Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:23, 10 February 2016

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ollie231213

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Ollie231213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Ollie231213 (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic Ban from Longevity broadly construed, imposed at

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive186#Ollie231213, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015#Longevity

Administrator imposing the sanction: Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: [1]

Statement by Ollie231213

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

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

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

Well, the GRG is to gerontology what NASA is astronomy. Just look at how many times you see news organisations say "...according to the Gerontology Research Group" in stories about the world's oldest people - these are just a few: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Lots of other sources clearly consider the GRG to be an authority in the topic area. All I am saying is that Wikipedia should reflect this and base its articles on longevity primarily on this source and not on other less-reliable ones.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Glrx:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Glrx 1. If dozens of newspapers are reporting the Guinness World Records titleholder and a few are reporting questionable claims, then Wikipedia's due weight policy would suggest that Wikipedia should go with what the majority of sources are saying. It's a total fallacy to think that we have to treat every single bit of information in every source equally, especially when the sources contradict each other.

2. My behaviour doesn't constitute a topic ban. The incivility issue went both ways with Legacypac and I've promised not to continue to be uncivil.

3. The issue with the area of longevity is that some editors on Wikipedia have a strong dislike of the GRG and the so-called "longevity fanclub" because of past experiences with other editors. But I cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. People like Guy are coming up with all sorts of unfounded conspiracy theories that are unsourced (e.g. that the GRG are peddling pseudoscience) and claiming that I am COI-editing, but I've clearly explained why my actions are well grounded in Wikipedia policy, and that actually, it's those who think that due weight and good sources policies shouldn't apply. "I don't like it" isn't a reason to overthrow Wiki policy and rules which apply in other areas, including the three core assertions of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:RS. No one is saying that the GRG is the one and only source on supercentenarians, but what I am saying is that the larger issue is that science requires extraordinary claims to have extraordinary sources, and there is general agreement outside Wikipedia and within the scientific community that age claims to 110+ are enough to require age verification. Someone going to a newspaper and saying "I'm 115!" should be treated the same as someone who goes to a newspaper and says "I was abducted by aliens!". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Spartaz

I don't have anything to add beyond what Ed and I said in the original AE. Ollie, the only opinions that have any weight here are the uninvolved admins. Everything else is just noise. Do not canvass others to come and support you. It won't affect the outcome but would be obvious evidence that you are not editing per our accepted norms. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Legacypac

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

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

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

Statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights

It will be quite unsurprising that I see no reason to overturn the sanctions here. The amount of energy that's been expended arguing that the GRG is The One And Only True Source^TM on this subject is so enormously wasteful that allowing editors back in who want to continue that fight will only degrade the quality of the articles on human longevity. I don't see where the implementation of sanctions violated any policies, nor do I see how lifting them will be in any way helpful. Therefore, I strongly recommend this be closed with no action and a reminder that brevity is actually a virtue. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response, 1. Wikipedia isn't a court of law and 2. my previous points, especially that one about brevity, are reaffirmed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by JzG

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

Ollie, find some other area to edit. Leave this topic completely, forever. All you are doing is reinforcing the impression of an externally coordinated campaign to manipulate Wikipedia in support of an ideology. We're bored with it. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NuclearWarfare: The Gerontology Research Group functions as an off-wiki gathering place for promoters of "agecruft" - they are convinced that achieving the age of 100 makes one inherently notable, and that the GRG is the fountain source of all wisdom on matters pertaining to age. We have had years of disruption by members and supporters of this site pushing their external agenda against Wikipedia consensus. Its focus on agecruft is less of a problem than its fringe activities in "life extension" - a field littered with blatantly pseudoscientific claims, playing largely to a market of old rich people whose judgment may not be what it once was (if you are thinking that there will be quite a few actual fraudsters involved, you're almost certainly right). Ryoung122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a leader of this group and was banninated for repeatedly making anonymous edits evading his topic ban. So: GRG think they are the sole authority on supercentenarians, and the sole arbiters of the notability of same (in practice, they always consider them notable, because that is all they are interested in), and there are also numerous other fields where this group can be considered to be offsite co-ordinators of POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ricky81682

NuclearWarfare I'm an involved admin on this matter. To give you a perspective on this discussion about the Gerontology Research Group, see this lengthy RFC. The claim was made by Ollie and others that the GRG needs to be identified and separately marked as a different level of reliable source (along with other sources which by random "luck" are never actually used anywhere). This is was but one of many examples of lengthy and disruptive arguing (including an RFC Ollie proposed to ban all newspapers are unreliable sources but only for reporting the ages of very old people). That is why the "GRG is the equivalent of NASA" is frustrating nonsense. The extent and months and months of arguing and arguing on this topic were enough and we are all better off if we don't have to repeat the same arguments with people who clearly only view the GRG as accurate on these very minor factual points. See Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people where even today yet again there is another lengthy round of arguing by people who simply repeat the idiotic mantra that "all newspapers are unreliable for old people's birth dates" by bringing up complete garbage nonsense and to use the GRG again (the language in flavor now is "international bodies that specialize in longevity research" so there are other sources when pushed about it so they aren't just saying the GRG but everything else then gets deleted so it's really just the GRG yet again). Review the old ARBCOM case and you'll see that it's been a decade of problems like this: the only resolution came when ARE started topic banning the people who simply refused to accept the idea of other sources on the topic being considered reliable on a general level (not that the tables aren't just repeating the GRG anyways). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that. I don't need to reiterate the actual discussion. I'm involved here, I'm not going to deny that. The main issue is that it is one of many sources. Note that during this lengthy RFC, Ollie argued for a number of sources but when push came to shove, it is only the GRG that actually matters. Today, we have another, similar argument about the lede sentence at Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people where the term is now "international bodies that specialize in longevity research" and again citing numerous organizations which again will ultimately be the GRG. Even if the GRG were the equivalent of NASA, we wouldn't then say that anything the Cosmonauts did should be ignored, we'd treat them as equally reliable sources and lengthy and lengthy discussions to fight that issue again and again are not productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 3)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ollie231213

Statement by Glrx

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

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

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

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

Consequently, if someone is on the list, then there are presumably reasonable supporting documents for the individual's age. Volunteers, not professionals, validate these age claims. Wikipedia apparently accepts GRG's Table E as a reliable indication of an individual's age.[9] However, not being on the list does not contradict a claimed age. It doesn't even show that GRG investigated a claimed age and rejected it for some reason. So GRG's list is not "the oldest living people in the world" but rather "the oldest living people that GRG found and can document"; GRG calls the table "Validated Living Supercentenarians".

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

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

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

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

Result of the appeal by Ollie231213

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

@Spartaz, The Blade of the Northern Lights, JzG, and EdJohnston: I know little about this topic area but I respect you all a great detail as uninvolved(?) administrators so that's what I'm directing my initial question to you. I've read Ollie's statement and the original AE request. I take it you all would disagree with his description of this "Gerontology Research Group". Could you please either describe a little more as to why or point me to past discussions? Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for replying. I did some reading this morning (apparently, I was the case clerk for the Longevity case way back when; who knew). The given rationale for the topic ban was primarily POV pushing with a dash of incivility and tendentious editing. I haven't read anything that would make me disagree with that analysis. As per policy, a clear and active consensus is required to overturn a discretionary sanction. I would view that as functionally being impossible if one other uninvolved administrator agrees with me and would suggest that the appeal can be closed if that situation occurs. NW (Talk) 18:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prokaryotes

Prokaryotes indefinitely topic-banned from pages and content relating to genetically modified organisms, broadly construed. MastCell ^Talk 19:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Prokaryotes

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Prokaryotes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#1RR imposed :

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

January 25, 2016. Revert of January 25, 2016.
January 25, 2016. Revert of January 23, 2016.

