Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive217

SashiRolls
''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 SashiRolls

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 14:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


 * 1) Interaction ban
 * 2) Indefinite block for continuing same exact behavior after expiration of prior six (6) month block.
 * 3) NOTE about Interaction ban: Trouble with one-user-interaction-ban is user has history of WIKIHOUNDING against multiple editors and admins.
 * 4) *Examples: after getting sanctioned  , and  , and myself.


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

Summary: Pattern of engaging in personal attacks, WP:Casting aspersions, ad hominem, and (self-admitted) WP:WIKIHOUNDING. 


 * 1) 20 June 2017 - Block expires after blocked six (6) months for Disruptive editing and Wikihounding by &mdash; block expired two (2) days ago.
 * 2) 00:11, 21 June 2017 - As noted, below, by, casting WP:ASPERSIONS about me without even notifying me. Admits to working on unfounded "story" about me based solely on my high-quality new article creations.
 * 3) 11:56, 22 June 2017 - SashiRolls shows up at page acknowledged that I had greatly improved, Bibliography of Donald Trump . User has never edited this page, prior to my improvement work on it.
 * 4) 13:06, 22 June 2017 - Same pattern as noted in prior AE report -- WP:NPA, casting WP:ASPERSIONS on talk page of article, disrupting formal dispute resolution RFC with irrelevant commentary about one individual editor: "Given the recent creations of categories" -- user links to categories I created. Comments about new articles I created. Nothing to do with the ongoing RFC about a different issue. Uses an ongoing RFC dispute resolution process to disrupt and inject commentary about one single editor.
 * 5) 13:46, 22 June 2017 -- Again, same behavior. Separate comment, same talk page, same casting WP:ASPERSIONS, irrelevant comment about new articles I've created recently. "Congratulations on the 18 book reviews you've added in the last 20 days (430K)." User seemingly has taken the time to add up all the kilobytes and calculate how much content was generated from my new article creation work. Sarcastic. Casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Same exact behavior as prior block.
 * 6) 14:30, 22 June 2017 - Again at Talk:Bibliography of Donald Trump - Sarcastic. Irrelevant commentary focusing on one individual editor. User takes time to post huge tabulated index of my new article creation work. . Removed by with this page is for discussion of improvements to Bibliography of Donald Trump, not for listing other contributions of other editors
 * 7) 15:10, 22 June 2017 -- SashiRolls admits: "I have indeed decided to follow his contributions to the encylopedia." Admits his edits to page Bibliography of Donald Trump, after I had greatly improved the page, was his, "first ever intervention on a Trump page unless I'm mistaken". Note that his "table" uses the word "below" 7 times. He appears to have copied this data from an off-wiki attack harassment site.
 * 8) 16:39, 22 June 2017 - SashiRolls admits to "sifting through the diffs" spending an inordinate amount of time going through my edits. SashiRolls seems unable to comprehend working on a new article in a text file naturally means taking more than "10 minutes to prepare". SashiRolls says, "I have not sought to identify anyone working through the Sagecandor account as a RW person." and yet he has harassed me offsite including in at least three (3) separate websites including apparently his own personal website where he created an entire harassment page about me.
 * 9) 16:58, 22 June 2017 - SashiRolls changes header level names at Arbitration Enforcement to say "Defendant" and refers disparagingly to me as "Prosecutor" and "special prosecutor". Header level removed by at DIFF.
 * 10) 21:20, 22 June 2017 - SashiRolls tries to tar me with edits I have not performed myself, on pages where I am not active, citing diffs of someone else.
 * 11) 06:15, 23 June 2017 -- SashiRolls again engages in casting WP:ASPERSIONS, calling me a "remarkably productive Democrat-minded SPA who after working to astroturf Russian influence on the 2016 US election". I just ... I don't know what to make of this one. It seems like an implicit threat against me. See: "Once blocked, I'm afraid Wiki rules do not apply".

Prior behavior with multiple editors


 * 1) September 2016 - Topic banned by, then goes and WIKIHOUNDS admin NuclearWarfare as noted at and
 * 2) Admin prior exasperation with the WIKIHOUNDING: SashiRolls: I've basically tried to avoid interacting with you, given your past conduct, but you continue to draw my name into your constantly grievance-laden posts. The fact that you bear these incredible grudges and follow editors around is extremely off-putting.
 * 3) Note that user has previously admitted the WIKIHOUNDING with comment: Yes, I am keeping an eye on you from afar


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 19:28, 3 September 2016 Topic ban from politics related topic on a living person by.
 * 2) 21:36, 16 December 2016‎ indefinitely prohibited from commenting in AE requests to which you are not a party by, after using WP:AE to engage in ad hominem by WP:Casting aspersions.
 * 3) December 2016 - blocked by for six (6) months for Disruptive editing and Wikihounding after AE report with consensus from admins  DIFF,  DIFF, and  DIFF.


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


 * 1) 12:59, 30 August 2016 Sanctions notice about American Politics 2, by.
 * 2) 16:08, 6 November 2016 Sanctions notice about American Politics 2, by.
 * 3) 19:38, 14 December 2016 Reminder by about American Politics 2. Specifically by engaging in personal attacks through use of ad hominem.
 * 4) 21:36, 16 December 2016‎ indefinitely prohibited from commenting in AE requests to which you are not a party by, after using WP:AE to engage in ad hominem by WP:Casting aspersions.
 * 5) December 2016 - block notice from.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * The comments made by Power~enwiki are themselves entirely in bad-faith. Case in point my copyedits were just that: copyedits. I was adding links to another Wikipedia article which I had greatly improved recently: . To suggest any other intention on my part than simply adding local links within Wikipedia itself is the very definition of assuming bad faith by Power~enwiki. The ANI thread started by Power~enwiki was closed without incident by admin  DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Please, please don't change venues. I agree with this comment by admin : "As many have said above, please don't shovel the issues down the road to AN. It is not fair to either party to have this dissected even more in front of an ever larger audience. I do think this can and should be dealt it here and now so we can all move on." This is appropriate for AE, Arbitration Committee has covered this specifically under allowed sanctions both IBAN and/or blocks, and it should be dealt with here. DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Notice DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion concerning SashiRolls
''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 SashiRolls
I agree that after having been accused of WP:WIKIHOUNDING without evidence, and having noticed that Sage accuses a lot of people of this, I have indeed decided to follow his contributions to the encyclopedia. I would remind Salvidrim! that linking off-wiki is frowned upon based on WP:LINKLOVE. This behavioral guideline contains the root "harass" 26 times and the word "critic" once (as legitimate "critique" contained in a table heading).

In no way do I think my behavior at Bibliography of Donald Trump or at Talk:Bibliography of Donald Trump (my first ever intervention on a Trump page unless I'm mistaken) was inappropriate. Wikipedia users who are readers far outnumber Wikipedia contributors. The reader should always be kept in mind. It is therefore important to make readers aware of who the authors of many of the book review entries mentioned on the page are:


 * Disinformation: 2 June 2017 | history | 16K | 27K | (DYK nomination), self-nominated it for GA (awaiting review)
 * The KGB and Soviet Disinformation: 3 June 2017 | history | 18K | 18K
 * Dezinformatsia: 3 June 2017 | history | 21K | 23K | self-nominated for GA (review pending)
 * The Case for Impeachment: 5 June 2017 | history | 28K | 31K |  Sage nominated this entry for GA, which it failed.
 * The Plot to Hack America: 7 June 2017 | history | 26K | 31K | Sage nominated this entry for GA (review not yet undertaken), discussed below (see Malcolm Nance, below)
 * Defeating ISIS: 8 June 2017 | history | 25K | 24K | AFD nomination, failed/withdrawn from GA, discussed below (see Malcolm Nance, below)
 * Final Report of the Task Force on Combating Terrorist and Foreign Fighter Travel: 10 Jun 2017 | history | 28K | 29K |
 * The Terrorists of Iraq: 9 June 2017 | history | 21K | 23K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review), (see Malcolm Nance, below)
 * An End to al-Qaeda: 9 June 2017 | history | 20K | 20K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review), (see Malcolm Nance, below)
 * Terrorist Recognition Handbook: 10 June 2017| history | 22K | 22K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review), (see Malcolm Nance, below)
 * Trump: The Kremlin Connection: 11 June 2017 | history | 20K | 20K
 * Think Big and Kick Ass: 13 June 2017 | history | 38K | 38K | self-nomination for GA (awaiting review)
 * Why You Want to be Rich: 14 June 2017 | history | 20K | 22K | self-nomination for GA (awaiting review)
 * Midas Touch: 15 June 2017 | history | 23K | 24K | self-nomination for GA (awaiting review)
 * Insane Clown President: 16 June 2017 | history | 30K | 30K | DYK nomination
 * Time to Get Tough: 17 June 2017 | history | 31K | 30K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review)
 * Trump Tower: A Novel: 20 June 2017 | history | 18K | 21K | DYK nomination, indefinite full move protect request
 * Trump 101: 22 June 2017 | history | 23K | 23K | self-nominated for GA (awaiting review), DYK nomination

I would suggest that administrators kindly but forcefully suggest Sagecandor employ their skills on topics other than US-Russian relations and Donald Trump, as they have already done their work here. As for an I-Ban, if it is two-way, no problem. I'm not looking for conflict with Sagecandor. I want the community to be aware of what they are doing. SashiRolls (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing creepy about sifting through the diffs that are publicly available by design in order to make our readers aware of "on whose authority" our articles have been compiled. There is absolutely nothing personal in the list above. I have not called it creepy that each book review entry took about 10 minutes to prepare and occupied a tiny part of a very long day editing elsewhere. I have not sought to identify anyone working through the Sagecandor account as a RW person. They are obviously very motivated having created all sorts of categories critical of DT (Music, Books, Films, Works, Parodies) as I mentioned on the talk page.

An I-Ban has the effect of preventing a reasonably good copy-editor from paring the text down to size a bit, but that's OK. I'm not very interested in Donald Trump.

