Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:26, 1 April 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

Askahrc

User:Askahrc is banned from the topic of Deepak Chopra on all pages of Wikipedia including talk and noticeboards. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Askahrc

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Manul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Askahrc (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/Pseudoscience :

2 March 2014 "Askahrc (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for using an IP address to harass other users and waste the community's time (see the SPI). Askahrc is warned that any attempt to harass other users, waste the community's time or edit logged out or with another account in contravention of WP:SOCK will result in an extended block. Askahrc is also restricted to using the Askahrc account only when editing pseudoscience or fringe science related topics and is banned from notifying any user of pseudoscience or fringe science discretionary sanctions. See the warning for further information."
5 March 2014 (Previous AE request) "Tabled for now, with the understanding that there is a low bar for reporting newer disruption."

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

[Arbcom has extended the word count limit to 1000 for this case.]

Askahrc has orchestrated a number of deceptions on Wikipedia. I once asked at WP:AN about the loophole in the "disruption must be current" rule: Can one conduct an unlimited number of abuses on Wikipedia without repercussions, provided there is a sufficient time lag between the disruption and its discovery? The consensus was clearly "no", so I present the following evidence. Askahrc was sanctioned for the first item below; the second has not been addressed before, and only the third is recent.

Askahrc harassed editors with a sockpuppet, for which he was given the sanction listed above. By issuing threats under the disguise of the sock, Askahrc was trumping up the "bullying" evidence for his Arbcom case, "Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors". (Three admins affirmed the sockpuppetry: two in the SPI and one in the tabled AE listed above.)
Askahrc knowingly permitted Tumbleman's sockpuppet SAS81 to disrupt Wikipedia, standing by while Tumbleman (as SAS81) attacked editors with whom he and Askahrc had prior grievances (evidence to follow). Admins at Tumbleman's AE called him "pure WP:SOUP", "likely just a troll", and "a thoroughly disruptive editor, and either a troll or else someone with serious WP:COMPETENCE issues".[1]
- Askahrc and Tumbleman had already been affiliated via their off-site harassment (addressed later in this request) prior to the appearance of the SAS81 sock.
- Askahrc is the founder of ISHAR[2] where Tumbleman worked.[3]
- Out of the millions of topics on Wikipedia, Askahrc "just happened" to become involved with the topic of Deepak Chopra soon after Tumbleman (as SAS81) appeared. Askahrc's first Chopra-related comment on Wikipedia is at BLPN where he replies to Tumbleman.[4] Hours later he jumps into a COIN discussion to defend Tumbleman and "help mediate".[5] And after joining forces with Tumbleman, Askahrc was effectively an SPA for Chopra.
- An example of the disruption this produced: in a thread in which Askahrc participated, Tumbleman strongly attacked me with wild and false accusations, calling me "unscrupulous".[6]
Presently Askahrc has relaunched his campaign to falsely paint me as someone who files fraudulent SPIs.
- This began with his campaigning in favor of Tumbleman after Tumbleman's block,[7] e.g. "a large number of innocent editors have been blocked as collateral damage".
- Other examples from the long campaign:
  - Suggesting I have an "an inappropriate tendency to accuse people who disagree with them of sockpuppetry"[8]
  - Suggesting a "high number of editors who have been accused and blocked" by me for sockpuppetry.[9] (In fact it was just one person with multiple socks.)
  - Suggesting the SPI was somehow equivocal, and falsely claiming that an admin told me to "stop".[10]
  - Suggesting that I engaged in misconduct by filing SPIs.[11] (No admin has ever suggested this.)
- Finally the recent campaigning (my account was renamed from Vzaak to Manul):
  - Falsely claiming that it was "eventually proven" that I had been "citing inaccurate information".[12]
  - Falsely claiming that the SPI evidence was "solidly debunked" and making the misleading statement that "the SPI conviction was not supported by a Checkuser"[13]. There was no checkuser request, of course, because checkusers won't link usernames to IPs due to the privacy policy.

Much of the motivation behind Askahrc's deceptions may be found in his off-wiki harassment activities. Askahrc identified himself when he brought attention to his contributions to an off-wiki harassment site containing his name,[14] and an Arbcom member had recorded the page.[15] Arbcom is aware of this request. Out of courtesy I will not mention the name in clear text here.

In the link to the harassment site just mentioned, Askahrc calls editors "unethical" and "pisspoor bastards".[16] By citing the evidence he fabricated from his socking (first item above), he attempts to provoke outrage and rile up support: "Nearly a dozen editors who have disagreed with the skeptical majority's opinion on the Sheldrake page have been threatened with banning." To be clear, Askahrc himself issued the threats and then complained about them in order to generate "buzz", and indeed the story was picked up by blogs.
More recently Askahrc has taken to writing polemics at the Huffington Post,[17] e.g. "The fact that an innocent man's character is being assassinated is apparently irrelevant to these skeptic editors. He is famous, after all, and therefore not truly human."
And in another HuffPo article[18] he says, e.g., "Wikipedia's dishonest biography on Deepak Chopra", "the orthodox-skeptics have grown even more aggressive", "Go here to learn how to edit Wikipedia and, if the above behavior seems unethical, remedy it." Note the last one is a direct violation of Wikipedia policy: recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited.

From these writings we learn that Askahrc holds the view that Wikipedia is overrun by "skeptics" and that it's dreadfully important to right this great wrong. I suspect this is the impetus behind his deceptions. Now that Askahrc has a financial conflict of interest, I find it doubly reprehensible that he would continue the pattern of falsely defaming me. I do consider it harassment, and I am citing Askahrc's current sanction, "Askahrc is warned that any attempt to harass other users..."

A final note: when confronted with his behavior, Askahrc tends to respond by making a slew of false claims. This puts me in a Catch-22: if I debunk each point, the result is a wall of text that repels anyone who might evaluate the matter. If I leave the points unanswered, it gives a sense of false balance. It is a phenomenally successful method of trolling Wikipedia editors, and I discussed this with Callanecc.[19] I would just implore admins to follow the evidence while not taking what Askahrc says at face value. Manul ~ talk 05:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original case submitted to Arbcom (who sent it here) contained private evidence showing an even greater extent of bad faith behavior. For instance Askahrc had been colluding with Tumbleman even way back during the Philosophyfellow socking, and had proxied edits for the SAS81 sock. I have asked Doug Weller or another arbitrator to comment. Manul ~ talk 17:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

2 March 2014

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2 March 2014 by Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Askahrc&diff=708535683&oldid=696033693

Discussion concerning Askahrc

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 Askahrc

There's quite a bit to respond to, though it appears all but two diffs (1, 2) are years old, and those two were me asking an admin for clarification. For the sake of brevity I'm going to ignore issues from years ago that have already been discussed in front of admins several times.

1) The "harassment" Manul/Vzaak references was a request for review I sent to the enforcing admin of the SPI from 2 years ago. I was not trying to attack Manul/Vzaak, I didn't even know they were still on WP; Vzaak being inactive. In it I mentioned the original slew of SPI's and AE's from Vzaak seemed to show a level of WP:GRUDGE. This is the fourth SPI/AE Manul/Vzaak has charged me with: I think WP:GRUDGE is not an unreasonable conclusion.

2) On that page I explained my problems with the SPI's Manul/Vzaak brought against me. In addition to this being a far-cry from "harassment", I simply used factual statements. The first SPI accused me of having an IP in Long Beach, CA that I was socking from, and I was warned on the basis of Vzaak's massive list of clues, but with no Checkuser evidence. In the 2nd SPI Manul/Vzaak claimed I was again using a Long Beach IP to "suppress edits" and threaten to murder people. This time there was a Checkuser, and admins confirmed that I was Unrelated to the IP and far from Long Beach at the time of the edits (3, 4), and there was absolutely no evidence I had suppressed edits (5, 6). No need to trust my word, please review the diffs and linked archive. I presented this information and the admin said it was too long ago to revisit, a decision I accepted. That's the whole story.

