree with you. That's not what is done here.

I do not see an effective appeal here. The appeal should have addressed behavioral issues raised in the orignal AE. Looking at the original AE proceeding, I could conclude that the allegations were weak. I expect Legacypac has thick skin and some one-off ad hominem arguments can be forgiven. Extended and repetive engagement at any discussion is not desired, but it happens. Furthermore, it takes two (or more) to tango. I suspect NuclearWarfare's has that concern. The question is whether the behavior is typical. Furthermore, longevity has been found to be a contentious area, and discretionary sanctions are authorized. In the original AE, you claim, "I'm not on a pro-GRG campaign, on I'm an anti-anti-GRG campaign, which is not the same thing." For the purposes here, the double-negative distinction makes little difference because WP does not want campaigners. I haven't chased the sub-sub-discussion at RSN, but my guess is it is similar to the RfC. Consequently, I expect there is a long history of edit warring and disruptive engagement on many longevity articles. Spartaz has added colorable post-ban sock allegations. Glrx (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Striking text; I misread Spartaz's implication. Glrx (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Blackmane
I am somewhat peripherally involved as I've voted on a number of the AFD's that were raised largely by Ricky81682 among others. I think a simple statement would suffice here. Ollie2312 was topic banned because of his advocacy for GRG. Naturally, he refutes the accusation of advocacy but is, in his words, on an "anti anti GRG campaign". However, from his statement above: My suggestion for the List of the oldest living people article was to have two separate tables: one table of the oldest people verified by the GRG and another table of other claims reported on by other sources but not included on the GRG table is precisely advocacy that legitimises his current topic ban. One list that uses other sources and one list that solely uses GRG? This idea is basically asking WP to enshrine GRG. This one statement by Ollie2312 is, in my mind, the iceberg that sinks his appeal. Blackmane (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I read, re-read and re-read again your reasoning. My view does not change. I would not have written what I did if I hadn't read it. Again, having one list that is only for GRG as a source while another list has all other sources pushes forward the POV that GRG is singularly better or special compared to any other source. It is not up to Wikipedia to say "this source is better than these other sources so we're giving it its own list". What any list should say is "here is the claim, here is the source" no more, no less. If the claim is later discredited then the entry is removed. If a claim is weak or variable because sources disagree, then the entry should be adjusted based on a discussion. Blackmane (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

WP has never made any pretenses at having a judicial system. It's a privately owned website and as far as has been discussed this is most obviously not just a content dispute. At this point, I will leave this as my last comment as further discussion will derail this appeal. Blackmane (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Mabidex
I read your reasoning. I do believe that anyone achieving the age of 100 is very notable, as it remains rare. Which brings me to it's exceptional nature: What is more rare to humans who read Wikipedia than another of our own human species living longer than most others on this earth? According to the US Census, only 0.02% or 55,000 people in the US in all of the time between 2007 through 2011. To reiterate, being a Super Centenarian is an extraordinary claim, and it surely requires extraordinary proof.

While the GRG is not the only source that verifies Super Centenarians it is one of the more prominent non-profit ones. I don't disagree that verification should be done, but commercial interests should be known for those on the lists that use the story to sell more newspapers (for example) and benefit the commercial interests because of it. Yes I agree that It is not up to Wikipedia to say "this source is better than these other sources so we're giving it its own list" but a verified claim of age should be supported of non-commercial claims over those of a commercial nature. What any list should say is "here is the claim, here is the (Commercial/Non-Commercial) source" no more, no less. I agree, If the claim is later discredited then the entry is removed. If a claim is weak or variable because sources disagree, then the entry should be adjusted. As for the topic ban, it should simply be lifted. I see no reason to continue it as this person should be allowed to make disagreements about weak sources.

I also see no reason to consider JzG's words here as an involved admin, as they are clearly of a libel nature and out of line as appeals to spite and ridicule to win over the Admins consideration. Mabidex (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Ollie231213

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


 * I know little about this topic area but I respect you all a great detail as uninvolved(?) administrators so that's what I'm directing my initial question to you. I've read Ollie's statement and the original AE request. I take it you all would disagree with his description of this "Gerontology Research Group". Could you please either describe a little more as to why or point me to past discussions? Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 23:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks all for replying. I did some reading this morning (apparently, I was the case clerk for the Longevity case way back when; who knew). The given rationale for the topic ban was primarily POV pushing with a dash of incivility and tendentious editing. I haven't read anything that would make me disagree with that analysis. As per policy, a clear and active consensus is required to overturn a discretionary sanction. I would view that as functionally being impossible if one other uninvolved administrator agrees with me and would suggest that the appeal can be closed if that situation occurs. NW ( Talk ) 18:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The topic ban was applied for pushing a POV (that the GRG is the most reliable source) and tendentious editing to support that POV, along with some incivility. The appeal does not address these issues but continues to advocate for why you (Ollie231213) are right and why you should be allowed to continue pushing your POV. AE cannot determine whether the GRG is or is not a reliable source and if so whether it is more or less reliable than any other source and so I make no judgement about that nor about the comments here addressing this issue. Taking into account the comments that do address the relevant issue, and my own reading of the original discussion I have to agree with NW that the topic ban was correctly imposed. Unless there is any disagreement from an uninvolved administrator I will close this appeal as unsuccessful late Sunday/early Monday (UTC) unless someone else does so before me. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "POV pushing" implies nothing about what POV is being pushed, it could be the mainstream or it could be on the fringe of the fringe. It just means you behaviour regarding your POV is interfering with the improvement of the encyclopaedia, which includes disrupting discussions about consensus and refusing to accept when consensus is against you. Once again though, this is only about your behaviour not about the notability or otherwise of the topic (or specific articles), or the reliability of one or more source. The behaviour of other people is entirely irrelevant here (see WP:WAX) as this appeal is solely to judge whether you were right to be topic banned. If other people have been behaving badly then their behaviour should be brought to a noticeboard (by someone who is not topic banned) so that their actions can be examined. Thryduulf (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Violating his topic ban again (just like when he was first banned) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alansohn&curid=2578623&diff=705015467&oldid=705013935 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.41.51 (talk • contribs)
 * 24.114.41.51 - The diff you provided is not proof of a violation of his topic ban.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you read the post above the last one where he is advocating for changes about a specific longevity topic page? Or do topic bans not apply to talk pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.41.51 (talk • contribs)
 * The diff you provided is a discussion that occurred on a user talk page about his appeal. So no, this is not a violation. It applies to article and the talk pages of those articles.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Darkfrog24
''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 Darkfrog24

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 14:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation :


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


 * 1) (12 Feby. 2016)
 * 2) ″
 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) DS topic ban from quotation marks (22 Jan. 2016)
 * 2) DS topic ban from all MoS matters (4 Feby. 2016)


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

This is a clear violation of DF's topic ban from MoS matters, and is just another example of his trying to continue the dispute post-ban. Let's not forget that it was not long ago that his topic ban had to be expanded from "quotation marks" to "MoS matters" because of similar actions on his part. This, however, is the worst action yet. I don't think he should be allowed to continue skirting the topic ban.

To all other parties, please look at the corrected second diff. It is one thing to say "I cannot participate", but it is another thing to directly reference the dispute and cast WP:ASPERSIONS about members of a deletion discussion. Darkfrog24 should not be discussing the MoS at all, should not be writing anything about it, should not be expressing an opinion on "MoS regulars". Darkfrog24 was advised by the uninvolved administrators to avoid this area completely, and was told numerous times not get involved in this dispute again. If he were smart, he would not've responded at all, which is what he was told to do. I have done nothing wrong. "Note the identity of the filer", etc., had a clear subtext. I do not appreciate being subject to WP:ASPERSIONS from topic-banned editors.

Last comment on this matter: Ivanvector, if you'd like such an interaction ban, I have no objection. I never interact with this fellow. I was not a party to the original dispute that led to the AE filing. It would make absolutely no difference to me if such a ban were imposed, because I have no desire to interact with DF, and don't do so anyway. Such a ban would thankfully keep DF from dragging me into disputes where I have no place.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Notification

Discussion concerning Darkfrog24
''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 Darkfrog24
It is not a violation of a topic ban to tell people that I'm not allowed to participate because I'm under a topic ban. Smokey pinged me and said, "I find it odd that Wavelength, Darkfrog24 and Dickylon haven't commented," so I told him why I and possibly Dicklyon haven't commented. I don't remember which admin it was, but I've been actively told, "If someone asks you about X, you have to tell them you're under a topic ban."

The so-called "similar actions" were going to the talk pages of involved editors and asking them for constructive criticism on how to make the best of the topic ban.

While we're here, I don't think it's appropriate for SMcCandlish to make such strongly negative and false claims about me in a forum in which I'm not allowed to respond.

This is the second time since the ban was put in place on January 22 that an uninvolved user has actively requested that I contribute to a MoS-related project or discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The edit mentioning "MoS regulars" was immediately self-reverted; both edits are marked to the same minute, and that was the only part of the post that I even thought might come close to skirting the edges of the ban. There is nothing in WP:TBAN or in any of the answers to any of the questions I asked that even suggests that posting a link to the complaint or saying who filed it is in any way undesirable. If that's is what's intended, someone needs to say so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Thryduulf, my attitude has been "I do not understand you. This is vague and does not appear to be written down anywhere, and it's already been established that we do not think about this matter in the same way."  Killer Chihuahua said to avoid anything that even looked like it might be covered, and that's what I've been doing.  I thought that all MoS issues were covered by the initial ban and so avoided them, even though EdJohnston later told me that they were not covered.  This isn't getting as close to the edges as possible; this is just not knowing where the edges are.  If you're going to keep making me guess about what I am and am not allowed to do, then you've got to give me some leeway.  I can't read your minds. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As for why I requested detailed clarification, it's because the complainant wrote a gosh-darn book with multiple complaints that were significantly qualitatively different from each other (ranging from an accusation of casting aspersions against his mental health (I'd asked him "Are you okay?") to my talk page MO to accusations of recruiting someone on my talk page (I'd warned him of how nasty those discussions can get) to accusations of WP:OWN.... You'll forgive me if I don't feel like rereading it right now). Not only was there no way I could have refuted that many different things in 500 words, but the involved admins did not say which parts of it they thought were merited and which they recognized as unmerited and there is no way I could have figured it out without asking. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I think what's going on here is that you are used to dealing with topic bans. You deal with the details of them on a daily basis and those details are very familiar to you. Sometimes, people who are around a subject a lot don't grasp that the specifics are not obvious to people who aren't. To address one factual matter: No I was never told not to discuss the topic ban, only not to discuss the MoS. It is not remotely obvious from either the ban itself or from any of the answers given to me by Thryduulf or other admins that I am not allowed to say who filed the original complaint. To use your words, I did not put my thoughts out there on a MoS matter; I told SmokeyJoe that I was under a topic ban and posted a link. That seems to me to be an obvious, relevant and nonproblematic part of the process. You guys are expecting me to avoid boundaries, but you need to either be a lot clearer about where they are or accept that I'm going to step on a mine now and then. I will remind you that I have mistaken those boundaries in both directions&mdash;I thought the entire MoS was covered under the original ban. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Only in Death
Trouts incoming I suspect. Telling an editor who has effectively notified them by alert that 'I cannot talk about this since I am topic banned' is hardly an actionable edit. Talk about being petty. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Starke Hathaway
This is such an obviously unfounded and vexatious complaint that I think the filer ought to face sanction for it. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector
It's difficult to assume this request is in good faith, in fact it's hard to see what the point of it is at all if not to try to cause trouble. The first diff shows Darkfrog24 responding to a direct question with an explanation of why they are not responding, in as neutral and cordial language as would be possible I can only assume. I have to assume the second diff is in error since it's RGloucester's own edit. How in the world this indicates "the worst action yet" is dumbfounding. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

In fact I agree with : if RGloucester cannot explain how this request has any merit at all and is not clearly and obviously vexatious, they ought to be sanctioned for it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I think hit the nail on the head here, and in echoing his sentiment I believe I will make the fourth editor (third uninvolved) to tell you this is petty. But you seem to think petty is fine. I think if you were banned from interacting with Darkfrog24 you would have less petty things to do. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SmokeyJoe
I think the following two things are unacceptable:
 * That Darkfrog24 should be not allowed even a single comment in a discussion ( Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support) on whether a page dominated by his contributions should be deleted. (I think he should be allowed a single comment, plus simple answers to any simple clarifying questions).
 * That Darkfrog24 should not be allowed to answer informatively a direct question put to him. (and I don't consider a link to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=701104125#Dicklyon_and_Darkfrog24 to be sufficient, as it is too long).

If Darkfrog24 is not allowed to participate at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support, then I think the page in question (WikiProject Manual of Style/External support) should be referred to Arbs on the question of deletion. Or an Arb should contribute in the MfD in their capacity as an Arb. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Darkfrog24

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


 * It appears that the second diff has been updated/corrected since the first round of comments. Darkfrog24's first edit is on its face not a conspicuous violation, but its invitation to "...Please note the identity of the filer and principal complainant and make of this what you will" is getting awfully close to commenting on a dispute at the heart of his topic ban, and has the feel of testing the ban's edges.  Darkfrog24's expansion of that comment in the second diff  cements that perception: "... Please note the identities of the filer and principal complainant—and the degree to which other MoS regulars do and do not agree with them—and make of this what you will" is unambiguously commenting on a MOS matter, covered by Darkfrog24's ban.  WP:AE takes a dim view of editors who play "I'm not commenting on the dispute, but here are some things you should note about the participants in the dispute"-type games. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. Acceptable: "I am not at the moment permitted to share it with you, and neither is Dicklyon". Completely unacceptable: "Please note the identity of the filer and principal complainant&mdash;and the degree to which other MoS regulars do and do not agree with them&mdash;and make of this what you will." This is exactly why Darkfrog's topic ban was expanded recently. They seemingly cannot grasp the point that carrying on these disputes is disruptive and that making offhand remarks about the topic and people they have previously been in dispute with is a clear violation of the topic ban. Darkfrog24 is still trying to keep this going despite the original and now expanded TB. I can't believe this has to come to further sanctions, but I'm recommending a one-week vacation. Pinging for your feedback. As an aside,, can you please find something else to do and leave the monitoring of Darkfrog's behavior to neutral parties? -- Laser brain   (talk)  23:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can continue to claim ignorance about the nature of your Topic Ban after all of the time people have spent explaining it to you. You were told clearly here not to discuss MoS or anyone's opinions or behavior related to it. You were told clearly here not to keep trying to explore the boundary and find edge cases. The only thing you should say when queried is that you can't discuss it. Writing "Please note the identities of the filer and principal complainant" is a bright-line violation. Everything other than "I am not at the moment permitted to share it with you, and neither is Dicklyon" is a violation. It doesn't matter that you partially reverted yourself, as that wasn't the only problematic part of what you wrote. I don't know how to be any more clear about this: Putting your thoughts out there on MoS issues or on MoS editors in any way, is a violation. This simply won't play, and if you continue to test the boundaries you will be subject to blocks of increasing length. -- Laser brain   (talk)  15:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with User:Laser brain as to what kind of comment by Darkfron24 would be acceptable. Support LB's proposal to block the editor for one week. Regarding the above comment by User:SmokeyJoe: it may seem illogical but in fact it is a clear consequence of DF24's ban that they can't join in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support. The fate of the MOS:SUPPORT page will be decided by others. AfDs and MfDs are closed every day without dire consequences. User:Wavelength will allow the page to be userfied to his space if that is the decision. EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I too completely agree with Laser brain both regarding what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, and regarding the remedy for that. DF has been at this board twice in recent weeks, and following both topic bans requested detailed and extensive clarification of exactly what was and was not permitted (see their talk page). Their attitude throughout has been very much "how close to the ban can I get without breaking it" and that needs to stop, so a 1 week block is appropriate. if this was a userspace page or was explicitly intended to be a personal essay then I would consider an exception, as it is neither of those then I am not. Arbitrators may not and will not opine on matters of content in their capacity as arbitrators. You may of course take DF's topic ban and/or topic bans in general to ARCA to get an opinion on whether topic banned editors should or should not be allowed to comment on XfD discussions for pages in the area covered by the topic ban for which they are a primary author. If you do, I predict (and I am no longer an arbitrator so it is just a prediction) that the answer will come back as either "no" or "no, but with case-by-case exceptions possible as determined at AE.". Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Galassi
''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 Galassi

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 23:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBEE


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


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1)


 * 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 by.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Galassi has a history of reverts at Vladimir Putin without any talkpage participation. There has recently been a lot of tension in that article, to which Galassi has significantly contributed by performing 4 WP:NINJA-style reverts in recent days, without any explanation, much less discussion, whatsoever:







No explanation, no reasoning, no discussion, just blanket reverts. Considering the tension and the ongoing discussions at the talkpage, this kind of drive-by reverting is counterproductive and highly disruptive. Galassi has been asked to participate in the talkpage during a previous reverting spree (his response: ) and the current one, to no avail.

This user has a troubled history regarding Eastern-European topics, having been blocked for edit-warring many times, and indefinitely topic-banned from Ukraine. In fact, this recent revert could be construed as a violation of his topic ban. It appears this user is uninterested in constructive discussion and has learned nothing from his past behavior, pointing to long-term disruption in this topic area. A broadening of his topic ban to include Vladimir Putin may be in order.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Comment 10 reverts in a single article without consulting the talkpage yet I should be the one reviewing BRD? Oh my. Étienne Dolet (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Galassi
''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 Galassi

 * This is groundless and RETALIATORY charge by a POV pusher.--Galassi (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Galassi

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


 * I can see worse behaviour in the article history than this. I'm not entirely clear why this user has been singled out for attention but I'm not seeing these reverts as being particularly disruptive. I'd suggest they need a pattern of refusing to accept consensus before this became an issue. Have you reviewed BRD? Spartaz Humbug! 11:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't see that there is anywhere near the level of disruption to suggest a topic ban from Putin is merited. On the subject of discussion I'm not seeing any prior attempt to discuss these concerns with the editor concerned. Taking this, with your ANI thread, I can't help feeling that a degree of growing a thicker skin might help you edit in the EE area with less personal disquiet. I will speak to Maunus about the Putinbot comment though. Spartaz Humbug! 14:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The diffs presented show addition of sourced material which is clearly defensible - whether it enjoys consensus is another question and not one for this forum as far as I can see. The "past sanction" referenced was in May 2013. I am with Spartaz: I don't see anything here that merits sanction. Guy (Help!) 14:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the admins above, except for this: Galassi is indefinitely topic banned from making any edits related to Ukraine. (this is a permanent link, unlike EtienneDolet's link 21 above). Nevertheless, the first revert diff provided above,, restores material about Ukraine. Harldly worth a sanction if it's a single incident, as it's the kind of thing one might possibly do accidentally, but a warning to be more careful wouldn't hurt. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Very good point. I'm happy with that. Spartaz Humbug! 16:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Semitransgenic
''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 Semitransgenic

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 01:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced:
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms
 * 2) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms


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


 * 1) Dec. 18, 2015 Modifies Tryptofish's talk page comment to add “This editor has an axe to grind”
 * 2) Feb. 2, 2016. Violates 1RR: Original edit series (first sentence of paragraph), 1st Semitransgenic revert , Semitransgenic's revert undone, Semitransgenic reverts their text in again (2nd revert)
 * 3) Feb. 2, 2016. Pot calling the kettle black and personal attacks. After the above 1RR violation, JzG did breach 1RR as well responding to Semitransgenic's initial 1RR violation. Completely ignoring their own edit warring issues, Semitransgenic accuses JzG of pissing on 1RR followed by comment to JzG “discussing your eidts [sic] before swinging your dick in future?” with complete disregard that Semitrasngenic was breaking 1RR without discussing. Followed by further battleground behavior, “yes, we shall, let me just bend over here so you can spank me with those ever so manly hands of yours.“ and general snark when told to knock it off.
 * 4) Feb. 12, 2016. Continued personal attacks on talk pages accusing others of "too busy politicking to actually build an accurate article I guess . . ." during content discussion and referring to proposed edits as "nah, it's shit. . ."


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) Blocked November 16, 2015 by Roger Davies for personal attacks at the GMO ArbCom case.
 * 2) Followed by “shove your block up my ass. . .”, ”fuck you Roger”, “the sensation of your cock in my ass is unpleasant” etc. responses to the blocking admin.
 * 3) Block extended and talk page access revoked by NeilN after above comments.


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


 * Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
 * Alerted to discretionary sanctions 18 December 2015

The main issue with Semitransgenic is their habit of personal attacks. I'll let the quoted statements above speak for themselves where a focus on cocks, ass, and shit is becoming a hallmark of Semitransgenic's comments. I'd rather not return here so shortly after a previous enforcement case, but this has become a chronic problem. As shown in the previous sanctions section, they were previously blocked for this exact same kind of behavior at the ArbCom case, and had that block extended when they continued the attacks on their talk page through the appeal process. This is just a return to that behavior. This is the last kind of editor we need in a volatile topic like this, and they've already been blocked for this by ArbCom. Warnings and blocks obviously have not helped. The only option at this point seems to be a topic-ban where the DS currently apply.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

As a side note, uninvolved admins such as Spartaz have commented on a peanut gallery problem with recent GMO enforcement cases where other editors try to vehemently encourage or excuse problem editors when they are only a particular "side". I'd ask that admins be mindful of this issue if this case turns out like previous ones even though editors have been warned about the peanut gallery problem. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Seeing that Semitransgenic has now listed themselves as retired, I would still ask for consideration of the topic ban. We've had issues in the past where a problematic editor would retire in the face of scrutiny at admin boards only to have them return to past habits when things died down. It seems rare a "retired" editor actually stays retired, especially in this topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :



Discussion concerning Semitransgenic
''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 Semitransgenic
Earlier incidents aside (which were addressed by offended parties on each occasion), maybe focus on the latest issue, the context being: There is an ongoing, protracted, and somewhat circular discussion about a single sentence (which, we should probably note, involves the listing editor). I merely suggested that it might actually be more constructive to improve the main content and then address the sentence. I noted that Tryptofish (a doctor of biotechnology), could perhaps help us address the glaringly inadequacies in the main body of the text. Trypto, despite the apparent expertise, felt that these content issues were something they couldn’t see. I find this kind of editing disingenuous, but I accept my response was inappropriate. Note Trypto left a warning, and that was that.There are valid points to be raised about the manner in which certain editors are approaching content building in the GMO domain, but perhaps they need to be communicated more effectively, so let me make this real easy. Semitransgenic talk. 18:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris
This is a cut-and-dried case of WP:NPA etc. that doesn't necessarily bear on AE. Therefore you can bring this to WP:ANI, where it will be acted upon much faster than the glacial pace of this board. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sunrise
It may be worth noting that Semitransgenic has a long history of personal attacks in this topic area, in addition to the comments that led to blocks. For example, I'm reminded of this series of edits from August 2013 (which I remember because I redacted them, though I didn't act further at the time). Of course, these aren't directly relevant today and this was long before DS were introduced, but I think it should be established that this isn't just a recent pattern. Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 19:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish
I'm late to get here, but I agree entirely with what other editors are already saying. I find Semitransgenic's response here to be highly un-self-aware. I think that KingofAces43 and Sunrise have summarized everything that I could have thought to say, and expressed it quite well. And I think that EdJohnston and Spartaz have analyzed the situation exactly right. The retirement is not binding, and a topic ban is necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Semitransgenic

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


 * We should consider an indefinite ban of User:Semitransgenic from the GMO topic area. The editor seems unable to stop the personal attacks for which they've already been blocked twice. As User:Kingofaces43 noted above, the attacks have continued in February. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Noting that the user has apparently retired; unsure of precedent for carrying out AE actions in cases like this. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban. Retiring means nothing here. Unless someone objects I will enact this tomorrow. Spartaz Humbug! 20:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban. Retiring means nothing here. Unless someone objects I will enact this tomorrow. Spartaz Humbug! 20:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Request concerning 2604:2000:f20e:2800:7135:8c2:c554:2169

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 14:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 :


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


 * 1) 22 February 2016 Adding false categories claiming the brigades are Arab nationalist, however they belong to Fatah a Palestinian secular organization.
 * 2) 22 February 2016 Removing categories and replace them with "Arab terrorism in Israel" and "Terrorist organization".
 * 3) 22 February 2016 Removing categories and a template from a clearly documented article about a massacre.
 * 4) 22 February 2016 The IP address proposed deletion of the article because it is "extremely biased and unsourced".


 * 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.
 * Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
 * Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by.
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
 * Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
 * Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
 * Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.

This IP began the edit war editing with. Both IP addresses did the same edits and one of them gave me inappropriate warnings by copying my warnings on his talk page and pasting them on my talk page. This is not the first time I have been involved in a edit conflict with such IP addresses. Last time was in December and the administrators intervened quickly were it was blocked for one year after a 3-month block. I think it may be the same editor who edit Wikipedia by evading the block. Apart from this differences of numerous edits, It keeps tracking me by insisting that Liwa Al-Quds is an Islamist organization even though their Ideology is Pro-Baathism with no source mentioning that the are Islamist only because the article states they are mostly Sunni Palestinians from Al Nayrab refugee camp.--Opdire657 (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning 2604:2000:f20e:2800:7135:8c2:c554:2169
''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 Darkfrog24
I had a good paragraph ready about the two-way POV pushing in this article and possible solutions and a request for diffs of this edit war, but user:RolandR has pointed out here that anon2604 is in violation of the 500/30 rule, which covers all anonymous editing. Tell this user to establish an account and come back after thirty days of editing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by RolandR
This user also appears to be editing from IP 104.162.193.17, which has been making the same, or very similar, edits to the same range of articles, and continues despite being repeatedly warned. RolandR (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This IP is not only editing in breach of the 500/30 rule, but also breaking 1RR and even 3RR on multiple articles. RolandR (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
Some of the categories added by the IP are correct, for example Arab Terrorism in Israel, and Terrorist Organizations, and as I pointed out a few times to RolandR, not every action of an IP editor NEEDS to be reverted. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 16:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning 2604:2000:f20e:2800:7135:8c2:c554:2169

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


 * This anonymous user, as a person who is not logged in and doesn't qualify under the 500/30 rule, is already not allowed to edit I/P articles. So per the comments above, this should be closed with a warning. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The IPv6 editor is warned to make no further anonymous edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The possibly related IPv4 at User:104.162.193.17 has been blocked three days for continuing to edit those articles after being warned. I'm closing this request. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The IPv6 editor is warned to make no further anonymous edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The possibly related IPv4 at User:104.162.193.17 has been blocked three days for continuing to edit those articles after being warned. I'm closing this request. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This person appears to be back again, editing now from IP 2604:2000:F20E:2800:383B:D996:29E3:9D62 RolandR (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And from IP 2604:2000:F20E:2800:303A:E966:A2B4:6C0D. RolandR (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Admin Coffee has now blocked both. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Catflap08
''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 Catflap08

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 13:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88 :


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


 * 1) 2016.02.11 Posting a request that other users revert a "white washing" edit that Catflap08 is not allowed revert because his TBAN "officially" bans him from "articles relating to Nichiren Buddhism", a misrepresentation of the topic ban
 * 2) 2016.02.18 Reposting the same, apparently on someone's recommendation; also requesting other users contact him about the topic by email -- a problem given his previously using email and meatpuppetry to get around our earlier IBAN