What is creepy: TimothyJosephWood's satirical outing of me in December. (A schoolyard play on my real name + that of my mother) sort of a "we know who you are" type edit".  I will be happy to provide evidence to Arbcom should that be necessary, but I think we need to move on.  I did not start this AE drama; Prosecutor Sagecandor did. (once again: they have appeared in 17 AE cases now in their 80 days in the project, 7 as special prosecutor.)  Though they have been taken to ANI several times, I've never sought to prosecute them.  (Though on the page in question  Talk:Bibliography of Donald Trump, they are guilty of restoring contested content without consensus, though I gather that rule has been recently overruled.)  SashiRolls (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

What is also creepy: Statements with no evidence from (very) involved editors... such as several below, including Neutrality full diff corresponding to what he added from last year, VM, TJW, Objective 3000 (ps:  the case is about my right to assemble publicly available diffs to show our readers who has authored encyclopedic entries and categories of entries, nothing more.  If it gets to be a big thing I'll add more evidence of astroturfing). With regard to being here to build an encyclopedia my most recent contribution was a translation to French of an English article I added to English Wikipedia. It involves a trade union in Haiti. There is enough time since the events involved that it is WP:NOTNEWS. The overwhelming emphasis of a lot of editors on news, especially partisan issues, is unfortunate. SashiRolls (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki I encourage you to check out the previous cases so you'll be able to determine whether they too were mostly puffery or not. In any case, time has been served for those alleged sins (I was not permitted to appeal the 6-month block, in fact)... I was denied all talk-page access for 6 months, which suggests to me hat Wikipedia prefers that all healthy criticism occur off-wiki. Of course if we prefer having power-users who call themselves contributors but others (like you) as depersonalized "users", well that's the way the psy-ops work these days...
 * A couple AfDs Sagecandor initiated for two books in February 2017, to give you an idea of how this all got started:
 * Snakes in Suits | result: keep (6-0)
 * Psychopathy in the workplace | result: keep (5-0)

An example of how links to SC's book reviews have been included willy-nilly on pages that are completely unrelated: here is an example of such astro-turfing on Tulsi Gabbard. I gather it was one of a dozen such edits. I mention this because the contributor involved was active in both of the delete discussions above. SashiRolls (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BullRangifer
This is an especially egregious demonstration of NOTHERE. Support sanctions. SashiRolls has no right to suggest another editor change editing areas. Subject experts are welcome here, and if an editor adds good content, without creating disruption, then they are welcome to do so. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, after reading the link provided below, I support an INDEF from Wikipedia. Creepy indeed! -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Timothyjosephwood
Well... I'm not going to have any hurt feelings over an indef. The above is just creepy AF, and this is starting to get into actual real life stalking. If there's a compelling reason to keep Sashi around I'm not seeing it... not now... all of 48 hours after their block expired. The time other editors have spent on this exact shit right here outweighs their positive contributions tenfold. Timothy Joseph Wood 15:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * TimothyJosephWood's satirical outing of me in December. ...Wut? I'm sure this will be good. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Well I for one am anxiously awaiting finding out how I managed to figure out their real name, plus that of their mother, plus somehow gave enough of a damn to go to all that trouble. Because... you know... I may need to have myself evaluated to see if I had a major stroke some time in December. Timothy Joseph Wood  21:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Good news everyone. Apparently what happened is that I made a perfectly normal comment, and... I dunno... I guess if you take every third or fourth letter it's probably an anagram for Illuminati. I'll just throw in WP:CIR, and double down on indef. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown
I did the last block and not technically involved but think it best that other eyes review. For the record, the last block was for 6 months, had a strong consensus at WP:AE, and was done as a NON-Arb Enforcement block. It can be found here. There was some confusion on his talk page about whether it was an AE block or not, but it absolutely was a traditional block, just done at AE because it seemed unnecessary to move the case to a new venue once it has already started. As for the merits herein, I have no comment. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , there is no time limit to sanctions if they are not WP:AE sanctions. That limit only applies to Arb specific remedies.  Admin are free to act unilaterally on a case at AE and sanction as a non-AE sanction, just as my last sanction against this editor was a non-AE sanction.  Moving cases is problematic and bureaucratic when there is already adequate representation here. Admin are never restricted from acting just because a case was filed in a different venue.  A "ban" would require WP:AN but that seem premature since they are reserved for serial sockpuppets and the like and only used when an indef block is unable to do the job.  Not saying what the sanction, if any, should be.  Just saying you are not bound to any limits just because it was initially filed here.  You could indef me or any other editor commenting here, for edits made here, if there was cause. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Capitals00
Topic ban can be indefinie and also an indefinite AE block can be made too, but this kind of block can be overturned by any admin after 1 year and 1 second, but not before 1 year. Capitals00 (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * yes it has happened before. For example, block of Darkness Shines. It was made by the blocking admin as indefinite block due to an AE complaint, but he described that block will be no longer AE once it crosses the duration of 1 year. Capitals00 (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Neutrality
I'll keep this short. I am involved as to SashiRolls. Suffice it to say this user has demonstrated that he or she is not here to build an encyclopedia, has had multiple opportunities to change behavior, and has refused to do so. My comment here is illustrative of what we are looking at here.

I support an indefinite ban. Neutralitytalk 17:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Power~enwiki
I agree that SashiRolls made several edits out of line immediately after a 6-month ban, and should probably be blocked completely. I disagree strongly with an interaction-ban.

I have had disputes with Sagecandor in the past (Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive956). I find these "Hounding" accusations misguided. Sagecandor has edited or created almost all the Donald Trump-related book pages. An interaction ban is inappropriate due to it being equivalent to a topic-ban, possibly with political implications.

Sagecandor's case for an IBAN is full of puffery. He is exceedingly quick to file unnecessary escalations in response to any comments. Sagecandor also recently made a series of trivial edits in quick succession, behavior I often take suspiciously. Some of this is Sagecandor's tendency to make bold statements and later word them more cautiously. .

This request was appropriate, but the forum may not have been. I am worried that Sagecandor may continue his trend of escalating disagreements more often than is necessary. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC) (amended Power~enwiki (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC))

Statement by Volunteer Marek
Stalking and harassing editors - which is what we definitely have here - isn't just IBAN worthy, it's sufficient for an indef ban, especially since SashiRolls appears to have no intention of stopping. IBAN will just result in more drama as people start to try to Wiki-lawyer it or tiptoe on the edges of it just enough to be irritating but observing "the letter" of it. You can look forward to numerous future WP:AE request if you do just an IBAN. Furthermore, as evidenced by other users' comments, SashiRolls' problematic behavior isn't limited to just their interactions with Sagecandor - it's basically one big WP:NOTHERE which also makes an indef ban more appropriate. Enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000
There seems to be a pattern in SashiRoll’s reactions to sanctions, requested and applied. It’s always about other editors. This request is supposed to be about SashiRolls. But, the response was a long list of articles by the filer. Changing Statement by to Defendant’s and using the word prosecutor illustrates SashiRoll’s attitude toward any corrective action. Six months doesn’t seem to have been enough time for an attitude change, even after a ban from their own Talk Page. Objective3000 (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish
It boggles my mind that we are back here so quickly after the previous block expired. I agree with all the other editors who say that this is in NOTHERE territory, something that I have been seeing since a long time ago with this user. I think that an IBAN will just mean that we will be back here again, very soon. It's not enough. There is no reason that I know of why AE cannot consider an indefinite block, and an enacting administrator could issue it. Please do not kick the can down the road. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that I was unaware of some details of the AE block procedures, sorry – but the take-home message remains the same. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning SashiRolls

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


 * Sashirolls went right back to hounding Sagecandor hours after his latest block expires, (and has been involved in off-wiki harassment I can't link to). I absolutely support an immediate IBAN between Sagecandor and Sashirolls, at the very least. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sagecandor requests an IBAN, and SashiRolls says he's fine with it, so I suggest we quick-close this AE with an enforceable IBAN for today. It may not solve the entirety of issues but it's an immediate solution to an immediate problem. Small steps and all. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * With that being said, I'm also generally in favor of an indef block with the provided evidence and comments above, especially considering the last six month under a block did not change anything. As T.Canens and GoldenRing point out, it would have to be an "indef with first year as AE" at best. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm tending to agree that this user is not a net positive to the encyclopaedia and should just be indeffed - but that can't be done as an AE action. I guess an admin could do it under their ordinary discretion, or otherwise this should probably go to WP:AN for community discussion.  GoldenRing (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * the policy, WP:AC/DS, says, Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place ... blocks of up to one year in duration. It seems fairly unambiguous to me, bit of a third-grade idiot that I am. At any rate, I think that if no-one has done anything about this by the morning, I'll close it in favour of a proposed site-ban at AN. GoldenRing (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As many have said above, please don't shovel the issues down the road to AN. It is not fair to either party to have this dissected even more in front of an ever larger audience. I do think this can and should be dealt it here and now so we can all move on. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, you've convinced me. User:SashiRolls is indeffed, with the first year as an arbitration enforcement action.  He can appeal here or at WP:AN immediately, or to any uninvolved administrator in a year's time.
 * I've spent some time digging through the contributions of User:Timothyjosephwood for evidence of outing around the 19th of December and I sure can't see whatever's supposed to be there. Posting a diff and saying the outing happened "shortly after" that diff is about as useless as just casting aspersions.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Razgriz301
''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 Razgriz301

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 13:54, 29 June 2017 (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) June 28, 2017 Edited against consensus
 * 2) June 28, 2017 Violated 1RR and edited against consensus
 * 3) June 28, 2017 Violated 1RR and edited against consensus


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


 * Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on June 28, 2017

Please put the article under ECP protection. There has been a large amount of sockpuppetry for the past seven months.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * Thank you . That will help substantially.- MrX 15:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Razgriz301
''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 Razgriz301

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


 * I don't think there is any question they violated the restrictions, although I wish someone would have tried talking to them on their talk page about it, as they are a new editor. Arb restrictions are not intuitive for new users.  This doesn't excuse their behavior, of course.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * did indeed approach them in a reasonable fashion, so I stand corrected. A block would be in order.  It may also worth considering to put the article under 30/500 restrictions as it seems to be a magnet for new users to jump in when they don't understand the policies or methods used here.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with both of Dennis's suggestions: a block for the 1RR violation that the user has made no attempt to cure, and WP:ECP protection for the article. Aggressive editing by new users who never discuss their edits has several possible explanations. Among them are strong POV, sockpuppetry or offsite recruiting, none of which are good. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Since it is now ECP, I'm not sure I would block simply because that might be seen as punitive, as they can't edit it anyway. Catch 22.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Given this report and the one below, I've put the article under ECP as an AE action for six months. I wouldn't object to someone upping that without consulting me if they thought it worthwhile.  I don't have a strong opinion on whether action needs to be taken regarding Razgriz301.  GoldenRing (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On my reading of the timestamps, all the diffs cited are from before the DS alert was given - so I don't think a block is appropriate. GoldenRing (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Quadrow
''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 Quadrow

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 14:06, 29 June 2017 (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) June 29, 2017 Edited against clear consensus, citing an unreliable source
 * 2) June 29, 2017 Violated page restriction: 'must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article


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


 * Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on June 29, 2017

Please put the article under ECP. There has been a large amount of sockpuppetry for the past seven months.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