3) As far as off-wiki harassment goes, I don't know what to say that hasn't been said already (7). I spoke in Tumbleman's defense years ago, before the full scope of his behavior was known, and have since publicly severed all ties with him and his actions. I apologize if you feel I'm somehow engaged in a "campaign to discredit you," I'm not. The recent "harassment" Manul/Vzaak is upset about boils down to two edits explaining to an admin why the old SPI's against me ought to be reviewed (with no charges v. Manul/Vzaak). It is not WP:HARRASS or WP:ASPERSION to civilly disagree with Manul/Vzaak's opinions (8, 9, 10). I have no interest in tracking down and bothering Manul, but the opposite does not seem to be true. I'd rather not have to spend my days worrying about their walls of accusations, so I'd request an WP:IBAN. If they are honestly concerned about me "harassing" them, this would also resolve that concern. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 11:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I misinterpreted the issue of suppression, but you did directly argue I was issuing death threats (11). Worse, you continue to insist (even here) that, despite the fact I was unequivocally absolved, the evidence is still very strong that I committed this criminal act.

My issue is not about "blaming" or "faulting" anyone. It's when admins tell you I have no connection to a sock, by either geographical region or user agent, and yet you won't drop the WP:STICK. I've asked you in the past to agree to a voluntary WP:IBAN, but you did not (12), and I've repeated the option here, with the only response another list of accusations. This is exhausting... the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 17:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, I find your statements here and on my Talk Page confusing and not particularly civil. You've asked me questions (13, 14), then when I replied told me that you wouldn't believe whatever garbage I said regardless (15, 16). You told me that unless I dropped the WP:APPEAL you would attempt to get me TBANNED (13), then when I told you I had already dropped the APPEAL you declared you'd pursue the TBAN anyway (16). I'm trying hard to AGF, but you seem to be taking your frustration with another editor out on me. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 21:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, it's perfectly reasonable to question whether I can and will conform with NPOV matters relating to Chopra, though I feel my current conduct answers that. While I do feel there are some WP:BLP concerns that could be addressed on that page, I have always emphasized upholding policy and have not used the kind of battleground language found in the Huffpo article. I try to focus on building consensus, participating in RFC discussions, offering sources, and explaining how I see policy/guidelines applying to the page. While some of my conclusions differ from editors on that page, I have backed off of topics when it seemed to skirt my COI, as well as supported positions that would make it harder to upload positive content about Chopra if it helps NPOV. I value NPOV, and strongly feel that editors with an opinion (as many on that page do) can still meaningfully contribute if they focus on policies and sound sourcing rather than their own POV's. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 00:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, I've got to admit I don't quite understand what I would indef-banned for. No one has presented any diffs of me ever editing or proposing anything on Deepak Chopra that was inappropriate and I've voluntarily withheld editing the page itself, so is the concern that I would say something POV on the Talk Page? A review of that page will show I've been focused on policy and sourcing, while half of what any editor says there is POV, for or against. I'm concerned the case for my TBAN is a matter of hypothetical disruption I haven't actually done and guilt by association.

Also, just as a clarification, what about the original intent of this AE? Completely aside from the Chopra topic, Manul has been filing complaints against me for various things for years and this time brought an AE for harassment because I mentioned their old username to an admin; I'd be very grateful for a decision on whether my conduct was actually harassment. Manul has been accusing me of very serious wrongdoings (socking, death threats, harassment, lying, etc), and this AE indicates they will not stop doing so until there's a clear answer. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 07:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by olive

This is very strange. Almost all of these diffs are years old; the filer seems to be attempting to use stale information and diffs to implicate an editor. When I first looked at this case I thought I had somehow stumbled onto an old case. Might be expedient to withdraw this complaint before more time is well.... wasted?(Littleolive oil (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by JzG

Askahrc is indeed waging a one man battle against reality-based criticisms of Chopra, but he is open about his COI, polite and in general a decent person. There is a worrying tendency to stonewall and endlessly make the same or very similar requests, but I don't see this as actionable at this point - perhaps an admonition to accept consensus and not spin things out forever might be justified, but no more that that IMO. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Askahrc is not, and cannot be, neutral. He has not, as far as I can tell, edited the article directly, certainly in recent times, because of an admitted COI. That's fine up to a point, the point being where it becomes disruptive. Are we at that point? I'd say not, but we are at the point where Askahrc should be reminded to accept consensus and move on,rather than repeat rejected claims or stonewall discussions. He seems to be a decent enough person and his input is not, as far as I can tell, preventing us from accurately representing the consensus view on Chopra, namely that pretty much everything he says is faux-profound bullshit. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Looie496

The enforcement request comes to well over 2500 words. Looie496 (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jytdog

No Askahrc you did not "drop" your appeal. Per your contribs to Callanecc's Talk page, the last thing you wrote there was continuing your argument to have the "conviction" overturned. That is not "dropped". If you had written there, "Hey Callenecc I am dropping this, but thanks for your time" -- that would be dropping it.

I was hoping Askahrc would just walk away from the past or come clean, but instead they are dug in and have doubled down above and at their Talk page. I do not believe that this editor is WP:HERE to benefit the project, and has not been for a while. This is a first batch of stuff and there is more. This is enough for now. A timeline.

Tumbleman was blocked October 2013.

Dec 2013 Askahrc worked with Rome Viharo aka Tumbleman aka soon-to-be-SAS81 to post this to Viharo's blog. Askahrc acknowledged this on his WP talk page here at the time.

Feb 2014. As documented in Manul's SPI posting (that resulted in sanctions against Askahrc, and the contesting of which by Askahrc led to Manul filing this AE) Askahrc disclosed that he was in contact with Viharo, discussing Viharo's banning.

April 2014 in this piece on Viharo's blog, Viharo approvingly quotes Askahrc's comments at Arbcom made in this dif in particular. Which has the great bit where Askahrc tells another editor that it is "unrealistic to claim ignorance." That's from the part that Viharo quoted, too.

April 2014 is also when SAS81 created their user page. SAS81 and Askahrc start working in tandem at the Chopra page to "improve it". (I will not provide difs, there are too many)

July 2014 Askahrc offers to help Viharo/SAS81 write an article about the Chopra Foundation article at COIN (!), prepares it in his sandbox, apparently posts it, and then reported to Viharo/SAS81 SAS81's talk page that the article was posted. I can't see the article b/c it was deleted and redirected per the AfD, where Askahrc was the only one arguing to keep it. btw, SAS81's last contrib to WP was thanking Askahrc for creating that article, on July 15. (If admins don't know, ISHAR is "a Chopra Foundation Initiative" per its webpage.)

Per his contribs from that time, Askahrc too vanished after July 30 (after having made some more arguments at the Chopra talk page in late July), and then appeared briefly on August 20 and 21 to fiddle with his sandbox and with his talk page.

November 2014 is, according to Viharo, when Viharo separated from ISHAR, see this blog posting.