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

There is an edit notice that displays when editing the page, notifying users of the ArbCom sanctions.
User was a party to the ArbCom case: [10].
Received a "final warning" about GMO editing from MastCell: [11].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think that this is a self-explanatory violation of 1RR by a user who has been extensively warned before. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For brevity. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prokaryotes has now replied, and ironically presents this link: [12] as indicating that I am "ignoring" editor consensus. However, the discussion is actually me reaching out to other editors with a compromise, and even saying that I "fully support" an edit that Prokaryotes had made. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prokaryotes has now said that the two reverts here are his only recent GMO-related edits, a statement that can be seen as patently false simply by looking at the recent edit history at Genetically modified crops. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

...Considering, for example, this? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still a problem. Inasmuch as the self-revert was helpful, it seems to have come without any real self-awareness, more like a last-minute effort to avoid trouble here. This comment just made at the article talk page, [13], following a series of similar comments, is completely objectionable in context, and clearly demonstrates that the conduct is continuing unabated, self-revert or no. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell and other admins: I'm continuing to see ongoing problems. Prokaryotes argues incessantly against reliable sources based on bizarre reasons. He objects that one source is not reliable because it was written by one author instead of multiple authors: [14], and objects to another because "GM crops" are supposedly not to be used as foods: [15]. This isn't good faith editing; it's trying to throw anything at the wall to prevent us from citing sources that go against his POV. The purpose of 1RR is not simply to assure that second reverts are self-reverted; it is to prevent editing that hampers consensus. Even though I filed this about 1RR, the editing is happening under DS. Where you ask Prokaryotes to demonstrate that he understands, please do not accept inadequate answers. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I just remembered that your warning to him was already a "final warning". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [16]

A Modest Proposal after Jonathan Swift

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

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

Discussion concerning Prokaryotes

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

Statement by Prokaryotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Kingofaces43

Was about to request this myself. First, I should point out there was also a previous revert 16:18, January 23 that technically doesn't cross the bright line of 1RR, but gaming of 1RR to keep edit warring has been specifically called by arbs as behavior to deal with by DS.[17]. A common problem can be seen in their edit summaries like, "per talk page, no consensus, dont readd without conclusion of current discussion, see also OR noticebaord discussion" where they try to edit war in their preferred content change that did not have consensus on the talk page (yet citing it as if they did) in order to replace the longer standing consensus version. It's like a reverse WP:BRD where someone tries to claim the status quo cannot remain and their preferred addition must remain even when the new edit does not have consensus.

Prokaryotes' edit warring was also brought up in a separate case they brought forward here that was closed without much comment on them because Prokaryotes withdrew the complaint.[18] Prokaryotes' edit warring had quite a bit of coverage at the ArbCom case too. They narrowly avoided a topic ban by one vote. [19][20]. Opposing arbs generally said the behavior was a problem, but didn't quite reach the point of action at that time.[21] Their edit warring and battleground behavior was the largely last straw on the camel's back that triggered the ArbCom case. Considering their behavior issues have continued even after the warning MastCell gave (mentioned in Tryptofish's request) that they were precariously close to enforcing DS after the case, it doesn't look like there's any other options left. I'd suggest 0RR at a bare minimum, but Prokaryotes has received sufficient warning on impending topic bans due to other things mentioned at the case such as casting aspersions, battleground mentality, a nearly passed ban, that a topic ban would better help prevent disruption at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Prokaryotes' claims about me

It looks like Prokaryotes is doubling down on the battleground behavior they were warned about in this very board.[22] For those not involved, I was referring to the real-world issues outlined in sources with general "anti-science" sentiment when it comes to scientific consensus on topics like vaccines, climate change, GMOs, etc and the common themes we see in fringe sources. My comments were mostly referring to subject matter (e.g., tactics). I wasn't addressing editors excluding the bit where I mentioned that some editors were misunderstanding the subject matter. That Prokaryotes takes those comments and tries to paint a very different picture about my comments such as painting everyone as a climate change denier is a huge stretch and continuation of the battleground behavior that almost got them topic banned. I shouldn't need to clarify that further at this point, though it is an ongoing problem in the topic that some editors try to manufacture drama like this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

New developments

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

The short of it is that they are violating WP:NPA by purposely misrepresenting two of my comments at WP:NORN [23][24] incorrectly claiming I am calling editors climate change deniers. The purposeful misrepresentation comes from me directly telling them before they opened the thread and after that those two comments were about content, not editors (i.e., sources describe many of the methods to oppose scientific consensus in this topic as being the same is climate change denial, vaccine controversy, etc.) mainly here here and here. I made it clear my only comments related to editors were: 1. Some editors were misunderstanding some technical details in sources. 2. Mentioning that Prokaryotes' false claim I was commenting on editors as climate-change deniers was a behavior issue (misrepresentation) I wasn't going to mention further so we could focus on content at NORN[25](more on this). They decided to double-down instead to call discussion on content personal insult.

Here are some of my other main comments relating to my intent on my comments if any admins are interested in what's going on with respect to my behavior.[26][27][28][29] If an admin still thinks something is odd on my part, I'll gladly chat with them or even open up a case on myself if they thought it was needed. I don't think it's needed, but I'd abide by such a request so we could get a focused look on what I actually said (my cited comments should make it clear it's very different than Prokaryotes portrays though).

For Prokaryotes though, we have them opening up an ANI case shortly after this AE case opened, repeatedly misrepresenting my comments after being notified many times, false accusations of canvassing at WP:FTN [30] just today, and an overall continuation of the battleground out-for-blood behavior at ANI that nearly got them topic banned at ArbCom with a split vote. That's a continued "lack of insight" as you described MastCell, and I'll also ping EdJohnston on these ongoing behavior issues. This is just continuing the same battleground behavior cited at ArbCom [31] we've always had with Prokaryotes that still don't appear to be improving. Something needs to stop it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that the ANI Prokaryotes opened was closed with "Closing with no action as none is merited." [32]. I do hope we don't need to go through this circus every time Prokaryotes' acts up, but it's unfortunately a trend now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Tornheim