, what do you mean by "it is the reporting editor who is at fault by reporting this as a single edit"? this diff plainly violates the page restriction which says:
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint
 * You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. - MrX 12:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Quadrow
''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 Quadrow
There seems to be some issue where consensus is getting misused to mean what people on the left side of the argument thinks without considering the fact there is no consensus because others (many others) don't agree. You can follow a massive dispute about whether Breitbart is 'far-right' or not. There is no consensus on that. There is a consensus that Breitbart is described as far-right and there is also consensus that Breitbart object to this description. There is nothing controversial about that fact and I got involved in the talk page before making edits and I edited along the lines of what the consensus is. This was reverted without a discussion and it was reverted against consensus. This enforcement request is entirely politically motivated and is being misused.--Quadrow (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Moved here from the result section. GoldenRing (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC) I don't know about all wiki's rules and terminology but in the real world there is no consensus that Breitbart is 'far-right'. In fact it is an insult to black people that suffered at the hands of the KKK, Jews that suffered at the hands of Nazis and all the other victims of horrendous far-right organisations. All the sources calling Breitbart 'far-right' are politically biased opinion pieces and not statements of fact. It's a term being thrown around as a political insult. However, if you look at my edit, I didn't actually remove it. I added a clarification that clearly is the consensus - i.e. they are described as 'far-right' - which is a referenced fact - and that they don't describe themselves as far-right - which is also a referenced fact. Surely that is the consensus. --Quadrow (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice. It wasn't my intention to deliberately break rules. I do somewhat jump in head first. However, it's clear that Wikipedia is turning into a politically biased publication when rules get in the way of edits that are designed to improve the reliability of the material and give some political balance. I think the edit does that and because I have not removed the term 'far-right' and only added clarifications and referenced facts, I don't think I have done anything against the consensus - even if I would actually prefer to remove the term altogether. I hope you do not feel the need to take further action against me. I can see the edit is still there. I request that it remains there as it is objective and doesn't actually remove the 'far-right' descriptor. I don't feel I can lead a discussion to get consensus to have it removed altogether as I'm not a seasoned editor, but I would get involved.--Quadrow (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC) (the sig added later...)
 * Thank you again for your advice. I am rolling it around in my head and I am still confused. The consensus was to have the descriptor 'far-right' in the opening text. I did not seek to move against the consensus to remove that. I added the words "are described as" - which is the accurate fact that has been referenced and is not disputed by anyone. I also added a referenced fact that they do not see themselves as 'far-right', which is also not disputed by anyone. I can understand some might see this as politically inconvenient to include these facts just as my political bias would urge me to remove the reference altogether. I'm sorry to push you on it but I am seeking to gain a deeper understanding of what I did wrong according to wiki rules. My intention was not do make an edit that did not have consensus or break rules and my understanding of the consensus was that the descriptor "far-right" should not be removed. I just added more information to that. Or have I completely misunderstood?--Quadrow (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have re-read the RFC carefully. It is the consensus that 'far-right' should be used as a description in the lead text. It was silent about any qualifiers. When reading the talk page I couldn't see that anyone had disputed the fact that others were describing them as 'far right' but they didn't describe themselves as 'far right'. Those are facts that seem to have consensus by everyone contributing in the talk pages.--Quadrow (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. I had spelt Breitbart wrong and that particular edit was to correct my own error.--Quadrow (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I hope I have demonstrated good faith and that action doesn't get taken beyond a warning, but my opinion is that the whole page has succumbed to left-wing political bias by the unqualified use of the phrase 'far-right' in the lede and experienced editors are aggressively seeking to keep out balance from the article.--Quadrow (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning Quadrow

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


 * , you are as wrong as wrong gets. There was an RFC held, it was closed, that close was not contested, so it demonstrates consensus.  It doesn't prove it, but it demonstrates it better than an empty claim.  You can always start a new RFC (and frankly, I find flaws with that prior one although it is still clearly valid).  Until a new consensus is formed via an RFC, this RFC is considered to be consensus, and your edits clearly violated that.  It is linked in the body of the article at the point changes were made, so you can't say you were unaware of it.  The changes you added may have some merit, but unless and until you demonstrate a consensus, they are disruptive given the amount of effort that went into establishing the current consensus.  You have made two comments on the talk page, you have not established that consensus. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I saw exactly what you did and I understand your reasons. The key is understanding you don't know the rules while not continuing to revert the edit, taking the time to learn, then starting an RFC and let the community decide whether than phrase should be added.  The WP:Teahouse is a good place to learn how to do an RFC.  The article has been protected just now, so you can't edit it directly until you have 500 edits AND have been here at least 30 days.  I'm not sure that a block would be wise since you can't edit it anyway.   Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I also note that the latest diff presented is only seven minutes after they were alerted to the DS in place. Yes, technically they were notified, but I'd be inclined to leniency in this case.  GoldenRing (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , the key is learning the rules (really, they will make more sense when you learn them) and being patient about change, and accepting that sometimes, you are not with consensus and just have to live with it. I am convinced that a warning is due, but nothing else, but will leave open for a while in case other admin want to opine.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , on a controversial article, everything pretty much needs consensus to be in the lede. The RFC being silent on it isn't sufficient.  That said, I think that in time you could present a decent case for it on the talk page.  Whether it would reach consensus or not, I don't know, but I think it would be a reasonable thing to ask. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree that "editing against consensus", by not adhering to a RfC outcome, can be grounds for sanctions. While generally editors should seek consensus, they are not bound by it, but remain free to make edits contrary to it, in the hope that it may change. Likewise, the reliability of sources is normally a mere content issue. What can be grounds for sanctions is edit-warring, but we don't have evidence of that here. As concerns the page revert restriction, I don't think that it is enforceable based on a talk page notice alone, because editors are not obliged to read the talk page before making edits. However, I'd sanction Quadrow with a topic ban for a different reason: in their reported edit, they used the misleading summary "spelling correction" and also falsely marked the edit as minor, in an apparent attempt to evade scrutiny. This violates established conduct norms (WP:MINOR, WP:EDSUM).   Sandstein   18:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The single diff does show that for that one summary, he was correcting spelling. . Your diff has a few more edits sandwiched in there.  And perhaps I wasn't clear, in that making a bold edit is fine but reverting when there is a very clear consensus and not discussing it IS a problem.  Since he has been responsive and the article is under ECP, disallowing him to edit, I still don't think blocking is helpful. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is the reporting editor who is at fault by reporting this as a single edit. I therefore see no grounds for action here.  Sandstein   08:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans
''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 Snooganssnoogans

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 13:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 : WP:ARBAPDS


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


 * 1) 3 July 2017 Violating "consensus required" arbitration remedy by reinstating a challenged edit (original edit:, challenge: ) and reinstating vandalism.
 * 2) 16 June 2017 (on different page) Violating "consensus required" arbitration remedy by reinstating a challenged edit (I'm taking Snooganssnoogans's word that in April they were violating DS with the same edit).


 * 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):


 * Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 24 May 2017 by.

On May 11, an IP editor made an edit which, among other things, changed "illegal immigrants" to "undocumented immigrants" The change was not only limited to visible text but it also modified several references, breaking URLs or falsifying title in references. It may be that the IP editor was acting in good faith, and they were just making something really stupid.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Apparently, the edit went unnoticed until today when I reverted it, clearly specifying in my edit summary what I was reverting. Snooganssnoogans violated at least the consensus required active arbitration remedy by counter-reverting me without obtaining consensus on the talk page, but they have also enabled vandalism. Were they deliberately vandalizing a page? No, but judging by their edit summary "deceptive edit summary. nothing vandalism about this" they didn't examine or understand what they were reverting, and instead were just knee-jerk reverting, which is also not good. Politrukki (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans, as I said, I don't think you had a malicious intent. But still your revert was doubly bad. I wrote "Reverting one ancient vandalism edit by 71.6.23.178". Did you seek that IP's edit in the revision history and review the edit? I do apologize for not making my edit summary 100% clear. I assumed that if there's an active arbitration remedy forbidding reinstating a challenged edit without consensus, any reasonable editor would assume good faith and refrain from reverting without discussion. If my edit summary was unclear, that's still not an invitation to revert.
 * Did you seek consensus for your edit? Did it ring any bells when I mentioned reverting an edit "by 71.6.23.178"?
 * This would not be the first time you revert without thinking. In the previous AE request against you I provided diffs of reinstating challenged edits without consensus: (see number 2. and 3.) I'm bringing this up because nobody commented those diffs and you have since reinstated material mentioned previously:  If there's a discussion which concluded that your edits to Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement were halal, I would like to know. Politrukki (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

if I have made a mistake in the request, could you help me fixing it? The talk page says "... is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see ARBAPDS)" And Talk:Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement has similar note. Politrukki (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Snooganssnoogans
''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 Snooganssnoogans
I apologize for re-introducing errors to titles and urls. The reason why I reverted you was that it appeared that you had simply changed "undocumented immigrants" to "illegal immigrants" in visible text, and called usage of the term "undocumented immigrants" vandalism. This was an error by me, as you not only changed "undocumented immigrants" to "illegal immigrants" in visible text but also fixed errors that had been introduced to titles and urls. I disagree that you "clearly specified" what you were reverting, you just said "Reverting one ancient vandalism" without explaining what was vandalism about it. When I glanced through the edit differences, it appeared as if you just changed one legitimate term in visible text to a different term. I would never have reverted your edit, had you simply said "reverting edit that introduced errors to urls and titles" or exclusively fixed the errors to titles and urls. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from, given that users fairly regularly change the term "undocumented immigrants" to "illegal immigrants" in Wikipedia articles because they like one term over the other. I thought you were doing that, and were simply referring to usage of the term "undocumented immigrants" as vandalism. It should be obvious though that there was no malicious intent behind the revert, as what would be the point of ruining urls and titles? Note also that I was the one who added some of these links last summer/fall to the old "Political positions of Donald Trump" article (which this article is an off-shoot from), and of course used the correct titles and urls. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That the user made the same mistake I did just now  adds more evidence that Politrukki's edit summary is not clear enough and that my error was not malicious. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User also says that "the vandalism comment was unclear and I thought that the rationale as to why this was alleged vandalism was missed" on the talk page for the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Sagecandor
Agree with that the explanation by  is fine here. Appears to be a case of WP:Assume bad faith on part of filing party DIFF LINK. Rationale for this statement: Similar edit as made by was made by  DIFF LINK. Comment about issue on talk page by DIFF LINK. Sagecandor (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with that filing party failed to note an actionable Arbitration Committee remedy DIFF LINK. Sagecandor (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000
Simple mistake. Move along, nothing to see here. Objective3000 (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning Snooganssnoogans

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


 * I'll leave this open in case anyone thinks differently, but I'm content with Snoogums' explanation and would prefer to close this with no action. GoldenRing (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not actionable. There is no "'consensus required' arbitration remedy" documented at WP:ARBAPDS. It is therefore unclear which arbitration decision was supposedly violated.  Sandstein   17:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with Sandstein and GoldenRing that this may be closed without action. But, just for the record, Coffee imposed the "1RR/consensus required restriction" on 7 February according to the WP:DSLOG. The template which announces the consensus-required restriction (Template:2016 US Election AE) is still present at Talk:Immigration policy of Donald Trump. We recall that Arbcom has already undone the consensus-required restriction for ARBPIA, and the wisdom of keeping that restriction in place for American politics is something that could be discussed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like something for WP:ARCA. The explanation given seems valid. It hasn't been open very long, but with 4 experienced admin agreeing that this isn't actionable, I don't see the purpose in leaving it open. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

NadirAli
''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 NadirAli

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 06:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


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

Since the removal of the topic ban, he has been a habitual edit warrior and engaged in disruptive editing. And now he is page move warring on Iron Age in India, he even reverted the page move of an admin, despite on going discussion.


 * 1) Edit warring from 30 April
 * 2) Edit warring from May - June
 * 3) 27 April and 5 May
 * 4) From 5 June

Blocked for violating 1RR rule on 9 June on Rape during the Kashmir conflict. Capitals00 (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * yes Faizan and Tyler Durden have been blocked as sockmasters, but Kautilya3 isn't and he was also reverting NadirAli in 2 of these edit warring incidents. Have you checked the recent page move war today and the block for violating 1RR on 9 June? Capitals00 (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : Currently topic banned from uploading images. Blocked indefinitely once for violating it.


 * Was site-banned by Arbcom in 2007 after the case that resulted in Arbcom sanctions on India, Pakistan, Afghanistan. He got topic banned upon the removal of the site ban in 2014, and this topic ban was removed later.