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

The demonstrably false claim to having "retired" (his fifth or sixth in the last year) and continuing to accuse other users of "white-washing" without providing evidence are also concerning, but don't need to be dealt with because the posts themselves were clear-cut TBAN-violations and merit blocks.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * Catflap and I are both subject to the same TBAN. Catflap violated it, and I reported this. I had to do this because if Catflap is allowed violate our two-way ban without consequences and I abide by it as I have always done, that sets a nasty precedent. Who should have reported the violation? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * did not understand its scope Don't be suckered in by wordplay. Catflap knows what a topic ban is. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please leave me alone already and get back to building an encyclopedia. It's been almost a full year, and I still can't figure why you have made it your mission to drive me off the project. Would you like an IBAN? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @AlbinoFerret: The vast majority of your edits to this page seem to be in relation to the e-cigs case, in which you are a key participant. But even if you were a regular innocent contributor to AE discussions, it wouldn't explain how literally every time I have posted in the Wikipedia namespace you have shown up and taken the opposite side of whichever one I am on, and it wouldn't explain why you think Catflap's repeated violations should be given a pass, but my reporting said should be met with sanctions. Since Catflap and I are both subject to the same ban, it is only fair that if I abide by it he should face sanctions for violating it, so my reporting him is clearly covered under BANEX. And by the way, I didn't violate the IBAN either: Catflap violated it roughly once a week before the ArbCom case, so my checking his contribs every now and then (once a month) to see if he's reverted any more of my edits is reasonable -- it's a hell of a lot more practical than monitoring all the articles I edited before my TBAN. Why do you think it took me more than a week to report the former of the two violations? And more to the point, why did no one else report the violation in more than a week? Who is going to monitor this case if not the users already involved? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The ARCA filing was covered under BANEX because when I saw Catflap's edits it drew my attention to a problem with how both our bans are worded. They explicitly state that we are banned from ”pages related to Nichiren Buddhism”. I wanted the wording to clarified if we are in fact totopic-banned, and if ”pages related to Nichiren Buddhism” was really what was meant I probably would have requested an amendment to conform to more traditional TBANs. But asking for clarification of the parameters of one's own TBAN can't possibly be considered a violation of said TBAN, can it? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If you look at the ordering of events chronologically, my actions make more sense. I noticed Catflap's post from last week two days ago, and emailed Sturmgewehr for advice on what to do. He said that no harm could come from filing a request for clarification or amendment, because Catflap's narrow interpretation of the poorly worded TBAN actually makes a degree of sense. Certainly my requesting that both my own ban and Catflap's be clarified in their scope in light of this fell under BANEX, and I don't think even AlbinoFerret would argue with that . So I posted a request for clarification. However, Spartaz then recommended withdrawing it and posting on AE instead. I fired ahead without putting a whole lot of thought behind what I thought would be immediately recognized as a clear-cut case. Admittedly, I probably should have thought twice about whether taking this advice would qualify as either a TBAN or IBAN violation on my part, but I stand by my convection that it isn't, in light of what has gone down with this dispute in the past. And on at note, regarding "precedents", you should take a look at the old Catflap IBAN violation filings. They were all filibustered and then later Catflap and AlbinoFerret were able to claim that Catflap never violated the ban because he had not been blocked, but my reporting on Catflap had supposedly been a violation because I had been blocked thanks to a technicality. Sadly it looks like history is repeating itself. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Kingsindian: They are if he gets away with them. I've been putting up with "mutual one-way" bans with Catflap for almost a year at this point. What's the point of having a two-way ban if only one party is expected to uphold it? ArbCom banned both of us from the same topic because they weren't willing to look into the content of our dispute and figure out who was at fault. But apparently no one is willing to enforce his ban because I was the one who reported him and I shouldn't have been reporting him despite his actions in question having serious implications for how the ban affects me. If the two-way ban in reality only applies to me, that implies that ArbCom and the admin corps decided that I was at fault and Catflap innocent, something that never happened. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You should ignore everything AlbinoFerret says, as he is a pathological liar. Take this for example. Click the diff he so flagrantly assumes you will not read and simply take his word on. You will see that Denniss final warning had nothing to do with Catflap, IBANs or ArbCom. It concerned another users dispute with me, sourcing problems and talk page etiquette. (I respected the final warning, and the other user received two blocks for a total of four days for repeatedly violating it, but thats completely irrelevant.) AlbinoFerret, who showed up on that ANI tgread as he has on all of my disputes over thenpast year, knows perfectly well that the "either user" he misladingly quotes refers to me and CurtisNaito, and has nothing to do with my IBAN with Catflap. Furthermore, the "final warning" predates the ArbCom decisiom by over three months! Could someone please block AlbinoFerret for this blatant partisanship and gaming of the system? I have no idea why this user hates me enough to so blatantly lie about me like this, but if you could advise me on how to request a mutual IBAN I would be grateful. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Edited 09:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @EdJohnston: If that is "tradition", then it should be stated in my TBAN and I should have been informed of it. I initially posted a request for clarification and explicitly stated that I was subject to the same TBAN with the same terms, because it had implications for my TBAN if Catflap's interpretation was correct (and his not being blocked in over a week appeared to support this). Spartaz then told me to withdraw it and report Catflap's violation to AE. If what you are saying is correct, then Spartaz explicitly told me to do something that would be a violation and merit a block. Surely exceptions to an unwritten tradition should be made when the violation was accidental and made on the direct advice of a sysop, and the violator was never informed of this tradition. I probably should not have assumed a two-way TBAN functioned the same way as a two-way IBAN, but I've also been threatened with blocks for reporting IBAN violations, so... could someone please clarify these rules somewhere on-wiki? I have read BANEX, and it doesn't record this "tradition", nor does it say anywhere that reporting IBAN violations is itself an IBAN violation. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Shit. Sorry... I read the post I was pinged in, and then replied to that before reading the rest of the discussion. I see you have withdrawn your earlier statement. I will be careful in the future, about both reporting violations of a TBAN to which I am also subject and replying to comments that have been withdrawn. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Catflap08
''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 Catflap08
I am quite unsure if I should laugh or cry … maybe both. I asked this [] which was moved to EAR and I was told in an email by what seems an admin to either seek the talk page (which due to the ban I refrain from doing) or turn to the Tea House. So asking questions about an edit is a violation of the TBAN???? This gets better every time. So let me get this right. I am not allowed to edit issues on Nichiren Buddhism. Fair enough. I do see an edit which in my eyes is highly problematic, I then go on asking on how to proceed, making clear that sanctions were imposed and I am advised to turn to the talk page (or Tea House) and THIS may be seen as violation a ban in itself??? Me making clear in my request that due to a ban I am asking for advice on how to proceed?? Maybe I should have made an edit, or a request, as a sock or unregistered user instead then?? So if I am prohibited to ask questions please let me know. Furthermore I do have the inkling I am watched closer by a certain individual than I would have thought. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @ Spartaz @ Thryduulf Hear, hear. I am writing an email to info-en-v@wikimedia.org … I get the answer as stated and now another ban follows … interesting to say the least that is. --Catflap08 (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

[Moved here from the result section - William M. Connolley (talk)] May I add that in the very start of discussion nearly two years ago a person threatened me to get me blocked? That person has succeeded in doing so even though inflicted with a ban himself now. That very person now brings up all this as a result of me asking a question on how to report an issue that worries me as I find that bad faith edits have taken place. Bad faith edits on a subject that I care about, a subject that I was told to have had an impartial input, a subject that is on the fringe and now yet again being invaded by adherents of a “cult”. I stayed clear form editing the lemma on the cult in question in general – and sought to add references as much as I could, references published, references that appear to be reliable on the subject that I have been banned from. And let me be clear that I do not suspect that person to be a member of that cult. This person in my books seems to have severe mental issues for this is HOUNDING. Go ahead and get me blocked from whatever, I walk away from all this, keeping in mind that I worked on a contentious subject anyway and that advocates of a certain cult get their way in the long run. I was threatened elsewhere on the internet for hinting at published information with legal action. The person who started all this, most probably unaware of doing so, has made himself an accomplice of that cult. Well done you all. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @ EdJohnston I do get the message on what to do and what not – even though somewhat irrational. I do continue the discussion not over this bs in the Tea Room, but on the fact that if one emails Wikipedia officially asking a question doing so as advised and then get hammered afterwards. It annoys me that I sought an answer via official email contact and here I am ending up offering yet again a venue to somebody who got me banned. Get it? And you guys at wikipedia seriously wonder why number of editors is in decline??--Catflap08 (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And to make things even easier on you to have me banned full stop. Please do feel free to check that single purpose accounts have been happily editing away on any issues connected to Soka Gakkai for years now – this seems to go on undetected. Any employee of Coca Cola editing in favour his employer will find tougher actions against  them in place than adherents of a cult. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector
Just pointing out that Catflap08 and Hijiri88 are subject to a two-way interaction ban. I think this report meets the WP:BANEX conditions, but thought it should be noted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Looie496
Both editors are in violation. Catflap08 is clearly in violation of the topic ban, and pretty clearly did not understand its scope. Hijiri88 violates both Arbcom-imposed topic bans by filing this report, and also violates the interaction ban with Catflap08 (which however is not an Arbitration ban). This report does not fall within the scope of BANEX, since Catflap08's actions, although violations, do not have any impact on anything Hijiri88 is permitted to edit. Looie496 (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by AlbinoFerret
It appears that Looie496 is 100% correct. I took part in this Arbcom as an uninvolved party. Hijiri88 is himself subject to the same ban as Catflap08. Reporting a violation in the topic area of another editor is a topic ban violation. As it doesnt impact Hijiri88 in any way because he is topic banned in the area. BANEX provides no excuse for the report here in an area Hijiri88 is banned from, and so it violates the topic ban. What is even more troubling, is that after dozens of noticeboard sections, an IBAN and an Arbcom case Hijiri88 is still watching and yes hounding Catflap08, watching their every move in order to pounce. While Catflap08 has violated the topic ban and should receive some sanction, Hijiri88's behaviour in this shows that he still doesnt get it and a stronger sanction should be given to him. AlbinoFerret 21:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri88, I seek no IBAN with anyone, this page is open to community members. My commenting on this section is not some dark plan to find you, I have replied to quite a few sections here in the last few months that had nothing to do with you. I dont even edit in the topic, and have not edited any articles you have edited.

But will go into greater detail. Hijiri88 is under the same Topic ban as Catflap08. This includes all noticeboard sections dealing with the topic. Starting a noticeboard section dealing with edits in the topic is a Topic ban violation. The exceptions are found in WP:BANX, none cover edits that the editor is not involved in. This is not vandalism, a violation of the IBAN between Hijiri88 and Catflap08, a clarification of the scope of his ban, or an appeal of his ban. The main issue in this whole disaster of noticeboard sections, Arbcom, and now here is these two editors just cant get along, nor leave each other alone. Its endless. While Arbcom didnt place the IBAN, they acknowledged it in the final decision. There may be a excuse for the IBAN violation, I am not really convinced there is as Hijiri88 didnt come across this during normal editing, he couldnt have, he is topic banned. The only way to find them is following an editor he has an IBAN with. But there is no excuse for the topic ban violation of starting a section here dealing with edits in a topic he is banned from. AlbinoFerret 04:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Thryduulf I think that warnings have already been issued. Numerous sections on other noticeboards failed to stop any of this ongoing problem, thats why it went to arbcom. I want to point out that gave a more or less final warning to Hijiri88 here. That says "If either editor pushes the boundaries of incivility, bludgeons a discussion, violates WP:IDHT, acts in a disruptive manner on any talk page, or breaching any other policy that makes editing miserable for other editors, then either myself or another admin should simply block for a minimum of 72 hours, with rapidly escalating blocks. It doesn't matter if there is another party that is equally guilty.". I think that covers starting a noticeboard section about another editor on a topic he is banned from, where the only way he has the knowledge of the edits is following an editor with whom he has an IBAN with. AlbinoFerret 13:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@EdJonston But no one to my knowledge told Hijiri88 to start the ARCA section that is basically the same, and deals with the same edits. If the AE is excused because he was told to come here, that excuse does not apply to ARCA. AlbinoFerret 19:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
This is a pretty simple TBAN violation, so that part is easy.

Regarding, it was not a good idea for them to file this complaint. Let's forget the language of BANEX for a moment, which anyway does not accept this exception. Let's look at the spirit of the IBAN and TBAN. The idea was for the two users to avoid each other and avoid the topic area. This request clearly violates the spirit. As to Hijiri's worry about "setting a precedent", that is unfounded. Just because a particular "crime" is unreported and unpunished in a particular instance does not make it ok in the future.

That said, I do not support any sanctions against Hijiri88, just an advice to them to leave this alone. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 09:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no violation of the IBAN, so I do not see the "precedent" applying. As to the rest, I don't have anything else to add. The spirit of the IBAN and TBAN, as I mentioned above, is to leave Catflap alone and leave the topic alone. You should not be looking at Catflap's edits at all. Their violations aren't your problem. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 09:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by L235
Thought I should mention here that I've now archived the ARCA filing about this. For the Committee – Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 16:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Cullen328

 * I think you are alluding to me at the Teahouse,, where the conversation continues. I am not an administrator though I try to conduct myself responsibly. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  18:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Curly Turkey

 * Regardless of questions regarding the appropriateness of this Request, it should be noted that Albino Ferret has a history of targeting Hijiri, and his persistence here should be read in that light. That he sees the need to habitually describe himself as an "univolved party" should draw the greatest suspicion. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Catflap08

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


 * Waiting 24 hours for comment from but my initial instinct is that the violation is very clear and that some form of sanction/block is necessary. Spartaz Humbug! 13:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Would like some input from more experienced AE admins. The language at BANEX relates to reporting interaction ban vios not tbam vios. Does reporting a tban vio mean the user is breaching their iban? Whatever outcome, it is correct that interaction banned users should stop policing each others' edits and they should not be following each other around. topic banned means topic banned entirely so you should take the whole area off your watchlist. Soliciting edits is exactly the same as making edits so its a clear tban vio. Spartaz Humbug! 07:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a clear topic ban violation by Catflap08 and I think a 1 week block would be the appropriate sanction to result., Spartaz and others are correct that the exemption for reporting is related to breaches of the interaction ban only, so you have breached the interaction ban with this report. If you breach it again then I would certainly support a block, but on this occasion I am leaning towards a final warning (but could be persuaded otherwise). Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * An unambiguous violation and pretty blatant attempt at WP:GAMING at that. As to the IBAN, that's tricky. I entirely agree with Spartaz and Thryduulf that Hijiri should not be filing these reports, but I am at a loss to see who else is going to since most people are so fed up with the pair of them that they ignore anything either says. We don't have an obvious venue for asking a neutral third party to review and, if they consider it merited, report possible violations, and frankly the chances of anybody wanting to get involved in this long-running feud are pretty limited. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Catflap08 made this comment on an article talk page, about a topic from which he is banned. We also have the present AE which was opened by User:Hijiri88. This looks to be two separate topic ban violations, one by each party. Also Hijiri8 violated his IBAN by posting anything at all about Catflap08. (If Catflap08 had directed any comments to him then the AE would have been OK, but he didn't). So I support blocks to both parties. We do traditionally forbid topic-banned people from coming to AE to announce violations by others who are under the same ban, so this is routine. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In fairness, I did direct them here when they raideda request at ARCA, so some mercy might be justified. Spartaz Humbug! 16:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, if Hijiri88 was told to file here, then we shouldn't sanction him. But we could warn Hijiri88 not to file at any admin boards about a topic he is banned from. There is a separate question of what to do about Catflap08's edits. We might be reluctant to sanction him due to an inappropriate report, but it appears he is continuing to debate this issue at the Teahouse, even after an admin told him in the same thread that it was inappropriate, and after he knew an AE was in progress. So I'd go with a one-week block of Catflap08. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Athenean
''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 Athenean

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 10:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [] :


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


 * 1) February 19, 2016 I find it concerning that the user reacted so strongly to getting the DS template. The user has been involved in many discussions on this noticeboard and surely knows that the DS complaint itself is a notification, not an accusation. Yet after receiving the notification, the user apparently took the time to investigate my edit history, then post a question on my talk page which the reader could easily take as asking whether or not I am a sock. Surely the purpose of notification is simply informational and was designed by Arbcom to prevent users from being unknowingly swept up in this system. It degrades the system if the mere act of giving a notification is cause for such a reaction. The user continued the same line of attack here.
 * 2) February 19, 2016 And then there was this. NOT FROM Athenean, but certainly weird. I put a template on one user's page, and I get similar notes on my talk page from TWO users? I have no explanation for that. Does anyone?
 * 3) February 10, 2016 WP:NPA violation attacking User:Volunteer Marek. Part of what led to my placing the template in the first place.
 * 4) February 10, 2016 A second WP:NPA violation attacking User: Volunteer Marek
 * 5) February 16, 2016 A third WP:NPA violation, this time attacking User: my very best wishes.
 * 6) February 16, 2016  A fourth WP:NPA violation, again attacking User: my very best wishes. All four attacks were placed by the as-yet-untemplated, and therefore theoretically possibly-unaware, Athenean. BUT see this February 16 post by User:Athenean, which certainly suggests awareness.  February 16, 2016


 * 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.
 * Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
 * Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by.
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. ; see also comments below
 * Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
 * Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on October 17, 2015January 4, 2016 The discussions in question could fall under Balkans or Eastern Europe, or in one case possibly Macedonia, all of which are subject to sanctions. So I don't know if this constitutes awareness or not.
 * Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.

In addition to the personal attacks themselves, I believe the failure to strike them upon explicit request should be an issue. User:Volunteer Marek explicitly asked User:Athenean to strike his personal attacks. Yet they are still present on the talk page. Additionally, User:Athenean has continued to edit both the talk page and article after Marek and I requested that he strike the attacks, and even after receiving the template, and I seconded Marek's request. However, he has not struck them.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : The atmosphere on the Putin article as a whole is TERRIBLE.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Athenean
''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 Hijiri88
You are supposed to specifically link the restriction that was violated, not just the ArbCom case page. Scrolling down, I don't see any restriction or remedy being placed on Athenean during the case. Are you asking for the decision to be amended to place some form of restriction on him/her? Because I'm pretty sure this is not the place for that. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And of the four "personal attacks", I see what might kinda-sorta be interpreted as borderline AGF-violations (depending on the background, which has not been explained, so we need to assume good faith on Athenean's part), and the only thing even approaching a "personal attack" is the phrase "talkpage trolling", but that seems like a fairly accurate, if inflammatory, description of what the OP has been doing on Athenean's talk page. Using a template once to notify a user of discretionary sanctions is acceptable, but edit-warring to keep the template on their page is extremely disruptive. What exactly is the problem here? Am I missing something? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by CometEncke
@Spartaz You are correct, I am not a new user. I have good reasons for my WP:FS. I have got to say that the word "benefit" does not accurately describe what is happening or has happened. The true situation is quite the opposite, as this very discussion shows. Your lack of trust of that is understandable, as I know the history, and you don't. I will say that I did not start this account with an eye to ending up here this quickly. What happened is that I was new to the Putin article, genuinely new. I came to the talk page, took a look at it, and was frankly horrified by the level of rancour I saw, not to mention the article itself, which was an abomination. I've been involved in several contentious discussions on US related issues. The level of rancour we see at the Putin article was simply absent. Additionally, I would note that Eastern Europe issues are not, and never have been, my primary editing interest. Even from my limited history, the truth of that should be obvious. I am not going to give up my privacy in order to stop someone's personal attacks. If you have to dismiss this complaint on that basis, so be it. Quite frankly, I would not have continued to make this complaint here if the user had not come to my talk page with the insinuating questions that he did, as I linked above. Could you then ask yourself, really ask yourself, whether what is happening to me is then a "benefit" or a "handicap"? In in either case, how long will I have it? Lastly, I just want to point to the way I have dealt with some other people whose edits had room for improvement, but were not making personal attacks.CometEncke (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC) @Hijiri, where did I edit war? I only intended to add it once, and when I look at my contribs, I only see one addition. Am I missing something?CometEncke (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC) And where on Athenean's talk page did I do something inflammatory? Obviously I am missing something, but what? @People dismissing this because I'm going to keep my privacy, fine, I actually don't mind. But I do want to ask one question -- for how long am I going to have this handicap? And to put up with posts like the first three I linked in my complaint, all of which were in fact directed at me? Because that's actually becoming a routine event.CometEncke (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Desperate plea by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris
I rarely agree with User:CometEncke but the larger point he makes is spot on. The atmosphere at Vladimir Putin (the article in question) is beyond toxic. Regardless of the merits of this particular case, or of User:CometEncke's status, could we please, please, pretty please with Nutella on top have some admins monitor that article? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Athenean

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


 * I don't believe you are a new user. Please can you disclose your previous accounts and whether those accounts are subject to any blocks, restrictions or sanctions? Thanks. Please note that by inserting yourself into controversial areas you are not permitted to benefit from privacy under clean start. Spartaz Humbug! 12:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with User:Spartaz. If CometEncke expects to benefit from the protections of Clean start they need to avoid controversial areas. If there is no disclosure, this request should be declined. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Darkfrog24
''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 Darkfrog24

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 20:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :

Topic ban from the Manual of Style and manual of style related topics, placed under the DS authority given by WP:ARBATC.
 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced:


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

After asking (yet again) for clarification of their topic ban on my talk page and I replied. Their response has been to extensively justify why they are right to fight about quotation styles, discussing sources relating to quotation styles, and commenting about the motives of others. e.g. All contained in
 * "The overwhelming majority of sources from both sides of the puddle agree that American style is part of American English and British style is part of British English. They're not low-quality sources either (though most of those concur)",
 * "You see my position on quotation marks in the article space because the sources support it.",
 * "I'm not the one pushing POV in the article space; I'm the one who's been stopping it. You may notice who the other person in these two disputes is.",
 * "It looks like you're copying SMcCandlish verbatim on these issues, [...] he's repeatedly taken it as a personal insult that I don't agree with him, to the point of ranting at me for using the terms "British" and "American" in my own, signed talk page posts."
 * Pinging SMcCandlish so they are aware they have been mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) previous topic ban extended and replaced with the current one (by me) after the previous one was breached in spirit and possibly in letter (4 February)
 * 2) Blocked for 1 week for violating this topic ban (14 February)


 * 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 (see above), and has repeatedly requested extensive clarification regarding their topic ban (see their talk page)

I've been trying to respond to their persistent requests for clarification of the topic ban in good faith, but at this point I'm starting to see it as a tactic to try and continue participating in the topic area. After initially skim reading their response, I noted that it read very much like a violation of their topic ban, but their response was to say that they carefully remained with both the spirit and letter of the rules. I disagree on both points, but I consider myself sufficiently involved at this point that I am not going to act unilaterally.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Darkfrog24
''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 Darkfrog24
1. I am explicitly allowed to ask the enforcing administrator questions about the topic ban. Thryduulf is one of the enforcing administrators.

2. Here's what happened: The complaints made against me were over 10,000 words long and contained dozens of different alleged offenses, ranging from arguable to ridiculous to provably false. I'd always figured that the admins considered some of them merited but not others, but no one ever explicitly stated which ones. Earlier this week, it occurred to me that I didn't know exactly what I did that inspired the admins to issue and then expand the topic ban, so I asked. I did so so that I could spend the next eleven months putting my efforts where they would address the underlying problem, whether that was a new talk page MO, new editing style, etc.

Thryduulf took the time to answer. To my surprise, the first item on his list was something that I hadn't done, the claim that I'd made a "bogus" ENGVAR case. I immediately provided proof that I had not in fact invented the ENGVAR issue and that a related accusation, campaigning in the article space, was also therefore false. I provided this information solely within the context of discussing the ban, not to "justify why I'm right" but to prove that some of the accusations made against me were false:
 * "If I'm going to be topic-banned, it should be for things that actually happened. There are a few factual clarifications that you need to see."
 * "If one of the problems here is that you think the ENGVAR issue is my own invention, we can clear that up easily."

My take: If any part of a topic ban's scope, duration or time until appeal is even partially attributable to something that is provably untrue, then talking to an enforcing admin about it is not only allowable but actively good.

If this is an issue for some other time or forum, then redirect me. I'm not going to pretend that being topic banned has been easy. A great deal seems counterintuitive. All I can say about my previous violations is that they were unintentional and I've followed every rule that I found out about. As for questions, there are two ways to find out what's expected of me: 1) ask and 2) watch this page for months to see what's interpreted as a violation. I've done the first and am doing the second. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Per Liz: In fairness, I did ask to write a full-length response, four times, to no answer. At the time, I didn't know that I didn't need permission to break the 500-word rule.  To someone who hasn't seen it before, it looks quite serious. I also asked the admins to state which parts of the accusation they thought were merited.  I didn't get that information until today. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * LB: You have repeatedly said that the fact that I don't understand why this ban was issued is a problem. I agree.  What solution, other than asking questions, do you suggest? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Coffee: I am looking at my own behavior, but I found out yesterday that I was looking at the wrong actions. I'm willing to undergo self-reflection but not to waste my efforts on things that either weren't bothering anyone or that I didn't do at all.  As for asking questions, you guys do seem to hate that.  You also seem to feel that my lack of understanding of this matter is a problem, so I'm not sure why you aren't happy that I'm asking questions and interested in other people's point of view.  That's the solution. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Before any final decision is made, I'd like to quote WP:BANEX: Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Both finding out exactly why I was banned and providing relevant factual corrections are legitimate concerns, and if a talk page discussion with the enforcing editor isn't the appropriate forum, then direct me elsewhere.

If Thryduulf is tired of answering my questions, that's his or her prerogative, but I do need the answers from somewhere. I can only learn about Thryduulf's thought process from Thryduulf, but for anything else, I could ask anyone who knows the answer. From the beginning, I have viewed making the best of this topic ban as an active project worthy of my time and energy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Darkfrog24

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


 * Darkfrog24, the time to discuss your topic ban, who you believed was lying in the discussion or who had it in for you or the circumstances surrounding the imposition of the topic ban have passed. You have asked a lot of questions of a lot of people regarding the boundaries of your topic ban, what it does or does not include, how you might do things differently when you no longer had a topic ban and this has only led to your narrow topic ban (regarding quotation marks) to being broadened to now include the Manual of Style and manual of style related topics. It is your persistence and refusal to drop the issue that led a narrow topic ban to now be quite a large one. You have been given a lot of latitude as admins have tried to clarify your topic ban for you and it is now time to accept the ban, live with it, edit and discuss other areas of the project or you will likely be facing blocks of increasing duration.
 * In fewer words, if you feel compelled to ask whether an edit is covered by your topic ban, assume that it is and don't make it. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a very serious and tiresome problem, even after a topic ban, an expansion of the ban, and a block. The still-visible exchange on my Talk page illustrates that Darkfrog continues to claim to be mystified by the topic ban and to fixate on the behavior of other editors. I eventually just stopped responding because she cannot or will not accept reasoning and explanations. As I noted there and as Thryduulf mentions above, the matter has been comprehensively explained to Darkfrog several times, well past any level of explanation I've seen for any block or ban, and nothing much is sinking in. I've come to the conclusion after my last conversation with her and after reading this last exchange with Thryduulf that Darkfrog enjoys litigating issues until the people around her are exhausted, or until she gets someone to say something that she can latch on to and continue the litigation. I'm recommending a two-week block for the continued topic ban violation (using Thryduulf's talk page to continue litigating the LQ issue) and a request that Darkfrog's discussion of the topic ban cease immediately, unless to concisely ask for an opinion on whether an intended edit will violate the ban. As Liz noted, we shouldn't be seeing even that. -- Laser brain   (talk)  03:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A one-year block of Darkfrog24 seems needed. It looks like they are never going to understand the problem with their edits no matter how many times it is explained. (Topic bans work for those who understand them and are wiling to follow them; otherwise blocks may be required). Darkfrog24 was previously blocked on 14 February for one week due to failure to adhere to the ban. It seems that the block did not persuade them to back away from the brink, and they are still there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ed above, a one year block seems like the only real solution to this problem. When someone is either incapable or refuses to WP:GETTHEPOINT of why they were banned, the only reasonable course of action to protect the site is to impose a block. There simply isn't anything that I'm seeing that would tell me that this editor being allowed to continue editing, at this time, would be a net positive to the project. (Note: As a further sign of their complete lack of clue regarding topic bans, Darkfrog24 has now migrated their continued behavior of constantly looking at others instead of themself to state "As to why you were banned, you'd have to ask the admins for their reasoning (but let me warn you: they hate that)" regarding another editor's topic ban.) <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 20:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This feels like performance art to me. The latest comment here is the final straw - words to the effect that they still dont understand and want to keep asking questions. AGF and ADMIN ACC only go so farSpartaz Humbug! 22:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Belated comment for the record: That ping didn't work for whatever reason, and I was completely unaware any of this was happening. But I would not have had much to say other than I'm disappointed it came to this; I took pains to try to discourage a block being the result, ever since this matter came to a head in Jan. I'm not even offended that DF24 continues to blame and accuse me; people get angry. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Arminden
''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 Arminden

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 19:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles (ARBPIA):


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


 * 1) 17:24, February 26, 2016 Rv #1
 * 2) 17:46, February 26, 2016 Rv #2

The page involved, Daniel Seaman has devolved into Attack page, and has far too long stood as one long WP:COATRACK in violation of basic WP:BLP (and also has basic WP:MOS issues the editor is not abiding by).
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * 1) Arminden appears to be accusing me of being a "social media savvy cohort" of Mr. Seaman. That is absurd and a gross violation of WP:AGF and a personal attack. His response about some propaganda conspiracy seems to show he does not understand the seriousness of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies.
 * 2) Arminden has been editing essentially exclusively in the WP:ARBPIA topic space since the user joined more than 4 years ago. I find it hard to believe that this user is not aware of or familiar with WP:ARBPIA polices or the 1-revert policy in this topic space. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) I only reverted once as the record shows. The attempts of a certain individual (who is an admin and should clearly know better) to somehow magically transform this into 3 reverts are false and alarming.
 * 4) Users that come appear with amped up hostility toward me like Sepsis, Zero0000, Nishidani, and Nableezy do not come here with clean hands. We have unfortunately clashed repeatedly in the ARBPIA topic space as well as on the AE board.
 * 5) I tend to agree with AnotherNewAccount that this may be more a matter of WP:ARBBLP than WP:ARBPIA. I was not familiar with WP:ARBBLP. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately by his/her comments on Talk:Daniel Seaman, Arminden fails to recognize the major WP:BLP and WP:MOS violations on the page and engages in gross violations of WP:AGF and WP:No personal attacks. This is base WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior leaves open the likely prospect that Arminden will violate WP:ARBPIA polices again in the future. For instance, take these comments on the talk page from Arminden (bold is from user, not from me) since the WP:AE process began here:
 * "The Seaman supporters are running the process like any tricky lawyer would, disingenuously and with no scruples"
 * "This all is but a proxy conflict between hasbara-to-the-bitter-end and Israel-is-right-by-definition advocates, and those who think the best way to destroy a cause is to leave the extremists in charge of it"
 * This is very troubling behavior that needs to be addressed. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