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

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

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

Aircorn wrote: "I was (and still am) unaware of any wikipedia consensus for changing scientific consensus to scientific agreement. I believe the most recent discussion on the issue...was at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#Scientific consensus?." The first post in that section by Johnfos says: "Most GMF articles on WP, like this one [GM Food], contain the statement that: there is "general scientific agreement that food on the market ...."." [33] This shows that Aircorn was aware that the status quo on the articles had the language "scientific agreement", not "scientific consensus". It is my understand that per WP:PAG (please correct me if I am wrong), stable language in the article is assumed to have consensus by default, even if the previous talk page discussion(s) did not clearly achieve it. Per the essay WP:STATUSQUO, "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." Also in WP:BRD, it says "BRD will fail if...There is a preexisting dispute on the page, by editors with entrenched positions, and you are reigniting a debate that has achieved stalemate without consensus." That is exactly where things stood when the above three editors tried to change the "scientific agreement" language (the WP:STATUSQUO) to "scientific consensus". --David Tornheim (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Tryptofish above suggests Prokaryotes has done something wrong in suggesting that the use of pro-GMO advocate Pamela Ronald's research is not the best choice of WP:RS. I agree with Prokaryotes that s/he is right to object to use of Ronald. I provided ample evidence (in item 4) that she is a pro-GMO advocate in this RfC. Tsavage made the same observation here and here and here. Others echoed that same concern at the RfC. Tryptofish's reaction reminds me of another editor's threat that things would get ugly if I did not remove mention of the article Can the Scientific Reputation of Pamela Ronald, Public Face of GMOs, Be Salvaged? from my talk page and that even mention of her retraction was "disgusting". I do not understand why pro-GMO scientists like Ronald get such an esteemed status and are not allowed to be criticized, while researchers like Seralini who are treated with such disdain for a retraction of a paper that was later republished and for which the process of the retraction was questioned [34], [35]. As I mentioned at ArbCom here double-standards are applied to treatment of pro-GMO advocates compared to GMO critics. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlbinoFerret

I also have concerns that Tryptofish and Kingofaces43 are using AE to win a content dispute. Tryptofish has an opinion that Core policies like WP:OR/synthesis can be overcome with a local consensus.[36] in a dispute over a synthesis claim. In fact both editors are arguing to include WP:SYNTHESIS in the GMO articles. Removal of those who wish to follow WP policy would aid in this quest to retain OR. AlbinoFerret 02:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish, excuse me? POV pushers following a comment about me? That is an asperation to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a POV pusher. The only POV I have is that WP policies and guidelines be followed. If you think otherwise you best have some diffs. AlbinoFerret 19:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Prokaryotes followed Aircorn's very good advice and has self reverted the 1RR violation.[37] AlbinoFerret 20:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aircorn

I was (and still am) unaware of any wikipedia consensus for changing scientific consensus to scientific agreement. I believe the most recent discussion on the issue before I partially reverted David was at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#Scientific consensus?. AIRcorn (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David. It shows nothing except that Wikipedia is inconsistent. The wording "scientific consensus" has been in the controversies section since October 2013. You made an edit in good faith, I partially reverted in good faith because I did not think there was any consensus. Now we are having this discussion in multiple places. WP:BRD was followed and WP:STATUSQUO would have been too if Prokaryotes had not broken 1rr. AIRcorn (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I went back through the edit history again and see I made a mistake. I meant to change Davids edit[38] to scientific consensus, but ended up changing the lead one instead.[39] That was a mistake on my part and added to my confusion and possibly to others. Apologies to all. AIRcorn (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Prokaryotes. You still have time to self revert. AIRcorn (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Prokaryotes

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

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

CFCF

No action taken. been open too long without input. Refile if problem persist. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning CFCF

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: AlbinoFerret (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: CFCF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles#4.3.1 :

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

26 Jan 2016 Inserts POV caption that does not describe the image "fruit and candy flavored e-liquid may appeal especially to younger users"
27 Jan 2016 Inserts off topic claim (about brain development (children) and is a [[Safety of electronic cigarettes | Safety claim) in the lede, at the beginning of the paragraph (prominent position), that is not in the body of the article. It is also already covered in the Safety article.
27 Jan 2016 Inserts editorial (primary non MERDS) into the article to counter a MEDRS secondary source.
27 Jan 2016 [40] Adds image of illegal drugs and paraphernalia to consume them into the e-cig article relying on fringe source.
27 Jan 2016 Adds a blog post ~~to an< activist site~~[41] from a known anti-tobacco activist (Stanton Glantz, as described in multiple high quality RS. The first source Reuters ties his activism to e-cigs [42][43][44][45] [46][47][48][49][50]) that is currently the subject of an RFC.[51] to prove his point. 1/31/2016 Edit Strike, reword, and add RS on activism.
27 Jan 2016 Adds off topic material against consensus in this section.[52] This happened after this section was opened and he was notified.
7 February 2016 Creates a toxicology section on the main page instead of Safety of electronic cigarettes the daughter article that deals with toxicology. The section on the main page (a position of province) is in a summery section, and it is not on the Safety page. The given reason for creating the section is its prevalence in the popular press.[53] We as editors should not give weight to the popular press on toxicology per WP:MEDRS.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

12 Jan 2016 Previous AE section where CFCF was warned not to edit against consensus.

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Discretionary sanctions mean that editors on a page must adhere to accepted editorial norms and follow policy and guidelines. CFCF is an experienced editor. He is very active on the WP:MEDRS page and had done a lot of editing to it. Because of this he is very knowledgeable on what is and isnt problematic. He should know better than to insert a editorial (primary) to counted a secondary MEDRS source. He should know better than to insert claims at the front of a paragraph in the lede that are not on the page, and not on topic for the page. He should know better than to use fringe sources to link e-cigs to illegal activity. He should know better than to write captions for images that are not about the image to bring in POV about children. But he has chosen to ignore MEDRS and insert POV after POV edit. He is also arguing to keep these POV edits in place. This one is very problematic as it points out a WEIGHT problem along with POV.[54] This one where he argues an editorial in a journal is a position statement.[55] This push to include pure POV without any discussion beforehand or consensus, one after the other is problematic. He has also added multiple images about children, as KimDabelsteinPetersen points out 40% of the images in the article now are about children and vaping,[56] a very POV focused number considering the article states that use by them is low compared to other age groups. AlbinoFerret 17:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here.[57]

Responses by AlbinoFerret

@MarkBernstein While Stanton Glantz may be a professor, he is also a recognised activist. As found in numerous reliable sources. The first source Reuters ties his activism to e-cigs [58][59][60][61] [62][63][64][65][66] While the whole university site isnt an activist site, his personal blog on the site can be reasonably found to hold his thoughts and agenda. AlbinoFerret 19:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudjpk has provided diffs against me. But none of them show anything really relevant to this current situation.

A year ago I discussed if a source with pharmaceutical funding was biased. I do find activists biased, and started a RFC to gain consensus on if the source should have in text attribution (not removal). Both diffs show how editors should solve differences on content on a contentious article, discussion beforehand. Sadly in CFCF's case that was not done.
I thank Cloudjpk for including this diff [67] what it shows is I reverted CFCF editing against consensus of a closed merge discussion that was brought to AE and CFCF was warned not to edit against consensus.
The last link is pretty much ancient history (sadly dragged up to toss mud). The almost a year old section was about me being to active in the topic and editing to much. I took a 6 month self break from the topic. During which time I was just as active in other areas of WP, because I am mostly homebound and have lots of free time. I am no longer as active in the topic and have other interests, including being a NAC on WP:ANRFC where I have closed around 260 RFC's, but still find e-cigs interesting. AlbinoFerret 22:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe because of a prior Arbcom section that I was involved in concerning JzG/Guy that he is involved. I have left a message on his talk page.[68] He disagrees and I hope that he recuse's himself from this section. AlbinoFerret 18:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy I will give a link to the Lancet source.[69] I will also point out that it is an "editorial" as can clearly be seen right above the title. Regardless of the respectability of the Lancet, an editorial is a primary source and not WP:MEDRS. Editors should never rely on editorials to counter findings of a secondary source, in this case Public Health England a part of the UK Department of Health.

