From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFAR)
Jump to: navigation, search

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:


Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: Pseudoscience

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

Case or decision affected
Pseudoscience arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Link to relevant decision

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

Statement by jps

I have never liked the fact that ArbCom included content rulings in WP:ARBPSCI, but we have, in the past, simply let this slide as it never seemed to be problematic. However, now it does seem to be problematic in a conversation I'm having about a proposed name-chase for a list: [1], [2].

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

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

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

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

@User:Newyorkbrad: Glad you think so. Now, whenever I see comments like this, should I just refer them to your talkpage and you can hash it out with them? jps (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

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

When an article's subject is generally considered to be pseudoscience in reliable sources... Example 1 Example 2
Must the word pseudoscience be used in describing the article's subject, or are alternate wordings acceptable? "<Subject> is pseudoscience" "<Subject> is rejected by mainstream scientists"
If the label pseudoscience is used, how prominent should it be? Does it need to be in the first sentence of the Lead, or should the first sentence be a general definition of the subject? "<Subject> is a pseudoscientific idea that <definition of subject>." "<Subject> is <definition of subject>...<Subject> is regarded as pseudoscience by mainstream scholars."
Should the assertion that a subject is pseudoscience be attributed, or can it be stated in Wikipedia's voice? "<Subject> is pseudoscience." "<Subject> is considered pseudoscience by a majority of scholars."

He went on to say, “I think the clause that needs clarification would be: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally_considered_pseudoscience. In my opinion, some good questions to ask the committee would be:

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

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

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

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

Statement by iantresman

The problem as I see it, is as follows:

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

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

  • @John Carter. Thanks, I don't recall seeing that page and list before. --Iantresman (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Second Quantization. I have no problem with classic examples of pseudoscience, such as astrology, where there are books and a preponderance of quality secondary sources. My issue with the more modern examples, where editors take a handful of primary sources, often from personal blogs, and judge for themselves (ie. WP:SYNTH) that they feel that a subject meets certain criteria, and that the editors decide that this means that a subject is considered pseudoscience. And then based on a dearth of sources, they write that "mainstream science considers...", or "the majority of academics consider..." where no such consensus is verified in reliable sources. Hence we should not be claiming that a list of subjects are considered pseudoscience, just because you and I may think that a subject meets some vague and subjective criteria. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't do it, and no science dictionaries do it. That Wikipedia does it uniquely, raises red flags. --Iantresman (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @dave souza. Thanks for that. This seems that Arbcom have made an extraordinary content decision: that despite the Demarcation problem, gifted editors can somehow clearly identify articles as "Obvious" or "Generally considered" pseudoscience .. "without more justification". Does this imply that uniquely, and contrary to Wikipedia core policies, editors do not need to meet the exacting standards of WP:V and WP:RS, when such contentiousness suggests that we should be using WP:V and WP:RS far more carefully? The Demarcation problem is a philosophy of science issue, not an excuse to subjectively label subjects under the guise of science. --Iantresman (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @dave souza. Yes I'm well aware of WP:ARB/PS (I started the case), and its "Appropriate sources". But the principles "Obvious pseudoscience", and "Generally considered pseudoscience", and "Questionable science", all seem to blur their requirements for WP:V / WP:RS, and how also how editors word their findings. eg. Articles which sources suggest would be "Questionable science" at best, and according to the description "generally should not be so characterized", are actually described as if mainstream science as described them as pseudoscience. This has been going on since I started with Wikipedia, and the reason I brought the original WP:ARB/PS case. --Iantresman (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @jytdog. I oppose your amendment to deal with the term "pseudoscience", because (a) of the demarcation problem (b) there is no general agreement of the term "pseudoscience" (c) there is no general agreement on the reliability of sourcs (d) science itself does not label topics in this way (e) it is, and always has been one of the most contentious areas of Wikipedia (f) the label adds little to a topic, when there is already much non-judgemental and well-sourced critical material available. --Iantresman (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jytdog My apologies and thank you for the clarification. I oppose the WP:FRINGE/PS statement "Proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification." as it clearly contravenes WP:V and WP:RS. Any topic that is "obvious bogus" will have numerous reliable secondary sources that will both verify this view, and allow it to be checked. There is no reason why this labelling uniquely does not require justification (verification). --Iantresman (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jytdog and jps. Perhaps jps could clarify whether he is asking for clarification on the orignal principles in WP:ARB/PS, or on the naming of the List of psuedosciences,[4], [5], as this may change the emphasis of the discussion? --Iantresman (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Second Quantization