(had also requested that the user self-rv, to no avail)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Arminden
''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 Arminden
Sorry, I thought I'm to stay out of this until the arbiters figure it out based on the plain facts, which are out there for anyone to see. I have no knowledge of WP abbreviations, manuals of procedures etc. I have internalised quite well the spirit of this project and am doing my best to act within that spirit. When smth. goes against logic and common sense, I'll stick to the higher values and consider WP to be a "work in progress" run by real individuals who apply their own judgement and adapt the rules to reality, not the other way 'round. I am familiar with the fact that REPEATED reverting of edits constitutes edit warring, right? What this here is all about, I can hardly follow. I have long drawn people's attention and asked for support (here) against "editors" who come, most usually anonymously, and whitewash the article, blight it, remove all the facts which would shed less than a perfect light on Mr. Seaman. A couple of times, it was Mr. Seaman himself who, without hiding it, went about rewriting "his" page, openly, like one would amend his CV for an interview. He is also one of the initiators of a government campaign of secretly funding students in Israel and abroad who then make postings on Facebook, Twitter and so forth in favour of the current government's policies, pretending to be presenting their private opinions. While being paid (!), as shown by many sources, some mentioned in the Seaman article. This is the wider context. This approach seems to me not only of interest for those concerned about the Middle East conflict, but even more so to a "free access" and "freedom of speach" par excellance project like WP as a whole. This is what we're actually dealing with here. To the specifics: I have hardly anything to add to Zero's assessment of the issue. If trying to keep information in, on which a whole lot of people have worked over a long period of time, and which one editor, Plot Spoiler, has single-handedly decided to remove from the internet, is considered to be counterproductive to Wikipedia, then I've got nothing to add. Plot Spoiler erases (!) a whole article, vetted by a long process of editing and counter-editing, repeatedly, but he (?!!) gets to "sue" me of bringing it back, ONCE? If this makes sense to you, then go ahead and execute Arminden in the public WP square for all it's worth. Mind that Mr. Seaman & his social media savvy cohorts have set out to do precisely this, silence those of a different opinion by training university students in, say WP editing techniques (and tricks), and then paying them to do what's normally the job of the Propaganda Ministry of any honest government. If I did fall into the trap set by them, I'll take it as a badge of honour to be registered as one who opposes such manipulations. I've lived under a much harsher authoritarian regime before, and know what it's worth to do your bit while it's still possible. And believe me or not, but I am not paranoid. In short, I find this whole thing a mockery of any kind of justice. If there would be more on play other than some editing suspension, I'd sue that person (or rather personification of the word "chutzpe") from here to kingdom come. I would owe it to those who brought me up, and to the children I'm raising. But since it's what it is, and real life is calling, I'll leave it up to whoever has the authority to decide here - is it you, Spartaz? Have no clue how this works. Thanks for taking the time. Cheers, ArmindenArminden (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sepsis
Plot Spoiler deleted large parts of the page three times in 24 hours. Three different editors each reverted him. I have never edited the page but I would also have reverted Plot Spoiler's edits if I had been there. Does Plot Spoiler think WP:ARE exists to block editors he disagrees with while he can revert an unlimited number of times without consequence? Sepsis II (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where Number 57 gets the audacity to edit in the uninvolved administrator section, but his comments are nonsense; it's impossible for the editor restoring an article (Arminden) to revert twice unless the other editor (Plot Spoiler) pushes through their changes twice. Arminden, who has no history of conflict did make 2 reverts, Plot Spoiler, with a long history of problematic editing, made 3 reverts. Sepsis II (talk) 17:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * So within 24 hours the following happened: Plot spoiler made an edit, Safiel reverted it, Plot Spoiler made an edit, Nishidani and Arminden both partially reverted it, Plot Spoiler reverted Arminden...and according to the admins here the three editors who wanted to follow BRD by restoring the article would each deserve a block if they were to again restore after Plot Spoiler's last edit. So the admins here are saying it takes at least 4 editors to oppose Plot Spoiler or else Plot Spoiler gets full control of any article he touches. How do I get admins to treat me like that? Sepsis II (talk) 23:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
Here is what happened on that page, all within one 24-hour period:
 * Feb 25 18:21 Plot Spoiler blanks the whole page and adds an SD tag
 * Feb 25 18:48 Safiel reverts blanking and tagging
 * Feb 26 14:17 Over 6 consecutive edits, Plot Spoiler deletes about 55% of the page
 * Feb 26 16:13 Over 11 consecutive edits, Nishidani selectively restores much of what Plot Spoiler deleted
 * Feb 26 17:24 Arminden adds material, most of which seems to be new (or newly rewritten, I'm not sure, anyway most was not present in the version Plot Spoiler initially blanked)
 * Feb 26 17:38 Plot Spoiler reverts Arminden
 * Feb 26 17:46 Arminden reverts Plot Spoiler

If the 17:24 edit was a revert (about which I'm not sure), Arminden violated 1RR.

The boomerang against Plot Spoiler is much clearer: 3 reverts in 24 hours. As well as that, Plot Spoiler is far too experienced to not know that the Speedy Delete process is not intended for getting rid of long-standing articles that you don't like. In my opinion, that first edit is actionable by itself.

Arminden is very knowledgeable about Middle East archaeology and his edits there have been an invaluable contribution to the encyclopedia. Why he made an exception to his usual practice for this article, I don't know. I can't think of anything positive to write about Plot Spoiler. Zerotalk 01:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

,, Plot Spoiler's 6 consecutive edits deleted text that had been inserted less than 24 hours before. How on earth can that not be a revert? What is a revert if that isn't? I'm totally flabbergasted. Zerotalk 01:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

 * On 18:09, 26 February 2016‎, Arminden asked me how to go about finding someone to act as arbiter between him/her and Plot Spoiler. I can’t recall editing anywhere with Arminden, and in any case as my contributions record show, I was offline last evening, and didn’t notice the request until today. My absence, in a sense, failed his request for imput that might have avoided this brouhaha. I gave him some generic advice this morning, preferring not to drop a note here. However, I gather both from his note to me and exchanges on his talk page, that Arminden is not too familiar with this kind of procedure, so I will note the following.


 * Plot Spoiler asserted Arminden had broken 1R (as he himself had aassuredly done, see the evidence above, hence WP:Boomerang is relevant) and, as is proper, notified him that he would give him a few hours to revert.(18:27, 26 February 2016)
 * Arminden replied within just over 20 minutes evidently asking Plot Spoiler to be clearer about his 1R claim, and promising to respond.(18:48, 26 February 2016‎)‎
 * Rather than take this as a good faith request, Plot Spoiler immediately formed an AE complaint (within 12 minutes) 19:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC) and notified Arminden within 15 minutes (19:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC))

I think the whole diff record of reverts should be examined impartially, and, if IR infractions are evidenced (I won't evaluate Arminden's since I am notoriously  bad at the finer distinctions of IR), the appropriate sanctions be applied. It would be appropriate to examine who knows exactly what these rules require in editors walking into the I/P minefield. Ignorance is no excuse, but long experience in the area, which Plot Spoiler has, leading to the kind of blanking and edit-warring against other editors shouldn't exempt him from scrutiny. This place should not lend itself to tactical abuse, as appears to be the case with Plot Spoiler's failure to observe 2 hours self-restraint period he promised for Arminden to allow the latter understand the nature of his own claim, and respond.Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Liz. I don't see anything problematical in the controversies section. I've crosschecked all of those remarks and they are in the Israeli mainstream reportage, in books and the foreign press, and Seaman was fired because of this kind of remark, for which he was notorious. I don't know of many I/P BLP pages which don't minutely register comments by subjects which have stirred anger or controversy. What is unusual of the Seaman page is that he was employed to promote and manipulate images, was active on that page, which just repeated his CV from Facebook, and efforts are being made to keep it cleansed of the usual full record.Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Number 57. In six minutes, you changed your judgement that Plot Spoiler's edits were an obvious violation of 1R, to stating that On the other hand, I can't see how the 1RR accusation against Plot Spoiler stacks up. They tagged the page for deletion. This was reverted. They then deleted sections of the article they felt were inappropriate over a series of several edits, which I don't think can really be counted as reverts. They then reverted Arminden's edit – this was, IMO, their only revert.
 * My impression was that both broke 1R, Arminden once, Plot Spoiler more than once, and Plot Spoiler then rushed to complain here, which looks like the pot-calling-the-kettle-black. Whatever, both cases should be examined together, Otherwise, AE would seem to be used for tactical advantage by one party in an edit dispute. By the way, your reconstruction is flawed. Plot Spoiler did not start by 'tag(ging) the page for deletion'. He blanked it, which is about as preemptively destructive move, for an established article, one can ever get, while adding the edit summary that it should be 'speedily deleted' before anyone has time even to consider the issue.Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I've never understood how 1R is interpreted. Is this first edit not an example of an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part? After all, it wiped out a totally 'clean' bio section that had not a skerrick of criticism, together with a controversy section which was sourced to (a) Haaretz (4 times), (b) Jerusalem Post (twice), (c)Walla! (once), (d) The Guardian (once), for example. The reason given is WP:G10, which doesn't explain the blanking of the 'good part', ignores the advice to revert to a 'neutral' version (say this ) and ignores the advice at Page blanking, since it had 'useful content'. It ignored PUBLICFIGURE, since the material was reliably sourced to mainstream press reports, and, as a google check (see my reparatory edits) showed, could instantly be cross-verified in books and mainstream newspapers.  Plot Spoiler is a very experienced editor, and that edit is incomprehensible from anyone with a good grasp of policy.  I can't find any evidence in the version he erased of libelous material and it does revert (undo) stable material, both neutral (Seaman's CV) and 'controversial' (what the mainstream press reports).Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Plot Spoiler. For a long time I've tried not to comment on A/1 and AE cases, because, when one does, it is automatically taken as evidence of an intrinsic lack of neutrality, and if others do also, as ganging up. But the problem here is rule evidence, and I want that 1R rule clarified. From the outset I thought Arminden broke it, you too. But as anyone reading my page knows, I always, when warned I might be breaking the rule, I ask experts to look at the diffs, and if I am told I broke it, then I undertake to revert. My editing principle re 1R is simple. If I change the text of the page, and someone else then intervenes, I don't alter anything on the page for 24 hours (I usually just add more information in the meantime). By that criterion you too broke 1R. Shit happens, but it is (a) highly improper to give someone 2 hours to revert, and when asked to clarify the revert principle, within minutes go back on your word and report the person (b) if you too broke 1R as some think, then you are bringing a complain over rule violation after yourself breaking the same rule.  Speaking for myself, I can't understand why the interpretation of 1R is proving, even among experienced admins, to be something over which they disagree. To ask that this be clarified is not a personal attack. And, ps. you have given zero evidence that the Daniel Seaman 'Controversies' section was defamatory or libelous. Such sections are standard here (Dov Lior, Norman Finkelstein, Alan Dershowitz,Steven Salaita,Juan Cole,Daniel Pipes,Richard A. Falk,Avigdor Lieberman,John Dugard etc.etc note defenders of Israel's policies and critics alike cop the same treatment). Virtually any public figure in the I/P area is subject to intense scrutiny, accusations, and controversies, and your blanking  made an exception of the rule for Daniel Seaman, giving him an exemption, when he has a documented notoriety in the mainstream press for rash statements. If your criterion is correct there are several hundred pages that require urgent blanking.Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Either both sanctioned, or neither, is fine. But what really troubles me here is that neither editors nor admins can agree on what constitutes 1R, which means that all these reviews of behavior become subjective, and editors will continue to edit using different understandings of the one guiding principle. This has nothing to do with partisanship, but with a level 'playing field'. That is the crux of the matter.Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by AnotherNewAccount
Arminden is an excellent editor, but he does seem to have a total bee-in-his-bonnet over this individual. The History clearly shows him reverting IPs, rightly or wrongly, with some pretty ranty and incollegiate edit summaries over a long period of time. Too numerous to list them all, but here is a few: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Seaman&diff=643471870&oldid=633972266][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Seaman&diff=649157355&oldid=648612927], these two verge on WP:OWN: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Seaman&diff=671117431&oldid=671115169][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Seaman&diff=672016753&oldid=672007126]

He is also the author of much of the "problematic" negative material, see here: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Seaman&diff=568383752&oldid=548986856][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Seaman&diff=651791055&oldid=651775354]; subsequently drive-by tagged the page for POV: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Seaman&diff=666062075&oldid=666061889].

I see this as a more of an ARBBLP issue, rather than an ARBPIA violation, and in all honesty, Plot Spoiler has a point when he notes severe NPOV and BLP issues here. I can only recommend that Arminden be banned from editing this particular article if he cannot do so with due neutrality; he's otherwise an superb editor in every way. The article itself should also probably be referred to the neutral point of view noticeboard.

Administrators should take note that Arminden edits the topic with extremely and perhaps naively good faith. He is in fact probably the only editor in the entire topic area for whom it has been impossible to fathom which "side" he favours. This is both rare and valuable. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

 * I'm not sure how you come up with PS only having made one revert. Any blanking of an article or section is by definition a revert. A revert is any edit that reverses, in part or in whole, another editors edits. Blanking reverses another editor(s) edits in the most basic sense. The blanking of the article by itself is the first revert, each additional edit that blanked a section is also a revert. PS did not simply "tag the page for deletion". This is the first revert, this is the second revert, and this is the third. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Plot Spoiler, Im not sure how my hands are unclean here, as far as I know Ive never edited the article in question. I do however have a problem with a user edit-warring and making a report against the user they are edit-warring with (ie what "clean hands" actually refers to). Im kind of at a loss how anybody can say the initial blanking and the section blankings that followed were not reverts, but I dont care enough to really get into it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Arminden

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


 * Waiting to hear from but I'd usually like to see evidence of a pattern or behaviour rather than a single incidence before sanctions come into the frame. If there are BLP concerns than the usual form is for the disputed claims to be removed and then a consensus formed on what, if anything, goes back. In a case where the claims are sourced and an A10 has been turned down, I wonder what the threshold should be for that to kick in. I'm wondering how far BLP concerns might protect you from sanctions when edit warring is going on. Spartaz Humbug! 15:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edit history of the article, it doesn't appear that this edit of Armiden's is a revert. There are several editors with one revert who have reverted Plot Spoiler and it is disappointing to see this request at AE rather than see the dispute taken to the article talk page which has had no activity since July 2015. I agree that with Spartaz that if the concerns are BLP-related, the material is removed and then a consensus needs to be formed and, right now, Plot Spoiler, the numbers are against you so you should present a persuasive argument. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Arminden's first edit is a partial revert. Comparing Plot Spoilers' combination of edits with Arminden's first edit, Arminden has readded verbatim several parts of text that Plot Spoiler removed, specifically
 * "In August 2013, Seaman was suspended from his government position as Director of Interactive Media because of offensive comments he made about Japanese commemorating the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Palestinians commemorating the Nakba"
 * "This notwithstanding, there were numerous complaints about his treatment of journalists unsympathetic to Israeli policies (see Controversies below)."
 * The "Comments against Japanese nuclear victim commemorations" and "Anti-Palestinian online postings" have been readded exactly as removed.
 * Two bullet points in the "Media and book coverage section" have been readded exactly as removed by Plot Spoiler
 * As a result, I think this is a 1RR violation. On the other hand, I can't see how the 1RR accusation against Plot Spoiler stacks up. They tagged the page for deletion. This was reverted. They then deleted sections of the article they felt were inappropriate over a series of several edits, which I don't think can really be counted as reverts. They then reverted Arminden's edit – this was, IMO, their only revert. Number   5  7  13:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I took the statements of other editors on Plot Spoiler's supposed reverts at face value, but then realised that the accusations didn't really stack up. Number   5  7  14:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The last addition of any text to the article prior to Arminden's series of edits was on 30 August 2015 (although there were a few tweaks after that, the last of which was on 21 October 2015. I presume you are claiming that this edit is insertion of material, but it's the declining of the speedy deletion – there was no addition of any new material to the article. Number   5  7  08:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I interpret this situation as a 1RR violation by Arminden, and propose a one-week block. It's quite a stretch to assert that Plot Spoiler violated 1RR. I concur with Number 57's assessment of that part of the conflict. I'm willing to allow additional latitude there in any case, as a BLP. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to close without action. This seems a little technical and I think a warning will suffice but happy to give way to a consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 23:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , : Agree that closing with no action is suitable. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Admins differ on whether 1RR was broken by one or both editors. I join Spartaz and propose this be closed with no action. The events at the Daniel Seaman article look like an edit war in which both sides bear some responsibility. There is not enough here to clearly justify a block of either party. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Request concerning Markus2685

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 19:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 :


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Markus2685


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


 * 


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Something weird is going on at AFDs Articles for deletion/Khojaly massacre memorials and Articles for deletion/Khojaly Massacre recognition. 6 new accounts popped up in a quick succession to make similar comments and votes. Looks like an attempt at votestacking by using sock accounts. I have a reason to suspect that it is the nominator himself, and checkuser results seem to indicate that it could be so. But an admin needs to make the judgment call, and since it is an arbitration covered area, the discretionary sanctions may apply. Grand master  19:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Markus2685
''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 Markus2685
As far as I know there is the possibility of checking IPs of users on Wikipedia. If done so, you would have seen that my account is not the same. So this is a false assumption on behalf of user Grandmaster. Basically anyone endorsing my arguments that I stated could have opened accounts copying my statements and that's it. For example anyone can create accounts, copying user Grandmasters arguments, and then I could accuse Grandmaster of creating sockpuppets. As I already mentioned these accounts (at least some of them) also seem weird to me, so just block them and problem solved. Markus2685 (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Markus2685

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


 * Waiting for comment by Markus2685 Spartaz Humbug! 23:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since there are AfDs involved, the closing admin should be able to make appropriate judgments on the weight to give to the delete opinions from brand-new accounts. The evidence from the sock case will also be helpful to that admin. There is certainly a chance that the articles themselves are promoting one side of the dispute. The Khojaly massacre was real, but consideration might be given to merging the content of these two articles into Khojaly massacre. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This does not seem to need AE action, let the SPI take it's course and the AFDs as well. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 09:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. I'm closing this with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Konullu
''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 Konullu

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 20:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:AA2

Konullu is violating his topic ban. He has done this twice already, and has been blocked for it.
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) 27 February 2016 at Articles_for_deletion/Khojaly massacre memorials
 * 2) 27 February 2016 at Articles for deletion/Khojaly Massacre recognition
 * 3) There's also topic ban violations that went unnoticed for awhile:


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 26 February 2013 topic banned by
 * 2) 28 February 2013 blocked for violating the topic ban by
 * 3) 16 March 2013 blocked for violating the topic ban by


 * 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 26 February 2013 by.

ping what about all the other topic ban violations? Should we go ahead and revert those too? -- Ե րևանցի talk  12:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Konullu
''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 Konullu
I thought that my topic ban did not apply to AFDs. Sincerely, Konullu (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone else has already done it on both AfD pages. Best, Konullu (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Grandmaster
It's been 3 years since the topic ban, with no misconduct. Konullu should probably appeal his ban, and his vote in AFD, while formally a ban violation, is not in my opinion a severe disruption. Grand master  22:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Konullu

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


 * Noting that this is the second edit in yonks - out of nowhere. I'm suspecting off wiki collusion. Spartaz Humbug! 11:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are saying you didn't know the topic ban applied to AfDs. I propose that you strike out the comments you made in the two AfDs. This might be enough for admins to close this complaint without action. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The AfD votes by Konullu have now been struck out by others. I propose we close this complaint with no further action. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You could undo the other four edits if you want but they are in a gray area. I recommend leaving them in place. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz
''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 Malik_Shabazz

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 10:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2 :


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


 * 1) 1st March 2016 Indicates a battleground mentality, as well as making chilling threats in order to gain an upper hand in a content dispute, as well as personal attacks against another user editing in good faith.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) August 2015 Link is by necessity fuzzy. Essentially previous actions by Malik_Shabazz which led to his de-sysop.


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

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

As Spartaz has now hatted all the comments above, I have copied all the hatted comments here in order to save time. (If the above request gets archived before this one is done, it will be a pain moving back and forth to track comments)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

As Nishidani has struck out my copy of his previous comments I assume he is retracting them in full.

Essentially as with his desysop previously, Malik has shown no remorse and no intention to abide by wikipedia's editing and collegiality policies. While there may have been some mitigating circumstances previously, there is absolutely no excuse for threatening to go to the press if you dont get your own way. As Malik on his talkpage and ANI has refused to withdraw his comments, it must be taken that his threat is genuine. So while a ban under discretionary sanctions from American Politics might solve the immediate problem, unless he retracts his threat how is any editor supposed to edit in the same area as him with that sort of threat hanging over them? That if you dont agree with them, they are going to go to the press and smear you.

Notified.
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Malik_Shabazz
''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 Malik_Shabazz
Since the flavor of the day is quoting walls of text, here's my post from yesterday at WP:AN/I:
 * If you think you all are following common sense and WP:No original research, you should be proud of the fact that you accept on its face every Christian profession of faith—no matter how preposterous—and put "Presbyterianism" in the infobox as the religion of a man universally agreed to be lying about his faith, but require a litmus test of your own making for self-identified Jews. How can outside scrutiny have a chilling effect? I asked editors at No original research/Noticeboard why they thought it was okay for editors to subject Jews to a scrutiny not required of other biographical subjects, and I was basically told to shut up and go away. Well, I may go away but I will not shut up. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Torven, if you think editors are engaging in behavior that casts aspersions on the project, stop them. I've tried, but nobody seems to give a fuck.

Wikipedia's moronic and self-important double standard concerning Jews is perfectly embodied by this edit, which changed the phrase "celebrated his bar mitzvah in 1954" to "became a bar mitzvah in 1954" with the edit summary "we don't know if he celebrated it". I look forward to editors changing the word "celebrate" to "commemorate" or "mark" throughout Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources indicating that the individuals involved were, in fact, celebrating. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that this is going to further inflame some of you, but are your heads really that far up your asses?!? You are posting on a publicly visible website, both when you engage in original research concerning Bernie Sanders's Jewishness and when you cry crocodile tears about my "threats"—a single threat I made to ask the public to pay attention to what you're doing. If you don't think your behavior will stand up to public scrutiny, if you think my threat will cast aspersions on you or the project or bring you or it into disrepute, ask yourself what you're doing that you're so embarrassed for the public to see. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani
Saying one will notify the press of one's personal view Wikipedia discriminates in its treatment of Jewish as opposed to Christian (politicians) is not a threat. One Jewish editor has already been banned in this context. Highly respected editors and admins who self-identify as Jewish such as Cullen and Gamaliel disagree with perceptions, shared by most, myself included, on this, and therefore we are troubled by an authentic cultural/cognitive clash precisely re 'Jews' here. Editors asking for action against Malik Shabazz for his exasperation fast on the heels of the Sir Joseph case (which was serious). will not go the extra yard to try and see where his disgruntlement is coming from, caused him to be desysopped in the earlier conflict with a tactically provocative editor. I must register my sense of extreme discomfort that, in this context, legal pettifoggery is getting out of hand. Take the larger view, be tolerant in the light of the overwhelming evidence of the whole record, and let this die on its feet, please.Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Starke Hathaway
Given that the previous instance of intemperance from Shabazz (which I can't link here because it has been revdeled but which is detailed in Ceradon's statement here) also involved inappropriate comments about another editor in relation to being Jewish, I wonder if it might be appropriate for him to step back from Jewish topics generally. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , following your link I see an admonishment that ArbCom passed for MONGO (and a topic ban for a different editor), but I don't see any action relating to Malik Shabazz. Have I misunderstood what you meant to say, or did you perhaps mean to link something else? Additionally, I have concerns about Shabazz's statement above linking the phrase a man universally agreed to be lying about his faith to a biography of a living person in light of WP:BLP and WP:BLPTALK. Maybe it would be best to redact/revdel? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon
Should I withdraw the ANI report to avoid a duplicate discussion? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Never mind. It was already closed by "The other Guy" :) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Torven
It may not be a legal threat, but the "or else" of any ultimatum is always a threat of some kind. In this case, it's a threat to cast aspersions about the project and, by extension, several involved users in the press. Even if No Legal Threats doesn't apply, it should qualify as a threat of off-wiki harassment. Torven (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy
The idea that "going to the press" is a threat to "smear" somebody or is a threat of "off-wiki harassment" is preposterous. Somebody wants to write something here they can take responsibility for their actions. If somebody would be embarrassed by their own actions if they were reported, well then perhaps they should have considered their actions more carefully prior to committing them. Maybe Malik should have just gone to the press without telling anybody here that he would, but that seems a bit underhanded and underhandedness doesnt seem to be Malik's strong suit. If yall so confident in your actions why exactly are you concerned about them being reported?

Statement by James J. Lambden
It's clear this is an effort by some editors to brand Sanders with a digital star of David. This kind of attack is extremely upsetting. I'll be forwarding my summary along with the usernames of editors who continue to pursue this to the ADL who no doubt WILL take action. This is perfectly acceptable and not a threat. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Malik's problematic edits
 * 18 February 2016 "reply to ignorant comment", "FFS, can you not read what you wrote?", "anybody who can read English can see that isn't the fucking question"
 * 18 February 2016 "that was not the "stable" version; it was the deletion of his religion by OR-pushing busy-bodies that required the RfC"
 * 20 February 2016 "Oh, I forgot. Wikipedia only has a double standard when it comes to Jews."
 * 22 February 2016 "Yes, Winkelvi, so WHERE ARE THE SOURCES THAT SAY GOLDWATER WAS THE FIRST JEW TO WIN A PRIMARY or that SANDERS WAS NOT THE FIRST JEW TO DO SO? Put up or shut up already"

@Drmies If I end up banned for pointing out antisemitism I will notify the press. This is not a threat. James J. Lambden (talk) 08:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender
I'm personally concerned on a couple of accounts: (1) That a user who until August 2015 was one of the most remarkably civil and patient of editors, not to mention admins, is repeating nearly the sort of hostility that got him desysopped and caused him to retire. (2) That I can't figure out what has caused this personality change, and because of my admiration and love for him, I hope is not something serious off-wiki. (3) That the "battleground" at issue is something rather COI-ish, in that Malik is Jewish, which COI does not reflect well on him considering his behavior and his level of hostility on this subject matter re: the Sanders issue. (4) That he has repeatedly (in edit summaries and in posts) called Guy Macon a troll. Guy Macon is a lot of things, and can often be very frustrating (especially if one does not agree with him), but he is not a troll and should never be called one. (Wikipedia discussion should proceed on logic and policy, not on insults and ad hominem attacks.) I find all these developments very worrying. I want my old Malik Shabazz back. I want peace and civility to reign, regardless of whether Wikipedia consensus agrees with my/someone's/anyone's personal viewpoint or preference. I recommend an admonishment here but no action. Softlavender (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC); edited 07:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Curly Turkey
I provided a link. Did you follow it? These aren't "losing his cool" when he digs in his heels like that. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You've seen his behaviour here and how he refuses to back down from it; you've seen the same dig-in-his-heels behaviour in the link I provided, where despite being unambiguously wrong, he only upped the ante with accusations of antisemitism; and you've seen his behaviour at Talk:Bernie Sanders. How many diffs more do you need until I've met the quota?  ("since day one" refers to "day one" of the Sanders dispute). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I second Masem's suggestion, which I'm surprised isn't already policy or something—Wikipedia can't seriously tolerate threats of this nature. What's doubly disturbing is that so many seem to want this slide "because it's Malik". Obviously not too many Wikipedians would have gotten away with this behaviour. If I made such a threat, which I have remained unblocked? How many commenters here would believe an admin who answered "yes" to that question? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As if you're here because people are "afraid" of you. So put out and go to the fucking press already.  I know I have nothing to hide—but you sure as fuck have. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
For me, this is not really about Malik Shabazz. I have nothing bad to say about Malik as an editor, I always thought he was a good admin, and his de-sysopping was an aberration, but if this incident is allowed to go by without something being done about it – not a sanction, not a block or topic ban, but at the very least a formal warning – then it opens the door for every Wikipedian who feels as strongly about their religion/ethnicity/nationality/gender/sexuality/neural state/fraternal organization/whatever as Malik does about being Jewish to say "DO X ABOUT Y OR I"M GOING TO THE PRESS", and that is simply an untenable situation. It creates a terrible precedent that has the potential of crippling certain controversial subject areas even more so then they are already.In my best Cassandra manner let me say: if you don't deal with it now, you're going to be dealing with much worse instances in the future - and, let's face it, if it wasn't Malik, you would be dealing with it – and that's understandable, but very, very unfortunate.At least that's how I see it, but I know I'm swimming upstream. BMK (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Although I appreciate MrX's agreement with my points, I would ask him to strike-through his comments concerning Drmies, a respected editor and one of the saner people amongst us; he certainly did nothing to deserve that. BMK (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be a pleasure to allow Malik to "recover his equilibrium", but his statements since the original one have only reinforced his original statement; I have not seen any signs of regret or apology on his part - I think that he honestly believes what he is saying, which is fine, but his words do not speak towards reaching a "personal equilibrium," rather they indicate that he intends to pursue his original tack. Which is why some response from Wikipedia's admins is warranted.  (And, incidentally, if anyone was wondering, if Malik was to calm down, I'd be in favor of a re-RfA, must he must get past this to the extent that he can be civil once again.) BMK (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MrX
The statements by, , and few others capture my thoughts perfectly. , your comments are so nonsensical it leaves me wondering whether you were drunk when you wrote them, or if you're just trolling. I used to have lot of respect for you, before you decided to co-opt Wikipedia to right great wrongs.- MrX 21:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Drmies knows I love him, in spite of his faults.- MrX 21:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Masem
Agreeing with Beyond My Ken that this isn't presently an issue ArbCom should handle. Instead, I would think that the community should develop a companion to No Legal Threats based on "No Third-Party Threats" that are intended to prevent claims of going to an external entity to try to enact change on WP. Whether that is going to the press, claiming to engage an external forum, meatpuppets, etc., all have the intent of chilling speech, typically the same intent that a legal threat has. These aren't as actionable as legal threats (eg there's nothing legally wrong going to the press), hence must be handled differently, but there behavior issues that should be strongly discouraged and captured in some policy. --M ASEM (t) 21:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Irondome
I can only thoroughly concur with Nish's statement upthread. This is a complex issue which is being addressed by consensual discussion amongst colleagues who identify as Jewish and have differing views on cultural and cognitive concepts of that definition. I have my own views on this, but I am seeing a hugely respected and wise human being being again harassed, I believe unwittingly, on the heels of a deeply problematic dysopping, which has had significant emotional impact on Malik. He was trolled and goaded, and yet he had the courage to return and continue to support the project despite his evident distress. It would be wise and kind to back off and leave a fine editor to regain his equilibrium. Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Malik_Shabazz