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

@Jytdog Yes I suggested that S Marshall start a new section like he had been doing on the talk pages until he took a break. I also think you are missing some of the finer points comparing the Stanton Glantz RFC with the later post by CFCF. The RFC is about a MEDRS review. Many may disagree with me, but thats why we have RFC's to see where consensus lies. But I wonder how many of those no comments would agree to add a blog page by him? Not many by reading the talk page, where the journal reviewing the source was a main reason to vote no. Blogs are not reviewed. Blogs of activists {as pointed out in numerous high quality RS), are not good sources to add anything, find a MEDRS secondary source. As for the Lancet, all I am reading here are excuses to bring in a lower primary source to counter a higher secondary source. That is just not done, we should hold to our high standards of MEDRS secondary sources. As I have pointed out above, the talk page has had these discussions before. Thats part of the problem, CFCF is applying MEDRS differently depending on the view of the source. AlbinoFerret 06:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No its not my opinion, that Glantz is an activist is found in numerous high quality sources. The first source Reuters ties his activism to e-cigs [70][71][72][73] [74][75][76][77][78]. It is a primary source, and unsuitable for use for any medical claims. It is not even a report, but a submission to the FDA on deeming regulations, something anyone can do. AlbinoFerret 14:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall Involvement is not just specific with a topic, it can also be with an editor on different topics. If an editor calls for sanctions against you on a notice board, it is likely that the two of you are involved because of this. This link contains quite a large section by me calling for JzG/Guy to be sanctioned.[79] As does my comment in the GMO case calling for him to be included as a party, and likely face sanctions if he was included. Just as Jytdog cant say he is uninvolved as I presented evidence and PD against him at Arbcom. AlbinoFerret 10:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning CFCF

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

Statement by CFCF

These edits do not constitute anything apart from a departure from the point of view of AlbinoFerret. All edits are properly sourced and I can categorically refute each accusation:

There are a multitude of sources to support that statement, I have used at least three separate WP:MEDRS-compliant sources.
That statement is taken without any alteration from the Centers for Disease Controls website: [80], where is is repeated multiple times. I also chose to add the statement later in the article body, and suggested expanding the article by using the linked website, which is among the highest quality MEDRS-compliant sources.
The Lancet is a recognized medical authority, this statement was written in their name and as such is compliant as per WP:MEDRS
Using a review article as per WP:MEDRS I included a number of images adding to the quality of the article.
This is not a blog post but a comment submitted to the CDC with numerous references and is backed by the University of California Los Angeles Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education. Neither is the inclusion of the authors material the subject of the RfC – but rather if citing him should require attribution as an "anti-tobacco activist". The current RfC reads in favor of no with a vote of 6 to 0 (I have not voted).

I believe it is also important to note that AlbinoFerret chose to revert these edits multiple times, I did not revert back, choosing each time to engage in discussion on the talk page. See reverts: [81], [82], [83].

I am under the firm belief that I chose the constructive approach, following up any controversy with discussion, not reverting. CFCF 💌 📧 18:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to KimDabelsteinPetersen

(Kim has a declared connection to electronic cigarettes, disclosure can be seen at the top of the page: Talk:Electronic_cigarette)

2. Brain development is negligible beyond adolescence, at least in the sense of being affected, this is a content dispute about a qualifier, and I do not dispute that it could be included, but the full phrase was removed entirely without discussion.

3. That is a different situation, without the full backing of an editorial board. This is the same reason I chose not to include the multiple critiques in the BMJ Feature – Public Health England’s troubled trail, Analysis – Evidence about electronic cigarettes: a foundation built on rock or sand?. I'm glad to see I was as consistent in 2014.

4. Following another editor removing the image I asked on the talk page if a cropped version would be better [84]. Also note that this is one of two images from the same source which I added, the other which remains in the article. [85]

5. The FDA comment was reposted in full, available in pdf-format here: [86]

CFCF 💌 📧 20:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Starke Hathaway

Having reviewed the diffs, I am not persuaded that CFCF has done anything more heinous than disagreeing with AlbinoFerret in a content dispute. My own independent review of the interactions between CFCF and AlbinoFerret leaves me with more concern over the behavior of the latter than the former. See this for instance. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This request has now been open for upward of two weeks with little to no action other than increasingly trivial additions to the complaint. Can an admin please close? I don't think there's anything more to see here. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TracyMcClark

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

Statement by MarkBernstein

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

Statement by KimDabelsteinPetersen

In reply to the diffs and CFCF's reply to these:

A "multitude of sources" here is unfortunately used to mislead, since what we are interested in, is the prevalence of this argument in the literature. In other words it is a WP:WEIGHT issue. Several sources do state this, but several sources also consider it moot. When combined with prevalence of Think about the children! in controversial issues such as this, then any editor should be cautious when relying on, or promoting such.
The response by CFCF is incorrect, as the CDC page has the added correct context of ".. among youth". Translating such into a generic statement, ie. all agegroups, is problematic. Particularly when this has been pointed out. For background: Nicotine has a detrimental effect on a growing brain, but not on an adult brain (see Surgeon General (2015)).
Here CFCF uses the language "recognized medical authority" where he should have written "recognized medical journal". The Lancet itself is not an authority or a recognized scientific body. What it cooks down to, is that CFCF wants to use a primary editorial source to dispute a secondary review from Public Health England. This is strange because he is against using similar sources in comparable situations[87].
This one is problematic - CFCF wants to place an image of e-cigarettes using illigal drugs, despite the topic being extremely minor in the literature. This seems inline a ecig negative POV as the above.
Here CFCF is using a pressrelease and a blog post to argue a point. Strangely he is arguing on the talk page that the pressrelease is a position statement?!

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

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

And we've now turned from Think about the children!, to lets associate it with drug use[88][89]. I'm not questioning the mention of this in the article, but more the WP:WEIGHT put upon it. And, if i wasn't aware of CFCF's status as a serious medical editor, i would seriously say that he has now turned to the next page in an advocacy handbook. --Kim D. Petersen 20:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Statement by Cloudjpk

I agree with Starke Hathaway [90] AlbinoFerret's complaint and his related history raises more concerns about him.

AlbinoFerret finds reliable sources he disagrees with biased: [91]] [92].

AlbinoFerret deleted text he does not like [93] He claims his change was by consensus, but he deleted a notable source without AFD discussion. He did not not move all the content back to the safety page as he claims. IMO this was gaming the system.

And none of this is new; this is a longstanding pattern [94] Cloudjpk (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved JzG

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

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

The same advertising tactics the tobacco industry used years ago to get kids addicted to nicotine are now being used to entice a new generation of young people to use e-cigarettes,” said CDC Director Tom Frieden, M.D., M.P.H.