Askahrc's next edit is on Dec 9, where he first deletes a bunch of stuff from his Talk page, including [the posting in the dif I gave above, where Askahrc acknowledged posting on Viharo's blog... and his next edit was at Talk:Chopra - the second post at Talk:Chopra - after announcement of SAS81's block as a sock was posted there. Here is Askahrc's dif. No disclosure of COI there, which was a violation of the Terms of Use. A small thing but part of this whole bad faith enterprise. Askahrc's next dif is at Manul's page, asking if Manul is concerned about Askahrc's acknowledgement of his connection with Viharo via that blog posting. Only then does Askahrc post his COI notice, in this dif, where he wrote: Please note that I am not currently affiliated with SAS81, nor is that user currently affiliated with ISHAR. As of August, 2014 I work for ISHAR, the Integrative Studies Historical Archive and Repository, as an archivist. As soon as I was approached for a position with ISHAR I ceased editing any articles or Talk Pages on Wikipedia but my own to prevent any WP:COI issues. (note - I removed original bolding)

I'll note here that in fall 2014, after Askahrc says he joined the organization ISHAR was busy with an indiegogo campaign That campaign targets Wikipedia's "bias", front and center. There are also public records of Viharo promoting ISHAR in August and September. It was not a big shop, and there is no plausible way that Askahrc could have not-known (in other words, Askahrc must have known) that Viharo was SAS81 - especially given Askahrc's own relationship with Viharo documented above. Even without that, "SAS81" was all over ISHAR's webpage, as their Wikipedia editor. ISHAR did not have gobs of staff and Viharo's history with WP is clear. Viharo even says on his blog that Chopra hired him because of his Wikipedia experience getting banned as Tumbleman. (see here: "A few months after this occurred and I published Wikipedia we have a problem – Deepak Chopra contacted me via twitter. He offered to give me a small grant to continue my work. I created a new Wikipedia editing account called SAS81 – and within 30 days, I completely resolved his ‘wiki war’ and returned his article to neutrality.")

Anyway, Askahrc didn't stick around much after December and the revelation that SAS81 was Viharo, per his contribs. He was mostly gone til May 2015, edited a few days in July, August, and Sept, but starting in Oct 2015 and continuing til now, he has been back pretty full press trying to make the Chopra article more positive, exactly continuing the work of SAS81/Viharo, who bragged on his blog that he dramatically changed the article as SAS81.

I find that timeline to be telling. Really telling. What was the phrase? It is "unrealistic (for Askahrc) to claim ignorance" about SAS81's SOCKing with all that on-Wiki evidence of interaction, especially since the two definitely overlapped at ISHAR for August, September, October, and at least part of November. Yet in his statement above, and at his Talk page, Askahrc denies knowing anything about this, says he is not associated with SAS, blah blah blah. Says his role at ISHAR has nothing to do with WP, blah blah blah. ISHAR ethics, blah blah blah.

There is some stuff I want to say that i am pretty confident is OK per OUTING, but to be safe I am checking first. Will be back afterwards.

My bottom line here is that Askahrc has dug up the past, in the present. That past appears to me, to be very sordid. It appears to me that Askahrc has lied to the community about his relationship with SAS81. I believe that Askahrc probably knew that SAS81 was a sock from the beginning in April 2014, but there is no way they could not have known this beginning in August 2014, when they joined ISHAR. Yet they did nothing. This to me belies any claim that Askarhc or ISHAR actually respects Wikipedia's policies. If they did, Askarhc or ISHAR would have identified SAS81 as a sock (with on-wiki evidence or emailing off-wiki evidence to an arb or clerk), and the editing community would not have had to dig that up itself and only in December 2014. And yes, with the Huffpo pieces and the indiegogo campaign, it is obvious that ISHAR is deeply opposed to WP's NPOV policy when it comes to altmed. I believe that Askahrc should be be topic-banned from the Chopra article and from altmed topics as well. If I am able to get the other things I want introduced, that will support that even more strongly, but I think the evidence is clear already. Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have been reflecting on this. And here we go. As I noted above, in this dif on 3 January 2014, Askahrc pointed the community to a posting he had made on Viharo's blog. Looking at Viharo's blog today, I provided a diff to this because the current index at that blog showed that this was the posting closest in date prior to Askahrc's acknowledgement. There actually was an earlier posting by Askahrc to Viharo's blog. It is here (captured by Internet Archive on 20 Dec, 2013. Askahrc revealed in that posting that he is Ryan Castle in the real world. For belt and suspenders with regard to OUTING, for three and a half years, from the day he put content on his user page in Sept 2010 til he removed it in April 2014 Askahrc disclosed on his user page that his name is Ryan. He has not had that oversighted. As noted above, Askahrc has disclosed that he is "an archivist' at ISHAR on his userpage. ISHAR's webpage clearly states that Ryan Castle is their chief archivist. There is absolutely no doubt, within the bounds of OUTING, that Askahrc = Ryan Castle.

The reason I am introducing this, is that Ryan Castle is the one who wrote those two articles at HuffPo that Ed cited below, here (which says "Wikipedia is free for all to edit and get involved in, so the power to fix it lies with everyone." - please note that the second link there is to instructions at ISHAR for how to use their refs in Wikipedia) and here (which ends with the clarion call: "Anyone reading this article is capable of contributing to Wikipedia, all that is necessary is patience and the will to act. If there is misinformation occurring, it is the responsibility of all who know better to do something about it. Go here to learn how to edit Wikipedia and, if the above behavior seems unethical, remedy it. There’s a common saying on Wikipedia: if someone notices a problem and asks why it has not been fixed, the traditional answer is “Because you haven’t fixed it yet.” Let’s fix it."), that made Ed wonder if someone affiliated with ISHAR could be neutral. I am taking that a step further, and saying that those two pieces are obvious violations of WP:MEAT, in that they are clear efforts to recruit people to change the Chopra article. Per MEAT: "recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited."

Please TBAN Askahrc from all alt-med topics under the CAM DS. I would even more like to see Askahrc banned from Wikipedia since he obviously colluded with SAS81's socking, but that may be asking too much. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:EdJohnston About the stuff that was oversighted - I had asked Askahrc to lay out the timeline of his recruitment to ISHAR. He provided a timeline that was also filled with all kinds of argumentation about what he knew about SAS81 and when. I found none of it credible and said so. I did not say anything there about his real life identity and neither did he. I assume, but do not know, that Askahrc asked for the timeline to be oversighted since there was something he regretted writing there. Only things he wrote were oversighted; I have not relied on any of it because as I said I found none of it credible. Also, please be aware that while ISHAR is very focused on the Chopra article, their mission is altmed topics in Wikipedia generally as described in their indiegogo campaign and mentioned in this one of the two huffpo pieces; that is why I am seeking the broader topic ban. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda would you please comment here on the nature of the material you oversighted at Askahrc's Talk page, just to provide comfort that there was no OUTING violation there? Just the general nature, no details. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize the developing admin consensus for a TBAN from Chopra, and will not push for more than that. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Askahrc You have violated WP:MEAT on a grand scale, as i noted above. That is the immediate thing. Not to mention your collusion with SAS81 with respect to whose SOCKing it is "unrealistic to claim ignorance" for you. Jytdog (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Askahrc: Clerk notes

Both parties statement lengths have been extended to 1000 words by agreement of the arbitrators. Amortias (T)(C) 22:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Askahrc

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

The original complaints about User:Askahrc arose from editorial disputes at Rupert Sheldrake. This report doesn't mention Sheldrake and doesn't speak about any recent problems with editing articles. It appears that Manul's report is way over the 1000-word limit, and I suggest he condense it. If he does there is a chance it will become more persuasive. Askahrc has an admitted COI about Deepak Chopra due to his connection to the ISHAR organization, and since March 1 he has engaged in vigorous commentary at Talk:Deepak Chopra. My question is whether he is capable of working neutrally on Chopra-related topics. If not, then a topic ban from Chopra under WP:ARBPS might be considered. For a person with only 1200 edits in nine years, Askahrc gives the impression of being in a lot of disputes. The term 'battleground editing' was mentioned by one admin in the March 2014 AE. A writer who identifies as the founder of ISHAR wrote about the Chopra article in two Huffington Post blog posts, one in November 2015 and one in December. He harshly criticizes the Deepak Chopra Wikipedia article and concludes with "Let's fix it". The term used about our article by the ISHAR founder was "open-source character assassination." If Askahrc is affected by an ISHAR COI and has any of these views himself, you might be asking how neutral he can be. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see the new post by User:Jytdog and am hoping to say something later about it. EdJohnston (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks that some of Askahrc's user talk has been oversighted. What's been allowed to remain is shown in this diff, in a March 21 edit by User:DeltaQuad. Since the clock is running and there's been no decision yet, I now favor an indefinite ban from the topic of Deepak Chopra on all pages of Wikipedia. There is enough evidence of Askahrc's situation inhibiting him from editing neutrally in the topic area. I make this recommendation while aware that he's not edited the article directly for a while. It's hard to overlook the implications of off-wiki collusion to make an article go a certain way. The Huffington Post blog posts don't inspire confidence that people who are part of ISHAR can be trusted to follow Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now ready to close this out but I don't see enough reason for a broad ban across all of alternative medicine. The COI stuff and the off-wiki posts by a colleague encouraging people to edit Chopra articles a certain way gives enough reason to exclude Askahrc from editing on the topic of Deepak Chopra. There is nothing in the above complaint showing questionable edits to non-Chopra-related topics. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: You did see the material that was oversighted prior to the actual oversight, as is still publicly available, because the last comment that was modified was before your last edit to the thread. That said, there is nothing sanctionable in the diffs, otherwise I would have taken such an action as an oversighter. That should satisfy what is needed to be known for this AE request. @EdJohnston: courtesy ping for information for your dissemination. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support indefinite topic ban from all pages and discussions related to Deepak Chopra. Bishonen | talk 11:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

GHcool

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 GHcool

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sepsis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: GHcool (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/CASENAME#SECTION : WP:ARBPIA3

Specifically "Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited"

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

March 10 adds the line "in an area of Israel that is not within the West Bank" which falsely implies parts of the West Bank are in Israel (rather than occupied by Israel).
Feb 20 Removes the word Nakba, I see this edit like others would see someone replacing the Holocaust with WWII when talking about Jewish immigration post-Holocaust.
Feb 20 sentence was neutral until he unnecessarily unbalanced it by adding that one, and only one party, attacks civilians without stating that both sides do this.
Feb 18 Deletes notable text of a pension divesting from Israel rather than fix the deadlink.
March 13 joins an edit war despite ongoing discussion on talk page
March 14 breaks 1RR to keep edit war going
Jan 4 adds a paragraph on BDS being violent and adds a quote from As'ad AbuKhalil who himself has said that this added quote is misused by opponents of BDS to attack BDS (although GHCool doesn't add that part).
March 13 Removes Palestine's President's home as being in Palestine to being in the West Bank, he makes this edit again multiple times after being reverted, this edit is akin to removing Netanyahu from Israel
March 13 he makes this edit three times in the last month, he deletes Palestine from a list of nations and replaces it with the region of the West Bank.
March 16 again removes the word Palestine, even though, as another editor commented, his replacement wording made no sense.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

He's been blocked a number of times

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

He's been blocked and topic banned a few times for this behaviour.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is not a content dispute but an editor with a clear agenda to remove reference to Palestine whenever possible as well as further edits to delegitimatize Palestine and demonize BDS while he reverts without listening to what others have to say at the talk page.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[20]

Discussion concerning GHcool

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 GHcool

I stand by almost all of the edits not as legitimate editing in the spirit of Wikipedia:Be bold. I encouraged and participated in debates in these sections before making edits that I felt might shake up the community unduly: Talk:Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Mandate_era_boycott, Talk:Jordan_Rift_Valley#Consistency.3F, Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#West_Bank. Sometimes Sepsis II participated in these debates, but often he/she did not and simply engaged in censorship of facts that were cited to such reliable sources as the Encyclopedia Britannica. I'd like to respond to the ten edits I am accused are improper:

March 10 - I admit that I worded this edit improperly, though this was not by design, but by a simple accidental error. I was glad to see this edit not long after mine and have not reverted it as I believe the current edit is clearer and more accurate.
Feb 20 - I don't understand why this edit was controversial. I'm happy to discuss if necessary.
Feb 20 - This was an honest account of Israel's and Hamas's actual positions on the issue. See the sources cited.
Feb 18 - As I wrote in the edit summary, I felt that the sentence wasn't notable. If others think it was notable and could cite it to an "live" link, I have no problem with restoring it.
March 13 - I felt it was discussed and agreed upon.
March 14 - This edit was regrettable. I do not stand by it and haven't repeated the error.
Jan 4 - I don't understand why this edit was controversial. I'm happy to discuss if necessary.
March 13 - Britannica says that Ramallah is in the West Bank (and I cited Britannica here). The Associated Press states that Ramallah is in the West Bank on every Ramallah byline.
March 13 - I decided not to pursue this matter further since I could not find sources saying that the Jordan Rift Valley was in the "West Bank" but found plenty of sources saying it was in "Palestine."
March 16 - I don't understand why this edit was controversial. I'm happy to discuss if necessary. --GHcool (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

Above, GHcool writes that she/he made this deletion because "As I wrote in the edit summary, I felt that the sentence wasn't notable." What a crock! The Luxembourg national pension fund divests from the biggest banks and businesses in Israel (and a major US firm), accusing them of human rights violations, and it's not notable?!? That says much more about the agenda of this perennial pro-Israel POV-pusher than it does about the notability of the pension fund's action. It took me all of five minutes to find a "live" link and news stories with which to undo GHcool's vandalistic deletion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gaijin42

#2 It is difficult to say for sure as the diff in question has been deleted, however use of the word "Nakba" in an article about Israel is a gross NPOV failure, unless being used in a direct quote, or as an attributed opinion. In the context used, the neutral meaning is "creation of Israel" or "1948 Arab–Israeli War". Using the word "disaster" or as the OP equates "holocaust" in wiki-voice in that context is not neutral. Beyond that, the entire sentence that the term is used in is unsourced. In the parent article Arab_citizens_of_Israel use of Nakba is attributed appropriately, and is generally balanced by the neutral wording Gaijin42 (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AnotherNewAccount

We may actually be looking at some tendentious editing from Sepsis II here. Sepsis II has edited pretty non-neutrally ever since returning recently after a long absence following a topic ban for, I think, tendentious editing.

Sepsis II's edits to Israelis

The diffs from the Israelis article above starts with Sepsis II's edit here. That edit did two things:

Replaced the word "Many" with "A fraction of" - minimizing, in the consciousness of the reader, the number of Palestinian Arabs who remained within the borders of the State of Israel against those that fled - a subtle POV-push.
Replaced "state's establishment" with the term "Nakba" or "catastrophe" - the term favored by Palestinians and a much less subtle POV-push.

Sepsis II seems very insistent on drawing attention to the "Nakba", restoring it twice so far in opposition to GHcool and Gaijin42: [21][22] - who tried to offer neutral alternatives: [23][24][25].

Sepsis II's edits to Israeli–Palestinian peace process

As for the diffs from the Israeli–Palestinian peace process article, I see Sepsis II doing the following:

Remove apparently sourced material
Remove "Israeli" from the concerns about security - I don't doubt for an instant that the Palestinian people want security as any man would - but for the purpose of negotations, these are primarily Israeli concerns. The resulting prose misleadingly suggests that both Israelis and Palestinians engage in "terrorism" and "incitement" in equal measure - and the list now omits Israel entirely, subtly implying that it's only the Palestinian side that has reasonable demands.
Highlight Palestinian "rights" - I don't know if the source provided says anything about rights (I don't have access to the book), but I suspect not.

The GHcool edit complained about above, shows him restoring the removed material with a genuine attempt at more neutral and succinct wording.

Sepsis II's edits to Mahmoud Abbas

No comment on whether the disputed content should be "State of Palestine" or "West Bank", but here Sepsis II reverted the addition of sourced material by GHcool as "vandalism".

Sepsis II's edits to Jordan Rift Valley

Another "State of Palestine"/"West Bank" dispute.

Reverted an edit as "vandalism" - the material in question was changed by an IP some time earlier. It may or may not have been mistaken, but it was not vandalism.
Reverted GHcool's edit as "vandalism"

AnotherNewAccount (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning GHcool

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

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israelis&type=revision&diff=706020767&oldid=706012335 This is the diff for 20 Feb. Possibly incorrectly linked? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both User:GHcool and User:Sepsis II have previous been placed under topic bans from ARBPIA. Though not all the diffs given in this report are persuasive, I have found some from each side that look to be conventional nationalist POV-pushing. For example, suggesting that a location in the West Bank is deemed to be in Israel. Or adding the word 'Palestinian' to an article where it previously didn't occur without a clear consensus that the term was appropriate. These changes were all predictable given the POV of the respective participants, and they fall short of our expectation of neutral editing. ~~I would ban both GHcool and Sepsis II indefinitely from the domain of ARBPIA, with the right of appeal in six months.~~ EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an update since my above comment. In a post at my user talk, GHcool says that his error about Ahava moving to ‘an area of Israel that is not within the West Bank’ was just a mistake. (He had already responded about this in the AE. It was item #1 in his own reply to the request). That error in the Ahava article was corrected by another editor and GHcool left the correction in place. Since this was a diff that I had called out as especially egregious, I need to restudy the whole complaint, and have struck out my recommendation until then. I hope to post a further update when I have finished. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STSC

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 STSC

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TheBlueCanoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: STSC (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/Falun Gong 2 :

User:STSC is essentially a nuisance editor with a consistent, pro-Chinese government point of view. He is involved in regular conflict with other contributors, edit wars frequently, and personalizes talk page discussions to needle and provoke his opponents. Although most of his actual edits are relatively minor, they are also consistently counter-productive, thereby creating problems that other editors have to resolve.

Evidence of the user’s POV editing and adversarial conduct spans a variety of topics related to China (including Sino-Japanese relations, Hong Kong[26][27], Tibet[28][29] etc.), but unfortunately this complaint is limited to the user’s conduct on Falun Gong articles per the relevant discretionary sanctions.

For more context, there was an ANI complaint about the editor recently here. The complaints there are pretty illuminating.

Evidence of POV editing

[30] – claiming that something attributed to a third party is actually just from “Falun Gong sources”. (A Chinese human rights lawyer who has represented Falun Gong practitioners is not a "Falun Gong source"; civil rights lawyers were clearly interviewed by the media outlet for their familiarity with the subject, rather than as spokespersons for Falun Gong)

[31] - Torture deaths as reported by the New York Times are merely “alleged” (Wikipedia's manual of style recommends against using expressions of doubt such as "alleged". There are exceptions where "alleged" is appropriate—e.g. in a pending criminal case against an accused individual—but this doesn't seem to fit the bill).

[32] [33][34][35] - Changes the caption on an image of Gao Rongrong – a Falun Gong practitioner who, according to multiple reliable sources, was tortured to death in custody in 2005. STSC edits the caption to remove mention of the fact that she died, and adds the qualifier that she was only “allegedly” tortured. He used misleading edit summaries, calling these copyedits or “resizing”.

[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] - Obsessively wikilinking the word “cult”

[45][46] -Repeatedly adds Falun Gong to the page Governmental lists of cults and sects, even though Falun Gong is not on any government’s list of cults and sects (the Chinese state does often accuse FLG of being a “cult”, but this is a separate question from whether it is on the government’s official list of such groups, which it apparently is not). To get around this problem, he edited the article to say “cults and sects identified by governments are not necessarily put on a designated list.” [47] Also worth noting that he uses clearly biased sources, and introduces errors of fact (e.g. claiming falsely that the National People's Congress outlawed Falun Gong—it didn't).

For insight into why STSC seems so compulsive about the “cult” thing, see his comments here[48][49][50]. These are precisely the arguments used by the Chinese government to defend its treatment of Falun Gong. In essence: the mass imprisonment, torture, and killing of Falun Gong devotees is ok because it is not a religion, but instead a "cult" that imperils social stability (charges that are easily refuted, if only one bothers to read reliable secondary sources on the topic). In a chilling admission, STSC suggests that the “elimination” of this religious creed should not be viewed as “undesirable,” and calls for greater deference to be given to the Chinese government.

[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58]- Removing perfectly fine photos, often for being “irrelevant,” and edit warring to keep them gone

[59][60][61][62][63][64] - Tendentious tag-bombing, mostly to the lead section, even though information contained therein is fully referenced in body of the article

[65] – an interesting replacement

Evidence of prior warnings about Falun Gong discretionary sanctions: [66][67][68]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[69]

Response

Ah, I did overlook the 20 diff limit. In that case, would the reviewing administrators allow an exception? Most of the diffs do not show complicated edits—most of these are small, simple edits made repeatedly. The number of them is evidence simply of the user's tendency to edit war to enforce his point; I'm not sure how else to illustrate this type of conduct.

As to STSC's contention that "any editor could have informed me on my talk page" about problems with his editing, this is not my experience. I attempted to do this, letting the user know that his edit summaries and caption changes were misleading.[70] He responded by accusing me of harassment and intimidation, informed me that I was unwelcome on his talk page, and called my suggestion that he remedy the problem "a nonsense."[71]TheBlueCanoe 15:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning STSC

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 STSC

This is a brief response as I'm in the middle of my long holiday and will be unlikely to respond in the next 2-3 weeks.

There're 40 diffs in the accuser's statement, far more than the 20 diffs limit.
My edits in the articles have been normal and reasonable, and usually within the Wikipedia's guideline.
My participation in the discussions has been normal and in civil manner, and usually within the Wikipedia's guideline.
Some of my edit summaries may not have included a comprehensive explanation due to my laziness, any editor could have informed me on my talk page if they required any further explanation.
TheBlueCanoe accuses other editors "POV editing"; from other fair-minded editors' viewpoint, his edits are actually very much pro-Falun Gong POV editing. This is just a classic case of WP:BOOMERANG.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning STSC

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

Awaiting a response from STSC (who hasn't edited since March 21). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No More Mr Nice Guy

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 No More Mr Nice Guy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: No More Mr Nice Guy (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: Topic wide 1RR :

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

BDS article

18:34, 26 March 2016 Initial revert
18:39, 26 March 2016 Self revert to perform a larger revert
20:54, 26 March 2016 Final revert

Exodus from Lydda and Ramle article:

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

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 22:00, 5 June 2015.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In the BDS set of edits, NMMNG self-reverts a revert he made earlier so that he can make a larger revert. That same thing happened here and it was found to be disruptive behavior that merited a 4 month topic ban. At the Exodus page, through the time of those last 3 reverts, NMMNG was arguing by himself against 5 different users on either the talk page or through reverts. I realize he never actually broke the 1RR, but like the 3RR nobody is entitled to 3 reverts every 24 hours, and when you're alone reverting against 3 different users with more arguing against you on the talk page I think that qualifies as edit-warring.

As far as the rather curious line unlike what Nableezy and Nishidani did at L&R, I'd like to note I have exactly 0 reverts at that article. Also, as far as the supposed long-standing version, NMMNG actually completely removed the well supported text, not just in bold in the first sentence, but later on in the lead as well. nableezy - 21:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I removed it when it was repetitive. You said you restored the long standing version, I was pointing out that in fact you didnt, you reverted the inclusion at the beginning of the article but did not restore it to where it had been later. nableezy - 21:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The diff is the difference between what you claimed was the long-standing version and what your edit resulted in. My point in this little side excursion that really doesnt serve a purpose here was to demonstrate that your claim that you were simply restoring the long-standing version "per BRD" is not true. I said you completely removed the term from the lead, which is emphatically true (heres the diff). Im pretty sure my browser's find function works but maybe Im wrong and you didnt actually remove it from the entire lead. Where in your edit is it? nableezy - 22:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning No More Mr Nice Guy

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 No More Mr Nice Guy

This seems like an attempt to preempt my reporting another editor for his behavior at one of the articles mentioned here, so if the admins could address everyone's behavior in the two articles mentioned, that would be awesome.
Nableezy is incorrect regarding my second revert at BDS. I self-reverted because I was in violation of 1RR, not because I was planning to make a different revert like he did and was topic banned for. The third revert (actually the second) was slightly different than the previous one since there were a couple of intervening edits. I just reverted back to the version to prior to when I inadvertently violated 1RR.
On the Lydda and Ramla article, my first revert was initiation dispute resolution per BRD. The second revert was of a driveby revert of someone who claimed he OWNs the article and didn't engage in discussion, and restoring the longstanding version again, per dispute resolution and arguments made by Nableezy's mates on the BDS article [72] [73] [74] he generously brought up here. Note that there a month went by with dozens of intervening edits and they still considered it the longstanding version. An RfC was started there with the article at what was claimed is the longstanding version state, and nobody tried to edit war the version that's being discussed back into the article, unlike what Nableezy and Nishidani did at L&R. The third revert 2 days later, was me trying to initiate what I thought would be a more respected dispute resolution procedure, since more driveby reverts were made. Then Nishidani edit warred the disputed version back in.
Please note that at the L&R article, all this happened on a holiday weekend. Apparently is was super urgent to get this wording into the article despite my multiple attempts at dispute resolution. If they had taken a couple more days and gave a chance for other editors to participate, none of this would have happened.
If any admin would like me to expand on any of the points above, please let me know (and if you could relax the word limit for that purpose, that would be awesome). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further responses to Nableezy: Nableezy says I removed some text. Turns out he removed it. I never touched it. I did miss his edit when attempting to restore the longstanding version, but did not remove the term from the infobox and only argued it should not be in bold in the first line of the lead, not for it to be completely removed from the lead.

@Nableezy - actually, it was you who removed it from there. I may have inadvertently reverted to the wrong version (I only did reverts, I did not edit directly) but you can see from my arguments on the talk page that I didn't object to the term being in the lead at all, I objected to it being bold in the first line of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy - yes, and I said I meant to restore the longstanding version, as is clear from my talk page arguments. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy - OK, I figured it out. Your diff above includes several intervening edits, it's not an actual revert I made. I only reverted the addition to the first line of the lead, I did not notice you removed it from elsewhere. You say above that I removed it. That's a false claim, kindly strike it out. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy - I never touched that text, so your claim I removed it is obviously false. I did not remove it from the infobox or argue it should not be in the lead at all, so I think it's obvious I just missed it when trying to revert to the longstanding version. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: I collapsed some responses to Nableezy after he responded. I hope that's ok. I am now at my limit (not counting sigs or collapsed content). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, I would be extremely happy if the admins looked at everyone's behavior at the L&S article. Particularly the two driveby tag team reverts, Nishidani inserting new content twice over objections, and Nableezy declaring after 3 days of a holiday (and spring break) weekned that a new consensus has formed and my policy based objections are invalid. These are all things that have been discussed at AE in the past and were found to be disruptive editing. Meanwhile, this report just sits here and I can't take these issues elsewhere because I'll be told they're stale. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani said: "Persistently approaching editing here in terms of some hypothesis that those who disagree with you have ulterior motives, and act as a gang, is one reason why NMMGG's recent work is problematical". Herein you will find many examples of Nishidani articulating such an hypothesis, from his earliest days of editing onward.

[75] "I agree that tag-team editing is a problem. I've seen it done by both "sides" of the dispute and would encourage uninvolved admins, and perhaps ArbCom, to be responsive to this problem"
[76] "but really you guys on the hasbara teams should get your acts together"
[77] "You both followed me here, and tagteaming is frowned on."
[78] "I will continue to comment on this hasbara team effort"
[79] "Some of them work in tag-team efforts, evidently organized via email. [...] One has to deal with them mechanically, and wait for serious editors"
[80] "Curtis's tagteaming sidekick should be banned from the Korean article"
[81] "systematically removed by a coalition of tag-team posters"
[82] "To self. Probably IP banned editor, trying to tagteam and push me over the 1R limit"
[83] "There is no logic here other than your instinctive tagteaming backing of an incompetent editor"
~~Unfortunately the move to https a last year seems to have broken my script, but if anyone cares I'll fix it and find some more recent examples (I have probably 50 more in the timeframe above), but~~ I think I've shown persistent articulation of what Nishidani himself says is problematical behavior. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out the above because I just remembered something Nishidani said to me last week [84] "It's pointless arguing here, since this is a numbers racket, and you all have the numbers. Accuracy has nothing to do with it." No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

A 1RR violation usually requires one to violate 1RR. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

It is not policy, but the essay Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling explains much of what is going on here (and at the (talk page). A majority of 5 were in favour of a change to the lead, there was only one objection. The objector NMMGG reverted to keep his preferred version in, and immediately opened an RfC so that change could be blocked.

The editor then repeated insinuations that the 5 opposing him were editing in bad faith, acting as a concerted gang.

‘you people abusing your numbers advantage’/ ‘you guys just couldn't wait.’

NMMGG threatened to take me to this page if I didn't revert to his preferred version.

When Nableezy reported him for edit-warring he repeated this accusation

(This seems like an attempt to preempt my reporting another editor for his behavior at one of the articles mentioned here, so if the admins could address everyone's behavior in the two articles mentioned, that would be awesome. . . .

Almost immediately User:Brewcrewer made a counter-report against Nableezy using stale edits, which had all the appearance of ‘retaliating’ to ‘balance the equation’, giving the impression of a kind of ‘If you report one of my buddies, I’ll report one of your buddies’ mentality. The report was summarily dismissed. The RfC so far gives the same picture. NMMGG won’t address the evidence with any sound policy objection while pettifogging to challenge the overwhelming source evidence for a change. The only way NMMGG can make head or tail of the fact his position, both on the talk page and the RfC is minoritarian, is to insinuate that those who oppose him are tagteamers using a numbers game. There's one sure way of discerning who is tagteaming in these circumstances: examine the talk page to see those who 'vote' with just a vague opinion or waving some spurious policy and those who address the concrete issues by a reasoned argument accompanying their vote. Those who support the minority view are clearly ‘voting’, without any comprehensible policy rationale or response to the meat of the sourcing issue. I don’t expect this case to go one way or another. But I would challenge any disinterested reader to make sense of the extremely obscure, subjective set of arguments NMMGG alone has kept raising to sustain a pointless objection. Persistently approaching editing here in terms of some hypothesis that those who disagree with you have ulterior motives, and act as a gang, is one reason why NMMGG's recent work is problematical. He appears to have a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality and automatically assumes this is what those who disagree with him have. I haven't examined the BDS material and can't judge the merits of the general complaint. I do think NMMGG requires, as in an earlier case, a strong reminder to keep his personal animosity and theories about conspiracy off the talk pages, and focus on source evidence strictly in terms of policy requirements.Nishidani (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if clarification of those 9 things /5 from 2007-8) on my collapsed indictment sheet require clarification (mostly regarding oncer IPs and sockpuppeting editors like User:Zeq since permabanned, and User:Armon, since happily no longer here, I'll do so. The other 4 from a year ago again concern a banned sockpuppeter,User:Ashtul, the known Japanese article tagteamers,User: TH1980 User:CurtisNaito, an IP (31.44.143.180) who followed me around for a day until I remonstrated, and User:Plot Spoiler's revert of my edit to a version that, as showed was garbled English and rife with errors. PS, though recently we have worked together intelligently, patently had not read the version he had reverted back to. I think NMMGG should spend time familiazing himself with the source for articles, rather than spending inordinate time ransacking contribs back 9 years for incriminating diffs. Tagteaming is recognized as a problem. That does not mean that being in a minority means automatically the 'other guys' are tagteaming. Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning No More Mr Nice Guy

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

FreeatlastChitchat

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 FreeatlastChitchat

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: FreeatlastChitchat (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/India-Pakistan :

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

07:41, 25 March 2016 A user made a change.
10:49, 25 March 2016 First revert by nominated user.
16:40, 25 March 2016 Second revert by nominated user.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

7 March 2015 Blocked for edit warring.
18 April 2015 Blocked for edit warring.
9 May 2015 Blocked for edit warring.
19 December 2015 Blocked for edit warring. He was then unblocked manually provided that he "will attempt to self-adhere to WP:1RR," what he failed to do on several occasions.

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 24 March 2016 by Slakr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The nominated user is ignorant enough to know that we should revert only when necessary. Just look at his contributions to see how many reverts he does per day. That's why he is nominated in noticeboards on a weekly basis.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

This is the notification diff.

Discussion concerning FreeatlastChitchat

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 FreeatlastChitchat

I am quite aware of AE and its enforcement therefore I undid my reverts myself when I realized I had gone past 1PR. I did this about three days before this humongously bad faith AE was filed and before anyone else edited the said article, I did not even engage in a TP argument as the person who was reverting my edits said that he meant to continue reverting me on a daily basis, therefore I just left the article in the hands of others, there are no edits on TP or the article from my account after my self revert. The nom should look at the article history before wasting my time. nom has been told at least seven times that he should stop reporting me without proof but he continues his hounding. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(should i reply here or above?) @Spartaz where have i reverted ? I have been staying clear of Indo-pak pages only reverting obvious vandals using rollback vandal. Can you plz point out where I have reverted thrice? No one asked me to self revert, I was making sure I was not in violation of 1PR, I saw that I was and self reverted myself, I wanted to take it to TP, but then thought to just leave the article alone. On List of Islamist terrorist attacks I am reverting a sockpuppet who has been since blocked. As I said earlier, my only reverts are vandalism which everyone will call vandalism and removable material. If something can be debated about I am leaving it be. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by D4iNa4

I can see that he has been blocked for a week, but I think that more sanctions are needed. He loves to wikihound and removed by abusing rollback just anything that he WP:DONTLIKE.

He has massively violated his 1-rr restriction on many articles, and wasn't blocked. I would just name these few:-

Indo-Pakistani War of 1947

[85] reverted to [86], then reverted again,[87], then again[88](and telling other user not to "disrupt")

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

[89] reverted to [90], then reverted again,[91] to a copyrights violating version. After reverting to his version by going against consensus, he asked for protection.[92]

List of converts to Hinduism from Islam

[93], then reverted again[94], and again.[95] Everytime without gaining consensus to remove sourced entries.

All the time, he is either removing the sourced content,[96][97] abusing WP:ROLLBACK,[98][99] and gaming the system. What's more disturbing, that he went to these articles by wikihounding my edit history. I don't see any improvement in him, despite many recent complaints on ANI.[100][101][102][103] D4iNa4 (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning FreeatlastChitchat

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

Self revert or not, this looks like a clear 1RR vio. Who asked you to self revert and where. I'd also like an explanation for the double reverting on List of Islamist terrorist attacks before I consider whether a block is appropriate. Since Slakr blocked the other editor you were reverting against, I'd be interested in their view. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- FreeatlastChitchat you have reverted 3 different times since I left this message. Perhaps you didn't notice that your input was requested? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your edit summaries do not suggest that the edits were made with a view to BANEX and there is no general exemption for suspected socks. It has to be a banned user. Vandalism has to be clear too and your summaries make no mention of vandalism. Your edit summary for the self revert was "as you wish. As per request restoring content)" but now you say you did it yourself. You are too free with the revert button and that is continuing to be disruptive. I'm blocking you for a week for the violation and would like input from other admins whether a permanent 0RR is now required to reign in excessive reverting. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Spartaz, I see you've issued a one week AE block under WP:ARBIPA, which seems appropriate. If you are considering a 0RR under the same arb case, I would support. (Search WP:DSLOG for examples where 0RR has been imposed). EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy

No action taken. Stale Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 31 March 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 Nableezy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Brewcrewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Nableezy (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: Remedies 4 & 5:

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

16:59, 26 July 2015 Arab/Palestinian removes "terrorist"
23:34, 20 January 2010 Arab/Palestinian removes "terrorist"
14 January 2010 Arab/Palestinian removes "terrorist"

When a Palestinian is described as a terrorist Nableezy is quick to remove the term under the WP:TERRORIST guideline. However when a Jewish/Israeli is described as a terrorist Nableezy re-adds the word "terrorist". [104]

This type of blatant non neutral editing and POV pushing is expressly prohibited at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Remedies 4 & 5.

I would also add that Nableezy tendentiously WP:STALKed me to revert me at this article (it was his first edit) because of disagreement on another page.

While Nableezy will undoubtedly respond with WP:BOOMERANG alleging far more insidious behavior from me, I would point out that just a few edits ago I reverted some POV pushing that was consistent with the POV I am claimed to have. I am calling for a topic ban consistent with the remedies linked to above.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[105]
[106]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): Participating in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure right above this one.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANableezy&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=712581635&oldid=704654775

Discussion concerning Nableezy

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

Statement by Nableezy

Umm theres a slight difference between the Jewish Underground, which as far as I know has no real sources calling it anything other than a terrorist group, and a group that actually does have sources that dont call it a terrorist group and instead call it resistance movement, or the government of Gaza, or whatever (ie Hamas). Ill now say that this edit in 2010 was an error, that can be called terrorism in the narrative voice. The others Ill stand by, attacking an illegal colony in occupied territory may or may not be terrorism and the sources arent as unanimous in calling it that as in the case of say the Jewish Underground. I actually stalked Nishidani there, I like to see what he does from time to time. Which as far as I can tell is how brewcrewer got to this page, as it was likewise his first edit there, restoring an edit that even the person who initially made it agrees that that article uses the term properly. Baseless as baseless gets, and a boomerang for alleging stalking when the person filing the complaint pretty clearly stalked Nishidani to that article might be in order.

Also, as per his usual mo when reverting Nishidani blindly, brewcrewer has yet to make an appearance at the talk page section that I rather quickly opened up after reverting his edit. Wonder why that is. nableezy - 23:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

Are you serious, Brewcrewer? You're making a complaint based on two diffs that are more than six years old and one that is eight months old? Really? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

Irrelevant

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

I'm not necessarily commenting on the diffs or the AE request, but I did want to add my voice to the concern that whenever there is an article about Palestinian terrorists and terror attacks, it is not labeled terror or terrorists, they're labeled gunmen, or militants, etc. And that is an issue. When someone stops a car on the road and shoots three kids, they're terrorists. That has nothing to do with being a gunman or a militant. Yet if you put in the word terror/terrorists, you will be reverted and tag-teamed until you give up. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

Irrelevant

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

Sir Joseph. This is not the place for such insinuations, which are untrue and gross caricature of what principles serious editors adopt on this issue. But do read the words of a very wise old Israeli, ex-terrorist militant, valiant IDF combatant, Knesset member and pacifist, Uri Avnery: 'Your Terrorist, My Terrorist'. If you want to argue the point, don't use this space, but take it up elsewhere, on your page, mine etc.Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nableezy

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

As pointed out by User:Malik Shabazz, three of these are old diffs, going back from 9 months up to six years. The only one not old is the single edit to Jewish Underground, which actually restores the earlier version of the article. A single edit doesn't break 1RR and there is an argument that 'terrorism' is an apt description, not simply a partisan tag assigned by the opposing side of the conflict. See Talk:Jewish Underground#wta for the discussion. Not sure why we are here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These edits are too old for discussion here. Older edits can sometimes be relevant as background information to illuminate a current problem, but here the newest of the edits is several months old. No comment at the moment on any other issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conzar

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 Conzar

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Conzar (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/Pseudoscience#Discretionary Sanctions

Pseudoscience and fringe science are considered together. The article in question ticks both boxes: it promotes pseudoscientific work (more specifically pathological science) within the fringe fields of anti-vaccine activism and alternative views on the causes of autism.