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


 * I do not see this at all as a kind of off-wiki threat; we typically reserve that terminology for harassment aimed at specific editors. Yes, I see all-caps and someone losing their cool, and I think understandably so: for a self-professed Jewish editor like Malik this is a Big Deal. That almost interminable discussion on Sanders is tricky, but we typically apply sanctions when editors create an unworkable environment, start edit-warring, harass people, and--besides the use of the word "troll", which I don't condone--engage in personal harassment to a blockable extent. The discussion about Sanders, I am sad to say I was there at its inception, and it may well be unsolvable, but applying a sanction on Malik is too much, at least for me. If you follow you can see an admonishment, and that is as far as I am willing to go at this time. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Softlavender, I don't see a personality change, and your statement "that Malik is Jewish, which again does not reflect well on him and his behavior", I can parse that in three of four different ways, none of which reflect well on you--I hope you didn't mean it that way. If "Jewishness" is a COI, so is non-Jewishness. @James J. Lambden, your remarks (about "branding" etc) are blockable already, if I read your somewhat confusing remarks correctly. If you want to compare "Jewish" in an infobox to "branding with a Star of David", you have nicely rephrased Godwin, and I am waiting for some other admin to determine what it is, given your edit history, that you are here for, besides trolling. Drmies (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur with that applying a sanction is overkill. The outburst by Malik is certainly poor form and a breach of decorum, though., you assert that this is part of a pattern of behavior but don't provide any diffs. Claims like "melodramatically accusing everyone he meets of antisemitism" certainly need to be substantiated for us to consider such behavior. In fact, I'd argue that you shouldn't make claims like that unless you're going to provide evidence. -- Laser brain   (talk)  01:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read your one link. What I'm saying is that you've alleged a "persistent approach ... since day one" which obviously requires more than one diff to support. -- Laser brain  (talk)  06:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * While Malik certainly went over the lines of civility, I don't think this meets the criteria for an AE action at this time. If there is indeed the long term pattern of abuse that claims, then I would recommend taking this to an actual Arbitration Committee case. Until then, I think it would be a misrepresentation of the AP case for us to take action on Malik at this time. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee  //  have a cup  //  beans  // 13:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you read the motion about Malik at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 case, it appears that many of the arbs wanted to find a way to return the tools to Malik, but he wasn't interested. It's regrettable that we are in a new dust-up here. I hope it doesn't continue, and for now, the request should be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not Jewish (I'm Catholic, for what it's worth.) and I'm not sure why I'm bring brought up here by name. I think the editing dispute at the heart of this really needs more community input and perhaps the some of the editors (NOTE the plural) most heavily involved need to step aside and let other editors solve this.  I'm not going to say anything more in case this comes before the Committee.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I can attest to the fact that regularly edits and even arbitrates while extremely drunk.  In all seriousness, that's quite enough of talk like that from anyone.  This dispute is heated enough as it is.  Everyone please stop with statements involving other editors drinking, trolling, or just existing, and limit our comments to edits.    Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sir Joseph

 * Appealing user : – Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  17:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : Bernie Sanders Topic Ban - One Week


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator :

Statement by Sir Joseph
On the talk page there are a few editors who are stubbornly refusing to allow "Relgion:Jewish" in the infobox of Bernie Sander's article even though it is thoroughly sourced through reliable sources and self soured as well. A few editors then came up with a new policy that says that it has to come from Bernie's own mouth, as per Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality. Firstly, that is not a infobox policy, that is a categorization policy, but even so, the page says right on the top: "guideline,... best treated with common sense...and occasional exceptions..." When a Senator has a press kit on the SENATE.GOV's website we may treat that as his own words. That being said, I still found an article that had Sanders, IN HIS OWN WORDS, say, "I am proud to be Jewish." So I added that to the article as per the talk page. Since the entire talk page consensus was that Bernie's Jewishness could only be included only if he said it himself, here's an article that said it himself and I thought we can put this stupid matter to rest. Those editors opposing the inclusion of the Jewish reference, blindly ignoring all the evidence of his Jewishness, are requiring Bernie saying he is Jewish in his own words. So I found an article that said he is Jewish and proud of it. That is all Wikipedia should be doing. What these editors want to do is now determine level of observance and that is not what the infobox or what Wikipedia is all about. We don't do it for other religions and we shouldn't start doing it for Jews.
 * As per Liz I am shortening my comments.
 * JzG what rope? As Spartaz pointed out in his comment, you can't listen to guy Macon and his list of diffs. The ban was updated. So I sill fail to see the rope, and justification for an extension other than me bringing this appeal.
 * To Bishonen and Laser, again, I never called anyone an antisemite and you should strike that out. As others have pointed out here and elsewhere, when you are scrutinizing only the Jew for special treatment, then something does smell wrong. Whether you mean it or not, it is perceived as such. Especially in 2016, most recently Cullen328 said something similar, Gamaliel, Nishidani and other upstanding editors said similar.
 * Firstly if I may say I think there is a double standard judging by this and the below AE. Second, I also think many admins are looking at Guy Macon's timeline without realizing that the timeline was before Coffee modified his defective ban and I did not violate any TBAN. I really have no idea why you guys are thinking of a six month extension for something I didn't do. All I did was bring this appeal after I got a one week ban. Is that really such an offense? And I note again that Coffee posted a comment in the uninvolved admin section.
 * @Coffee, I would be very hard pressed to say you are uninvolved in this AE.

Statement by Coffee
I have nothing to add to what I've already stated at my talk page, the article's talk page, and in the sanction at 's talk page. (Unless this is somehow unclear to other uninvolved admins... which I doubt.) <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 18:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As he is refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK, I've updated the ban to state page instead of article (as requested by Bishonen at my talk page). <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 19:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You may want to read the notice at the top of your appeal: "Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED)." <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 18:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon
Removed because there is a reasonable argument that the wording of the topic ban could be read as not applying to the talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding Sir Joseph's various and sundry accusations towards me, my only interest in Bernie Sanders is to bring it into compliance with the consensus at Template talk:Infobox and Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 28. As my extensive edit history clearly shows, I have no particular interest in religion articles or political articles. Contrast this with Sir Joseph's edit history, Contrast this with Sir Joseph's edit history, which shows that his primary interest is articles related to Jews and Judaism. I don't particularly like being called antisemetic for attempting to implement the consensus from those RfCs. I choose to edit using my real name and that's the sort of false accusation that tends to follow you around.


 * I would also like to comment on Sir Joseph's unsupported assertion "The claim that Bernie Sanders is not Jewish is the one that is dangerous and is a BLP violation." That comment is indicative of the problem that the other editors on the Sander's page are facing. Leaving aside for a moment that it is a bald-faced lie -- not one single editor has ever claimed that Bernie Sanders is not Jewish and Sir Joseph knows it -- it also shows a determination to Right Great Wrongs by hijacking a discussion that should be about removing his topic ban and turning it into a discussion about Bernie Sanders being a Jew.


 * In my opinion, the best interests of the encyclopedia would be served by an indefinite topic ban from all pages relating to Jews of Judaism, broadly construed, with the standard offer that if Sir Joseph shows that he can edit constructively in other areas for six months there is a high probability that a request that the topic ban be lifted will be granted. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Related discussion: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Material removed by request of uninvolved admin. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz
Can we talk about the elephant in the room? Guy Macon is a troll whose disruptive editing started this conflict—when he removed Senator Sanders's religion from the infobox—and he has edit-warred to keep it out, violating 3RR in the process. I don't know who appointed Guy Macon King of the Jews, but it's time for somebody to step up and put an end to his original research that he, and only he, is qualified to determine who is sufficiently Jewish to be be identified as a Jew in their infobox.

I'm sorry that it's come to this, but WP:OR/N is horribly broken:

PUT AN END TO THIS BULLSHIT OR I WILL NOTIFY THE PRESS THAT WIKIPEDIA HAS ONE STANDARD FOR BIOGRAPHIES OF CHRISTIANS AND ANOTHER FOR BIOGRAPHIES OF JEWS. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Curly Turkey

 * Someone might want to look into Malik's behaviour as well—he whips out that "King of the Jews" thing at anyone who disagrees with him with alarming frequency, and his "I WILL NOTIFY THE PRESS" is in violation of the spirit if not strictly the letter of No legal threats. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * your statement would make sense if this were simply a blowup on Malik's part, but rather it's been his whole persistent approach to the Sanders kerfuffle since day one, both there and in other fora. And he's not known from backing down from his statements, no matter how plainly and undeniably wrong he's proven to be. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Jesus, Nishidani, if Malik's behaviour—melodramatically accusing everyone he meets of antisemitism, threatening to take Wikipedia to "the press" is magnificent, and refusing to retract statements he himself know are empirically wrong—is "magnificent", then I have to wonder what behaviour you would object to. He's crossed any number of lines.  Well, whatever you think of him, his threat will have to be dealt with. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You're suggesting an empty Infobox field is OR? The argument is not whether he is or is not Jewish, which is covered in detail in the article body, but whether the Infobox should state: "Religion: Jewish" (and the larger question—whether infoboxes should state people's religions at all, which many of us are opposed to). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Winkelvi

 * Did Malik Shabazz really just issue a threat to damage Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation with a statement to the press that would essentially state Wikipedia condones and engages in anti-Semitism? That has to fall under WP:NLT.  Admins who have commented here need to be made aware of this.  Pinging, , , .  I think it's also worth mentioning that Malik is a here as a result of canvassing  by SirJoseph.  It also should be noted that Sir Joseph has actually violated his topic ban by continuing to discuss the article here, relentlessly, for over a day since the topic ban was imposed.  Admins below are endorsing a six month topic ban.  I would suggest that this would be not just reasonable but appropriate since SJ continues to violate the topic ban based on discussing the topic/article here and using this forum as a soapbox for discussion, abusing the purpose of this forum.  Enough is enough.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  15:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted Sir Joseph has continued to discuss the Sanders article here and here, in spite of and in violation of his topic ban. Obviously, he doesn't take the TBAN seriously or care that it exists. Since his violation of the ban is pretty much being ignored, I have to wonder if admins who have commented take it seriously, too. Not trying to cause problems, but, really? Why is he being allowed to continue in this manner? -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 04:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani
Could we lay off Malik Shabazz. That's not a legal threat. He's quite correct that there is something odd in the way, as distinct from other ethnicities, issues regarding Jews lead to humongous, ill-informed threads. I believe he is wrong to identify this as coming from only one side: Sir Joseph and others have relentlessly tried to pull Sanders into a conventional Jewish religious identity on the basis of his Jewish identity, confusing ethnicity with religion, birth with metaphysics. That Identity issues are extremely sensitive matters, particular in this regard, and upset people is only to be expected and we should not make a mountain out of a molehill. Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Curly Turkey. If Malik, whose editing I've observed for nearly a decade, happens to perceive something I've missed, or can't see, I think about it. If he is pissed off, I'm not going to grizzle. His record has been, aside from one slip caused by having to edit with a fucking idiot, magnificent. So don't niggle away. There were lots of stupid remarks said on both sides, and it is pointless fussing. Drop it.Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Darkfrog24
At first this looks like just a content dispute, but according to Coffee's official notice, Sir J was sanctioned for failing to get consensus before adding disputed content. And Sir J seems to be saying "Even though I didn't wait for the other editors to say 'okay' on the talk page, I did find exactly what they asked for, so I shouldn't be topic-banned." Is that correct? As for content, I've been in a similar situation and it is very frustrating, but editors don't always say what it is that they really want (or they don't list all their reasons). What worked in my case was that a neutral party came in, figured out what the additional issue was, and then we ran a clearly worded RfC that addressed that issue directly. In that case, the other editors were asking for reliable sources, but the additional issue was the subjective editorial decision of whether the content improved the article. I didn't understand why no matter how many sources I found they still weren't happy. Once we were able to deal with these matters separately, things proceeded in a quick and civilized fashion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC) EDIT: Okay, I went through the RfC thread and I don't see any clear version of "Just find us a reliable source that says X and we're fine with the addition." Rather, the discussion focuses on ethnic vs. religious Judaism, on participation and on whether Sanders' Jewish status is notable. Maybe Sir J found what one or two of the many participants said they wanted, and props for the legwork, but that's not enough to reasonably assume that most of the participants would be satisfied. (Also, Spacklick seems to be addressing the editorial issue directly.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
"Jewish" has multiple meanings. It's original research to label someone as professing a religious faith when they may simply be commenting on part of their ethnic background. There are lots of agnostic/atheist Jews, and so on. So, it doesn't matter how many places he says he's proud to be Jewish, it has no impact on the infobox parameter unless and until we have him saying he's religiously Jewish. And that probably something that should be a self-statement, for a BLP, especially one subjected to racist and faith-based slurs from Christian rednecks and the like. E.g., if Fox News claims he goes to synagogue, that's not a reliable source. An infobox religion parameter is a very blunt instrument. What Sanders's "Jewishness" entails, to the extent it's even encyclopedic, is a matter best explored in the article body, like the "Irishness" of various individuals in certain parts of that island in various time periods, and so on. Not every group label is a cut-and-dry matter. I don't see any recognition of this complexity and nuance on the part of the appellant, just a certainty that a great wrong is being done by not putting the word "Jewish" into that slot in the infobox. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Only in Death

 * BLP is quite clear, and has consistantly been upheld at the BLP noticeboard on this: we dont make blanket statements of fact over controversial issues regarding living people where there is contradictory information. We explore the contradictions in the prose. No one has denied Sander is Jewish. However there is enough contradictory sources, including statements from the subject, that having religion in infobox state 'Jewish' is not appropriate. No one has suggested it cant be explored in the article, as that would be the appropriate place. Infobox's however only allow for definite facts. Of which Sander's religion is not one.
 * Malik's threat above however is frankly ridiculous. We apply the same criteria to other potentially controversial infobox subjects like sexuality. Absent a clear declaration from the subject they are X, we dont state subject is X. Sanders states he is Jewish, but does not clearly state his religion is Jewish. There are no excuses - everybody should be aware by now why there is a difference, and if they are not, they shouldnt be editing articles on Jewish people.
 * Personally I think anyone making threats to go to the press unless they are allowed to tag public figures as religious Jews should be banned for life from all Jewish-related articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

In reply to JamesBWatson - His PR presspack (which was available on the website) listed his religion as 'Jewish'. -ninja edit- Appears to still be available on right hand side via 'download press package' button. If there were no contradictory sources, as a primary source this would usually be enough. However when the subject themselves also states they are not religious it gets a bit murkier. Its just not clear cut enough for a definitive infobox statement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JamesBWatson

 * SMcCandlish and Only in death are perfectly right: I have known many people of Jewish ancestry who describe themselves as "Jewish" despite not believing in or following the Jewish religion, so describing oneself as "proud to be Jewish" is not proof that one follows that religion. Since Sir Joseph makes it abundantly clear that his ban appeal is because he wishes to persist in his campaign to include Jewish as Sanders's religion, substantially on the basis of the statement "I am proud to be Jewish", without indication whether that means "religiously Jewish" or not, the appeal should not be allowed. Furthermore, Sir Joseph also makes the bizarre claim that putting "Jewish" as ethnicity is "antisemitic", and if he intends to edit in relation to jews on the basis of such weird views as that, then that is further confirmation that he should not be trusted to edit in relation to jews. He goes on to say "All the other politicians do not have to worry about their religious observances but if you're Jewish then you need to measure it up or you might not get to be labeled Jewish enough by the Wikipedia editors", but if after all that has been said to him about this issue, on various pages, he still has not grasped that the whole point is that neither he nor anyone else has produced evidence that judaism is Sanders's "religious observance" then that is yet further confirmation that he is incapable of editing in this area, and that the topic ban should stay.


 * Malik Shabazz's comments about different standards for Christians and Jews is utterly absurd: does he really not know that the word "Christian" is used only to mean people of a particular religion, whereas "Jewish" is used to refer both to religion and to ethnicity, so that the two are not comparable? I would counsel him to be cautious about carrying out his threat (childishly shouted at us in capital letters) to "expose" us to the press for treating the two as different cases, because the two are different cases.


 * One last point: Sir Joseph says "Relgion:Jewish (sic) is on his Senate.gov website", but I have searched http://www.sanders.senate.gov and various subpages of that page, such as http://www.sanders.senate.gov/about, and nowhere can I find that stated. Can Sir Joseph tell us exactly where in that web site the information is to be found? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Maunus
I second SmCandlish's statement. The argument for putting the label in the religion slot, ignores the fact that unlike the word "Christian" the word "Jewish" is polysemic and does not only refer to religion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector
Is this section meant to be broken up by sub-headers? No matter I guess.

Sir Joseph is clearly in violation of his topic ban, I mean there can be no question, this entire appeal is continuing to discuss Bernie Sanders, the topic that Sir Joseph is banned from. I expect to see appeals in the form, "this topic ban is invalid because <evidence the ban rationale was incorrect>" or some such. For example, Sir Joseph could argue that was mistaken and SJ actually didn't add contentious information with without ( corrected 20:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC) ) firm consensus, and/or point to the discussion which established that consensus, or that he didn't edit war to reinsert it, or perhaps Sir Joseph would argue that he was not aware of the discretionary sanctions. But that is not Sir Joseph's approach, he's merely continuing to argue that he's right. But let's assume he did make an appeal of that sort.

Was there consensus for the edit? The large, open RfC on the talk page suggests not. It's still open, of course, but I think it's a pretty big leap to say it's going to close as support. So there's no consensus.

Did Sir Joseph edit war to add the edit? He sure did. Not to mention that these edits came while the matter was still being hotly contested on the talk page, he ought to have known, sourced or not, that these edits would be contentious.

Was Sir Joseph aware of the discretionary sanctions? I find it hard to believe that anybody edits in topic areas like these without knowing about the WP:BLP policy and related DS, but just in case he also missed the editnotice, there's this warning on his talk page.

Is the blocking administrator WP:INVOLVED? No reason has been given as to why Coffee should be considered involved here, and I can't find one.

So I don't see any reason that this ban should be overturned. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Liz
Since you asked the question, JamesBWatson if you go to his About page there is a box that says "PRESS PACKAGE DOWNLOAD (PDF)". If you download this biography, which I assume is official, it states that Sanders religion is "Jewish". I don't think any editor of Wikipedia is qualified to judge how religious Sanders is or what he means by Jewish. It's his self-identification. Any interpretation of this by a Wikipedia editor is pure original research. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Masem
As only involved in responding to discussion at BLP/N and OR/N, the issue is that while the press kit (which may or may not be authored directly by Sanders) says that, his statements directly recorded by the press as self-identification beg the question of his religion. The press kit is conflicting with his statements to a point where saying "Religion: Jewish" in the infobox may be wrong. It would be OR to try to come to a conclusion either way from these sets of conflicting statements. It's well recognized that what his religious beliefs are is important, but can't be readily summarized in one word. Hence, a solution that I offered at OR/N that seems to have consensus is to have "See (Religion section)" as the entry in the infobox - it doesn't deny he has stated some type of faith, but it is something not readily captured by one or two words. In my eyes, this is the similar practice that we allow people to omit infoboxes from bio articles if they believe the infobox is insufficient for capturing a person in a brief snapshot. --M ASEM (t) 00:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Darouet
I was summoned to the RfC on the Sanders religion issue, and SMcCandlish hit the nail on the head describing that discussion. Masem's proposal is also reasonable. But Malik's comment on Guy Macon is way off - certainly insulting at the least - and unfortunate given their otherwise positive contributions. -Darouet (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Sir Joseph

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


 * The topic ban seems reasonable to me. The page has an obvious edit notice that quite clearly states "You must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits, must not engage in edit warring." You were fully aware that the RfC on the talk page has not yet been closed one way or the other, so it was clearly inappropriate to make the edit and even more inappropriate to edit war over it (for the record, I gave an opinion on the RfC but have otherwise had no involvement in the article, so no idea whether that makes me "involved" or not). Number   5  7  18:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support ban. I see Sir Joseph has claimed, in his appeal to Coffee, that he didn't know his edit was contentious. To someone who has spent an hour today reading the RfC on Talk:Bernie Sanders, as I have, that is an absurd claim, and I find it difficult to assume it was made in good faith. Compare also the diffs Coffee supplied in his reply here. It looks to me like a topic ban is the only way to stop Sir Joseph from trying to get his opinion into the article by sheer weight of edit warring on the article + repetitiousness on the talkpage. Have a read of WP:REHASH, Sir Joseph. (And incidentally of WP:CANVASS to, regarding this message.) I'm frankly not sure a week is enough. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Adding: Sir Joseph's broad hints in his most recent post that his opponents are motivated by antisemitism ("antisemitic", "troubling") are completely unacceptable. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC).
 * It might be better to give evidence for your claim that I'm not uninvolved than to keep "reiterating" it. I think people would be more interested. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC).


 * Support existing ban and extension to six months. I concur that there's no way Sir Joseph didn't know this was a contentious edit. I am also very troubled by his statement above about antisemitism—I note that he has been blocked in the past for calling other editors terrorists. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Sir Joseph for edit warring to reunsert a topic ban vio. clearly they cannot control their editing, which eans we need the topic ban. Spartaz Humbug! 22:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Now unblocked as I hadn't realised the sanction had been updated and the talk page edit predated that. Still support refusing the appeal. Endorse ban extending to talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 23:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support ban, which should include the talk page. Debating what religion should be ascribed to someone in the infobox of their article is obviously a hot-button issue. I see no case here for lifting the topic ban. Agree with User:Bishonen that a one-week ban may be considered short, so I would advise Sir Joseph to be careful in the future. It is worth noting that User:Laser brain has proposed an extension to six months. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll support the six months too, Ed. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC).
 * For the record, at this point, I also support extending the ban to 6 months. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 10:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The topic ban is clearly righteous and needs to be extended to cover the talk page and I agree that it should be extended to six months. This is a textbook example of WP:ROPE, if nothing else. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing soon: The original ban was by User:Coffee, and it was for one week. As modifiied, it covers editing any page related to Bernie Sanders. It will expire at 16:58 on 7 March. Although User:Coffee has commented in the admin section, his opinion is not counted for purposes of the appeal since he is the banning admin. According to WP:AC/DS, appeals can be granted at AE only by the 'clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators'. Among the five admins who commented (not including Coffee) nobody supports granting the appeal. So the appeal will be declined when this closes. To avoid confusion, I suggest that any admin who wants to extend the ban to six months should go ahead and do so as an individual admin action after this closes. Then that new action can (if necessary) have its own appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Request concerning Jytdog

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 20:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


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


 * 1) March 5, 2016 diff - Bayer CropScience Limited produces agricultural chemicals. Per Remedy 8 in the GMO case, Jytdog is banned from pages related to agricultural chemicals. This is an unambiguous breach of the topic ban.


 * 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):

User is mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

In addition to the above edit which is clearly within the scope of the topic ban, Jytdog has made a number of recent edits to a range of other Bayer-related articles. Per the January 2016 reword of the Discretionary sanctions in the GMO case, companies that produce agricultural chemicals are within the scope of the sanctions, and it could be inferred that this clarification of scope would also apply to topic bans. While the majority of Jytdog's edits here appear to be related to their pharma business, Bayer produces agricultural chemicals and has been involved in the production of, and controversies related to, GMOs (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-07-01/bayer-to-pay-750-million-to-end-lawsuits-over-genetically-modified-rice example ref).

@ Kingofaces43 This filing primarily concerns only one diff, evaluation of which should not pose a undue burden to admins. I reject Kingofaces43’ position that this filing is vexatious. Jytdog writes in his statement that he agrees his edit was a violation of his topic ban. Please provide a link where anyone has told Jytdog that he has ‘been explicitly told it's ok to edit,’ Bayer-related articles. The discussion you link for the statement that 'adding companies to existing topic bans did not pass' shows that there were not enough votes either way. I assume this means arbcom members could still vote to pass it. Dialectric (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43, I believe you are reading more into the arbcom motion than is there. There is no explicit statement that it is OK to edit articles about agchem companies. In fact several arbcom members say explicitly 'don't test the boundaries'. An admin could reasonably take a topic ban on agricultural chemicals broadly construed to include those companies which produce agricultural chemicals, whether or not arbcom included wording about companies. Bayer CropScience is more closely related to GMOs, the core of the controversy, than Agent Orange is related to GMOs. If you would like to discuss interpretation of the arbcom decision further, you are welcome to do so on my talk page.Dialectric (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog Thank you for reverting the edit to Bayer CropScience Limited.Dialectric (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

''As Jytdog has reverted his edit, I believe this issue is now resolved. If an uninvolved admin agrees, feel free to close.''Dialectric (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

notification diff

Discussion concerning Jytdog
''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 Jytdog
I was cleaning up articles around Bayer which had a proliferation of articles that had contradictory/overlapping content (here are my contribs for today), and noted that in my edit note when I redirected this stub to the main Bayer article. There was nearly identical content already in the Bayer article. I see the violation of course, and I reckoned that someone might have a cow over this, but was figuring no one would because it is ... minor... obvious... and it is hard to see why anyone would care or object, I guess. Anyway, no drama - I have reverted the redirect and will leave that piece for someone else. Would have done the same had Dielectric just asked me. But this is for sure a violation and the path to AE was wide open. No argument there. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Bayer went through a big re-organization in January. Along with bringing in the disparate articles that had come existence about old corporate structures, I was going to rework the article, tiptoeing around the ag stuff carefully, but in light of this filing I am stopping and will leave the rest to someone else. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that it wasn't a TBAN violation. It is just so minor/obvious I just figured common sense would apply.  Since it has been called out, I have reverted.  No need for drama. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43
There's no violation here, even technical. Jytdog's topic ban covers at most pesticide related content here. For better or worse, ArbCom made it clear that the current topic bans they handed out do not specifically apply to companies producing pesticides as long as the editor is not editing about topics covered by the ban; specifically adding companies to existing topic bans did not pass. Arbs were pretty clear there that edits on this specific area should be watched closely, but would cautiously be allowed. This has come up a few times at AE now, so Dialectric should know better than to file a case like this when we already have another vexatious GMO filing just above this.

Some GMO topic-banned editors have been given admin guidance outside of their ban to stay away from the agricultural company articles entirely because they still couldn't disengage from advocacy for other disruptive behavior. Putting in a redirect for an article that does not even discuss any of the topic ban areas is about as far as you could get from that and is in line with what arbs were allowing.

We've discussed admin malaise with GMO AE filings above already. What's starting to become interesting is that most topic-bans by ArbCom and filings that resulted in action at AE have been against editors critical of the scientific consensus on GMOs in some fashion. When those same editors file cases here though, they're often found to be lacking merit or even resulting in a boomerang on the filer. In a case like this were Dialectric is effectively using Jytdog's topic ban to push them out of topics without legitimate reason where they have been explicitly told it's ok to edit, we do need to start clamping down on that behavior.

It makes me look like I'm out for blood when I end up calling for a boomerang here so often, so would ask that admins be mindful of this trend we have now (just a glimpse of what us regulars without sanctions have been putting up with) when it comes to assessing filings. I would ask admins that if they see a filing that's tenuous at best, to nip it in the bud with a good look at whether it would serve the topic to take action against the filer. Hopefully that cuts down on the litany GMO filings in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Dialectric, the amendment decision explicitly says an edit like this is fine. The amendment to add companies was rejected by a majority of arbs as an official clarification, and the oppose votes outline the details of this reasoning rather clearly. If that weren't the case, we would have blocked other editors earlier for much worse as a violation of their GMO topic ban. We had guidance from ArbCom on this, so we shouldn't be ignoring it in this case when we've used the guidance for past enforcement. You were involved in WP:ARCA at the time, so that's why I said you should have been aware. That's all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Adv4Ag
Just my opinion, but I agree with Kingofaces43. I couldn't believe Jytdog was facing another ArbCom after the topic ban, so I had to come take a look. My first thought when I saw the Bayer diff was, "You've got to be kidding. An ArbCom over a simple re-direct?!?" It just seems an awful lot like sour grapes to me. I'm a very infrequent editor, so maybe my opinion doesn't matter, but it sure looks like making a mountain out of a molehill. Adv4Ag (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by AlbinoFerret
Arbcom did clarify that editors topic banned in the GMO case could edit pages of companies that produce agracutural chemicals as long as it was not about GMO's or agracutural chemicals. But the edit in question appears to remove GMO information.