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

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

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

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

Statement by Kingsindian

I have no opinion on the request except to state that Mystery Wolff should not be commenting here as they are under a topic ban from the area. They are a new user, so they should be advised that topic bans apply to all pages. They should simply avoid commenting on this matter altogether. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LesVegas

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

Comment by Johnbod

Just brief comments provoked by the (unsigned) "Comment by uninvolved JzG" above.

The diff in the complaint above [95] is neither "a blog post to an activist site[42] from a known anti-tobacco activist" (Per Albino Ferret) nor "a submission to the FDA jointly issued by the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco and the Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University." (per JzG). It is a press release from the "Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco" linked to a PDF of the submission [96], which is submitted by 9 academics whose affiliations are footnoted to the "Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco and the Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University." The diff (#5 in the list) in fact comes from the talk page of the EC article (a CFCF contribution) not the article itself.
JzG says "In fact, the edit in question was an article in The Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world, which pointed out that a figure estimated by Public Health England to be based on "an extraordinarily flimsy foundation" - as extensively covered on the EC talk page, the "estimate" is from a 2014 paper by 12 academics, which a report commissioned by PHE England from 6 academics (at 113 pages long, much the most comprehensive on the subject) endorsed as the best estimate available. The Lancet's comment has itself been widely criticized.
It is true that "balancing statements of the type CFCF added are necessary to maintaining NPOV" (JzG), but these need to accurate, and I don't think that either CFCF's edits nor JzG's comments are sufficiently so - in common with much else in the WP debate on the subject, including many of Albino Ferret's contributions. Hence the complaint. The ecig talk page is busy and time-consuming to follow but it is fairly effective at grinding through this stuff, and the process should be allowed to continue.
The actual press release/submission deal with very specific US regulatory matters, and US evidence of prevalence etc, and the authors are generally careful to keep qualifying their statements to reflect this. What the submission wants might be summarized as to bring US regulation to what the EU already has in large part. There is also some evidence that prevalence of ecig usage in youth is widely different between the US and elsewhere in the world (higher in US). All editors need to take care not to globalize US-specific material on this. Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Doc James

Per this edit [97] the image was placed in the section on motivation and was very well referenced. Not seeing what is so horribly wrong with it?
Agree this is not the best place for that content[98] and Albino removed it after a couple of hours [99]
Agree that we should tend to stick with reviews rather than editorials.
This was added to the talk page[100] and uses the CDC and the UCSF as refs. What is wrong with this?

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

Comment by Beyond My Ken

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

Statement by wuerzele

I carefully reviewed the diffs in this AE request and find the request more than adequately supported and actionable. CFCF's transgressions and non-neutral edits may not be obvious to the casual observer. I implore arbcom members to make the effort to look at the diffs REGARDLESS of their opinion about e-cigs:

27 Jan 2016 To insert the Lancet editorial (primary non MERDS) into the article to counter a MEDRS secondary source is obviously incorrect, already acknowledged by Doc James even though he otherwise found "no issues" with CFCF s behavior (but unsurprising giving tehir close relationship on wikiproject med).
26 Jan 2016 The caption CFCF inserted may sound good by itself, but is clearly WP:SYNTH at best because it does not describe the photo of colorful containers - this is unearnest editing.
27 Jan 2016 what AF described as "off topic claim" is hard to see at first, but since it is a Safety of electronic cigarettes claim and was also inserted in the lede, and not in the body of the article I can see the point. This is POV pushing.
27 Jan 2016 [101] Adding illegal drugs to sway an article is something I have seen happen for years at Bitcoin, and is no mild form of tendentious editing.
27 Jan 2016 Adding a blog post again contradicts the MEDRS argument that CFCF so prominently enforces on people who disagree with him, a double standard.
27 Jan 2016 Adding off topic stuff against a talk page consensus is a clear DS violation.
30 Jan2016 To edit on WP:MEDRS to further his own arguments is one thing, but to participate in a slow edit war about a highly controversial issue, in what can be seen as tag-teaming with QuackGuru and Yobol respectively to make yobol's revert of the more cautious versions of LesVegas and Tsavage stick is the very disruptive behavior he was warned about. --Wuerzele (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin JzG describing himself as "uninvolved JzG" in his section is false:

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

Statement by Jytdog

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

But, you see, that leads to the problem your buddy QuackGuru had, where he said the same thing again and again in every paragraph

. Again, I was just asking for sources and wanted the draft content to accurately reflect them.

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

But the level of bad feeling is high. See this lovely side bar between AlbinoFerret and S Marshall on S Marshall's Talk page about the Mystery Wolf appeal. From S Marshall:

it's moot while Jytdog is active anyway as I don't have the patience to deal with them. The topic area attracts that breed of editors like flies to shit

Asking for sources for a proposal is exasperating? S Marshall said he is taking a self-imposed break, which I think is wise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes S Marshall. In response to my question to the specific sources for the specific content you were propising, instead of simply providing the sources for your proposed content you:

first didn't answer at all

then you insulted me and QuackGuru and hand-waved that I should go check how QG used sources...

said in your edit note that I wasn't paying attention and in your remark you provided me some random citation without connecting it to some part of the content you were actually proposing

wrote in your edit note and on the Talk page you "having trouble assuming good faith" and wrote

I literally have no idea how you could possibly fail to see the sources. Surely you must be capable of reading the article and seeing the sources which are there now

. As I did then, I find this bizarre because you greatly condensed the content and added new things like the very surprising (and as it turned out, inaccurate) statement that

Reviews in 2014 and 2015 found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products

. For all your intensity about improving the article you were trying to force through content that just wasn't true. I can only attribute this to you being so frustrated .... but it is really disruptive and strange behavior. I am not going to go on with the rest of the diffs. But these diffs are plain as day that instead of simply doing is what is normal and providing citations for the content you proposed, you were so frustrated and stuck that you wasted time abusing me (and insulting QG) instead of just ... providing the sources.

And then you just went and stuck it in the article, with incorrect information and all.

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

Statement by S Marshall

Self-collapse colossal back-and-forth, which is not directly relevant to the complaint about CFCF and is clearly never going to have any effect on Jytdog.—S Marshall T/C 12:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this and I think it's about the wrong editor. CFCF's general conviction that he's always right and his judgment is better than anyone else's is certainly annoying, but Jytdog is far more disruptive and problematic.—S Marshall T/C 08:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JzG is not involved per WP:INVOLVED. He is a sysop who's had a lot to say at enforcement-related venues on this topic, but his participation at the editorial level has been minimal. I do think he's wrong, in that unilateral measures against AlbinoFerret are extremely unlikely to improve the situation on that page. If you follow his advice and take unilateral measures against AlbinoFerret then things will quieten down at the drama boards for a few weeks, but the cost of that decision is to crystallise the current text, which is a frankly disastrous thing to do.

A large part of the problem we have on this page is that the current text is so biased that it's attracting people who weren't previously Wikipedians to try to fix it. In the previous ArbCom case, QuackGuru the primary author was found by ArbCom to have been showing double-standards for sources. Since he was finally topic-banned, first MysteryWolff (now also topic-banned) and now Jytdog have shown up to try to prevent change. I think Jytdog's here because he was topic-banned from his real area of interest, and decided to focus on electronic cigarettes instead; no stranger to drama, that one. Anyway, obstructionism always works on Wikipedia because our rules give all the advantages to people who're motivated to retain the current text. So nearly a year after all this drama kicked off, most of the defective text remains totally unchanged and it will continue to generate problems until fixed.