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS): 4 April.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning NadirAli
''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 NadirAli
The IP involved consulted a selective group of editors, which is very suspicious behavior and a form of canvassing. When he couldn't win consensus, he pinged the selective group of users, despite being told by to stop. He was also reverted by another user on the same page, until he was reverted by me but continued to edit war and then this report against me was filed. His edit summaries are also suspicious and his comment and attempts to ping there tells a lot. Seeing all that, and his experience in editing, I can almost guarantee he's a banned user.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

With regards to my topic ban on image uploading, I have also made an effort to remove copyrighted material placed by various users. These actions in addition to many useful uploads and linking from commons (eg. Mythology, Droid (robot) amongst many others) balance out the allegations that I'm a persistent violator of WP:COPYRIGHT, at least in my view --NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

In response to the ancient abrcom case, I don't think it matters much as it was a long time ago. But should it be discussed, the case was filed within minutes of me and a departed user who opened an ANI report against the administrator. . This administrator had a history of selectively blocking users on India-Pakistan disputes, and abusive edit warring, including using his rollback tools to evade the 3RR. This was confirmed by Fowler&fowler on that arbcom and documented at Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar-2 by the very users he previously supported. In that case, the same arbcom de-sysopped the administrator but awkwardly backed him on the India-Pakistan arbcom case, despite that very same reason being the main cause of the case.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It's been three years since I returned to Wikipedia and my main intention of returning was fixing up pages that seemed inactive/outdated and creating new articles (i have created around 40 pages and still have more to create.) My recommendation is that the IP range be kept under observation and all it's edits on India-Pakistan pages (including the pages he incited edit wars and canvassed on) be semi-protected as well as the users he openly confessed to being affiliated with be strictly warned.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Also I was honestly unaware that the article was under arbcom sanctions, until I saw the talk page. Ever since my block, I have abandoned that article all together.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It also seems I'm going to need to take longer time off Wikipedia as I have more serious commitments in life and cannot afford to be in these messes.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Response to Marevallous Spider-Man

Note to administrators: I have never come into contact with this user before. Based on his above proposals, he seems unfamiliar with my editing history. I seldomly edit pages tagged under the two Wikipeojects he mentioned above. They are not in my areas of interest. Unless of course, they overlap with Pakistan. That is mostly to balance out WP:NPOV and accuracy. Besides that, I do not edit pages under those WikiProjects. They are not typically in my areas of interest. My own editing history proves it's been ages since I edited anything on a major Indian state, city or biography of notable Indians, unless again there are overlaps with Pakistan. The last major Indian article I edited to my memory, tagged exclusively under WP:INDIA was at Border Security Force. That edit was more out of my interest in law enforcement than my interest with India. If I remember correctly, it was spacing out the article, an edit I doubt anyone, even those opposing me would contest or disagree with.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Response to EEMIV

User:EEMIV is a user who has a history of disruptive editing on science fiction pages. His conduct has been an annoyance to numerous users un-related to me (including numerous edit wars) and long before he encountered me or any of my involvement in his previous disputes. The two examples are just of many. This user and I had several disputes on a few science fiction pages. One primary example was on the article about The Force, where he removed two bodies of quotes that I worked hard to add onto the article. He did this more than once, at least twice. Judging that it was not something worth arguing or fighting over (despite them being good quality and relevant to the subject), I let him have his way.

Another example was how he reverted me on this article, despite that my edit seems more accurate based on the image and article I linked it to. . Again, I judged that it was not something worth arguing over, so I let it go. But every time that I do revert him or resist his reversions, he automatically accuses me of "ownership". He even sent me a message with the titles containing the words "antagonism and ownership" and cited my 2007 ban. I responded to his accusations word by word in a calm and civilized manner.

Another dispute that him and I had on The Force article was a section I created called "Scientific and parascientific perspectives on the Force", using the fifth chapter of the book The Science of Star Wars as my source. Within days, the section was re-worded and revised to the point that not only was information incomplete and lacking, but it was also inconsistent with the source it was citing.

After several attempts to fix it, I was only reverted. We argued over this on the talk page as well as his talk page (scroll further below), but he refused to compromise and enjoyed the backing of at least two other users. This is also despite none of them having access to the source, while at the time I had hard copy of The Science of Star Wars. Seeing that the section was completely degraded (especially it's inconsistency with the source it was citing) and his stubbornness to let me fix it and with a 3 to 1 ratio of consensus, I boldly decided the article is better off without that section all together. If it's in that terrible state, it might as well go. I even clarified this in my edit summary. User:EEMIV immediately reverted it within a short time and left this edit summary. But right here on Technology in Star Wars, he takes a complete 180 degree turn, arguing that a statement in the lasers section was inconsistent with the source it was citing and needs to be removed. Note that I did not resist changes to that. I made a few edits to the section and if I remember correctly, I placed a {better source needed} template. But his self-contradictive approach gives me the impression that he is more concerned with his personal liking of content rather than following WP:RS.

After onwards, I started getting the impression that he was is lurking about my talk page as well as shadowing my edits. He also appears keen to find common grounds against me. One example was when I had gotten into a short disagreement with another user over the redirect of a mostly empty article I created without consensus and also by the fact that it has plenty of coverage to be added. The user sent me a message on it. At the time, the top of my page contained EEMIV's old message on alleged antagonism and ownership. The opposing user added a second edit in the same message and used those same two words for an edit summary I had put while reverting the redirect. EEMIV almost instantly appeared on that users talk page with this comment, even though he was never involved in that small dispute. I gave him this warning.

Even afterwards, I was still under the suspicion that he watches over my talk page. I had noticed that when he would appear on voting/discussion pages that I would receive notifications for, but saw no sign of them his talk page. I can't provide all the diffs for that, but here's one example. I received a notification on December sixth about a discussion and vote over a redirect. I suspected EEMIV would vote there. Despite not having received the same notification on his talk page, he was right there, even before I was. Also on that very same day, I made an edit on Category: Star Wars and within hours he appeared there to revert me, despite never having edited that page ever before. I even mentioned this in my edit summary. . Ever since then, he has left me alone.

But his sudden appearance at this case, despite not having interacted with me over a period of months, confirms my suspicions that he still shadows my talk page, waiting for the right time to settle a score with me. Even though I have given up (at least for now) on trying to fix that section on The Force article for months and even despite his self-conviction of my supposed "ownership" practice. To me it looks more like a case of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:GRUDGE on his part by posting here, despite never having been involved in any India-Pakistan disputes ever before. His talk page history shows no sign of any such involvement, but plenty of angry responses from users he has aggravated and edit warred on more occasions than I have, but cunningly dodged getting blocked. I could provide plenty of diffs for this, but for now I think i've made my point.

I don't see why a future discussion on user conduct should exclude him, nor comments by interested users that he has managed to anger and disrupt.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Lankiveil, I have posted a couple of responses. Please take them into account for any evaluation. Thank you.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Marvellous Spider-Man
NadirAli has been blocked for various reasons in past decade. Editors don't have time to assume good faith with his disruptive edits. I request this editor be indefinitely topic banned from all articles of WP:INDIA and WP:HINDU.

Statement by EEMIV
My experience with NadirAli is outside the scope of the arbitration issue at hand. However, the often tendentious and occasionally disruptive editing reported above is consistent with how NadirAli has engaged at times with the Star Wars wikiproject. He has expressed an interest in, and a few times has been responsive to, feedback. However, there's a long streak of WP:IDHT when it comes to content disagreements and interpreting sourcing polices. I'd considered an RfC a few months ago when things were particularly challenging, and I wonder whether a discussion about the editor's behavior in a broader venue, and not limited to this particular corner of the project, would be appropriate. --EEMIV (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Sagecandor
Agree with both and  that the evidence presented is a bit stale. Maybe a warning, maybe. But to act at this particular page with this particular process for diff links a month old, seems too much for here. Sagecandor (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Uanfala
I've had a few interactions with NadirAli before, and although he's a well-meaning editor sometimes makes good edits, from what I've seen so far (and I want to stress that this is a small sample of his edits), there's a bit too much of CIR issues for him to be a net positive. For example, when it was briefly pointed out to him that he shouldn't introduce American spelling into Indian articles, then instead of getting the point (or following up the link to MOS:ENGVAR), he insisted he was doing the right thing even after the gist of ENGVAR had to be digested for him several times by other editors.

In another instance, he removed an authoritatively sourced text from an article because he didn't like a certain word used. He did bring it up on the talk page, but when I replied to him explaining he was misunderstanding the meaning of the text , he didn't reply and when the text was eventually restored to the article he reverted it missing the fact that his own thread on the talk page had received replies and insisting he should have been pinged.

Altogether these aren't major "transgressions", but the topic area is one in which we already have to deal with a high number of incompetent or disruptive newbie editors, and an experienced user adding to this maintenance burden is not helpful. NadirAli can be a good editor if he tries to set aside his national bias, learns to take greater care when editing, makes sure he reads and understands what other editors have written to him on his talk page, and starts being willing to admit that he might occasionally be wrong. – Uanfala 07:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning NadirAli

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


 * I'm feeling like this is going to take a while to get a handle on. But at a first cut I note that all of the edit-warring diffs reported except those on 5 June are complicated by the fact the other editors involved have both since been indeffed for sock puppetry.  GoldenRing (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And while I'm not a fan of the edit-warring style on show here, a lot of these diffs are feeling a bit stale. But I don't have time to have a detailed look through recent history this evening.  GoldenRing (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that he was blocked for 1RR; the point of that is that he has been blocked for it. How many times would you like him sanctioned for the same transgression?  Any admin who acted on that now would be open to accusations of over-riding another admin's AE action - it can't be done.
 * As for the move-warring late last week, again I'm not a fan of the style.  But it takes two editors to make a move war and they were at least involved in the accompanying talk page discussion (the page has been move-protected since).  The edit summaries are a bit on the snarky, ABF side, but I'm still not really seeing the case for the requested indef topic ban.  I'll leave this open for other admins to have their say, but my instinct is to close it with a strongly-worded warning and keep an eye on the situation.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also of the view that a lot of this evidence is pretty stale. I'm not sure that edit warring months ago justifies a response now.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC).

The Rambling Man
''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 The Rambling Man

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 10:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :

"4) The Rambling Man is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors. If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve."
 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man :


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

In this initial discussion involving me and the formatting of particular URLs, after being confronted by my arguments (in a DYK nom and here) using the policy WP:CITEVAR/WP:CITESTYLE and that the URLs in question are not WP:Bare URLs and satisfy DYK policy, TRM nonetheless continues to repeatedly complains about the "raw URLs" with the argument that they're not used in other articles, culminating in the first comment that I should just withdraw and would just be confronted with the issue time and time again. (note: If you read the linked discussions, except for some initial confusion in the "WT:Citing sources" discussion over what constitutes a WP:Bare URL, only TRM has been vocally opposed to the URLs in question and, for that reason, to the DYK nom.) After I replied that "It's within both Wikipedia & DYK policies. Full stop.", TRM responds that my stance is just "a silly point-making exercise" (diff). Considering these remarks in context of the long discussions on the issue, TRM is basically bludgeoning (which is belittling my comments/efforts) a DYK nom I made for an article that uses a citation format that TRM is, as his repeated comments indicate, vehemently opposed to.
 * 19 June
 * 21 May This also needs to be placed in context: at the time of this comment on the DYK nom, the "WT:Citing sources" discussion had wrapped up (only one more comment was made there before the discussion was archived) and just an hour after I replied to the comment below ("I note you haven't answered a single one of my question...") asking what questions weren't answered and reiterating that the citations are permissible. Rather than follow up at WT:Citing sources, TRM returns to the DYK nom to bludgeon his views against the URLs rather than follow up in the conversation.


 * 18 May This reply was to the preceding comment I made about how to understand legal citations and how my edits conform to the Bluebook citation style (the main legal citation style in the US). Throughout the thread, the overarching issue was whether the URL formatting was permissible under WP:CITEVAR/WP:CITESTYLE, but here TRM demands use of "regular Wikipedia style" citations because of a dislike of the entire formatting of the citations beyond just the URLs. Again, bludgeoning his dislike of the citation style after it was pointed out that they're within WP policy.

In the following edits from Talk:2017, TRM is making insulting and belittling remarks about other editors...
 * 28 June
 * 28 June
 * 22 June
 * 24 June
 * Another editor stepped into the conversation urging civility, to which TRM replied: 25 June
 * 26 June
 * 26 June
 * 26 June
 * 27 June
 * 27 June
 * 27 June
 * After closing a discussion he was involved in (with the summary "Included per consensus."), there was this exchange:
 * Another editor commented "Although I think he should be included, I can't say I see a consensus." then "... and you shouldn't close a discussion you participated in."
 * TRM deleted those two comments with the edit summary "focus on important things please"
 * Then 3 min later re-added Arthur Rubin's comments plus the reply "If you care, re-open the discussion, otherwise it's more heat than light." with the edit summary "actually, word of advice". This was followed by the following exchange of comments:
 * AR: "reopening, then, as clearly an improper closure. Still no consensus, even as to what is being discussed."
 * TRM


 * 2 July
 * 2 July


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) AE Blocked in March 2017 for violating the same remedy (Block reduced from 1 month to 1 week on appeal)
 * 2) Blocked for 48 hours on 7 July for violating interaction ban with George Ho from same ARBCOM case


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Note to admins: Since TRM is currently blocked, he should be unblocked from this page to be able to respond.
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * Notification diff

Discussion concerning The Rambling Man
''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 Vanamonde

 * I haven't reviewed the details of your evidence, but your statement is monstrously long. Please prune it. Vanamonde (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite
Yeah, per Vanamonde. I realise that you're trying to include context, but it would be a lot easier if you snipped it right down to the diffs that you claim directly show "The Rambling Man insulting and/or belittling other editors." At a cursory reading, I can only see the argument with Arthur Rubin that even remotely approaches that, but I may be missing other needles in this haystack. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I still don't see anything in the non-TLDR version that is sanctionable. In fact, it's even worse - there's now a section entitled "In the following edits from Talk:2017, TRM is making insulting and belittling remarks about other editors" which contains numerous diffs which criticise projects, article contents and Wikipedia procedures.  IMO this is a pointless AE listing and should be closed ASAP. Black Kite (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
I suppose that a 32,684-byte wall of text must contain something showing less than ideal behavior from TRM, but I just searched Template:Did you know nominations/Star Athletica, L. L. C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc. for TRM's comments and read them. They are fine, particularly when read in context. The only problem seen at that page is that AHeneen likes a very special way of formatting references and is pugnaciously declining all advice. I also checked a couple of the diffs mentioned regarding WT:Citing sources. A collaborative editor would take "I note you haven't answered a single one of my questions yet" as a suggestion that answering the questions would be desirable, while another kind of editor would post 32,684 bytes at WP:AE. Johnuniq (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender
You have got to be kidding. Someone please administer a boomerang for wasting the time of AE admins and everyone reading this interminable non-actionable nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by StillWaitingForConnection
There are only two situations where a wall of text might be appropriate. One is where you are defending yourself and the initial case looks bad, therefore it is necessary to expand on and contextualise diffs which might lead someone to the wrong conclusion. The other is where others specifically invite you (whether you are filing or responding) to elaborate on specific points – i.e. you've given them enough in your initial statement to believe it warrants further investigation, but not enough for them to actually investigate. This filing very clearly violates both of those principles and seems designed to be an attritional and scattergun complaint. It should thus be dismissed out of hand. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
I can hardly be considered to be a Wiki-friend of TRM -- we have clashed a number of times -- but I see absolutely nothing in the edits presented which indicate that he has violated his restriction. The comments are sharp, yes, but they are all about the editor's editing, and not directed toward the person behind the editing. I would suggest that admins might consider admonishing the OP for bringing a baseless (and overly long) complaint to AE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010
Not one comment there is belittling or insulting in any way, shape or form, Heated somewhat? .. Yeah sure but no insulting or belittling, This is a classic case of the OP having a grudge and are doing everything they can to boot TRM off the project, Bullshit request is bullshit. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333
I despair. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Statment by 331dot
I'll agree that while heated and contentious, none of the comments appear to me to be belittling or insulting at least as I understand those words to mean. I am amazed at the number of people who monitor TRM's comments and are ready to jump on whatever might seem the least bit 'belittling' to them. Don't people have better things to do here? 331dot (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Statment by Cassianto
What benefit is this serving exactly? What a complete waste of time. The OP needs to be kicked into touch and told to go away and grow up.  Cassianto Talk   20:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Berean Hunter
Is it too late for the filer to request closing? From what I'm seeing, this should not have been opened and I don't see any good coming of this. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Arthur Rubin
Although I think him a detriment to the project, and he is clearly bullying, I haven't found a clear violation of this restriction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Pawnkingthree
TRM is prohibited from insulting and belittling other editors, he is not prohibited from criticizing other users' edits. A disagreement with TRM over content appearing on the Main Page is not a valid reason to come here. The filer needs to grow a thicker skin. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning The Rambling Man

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


 * I can't speak for other admin, but there is no way I'm going to go through over 4000 words of complaint, which is over 8x the amount of words that should be in a complaint, per the top of this page. Please trim it down and I suggest simply removing minor issues and just sticking to what actually matters.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also not going to hear this complaint at its current length, which seems to be using massive volume to distract from the fact that, from my spot check of the diffs, I haven't found any substance to the complaint. Attacking your contribution for not being up to standards is what Wikipedians are supposed to do. In each of the previous complaints regarding TRM's restriction, they've been about him commenting on the editor's suspected motives or intelligence. If that's happened here, my spot check of the diffs doesn't show it. The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * After a glance at the first few edits, I don't see how they attack or belittle others; their criticism is directed at content, not contributors. AHeneen, please reduce your (already shortened) complaint to a few actionable diffs and explain for each how it violates the restriction. If admin action is considered by others, it should not be taken until after 05:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC), when The Rambling Man's current block expires and they are able to reply here.  Sandstein   19:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Winsocker
''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 Winsocker

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 05:52, 10 July 2017 (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) Edits on I/P conflict and removal of sourced material
 * 2)  Edits of I/P conflict and disruptive edit by its nature
 * 3) Edits on I/P conflict and sourcing criticism of organisation to its own twitter without any WP:RS
 * 4) Edits for gaming the system for 500 edits threshold for example


 * 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):




 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

The user was warned multiple times not to edit I/P area by various users first he disregarded warnings but then he decided to game the system and make many minor edits to meet the threshold except the technical violation his edits by themselves disruptive changing anti-Semitic to anti-Jew deleting sourced material he didn't like and so on.--Shrike (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Winsocker
''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 Winsocker
I've been under fire for mostly changing "Palestinian territories" to "Palestine" which is absurd. It seem's that when I edited the college's in Palestine to include the "State of Palestine", it apparently falls under the Arab-Israeli Conflict (I was given no warning when editing those Palestinian university pages). I feel this is a huge restriction on something that has nothing to do on the Arab-Israeli conflict. I really only understood the "Arab-Israeli" conflict message to be wary of editing only things that have to do with the conflict and that is how it should be enforced. Location's that just happen in Palestine should not get this restriction as it puts a blockade on improving those page's to begin with. (Especially if they are 'stub' pages)

The next proof he uses is me changing "anti-Semitic" to "anti-Jew. Firstly, the definition of "Semitic" is "a subfamily of Afroasiatic languages that includes Akkadian, Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Hebrew, and Phoenician." [see here]. As you can see, the word "Semitic" covers mostly groups from the middle east, while the word "anti-Semitic" usually means "Anti-Jew" in North America, we must keep in mind for our users in Europe & Asia, and more importantly, the Middle East where the definition is taught differently. This is a more accurate version.

The third statement was a edit against the UN Watch, I did realize there was no "criticism" despite the group coming under fire from it. The organization does lean more of a pro-Israel lobbyist group but I do realize this should have edit better.

Lastly, the user say's I was trying to "game" the system. It is not very hard to go through random article's and try to slightly improve it better. What is worse is that GiantSnowman had to go and RV all of them without at least warning me first. "Gaming" the system mean's to gain something in a way it was not intended but nothing I did was out of scope of what Wikipedia allows you to do.

Many, many times, I have asked users to talk about issues in a talk page to handle problems and 0 people have done that, especially since the entire reason of a talk page is to go over issues instead of countless RV's. I have even explain my RV's.

It seem's that the user's i am talking to are taking action before discussion which is unhealthy since we get to no terms of reason. Winsocker (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz
On top of gaming the system and other violations, I am troubled by this editor's seeming inability to understand what the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is. She or he makes edits almost exclusively to articles about Palestine and Israel, yet asks "What did I edit that was part of the Arab Israeli conflict?". See User talk:Sir Joseph as well. I think it's very disturbing that a partisan editor isn't aware that she or he is editing in a conflict area. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Winsocker, you are mistaken about the meaning of the word "antisemitism". It has nothing to do with people who speak Semitic languages. It has, and always has had, one meaning, and that is Jew-hatred. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * MShabazz 1. You say, "It has nothing to do with people who speak Semitic languages." which is false. "Semitic" means that you COME from these areas, not that you speak it. You can be arab yet unable to speak arabic. 2. "It has, and always has had, one meaning, and that is Jew-hatred." - This is where your location involves. You may be from the US which is what people call it but someone from Asia or the Middle East do not call it like that. It is even worse if they use a translator to try to translate the statement because while we read it in one way, they read it in another. Be mindful of where your reader's may be located and try to be almost exact & clear as possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winsocker (talk • contribs) 13:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Winsocker, but you are completely wrong. On so many levels. The word "antisemitism" has nothing to do with "semitic" languages and it never has. The English-language word "antisemitism" doesn't have different meanings on different continents. You seem to be fond of dictionaries. As Objective3000 suggested, why don't you look up "antisemitism" and see what it says? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by RolandR
Quite apart from any other violation, I think this editor needs to be blocked until they learn when to use - and not to use - apostrophes. RolandR (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000
Just an aside to Winsocker. You cannot always determine the meaning of a word from its parts. The OED defines anti-Semitism as: “Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews.” Objective3000 (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning Winsocker