We find this line | products = Environmental science, pesticide and seeds

Also this (my bold, but could not bold the last refrence and have it show and be bold),

<Bayer CropScience Limited''' is the Indian subsidiary of Bayer AG. Its head office is located in Hiranandani Estate, Thane district in Maharashtra, India. Bayer CropScience Limited  is a part of Bayer Group (India) and is the only public company of Bayer Group in India.

and this catagory.

This is a clear violation. AlbinoFerret 16:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish I would like you remoind you that Prokaryotes was sanctioned in a section on this page dealing with the GMO arbcom case, that you started.

@EdJhonston I think your correct that since its been self reverted nothing needs to be done, but a warrning not to violate the ban again may be a good idea. AlbinoFerret 01:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish
I think that this was, indeed, a violation of the topic ban, and Jytdog should have known better. And I am glad that Jytdog reverted the reference to Dialectric supposedly having "had a cow", because I see Dialectric's filing as good faith. But, much as with numerous other recent AE filings coming out of the GMO case, it was a minor and relatively harmless step over the topic ban boundary, it was self-reverted, and Jytdog has made it clear that he will not repeat it. The other similar AE cases did not result in sanctions, and neither should this one. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Where AlbinoFerret points to the Prokaryotes sanction, that situation was nothing like the one here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
This request shows why there is admin fatigue over the GMO case. A technical infringement, fixed by self-reversion, and no evidence at all of trying to game the system. Why are we even here? This just about rises to the level of "meh". Guy (Help!) 16:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Jytdog

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


 * Notice that User:Dialectric who filed this request now believes that Jytdog has made a revert that cures the problem. Unless something more persuasive is posted, I'd close this with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Notice that User:Dialectric who filed this request now believes that Jytdog has made a revert that cures the problem. Unless something more persuasive is posted, I'd close this with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Gaijin42
''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 Gaijin42

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 16:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


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


 * 1) 16 October 2015 Adds paragraph of unsourced opinion, which he now says was taken from this opinion piece written by the NRA-ILA.
 * 2) 17 October 2015 Replaces factual description by liberal MediaMatters with the uncited NRA-ILA opinion, while leaving the Media Matters citation in place, acknowledging a POV problem
 * 3) 10 March 2016 Defends the edit in part by saying that, per WP:SILENCE, since no one caught his fraudulent edit then it must be OK.


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


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control

Gaijin42 was topic banned and appealed his ban. In his appeal he gave three examples of the editing he'd do if the ban were lifted. See "example areas of potential work". Of those three areas, he has done no work on two of them.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

These edits were made in the days immediately following the lifting of his topic ban, when presumably would have been most careful. While this happened six months ago, it was only now discovered.

Misreporting what a source says is one of the most pernicious forms of POV pushing, since it may go undetected for so long. This is a case of really, really bad editing. Gaijin42 makes a source say the opposite of what it really said, using an undisclosed source which never would have been acceptable for anything but an attributed opinion.

In December Gaijin42 brought an enforcement request: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive185 - he reported a user who was upset that "fraudulent" material was in a gun ontrol-related article, including material that Gaijin42 restored. He refused to address the substance of the complaint. He later said that the material was, in fact, significantly wrong.Talk:Defensive_gun_use So his first recourse was to edit warring and enforcement, rather than listening and dealing with the problem. That is an example of battleground editing.

Battleground editing and putting undue weight on issues were among the reasons Gaijin42 was originally topic banned. This editing is of the same type.

In re: the somewhat peripheral issue of the Defensive gun use article and user:TruthIsDivine, it appears Gaijin42 contacted Gamaliel off-Wiki at the time.

In re: Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act, the article has other POV issues regarding weight and sources that trace back to Gaijin's editing, so I don't think it can be held up as an example of fine editing. However the highlighted edit is the worst.

In re: off-wiki contact. There's no way for uninvolved users to know the content of such discussions. This. isn't the basis for the complaint - it just stood out. The basis for this complaint is the misleading editing of a gun control-related article.

- In re: "thin complaint" - I've looked further into Gaijin42's recent gun control-related editing. These don't look good either:

These are the types of POV pushing edits that got Gaijin42 topic banned and even blocked before.
 * 7 February 2016 Deletes scholarly source simply because the scholar is not 'notable' - an inadequate reason for removing sourced, scholarly material that should form the basis for WP articles.
 * 8 February 2016 Adds material about knivfe laws to an article about gun laws.
 * 10 December 2015 dismisses a mainstream newspaper in the San Bernadino area for the article on the 2015 shooting there
 * 2 October 2015
 * 22 October 2015
 * 22 October 2015 - Spamming the same minor content (a proposed bill) into three articles.
 * 16 October 2015‎ This edit is art of the orginal complaint. In addition to the already mentioned issues, Gaijin42 picked an inflammatory quotation ("We are going to hit them where it hurts, in the wallet". )instead of a more reasoned one ("You can't expect the status quo on businesses which make money and then have no responsibility to us as citizens.") That appears intended to put a spin on the issue. Also. He used a primary source for one of the paragraphs, arguably creating an argument based on a WP:SYNTH.

In re: "boomerang for grasping at straws?" below - Gaijin42 seems to be saying that complaining about his editing is a bannable offense. Since he is on what amounts to probation on this topic, he should expect his edits to be reviewed closely. The fact he made and let stand for six months a horribly misleading and POV edit is not my fault.

Gaijin42 leaving the bad edit in place for five months makes it worse, not better, IMO. As for the other edits, someone who appealed for a second chance while giving false claims of what work he'd do, someone who has made less-than-optimal edits across a variety of articles, someone who accepts bad sources and discards good ones, that seems to me like someone who needs to avoid the topic altogether. But you guys are wiser than me, I'm sure. Maybe this time Gaijin42 has learned to avoid outrageously misleading and POV edits in this topic.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Gaijin42
''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 Gaijin42
The edits in question to the PLCAA article are from 6 5 months ago. They were part of a large rewrite/addition I did to that article. As I said in the article talk earlier today, in retrospect, that particular sentence was poor. However, when taken in the context of the rather large changes I made to the article at the time, it is clear that that one sentence was the exception rather than the rule (diff of before/after of my entire chain of edits)

Note that even at the time, I specifically drew attention to that edit saying that it could use some NPOV help. (see edit summary)

I admit, I should have taken more time to double check that sentence for neutrality and sourcing. But a single sentence 6 months ago, and when challenged I readily admit a problem and do not object to any changing... I'm not sure why everyone's time is being wasted here.

Regarding the other matter, a sock User:TruthIsDivine of a banned indeffed user User:Kingshowman was disrupting the article. The version that the banned user objected to was in fact sourced. He repeatedly insisted that the 33 million number was not in the source, even though the location of that number was pointed out to him multiple times, by multiple editors After the disruption ended, I initiated a discussion to build consensus Talk:Defensive_gun_use and made edits to improve the neutrality and accuracy of the article, in a fashion contrary to my own POV. Somehow thats a problem I guess. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

For those that care to dig deeper regarding the truthisdivine issue, the source in question is http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/JQC-CookLudwig-DefensiveGunUses-1998.pdf and the 33 million number that he objected to is visible in the table on page 121 (p11 of the pdf) in the table in the lower left hand corner, which gives a range of 12.9-33.1 million DGUs). After discussion, we decided to use the smaller 4.7 million number which has tighter exclusion criteria, from the second column, but 33 million is absolutely sourcable. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

As the December AE report is at issue, pinging the involved admins at the time Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the ygm ping to Gamaliel, note that it was sent AFTER the case was closed. For the record, the message I sent is below. clearly an inappropriate communication. This is approaching WP:HOUND. Thank you for your intercession on the recent flare up.

As I am on probation in the area, and wish to remain in good graces to have the sanction completely lifted, if you have any comment regarding my conduct in this instance, I would appreciate it.

Also, if you think you are going to keep the ban in place, you may wish to log it on the case page. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

boomerang for grasping at straws?
This is ridiculous. Felsic is grasping at straws on some kind of witch hunt agenda now. You may agree with or disagree with any of the edits or talk page comments listed, but they clearly fall well within the bounds of normal editing and WP:BRD and WP:CON.

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I deleted the unattributed opinions, sourced to the article "Gun rites: hegemonic masculinity and neoliberal ideology in rural Kansas" written by a nobody activist, in which the relevant portion reads " The third objective is to interrogate the ways in which particular material practices and gendered discourses regarding gun use are reinforced by settler colonialism, whiteness, heteronormativity, enabledness, and nationalism.". WP:BRD WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV WP:WEIGHT
 * The open and concealed carry laws in Wisconsin were changed to cover both knives and guns. I discussed the change on the article talk (Talk:Gun_laws_in_Wisconsin), and got support for the proposed change. That this is being brought up as something possibly negative is asinine.
 * The content suggested from the site "pe.com" which lists no editorial board or other signs of WP:RS was "BERNARDINO SHOOTING: Gun buyer, shooter's brother married to Russian sisters". I commented on the talk page that I thought better sourcing would be needed for conspiracy theory style BLP info. for both BLP and WEIGHT concerns. Apparently merely having the opinion on a talk page that BLP/RS policy might apply is a sanction-able issue.
 * Yep, I put in a information about a bill into 3 articles that would be directly affected by that bill.
 * I chose one portion of a quote. Felsic apparently prefers a different portion. It is undisputed that the quote and the lawsuits the quote refers to are causally related to the topic of the article.

Felsic, the main edit in question, I have freely admitted was problematic. I take full responsibility for the issue. But a single edit 5 months ago, that nobody is fighting over is wasting everyone's time. Past that, you are grasping at straws, and frankly misrepresenting the diffs in question in an effort to buttress the one diff that is a problem. (Oh no, I said in a talk page comment I thought a better source might be needed! oh the humanity!)

You are clearly reviewing my entire edit history for the past several months and coming up with either completely appropriate edits and talk page comments, or at the worst insignificant issues which occur regularly as part of normal editing process. Either you have a personal agenda against me that I was not aware of, or you need to take a deep breath and rethink the level of nitpicking you are engaging in. This entire debacle could have been (and in fact was) resolved with a simple talk page discussion. Unless you come up with something that truly demands a response, I'm done letting you waste my time. Admins, please close this so we can get on with making an encyclopedia. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Gaijin42

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


 * Per this discussion on his user talk Felsic2 is a replacement account for User:Felsic for which the password was lost. So we may as well entertain this report, though Felsic2 is not yet confirmed. The argument so far is thin, so unless more evidence of misbehavior by User:Gaijin42 is presented, I would close with no action. Gaijin42's ban from gun control is directly from Arbcom, but it was suspended in October 2015 for a period of one year. Links to these actions are in the above report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Per this discussion on his user talk Felsic2 is a replacement account for User:Felsic for which the password was lost. So we may as well entertain this report, though Felsic2 is not yet confirmed. The argument so far is thin, so unless more evidence of misbehavior by User:Gaijin42 is presented, I would close with no action. Gaijin42's ban from gun control is directly from Arbcom, but it was suspended in October 2015 for a period of one year. Links to these actions are in the above report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I can confirm that the text Gaijin42 posted is the complete and accurate text of the email he sent me at the time. I have no idea why this email is being brought up as the contact was in no way inappropriate.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The October 16 edit is extremely troubling, and were this reported in October or November, I would consider it sanctionable. But it is also extremely stale, and the rest of the complaint seems like a grab bag of stuff Felsic2 doesn't like as opposed to actual violations or problematic behavior.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Volunteer Marek
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). ''


 * Appealing user : – Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : "You are hereby banned from making any edits to the article Bernie Sanders for 1 week."


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Volunteer Marek
Holy freakin' crap. I make ONE - that's right ONE - revert to the Bernie Sanders page and I am topic banned for a WEEK for "edit warring". Without warning. Without notification. Just "BOOM!" Is this serious? Did April 1st come early this year or something? And yes, I did start a talk page discussion. I'm sorry but that is simply NOT "edit warring", that's normal WP:BRD. The other editor who has also made one revert was not topic banned (and no, I don't think they should be either - that would be insane, just like this is).

Look. I understand the need for discretionary sanctions on a topic like potentially contentious topic like Sanders (incidentally, why isn't the Clinton - or other US presidential candidates - article subject to the same sanction ?). But this is way over the line. The purpose of these sanctions, per the final decision was to prevent "continuous disruption of content as the problems move from one area to another."" Was there any "continuous disruption" here? No, it was a single fishin' edit (and a good one too).

And per DS/definitions "Prior to placing sanctions that are likely to be controversial, administrators are advised to elicit the opinions of other administrators at AE." Was this done? No, it was just .... "BOOM!"

I also feel compelled to point out that this kind of enforcement runs afoul of BLP issues. Under this schema, where a single revert gets you topic banned, the person who ADDS material to a BLP article is "protected", whereas the person who REMOVES material from a BLP article runs the danger of getting sanctioned. I'm sorry but that's completely backwards. Is this really how you guys want this to work? Adding contentious material to BLPs is fine, "protected from removal" even, but removing it gets you a topic ban? Did someone forget to think this one through? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Coffee, what you are effectively doing with your serial and exclusive sanction-slapping on Bernie Sanders, is imposing a 0RR restriction on the article. Without telling anyone about it. And no, the warning that appears when you press "edit" does not sufficiently address that - it says there are discretionary sanctions in place but it does NOT warn editors that they can get a topic ban for a single revert. IF you are going to treat the article as if it was under 0RR - which I'm pretty sure is NOT what the ArbCom decision was meant to do - then at the very least you need to make sure that editors know this. Change that discretionary sanctions notice to say "This article is under 0RR restriction".

Which isn't to agree with there being a 0RR restriction on the article, particularly since it's a BLP, which means reverting will be necessary to REMOVE contentious material. But if that's how you're going to interpret "discretionary sanctions", you need to let people know before sanctioning them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@David, the first edit was not a revert. It was just removing some sketchy info from the article. And please don't accuse me of "dishonesty" - you are engaging in baseless personal attacks on a WP:AE page which itself could get you blocked. And really pissing me off too, as I don't appreciate being accused of being "dishonest" and am tempted to throw a few choice adjectives your way in response.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

And speaking of ... I'm going to call this "inaccuracy", rather than "dishonesty", David, I never said "I made one edit" as you claim. I said "I made one revert". So get your own claims in order before you accuse others of lying.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You know what? Whatever. I don't even really care about this subject. I was simply looking up something about Bernie in the article, noticed some sketchy text, removed it. Someone reverted me. I started a discussion (although my edit summary was sufficiently descriptive) and reverted the revert. And then BOOM! all of sudden I'm under a topic ban. I was not aware that Coffee has decided that 0RR applied to the article. The sanction notice did not inform me of this. Making one revert is not "edit warring" (unless there's a 0RR restriction). No other article in the topic "American Politics" is subject to such draconian restrictions that I'm aware of (this seems to have been a unilateral choice made by Coffee specifically for the Bernie Sanders article). My edit on the article was NOT disruptive (unless you think making a single revert is "disruptive" in which case I suggest it's time to hang up the tools and do some content-editing because you have no idea how Wikipedia actually works for non-admins) It improved the article too.


 * I think this kind of sanctioning procedure is... well, stupid. It privileges addition of sketchy material to a BLP article and protects it from removal. It effectively removes any long standing and well meaning editors from the article since no one in their right mind who figures out that they may be subject to these kind of extreme sanctions will wish to edit this article again (I sure as hell am not going to edit it again), leaving only dedicated battleground and advocacy accounts, along with the usual fly-by-night single purpose accounts. But hey, if that is what you think is the ideal situation for a major article on a American presidential candidate, that's really your problem, not mine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Coffee, ok, so it's 0RR for the person removing material and 1RR for the person adding it. It's a BLP. That actually makes it *worse*.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

And if we're going to get all procedural, here's what WP:AC/DS actually says about alerts and warnings relevant to discretionary sanctions:

"No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if they were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision or have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed). An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months:


 * 1) . The editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
 * 2) . The editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
 * 3) . The editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict."

Notice what is NOT on the list? "Some administrator adds a vague and ambiguously worded template to an article that appears when editors click "edit"" of the kind that a lot of editors might not even notice when editing an article for the first time" is NOT on the list. In other words, no, per ArbCom decision, that template by itself is not sufficient notice of discretionary sanctions.

Now, funnily enough where I myself am concerned, #2 actually applies since it seems I did comment in the original arbitration request (which I don't actually remember, didn't follow the case itself, and if this here happened a week later it would be inapplicable). But in the future you really DO NEED to formally warn editors before sanctioning them, as required per WP:AC/DS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Coffee
This particular ban, is made specifically for the article itself... not the topic as a whole (which allows Marek to discuss changes at the talk page). This, as I said at his talk page, is to prevent further disruption on the article itself. There have simply been too many edit wars occurring on that page, which is what caused me to place sanctions on the article originally (after a report was made a few weeks ago at WP:RFPP). All editors have been made aware of the sanctions, per Arbitration Committee policy, article sanctions are placed in the edit notice. The other editor, who made the revert, was following WP:BRD... reverting his revert is an edit war (BRD stands for be Bold and make an edit, someone Reverts you, now you Discuss the edit... it does not stand for Bold edit, someone Reverts, make one Comment on the talk page and immediately afterwards you Revert - that would be BRCR. This is fairly simple, it is not my responsibility to ensure Volunteer Marek actually reads the very obvious edit notice before making an edit, he violated the sanctions placed there... and is now subject to a personal sanction to simply prevent further disruption. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 19:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC) You must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits, must not engage in edit warring and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. An administrator has applied the restriction above to this page. This is pursuant to an arbitration decision, which authorised discretionary sanctions for pages relating to all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Please edit carefully.
 * The discretionary sanctions in place at the article are fairly easy to understand, but let me paste them here for Volunteer Marek, since he's failing to understand what this means:

Please note that discretionary sanctions can be used against individual editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any Wikipedia policy and editorial norm.|Discretionary sanctions have been used by an administrator to place restrictions on all edits to this page. Discretionary sanctions can also be used against individual editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any Wikipedia policy and editorial norm.

Before you make any more edits to pages in this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system and the applicable arbitration decision. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 19:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I repeat, this is not a topic ban, it is only a ban from editing the article itself. Also, I have placed a sanction on edit warring not a 0RR restriction. If 0RR was in place I would have blocked the other editor who was following standard WP:BRD procedure. No one stated your edit was disruptive, it was potentially contentious (then obviously contentious once reverted) and done without firm consensus being acquired first (another requirement I've placed in the sanction, which you can read above), and the revert violated the second requirement of the sanction (which you can also read above). <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 20:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The alert policy you're referring to has to do with placing sanctions on users, not pages. If you scroll down on the DS page you'll find this policy: "Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place." (emphasis mine) This isn't as hard to understand as you're making it seem. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 22:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as as I'm aware, and ArbCom can correct me if I'm wrong, when you use the DS editnotice template it automatically places the page into a category for sanctioned pages. (Akin to how alerts create a tag for the user, and you don't have to manually log those anymore.) <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 23:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There isn't a 1RR restriction on the page, as many people seem to for some reason think there is; there is both a restriction on making potentially contentious edits without getting firm consensus on the talk page first, and a restriction on edit warring. From what I'm seeing Marek violated both of those restrictions, which is why I put the rather light sanction in place. This is a highly viewed page (more than any other Democratic candidate) during a very fiery election season. I happen to be the only admin who is enforcing your allowed sanctions regarding the American Politics dispute, which I find odd I must say (but perhaps I'm the only uninvolved admin watching these pages). Sanders' article specifically seems to be the one where edit wars, and content disputes are a constant (I've watched the other pages, and I haven't been notified of anything like it happening on other candidate's pages), and therefore a page sanction seemed most appropriate (especially considering we've already had the media cover it once; if the content disputes aren't controlled in a reasonable fashion I assume will see another article from the media, as the last one was about the edit warring/content disputes - which I don't think the WMF is very open to happening again btw). But, hey if I'm somehow blind to what a violation of the very restrictions I put in place looks like then feel free to correct me. I'm always open to seeing things from a different perspective. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 23:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
Firstly, where does DS say that DS is 1RR? For ARBPIA it explicitly says that 1RR is the rule. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Gaijin42
Assuming VM's account is accurate that it was indeed only one revert, this does seem a bit trigger happy. regardless of the merits of the content or revert, this seems like a standard BRD issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC) striking per DT's additional information below. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

David Tornheim
It was not "1 edit". There were two reverts in a <24 hours period:. If the article is under 1RR, then it has been violated. I say make the topic ban one month rather than 1 week for misrepresenting the facts and wasting our time with dishonesty. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

MarkBernstein
Let’s not get carried away.

Let me recap the bidding.


 * On December 3, the passage in question was inserted by Baebequeue.
 * On March 11, Volunteer Marek removed the passage, arguing that "cherrypicked and no serious political scientist believes that March polls are in any way meaningful for the general election. Also WP:RECENTISM". This is not an unreasonable argument, though WP:UNDUE seems more pertinent that RECENTISM. Clearly, at this point Volunteer Marek thinks this is a March poll, not a poll from the previous December.
 * 150 minutes later, the passage is restored by C. J.Griffin.
 * 6 hours later, Volunteer Marek undoes the restoration.

As a technical matter, whether or not this violates 1RR hinges on whether we interpret the first edit on March 11 as a revert. I would be strongly disinclined to call anyone “dishonest” for believing that it was not; had Marek replaced the passage with another passage, perhaps a briefer and more neutral summary, it would certainly not be construed as a revert.

More broadly, it is not clear the VM is wrong on the merits. His talk page defense of the edit has, as I write, received no response. The sanctioned edit is combative, yes, but much stronger responses could be envisioned; for example, VM might instead have added a number of countervailing polls, or a list of countervailing editorial opinions, each of which could in principle deserve our attention as much as this poll does. In 2024, this passage will be long gone: whatever happens, no one will care what a December poll predicted about this candidate's electability. So, VM is bringing the page one step closer to the shape it will have (should Wikipedia survive) in the distant future.

In any case, this already-overheated discussion is emblematic of the mess that ArbCom has invited with its handling of American Politics. I doubt sanctions are useful here; in practice, they're going to expend a lot of volunteer time that could be more profitably spent on protecting the project from attackers. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Rhoark
1RR is a limit, not an entitlement. Regardless of revert count, it was a revert of well-sourced content for hand-waving reasons. It's not beyond the pale to show someone the penalty box for that. Rhoark (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's no trouble at all to state a reason for reverting something; VM gave no less than 5 in this case. Stating a reason is not necessarily better than a blank summary if the reason is not evidently pertinent. (A go-to option, surprisingly not used here, is citing UNDUE since it's an actual policy but too fuzzy to be falsifiable.) Normally this should not trigger immediate censure, but the page of a candidate during active voting is an especially charged setting. The general rule of thumb on what is an appropriate admin action is to prevent disruption. Reverting, rather than refactoring or contextualizing, a passage that does not fail any bright-line criteria certainly constitutes disruption in the context of that page at this time. A 7-day page ban is not the action I would have taken, but it's not disproportionate or inconsistent with the purposes of adminship. Rhoark (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

LjL
I have little sympathy for Marek's ways of editing in general and I haven't followed the incident here, but I want to at least comment on what said: first it was "3RR is a limit, not an entitlement", now more and more (and more) articles are falling into the net of discretionary sanctions, making 1RR a limit, but that's not enough! Since 1RR is not an entitlement, as a matter of fact, if you make one revert - not one unjustified revert, but one revert that is only justified with reasons not specific enough ("hand-waving") to convince an administrator, you can be sanctioned? That would really be extreme, a most unwelcome progressive radicalization to basically "you can be sanctioned if you make any edit" of originally fair bright-line rules. LjL (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Jnorton7558
, where is the log entry for this page restriction? "The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place." --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Capitals00
Can someone remove the topic ban now? Its been almost a week that this request was filed. Capitals00 (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Volunteer Marek

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


 * , I don't see how Marek's first edit was a revert--which would be a revert of someone's edit or edits. I see nothing in the recent history that makes this removal a revert of someone's edit(s). After a comment above, let me clarify that I don't see Marek's edit as a revert of this edit, since the removal also involved this edit and others, and this has been in the article for months. Sure, Marek should have waited a bit longer--but he's not much of an edit warrior in this article, and that's putting it mildly. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Drmies and I am inclined to overturn the sanction. There was no breach of 1RR, this was Volunteer Marek's only two posts to the page, and the sole revert was accompanied by an edit summary and talk page post, both of which were policy-based and defensible. A one week topic ban is disproportionate and unnecessary. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any mention of 1RR in the page restriction, it was against edit warring and requiring a "firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits". I think the action was within discretion, and that 1 week was a very measured duration. <b style="color:Indigo">HighInBC</b> 23:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously? A topic ban after two edits? Is that a record? VM must be the worst editor ever, um.. maybe not of course. What seems to be happening is that is trying to keep a lid on nonsense on a really high profile article and VM has got caught in the cross fire because the only way for a single admin to have any success in these circumstances is to admin with a really sensitive trigger finger. I have expressed views elsewhere about whether Coffee is making the right calls so I probably goes without saying that I would support vacating the topic ban, but VM mustn't take this as carte blanch to be disruptive. That just leads is to consider what we should do with the Bernie Sanders article. Its indefinately semi-protected already but that clearly isn't emough if Coffee feels that they need to be strict with any disruption to the article. Should we consider adding a formal 0RR or Pending Changes to cool it down a bit further? Spartaz Humbug! 23:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I very much agree with Spartaz--esp. that VM got caught in the crossfire. So, we have an article that falls under DS, and Coffee placed the DS/editnotice as suggested by Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions at the end of February. Coffee interprets VM's second edit to the article as one that lacks "firm consensus on the talk page" and technically that's correct. I would have appealed for leniency: technically speaking Coffee was correct, but they didn't have to topic-ban VM from the article. On the other hand, it's only for a week, and that week is almost over, and VM doesn't seem to have much of a vested interest in the article. Taking all this together I would ask VM to agree to the correctness of the underlying facts, the bare-bones ones, and Coffee to agree that VM hasn't been much of a culprit here and that the topic ban isn't necessary. I'm sort of stuck in the middle since I think I get along well with both editors, and in such cases it's always best to not stick one's neck out, but hey, it's also a nice opportunity to ask if we can all get along. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above, this is not a 1RR restriction, it is a 'get consensus for everything' restriction. Since there has been a lot of trouble on this article, it's reasonable for User:Coffee to be imposing a fairly tough restriction to try to get things under control. It looks to me that VM didn't actually get consensus for these changes, so the letter of the restriction was violated. The problem with any novel restriction is that it takes time for people to figure out what it's saying. I wouldn't grant this appeal but I'd suggest that Coffee consider whether the restriction is likely to get the job done in the future, given the amount of confusion. If you do want to change it to something else, keep in mind that a 0RR is even harder to understand. Full protection, on the other hand, is easy to understand and explain. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate Coffee's effort to control edit-warring on a high-profile article, but for the reasons stated by NuclearWarfare, I would reverse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This discussion needs to be closed soon, especially since the sanction is going to expire by time. I believe the consensus is to reverse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm closing this enforcement action appeal as reversed, per consensus above. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Request concerning Felsic2

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 20:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


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


 * 1) 10 March 2016 General hostility and battleground attitude: "cut crappy content written for a class by a guy who didn't have a clue how to write for WP"
 * 2) A B C D (All 11 March 2016) Edit warring (followed by a partial self-revert)
 * 3) 12 March 2016 General hostility and battleground attitude: "there's nothing objective about any of this".
 * 4) 12 March 2016 General hostility and battleground attitude: "Stick it" (edit summary), "no thanks to any of you".


 * 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 10 March 2016.