The upshot is that a unilateral ban for AlbinoFerret will do very little to end the drama. The only thing that'll do that is to fix the text, which can't be done with the current population of obstructionists on the page.—S Marshall T/C 08:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, I can only judge your intentions from your conduct, but your conduct makes it pretty damn clear that you're there to delay and disrupt attempts at change. What you say and imply is that you're trying to slow down the pace of change to enable proper consideration of edits. The rate of change is in fact already at a dead stop, and in the real world your actions have the effect of keeping it there. This would be fine if the current content was fit for an encyclopaedic article, but it isn't; it's fundamentally deceitful. It's phrased in dry, pseudo-academic language largely ripped from academic sources and carefully packed with footnotes, which is dangerous because gives an entirely false impression of a careful unbiased article, and your actions have the effect of preserving that.

It is established fact that QuackGuru was the primary article author. It is an established ArbCom finding that he exhibited such an extreme double-standard for sources that he required impeccable academic evidence for anything that might suggest e-cigs were less harmful than tobacco, but he would edit-war to retain anti-e-cigarette content that was sourced to an interview with a professional lobbyist published in a Welsh regional newspaper. This is the text that your actions have the effect of defending.

I unwatched that page after an occasion when you joined in a discussion about a change I had been trying to implement for four months. You began that discussion by demanding sources that were easily visible in the article text and had been discussed in the archives, which is the exact behaviour previously exhibited by QuackGuru (topic-banned) and Mystery Wolff (topic-banned). And I totally lost all patience with you, because I've totally lost all patience with that behaviour.

Actually this is a perfectly simple article to write. We have a Cochrane review, and we have clinical practice guidelines from major Western nations, and when we have those things we don't need any other sources. We can strip out everything else and write the whole article in a few, simple paragraphs. But we can't get from here to there because radical changes to QuackGuru's misleading and deceptive text are always opposed by you and other editors of your stripe. And I've run out of AGF for the whole lot of you, so I've unwatched the page, which means you win but it's good for my blood pressure.—S Marshall T/C 20:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Statement by Mystery Wolff

Remarking solely to the abusive and derogatory remarks made directly at me by S Marshall here inside this very AE, and on various user TALK pages, (and also the thinly veiled comments directly alluding to my personal nature, my competence and generalized editorship) I strongly object to their placement and usage here.
They are not fair, and its a continuance of tag-teaming, battlegrounding, mocking and taunting by S Marshall against my generalized editorship and others. This is NOT how Wikipedia is supposed to function. I will not be gamed and made sport of and be silent to attacks like this that are outside of Article space. [102] This AE has a responsibility to the entire project, and not solely to any specific articles. Being gamed, and mocked derogatorily is disruptive, moreover it is corrosive to the health of the project.

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

Statement by (Username)

Result concerning CFCF

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

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

SageRad

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

Request concerning SageRad

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Edward321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: SageRad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[103]] :

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

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

[104] SageRaded removes tags from Charles Eisenstein; according to the article, Eisenstein has a column where they write "on topics including genetic modification and the patenting of seed".
[105] SageRad edits DuPont; according to the article, DuPont "makes and sells hybrid seed and genetically modified seed" and has made and sold pesticide.
[106] Further edit by SageRad to the Dupont article.
[107] Further edit by SageRad to the Dupont article.
[108] SageRad edits Talk:DuPont
[109] SageRad further edits Talk:DuPont
[110] SageRad edits Dow Chemical Company; according to the article "Dow’s Agricultural Sciences segment provides crop protection and seed/plant biotechnology products and technologies, urban pest management solutions and oils".
[111] SageRad edits Talk:Dow Chemical Company
[112] SageRad further edits Talk:Dow Chemical Company
[113] SageRad further edits Talk:Dow Chemical Company
[114] SageRad further edits Talk:Dow Chemical Company
[115] SageRad further edits Talk:Dow Chemical Company
[116] SageRad edits Talk:Yvette d'Entremont; according to the article, d'Entremont "works on debunking ideas about alternative medicine, the anti-vaccination movement, and the anti-GMO (genetically modified organisms) movement".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

SageRad was mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
SageRad was reminded of their topic ban by Looie496.[117]
SageRad was reminded of their topic ban by HighInBC.[118]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[119]

Discussion concerning SageRad

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

Statement by SageRad

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

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

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

SageRad has also been commenting directly at ANI on a discussion on GMOs

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

Editor KingOfAces casts aspersions Kingofaces43 is casting very serious aspersions, and here - where he essential frames everybody participating in a OR noticeboard discussion as a climate change denier, among his common theme as fringe.

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

And, Kingofaces says:

They also responded directly to me at WP:FTN when I asked for more eyes on this GMO discussion

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

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

As for DuPont -- my edits on that company (and Dow who have merged with them, hence [120]) have been about the chemical PFOA (like this edit [121]) which is not an agrochemical. It's a Teflon additive that did pollute water in West Virginia and in the Ohio River. That's not under my topic ban. And i also edited about Styrofoam [122] to correct a trade name. Styrofoam is made by Dow but Thermocol is made by another company. I also made the same change at Polystyrene to correct that trade name (my edit). I made a further edit at polystyrene about biodegradation at another editor's request. I'm allowed to do this and it's good for the encyclopedia.

Seriously, my edit to Charles Eisenstein [123] ???? This is out of control. Eisenstein is a wonderful thinker, author of Sacred Economics and many other books. He probably wrote something about GMOs sometime, but i've never seen it if he did. This is stretching. This is looking like McCarthyism. It's looking like an attempt to harm me for other reasons.

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

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

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

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

@JzG's comment: Thanks.

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

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

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

Statement by AlbinoFerret

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

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

The "broadly construed" argument to include companies when editing non GMO and agricultural chemicals was rejected by Arbcom.[124] Continuing the argument on AE (a Arbcom page) so soon after the motion failed is going against that finding. AlbinoFerret 18:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

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

Followed by:[125][126][127][128]

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

They also responded directly to me at WP:FTN when I asked for more eyes on this GMO discussion[129] with this referring to McCarthyism again, which is another unambiguous violation followed by more commentary Regardless of meta-discussions popping up within the specific incidents, there they have been plenty of discussions on topic banned users in this topic to not even be commenting from the sidelines at admin boards when they are topic banned.