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

08:57, March 31, 2016 removes factual basis of opposition to the film cited to reliable independent sources.
09:56, March 31, 2016 adds conspiracist characterisation of reasons for pulling the film, at odds with other reliable sources.
10:57, March 31, 2016 Reverts to whitewashed version.
22:09, March 31, 2016 Reinserts link to conspiracist explanation.
22:16, March 31, 2016 Reinserts conspiracist explanation after it was reverted.
22:47, March 31, 2016 Inserts commentary by anti-medicine conspiracy theorist Mike Adams at Natural News
22:49, March 31, 2016 Reinserts conspiracist explanation after it was reverted.
23:00, March 31, 2016 Reinserts conspiracist explanation after it was reverted.
23:03, March 31, 2016 Reinserts Mike Adams content.

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

DS alert 09:58, March 31 2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In response to a warning re WP:NPOV, Conzar states: "You are the one writing an article that is not forom a nuetural point of view. The article is clearly 1 sided and pro-vax. Its funny that you post this information about neutral editing as you are the one doing such things." (diff). Pro-vaccine is the neutral point of view, there is no significant informed dissent from the view that vaccines are one of the most important health interventions ever devised, saving millions of lives annually. The subject of the film, the purported link between the MMR vaccine and autism, is refuted (see MMR vaccine controversy).

Conzar also states that we are "denying information from the film makers side" (diff). The film maker in this case has had his medical license revoked after conducting unapproved invasive tests on vulnerable children, and his most prominent published work has been retracted due to evidence of research fraud. He was also found to have accepted substantial payments from lawyers promoting a link between vaccines and autism, and not to have declared this conflict. Per WP:UNDUE we cover is views only in the context of what reliable independent sources say about them. The film maker has, for example, stated that the withdrawal of the film from the Tribeca film festival is a freedom of speech issue. He is English, so this profound ignorance of the First Amendment can be excused, but that doesn't oblige Wikipedia to repeat it.

Overall I think Conzar should be topic banned from this article for a minimum of six months, by which time there should be a wider discussion in the media resulting in contextualised discussion of crank views like those of Mike Adams and less risk of bias from cherry-picking of sources. Guy (Help!) 07:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Conzar

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 Conzar

Pseudoscience Claim The claim that "Pseudoscience and fringe science are considered together" is fallacious. The edits that I have made do not express my opinion nor promotes pseuodoscience and fringe science. My edits are only to provide an objective view of the movie which is the topic of the page.

Diffs

08:57, March 31, 2016 Removed irrelevant information. This information is NOT about the film and is an attempt to discredit the film.
09:56, March 31, 2016 Provides an alternative reason for the film being pulled other than the main stream media's version.
10:57, March 31, 2016 Reverts to removing irrelevant information.
22:09, March 31, 2016 Reinserts an alternative reason for the film being pulled.
22:16, March 31, 2016 Reinserts an alternative explanation after it was reverted.
22:47, March 31, 2016 Inserts commentary by an outspoken consumer health advocate, award-winning investigative journalist, internet activist and science lab director Mike Adams at http://www.healthranger.com/Health-Ranger-Biography.html
22:49, March 31, 2016 Reinserts alternative reason after it was reverted.
23:00, March 31, 2016 Reinserts alternative reason after it was reverted.
23:03, March 31, 2016 Reinserts Mike Adams content.

Neutral View The statement by Guy "Pro-vaccine is the neutral point of view" is also incorrect and illogical. Its essentially double speak. There are obviously two view points to the issue of vaccination. Those that oppose it and those that support it. A neutral point of view would take no stance on the issue of vaccination, neither opposing it nor supporting it. This is basic logic and reasoning.

Debating Vaccination Guy believes this article is about vaccination. However, this article is about a documentary about vaccination. The content of this movie has net yet been shown and therefore, debate on the content of the topic is uninformed at best. Statements such as: "there is no significant informed dissent from the view that vaccines are one of the most important health interventions ever devised, saving millions of lives annually." are irrelevant to the topic of the wikipage.

Refusing to allow Film Maker's comments Guy also censors the information that is allowed on the page regarding statements and comments made by the film maker. He does this in order to support his view on vaccination. Again, he shows his bias towards vaccination so much that he is unable to allow the film directors comments on a wiki page about the film he made! He justifies this by saying the film maker is 'not credible'. Censoring someone's speech in relation to their own work is a classic free speech issue and is being perpetrated on wikipedia by Guy who also is clearly English so this profound ignorance of the First Amendment cannot be excused.

Banned Overall, I think I should not be topic banned from this article because I have NOT broken any wiki rules. I have NOT added my opinion at all to the wiki page. I have only tried to make the article unbiased.

If anyone should be banned, I would recommend Guy to be banned. The topic of course is the film NOT vaccinations. There is a completely separate wikipage for vaccinations. Guy is trying to impose his views about vaccination on a wiki page that should only contain information about the topic which is the VAXXED movie.

Statement by Krelnik

I've edited on the article a small amount, but haven't reverted anything so far. I just wanted to point out that in diffs #6 and #8 not only is the source not reliable, but the text being inserted isn't even factually correct! The editor repeatedly referred to "Mike Adam" (it's Mike Adams) and "National News Forensic Food Lab" (it's "Natural News Forensic Food Lab"). In any case, this lab is not a recognized organization and the person is not a reliable source. --Krelnik (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between factual and mistakes. I mistyped the author's name and auto-correct must have choosen national instead of natural. As the link clearly points to the natural news web site. Lets not be disingenuous here. What do you mean by, 'not a recognized organization'? Recognized by who? What authority? Why is the person not a reliable source? Please substantiate those claims.Conzar (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capeo

Anyone who uses Natural News as an authoritative source on vaccinations, or anything medical at all, does not have the competence to edit articles that have even a cursory connection to medical science. Capeo (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a Masters of Science and a Batchelors of Science in Computer Engineering from the Clemson University, South Carolina, USA. I'm happy you are attacking my competence. Clemson University is ABET accredited. This means that I have met the world wide standard for being an engineer which includes taking the necessary courses in science. Now that I have shown my educational background, lets discuss the false claim. You said that I use Natural News as an authoritative source on vaccinations. Where have I made this claim? I have not. This is called a strawman attack.Conzar (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not supposed to write in other people's sections. You quoted an NN source that claims this "medical documentary" was subject to some kind of censorship due to it's factual content. NN is not an RS for such claims. Capeo (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Conzar

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 17: / Line 17: @@
 ==Askahrc==
+{{hat|1=[[User:Askahrc]] is banned from the topic of [[Deepak Chopra]] on all pages of Wikipedia including talk and noticeboards. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 15:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC) }}
-<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
 ===Request concerning Askahrc===
 ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Manul}} 03:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@@ Line 169: / Line 168: @@
 *{{ping|Jytdog}} You did see the material that was oversighted prior to the actual oversight, as is still publicly available, because the last comment that was modified was before your last edit to the thread. That said, there is nothing sanctionable in the diffs, otherwise I would have taken such an action as an oversighter. That should satisfy what is needed to be known for this AE request. {{ping|EdJohnston}} courtesy ping for information for your dissemination. -- [[User talk:DeltaQuad|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda</b></span>]] <small>[[User:DeltaQuad|(aka DQ)]]</small> 03:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 *Support indefinite topic ban from all pages and discussions related to Deepak Chopra. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 11:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC).
+{{hab}}
 ==GHcool==

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