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


 * I'm certainly pretty uncomfortable with the string of 150-or-so edits on July 9 that mostly amount to reformatting infobox sources with no or little effect on the rendered article. I'm inclined to treat this as ECP-gaming and just remove the extended confirmed userright, but would like some input from others before doing so.  GoldenRing (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the consensus here, I've removed the extended confirmed userright. I don't have time to dig in a lot of detail into this user's edits just now, so won't take an opinion on whether further action is warranted, though what I've done probably amounts almost to a  de facto  topic ban from Arab-Israeli subjects.  GoldenRing (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing it until this user takes note of our rules and expectations. Jonathunder (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with removing the extended-confirmed user right. A condition for restoring it should be his understanding of which matters are connected to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Thinking that 'Palestinian territories' could be harmlessly replaced with 'Palestine' shows he is not there yet. EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support removal, particularly in light of OR claims as in the 3rd provided diff. --M ASEM  (t) 14:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We are seeing a lot of gaming of ExtConf lately. My opinion is that the removal should be an AE sanction, and it should have a minimum time limit before it can be appealed here, in addition to the other terms already mentioned.  6 months seems reasonable to me.  I think we need to send a clear message that if you game the system, there are consequences, so it is better to just earn the bit properly.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The more I dig into his contribs, the less comfortable I am with him editing anywhere related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Not a judgement of his character, but he clearly doesn't understand the ramifications of his edits.  Things like not understanding people's reaction to changing Palestinian territory to State of Palestine, is just the tip of the ice burg.  I wish I could give a time limit, but I can't and would support anything up to and including indef.  Hate to be a hard ass about it, but he gamed the system to get access to an area he has proven he is genuinely not competent in, showing his intention is to become yet more active and cause more problems.  That isn't fair to the rest of the editors who understand the politics involved and already have to struggle to keep things NPOV there. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * By AE sanction do you mean something applied at AE by consensus or something applied by an individual admin (based on discretion)? An ArbCom remedy forbids the latter. ~ Rob 13 Talk 19:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, you are absolutely correct, now that ECP is community based. Virtually all actions here are unilateral, even if we all agree, so a time limit would require consensus, which I would support any length. At this point, it is taken away already, so its less a concern.  After looking at his contribs, I think a topic ban is more urgent anyway.  It isn't about malice (I don't think) as much as competence.    Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This does look like an editor who lacks the basic competence required to edit in this very sensitive area. Insisting that "antisemitic" means something other than what everybody else thinks it does is just one sign of this. I recommend an indefinite A/I conflict topic ban until they demonstrate their competence with a record of high-quality contributions in another topic area.  Sandstein   19:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:BU Rob13: The editor was alerted to ARBPIA on 21 June and all the diffs presented above are *after* his notification. So it seems to me any admin could issue a topic ban. I would support an indefinite ban, with the right of appeal in six monrhs. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree that a topic ban is warranted. As to the scope, I would go broader and ban from all Middle East-related topics, as this editor appears to be unable to tell whether an article is related to the A/I conflict or not. T. Canens (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a very good point, and I would support that. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Might be useful, but within the scope of WP:ARBPIA we can at most impose a topic ban with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict, not the whole Middle East. Closing accordingly. If the editor doesn't get it, blocks will have to follow.  Sandstein   09:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support an indefinite TBAN on the A/I conflict with appeal possible after six months of productive and clueful editing elsewhere, but I too am concerned about this user's competence in working out what subjects fall into the scope of the A/I conflict. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A few comments on my understanding of the technicalities here:
 * The DS under which a topic ban would be imposed cover the Arab-Israeli conflict, not the Middle East in general. While maybe you could justify a tban covering ME topics with the other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project language of the DS policy, it's not generally done, I think.
 * I don't follow the discussion above about time limits - any administrator can take "other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project" so long as the offending behaviour is within the scope of DS, and that logically includes taking away the extended-confirmed userright for either a fixed period or indefinitely. The policy doesn't explicitly allow this, but it at least implicitly says so when it says, "enforcing administrators are not authorised ... to require the removal of user rights that cannot be granted by an administrator or to restrict their usage" - that is, they are authorised to remove user rights than can be granted by an administrator, such as extended-confirmed.
 * I don't think we can deny someone the right of appeal as part of an AE action, at least not until appeals become disruptive. If they want to lodge an appeal here, at ARCA or at AN, they are free to do so.  If we're going to put this sort of limit, I'd phrase it as 'reconsideration after six months' - the intent is that they can appeal on the merits of the sanction itself immediately, but if they want it reconsidered on the grounds of a demonstrated improved track record then they need to wait at least six months.
 * Reading the way the discussion above is going, someone could always just indef them as NOTHERE as a non-AE action. GoldenRing (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur.  Sandstein   09:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek
''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 Volunteer Marek

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 05:48, 12 July 2017 (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) 22:19, 11 July 2017 Restores challenged edit without talk page consensus


 * 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: December 13 2016
 * Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on: July 10 2017
 * Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on: June 22 2017


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint:
 * 14:28, 4 July 2017: Alt-right is added to the lede sentence of r/The_Donald
 * 09:00, 9 July 2017: The addition is reverted by Dervorguilla
 * 20:18, 9 July 2017: The addition is restored
 * 00:54, 10 July 2017: Dervorguilla starts a talk page discussion, noting the DS prohibit restoration without consensus
 * 06:05, 10 July 2017: VM participates in that discussion
 * 21:37, 11 July 2017: I make a sequential series of edits, one which removes the disputed term
 * 22:08, 11 July 2017: VM makes what I believe to be a wholesale revert of these edits
 * 22:13, 11 July 2017: I warn VM that the DS prohibits restoration of the disputed term and urge him to revert
 * 22:14, 11 July 2017: VM tells me I have it "backwards" and removes my warning
 * 22:19, 11 July 2017: Contrary to my belief, his edit had reverted all of my edits except the disputed term. VM indicates the exclusion was an oversight and restores the term, twice citing "established consensus" [1] [2]
 * NOTE: At the time of VM's restoration and of this enforcement request !votes to include are evenly divided (3 for, 3 against)
 * 22:22, 11 July 2017: I challenge VM to link to the established consensus or a version with the term prior to the July 4 addition, warning again I may escalate
 * 22:26, 11 July 2017: I ping VM
 * 22:27, 11 July 2017: VM edits another article but does not respond to my ping or revert the offending edit

VM was made aware of the consensus requirement at least twice, and provided no evidence to support an "established consensus" for inclusion. The editor ignored two opportunities to revert the offending edit.

This is a straightforward violation. Past requests against VM have been muddled with unrelated and obfuscatory claims. I would be grateful if admins encouraged succinct and on-topic comments. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


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

The violation is a single edit. It is linked prominently at the top of the request. None other of VM's edits violated the sanctions. I provide a timeline of events and link twice to the same edit for convenience. It is not an attempt to mislead. The June 21 version claims in the third paragraph of the lede "it's connected to the alt-right" not, in the intro sentence that it is an alt-right forum, as VM's edit did. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek
''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 Volunteer Marek
There was an addition of this material on July 4th, although as Sagecandor notes it was in the article before, and it was removed without discussion and consensus. Regardless, it was not removed until July 9th. Three editors - User:Grayfell, User:ValarianB and myself expressed support for the inclusion which shows that consensus was indeed in favor of it. The removal was done by red-linked, brand new, throw away account and in fact, the article was protected against vandalism. Please note the stated reason for protection. It is NOT "edit warring". It is "persistent vandalism". The text was restored by Grayfell and ValarianB. Several other established users, such as User:MrX, made intervening edits and did not object to the text. And this being a controversial article, a piece of text remaining in for five days pretty much makes it "status quo". The only person objecting at the time was Dervougilla who claimed, somewhat strangely, that this was not in line with WP:MOS. Additionally another user, Power~enwiki also expressed support for inclusion.

Then James J. Lambden jumped in. And Lambden, in addition to a long history of him following me around and reverting blindly (WP:HARASS), basically just stirs up troubles and turns molehills into mountains. He turned what was originally vandalism-reversion with some civil discussion on the side into an edit war which he is now trying to leverage into an AE report.

So. My edit did in fact restore consensus (four users vs. one, and that one seems to be making strange objections about MOS). Additionally, ask yourself this - why did Lambden report me, rather than Greyfell, who restored the edit several times, or ValerianB, who also restored it? Why didn't he complain to the admin who protected the page against vandalism, that "vandalism" being the removal of the text? If an admin, User:Anarchyte, protects the page because of "persistent vandalism", that vandalism being the removal of this text (and some other), how can you drag somebody to Arbitration Enforcement over the same thing? It doesn't make sense, except that it's a spurious WP:BATTLEGROUND report - and notably Lambden has complained before about the fact that AE reports concerning my person haven't gone the way he'd like, even went as far as to make a little infamous blacklist (don't remember if he still has it in his userspace - it's late right now), and this is just an obnoxious and insulting attempt to "remedy" that situation. Perhaps, a better question would be why Lambden is restoring what was considered vandalism (like I said, Lambden's editing on Wikipedia consists mostly of trying to stir things up and create unnecessary drama (take a peak at his user page for some more evidence as to his purpose here)).

There's another piece of bad faithed manipulation in Lambden's presentation of the timeline. He might have pinged me at 22:26 while I made another edit at 22:27. But that's essentially at the same time. I didn't see Lambden's ping until about 5:09 when I returned to editing (had to make dinner and stuff in the meantime). So his suggestion that I was even aware of his stupid threats to take me to AE - which is really at that his contribution to the discussion consists of - is false. I wasn't. I had shit to do. By the time I cam back the edit had been reverted anyway. But hey, Lambden just couldn't let it go, he couldn't pass up an opportunity to file an AE report however spurious it may be.

This kind of battleground attitude on his part has characterized all of my interactions with Lambden, and most of his interactions with other users as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, one more thing. I seem to recall it being stated several times that the restriction about "before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)" being removed from the DS sanctions because it was so damn confusing. There's always disagreement about whether it's the removal or the inclusion which is "reinstating any edits" and what constitutes a status quo piece of article text. MelanieN removed the restriction from some articles and IIRC Sandstein has noted, here I think, that there's no basis in any ArbCom decision for such a restriction. And it does seem very stupid to be dragged to AE for a single edit (especially since the same edit had been made by several other editors - just Lambden is not currently engaged in harrasing THOSE editors, just me).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@DennisBrown and the 5 days thing - sure, but I've seen that argument made before and we have don't have a good working definition of what "status quo" is. It's obviously different for high-edit articles than for low-edit articles. But how much? In fact, "forfeits their right to object" because they haven't edited the article in some time is EXACTLY what this restriction establishes/enshrines. Say it was 10 days. So you forfeit your right to object if you don't edit it for 10 days. Is that alright? 15 days? Etc. So blame the restriction. Which I think is really silly to begin with, for this exact reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Sagecandor
Appears to be trumped up attempt by complainant to have remedies imposed on Volunteer Marek in this case. Complainant cites one (1) diff, twice, in the complaint. Volunteer Marek was participating in talk page discussion, which is a good thing and is encouraged in cases like these. Volunteer Marek was correct that previously there was consensus to include the term prominently, and prior versions did so as recently as 21 June in the 5th sentence of the article. It is also quite unfair to Volunteer Marek to have diffs in the evidence by the complainant presented, that are NOT edits by Volunteer Marek but by multiple other users including and. Sagecandor (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with  and , regarding the lack of basis for the nature of the restriction here. Further, agree with analysis by that there is no actionable issue at this point in time, and as a content dispute and not an AE issue, further discussion is merited, at the article's talk page. Sagecandor (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning Volunteer Marek

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


 * Contra Volunteer Marek, editors are sanctioned at AE for a single edit all the time. However, in this case I agree that I can't find any actual basis for a "consensus required" restriction on that page.  Talk:/r/The Donald has  at the top, which does claim this restriction is in place - however, WP:Arbitration/Active sanctions lists only standard DS for AP2.  I'm aware that some administrators have imposed this restriction on specific articles (Coffee in particular seems fond of it), but this particular page doesn't appear in WP:AC/DSLOG.  So I'm not seeing a basis for action here (I haven't even looked at the merits of it yet).   added the talk page notice in Special:Diff/775808888 - perhaps he could comment here?  GoldenRing (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The restriction was logged here. It's been several months since then, but it looks like my intent was a 1RR restriction after edit-warring was rampant on the article. I agree the 'consensus required' wording is confusing and should be removed from that template. As far as the merit of this request, I'm with Dennis's position below. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict: I'm not sure that there is anything enforceable here. The complaint cites a "consensus required" restriction that is not found in the ArbCom remedy linked to in the complaint. If this restriction is a discretionary sanctions page restriction, has it been properly logged and added to the edit notice per WP:AC/DS?  Sandstein   08:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything that needs action, however, I will say that Volunteer Marek's claim that "a piece of text remaining in for five days pretty much makes it "status quo". " is absolutely absurd, as some people don't edit for 5 days, implying they forfeit their right to object. This needs to go back to the talk page for a discussion on the term since obviously it is contentious.  That makes it a content dispute, not an AE issue.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Neuwert
''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 Neuwert

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 03:01, 12 July 2017 (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) 02:31, 12 July 2017 First revert
 * 2) 02:43, 12 July 2017 ( Second revert. Violation of 1rr


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANeuwert&type=revision&diff=790143053&oldid=790120780


 * Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date

Editor is new and seems to be a hard charger. I am mainly doing this so he/she understands better how the process works and to go to the talk page.
 * 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%3ANeuwert&type=revision&diff=790182237&oldid=790181282

Discussion concerning Neuwert
''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 Neuwert
I will not edit here anymore. Bad place for that. You can block me forever in order to keep me aware of the truth instead a forged one. The reality is much better. I want to be far from the arrogance, stupidity and inappropriate words the oldest editors say. Be happy with this parallel universe made by frustrated people. That's why Wikipedia is riducularizaded when mention, mainly in the academy.

Statement by Sagecandor
Agree with analysis by of evidence presented by. Suggest a two-day-block, and also a warning of a potential future topic ban if issues persist later. Sagecandor (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning Neuwert

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


 * Looks to be four reverts on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, an article which is under 1RR. Would suggest a 48-hour block for the violation. They could be warned that a topic ban is possible if the user can't edit neutrally. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by User:Hyper9
''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 : – Hyper9 (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed :

Sanction being appealed User talk:Hyper9 This user (User:SpacemanSpiff) with administrative powers has applied sanctions on my WP account. Opaque warnings served on 16th June - User talk:Hyper9 and on 1st July - User talk:Hyper9


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :

Notified. here
 * Notification of that administrator :

Statement by User:Hyper9
Reason for the appeal There has been a round of edit warring on the Chera_dynasty page. The two editors (one of whom was me) that were involved have used several rounds of edits to improve the page and a closely related one. Several rounds of discussion by the other editor and me were held on the Talk page, in the middle of which this Administrator chose to suddenly serve a 'Sanctions' warning. The next warning was served in a complete opaque manner and I immediately sought clarifications on what behaviour is being censured by the Admin - but there was no satisfactory response. Now, the sanctions have been imposed for an edit by me on the said page. The other warring editors have not responded on the Talk page for ONE week (after I even went to the length of providing screenshots of referenced pages) but have gone ahead with their disruptive edits and removed referenced/sourced content. I reverted this and all of a sudden the Sanctions were imposed on me. When I pointedly asked what is the action for which the sanction has been imposed - this Administrator (User:SpacemanSpiff) had no response (see Talk page end).

As with any edit warring - there are two parties involved. This Administrator has shown themselves to be highly biased in never ONCE censuring the other editor (with whom they regularly interact). I would also like to point out that the Administrator has been quite involved in the page in the past and I would hardly rule out the fact that they are imposing their own POVs on the content. A second reason for a conflict of interest is the fact that the page (and content) that is being disputed is about the area directly opposite their stated location on their User page - and appears to be wholly biased with regard to this topic regarding neighbouring geographies. This Admin has a clear conflict of interest in administrating this page and as a genuine contributor (the largest active contributor of the Chera_dynasty page), I would like to request this action to be revoked or reduced and another uninvolved administrator to look into future edits on this page.

I would also like, as a WP user and the largest contributing Editor of this page, to raise a formal complaint against this Administrator (User:SpacemanSpiff). I would like to record it here and if pointed out, will add it to any other place if needed. Hyper9 (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by User:SpacemanSpiff

 * Firstly, I have explained the issues clearly as have other admins and  who are both involved in the discussions at Talk:Chera dynasty. The problem is that Hyper9 clearly exhibits a WP:IDHT attitude here and keeps repeating the same thing again and again and people stop responding as it's already been addressed, if it's not WP:IDHT then it's a case of being unable to understand discussions or how the encyclopaedia works, in which case the sanction is too light. The user has been refusing to follow proper process of DR and continues to edit war, so I'm hoping that the limited topic ban will allow the user to edit other areas and learn the processes, policies, and guidelines of the encyclopaedia. Also, the allegation of WP:INVOLVED is nothing more than rubbish. THis isn't a case of two parties here, but multiple editors in good standing (and who edit this area) including Doug Weller, RegentsPark and  have continued to engage with the editor. The problem started at Malayalam where the user was trying to push a particular school of though  and there was a back and forth between this user and Cpt.a.haddock, then the refusal to go through DR, though the user participated in DR afterwards. The DRN case closed with a resolution somewhat similar to the original state of the article with the addition of "it's a matter of dispute".

A similar situation is going on at Chera dynasty where there was an edit war between Hyper9 and Cpt.a.haddock. protected the page and warned them both. Subsequently Doug Weller and RegentsPark joined the two editors in the discussions and edited the article based on that, but were consistently reverted by Hyper9 --, , ,. All this has to be taken in the context of the talk page discussions and if one reads Talk:Chera_dynasty and other posts further down from there, consensus is that this is WP:SYNTHESIS and doesn't belong, but Hyper9 has evaluated consensus for themselves that there's no synthesis and refuses to acknowledge that the other opinions hold (and the constant reverts on the article) and repeatedly says the same thing, which the others have stopped responding to as there's nothing new there.

I think this sanction is absolutely necessary at this point and would recommend against it being removed. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I forgot to include the refusal to participate in a DR for Chera dynasty, per the diff provided by Haddock below --. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  11:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Cpt.a.haddock

 * I am one of the editors involved in this fracas. IMO, Hyper9 is a tendentious editor with a warped view of how Wikipedia or, for that matter, how scholarship works. He is yet to grasp the concepts of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:NPOV or more fundamentally, the idea that Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavour.


 * In addition to the points made by SpacemanSpiff, I'd like to point out that after Hyper9's general disappointment with the DRN resolution on Malayalam, he refused to go through any moderated dispute resolution process for Chera dynasty and the second DRN which I'd opened, expired unanswered.


 * There have also been a number of personal attacks: "mindless editing", "whose name you can't even spell", etc. The latter attack was after RegentsPark informed Hyper9 that the consensus was against him and to self-revert. The revert never came.


 * I believe the topic-ban will help Hyper9 understand both how to behave and how to collaborate.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by User:Hyper9

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


 * Endorse TBAN - I think one of the very reasons we have discretionary sanctions is to be able to deal with combative WP:SPAs swiftly and efficiently. This is one such case. User was appropriately warned (twice, including a final warning), and their TBAN was additionally explained to them plainly and clearly by, and Hyper9 needs to understand and accept that this TBAN includes their own talk page. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would decline the appeal if only for procedural reasons, because Hyper9 does not support any of their difficult-to-understand assertions with evidence in the form of diffs.  Sandstein   06:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would decline the appeal based on the merits. These was a problem, the solution was within admin discretion, nothing has changed since the TBAN was imposed.  I would note the TBAN has already been violated on the talk page and somewhat on Talk:Chera dynasty after explaining they were TBANed.  It should be expected that future breaches of the TBAN will likely result in them being blocked temporarily.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Endorse the topic ban. I read through the DRN about the origins of Malayalam and perceive that reasoning with User:Hyper9 is likely to exhaust anyone who tries. SpacemanSpiff's final warning (July 1) looks to be abundantly justified, but Hyper9 went right on regardless. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with EdJohnston: reasoning with Hyper9 looks very exhausting. We don't want constructive and knowledgeable editors to squander their time and energies on trying to contain problem editors; we want them to have some leisure to improve articles instead of endlessly arguing with those who don't listen. That's perhaps the most important reason we have discretionary sanctions at all. Endorse the ban. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC).

LesVegas
''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 LesVegas

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 23:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


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


 * 1) 14 June 2017 obviously lobbying an editor about the acupuncture article (see Special:Contributions/Arthur_Long)
 * 2) I asked them to self revert the TBAN violation (see below).  See this section of their talk page for their denial that this is a TBAN violation (contradicting the block they received for doing the same thing in January - see below)
 * 3) 15 June 2017 Change to their Arthur Long comments (not really) after I notified them above
 * 4) 12 July 2017 Again, obviously lobbying an editor about the acupuncture article (see Special:Contributions/Playalake)


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 17 December 2016 TBAN from acupuncture via this thread at ANI
 * 2) 6 January 2017 blocked for 60 hours for doing the same thing described above, as described in this diff


 * 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. (diff)


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

This is two instances of obvious and petty trolling in violation of their TBAN. I think it is time for an indefinite block as they don't do anything here but this, but a block longer than 60 hours is at least called for.
 * The edits are blatantly egging on editors who are SPA and are blatantly only editing WP to advocate for acupuncture (and are heading for TBANs themselves). LesVegas has not left similar comments at any other kind of editor's talk page.  TBANs are broadly construed and standing on the sidelines cheering on people who are doing what you can no longer do, is a violation.  User:Sandstein, for you to not be able to see this is rather surprising, to say the least.  Jytdog (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * AE is for dealing with disruption in areas where people do this kind of thing. The TBAN is squarely in that area, regardless of from where it arose.  I am sure that LesVegas is rolling around on the floor laughing as folks debate the fine points of whether this is really welcoming people.  Whatever.    You all should act or not and close this, rather than continuing the giggles for LV. Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Look, the diffs are petty trolling. Trolling but petty.  If you all find them not actionable, then so be it. But please, no hyperlegal claims about venue.  Dennis Brown, in another discussion you and I had, you wrote It is frustrating to see people try to nail down every single detail in policy because it makes it harder to admin....If you don't want admin to have any discretion, get bots to do our jobs. All this rules and outlines and process hurts enforcement.  The TBAN is in the field of the DS; bringing it here makes both issues available, and any admin could take action under either; this is just a forum to bring it that is uncluttered.  Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not asking for anything to be modified. Shall I quote the close of the ANI thread: Due to issues with civil POV pushing and edit-warring, there is community consensus for a topic ban. LasVegas is indefinitely topic banned from all pages related to Acupuncture, broadly construed. As a side note to the administrators here, Acupuncture is a topic area with active Arbitration remedies, including discretionary sanctions. A community topic ban is perfectly fine, but this could have probably been handled by any uninvolved administrator via the discretionary sanctions You really think applying the entirely standard (and giving  -- ahem - broad discretion to admins) "broadly construed" as encompassing this sort of petty trolling is "amending the ban"?   Or that applying DS for such obvious (if petty) triolling with their feet as absolutely close as possible to the topic, is counter to the spirit of the TBAN or otherwise somehow harms the community?  This is ... Monty Python esque silliness. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * diff

Discussion concerning LesVegas
''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 LesVegas
Jytdog declared a personal vendetta against me after I helped get him topic banned from GMO's, broadly construed, so I'm not surprised he's jumping the gun on this issue. Yes, I was blocked for alluding to a topic on Playalake's talkpage before. This time I did not. I'm just giving him a newbie welcome and pat on the head is all (and Arthur Long), and I would be more than happy to show anyone the email I sent. The email contained no allusions whatsoever regarding the topic I was banned for. Since the email was sent through Wikipedia's official system, I would welcome any admins/bureaucrats with access it to post it here for everyone's viewing.

Let me ask a serious question: since Jytdog was topic banned from GMO's, is he allowed to greet or interact with anyone editing the GMO topic? Because that's all I did, and if he seriously wants to pursue this action against me, I would love to provide diffs to show how black his pot is.

So do I have this straight: I'm not allowed to say "Welcome to Wikipedia!" if that editor happens to have edited on a topic that I can't edit on? Is that what I'm being accused of? LesVegas (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

One more thing: the whole reason I ever sent some welcoming love towards editors like Playalake is that I saw diffs like this this (edit warring with a newbie on talk pages, just sad). If Jytdog is going to behave like this (which is exactly the kind of behavior that got him TBanned at GMO, I might add), there would be no need to show a new editor that not everyone on Wikipedia acts like that. The last thing I'd ever want to see is an editor be discouraged to edit because they believe everyone here bullies them like Jytdog. LesVegas (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Sagecandor
Clear violation. Evidence as presented by is clear cut and strong. The topic ban as given by is "broadly construed". Last violation resulted in block for 60 hours. Suggest longer block than that, this time. Sagecandor (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I note that proudly displays the Graham's hierarchy of disagreement image  on their userpage. Unfortunately, the focus of their choice of response, here, appears to stem from the 2nd-to-last-level of that very hierarchy, including the choice of edit summary in the edit, itself: DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Newyorkbrad
Just as a point of clarification, administrators and bureaucrats have no ability to read other users' e-mails. (Nor do arbitrators.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
Perhaps I'm dense, but I see no mention of acupuncture in any of the diffs. Emails, of course, don't fall under topic bans. The relevant basis for sanctioning the behaviour would be editing by proxy. Is there any evidence that this has occured? If not, I don't see a case here. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
@Sandstein: "The diffs make no reference to acupuncture" The two diffs are 14 June 2017 and 6 January 2017.

They show LesVegas offering advice to two new editors, each of whom has edited only at Talk:Acupuncture. The advice did not mention acupuncture but it obviously concerns that topic. Is it necessary to ask for a clarification regarding whether such comments violate a topic ban?

@BU Rob13: As the admin who imposed the topic ban (17 December 2016), would you like to comment?

Is it acceptable for a topic banned editor to monitor relevant talk pages, then offer welcoming advice to new editors who have a common POV? Johnuniq (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I do not think it would be satisfactory for WP:TBAN to be interpreted as allowing a topic-banned editor to monitor articles under the topic ban, then welcome single-purpose accounts who are only interested in that topic. That is particularly so when the welcome is not merely a standard template, but contains advice and offers of assistance. I was wondering whether it might be necessary to ask for a clarification, but it occurs to me that this topic ban was issued by the community at ANI, so Arbcom might not be the right place to ask. Any thoughts on that? In fact, should this AE request be replaced with a request at ANI? Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (Roxy the dog)
@Dennis Brown, Les' comments to two strictly Acupuncture WP:SPA editors are clearly in violation of the broadly construed topic ban. Les seeks to be disruptive in the Acu area, as these two editors have been. What is difficult to see regarding this infringement? He's adressing acu SPAs for goodness sake. @Bish - no time is a bad time for wielding the banhammer on disruptive editors.-Roxy the dog. bark 15:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43
Mention of the GMO topic caught my eye (albeit a red herring in this conservation), but I'll admit LesVegas' extreme adversarial attitude here shows that enforcement of the broadly construed topic ban is needed without the presence of interaction bans to prevent LesVegas from going after editors they've had disputes with in their topic-banned area.

Some admins so far seem to be missing that these communications were with purely SPA accounts in the topic area. That is the distinguishing feature and should be a clear violation of trying to skirt the ban, which broadly construed is supposed to account for. Had these been established users that edit in a variety of topics, then it would be more of a gray zone. The slipperly slope LesVegas is trying to imply in their lashing out here would really only apply if Jytdog was interacting with GMO SPAs, but not editors with other overlapping subject areas. The editors LesVegas were getting in contact with only edit in their topic-ban area. There's no other way than to say LesVegas was interested in them because of where the SPAs edited, and I have seen cases where topic-banned editors were blocked because it was apparent they were following ongoings in their topic area as we see here.

DS are also meant to deal with problem behavior in the topic area. Violating a topic ban is one of those, which can place action dealing with that at AE regardless of where the ban originated. When DS are imposed at ArbCom, they are intended in part to deal with controversial subject areas at AE rather than at ANI where controversial subjects are often not handled well. The only time ANI would need to follow-up on this particular topic ban is if it was the actual appeal of the topic ban. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
I understand and agree with Dennis' point that because the TBan was not an AE action, this is the wrong forum for the complaint to have been filed in, however, we have a situation where the admin who imposed the TBan agrees that Les Vegas' actions were a violation of the intent of the ban, so it seems unnecessarily bureaucratic to restart the discussion at AN/I. As pointed out, admins don't necessarily need a consensus discussion before they enforce a sanction, and this would appear to be a case where it would be appropriate for an admin to block Les Vegas for his behavior on their own initiative, not as an AE action. If the admin wants community confirmation of their action, they can always open a block review thread on AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning LesVegas

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


 * I see nothing actionable. The diffs make no reference to acupuncture and were not made on a page related to acupuncture.  Sandstein   05:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In my view, interacting with acupuncture SPAs is not a violation of the acupuncture topic ban, insofar as the interactions themselves are not about acupuncture. See WP:TBAN. If no admins disagree, I'll close this request.  Sandstein   07:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not only do I not disagree, the TBAN that's supposedly been violated is a community sanction, not one imposed under arbitration, making this the wrong forum. If I saw any merit in the complaint, I'd do something anyway under ordinary admin discretion; but the type of complaint made here would turn every TBAN into an effective IBAN with every editor who took a strong interest in the topic.  I just can't see it.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Jytdog seems to have missed differentiating betwen community sanctions and arbcom sanctions. The correct thing to do would have been to either approach BU Rob13, who implemented the ban, or (groan) take it to ANI. That said, I don't think these technicalities need stop any admin from evaluating and acting on the complaint.


 * I'm far from impressed by LesVegas' response. Their question "I'm not allowed to say "Welcome to Wikipedia!" if that editor happens to have edited on a topic that I can't edit on?" (my italics) is self-serving and insincere. (Yes, yes, assume good faith, but note also that AGF is not a suicide pact.) There was obviously no "happens to" about it, especially as the newbies LesVegas offered advise to had edited nothing but acupuncture, and in a tendentious, forum-y way. And LV's posts weren't merely welcomes, they were invitations to e-mail. Looking at their contribs certainly suggests that they have no interest in editing Wikipedia as such, but are here solely to promote their POV on acupucture. That's very close to not being here to create an encyclopedia IMO. However, this is probably the wrong time to bring out the sledgehammer. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC).
 * I kind of get that, but where do you draw the line around this sort of thing? Do we really want to get into the business of policing who editors with TBANs welcome to Wikipedia?  GoldenRing (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Policing who they welcome? No, we shouldn't make a business of that. Jytdog's report wasn't really about "welcoming". (It's a bit like editors who use the "thanks" function to taunt an opponent, mutatis mutandis: that's not really about thanking.) If they're being disingenuous about their manner of, and motives for, welcoming, as in this case, I'm going to say "I see you", even if I don't write them a ticket. Both they and I may hopefully even remember about it next time they try to skirt their ban. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC).


 * For starters, the Tban is not an AE issued tban, so it should be at ANI instead of here. That doesn't prevent us from taking action, but this is not the preferred venue and we certainly can opt to give instructions to take it elswhere.  Secondly, if this was ANI, I would not take action based on this evidence.  If  previously blocked for this  (which is more detailed but similar to the current complaint), then I'm at a loss how this is a tban violation.  Perhaps he can explain; maybe I'm missing some finer point, maybe the block was for a different diff than provided, I don't know.  LesVegas is stating he was banned in an area but doesn't mention it.  I can see how that is disruptive considering how it was done, but not a violation of the tban.  The tban does not mention that he can't say he is tbanned, and no tban SHOULD prohibit someone from saying they are tbanned in an area.  An editor has to be able to say "I can't talk about that subject, I am topic banned from it" if they approached by another editor, for instance.  I also don't think we can police email unless it is a claim of abusive email.  I see no authority in the admin bit that lets us do that.  Welcoming new editors might look like skirting the ban, but we aren't mind readers and we don't have the authority to expand or modify the tban, which is very narrow in scope and community imposed.  I suggest we close this without prejudice to it being moved to the proper venue. If I saw it there, I would still recommend no action be taken, btw, but that decision should be made there, or by the filing party here, who could choose to just not refile it at ANI.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , the problem is that you are asking enforcement of a community ban, not an AE ban. at AE. If it was an AE ban, we could modify it or change it any way we felt was necessary (within Arb limits).  Any of us, unilaterally.  With a community ban, we absolutely can not do that, and usually you need to a consensus at AN/ANI to modify.  So we have to enforce the ban "as is", and I see this as grey area.  I DO see a problem, but I find it hard to press the button and own the action in a borderline case like this.  That doesn't stop another admin, and I did ping the admin who blocked him before.  Taking it to the community allows for clarification of the ban, adding to it, etc.  Most of the time, if this is the wrong venue but the case is cut and dry (vandalism, socking, disruptive editing) then we just sanction as non-AE and move on, but this isn't so obvious, at least not to me.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * They were not blocked for mentioning their topic ban; they were blocked for messaging an editor related to the topic they're banned from. Everything in their message that I blocked for (petition, etc) had to do with acupuncture. An edit does not have to explicitly mention acupuncture to be about acupuncture, and we should not draw such a distinction to prevent gaming. The intent of the community was clearly to remove this editor entirely from the topic area, not for them to continue lobbying from the sidelines and via emails. If that's all the editor is doing, I'd recommend indeffing them with talk page access and email access revoked. Welcoming editors who share their POV, giving them advice about conflicts they've had related to the topic, and telling those editors to email them for more? We all know what's going on there. ~ Rob 13 Talk 19:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:AE is still the wrong place to do it, and I would say that this case should probably go to a community discussion, if anywhere. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm basically agreeing with Dennis here. I can see the problem, but it's not one where I'm comfortable pulling the trigger on my own discretion.  To me, this is enough of an edge case &mdash; unusual enough as a TBAN violation &mdash; that I'd want to see sort of consensus for action.  So if someone feels willing to exercise their discretion over this, risking the consequences, then they should carry on.  Otherwise, action is going to need broader discussion than is going to happen at AE.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)