There have been some previous instances where SageRad has been chaffing against their ban[130][131], though not quite as bad as others sanctioned at the case. There still have been issues going on though with a previous AE case[132]. I won't even suggest any particular actions to admins, but SageRad needs to stay out the topic plain and simple without finding ways to skirt the ban. I'm concerned there's a lot of the same soapboxing and hyperbole related to WP:FRINGE, etc. that got them topic banned from GMOs, but that might be something ANI handles if they can respect the topic ban. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Beyond My Ken

My observation is that SageRad is much more interested in complaining about being "bullied" by other users who attempt to guide his edits in such a way that is consistent with his topic ban then he is in actually living within the ban and finding other non-banned areas to edit in. He is clearly here to push an agenda, and when he is prevented from doing so, immediately begins his "bullying" trope on talk pages and noticeboards. At this point, I see him as a disruptive element who, by his example, encourages other WP:FRINGE-sympathetic editors to behave similarly. He is a net negative to the project, one that we can hardly afford to allow to roam freely at a time when Wikipedia is experiencing a concerted effort to throw off the discipline of the scientific standard and allow all sorts of unscientific nonsense into the encyclopedia. I urge the admins evaluating this complaint, on the basis of the evidence that has been presented, ~~to broaden SageRad's topic ban to include all fringe-related areas, and~~ to encourage admins to police his behavior vigorously.

If the admins who frequent AE doubt that there is a stromg effort to influence Wikipedia in favor of fringe subjects, all they need to do is to look up at some of the complaints being filed here., whic clearly outline their program.BMK (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SageRad: Please consider "Broadly construed". Generally what that means is that if there is a mere possibility of the subject being part of the topic ban, you should turn your back and go do something else. You, on the other hand, appear to be minutely parsing the subject matter, and then diving in. That's just not going to fly with a "broadly contrued" topic ban, something which you've been warned about at least twice now. BMK (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog: SageRad's topic ban is not phrased to say that he is banned from those pages "except where the edits cause a problem". It is a plain, straight-out ban from those pages which broadly construed come under the terms of the ban. The quality or efficacy of the edits is totally irrelevant and should not be considered by the admins evaluating this complaint. BMK (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection, struck one suggestion above. BMK (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HughD: "SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed." (emphasis added) BMK (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HughG: "Genetically modified organisms refers to any life form: animal, arthropod, reptilian, plant, bacterial - any organism. I'm not sure what it is that is preventing you from perceiving this, especially since the ban is intended to be "broadly construed" to any page whatsoever that deals with that range of items.

What is typical for the POV-edit warrior is to pick away at what they perceive as the edges of their ban, hoping that no one will notice, but the entire point of having a topic ban be "broadly construed" is to stop that behavior in its tracks. It is has been said here over and over again, but I suppose it's worth re[eating: if an editor under a topic ban has any doubt whatsoever that the edit they're about to make is covered by their ban, it probably is, and they shouldn't make it. And it happens again and again that the POV-pushing topic-banned editor goes ahead and makes the edit anyway, because their purpose is not to improve the encyclopedia in a neutral way, but to move it towards the POV they espouse. That is why - once more, again, and again - topic banned editors who test the boundaries of their ban end up being either topic banned for a roader category of edits, or site banned entirely. It seems to me that SageRad is moving on that pre-determined pathway, and would be well-advised to back off entirely from their current direction, and go find another subject to edit. If SageRad has no other subjects they're interested in editing, then SageRad is probably not cut out to be an editor of Wikipedia. The choice is theirs to make, and it is not helpful for the peanut gallery to egg them on. BMK (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darkfrog24

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

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

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

Yes, SR mentions GMOs or more specifically the discussion of GMOs on Wikipedia in this AN/I discussion; self-removes this part of the post about twelve hours later. I don't see the problem with "Resent your calling my response 'hysterical'" or those other posts. Bottom line: There is a lot of stuff in this complaint that's innocuous. The comment on the SciBabe article talk page ~~could be~~ is a problem, and the fact that it appears that SageRad's claim not to know that D'Etremont was involved with GMOs is untrue casts doubt on his credibility. The ~~real~~ clearest issue here is the participation in the AN/I discussion, which included GMOs even though it was not solely about them. I'd go with yes, SageRad was over the line here. If SR has been engaging in a pattern of such borderline activity, then action is warranted. If not, I'd just clarify the terms of the topic ban so that they explicitly state that SR is not allowed to participate in meta-discussions of GMOs on Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Only in death: It sounds like technically SageRad's Dow and DuPont edits don't violate the ban, even though I'll agree with what I infer to be @Edward321:'s opinion that one would think these pages would be covered. I'd say this: Do the edits cause or constitute a problem? Do they exacerbate a conflict or push a POV? If so, then the admins should consider extending the topic ban, but it should be acknowledged that SageRad did not violate its existing terms with these edits. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC) BMK, I would agree, but there appears to be an exception specifically permitting topic-banned users to edit articles on companies like Dow and Dupont so long as they don't mention GMOs. This is a case of three violations, not fourteen. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Only in Death

Re Darkfrog, SageRad is banned from agricultural chemicals, which are a major part of Dow's business. The only reason I did not report SageRad for those transgressions was they appeared to take the hint and backed off the article. The AE report I actually filed previously which was closed by EdJohnston despite being a blatant violation was a different matter, evidence of their attempt to canvass support for their POV pushing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DF, SageRads MO is to show up at an article, declare bias, and attempt to skew it towards their POV. (Their contribution history contains the evidence of that). As they hold a viewpoint that corporations (GMO affiliated ones mainly) are bad and up to no good, this generally means trying to paint them in an unduly negative light. By coatracking, unreliable sourcing etc. Not restricted to companies, individuals who are pro science (and so, anti fringe/pseudoscience) get the same treatment. As SageRad has a basic lack of understanding of how NPOV, Fringe/Pseudoscience policies work, this means they get into the same arguments in multiple venues with multiple editors who have to explain things over and over again. Take a look at the NPOV and fringe noticeboards (and archives) for a sample. Not to mention the rubbish at Veganism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there is also jumping into POV discussions from 2009. Oh and then claiming intimidation in order to not edit there. Seriously, why are we putting up with this rubbish? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarkBernstein

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

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

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

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

Statement by Tryptofish

I have not looked at all the company-related edits, but the last edit listed in the opening filing, [133], is an unambiguous violation, because the lead section of the page clearly notes that the subject is notable for criticizing "the anti-GMO (genetically modified organisms) movement". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by JzG

SageRad has been active at Vani Hari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), discussed during the case, and the dispute between Hari and d'Entremont is well documented - the dispute explicitly includes Hari's GMO fearmongering and when this is taken along with Dow and DuPont I would say it's time to start making firm statements that no, we do not mean get as close to the topic as you think you can get away with, we mean, stay away from GMOs, broadly construed.