The user has acknowledged that they edited under both and  (and has made no attempt to hide this; this is not a SPI request). Almost all of their edits have been to gun control pages, and I cannot recall a single one that has made a page more in favor of gun rights or less in favor of gun control. The non-article or talk space edits appear to mostly have been focused on requesting sanctions against editors who Felsic perceives as being in favor of gun rights. Under their previous account, two pro gun control editors admonished Felsic for his/her conduct. Felsic's response was "Tell you what, you can spend the whole goddamn weekend trying to work out a compromise. Lottsa luck with that. If you succeed I'll nominate you for sainthood." (with an edit summary of "have fun hitting your head against the wall"). Since their return to active editing (under the new account), Felsic's attitude and pattern of behavior seems to have remained consistent - he/she sees Wikipedia as a tug-of-war, not a collaborative project. The one thing that seems inconsistent is their professed indifference to the topic; Felsic appears to be entirely focused on making Wikipedia more in favor of gun control, using whatever means are available to do so.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

I would still call those edits partial reverts. For example, on edit "D", you moved the "legal term of art" language from the lead sentence to the final sentence of the second paragraph. That's seriously different. And honestly I don't care what language you use, whether you say "crappy" or just "bad". This is the internet; I've seen worse. The problem is the attitude behind the language. Telling others to "stick it" would be just as bad if you had said "take that". Note that I didn't say you weren't correct in wanting the article's language changed; it appears you were entirely correct. But spiking the football makes it clear that you see this as a battleground, not a collaborative effort. As to my conduct, I have my own biases, but I do what I can to check those at the door and stay neutral and balanced; I know I've made edits to remove non-neutral language from both sides. The SPI was filed in good faith and withdrawn when evidence made it clear that you weren't LB's sock. I apologized for it, and I have not raised the issue since then; note that in filing this AE request I made it clear that I did not think you were socking. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Response to Felsic2's comments:

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

Discussion concerning Felsic2
''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 Felsic2
Faceless Enemy's complaint

Much of this complaint is related to my use of the term "crappy" which Google defines as "(vulgar slang) adjective: of extremely poor quality." Is he upset that I use a vulgar term for poor quality material?

1. The material I removed from Civil_liberties_in_the_United_States was written by a college freshman as part of a class assignment. user:Wood3cm did not know how to write for Wikipedia. The content was "crappy" - it made WP:SYNTH arguments, used poor quality sources, gave undue attention to one aspect of the topic, etc. Here's one 'crappy' bit by the same editor deleted by another editor. The editor has not edited Wikipedia before or since using that username. Though it used a vulgar term, my edit summary was reasonably accurate.

2. As for reverts: what version of the article was I reverting to? A.This "revert" brought back material deleted without discussion in December Immediately after I restored the material it was reverted out again, still with no discussion. B. Faceless Enemy reverted an edit of mine, and I reverted it back. Faceless Enemy didn't join a discussion about his revert for more than a half hour. I later fully undid my restoration. Yet he still says this was an actionable edit. C. This was not a revert. It made a compromise between the text he wanted and the text I wanted, text which effectively defines the scope of the article. I did not revert to any previous version. D. This was not a revert. It made a compromise between the text user:Miguel Escopeta wanted and the text I wanted, text which effectively defines the scope of the article. I did not revert to any previous version.

3. He says that questioning the objectivity of a list shows "general hostility and battleground attitude". If the scope of the list were objective then it wouldn't be up for alteration by WP editors. The list has three pages of talk archives, showing disagreements over its supposedly objective content. Is it now "battleground attitude" to question the POV of an article?

4. Someone made what I called a "really, really bad edit". I didn't know who or when it was done at first. I posted about it, then I looked in the history. Later, some univolved editor made a flyby comment that I shouldn't have posted to that page with my obeservation about the edit. Maybe I'm mistaken - I thought article talk pages existed to talk about edits to the article. The other editor was wrong to chastise me for making the complaint. Yet Faceless Enemy blames me, not editor who made the specious complaint and certainly not the editor who made the "really really bed edit". 

Faceless Enemy has filed a number of complaints about me. User:GRuban wrote  Oh give me a break" and told him to "cut it out".

As for taking sides in a debate, Faceless Enemy has made far more edits than I have to gun politics articles. If there were sufficient space I think I could show that he has made the majority of them in favor of one side. This list of talk pages show that the overwhelming percentage of his discussuon has been about gun-related topics. If one-sidedness is a real problem then I'm not the user to start with. Felsic2 (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Gaijin42's complaint

Gaijin42 seems upset that I filed a complaint against him for making an edit that one of the uninvolved admins called "extremely troubling" and said it would have been sanctionable if found sooner.

He says the material I deleted from [ High-capacity magazine ban]] was about the High-capacity magazine ban. I checked the source and found no significant mention of magazines. The comment in the source was not about high-capacity magazines, which are barely mentioned in the article. 

I'm not the only editor who has removed sourced material from that article. So has Faceless Enemy. What's the difference?

Gaijin42 says I was combative for saying that a list whose restrictions are arbitrary is not necessarily objective. Yet he was trying to get the scope of the list changed. If it was an objective scope, it wouldn't be subject to change by WP editors. (See above - Faceless Enemy made the same complaint.)

He says I disrupted Wikipedia to make a point. No - I tried to treat articles on gun control organizations the same as a gun organization is treated. The National Rifle Association article has a mission statement in its infobox sourced to Guidestar. I added mission statements to gun control advocacy groups. Faceless Enemy deleted them, whether sourced to Guidestar or not. Faceless Enemy did not discuss his reversions.Talk:National_Gun_Victims_Action_Council I asked if the mission statement in NRA was compliant with the WP:MISSION page, and after a day with no response I deleted it. It ain't disruptive to expect similar topic to be edited using the same rules.

For the Starbucks articles, I looked at the sources and did not find any which labeled the protesting group as "gun rights advocates". I am concerned about how people and groups on all sides of the debate are pigeon-holed as being either pro-gun control or pro-gun rights. I used a more general term that was entirely correct. The issue was discussed on the talk page and a consensus version was found.

What is Gaijin42's problem with using the [Category:Civil liberties advocacy groups in the United States] for groups which oppose gun violence? "Right to life" is a civil liberty. Faceless Enemy reverted those additions with no discussion. Gaijin42 also gives no reason for why the category is inappropriate.

PS: I see I was supposed to limit this to 500 words. If some of the complaints are unimportant then delete responses to them. If the complaints are significant then I don't see a good reason for the restrictions on my defense.

Statement by Gaijin42
I'd also point out the section above that Felsic started against me, which could have easily been (and easily was) resolved with a talk page discussion. That he felt the need to immediately bring it to AE is a sign of battleground. His final comment in that section seems indicative. 

General combativeness in responses to civil discussion :

WP:POINT (after he added a mission statement and it was removed, he proceeded to remove mission statements elsehwere. No argument as to the merits or not of having mission statements from me, but the pointedness of his edit seems obvious)

Arguing that "Second amendment supporters" does not sufficiently cite "gun rights advocates" and changing the content to "gun advocates" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Starbucks&diff=prev&oldid=709299265

mass adding of "civil rights" cat to gun control groups. 

Removal of content directly discussing high capacity magazine bans with the reasoning that "this stuff isn't about magazine capacity" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High-capacity_magazine_ban&diff=prev&oldid=709195608 Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Felsic2

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


 * I think Felsic is mistaken about who added the "crappy" content: it was added in 2009 by, here--though it was indeed written as part of a class assignment: it's typical essay-style argumentative writing, which is quite far from the encyclopedic style we should strive for. Sure, the edit summary was a bit harsh, but that content should have been cut a long time ago. Diffs 3 and 4, calling that "general hostility and battleground attitude" is over the top. I don't rightly understand Felsic's "there's nothing objective about any of this" and it strikes me as a bit uncollegial, and diff 4 is an example of petulance, but (as in the section below) this is making a mountain out of a molehill--not to mention that, as Gaijin said himself, the edit in Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that gave rise to diff 4 was below par. Heated topic, heated debate. Don't expect arbitration to solve every little problem, please. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * A WP:TROUT for Felsic, reminder to be civil to each other, and nothing further actionable here. The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Request concerning Scjessey

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 20:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAPDS


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


 * 1) March 13, 2016 Tendentiousness/Refusal to accept consensus (Violation of consensus)
 * 2) March 12, 2016 WP:OWN (Violation of consensus)
 * 3) March 12, 2016 WP:OWN (Violation of consensus)
 * 4) March 10, 2016 More heat than light. (Violates behavioral standards)
 * 5) February 22, 2016 Gratuitous cussing (read the entire thread): Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016/Archive 2 as an example of WP:OWN. (Violates behavioral standards)
 * 6) In this recent discussion, rough consensus was reached for including some content, but Scjessey (mildly) edit warred to keep the content out and stonewalling on the talk page   (Violates edit warring and consensus)
 * 7) March 13, 2016 Unnecessarily inflaming discussions by politicizing them. (Violates behavioral standards)
 * 8) March 14, 2016 WP:OWN Rejects a 6:2 consensus on the basis of an essay. (Violation of consensus)
 * 9) February 26, 2016] WP:OWN "No, we are not having a "shit magnet" section called "miscellaneous controversies"." ←←← See, this is ownership.
 * Recent warnings
 * 1) March 10, 2016 Civility warning


 * 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):


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

I want to preface this by stating that I'm not seeking harsh sanctions, nor do I believe Scjessey's behavior has been particularly egregious. In fact, he's a thoughtful editor who does much to improve our content.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Over the past six months or so, the editing environment in American politics has been relatively peaceful, in part due to topic bans of a few problem editors. I've observed that Scjessey tends to WP:OWN certain articles, especially those related to Hillary Clinton. This behavior manifests as edit warring, cussing at other editors, tendentiousness, and refusal to accept consensus.

I'm seeking a creative solution that will get this editor to take a step back, cooperate with other editors, and stop acting as the gatekeeper for every Hillary Clinton article. Perhaps a short topic ban, a 1RR restriction, a final warning, or some combination of these, would help the situation before it gets out of control.- MrX 20:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "the reporting editor, MrX, tells Scjessey that he'd better self-revert or else". Please provide a diff that I wrote "self-revert or else", or kindly strike it. And while you're at it, you can strike "no, I'm taking it to AE" and replace it with what I actually wrote which is: "It's not going to be ANI; it's going to be AE." I would also suggest that you notify Zigzig20s that you have raised concerns here about his conduct.- MrX 03:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * @Drmies, with great respect, if six editors support inclusion of content either tacitly via editing, or via discussions providing clear evidence of WP:DUEWEIGHT as I did here, and only two editors object with arguments of WP:RECENT (an essay) and arguments of WP:DUEWEIGHT that have been refuted with evidence, then I'm pretty sure that we can declare consensus. Please review the American Politics 1 & 2 Arbcom cases to see similar examples of filibustering and stonewalling that was used to keep critical content out certain favored political articles. Arbcom was clear in both case that this type of behavior in which an editor edits against consensus or blocks consensus. They wrote


 * Arbcom was also clear about ownership


 * I've observed other editors commenting on HRC article talk pages about perceived ownership by Scjessey and I've seen editors loudly complain on other pages that it's impossible to add any critical content to HRC articles. They ask why then do we allow criticism in Republican and Libertarian BLPs. I'm left to explain that we edit by consensus and that good, policy based arguments prevail. I was wrong.


 * I brought this here so that it could be addressed before it get's out of control. When you combine the intransigence with the cussing, berating, 2RR, and "no no no", it's damaging to the collaborative editing environment that I hope we all seek.- MrX 15:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * @Drmies, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I certainly value your perspective on this. One correction however. As of now, six editors favor including the content (Gaijin42, Zigzig20s, The Four Deuces, Neutrality, Jonathunder and MrX), while three are in various degrees of opposition (Scjessey, Wikidemon, and Dave Dial). Jonathunder and Dave Dial were the only editors who were not involved prior to me filing this request.- MrX 19:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What exactly about this is silly? Have you even reviewed the diffs provided by myself and Gaijin42? Are you saying that this type of conduct on US political articles is acceptable, or that in two case, Arbcom intended to give a pass to people who forbid content changes; tell others to wait until he's ready; and routinely cusses at editors when he gets frustrated? Please do elaborate.- MrX 18:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for somewhat of an answer, The Wordsmith. The request is not frivolous, but as far as I'm concerned, it can be closed as too minor to warrant action.- MrX 20:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Scjessey
''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 Scjessey

 * I'm not going to waste my time making a detailed statement based on such a laughable request for enforcement that has been based on flimsy diffs. Am I bit acerbic and profane sometimes? When dealing with POV warriors who continue to use Wikipedia as a platform for their political beliefs, rather than for the betterment of the project, I can get testy and swear a little. But as long as swearing is not directed at an individual (such as "fuck you"), Wikipedia's policy on the matter doesn't have a fucking problem with it. (You see what I did there?) -- Scjessey (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * One other point I would like to make is the wrongness that "consensus" is decided by numbers - something being advocated in this very enforcement discussion. It is decided by the weight of arguments. If 10 editors want something in an article that violates WP:BLP, even a lone voice against that inclusion should be sufficient to stop it from happening. Content disputes are always difficult to deal with, and political articles are magnets for such things. The weight of numbers cannot and must not be used as a bludgeon to force questionable edits into an article. With years of experience in political articles, I can easily tell the difference between a discussion leading to an evolving consensus and a discussion being driven by a tag team of POV warriors. I'm sure Wikidemon (who is even more experienced with this sort of editing) will agree with me. I'd rather see questionable editing forced into formal dispute resolution than just back down, even in the face of lopsided numbers. The project must come first. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Gaijin42 - Amazing bit of revisionism there, but at least it reinforces my point that editors are engaging in numbers game, rather than a consensus discussion. Shameful. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Wikidemon
@Gaijin42 — it looks like 3-2 for me on a matter under discussion for less than a day. Looks more like trigger-happy arbitration requests than "overwhelming consensus", a case of WP:OWN, or whatever the proponents of the content are calling it. Jonathunder's talk page comment came after this was filed, and if Neutrality has an opinion I don't see that he voiced it on the article talk page.- Wikidemon (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Bad report. There is nothing or actionable in this particular list of Scjessey's edits here, most of which are talk page discussions. As a process matter, this looks like a "he dared me to do it" report —Scjessey tells Gaijin42 to stop grandstanding and either report him to AN/I or not. MrX says no, it's going to be AE. Scjessey says "good luck with that" so, without any further edits on Scjessey's part MrX went ahead and did just that.
 * On the specifics: #1: "big effing deal" — hard to believe that a euphemism for a curseword is arbitration material. What's next, you can't say "dang" or "darn?" Gaijin42 (who Scjessey is responding to) and MrX (the reporting editor) are responsible editors here, but Zigzig20s, the one who is making the proposal and started this discussion thread, has been a royal pain in the last few days, making one bad content proposal at another, transparently describing their personal political reasons for complaining about Clinton, while launching accusations on other editors. #2) How is saying on the talk page that you disagree with other editors a violation of consensus? If we are merely counting heads, there are two in favor, two opposed (if you count me, I'm not convinced either way which means not adding the content for now), plus Zigzig20s. #3) again, saying on the talk page that you oppose a one-day old proposal that's got 3-2 support is not ownership or violating consensus; #4) Both editors are getting a little FORUM-ish here; Zigzig20s accuses Scjessey of being blind to Hillary Clinton's homophobia and Scjessey says "for Fuck's sake". This is not arbitration material. #5) "What the fuck are you talking about", agreed, is 3-week-old gratuitous profanity — is that sanctionable? All profanity on Wikipedia is gratuitous and unnecessary, except in articles about the same. Regardless, another editor, Fred Bauder, who has also made a series of weak content proposals coupled with accusations against editors who dispute them, and Zigzig20s, are both accusing Scjessey of ownership, and triggering the profanity, of being a Clinton campaign operative. #6) It takes two to edit war, or in this case four, but there is no consensus over this content, it's discussed on the talk page, and nobody here passed 1RR. The suggestion that arguing against the reporting editor's favored version of content is ownership or stonewalling is ridiculous, and even if Scjessey were outnumbered or out-reasoned, it would be chilling to tell people they can't state their content position on the talk page. #7) Scjessey isn't the one inflaming things here. He's justified in cautioning Zigzig20s to stop accusing people of things, Zigzig20s is rapidly wearing out any patience by accusing people of things without responding to what they say, apparently some testiness and poor comprehension of the discussion thread.
 * That's it? I see nothing here. I've participated in a few political articles lately related to Hillary Clinton and the 2016 United States Presidential election, by no means most of them. Scjessey has been editing political articles for as long as I can recall. Though his online gruffness and impatience dealing with bad content and difficult editors leaves some room for improvement, this is hardly an occasion for Wikipedia process reports. Particularly important, Scjessey is a long-time stabilizing influence on some of these articles, responding to editors whose content and behavioral issues are potentially disruptive. Reflexive accusations of WP:OWN by the reporting editor and others on these talk pages are particularly unwarranted, and an attempt to chill discussion – that's the last refuge of somebody with a bad content proposal who cannot gain consensus for making a change. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I have advised Scjessey, as I have before, that a little more politeness will go a long way. Also, Gaijin42 points out that two editors supported the content by edits on the article page without commenting, hence 5-2. I think consensus is likely to head that way, but it's not (or was not) overwhelming, final, or decided so quickly. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Gaijin42
I second the notion that while Scjessey should not be harshly sanctioned at this time, he needs a very firm "knock it off or else". As wikidemon says, there are some strong POV problems from Zigzig20s and others, and Scjessy is a needed voice to balance them. However, Scjessy's issue is that he mistakes all information he doesn't like for a blp/pov violation

He has a very obvious case of OWN where he stonewalls any information that is anything other than glowing for Clinton. Every issue must be taken to an RFC or have an overwhelming consensus develop before he caves in.

Once one hammers through his reflexive Clinton protection, he does a good job of raising legitimate concerns and working on collaborative compromise to include information while addressing neutrality etc. If he could start at step 2 rather than an immediate revert every time, it would solve 99% of the issue.


 * 2r


 * explicit WP:ABF on a WP:POVNAME redirect AFD, which was closed as snow keep. Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_21. As is a typical comment says "The right-wing media echo chamber" is the source, even though many lefty sources also had used the term


 * source misrepresentation takes the source statement "Mr. Pagliano told the agents that nothing in his security logs suggested that any intrusion occurred." and puts into the article "Security logs show there was no evidence Clinton's email server was ever hacked" (wikivoice vs attribution, and juxtaposes absence of evidence for evidence of absense


 * removal of well sourced opinion by notable voices. edit warring  Content eventually kept with overwhelming consensus [Talk:Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Arbitrary_break]


 * removal of sourced and relevant facts

Your count on this dispute is off. The current standing is 6-2 (Me, MrX, Zig, Jonathunder, Neutrality, TFD), for a two sentences of content that every major source has written multiple detailed articles about. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC) re, while an explicit talk page comment would certainly be more easier to quantify, he edited the content in question, which is indicative of support for its inclusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey is quite right that consensus is not a vote. His issue is that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not part of WP:BLP. When there are legitimate blp violations, by all means delete them. Something that is well sourced, and neutrally summarized should not be deleted and especially not deleted multiple times by a single editor under the argument of a blp violation.

As I note above, once Scjessy actually gets to the collaboration and improvement stage, things work well (and he has very valuable and important input). The issue is that it takes giant battles to get to that stage. Also as I said above, I'm not looking for a topic ban or anything like that, merely a warning to be a little less reverty, and start out at the collaborative improvement phrase. There are certainly POV violations that need to be nipped in the bud, but these are not them, and the fact that each of these took giant threads to insert one or two sentences each is ridiculous.
 * The redirect discussion I used in my original comment is a fairly concise example of Scjessey staking out a position that gets completely blown away. Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_21. Complains that "scandal" wording is only used by "right wing echo chamber", yet sources using that phrasing include Mother Jones, Slate, Atlantic, Time, Cnn, HuffPo, 538, NPR, etc.
 * Another example from 1.5 months ago, the lead of the Hillary Clinton email controversy (and mirrored summary sections in Hillary Clinton) contained no mention that classified content was actually contained in her emails. This is months after the releases of redacted classified emails started coming out (at that time, 1300 classified emails had been released, 22 of them top secret had just been announced, which was the immediate trigger for the discussion). All mention in the section/lead was reverted out. Scjessey repeatedly claimed such mention was a BLP violation. Huge talk page discussion, many sources, general (but not overwhelming) consensus Scjessey fights against. Talk:Hillary_Clinton/Archive_29#Email_controversy_.2F_classified_content Eventually he asks for an outside sanity check (to his credit). Afterwards he drops the BLP objection, edits are made, collaboration, stability is restored.
 * In another example (diffs of reverts in original statement), he repeatedly argues when the head of every major intelligence agency gives the opinion that Clinton's server was insecure, and that it is likely that it was hacked by foreign governments (note, not actually hacked, just likely hacked) that those opinions are irrelevant, and that they are just political opponents (even though 3/4 were Obama appointees) and that "none of these people have any expert knowledge of email servers or internet security" (In reference to the heads of the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA,SecDef etc). Another huge thread Talk:Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy. Eventually something like 8-1 against Scjessey comes out. Edits are made. collaboration, Stability. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Scjessey

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


 * I don't see anything requiring sanctions or even a come-to-Jesus comment here. The first three diffs show an editor disagreeing with what at that moment is not a consensus--it's one or two editors wanting something in and Scjessey wanting something not in. In diff 7 one can see a certain presumption, as if the world should pause while the editor is taking a break--but while one may call that silly, it's not a violation of standards. I am a bit concerned that now every disagreement is blown up to DS proportions, and that disagreement is seen as an expression of ownership. That kind of exaggeration is not helpful; one might as well say, with similar rhetorical overkill, that this report is an attempt at censorship. Gaijin's edit came 12 March, 21:28, and one could argue there's some consensus for it--but to say "you have full consensus", as Zigzig20s did, is as OWNy as the cited diff 7. Besides, if we're looking around for other poor behavior, we see Zigzag20s calling a section "Secret Goldman Sachs speeches", which is much worse, given that...well, "secret"? One could even call that phrasing a BLP violation, since it implies malicious intent on the part of the living person in question. In a thread filled with OR, "secret" is OR itself. In other words, pot, kettle. Many of the regulars on that talk page speak tendentiously, one of the disadvantages of us following hard on the news cycle. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Mr. X, Scjessey reverted at 13:18 on 13 March; as far as I can tell there were four editors supporting keeping the information: you, Zigzig, Gaijin, TFD. Sure, one could argue that that's something of a consensus, but it's in no way iron-clad. I don't like this constant pointing at policy, which is typically intended to keep stuff in ("it's verified!") without at all considering judgment. I note also that Gaijin (I think?) invoked WP:IDONTLIKEIT--the easiest charge in the arsenal, but it's a double-edged sword: it leads to the countercharge of YOULIKEIT, which also basically means "POV!" You don't have to explain to me what OWN means: I know it. Two edits and a few comments don't mean ownership, any more than you and those supporting your position claim ownership by disagreeing with Scjessey. If there's a longterm pattern of filibustering etc., that needs to be proven. But filibustering? The edits were from the last two days; Wendy Davis would not be impressed. Sorry, but I disagree, with respect and without claiming ownership. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Mr. X. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This report appears, on the face of it, to be frivolous. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This is silly. Case dismissed, bring in the dancing lobsters. The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @MrX: Yes, i've reviewed the case, like I review every case I weigh in on. The behavior isn't ideal, but there is absolutely nothing i've seen that warrants Arbitration Enforcement. I have always taken an extremely hardline stance on protecting BLPs, but it just isn't substantive enough to do anything. Frivolous cases like this are why AE and Dramaboard are such cesspools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wordsmith (talk • contribs) 15:49, 15 March 2016‎ (UTC)


 * I have previously warned Scjessey about unnecessary use of profanity which makes talk pages less collegial, as do some other elements of his tone, but it would not be fair to single him out as the only editor at fault, and I don't think AE is warranted at this time. I agree with dismissing the case. Jonathunder (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The filer, User:MrX, has stated above he is OK with closing this as too minor to warrant action. EdJohnston (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Mrbrklyn
''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 Mrbrklyn

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 01:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA3 :


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


 * 1) 21:07, 18 March 2016 Adding text related to the Israel/Palestine conflict to a BLP of a prominent activist
 * 2) 14:46, 18 March 2016 Adding polemic and commentary to an article clearly covered by the arbitration ruling


 * 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):


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
 * Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 06:39, 16 March 2016 and several subsequent edits.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Although this editor has been repeatedly warned of the arbitration restrictions, and has taken part in several discussions about this, all of which have confirmed that he is restricted from making such edits, the editor continues to insist that he is indeed allowed to edit in the subject area. He claims both that the restrictions permit editors with fewer than 500 edits, but longer than 30 days tenure, to edit, and that in any case the restriction does not apply to him because he claims to have made several hundred edits which Wikipedia has somehow "lost". The editor has also made abusive personal attacks on several other editors,


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Mrbrklyn
''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 Sepsis II
To be fair, the editor has made quite a few edits under various IPs, but, the editor does show an inability to take part in discussions in relation to Israel-Palestine articles. Sepsis II (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Mrbrklyn

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


 * This Arbitration Motion clarifies the rule. You are prohibited from the IP area until they have 500 edits and 30 days account duration. Since the committee have had to clarify the rule I think a sanction at this time is unmerited but further violations will result in blocks. Spartaz Humbug! 14:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it hasn't been decided YET as is CLEAR from this link. At this point you are just making stuff up. What is this the ghestopo? In fact, what did the offending admins do to the entire discussion which is supposed to be here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_3.23500.2F30 that just POOF and disapeared. Meanwhile, stop removing the discussion

When I SEE A VOTE, on disinterested editors, then you will know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn (talk • contribs) 23:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It disappeared because it was closed after an amendment was adopted and then the amendment was logged to the original case here. See Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard Mojoworker (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc
''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 I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 22:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms :


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

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (aka jps) and have edit-warred material into the article GMO conspiracy theories based on self-published sources and other poor sourcing, ignoring objections. Jps created the article on January 31, 2016 to look like this. Many of the sources do not meet our sourcing guidelines. I pointed this out here and then took out a number of these unreliable sources. (Please note that Genetic Literacy Project is run by Jon Entine a Pro-GMO advocate. ; Mark Lynas does similar pro-GMO advocacy .)  jps went ahead and put the material back in without addressing any of the concerns and without achieving consensus first here. I reverted here. Alexbrn edit-warred the material back in here despite continuing objections here. also explained the problematic sourcing here.

At this ANI, jps's behavior was outrageous. Jps lied about the content of sources:. He originally said that Domingo 2011 was "much criticized". When pointed out he was lying and asked him to "prove it" , he responded with three journals , none of which criticized Domingo. An independent editor  confirmed it was a lie here. Rather than address the misrepresentations, jps made a mockery of the proceedings.  noted this disruptful behavior, as did.

--David Tornheim (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

CLARIFICATION
 * Although I did use the word "edit-warring" above, that is not my allegation in paragraph #1.  My allegation is the unreasonable insistence on use of unacceptable and unreliable sources.  That is the reason I brought this action.  When I said edit-warring, I meant that both editors had been alerted to the problem with the sources, yet went ahead and forced those sources back in.  This action is about the sources, not the number of times an editor reverted in a dispute.  I am sorry I did not make that clear.


 * I will note that not a single only one of jps's and Alexbrn's defenders has been bold enough to suggest those sources are acceptable. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC) (revised 15:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC))


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


 * This warning has been on the article talk page in which both users have participated since 19:27 January 31,2016. I put further reminder pinging user here and another on the talk page here.


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
 * Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 1/31/2016


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Regarding false allegations that I reverted solely based on "no consensus". Although I did not explain all my reasoning in the edit notes, In every single case, I discussed the revert on the talk page, and King was present in every one of those discussions.  Often I created a section on the talk page and pinged the editor.


 * For ,, I restored material that had been stable in the article for a long time. The deletions were one-side and I and other editors discussed the non-NPOV removals here.


 * For, see discussion and my comment


 * For, see


 * For, the edit note gives other reasons. I further discuss on the talk page here:    (part of this discussion).


 * King's remaining diffs are just as poorly represented, but to spare Liz and others, I will limit providing more diffs:
 * For the sentence about "pull[ing] a full 180 degrees" to "edit war content back in":
 * The first group of 3 is covered in this complaint: I was not adding but removing material that was based on blogs and self-published sites by pro-GMO advocates.
 * The next 3 diffs I restored well-sourced relevant material that was removed unilaterally. I even improved one of the sources.


 * The key difference between material I removed in the first 3 diffs and material I restored in the next 3, is the quality of the sources. That is why I brought this action.  There is no reason for editors who have been here as long as jps and Alexbrn to waste our time trying to force material with such shoddy sourcing into the encyclopedia, when they know better.


 * For the remainder of King's diffs, he actually brings up actions taken against me by a now-topic-banned editor--I brought those exact actions as evidence at the ArbCom that resulted in that editor being topic-banned.

Regarding Shock Brigade Harvester Boris's statement:


 * Neither of those two editors are new to GMO's or new to Wikipedia. Both were at the GMO ArbCom proceeding.  And both had edited and commented on GMO articles prior to the creation of the conspiracy article, advocating pro-industry positions.   However, a new editor  has shown up that immediately saw the problem that brought this action. .  --David Tornheim (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Bishonen's statement:


 * Why is jps immune from prosecution? How can you be sure jps is innocent when you have not even looked at the evidence? What kind of justice system is this? --David Tornheim (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding King's accusations of WP:Fringe:


 * Consider these two allegations: diff1 diff2.
 * Mentioning the fact that GMO's are banned or regulated more strictly in other countries is not fringe. The material in diff2 comes straight from the World Health Organization  and International Council for Science . --David Tornheim (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Despite disagreements on content between me and Aircorn and Tryptofish, I can work cooperatively with both of them, and Tryptofish has acknowledged this. Consider these two recent edits:, .  And this.  Kingofaces43 does not try to work with me.   Consider his aggressive attempts to block my addition of well-sourced material on GMO bans and regulations that vary by country:   and two diffs above alleging Fringe.  --David Tornheim (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The "nuclear option" might help, but the selection of the "class" of editors to be TB'd should extend back to the date of the ArbCom decision, rather than 1 month, because the problems immediately resumed after ArbCom was closed (or perhaps make it earlier). And the date should end on the date of the proposal, so as not to scare off new editors.  Compiling a list of all editors from all articles applicable under the GMO ArbCom decision sounds unmanageable, so I suggest limiting it to just GMO articles, Monsanto and Glyphosate, or just a certain set of articles where there have been the most problems.  (The TB's could still be the same as the ArbCom decision.)  I would also require--if it is possible--that any editor who wants to appeal the "nuclear option" would be required to appeal the entire decision (i.e. the entire class of editors selected) not just for themselves.  And requests for reinstatement would also apply to the entire class, not just themselves.  Otherwise, you will have a bunch of individual appeals and individual requests to be reinstated, and it will be an even bigger mess than it already is.  If you take a path such as this, I am willing help assemble and/or verify the lists--for error checking (obviously non-involved admins would be responsible to verify the accuracy of work performed by any involved admin. or editor.)  I would make sure the list can be checked by everyone before it is finalized.
 * Even though I would be on the proposed list, please do not consider that I am suggesting I am part of the problem, but I do acknowledge others have long wanted me TB'd for challenging industry PR in the articles and for having the gall to suggest that we make it clearer the indisputable fact that other countries are not as GMO friendly as the U.S., and even ban GMOs. That my accusers would also be TB'd seems fair to me.  With the exception of one editor at ArbCom, they have been completely unaccountable for their wrong actions, uncivil behavior, double-standards, etc. and there is no venue to hold them accountable, including this one.  The "nuclear option" might help.
 * I think a better solution is to use juries of randomly selected non-involved editors to resolve GMO disputes (and other similar contentious disputes).  This would take the burden off of you admins. and we could expect a fair trial.   Obviously ArbCom did not fix the problem, and I am not surprised that admins feel overwhelmed by trying to read the walls-of-text that come with a GMO dispute. David Tornheim (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a better solution is to use juries of randomly selected non-involved editors to resolve GMO disputes (and other similar contentious disputes).  This would take the burden off of you admins. and we could expect a fair trial.   Obviously ArbCom did not fix the problem, and I am not surprised that admins feel overwhelmed by trying to read the walls-of-text that come with a GMO dispute. David Tornheim (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a better solution is to use juries of randomly selected non-involved editors to resolve GMO disputes (and other similar contentious disputes).  This would take the burden off of you admins. and we could expect a fair trial.   Obviously ArbCom did not fix the problem, and I am not surprised that admins feel overwhelmed by trying to read the walls-of-text that come with a GMO dispute. David Tornheim (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Spartaz that the "nuclear option" should have its own separate action. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

 

Discussion concerning I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc
''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 I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc
Claims of edit warring are pretty strange. Certainly no violation of 1RR or even anything close to that (weeks in between reversions?) has occurred by anyone active at the article. I have encountered a lot of resistance from people of a certain political persuasion when it comes to the GMO controversy. Unfortunately, discussion on the talkpage has occasionally degenerated into problematic arguments by anti-GMO activists that, for example, sources such as academic books published by Oxford University Press were unreliable. Sorry about my exasperation. I will try to dial back the snark as much as possible.

It would be nice if you all would give David and Petra little breaks from this subject as they are the ones who are most problematic in baiting and changing the discussion from content toward argumentative rhetoric. The AN/I discussion was outlandish for its demonstration that anti-GMO activists are so ideologically inclined to attach themselves to their favored sources, they cannot even understand when the sources are contradicted. I also find it particularly galling when they try to claim that Mark Lynas and David Entine are somehow corrupt sources (e.g., an argument that because Entine works for AEI and climate deniers also work for AEI that therefore Entine is not a reliable source for information on genetic engineering, biotechnology, or food safety -- what?). Petra has gone so far as to claim equivalency between Lynas and Vani Hari which is a level of incompetence regarding the identification of reliable sources that is fairly unrivaled at Wikipedia since maybe the time we were overrun with climate deniers.

jps (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Diffs (for those who like them)
WP:BOOMERANG may apply here as well. These are all David diffs since he filed the report:
 * Revert by David. See WP:KETTLE.
 * Heavy handed ordering of other editors. Basically asserting an odd form of ownership over the article ordering what edits I can and cannot do without so much as suggesting discussion is possible.
 * continuing to harass an editor banned in the relevant arbcom case

Responses

 * You're absolutely right about the arbcom GMO case. The problem, I think, is similar to what happened with global warming. There are just many editors with the same agendas willing to hop back into the game after their friends are banned and there is no arbitration of content (which is really what is needed because at the end of the day that's where the dispute lies -- not in behavior). What ended up happening in the climate change omnibus case was an outright ban of basically everyone with the deniers remaining banned and the "pro-science" folks slowly restored. We're almost at the point where all the things that the pro-science crowd wanted to do back in 2009 are accomplished, but some might argue that Wikipedia is better for having done the shoot first, ask questions later approach since it was ultimately difficult to pin the disciplinary action on any one ideology. But make no mistake, we know which "side" won that battle and it is pretty clear to me which "side" will win this battle too in the long run. If it takes a Boris-style suggestion of kicking us all to the curb to get it done because of the dysfunctional way Wikipedia administration and arbitration works, I guess that's okay by me. As the mother who asked that Solomon give the baby to the other woman rather than splitting it in twain, I would rather a decision made that will ultimately save the encyclopedia from becoming a haven for anti-GMO paranoia rather than preserving any small part I may have in helping this situation along. But you might consider whether the article I have written (for the most part) really is as bad as my esteemed colleagues who have dragged me here would have you believe. jps (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty awful when no one can tell what your actual argument is upon filing. It's even worse when your argument is that you don't like the sources. There is essentially zero precedent for an WP:AE ruling over content like this. You're at the wrong venue. jps (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

On what basis do you request that I be topic banned? What diffs in particular brought up in this case cause you to want me to be kicked to the curb? jps (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think that there is something specific that I said at Talk:GMO conspiracy theories that needs redacting, tell me what it is. A diff, for example. If you think my attempt to actually engage with those I disagree shouldn't be done at WP:ANI, I think you are too inclined toward WP:BURO. Finally, if you think that my acceptance of a ridiculous overreach by administrators is something I do because I want to see good editors banned, you have not understood what I wrote. jps (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish
This is more complicated than what the filing editor describes. Bottom line: jps should be strongly advised to dial back his sarcasm and snark, with the understanding that continuation will likely result in action here:, ,.

At the same time, there is some reason for exasperation on jps' part, and some degree of conduct from the "other side" that gets rather close to baiting. I've gone through every single diff that David T. provided. The so-called edit warring isn't quite that, although David was just as much involved in it as anyone else – and I don't see anything disruptive on Alexbrn's part. When David talks about "unreliable sources", he is throwing PZ Myers and Scientific American into the mix, so the content dispute has a lot more shades of gray than what is presented. About the Domingo source, well, we can probably quibble over whether it was "much criticized", or just "criticized". The three sources cited by jps draw somewhat the opposite conclusions to Domingo, and since then another reliable source has directly refuted Domingo:. Anti-GMO activists cling to the Domingo source, which is why it seems to be such high stakes. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The more that I see David T. continuing to use this page to argue about content, the more that I wish he would drop it as inappropriate to this noticeboard, and the more I wish he would direct his editing energy back to article talk pages. It's clear that we are no longer discussing any problem with jps, and the longer this goes on, the more likely a boomerang becomes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And now, even the responding administrators are getting cranky and crabby. (By the way, I have been editing in the topic area.) Just close this mess. It's gone far past its expiration date, and is clearly starting to spoil. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The idea that AE should make a decision to topic ban every editor, whether helpful or disruptive, is, to put it plainly, a stupid idea. Does anyone really think that there won't be a new crop of POV pushers? If you want to put your money where your mouth is, request that ArbCom accept a new GMO-2 case. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I made this edit: . Let's topic ban me. Please just close this thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43
Tryptofish described the overall situation well, but I do have to suggest a boomerang for David Tornheim as jps mentioned for a vexatious AE filing like this, which has resulted in action on other editors before.. David Tornheim does have a tendency to antagonize the situation in this topic by some very clear cut fringe-advocacy behavior, which is only continuing to exacerbate the community's patience as we've seen in jps' case. WP:KETTLE is the most apparent behavior problem associated with battleground behavior for anyone that's been following David's actions in this topic.

Edit warring often occurs with David making demands as jps pointed out or where they revert a new edit basically demanding in edit summaries that material cannot be changed without their approval even when they don't attempt to open up initial talk page discussion on it, which runs entirely against WP:DRNC.(just need to read edit summaries here) They still fail to see this problem in their behavior even in their comments in this filing. However, when it comes to David's own edits, they pull a full 180 and try to edit war content back in they are already aware didn't have consensus such as this string (some intermediate edits not included), and this More kettle issues come up at the ANI David tries to cite as evidence if someone takes the time to read through their multitude of posts, especially the battleground aspect of bringing up Nazi's, etc.

David has been warned multiple times at ANI now for battleground, edit warring, and general tendentiousness. , plus by admins for peanut gallery type behavior in this topic at admin boards. Continuing that behavior and jumping to AE when someone shows reasonable frustration is just more battleground. We're past the point of warnings, so it's starting to look like the path to a topic ban is already being well traveled. If that doesn't seem clear to admins yet, reading the edit summaries in my diffs should be enough indication for a 0RR restriction for David as an intermediate step at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Responding to Short Brigade Harvester Boris, I don't think we're in such dire straits that we'd need such a nuclear option. We've been making slow progress in this topic with a decent handful of disruptive editors already topic banned. We basically have two core editors left that really frequent the topic (right now at least) with advocacy/battleground issues. David is one of those with their behavior being the more problematic of the two. My hope is that pruning back David's behavior should finally get us to a relative die-down on drama or at least to the point where action might only needed for one or two more editors to really settle things down. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * After awhile away, I'm really surprised this is still open. Either just close this, take action, or boomerang. Admins tired of dealing with GMO stuff can just lower the bar for action to whittle the most troublesome out as Aircorn mentioned, especially those that have been warned plenty already.


 * Considering David is still out for blood after being warned for their admin board use, I'll only respond to their claim I'm aggressively blocking and not trying to work with them, which amounts to an absurd degree of drama mongering we don't need in this topic. In my post they are referencing, I made it clear that fringe groups frequently use a specific idea David wanted to insert and that caution is needed in presenting it. A very different picture than what he paints. The degree of blustering on that is just another piece of the David's battleground behavior that's been presented above and elsewhere already, so there's not more to say. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Alexbrn
I see I have been accused of edit-warring on an article where I have only made two (unrelated) edits ever.

That says it all. Alexbrn (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris
This nonsense has gone on too long. The editing atmosphere is much too toxic for any newcomers to try to contribute, as User:Alexbrn's statement above demonstrate. Suggested remedy:
 * 1. Compile a list of everyone who has edited the topic in the past month. (I would like to exclude User:Alexbrn but this has to be absolute or there will be endless wrangling. Sorry Alex.)
 * 2. Topic ban them for the next six months.
 * 3. If any of these editors violates the topic ban even once, or if they file a complaint about any other editor on the list in any venue on any Wikimedia project, the remaining period of the topic ban is automatically and without discussion converted as a site ban.

No, I am not trying to be funny. Nothing else is going to work. We need to make this topic safe for new contributors if anything is to change. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Aircorn
A few babies will go down the drain if SBHB's remedy is used. I don't think we are at this stage though. The major problem revolves around our presentation of the safety of GMO food. The divide between the science and public opinion is large and that is reflected on Wikipedia. Correspondingly most of the problems stem from disagreements over this issue. Good progress had been made on this front (for example Talk:Genetically modified crops) and before we resort to kicking everyone a better first step would be to get a well run rfc to decide this question for an enforceable period of time. AIR corn (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A response to Davids clarification above. Reliability of a source depends on context and blogs by well known experts in the field are reliable for that persons opinion. I wouldn't classify myself as a defender of anyone, but yes these sources are acceptable as reliable source when attributed to that person (as all these were). The question is more an issue of how much weight to give that persons opinion (which can be none at all). This is a discussion for the talk page or a noticeboard, not a reason to come here. AIR corn (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is pretty clear that the community is well and truly sick of us. That is understandable and I agree half measures are no good, but I disagree with this "kill em all" approach. Not all editors deserve the same treatment., and  make good contributions and are easy to work with.  has worked hard on formulating a rfc which may help with a lot of these issues.  and  have been editing the area for years with no problems. ,  and  are very knowledgeable in this and other science areas. Despite appearances progress is being made on all GM articles and a blanket ban is likely to hinder this. Also the main issue is not the editors regularly contributing to the article space, but those involved in overblown discussions on the various talk pages that make it hard for even interested editors to follow and those with the habit of regurgitating the same arguments at multiple forums. A better approach would be to get rid of the worst offenders and keep going until only those looking to improve the articles remain. In my opinion a good start would be applying the six month topic ban or some other remedy on  and  and then work down from there. AIR corn  (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

JPS. I don't want anyone kicked to the curb, but the fact remains that this is still open and the current trend looks to be to blanket ban everyone. I would rather see some of the more disruptive editors pruned off first. Diffs don't provide context, but if anyone is willing to read the talk page at Talk:GMO conspiracy theories they will see your part in the excessive discussion that is turning off both involved and uninvolved editors. The recent request by Dr Chrissey for their topic ban to be lifted at ANI highlights your involvement in carrying on off topic discussions in wrong forums. However, your blase attitude to the suggestion of the blanket ban pissed me off the most. There are some good editors here and your willingness to through everyone under the bus came did not come across well. AIR corn (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme
I agree with Tryptofish regarding his recommendation to strongly advise jps to "dial back his sarcasm and snark" but I doubt it will do any good because he has gotten away with it for far too long. I admit that my suggestion comes from first-hand experiences but that isn't why I'm here. I have a suggestion that may help resolve some of the ongoing disputes regarding controversial topics. GMO articles by their very nature attract editors with different perspectives, and as one would expect, involved editors almost always reach an impasse. What I've witnessed from the sidelines appears to be more of a syntax issue that escalates into behavioral issues, most of which are instigated by "sarcasm and snark" when the problem could easily be resolved with the help of qualified neutral copyeditors and/or experienced FA reviewers who can corroborate the prose against the cited sources. Perhaps we should consider a neutral "mediation team" who can step in and resolve these syntax disputes and spare the project further POV imbalance resulting from the use of TBs which actually conflict with our efforts in editor retention. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 04:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add - there's a difference between pro-science and conflicting science, the latter occurring when scientists disagree with each other. Please, let's try to keep things in perspective. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 21:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Petra
In response to the claim from JPS regarding my supposed incompetence, "Petra has gone so far as to claim equivalency between Lynas and Vani Hari which is a level of incompetence regarding the identification of reliable sources that is fairly unrivaled at Wikipedia since maybe the time we were overrun with climate deniers."

I would like to note that Lynas is known as a pro-GMO writer. The "Food Babe" was an example I used of an advocate who is known as anti-GMO. I suggested that the reader should be alerted to his advocacy in the same way we would do for Vani Hari. That was my only claim. [But... climate change!(?)] Admins, do you feel that my suggestion shows incompetence? Is it appropriate for JPS to not only fail to ping me, but to call me incompetent? Just wondering.

Comment by JzG
, Lynas is a respected science writer, Hari has a level of scientific ignorance that is hard to convey without resort to hyperbole. This is someone who genuinely wrote that aircraft cause problems because they are pressurised above mean sea level pressure, and asserted that the cabin air is a problem because it's not pure oxygen but instead "recycled" from outside the cabin. That's not even wrong. To assert any kind of equivalence is indeed to exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding about WP:PARITY. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Dialectric
This is in response to the proposal by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, and the admin support for the proposal that appears below in the results section. Banning everyone from the area is not the answer. Many editors in the GMO area have made an effort to work through disagreements in a civil and scholarly way, without resorting to personal attacks or battleground mentality. The articles in this area are now by and large stable, supported by extensive RS references; many of the references meet more stringent criteria including WP:SCIRS and the articles usually provide reasonably weighted coverage of minority views.

There are, however, some ‘holy warriors’ at the extremes of the pro and anti GMO spectrum, willing to cast aside civil discourse and disregard wikipedia policies in the service of their agendas. These extreme voices will be unhappy as long as the opposition is reflected in any way in the article, regardless of sourcing quality. Reigning in these extreme voices is a difficult challenge, but there are avenues open to us that do not require a scorched-earth ban-everyone approach: 0rr has been implemented in a few cases; requiring that all changes be discussed on the talk page for at least 24hrs prior to implementation could be a reasonable step before a total ban. Is there any evidence that a 6 month ban would solve the problem? Why 6 months and not 3 or some other time? Why employ an extreme, novel solution when there are other incremental solutions open to us?Dialectric (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

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


 * I think the lack of admin response to this request is due to fatigue regarding disputes in the GMO area which show up at AE on a regular basis. It seems like the GMO arbitration case didn't settle things down one bit. You all have presented dozens and dozens of diffs so it will take a while for me (and others) to weigh the merits of your arguments. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is indeed very fatiguing. But before I faint from the oxygen-deprivation of tunnelling into the diff collections above and other background material, I will with my last breath oppose any sanction of jps in this matter. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC).
 * Did I say I hadn't looked at the evidence? I have tunnelled into it, and that's the reason I'm oxygen-deprived, dizzy and exhausted. I'm continuing to look, but wanted to register an interim opposition to sanctions, based on what I've seen so far. I'm still looking, and may be back. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC).


 * What Bishonen said. Plus, I like what Short Harvester Brigade Boris is proposing. Also, I think jps is really going to get in trouble over snarkiness. Finally, David Tornheim, if you're going to be rude to the admins who weigh in here, misreading them all along, don't count on finding much sympathy. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * SBHB speaks the truth -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with SBHB (for once). This area is looking remarkably like WP:ARBCC used to. Problem editors from all sides, and even no side at all need to be removed from the topic area temporarily. Though I think anyone who is completely innocent should be able to file an appeal here, have admins review their contribs, and undo the topic ban as necessary. Toxic areas like these need to be dealt with in a more draconian fashion than I'm usually comfortable with. The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As this blanket topic ban idea seems to be gaining serious traction, what would such a list of editors look like and who is willing to put in the legwork to build the list? -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * On further reflection, I think this idea of a blanket topic ban is an overreach of WP:AE, as much as I'm an IAR fan. There's too much opportunity for collateral damage. -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This has been open over a fortnight and we are no closer coming to a conclusion. This means that the vio isn't clear enough for action. I suggest we close this. Nuclear options should be taken to arbcom as that't their job. Spartaz Humbug! 08:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Chesdovi
''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 Chesdovi

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 21:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles :


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


 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tachlifa_of_the_West&type=revision&diff=710075488 Chesdovi moved the page to his POV version.
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive279#Tachlifa_the_Palestinian Chesdovi discussed my moving his page back to the correct page and Nishidani told him that my version is the more correct version. "I think Sir Joseph's literal version is well grounded in sources."
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balady_citron&type=revision&diff=710084016 Changing Israeli to Palestinian
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yisroel_Moshe_Dushinsky&diff=prev&oldid=710082233 Adding anti-Zionist cat to article
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yisroel_Yaakov_Fisher&diff=prev&oldid=710082280 Adding anti-Zionist cat to article
 * 6) and he did the same to about 20 more.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive106#Chesdovi TBAN
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/707337240#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles TBAN still in place


 * 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.

I did not add all his recent edits since that's not necessary, but he has begun to edit again in this area.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * Here is the original TBAN, that the above referenced clarification references, asked for by Liz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive106#Chesdovi,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChesdovi&type=revision&diff=710081001
 * 1) He has also continued to discuss the ban on the ANI and on user's talk pages.
 * RolandR there are many diffs, one of them is changing the title of an article from "of the West" to "the Palestinian" to further his POV. This is the same person who created a now AFD'ed Jewish boycott of the Western Wall. When you change the title of an article to suit your POV that is certainly against the TBAN. The article may be about a 4th Century rabbi, but his edits are not. His edits are about the ARBPIA topic area and it is clear to all.
 * Hmm, I thought continuing to discuss your TBAN on user talk pages and on ANI is a violation of the TBAN, regardless of the other diffs.
 * Zero0000Can you explain how changing a person's name from what it is to "the Palestinian" is not pushing an agenda that we have seen from Chesdovi? Articles may not be covered by TBAN or ARBPIA but edits are. His edits are covered under ARBPIA TBAN "broadly construed." In addition to the other diffs? How much more can we take?
 * Serialjoepsycho, I'd ask you to AGF and strike your last comment. This has nothing to do with my ban. I moved the original page weeks ago. This has everything to do with Chesdovi pushing his agenda to put the word Palestine where ever he can get a chance, even where it has no business being, and that is why it's a violation of his TBAN. Don't try to threaten me with a ban. The whole point of AE is to bring violations to AE for enforcement. Now I'm to get a ban for bringing a violation? I do not appreciate that one bit.
 * Serialjoepsycho, there are also sources that say Tachlifa of Ceasaria. so the easiest and Wikipediest solution is to use his actual name and not a SYNTH version of his name. His name translates to Tachlifa of the West. His consensus move was just him, that is not a consensus. As for him adding Palestine, that's not righting great wrongs, that is his POV, similar to him creating a Jewish boycott of the Western Wall which was deleted and other POV pushes.
 * @Drmies, I initially did not see those diffs. Jeppiz below pointed those out in his comments and so I edited to clarify that he is editing in the area without abandon and not just one article that may, to some, be on the periphery.
 * @Only in Death, changing "Israeli" to "Palestinian" in an article about citrons is certainly pushing a POV.
 * He is still editing, even after told to wait until a decision is made one way or another: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATachlifa_of_the_West&type=revision&diff=710223772 clearly he doesn't care about the TBAN.
 * The fact that he is still editing the offending page and other pages listed as well as creating contentious edits while at an AE action shows that action is warranted. I have warned him repeatedly at the talk page of several of the articles not to comment and to wait, one way or the other, but he is continuing to edit. This can't continue.
 * I agree with Spartaz, and I just want to remind the admins that Chesdovi has been editing in the TBAN area for a while before anyone noticed that he is in violation of the TBAN, and then Debresser brought the clarification request. Then he is still continuing to edit, even though he was told to ease up until the AE is closed. Clearly he can't stay away from this contentious area. I think a TBAN extension to Zionism/Israel and Palestine/Palestinian would do this encyclopedia well, yet another new edit from Chesdovi: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AYishuv_haYashan&type=revision&diff=711095380. I think it may be wise to block him until an AE decision is finalized. He is posting on his talk page in violation of his TBAN and is continuing to post in violation of his TBAN.
 * Still editing on my talk page, other talk pages and creating new articles in violation of the TBAN and discussing the TBAN, all in violation of the TBAN.
 * Chesdovi, you still don't get it, and the fact that you link to Tachlifa the Palestinian as a redirect just proves that you are here to be disruptive and not to build an encyclopedia. Why not take all the advice given to you and stop editing in this area until after a decision has been made? Then you can continue with whatever the admins decide. Right now you are just showing you can't edit without being contentious. Someone brought before AE in a certain area is not usually creating articles and still editing those areas even after they're told not to. That is evidence that you will not abide by a TBAN. (as for why I removed Palestine from your brand new textile article, three words earlier you mention Ottoman Empire and then you link to Tzfas, that is enough for a location, adding Palestine (which is not the proper linking anyway) is just your POV and your sole reason for creating the article. )
 * I'm not getting into a pissing match with you. IIRC, I believe Serialjoepsycho also advised you to ease up on your editing. Furthermore, you are now claiming I am stalking you, which is a violation of AGF and you should either strike that out or I will highlight that for the admins. Furthermore, you have been editing in violation of your TBAN for quite some time, just nobody realized your TBAN was still operation. I am not going to respond to you anymore, you are already well past your limit, even if you don't care about rules. Plus, your behavior here just proves you are not here to build an encyclopedia, you are here to be confrontational. and you are a WP:SPA.
 * Chesdovi, you fail to mention you went to ANI without notifying me. That right there shows how you continue to edit in a battleground demeanor. Serialjoepsycho, when you comment at ANI you MUST notify the person. So it's not big deal to wait days if you fail to notify me. Chesdovi has repeatedly brought action against me at ANI without notifying me. That is not someone who is acting in a manner conducive to collaborative editing. Even after "reminded", Chesdovi still opened up ANI actions against me without notifying me.
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Chesdovi
''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 Chesdovi
Allowed word count increased to 750 Spartaz Humbug! 07:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)''

Jeppiz, Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionism is not linked to the I/P conflict:. Chesdovi (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Ed, I may not be a "major editor on Orthodox Jewish topics or on historical rabbis of various periods", but I have spent hours adding my fair share to Wikipedia over the years, besides from my numerous edits on Haredim and Haredim and Zionism, I have created pages about rabbi throughout the ages and added tens of images to supplement rabbi pages. Chesdovi (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC) (modified)

I am also not sure how הָאֶתְרוֹג הַפַּלֶשְׂתִּינִי translates in "Israeli citron", changed by a vandal and not linked at all to the I/P conflict, (except by those who will go to war for the sake of a lemon's name it seems...) Chesdovi (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

 Brewcrewer, the category was not plastered over "random pages". I felt this category would be in line with Category:Criticism of the official accounts of the September 11 attacks and the like. It seems not. I may create a page about this topic instead. Sorry for any offence caused. It was not meant as an "attack". It is a widely held belief, and I thought I could group together the relevant pages. Chesdovi (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, you think I should be banned from that page, but I am not topic banned from that page, just like I am not topic banned from Tomaccio. Where have you explained that the venerable old rabbi is related to I/P? This is a dispute centred around name conventions. I prefer the historic common use in RS, while you prefer literal or translation. You persistently force you POV without waiting for due consensus and wish to drag this innocuous article into the I/P conflict. It seems some people will go to war over the name of a lemon! I was not banned from using the word "Palestinian" and I don't see why I should be. Maybe you should be banned from using the word "West"? "Changing "Israeli" to "Palestinian" in an article about citrons is certainly pushing a POV" does not stack up. I reverted "Palestinian" to match the Hebrew text next to it, something you will appreciate in your efforts to call Rabbi Tachlifa the "Westerner" - a literal translation of the Aramaic. Chesdovi (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC) (modified)

AnotherNewAccount: My motivation for the creation of Palestinian wine was contrary to your claims and I dispute your assessment of my conduct at AfD. (modified) Chesdovi (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Debresser: Thank you for calling me "unscrupulous and unprofessional", but you jave not responded to repeated requests to show where consensus has been reached that "Palestinian" is not to be used. I reject your allegation that my source are "often biased" or "cheery-picked". Scholarly RS, both inside and outside Israel, chiefly use Palestine/Palestinian in relation to matters prior to Israel's creation. (modified) Chesdovi (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

In the past I have created pages including the term whereupon they are pounced upon by Debresser who removes the "offending" word according to his/her POV. This not an issue? 2. I'm curious to know whether you also think it is "unhealthy" to have editors "obsessed" with Zionism removing the word "Palestinian" from every page as they deem necessary. 3. I'm also curious to know how numerous and painstaking gathered inline citations I provided at Jewish boycott of the Western Wall were insufficient and would like to know your suggestion of how to include that information on Wikipedia. Leibowitz still has not been re-added to Western Wall at the behest of Debresser an SJ. The obvious question is Why? 4. I would also like to know why you think it was valid for SJ to revert to "Tachlifa of the West" without opening a discussion at talk if indeed it is such a sensitive editing area. Why do "obsessive" "pro-Zionists" trump "ant-Zionists" on Wikipedia? 5. Debresser is of the opinion that using the term "Palestinian" is inappropriate according to consensus but has yet to show where this so-called consensus was reached. Chesdovi (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

SJ is making allegations against me which I cannot respond to since I have passed my word limit. (Please note that he is removing the word "Palestine" on spurious grounds, just as he did at Tachlifa the Palestinian: - we are not to be informed where in the Ottoman Empire Safed was! If this is not a clear POV push, I do not know what is. Chesdovi (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Please see talk and talk. Chesdovi (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

SJ, I have not been told "not to" (except by you); I have not added the word "Palestinian" to any articles mainspace since this began; I have not edited articles under my TB since it was given 4 years ago. You were extremely upset about Jews who boycott the wall and have been following me around ever since making it very unpleasant for me here. Chesdovi (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , I agree my editing can become "animated" at times, but at the same time, I know myself that I can and have remained constrained in the face of similar editing, failures of AGF and PA by other editors.
 * 1) I greatly appreciated your mentoring at my talk page and found it useful.
 * 2) I am unfamiliar with the rules about ARBPIA and apologies for that.
 * 3) I did indeed intend to take action to combat what I see as “Anti-Palestinian POV pushing”. But it was not related to the scope of the word’s usage as it may relate to the modern-day conflict. My bias is rooted on widespread usage of the term in RS regarding early Talmud era rabbis. That was made clear. Your claim that “After 1 revert attempt I chose to hit ANI” is not accurate. After SJ literally out of nowhere, stumbled upon TotW, unilaterally moving the page, I went straight to ANI without reverting, precisely to prevent an edit-war erupting]. Having previous experience with SJ, I was not prepared to engage in lengthy, confrontational and unconducive discussions with him and requested outside help in the first instance. That I felt was the correct course of action. My immediate resort to ANI was not rooted in "battleground behaviour." Additionally, As far as I’m concerned, I have been through this rigmarole before, in 2011 when I launched a successful RM bid after after Debresser had reverted twice. Veteran Talmud rabbis page creator Midrashah had seen and accepted the original page name in Jan 2012. Only SJ and Debresser (who I’m not sure how familiar they are with the RS on this subject) contest usage of the word Palestinian. After my first post at ANI, I waited 10 days for Admin comment and nothing was forthcoming. Only after seeking resolution and a 10 day wait, did I then revert SJ's page name change. That is not conventional “battleground”. Yet 16 minutes later, SJ reverts for a second time, (including further edits I had added) without any discussion whatsoever. Am I then expected, instead of going a second time to ANI, to open a second RM or a discussion at talk? Possibly. Instead I asked at ANI for  assistance ("can somebody mediate so an edit war does not erupt" - I did not simply accuse SJ of any particular conduct). SJ for his part, instead of providing firm rational about term usage, insisted I had violated my TB by editing the page and proceeded to get me blocked or banned further! Yet I was aware from Aug 2011 that this particular page was not covered by the ban.
 * 4) I hope that with further clarifications, you may reconsider you conculsion, as you have done with originally asserting that TofW is under TB. Chesdovi (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * SJ, I did not intentionally not notify you. I posted on March 4th and you replied on March 7th. Chesdovi (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I did notify you but was unaware there was an "official" way of doing so. I will add that SJ insisted that the adding WoW to WW was a TB violation!? Chesdovi (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Jeppiz
I came here as an uninvolved user who has had no interactions with Chesdovi, but the topic ban violations are so rampant it seems to be deliberate and provocative. In the space of one hour, Chesdovi has already violated the topic ban 20 times! I'm afraid an indef block is the only solution, this user seems determined to go on violating the topic ban. Jeppiz (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by RolandR
The article in question is about a 4th century rabbi; as far as I can see, it does not have even a minimal connection to the Palestine/Israel conflict, however broadly interpreted. The complaint is without merit. RolandR (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As Drmies notes below, at the time I commented, the only diff listed in this complaint was about Tachlifa of the West. I have not examined the diffs added subsequently; but I repeat my view that the complaint, as originally submitted, was totally meritless. RolandR (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
As per RolandR, the article in question is not covered by ARBPIA and Chesdovi is permitted to edit there. Zerotalk 23:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho
This topic ban includes any thing that can be construed to be a part of the Palestinian conflict. Edit warring because you disagree that something is a part of ARBPIA is a violation of ARBPIA. . If you disagree that something is a part of your topic ban WP:ARCA has been set up for clarification. There is also here at WP:ARE. Be more careful Chesdovi.

An additional side concern, This seems to have more to do with Sir Joseph's recent ban than any disagreement with Chesdovi. Disrupting wikipedia to make a point is grounds for a ban. Be more careful Sir Joseph.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would I strike my comment again? I am assuming good faith, I'm just not slitting my wrist.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Materially I'd have to agree with RolandR, that Tachlifa of the West is not covered by ARBPIA. How ever, a Google search suggests that Tachlifa of the West and Tachlifa the Palestinian have both been used by sources. I note the comments in the diff I linked above. That his page removal was appropriate because of it was "changed by two editors with a history of pushing anti-"Palestine" POV in all its various guises." It certainly wouldn't seem that he has an exemption to his topic ban to right the great wrongs. Actually it would seem where righting great wrongs are involved with Palestine he should know not to edit there.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sir Joseph, I'm not actually interested in having a pissing contest with you. My comments were directed at Drmies, they were not directed at you and your comments suggest that you simply do not understand them. The implications of "righting the great wrongs" above is that Chesdovi was Povpushing. In short, you are trying to argue against me while making the same case that I did. Let me further add this is not the place to argue out the content dispute portion of this. That would be in an RFC. The admins that are involved here are here to help end disruption thru enforcing active arbcom sanctions and not to help you achieve a consensus. If they were to help in achieving a consensus they would do so either in their capacity as editors or in the capacity of an uninvolved closer.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Besides an article on Palestinian wine, I'm not familiar with Chesdovi to the best of my knowledge. Content wise this article is outside of his ban. You couldn't even argue that it is a part of ARBPIA. However with that said my talkpage, contentwise is outside of his ban. He however is banned from bringing an ARBPIA related discussion to my page and it would stand to reason that he is equally banned from taking action combat what he sees as Anti-Palistinian POVpushing. After 1 revert attempt he chose to hit ANI, where what was basically a pissing contest took place. He could have instead used the talk page. We also have page moving procedures. He could have discussed why the page should be moved instead of going into a tangent about AntiPalestiant/antiIsrael povpushing by using sources and pointing out the relevent policy. He's actions more rooted in battleground behavior. This is a realistic concern. This is not to suggest his actions are the only of concern.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I note EdJohnston's comments below and I note also the discussion at User_talk:Chesdovi. With all the comments above by Chesdovi, I can see nothing that suggests his battleground behavior was an aberration or that he will make any much less every effort to cease it. It seems to me that the course of action you have highlighted would be the best course of action for Chesdovi and the community. The only other thing I can really say is honestly that other users may be here with unclean hands and their actions may be just as unhelpful.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As Chesdovi has now actually addressed his own behavior I'd agree now with EdJohnston's position that this can be closed with no action, with only a warning that no further battleground behavior or related disruptive behavior will be tolerated . Watching this pissing contest that has been going on here and at ANI I would however question if a 2 way interaction ban between Sir Joseph and Chesdovi and a 2 way interaction ban of Debresser and Chesdovi may be beneficial to the community.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Only in Death
Editing articles about historic or even recent Rabbi's does not necessarily infringe upon 'Arab-Israeli conflict' Which is what he is topic-banned from (emphasis mine). Unless those rabbis are themeselves embroiled in the conflict in some way its just not part of the ban. Unless you are going to modify the ban to 'Anything remotely Arab, Jewish or middle-east broadly construed'. This is a non-issue. The description for the category added is "The category Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism includes articles about groups and subject matters that oppose Zionism, on Jewish religious grounds." Thats not exactly related to Arab-Israeli conflict. If anything its Jewish-Israeli conflict... Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Debresser
According to a recent clarification request at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles the unanimous opinion of 7 editors is that the topic ban is still in place. This editor has for years been pushing the word "Palestinian" where it is not appropriate. His recent move of Tachlifa of the West to Tachlifa the Palestinian is just the latest of them. I strongly feel we will all be better of without this unscrupulous and unprofessional POV pusher. Debresser (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Only in Death, Zero, RolandR, Serialjoepsycho I beg to differ. In this case it was Chesdovi himself who enlarged the scope of the articles related to the conflict by propagating the name "Palestinian" at improper locations. That is precisely why I called him a "unscrupulous and unprofessional POV pusher". Debresser (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And to all those who insists on a minimalist interpretation, as opposed to ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement which uses "broadly construed", how is Western wall not related to the IP-conflict? Debresser (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Jeppiz I agree with your assessment and proposed solution. Debresser (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Serialjoepsycho SirJoseph did have previous running ins with Chesdovi, as had I in 2010 or 11 or so. Then I didn't see Chesdovi for a few years. Now he is back, and is continuing the same POV pushing he was at in those years. Just shows we really need to do something about him, if even a topic ban doesn't stop him. Debresser (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @ EdJohnston The approach you propose is too mild in this case. Especially since Chesdovi has already showed himself to be able to find ways around sanctions, as this post proves. Debresser (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @AnotherNewAccount My point precisely. That Palestinian wine article is typical of his editing, which I have been unable to really do anything against over the years, even though it is intended to be grossly misleading. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Spartaz In view of Chesdovi's many transgressions over the year, perhaps you can be lenient on the word count? :) Seriously, we need a reasonable limit, and this is completely up to the admins here, but it makes sense to allow him to defend himself. Debresser (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Spartaz Good proposal. I mean the alternative, a broadly constructed topic ban. Debresser (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Chesdovi
 * It is consensus which finds your usage of the word "Palestinian" out of place.
 * You show me 3 removals from one and the same article, while you added it to numerous articles. By the way, I also add it, but only where it is appropriate:, , (this soooo proves you wrong in accusing me of having a POV it makes you look pitiful)
 * Those so-called scholarly sources are 1. often based on old sources using old terminology 2. often biased, which is why you chose them 3. always cherrypicked by you to prove your POV.
 * Debresser (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Brewcrewer
He's now commenced with a conspiracy theory category blaming Zionists for the Holocaust and plastering it unsourced all over random pages. If this is not what the intention for topic bans I don't know what was. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Finnusertop
ArbCom members, uninvolved administrators or. Please amend the opening post to hide (using a :File link rather than embedding) the following non-free images because they are not allowed in Wikipedia: namespace: the first 13 images plus File:Steipler Gaon.jpg. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This has been fixed since. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by AnotherNewAccount
As I see it, without managing to violate his topic ban as such, Chesdovi deftly exploits genuine confusion between the historic Palestine (region), the Mandate of Palestine and the modern State of Palestine in order to give 'Zionists' the elbow.

The example given above is the Palestinian wine article, which largely described the Palestinian Jewish (now effectively Israeli) wine industry from when the area was under the Mandate, but written in such a manner that made it very easy for one of the pro-Palestine nationalist editors to then connect everything to the modern State of Palestine. This enabled the bypassing of the inconvenient reality of Israel's creation, and opened the door to the implication that the modern Palestinian nation has existed since of the dawn of time (a preferred tactic of nationalist editors in general). This was the root of the ARBPIA discord that Debresser complained about a while ago.

Incidently, Chesdovi's conduct in that article's AfD was appalling - and even included composing a poem to taunt the nominating editor there. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz
Chesdovi's conduct during that AfD was deplorable, but the AfD was closed more than a month ago. The time to complain about his conduct came and went.

Since AnotherNewAccount has the chutzpah to complain about the article Chesdovi wrote about Palestinian wine and about unnamed "pro-Palestine nationalist editors", let's take a look at Israeli wine—which is mostly grown on occupied Syrian and Palestinian land, but you would never know that from reading the Wikipedia article about it. You also wouldn't have a clue that one of Israel's biggest foreign trade issues at the moment is its fight to prevent the European Union and the United States from properly labeling "Israeli" wine based on whether it is produced in Israel or in Israeli-occupied territory.

No, let's throw the book at Chesdovi—who probably deserves it—and lob stones at unnamed "pro-Palestine nationalist editors" instead of being honest and requiring all editors to follow NPOV, which is allegedly a core policy here at Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

(In fairness to AnotherNewAccount, it doesn't appear that he has edited Israeli wine. That doesn't make that article, or the rest of Wikipedia's coverage of Israel and Palestine, any less of a POV mess.)

Result concerning Chesdovi

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


 * Can you provide a link to where the specific topic ban for this editor was imposed? I don't see it on Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Chesdovi (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, Chesdovi was banned for a year in 2011, but placed under an indef ban in January 2012. The indef ban is currently still in effect. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yisroel Yaakov Fisher is not a 4th-c rabbi. I am interested in hearing from RolandR et al. how those edits do not violate the topic ban. Sir Joseph, the last last remark by Serialjoepsycho warned you to be careful. That sounds like good advice to me. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriajoe, I see now that at the time of RolandR's comment the third and fourth offending diffs were not yet part of this--another reason to think carefully before one files a complaint. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks to me that Chesdovi likes to see the word 'Palestinian' in articles, as also 'Palestine'. If you check his last 100 edits, you'll see many examples. He doesn't appear to be a major editor on Orthodox Jewish topics or on historical rabbis of various periods, but often these articles have at least a traditional use of 'Palestinian' to identify certain people. He wants to be sure that 'Palestinian' is inserted wherever possible. He also likes to add Anti-Zionist categories to various orthodox figures. He wants the 'Israeli' citron to be referred to as the 'Palestinian' citron. In my opinion, this request could be closed with no action if Chesdovi will agree to stop this behavior. Another possibility is to modify his topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * your section comes in at a shade under 1200 words. Please trim it or I'll remove it entirely. Also you need to get rid of the image gallery. Its extremely disruptuive killing my phone on this page and adds no value except to suggest that you don't edit with any concern about the impact of your actions against fellow editors. Spartaz Humbug! 22:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for removing the gallery but somehow between that and hatting your comments you seem to have added another 80 words making your statement reach 1283 words. Trim means trim not hat. Please do so. Spartaz Humbug! 23:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , do the words in the extended section automatically show up on your phone? Chesdovi (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The limit is 500. Irrespective of the impact on my phone it is too long but since you asked the hat means that not only does the phone download the content it also has to run the script to hat it - so the hat makes it worse. Is there a reason why you insist on maintaining a contribution that is so far over the word count when you have been told to reduce it? Spartaz Humbug! 23:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , if the limit 500 for the whole statement, I will by all means trim it. Sorry for the inconvenience caused. Chesdovi (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , is the limit for the "defendant" also 500? It seems odd that I am expected to respond to all my "prosecutors" in the same space they have each to accuse me. I have only managed 760 words. Chesdovi (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , please allow another 118 words for a further reply to Debresser. Chesdovi (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It does strike me that this is not obviously a violation of the topic ban but that it is unhealthy to have an editor with an obsession around anti-zionism and inserting the word Palestinian into articles trundling around such a sensitive editing area. This (admins only) now deleted page comes across as seriously POV and lacks the inline citations to enable any reasonably quick clarification of what is OR and what is cited. This (admin only) now deleted category is also deeply concerning. I don't know that it would fall under ARBPIA but I would be inclined to topic ban Chesdovi from 1) zionism broadly construed, 2) adding or creating categories in mainspace and 3) Inserting the word Palestinian into articles. The alternative, if that is too complicated, is a ban from Arab, Israeli and Zionism articles broadly construed. Thoughts? Spartaz Humbug! 08:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure we have the authority to ban Chesdovi from all category creation. But otherwise I agree with your proposal. A ban from Zionism (and anti-Zionism) broadly construed, and a ban from inserting the words Palestine or Palestinian into articles.  I would go beyond Spartaz by including Western Wall in the ban. If difficulties continue even with an expanded ban then we should be considering a long-term block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Sinceouch2422
''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 Sinceouch2422

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 17:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 :


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


 * 1) 11/27/15 Series of changes under explanation of 'rv to last consensus' when there was no consensus
 * 2) 11/27/15 Deletion of relevant material with specious explanation
 * 3) 11/28/15 Blanket revert with explanation of "consensus" (when there was none)
 * 4) 11/26/15 Delete expert opinion under 'redundant line'
 * 5) 11/26/15 Delete relevant information with no explanation
 * 6) 12/5/15 Many deletions and additions with no discussion or real explanation
 * 7) 12/5/15 Same edit again, no discussion
 * 8) 12/17/15 Same
 * 9) 12/29/15 Same
 * 10) 1/23/16 Same
 * 11) 3/7/16 Same
 * 12) 3/7/16 Same
 * 13) 3/8/16 Same
 * 14) 3/17/16 Same


 * 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):


 * Given alerts about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 5/12/15 and 3/8/16, both of which were deleted.

The edits above are to one page that is included in the Falun Gong arbitration dispute (Epoch Times is a newspaper associated with Falun Gong). The edits in question had been under extensive discussion on the talk page, as can be seen. It seems that 90% of Sinceouch2422's edits on the encyclopedia have been of this sort: revert with no discussion. Other editors, including myself in some cases, then reverted his changes back and called for discussion. The changes that were reverted were of a series of iterative changes that had been made, as a result of protracted discussion and the sharing and debating of different opinions, on the talk page, engaged in by myself and other users. Sinceouch has never been part of that process and simply disruptively wound back the page to versions months prior. After two warnings and constant disruption, I'm bringing the case to AE. Happy  monsoon  day  17:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Enforcement of arbitration rulings does not primarily involve qualitative judgements on the content of edits. The issue under consideration is the behavior of Sinceouch2422. Myself and other editors (how I wish I had "allies") were discussing and making changes to the pages for several months. There was a step-by-step, iterative process involving discussion and push-and-pull. Very normal Wikipedia process. Sinceouch2422 would come along every couple of weeks and just do a massive revert to an old version of the page. Again and again. That is a completely different dynamic of interaction than that myself and other editors engaged in, no matter how we judge the quality of the arguments that the various parties were presenting. Happy  monsoon  day  14:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Response to Rhoark

Discussion concerning Sinceouch2422
''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 Rhoark
The user is obviously using misleading edit summaries, and that needs to be addressed. I'm struck by one fact, though: all of the associated edits are eminently reasonable. Why would one need to resort to subterfuge to introduce such edits? I've caught up on the talk page, and it's pretty clear what's going on. Essentially, there are no clean hands here.

In the first diff, Sinceouch2422 was not reverting to a prior consensus as claimed, but was reverting material by Happymonsoonday1 that talk page consensus was also clearly against. Sinceouch2422 combined removal of material that consensus was against, along with addition/alteration for which consensus was unclear. Sinceouch2422 has participated on the talk page rarely, but there are certainly others on the page whose views align.

The edit summary in diff #2 was not "specious" in any way. Using the page for a newspaper to go on a tangent about a story the paper published once is classic WP:COATRACK.

In #4 the claimed redundant line is, surprisingly enough, redundant. The same claim is made twice. It's said once in the section and the said again. A second time. Redundantly.

Diff #5 is removal of primary-sourced claims which had talk-page consensus for removal.

The rest, #3 and 6-14 are part of edit warring by both parties and associated allies, neither of which has clear consensus on the talk page. I suggest a 6 month page ban for the accused and filer, and then maybe we can see what the consensus really is. Rhoark (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by TheBlueCanoe
Looks like a classic single-purpose account. No edits outside the Epoch Times page, though judging from the level of precocity on display, it seems plausible that they have alternate account(s). The Blue Canoe  18:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Sinceouch2422

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


 * Awaiting a statement from but leaning towards a pageban, Spartaz Humbug! 08:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Beautifulpeoplelikeyou
''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 Beautifulpeoplelikeyou

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 00:47, 23 March 2016 (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) 14-03-2016 "Since decades ago, the alleged victims around the world claim their truthfulness, while mental health professionals address their expertise according to their technical knowledge often ending the debate in what looks as an embarrassing empasse." Empasse [sic] is piped to Martha Mitchell effect; the clear implication is that the conspiracy theory is based on real electronic mind control torture.
 * 2) 14-03-2016 contains personal observations and WP:SYN
 * 3) 22-03-2016 "Show the POV, prove it, if it really is so. Otherwise keep eating your clover." This is a reversal of the onus on an editor to support proposed edits, instead demanding that others refute his claims. The bizarre reference to clover is explained here as: "It looks as sheeps eat clover, and I found it fitting to greet those pompous seasoned editors."
 * 4) 22-03-2016 copyright violation from a differently-rational Weebly web page
 * 5) 07-03-2016 defines psychotronics as "the study of parapsychological capabilities via bionic means]". The purported source actually says "According to (the late) Larissa Vilenskaya (1983, p. 107), the term was first pro-posed with the analogy of “bionics” in mind, to refer to “the field dealing with the construction of devices capable of enhancing and/or reproducing certain psi phenomena (such as psychokinesis in the case of ‘psychotronic generators’ developed by Robert Pavlita) and later embraced some other phenomena." The source distances itself from any assertion that the claimed phenomenon is real, and does not support the assertion made in the edit.
 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) Special:Log/block&page=User:Beautifulpeoplelikeyou 3RR block 14-03-2016


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


 * DS notice issued 14-03-2016

Articles involved include:
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Beautifulpeoplelikeyou is a single-purpose account whose focus is promoting the idea that "electronic harassment" - i.e. electronic mental torture of individuals - is real, or at least potentially real, rather than psychotic and/or illusory. Consensus on the Talk page of the article is that these edits are tendentious, violating WP:SYN in many cases. A purported bolded alternate term psychotronic assault, is sourced to a Washington Post article that does not appear to use the term, for example. Some edits, including the user's current proposed rewrite User:Beautifulpeoplelikeyou/sandbox have serious coherence issues.

I think we need this person topic banned from electronic harassment and psychotronics, broadly construed, for the sanity of all involved. Guy (Help!) 00:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The sanctions apply to pseudoscience and fringe scinece, pseudoscience is merely the title of the case. The edits promoted by Beautifulpeoplelikeyou clearly fall within the remit of science (mind control using nefarious electronic systems), but they equally clearly lack any significant mainstream support, so this is within the ambit of the case and remedy. Applying the sanction does not imply any judgment as to which of pseudoscience or fringe science it is. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would have just blocked him if I was not involved, but since I am I thought this was the most transparent venue for this. It's a WP:FRINGE issue and IMO falls closer to AE of that case than the remit of ANI. I could be wrong. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 

Discussion concerning Beautifulpeoplelikeyou
''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 Beautifulpeoplelikeyou
I'm in a real hurry now (going to the doctor for an Echocardiography). I think the most relevant and compelling thing I can say is: I'm not "promoting the idea that "electronic harassment" - i.e. electronic mental torture of individuals - is real, or at least potentially real, rather than psychotic and/or illusory". Maybe I'm promoting the idea that psychotronic weapons could exist but that's not the issue. What I'm trying to do with the Electronic harassment article is to correct its (imho) biased content, because I believe the sources depict it as both a conspiracy theory and a mental illness without giving away one of the two? In other words: I believe the sources depict it as an unknown/ambiguous phenomena with no overall bias, thus it deserves to have all its relevant aspects (psychological diagnoses, the claims, legislative interventions, past experimentation and research, and violent incidents) equally covered. See you later. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Looie496
Although I agree that the editing pattern here is disruptive, I'm not entirely comfortable with classifying it as pseudoscience. The sort of beliefs reflected in such edits often arise in the context of delusions associated with schizophrenia, and tend to be more anti-science than spurious science. We have seen this sort of thing dozens of times from many editors, and as far as I know nobody has yet tried to apply the "pseudoscience" sanctions to them. Looie496 (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Starke Hathaway
It seems to me that the behavior being complained of here is disruptive, but is also not a great fit for the pseudoscience case. Is there a reason this needs to be at AE rather than ANI? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by LuckyLouie
A few diffs that illustrate the POV that Beautifulpeoplelikeyou is advocating, and the scope of the resulting disruption:


 * "What is described in the article is the psychiatric view, not the mainstream one."


 * Edits the article lead to describe electronic mind control as a "purpotedly" delusional belief.


 * Accuses editors of being cops, saying "I'm not going to uselessly repeat every single peace of information that points to the chance Electronic harassment may very well not be just a delusion" as part of a huge, disruptive wall of words. Then he summarizes his position by pasting another SPA account's comment into the Talk page -- 'If this info isn't introduced then I will assume the authors before are schills and Wikipedia is complicit in trying to shape public opinion and prevent the truth of the claims of people being affected by "psychotronics" from being acknowledged' -- and praises it as a "very honest, airtight, polite and crystal clear comment".


 * Refers to those who deny the possibility that electronic mind control might be real as "psychology-diagnoses-advocates" and "psychological-diagnoses-advocates"


 * When advised that content must reflect reliable sources rather than his own judgement, he posts a response that's pure WP:SOUP.

I've left out documenting this user's personal attacks against other editors, since they've been covered elsewhere. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou has already shown that warnings and temporary blocks have no effect on their disruptive behavior, so I believe a topic ban is warranted and appropriate, given the user's history and the fringe nature of the topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Jytdog
Support TBAN. This editor's trajectory here is almost a perfect paradigm of an advocacy editor who came here to soapbox and who interprets every effort to educate them about policies and guidelines as efforts to control or censor them. The "psychotronic" stuff is definitely PSCI and it is for people like this that the PSCI DS were created. Please do enact them. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Staszek Lem
<Sigh> I was patiently ignoring his references to "pompous " (because I know I may look like one due to terseness of some responses). This editor's response to this ArbReq clearly demonstrates that we hit a blind spot in his perception. This user simply ignores multiple comments that unreferenced wikipedians' opinions cannot go into articles. In particular, he was told we cannot describe something as "unknown phenomenon" without refs. We cannot write into article the statement "often ending the debate in what looks as an embarrassing impasse" without refs, etc. However he dismisses these requirements with phrases like "This is called stonewalling" or calls it "censorship". Concluding, unfortunately we are indeed in "an embarrassing impasse" with this editor and it looks like an administrative intervention is required. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

He was also suggested to edit the article in small increments and I even started smaller subsections for smaller bits. In 1-2 places a reasonable agreement was reached, but instead of updating the article with these simpler pieces this user continued general soapboxing, so WP:AGF is getting really thin and I don't think I want to spend more time on this non-productive debate. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Beautifulpeoplelikeyou

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


 * Agree with JzG's proposal of a ban from the topic of electronic harassment and psychotronics, broadly construed. Notice that the user was blocked for edit warring on March 14 but has plowed ahead regardless, with snark against anyone trying to explain Wikipedia policy. More examples of his response to feedback can be seen at Talk:Electronic harassment: "Do you expect me to reply to your nonsense?" EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with JzG's proposal of a ban from the topic of electronic harassment and psychotronics, broadly construed. Notice that the user was blocked for edit warring on March 14 but has plowed ahead regardless, with snark against anyone trying to explain Wikipedia policy. More examples of his response to feedback can be seen at Talk:Electronic harassment: "Do you expect me to reply to your nonsense?" EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Nableezy
''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 Nableezy

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 22:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Remedies 4 & 5:


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


 * 1) 16:59, 26 July 2015 Arab/Palestinian removes "terrorist"
 * 2) 23:34, 20 January 2010 Arab/Palestinian removes "terrorist"
 * 3) 14 January 2010 Arab/Palestinian removes "terrorist"

When a Palestinian is described as a terrorist Nableezy is quick to remove the term under the WP:TERRORIST guideline. However when a Jewish/Israeli is described as a terrorist Nableezy re-adds the word "terrorist". 

This type of blatant non neutral editing and POV pushing is expressly prohibited at Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles 4 & 5.

I would also add that Nableezy tendentiously WP:STALKed me to revert me at this article (it was his first edit) because of disagreement on another page.

While Nableezy will undoubtedly respond with WP:BOOMERANG alleging far more insidious behavior from me, I would point out that just a few edits ago I reverted some POV pushing that was consistent with the POV I am claimed to have. I am calling for a topic ban consistent with the remedies linked to above.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1)
 * 2)


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):Participating in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure right above this one.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANableezy&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=712581635&oldid=704654775

Discussion concerning Nableezy
''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 Nableezy
Umm theres a slight difference between the Jewish Underground, which as far as I know has no real sources calling it anything other than a terrorist group, and a group that actually does have sources that dont call it a terrorist group and instead call it resistance movement, or the government of Gaza, or whatever (ie Hamas). Ill now say that this edit in 2010 was an error, that can be called terrorism in the narrative voice. The others Ill stand by, attacking an illegal colony in occupied territory may or may not be terrorism and the sources arent as unanimous in calling it that as in the case of say the Jewish Underground. I actually stalked Nishidani there, I like to see what he does from time to time. Which as far as I can tell is how brewcrewer got to this page, as it was likewise his first edit there, restoring an edit that even the person who initially made it agrees that that article uses the term properly. Baseless as baseless gets, and a boomerang for alleging stalking when the person filing the complaint pretty clearly stalked Nishidani to that article might be in order.
 * Also, as per his usual mo when reverting Nishidani blindly, brewcrewer has yet to make an appearance at the talk page section that I rather quickly opened up after reverting his edit. Wonder why that is. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz
Are you serious, Brewcrewer? You're making a complaint based on two diffs that are more than six years old and one that is eight months old? Really? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
I'm not necessarily commenting on the diffs or the AE request, but I did want to add my voice to the concern that whenever there is an article about Palestinian terrorists and terror attacks, it is not labeled terror or terrorists, they're labeled gunmen, or militants, etc. And that is an issue. When someone stops a car on the road and shoots three kids, they're terrorists. That has nothing to do with being a gunman or a militant. Yet if you put in the word terror/terrorists, you will be reverted and tag-teamed until you give up. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 18:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani
Sir Joseph. This is not the place for such insinuations, which are untrue and gross caricature of what principles serious editors adopt on this issue. But do read the words of a very wise old Israeli, ex-terrorist militant, valiant IDF combatant, Knesset member and pacifist, Uri Avnery: 'Your Terrorist, My Terrorist'. If you want to argue the point, don't use this space, but take it up elsewhere, on your page, mine etc.Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Nableezy

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


 * As pointed out by User:Malik Shabazz, three of these are old diffs, going back from 9 months up to six years. The only one not old is the single edit to Jewish Underground, which actually restores the earlier version of the article. A single edit doesn't break 1RR and there is an argument that 'terrorism' is an apt description, not simply a partisan tag assigned by the opposing side of the conflict. See Talk:Jewish Underground for the discussion. Not sure why we are here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * These edits are too old for discussion here. Older edits can sometimes be relevant as background information to illuminate a current problem, but here the newest of the edits is several months old. No comment at the moment on any other issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * These edits are too old for discussion here. Older edits can sometimes be relevant as background information to illuminate a current problem, but here the newest of the edits is several months old. No comment at the moment on any other issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)