  • ArbCom made no content decisions that I can see nor have they set any policy. They have some principles that underlie their decision, but that is not a content decision. We are not obliged to follow, read or care about their principles they operated under. There is no reason any editor should pay one iota worth of attention to what is written there since it's not indicative of what editing policy we should operate under. Some editors under the misapprehension that arbcom dictates content policy put undue emphasis on the ideas of some arbitrators some time ago. So this is a non-issue; we are under no obligation with respect to that behavioural decision. Second Quantization (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Here is the specific text Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Policy_and_precedent: "The Committee does not rule on content". They can suggest ways of seeking remedies, but they can not provide remedies. This is policy, Second Quantization (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Iantresman "Because of the Demarcation problem, there is no "obvious" pseudoscience." Demarcation is one of ongoing philosophical research but is an issue for the borderlands between science and non-science, not for the obvious cases. There are certain examples that meet most criteria of philosophers, and are recognised by the scientifically literate as obviously pseudoscience. Astrology, Time Cube etc are obviously pseudoscientific. Care to provide a specific example of point 4)? For 7), on the contrary, where I've seen it used it's generally well sourced. Second Quantization (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by dave souza

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

From the outset, it was obvious to experts on science and science education that ID is not science, but creationist religious views relabelled as science. That said, it clearly had and to some extent still has a following outwith science, essentially among creationists or proponents of its predecessor creation science.
The scientific community, educators and philosophers of science have clearly shown that ID is a religious view presented as science and is not science, failing to meet the methods an standards of science. Several mainstream sources have specifically described ID as pseudoscience.

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

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

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

John Carter draws attention to the point that "pseud-" words are specifically included in WP:WTW which is a guideline, not policy, and as it says at the top, is "a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." Common sense clearly indicates that pseudoscience is a well established term, one which forms part of Wikipedia policy, and is a word which may be necessary in clearly describing a topic as pseudoscience.
The boxes included in John Carter's comment appear to invite Arbcom to set specific wording for articles, determining article content in a manner going beyond the WP:ARBPS decision and beyond policy. This prescriptive proposal is wholly inappropriate, and unnecessary given the clear policy. Obviously the best way to achieve the policy is a matter for article talk page discussion to achieve consensus. . dave souza, talk 21:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Iantresman as of 11:31, 22 July 2014; perhaps you've not read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, or failed to recall the various principles listed including, for example, Appropriate sources. Obviously the various policies apply. . dave souza, talk 14:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by logos5557

I am uninvolved, practically; just came here to greet jps's (was known as scienceapologist previously) allusion to one of my comments. @QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV: I suppose you can safely refer confused ones to this. Logos5557 (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by jytdog

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The background principles adopted in this arbitration decision (which dates from 2006) do not govern how lists in mainspace are organized in 2014. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Infoboxes

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

Case or decision affected
Infoboxes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Statement by Sandstein

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Pigsonthewing and infoboxes, "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes."

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

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

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

Comment by Montanabw

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

Comment by Boing!

Sandstein seems to be on his own on this one with his over-literal definition of what an infobox is - there's a clear consensus that Andy was simply fixing an existing badly-formed one. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Kurtis

Always remember:

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

Kurtis (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • "The mountains will be in labor, and a ridiculous mouse will be brought forth." This is not worth discussing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Roma locuta, causa soluta. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know Greek or Latin, so I'll just say it in English: that wasn't adding an infobox. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems pretty clear that there was an infobox there. Just because it didn't use the infobox template doesn't mean it wasn't an infobox. WormTT(talk) 09:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that this was not the addition of an infobox and did not breach the restriction. Still, I do see why that could at least be in question, so I don't find the request for clarification unreasonable in itself. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This edit was not in violation of his restriction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control

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

Case or decision affected

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

Statement by Gaijin42

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

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

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

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

Statement by Sandstein

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

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

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

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


Requests for enforcement


Gerda Arendt



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 Ezzex

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Gaijin42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 18:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Ezzex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBPIA :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [21] POV/Vandal
  2. [22] POV/Vandal
  3. [23] Restoring POV/Vandal
  4. [24] Removal of content contrary to editor's POV

Ezzex recently made an ANI post where previous behavior was an issue

  1. [25] more POV
  2. [26] Personal attacks

And a previous ANI against Ezzex which ended with a firm warning from Go_Phightins! for soapboxing. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive847#User:Ezzex

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#Awareness and alerts)


Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Obvious case of WP:NOTHERE could notmally be cleaned up fairly easily, but 1RR and applied DS puts at risk of edit warring since this is not over vandalism.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Ezzex

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.

Gaijin42 ! you have been blocked 3 times in 1 year. Is this some sort of revenge?? --Ezzex (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ezzex

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ezzex

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

This looks to be POV-pushing in article space. I recommend a topic ban. The pattern is consistent with a 12 July ANI thread, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive847#User:Ezzex, where Ezzex was warned for calling Wikipedia a 'tool of Israel' and for referring to the murder of the three Israeli teenagers as 'just killings on occupied land.' EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Agreeing with Ed that a short topic ban is appropriate. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)