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

Statement by DHeyward

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

Statement by Hugh

I see no topic ban violation in the diffs in the complaint. Uninvolved with GMOs, minor interactions with SageRad. Hugh (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: WP:ACDS authorizes topic bans constrained by WP:TBAN. I see no authorization for a page ban sanction animal. Topic bans are bans on topics not pages. Is your point that this sanction here is not a topic ban, it is some kind of page ban thing, exempt from WP:TBAN? Some read "broadly construed" as a sort of two degrees of separation, that is, any page that wikilinks to a article that is in scope is in scope, maybe some of that is going on in this complaint, topic ban creep. Hugh (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Thank you for your reply above. You emphasized the word "pages" in the topic ban notice. What is that word's significance to you? Our project's policy WP:TBAN provides guidance on how to interpret the scope of a topic ban, my understanding is all topic bans. Do you think the topic ban at issue in this complaint is constrained by WP:TBAN, or does the use of the word "pages" in the notification make it into some kind of page ban or some kind of topic ban on steroids? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Thank you for your reply above. You wrote above "It is has been said here over and over again..."; I understand established practice is as important as written policy on Wikipedia. I know we are not the first to discuss what "broadly construed" entails, so I appreciate your patience. I would like to better understand your understanding of our topic ban policy. I think we differ in our understanding. May I observe that your understanding may owe more to enforcement history while mine is perhaps more based on written policy. May I ask more directly, do you believe our project's WP:TBAN applies to all topic bans? My humble read of WP:TBAN is that it specifically authorizes conscientious editors to continue to contribute to our project. My read of WP:TBAN is that policy distinguishes between pages that are primarily about a topic, and those that are not, and for those that are not, editing the parts of those pages unrelated to the topic is specifically authorized. Relating this issue back to the current complaint, it seems to me all the diffs in the head complaint fall under this exemption and so are not topic ban violations, given my perhaps flawed read of WP:TBAN. It seems to me that any edit under bullet 4 of WP:TBAN (the "parts" exemption) may always be considered boundary testing by some, and this lack of clarity is resulting in increasing requests for enforcement and detrimental to collegiality. Would you support revising policy WP:TBAN to codify more practice established since the discretionary sanctions regime, for example, to remove bullet 4, or to strengthen "broadly construed" to comprehend a sort of "two degrees of wikilink separation"? When we are saying the same things "over and over" at notice pages instead of editing articles, maybe it's time. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

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

Result concerning SageRad

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

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

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

I think this is a problematic position because of the lack of clarity around the boundaries, but given this view we can't fault SageRad for editing Charles Eisenstein, DuPont, Dow Chemical Company and Yvette d'Entremont. But he did take part in an AN/I about Kingofaces' remarks about GMO editors, so I would say that he is skirting the boundary. I therefore support closing this with no action, but SageRad should be asked to make more effort to avoid articles and discussions related to GMO, including meta discussions. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaqeli

Topic ban restored. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Jaqeli

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jaqeli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

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

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

On 15 March 2015, Jaqeli was given a topic ban exemption to be allowed to edit Georgian scripts, Rhadamistus, Pharnavaz I of Iberia, and Pharasmanes II of Iberia for three months and then reappeal the entire ban which was removed on 29 June 2015. Nonetheless, during this time Jaqeli edited Georgians, Georgian dialects, Iadgari of Mikael Modrekili, Kuji of Colchis, Prince David of Georgia, Eduard Shevardnadze, Nikoloz Baratashvili, Lisa Batiashvili, Anna Chakvetadze, Davit Guramishvili, several Georgian letters[134][135][136][137], Bir el Qutt inscriptions, Doliskana inscriptions, and creating Zenobia, among other edits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[138] and [139] - Jaqeli was previously banned twice from Armenian and Georgian articles on 5 January 2014 for edit warring and battleground mentality on Georgian alphabet, and on 15 August 2014 for a wide range of edit warring and incivility, such as removing sourced content for the Armenian role in the Georgian language on Georgian scripts and Mesrop Mashtots.

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

As stated above, banned in January 2014 and August 2014 by User:Sandstein
Topic banned successfully appealed on 29 July 2015

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

For past inquiries, please see Jaqeli's:

AA2 report of 2 January 2014 (verdict: topic-banned): Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive144#Jaqeli
AA2 report of 15 August 2014 (verdict: topic ban reinstated): Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive154#Jaqeli

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[140]

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

Discussion concerning Jaqeli

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

Statement by Jaqeli

Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield

Regarding the AA2 report of 15th August (which I initiated), I was surprised after it to see Jaqeli continue to edit many articles related to Georgia. When I asked Sandstein about this, I was told that Jaqeli's editing restriction applied only to articles that contained material relating to BOTH Armenia and Georgia [141]. In other words, Jaqeli had no restriction on editing Armenia-related articles and no restriction on editing Georgia-related articles. I do not think that most people would read a "topic ban from everything related to both Armenia and Georgia" in this very restricted way. And given that a lot of the pov editing that Jaqeli has now been accused of is removing evidence of any Armenia/Armenian connections, this very restricted topic ban could be perceived as actually encouraging pov editing. If any editing restrictions are going to be reimposed on Jaqeli, would the closing administrator make the wording of it quite clear as to what the topic ban refers to, and consider whether it should be "everything related to Armenia and everything related to Georgia", or perhaps " "every article that could reasonably be expected to be related to Armenia regardless of whether it currently has content related to Armenia". A lot of the uncontroversial content that Jaqeli has worked on or added and that is only Georgia-related seems quite useful, quite specialized, and nobody else is doing it (so it would be a loss if he is gone). However, there seems to be a fundamentally bad attitude within his editing aims in that he consciously wishes at all times and whenever possible to minimize or remove legitimate content that mentions Armenia from articles that primarily concern Georgian history or culture or that jointly concern Georgian and Armenian history or culture. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jaqeli

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

I suggest restoring Jaqeli's previous topic ban from everything related to both Armenia and Georgia per WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 2. The DS log entry has links to all the past discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the possibilities of normal discussion have not been exhausted. The filer, User:EtienneDolet, has made only one post to Jaqeli's talk page in the last six months. I would close this with no action, assuming that the parties will at least try to discuss. If there is no useful result, the complaint can be refiled. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now restoring Jaqeli's topic ban from everything to do with both Armenia and Georgia. He has not been active since 24 January and we shouldn't wait longer for a response. If he eventually resumes editing and agrees to stop the behavior described here, then the ban can be reconsidered. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

96.57.23.82

blocked for a week and final warning left. This can be handled by dropping a note to my talk page if this resumes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning 96.57.23.82

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 96.57.23.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning 96.57.23.82

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

Statement by 96.57.23.82

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 96.57.23.82

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 799: / Line 799: @@
 *
 {{hab}}
-== TB by MastCell without admin consensus and difs ==
-Unable to edit the appeal (below), for some reason it directs me to the template, which is protected. Appeal by prokaryotes in response to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Prokaryotes this recent enforcement], by MastCell. Posted [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MastCell#Reconsider here on his talk page] to reconsider the topic ban, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#TB_by_MastCell_without_admin_consensus_and_difs here at AN]. However, admin MastCell did not provide difs for his conclusion:
-{{quote|..pattern of disruptive editing on the part of Prokaryotes is clear and continuing. This pattern includes disruptive stonewalling on talkpages, misuse of sourcing guidelines, edit-warring, personal attacks, and so on}}
-He only referred to Tryptofish's request, besides he made it clear [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tryptofish&diff=prev&oldid=686059694 that he supports Tryptofish], which makes him not really neutral when getting involved. Also he just referred to Tryptofish's opinions, not considering anything else from others. Therefore i ask Arbcom to reconsider MastCell's decision, and repeat my question to provide evidence for wrong doing. The initial 1RR was moot, so what made MastCell topic ban me suddenly? [[User:Prokaryotes|prokaryotes]] ([[User talk:Prokaryotes|talk]]) 05:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
-{{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
-[[User:Prokaryotes|prokaryotes]] ([[User talk:Prokaryotes|talk]]) 04:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards