Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:41, 30 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

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: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:03, 18 April 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

4/18/2016 A comment which compares editors who disagree with them to "Holocaust deniers". Obviously WP:BATTLEGROUND, obviously personal attack. A quite odious personal attack at that.
4/18/2016 Response to request to strike the above mentioned PA. Some kind of unbacked accusation of meat puppetry or something. Even putting WP:ASPERSIONS aside, this speaks to the fact that the user has a battleground mentality and is WP:NOTHERE.
4/18/2016 Doubles down on the personal attacks with further personal attacks and further accusations that other editors are equivalent to "Holocaust deniers"

Per this also it appears the user is under a 0RR restriction, which would mean that these edits [1] and [2] are a violation of it.

Note also previous misbehavior right here at WP:AE, as noted by User:Spartaz [3].

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[4] Blocked for a week for similar. Note closing admin's admonishment: "Imposition will depend on behaviour after return from block. Patience levels noticeably low so recommend keeping nose clean."

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [5]

Basically the user's whole talk page is a billboard for warnings and sanction notifications.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

1RR didn't work. One week block didn't work. 0RR didn't work. Unless the user dramatically changes their approach to editing it's time for a topic ban at the very least.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to SheriffsinTown's accusations (which are actually sanctionable as well since they fall under WP:ASPERSIONS) what I did is remove a whole bunch of POV text which looked like an attempt to turn the article into a WP:COATRACK. It's funny to be accused of "battleground" when I'm actually probably the one person on that article that is more or less uninvolved (I've edited it before in passing just in the course of my regular editing) and doesn't have a dog in this fight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and Sheriff, can you point to exactly where "ARBPIA specifically prohibits such behavior"? Where does it do this "specifically"? And what behavior? I'm sorry but it looks like you're here just to support someone who shares your POV. And *that* would fall under WP:TAGTEAM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel compelled to also point out that despite FreeatlastChitchat's comment, no one ever said that "Biharis were just killed in the process". Go to the article talk page. Press Ctrl-F, search for "killed in the process", all you find is FreeatlastChitchat making that false accusation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ffs. To those who are claiming that FreeatlastChitchat didn't accuse anyone of being a Holocaust denier - well, I guess you're right. He accused other editors of being the equivalent of Holocaust deniers. Which is what I said above in my statement (to quote myself: "compares editors who disagree with them to "Holocaust deniers"") . If you really think that makes it better than please, WP:WIKILAWYER to your hearts' content. Here is their statement:

"We have the same with Holocaust deniers ... So it is quite clear that some deniers are trying to whitewash the article by saying "oh, we cannot include biharis here even though they were killed in thousands". To these editors (genocide deniers) I ask only this".

Now obfuscate and battleground' onward.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[6]

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 freely accept my comments. Any person denying a genocide should be compared with denying holocaust and he should not have any trouble with that, rather he/she should be topic banned from the said article immediately. I specifically targeted the comment that During the atrocities thousands of Biharis were just "killed in the process" and that it was not a genocide. The internet is rife with sources which point to atrocities committed against Biharis and term it genocide so it's not a content dispute. This is 100% clear pov editing. Furthermore it is highly biased to sanction someone who denies holocaust but anyone can deny Bihari genocide and walk away scot free. We cannot even compare them to holocaust deniers because ofc biharis were just "killed in the process". To be frank if someone bans me , he should be kind enough to tell me how hundreds of thousands of people killed and raped just "get killed in the process" FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies I have already said that I stand by my comment and accept any enforcement resulting from it. I commented on the fact that VM and ghatus were denying Bihari Genocide. You can peruse the TP and the article to find ample evidence of their repeated attempts to simply delete any reference to Bihari genocide from this article by claiming that it is coatrack and the article should deal with bangla genocide only and the Bihari Genocide did not even occur. This editing pattern of Ghatus and VM is a fact, not some conspiracy theory I am sprouting, you can check the TP to confirm, they both are denying that Biharis were killed in genocide, and Ghatus has gone as far as to say that they were just "killed in the process". With this in view I gave my opinion that wikipedia should not be biased and any person who denies a genocide should be sanctioned and T-banned from the said topic. I compared their "denial" of which there is ample evidence, to holocaust denial. It is a simple comparison, some deny holocaust and are sanctioned on wikipedia, these guys deny Bihari genocide and are therefore comparable to the aforementioned people and should be sanctioned as such. Saying that it is all right to deny Bihari Genocide is highly biased to be frank.(I have yet to see any sanctions for denying Bihari genocide, If there have been any do link the DS logs here and I will remove this part of my comment). It is quite true that calling a person a holocaust denier is an attack, but when a person is denying a genocide it is within an editors rights to tell him/her that what he/she is doing is comparable to holocaust denial, for is it not? Is denying one genocide not the same an denying another? I fail to see the logic behind this report, so I will just accept the enforcement, I am not going to strike my comments, I stand by what I said. Any person who denies as genocide should be sanctioned and t-banned immediately from the said topic, not the other way round, that he comes to AE asking for T-bans on others. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SheriffIsInTown

I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG as User:Volunteer Marek have been displaying battleground behavior which involved large-scale removal of sourced content from 1971 Bangladesh genocide and restoration of unsourced content. I am not sure what Wikipedia policies he is following to do all this. WP:ARBIPA specifically prohibits such battleground behavior. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: If you see comment by Freeatlast, he did not call Marek a "holocaust denier", he just mentioned in the context that if someone denies holocaust then they are banned for that then why it is so that if someone denies genocide against Biharis then they are not banned? I don't see any accusation or blame towards another editor and i do not see him calling another editor a "holocaust denier". Marek is taking it "out of context" here! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: Ghatus did say that "in that process some Biharis were killed". I am sure Freeatlast did not mean that you said it when he mentioned that. Please don't think that all replies are directed towards you, especially when multiple people are participating in a discussion. I think Freeatlast made a general statement about the whole discussion after seeing Ghatus's comment. You clearly don't think before you make an accusation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This AE was filed taking a comment out of context and twisting it to make it look like worse than it was. The latest comment by Kautilya3 is also nothing but taking comments out of context and making them look as bad as they can be made but if you go through those comments, they do make sense and these attempts are just nothing but making an opponent shut up from those pages to turn the consensus in favor of a specific POV. I think issuing a t-ban in result of this request will be harsh and unfortunate. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

Just a comment to clarify. I have no issue with the case or parties, but I don't think anyone called anyone a Holocaust denier. The statement was "we have the same with Holocaust deniers." In other words, the issue is similar to those who deny the Holocaust, not that anyone here is a HD. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TripWire

A simple glance at Freeatlast's comment will tell the reader that he did not call anyone "holocaust denier" nor did he display any WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. So, that's that. But I am compelled to point out that the way VM is accusing everyone around him of WP:ASPERSION, he should be careful as he commonly violates this policy himself in routine:

Accuses editors commenting on a RfC of tag-teaming despite the fact that OP invited editors on this RfC at "Notice board for Pakistan-related topics" diff

"And so far I don't see any un-involved editors (except perhaps myself), just the usual WP:TAGTEAM" [7]

Again call editors commenting against him at the RfC of being 'friends', implying that they are tag-teaming:

"That's why your and your friends' attempts at hijacking this article" [8]

Even casting aspersions right here at the AE board on editors for tag-teaming, even though all the editors are the same who were already involved in the RfC which caused this report:

"I'm sorry but it looks like you're here just to support someone who shares your POV. And *that* would fall under WP:TAGTEAM" [9]

And this really has to end. VM is continuously, despite being reminded and cautioned is casting aspersions and accusing everybody of everything that comes into his mind. It seems he is so sure that he'll get away with it that he consider himself immune to sanctions. I think he should be told that he isnt.

And before he accuses me of tag-teaming, I'd like to info that I am already involved at this board. A WP:BOOMERANG shall be in order here, I guess.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 19:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VM, please stop WP:cherrypicking Freeatlast's words and synthesising a conclusion. What Freeatlast said was:

"Removing this (Bihari genocide) amounts to genocide denial, and I personally think that anyone removing this should be sanctioned (he says that those who deny genocide must be sanctioned). We have the same with Holocaust deniers (i.e. as Holocaust deniers are sanctioned, so must be Genocide Deniers, in this case ho deny genocide of Biharis - he is simply equating genocide deniers to Holocaust deniers and demanding equal sanctions for both), why won't these guys accept that Biharis were killed?"

He further says:

"It is quite clear that no one is removing ANY part of the article (i.e Freeatlast is not denying or removing info related to genocide of Bengalis - hence not denying it). So it is quite clear that some deniers (yeah, some [genocide, not Holocaust] deniers) are trying to whitewash the article by saying "oh, we cannot include biharis here even though they were killed in thousands". To these editors (genocide deniers) (who deny Bihari, not Bengali genocide) I ask only this, where exactly does it say that this article is exclusive to the killing of Bengalis? If Biharis were killed they should most definitely be included."

I dont think he is labeling VM or for that matter anyone as a Holocaust denier. At most what he suggested was that those who deny Behari genocide (i.e. say it didnt happen during the events of 1971), should also be equated with genocide deniers and as such must be sanctioned as is in the case of Holocaust deniers.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 23:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by My very best wishes

Several contributors blame VM of "genocide denial". What genocide? They tell about genocide of Biharis population. However, vast majority of sources tell about genocide of Hindu, not Biharis population (e.g. There is an academic consensus that this campaign of violence, particularly against the Hindu population, was a genocide - from good summary review). Even Rummel expresses concern that the violence against Biharis was a "democide" which is not the same as "genocide": "How much of this was democide (intentional killing by government or its agents) is a question". One can find very few sources which call violence against Biharis a "genocide". Hence the current description of this simply as "violence" was correct. That is what vast majorty of sources tell. It seems that several contributors are trying to push their nationalistic views by including fringe or poorly sourced materials/claims, and blame VM and other contributors of "denying" these materials/claims. This happens on a number of pages, such as Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War, 1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War, and Mukti Bahini. My very best wishes (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Rhoark

Though I find VM's positions on this article content unconvincing, FreeatlastChitchat's delcaration you deny one genocide, you deny them all. There should be no place on wiki for people who deny genocides is totally unacceptable. Editors must be prepared to continue working with those who reach different good-faith conclusions after examining the same evidence. Rhoark (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark but don't you think that in basic etiquette some things are universally respected? I mean shouldn't editors first try to be a teeny tiny bit civil about an issue before coming to their conclusions? Does the opinion that thousands of people were "just killed in the process" not cross that line? You can see from the said TP that I did not just start throwing around accusations nor was I bible thumping. I was just saying that troll-ish comments like the one i mentioned should not be made on wiki and if they are, the editors should be sanctioned. And as this is my personal opinion, I have already said I will accept any sanctions that may be enforced due to my expressing this personal opinion. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kautilya3

Freeatlast seems to have been around the circuit for a while, but his participation in South Asian conflict pages is only about a couple of months old. The pages include Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, 1965, 1971, Siachen conflict, Kashmir conflict, List of Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, 1971 Bangladesh genocide, and possibly other pages he is still discovering. On all these pages, his edits to mainspace are minimal, mostly limited to reverts in support of editors that accord with his POV. He probably knows nothing of substance on these topics. Given how limited his contributions are, he certainly throws a surprising amount of weight around on the talk pages.

On Talk:Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, "fake POV pushing piece of WP:BULLSHIT"
On Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, "are you a sock?", Policy-based discussion is not enough, "consensus" is required (to make edits).
On Talk:Siachen conflict, you make "literally zero sense".
On Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, "you are in delusion about how consensus works".
On Talk:Kashmir conflict, "you do not like to debate",
On User talk:RegentsPark, "What exactly seems your problem?" ... "why all this drama here?".

I am pretty sure that his idea of "consensus" is for a bunch of editors to gang up and CRUSH the others into submission. He feels entirely free to target editors with his cutting, pointed, sanctimonious remarks as if he is a prima donna veteran of Wikipedia. With his accusation of holocaust denial, he has clearly crossed the line and the pity is that he doesn't even realize it. We certainly don't need such prima donnas on conflict pages that are already dealing with difficult subjects that need to account for multiple nationalist POVs. I recommend that Freeatlast be topic-banned from all South Asian conflict pages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to SheriffIsInTown, Freeatlast certainly knows ARBIPA standards and, if his remarks seem passable to him, it is only because the situation has degenerated to such an extent that this kind of behaviour has begun to look normal. We need to start somewhere in cleaning up the toxic culture on these pages, and let this be it. If we don't start enforcing them, ARBIPA sanctions become meaningless. By my own experience, such behaviour is almost never tolerated on India pages, where also all kinds of nationalists prowl, because loads of admins monitor them. In contrast, the South Asian conflict have become a lawless zone. We have to say "enough is enough." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ghatus

This editor (FreeatlastChitchat) is a habitual battleground editor. He was trying to create a false equivalence between the real victims of genocide ( with academic consensus) and those killed in other ways. There is no academic consensus that killing of "a few hundred" Biharis was a "genocide" from any angle as against the killing of "a million" Bengalis by the state with impunity. Anyone who opposed that PoV pushing was insinuated as a "genocide denier", though the case in reality was the opposite. One can not say that Jews also massacred Germans in some places and hence both are equally guilty. Hence, like Kautilya, I also recommend that Freeatlast is to be topic-banned from all South Asian conflict pages. Ghatus (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning FreeatlastChitchat

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

Ah, FreeatlastChitchat--one of my favorite battleground editors. Marek, 0R was suggested but not imposed, it seems from the DS log. I think I already blocked FreeatlastChitchat once and I really don't want to do it again, but you can't go around calling someone a Holocaust denier; FreeatlastChitchat, you have been skating on thin ice for a while, and you shouldn't be surprised if you fall through it this time, though I for one will be sad to see it. But calling someone a Holocaust denier does no service to the victims of another genocide. Sheriff, if you want to bring Marek up on charges you will have to do so in a separate section--I doubt that this will go very far, though. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's pretty clear that Freeatlast was suggesting that VM was to be included among the supposed collection of Holocaust deniers--and that comment itself, pace Tripwire's simple dismissal, is battleground editing. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArghyaIndian

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 ArghyaIndian

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ArghyaIndian (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

00:50, 19 April 2016 Left a highly nationalistic slur at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh using a proxied IP, This was also a bad faith message as well accusing a bunch of editors as Pakistani POV pushers. WP:ARBIPA specifically prohibits use of Wikipedia for political propaganda on nationalistic lines and instructs to display good faith to fellow editors while editing Pakistan/India topics. (Reference: WP:ARBIPA#Assume good faith, WP:ARBIPA#Wikipedia is not a soapbox)
12:59, 19 April 2016 Votes in the RfC signed in as ArghyaIndian using exactly the same nationalistic slur and bad faith message as was done using proxied IP at WP Bangladesh (Reference: WP:ARBIPA#Assume good faith, WP:ARBIPA#Wikipedia is not a soapbox)
04:54, 20 April 2016 Left the same message using the same proxied IP with exactly same text as was used in above two edits, difference is this message was left after he was alerted about WP:ARBIPA so this is a clear violation of WP:ARBIPA after him being alerted about that. (Reference: WP:ARBIPA#Assume good faith, WP:ARBIPA#Wikipedia is not a soapbox)
10:34, 21 April 2016 Continues making highly controversial edits to a highly controversial topic 1971 Bangladesh genocide even though an RfC is going on at Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide to which he participated. Instead of waiting for conclusion, he goes in and removes a huge chuck of text along national lines
16:30, 21 April 2016 Does it again after being told that "Please refrain from major changes while the discussion is ongoing.", gets reverted again by an unrelated editor, Please note that this edit has an evidence of meatpuppetry in it as Arghya included the instructions issued to him by another editors in the edit. Meatpuppetry is sockpuppetry and sockpuppery was another decision covered by WP:ARBIPA#Sockpuppets.
16:56, 21 April 2016 But does it again! (Remember others are waiting for talk and RfC but he keeps editing along nationalistic lines

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 14:51, 19 April 2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Requesting a topic ban for ArghyaIndian in topic area of India/Pakistan broadly construed based on evidence of nationalistic propaganda and assuming bad faith along national lines.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification to the editor

Note: Requesting @Laser brain: or another admin to restrict ArghyaIndian statement to less than 500 words so i can reply them keeping myself under 500 words. Thank you! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Arghya claims to be a newcomer yet cites policies like WP:BITE, WP:BATTLEGROUND and know that meatpuppetry is reported under sockpuppetry, each of which i did not know until very recently. Arghya claims that he copied/pasted the content from WP Bangladesh to the RfC and IP was not him but you see the IP's comment from WP Bangladesh was removed by me at 09:00, 19 April 2016 and Arghya added the same comment at the RfC at 12:59, 19 April 2016 so he is kind of giving a very lame excuse of copy/paste. Please also note Arghya did not edit between 2 April 2016 and 19 April 2016 and his first edit after 17 days was the vote at RfC. That comment is a clear example of WP:DUCK. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning ArghyaIndian

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 ArghyaIndian

It's an clear cut case of WP:BITE. This user is continuously harassing me. they also tried to spam my talk page. Infact, this is his latest attempt, reporting me for some vague reasons and connecting me with unknown IP's. Apparently he is leaving no chance to attack users who are opposing him on talk page [10]. One should go and check revision history of the talk page and count the number of personal attacks he did to those users who are opposing (by their votes on RFC) him on the talk page. {{u|SheriffIsInTown}} is calling others and me nationalist because I don't share his POV I will also like to ask him to enlighten me of what kind of nationalist am i? A quick look at revision history of the page and other related pages will show that this user has a strong Pro-Pakistan Army bias and battleground mentality (as also noted by other users on article's talk page).

Now let me reply to all his accusations one by one. He is presenting me as a edit warrior and as a nationalist user here in a sheer bad faith.

Administrators please note that this IP is not myn. I just copy and pasted his comment at talk page because the IP was apparently correct and a patrolling user Sminthopsis84 also agreed with the IP. They also suggested a topic ban for {{u|SheriffIsInTown}}. Again

this IP is not myn as i already explained above.

SheriffIsInTown is actually distorting and mispresenting edits and diffs. Let me reply to all his accusations.
04:03, 20 April 2016 I created a new section regarding misleading

figures in the lead that was recently added without any discussion whatsoever at talk page [11]. Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes agreed with me and Infact VM also asked me that which older version I have in my mind. Since the editors agreed with my objections, I tried to find out an older stable NPOV version. I waited for a day and finally restored an old version 10:30, 21 April 2016, but by mistake I restored the wrong version and then I asked for the help on the article's talk page can be seen here. And I think User:Kautilya3 was aware of it and that is why he/she reverted me. I wanted to restore the old stable NPOV lead (as discussed and agreed on talk page) so that is why I made this edit (13:25 21 April 2016) but after realising that I did a mistake, I quickly self reverted this time within a minute (13:36, 21 April 2016). But as I wanted to restore the old stable NPOV lead, I made this edit again ([12]) but unfortunately I again made a major mistake while editing but before I could self revert myself, an patrolling user already reverted me ([13]). This time I made this edit correctly ([14]) and I was correct too ([15], [16]).

Administrators please note the

[17], [18] MASS REMOVAL OF CONTENT by this user (that he doesn't like), large scale POV pushing and edit warring on all Bangladesh related pages (1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War, Mukti Bahini, Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War). He is doing this all from a long time now.

Administrators also please note that this user was trying to harass other users including me with 3RR templates when they hardly made two reverts [19] but he is edit warring on these pages from many months, as noted by other users ([20], [21]). Note to forget he will go and remove mass contents from Mukti Bahini and then edit war against multiple users, same is the case here.
This user clearly violated 3RR on Mukti Bahini page just to remove mass contents from lead (that he doesn't like), which is still there.

18:16, 20 April 2016
18:20, 20 April 2016
17:31, 21 April 2016
17:50, 21 April 2016 please note the time and date, these 4 reverts are very well within 24 hours (well much more if we count reverts made by this user on same page within 1½ day).

He was told by atleast two users in edit summaries that lead material that is sourced in text is considered sourced and some of them are actually sourced

[22], [23] and that he should stop removing mass contents from lead. He was warned on his talk page by User:Thomas and User:LjL for the same can be seen here [24].

In 1971 Bangladesh Genocide page alone, First this user along with his fellow users will try to hijack and

convert an NPOV article into a POV COATRACK article, promoting fringe and preposterous theories (All uninvolved and experienced editors pointed out this [25], [26], [27] & [28]) please see the revision history of the page to get a better understanding. Then he will go and start an premature RFC (as noted by other users including User:My very best wishes, User:Volunteer Marek, User:Kautilya3 and many more) after he see that other uninvolved editors are opposing him on talk page. He also did not refrain from doing personal attacks directed towards uninvolved users who are opposing him on talk page (like this).

So this case is pretty much clear, the filing user is trying to present me as a nationalist edit warrior (which I am not) by distorting edit diffs. As the rules mentioned right top at the AE noticeboard.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. based on this, I highly recommend a topic ban for this user (as reasons and evidences provided above). This user has a clear battleground

mentality with a strong nationalist bias. Note also previous misbehavior right here at WP:AE, as noted by Administrator Spartaz Spartaz also said that they are strongly minded to impose a T-ban for {{u|SheriffIsInTown}} for making nationalist based slur.

Being a inexperienced newcomer, I am mistakes but I am also learning very quickly so I will request administrators to pardon me for my mistakes. ArghyaIndian (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replying since the user extended their list of false accusations. (I request administrator to extend my word count to 750, accordingly).

Yes, I know WP:BITE (that's what you are repeatedly doing) and WP:BATTLEGROUND (your behaviour)! Many uninvolved users called you a battleground warrior on talk page (citing these policies).
That IP is not myn. You have all the rights to report me and clear your suspicions. Then why you are not reporting me and instead hurling accusations at me?
This user further tried to harass me by calling me a meatpuppet at ANI (but not reporting me at its relevant noticeboard, as I pointed out), clear personal attack, quite odious personal attack at that. Note that he called me a meatpuppet but is asking me how do I know about meatpuppet noticeboard (even though I gave him the meatpuppet noticeboard link through a Google search). What do you think that you can make anyone fool here? #This user doubles down on the personal attacks with further personal attack and with further accusations by calling me a meatpuppet again here, when I have replied him in clear words on ANI.
Further personal attacks by calling me a duck. I have already said him in clear words and again saying, If this user has guts then why don't he report me at its relevant noticeboard? Or not reporting me just because you will force to apology for these personal attacks?
The user is saying that they had not edit warred. But a quick look at revision history of these Bangladesh related pages (1971 Bangladesh Genocide, Mukti Bahini, Bangladesh Liberation War, Rape During the Bangladesh Liberation War, etc) shows that they are edit warring, pushing over the top POV, fringe theories from many months (as almost all the uninvolved user pointed out at article's talk page). Note that this user recently did around 6-7 reverts within 1½ day on Mukti Bahini (4 reverts well within 24 hours) just to remove mass contents from lead (which was absolutely sourced in text) and which is still there. All edit diffs/evidences I provided in my above statement. Also note that, right after I commented here, this user intentionally removed all those warnings from their talk page but it can be still seen here.[29]
If no administrator take actions against this user, then it is clear that users like him have a free license to harass inexperienced users. Most importantly, this user is edit warring, pushing his nationalistic point of view (in an global source of knowledge-- Wikipedia) from half a decade atleast.ArghyaIndian (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This seems to be waaaaaaay more than 500 words and 20 diffs. TJH2018 talk 16:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

This does appear to me as a battleground request because SheriffIsInTown edit war on these pages for months, but reported someone who only started. In addition, after looking at changes by SheriffIsInTown on this page, it appear that he inserts wording like "a number now universally regarded as excessively inflated" and "however some scholars consider this number to be seriously inflated" in introduction, instead of simply providing a range of numbers - as the more NPOV version preferred by ArghyaIndian. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark

Saying there are POV pushers in this area is calling a spade a spade, and no one involved appears to have any inhibition about editing while the RfC is open. This area needs more admin scrutiny than is seen through the keyhole of AE filings. Rhoark (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ArghyaIndian

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

Sailor Haumea

Sailor Haumea is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of longevity, broadly construed. Zad68 20:34, 29 April 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 Sailor Haumea

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Clpo13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Sailor Haumea (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/Longevity#Motion: Longevity (August 2015) :

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

14:55, April 12, 2016 First removal of entries not sourced to the Gerontology Research Group (GRG)
15:23, April 18, 2016 After a discussion, announces rejection of consensus and intent to revert to their preferred version
15:28, April 18, 2016 Removes all entries not sourced to GRG
15:40, April 18, 2016‎ Same as above, despite warning that there is consensus to include other reliable sources
15:59, April 18, 2016 Third revert, as above
09:50, April 23, 2016 "us vs. them" mentality indicated by claim that article has been "hijacked"
09:55, April 23, 2016 Another removal of non-GRG sources, self-reverted
10:04, April 23, 2016 Clearly states that they do not accept non-GRG sources

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a long-running issue on longevity articles. Basically, there are some editors who believe that Wikipedia should only list supercentenarians that are verified by the GRG. However, a recent RfC resulted in the consensus that any reliable source is fine. Sailor Haumea showed up on List of oldest living people and removed all non-GRG sourced entries. They were reverted and engaged in talk page discussion (Talk:List of oldest living people#Reverted back to GRG-associated) where it was explained that all reliable sources are accepted. They rejected this and edit warred to their preferred version, reaching, but not breaking, WP:3RR. However, they have continued to state their rejection of consensus and reverted again, though they self-reverted immediately after. This pattern of behavior is clearly disruptive. Editors with similar attitudes have been blocked or topic-banned under these discretionary sanctions: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive186#Ollie231213, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive187#930310, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188#GreatGreen, not to mention those blocked or topic-banned under the original ruling. Given the behavior here and the fact that they appear to be a single-purpose account focused on longevity articles, I recommend a topic ban until such time as they can work with consensus instead of against it. clpo13_(talk) 17:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sailor Haumea: Maybe those experts should learn to follow the rules if they don't want to get blocked or topic banned. This isn't about expert vs. non-expert opinion. This is about being disruptive. clpo13_(talk) 03:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm not the one being disruptive, you are. You're ignoring the experts. Sailor Haumea (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning Sailor Haumea

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 Sailor Haumea

Longevity is a field requiring verifiable content. Sailor Haumea (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get banned, so I will follow consensus. I won't try and argue that the GRG is some special source. You win. Sailor Haumea (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what another expert, Robert Young, has to say:

"Is Wikipedia going to decide who the oldest person ever is? Yes or no. Because if there are no standards of validation, then Calment doesn't have a record. Or, is Wikipedia going to follow its own rules and reflect the mainstream, outside-source consensus..."

Another thing. They keep claiming "Oldest in Britain" isn't reliable. That's blatantly false, as we see here, a supercentenarian's obituary names both Oldest in Britain and the gerontology forum The 110 Club (though erroneously thinking The 110 Club's members run Oldest in Britain):

[30]

Stop trying to force a change of consensus by topic banning and blocking everyone in your way. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EEng

Since stating above that "I don't want to get banned, so I will follow consensus", SH has just gone back to the usual longevity-fan nonsense:

What's with these people anyway? No evidence SH is interested in anything but longevity [34] so let's save time -- skip the topic ban and go straight to indefinite block. E Eng 16:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It says something that you had to block several GRG correspondents (such as 930310) to achieve your goals...blocking the experts from editing is a sign you're wrong. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Glrx

I believe I am uninvolved. I haven't been following longevity, but I did comment in Ollie231213's appeal of a topic ban in this area 3 months ago.[35]

Ollie231213's appeal was declined 14 February 2016.

The Sailor Haumea account has been active since 24 February 2016.

From talk page comments,[36] Sailor Haumea seems well aware of the decision to use sources other than GRG by 22:23 18 April 2016, but SH believes that decision was wrong / had been "debunked". Comment also shows that SH knows editors are getting blocked for editing behavior wrt longevity.

SH does 4 reverts on 18 April 2016[37] before an explicit 3RR warning on 18 April at 23;11.[38]

Discretionary warning hits 23:13, 18 April 2016.

SH continues to revert and speaks of "Establish a consensus".[39] SH appears to be a sophisticated user.

DS allows a 1-year topic ban, and that is what I'd recommend at the minimum.

I believe there is a colorable claim that SH is avoiding an existing topic ban. (First 2 diffs by EEng also show correlation with DN-boards1; see also User talk:DN-boards1#Blocked.) Glrx (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not DN-boards1. Sailor Haumea (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Sailor Haumea

Sailor Haumea is clearly persistently disruptive in the longevity topic area, exhibiting edit-warring behavior, tendentious editing and ignoring consensus, thus they are indefinitely topic-banned as an AE action.
Separately there are telltale signs that this editor appears to be misusing multiple accounts. I will deal with that separately, acting as an individual administrator outside AE action. Zad68 20:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STSC

Sanction imposed. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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[40][41], Tibet[42][43] 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

[44] – 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)

[45] - 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).

[46] [47][48][49] - 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”.

[50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58] - Obsessively wikilinking the word “cult”

[59][60] -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.” [61] 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[62][63][64]. 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.

[65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72]- Removing perfectly fine photos, often for being “irrelevant,” and edit warring to keep them gone

[73][74][75][76][77][78] - Tendentious tag-bombing, mostly to the lead section, even though information contained therein is fully referenced in body of the article

[79] – an interesting replacement

Evidence of prior warnings about Falun Gong discretionary sanctions: [80][81][82]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[83]

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.[84] 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."[85]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.

Further statement: I and some other fair-minded editors have tried to correct the unbalance in many Falun Gong related-articles which have been religiously guarded by some diehard editors (user TheBlueCanoe included). My edits were justifiable according to Wikipedia policies so there's nothing much I need to add here.

@TheBlueCanoe: You did not ask me for explanation about my edit, you just told me to self-revert my edit as if you owned the article? That's the way you have been operating on Wikipedia - for you any edit that is not favourable to Falun Gong must go. STSC (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I agree to your temporary arrangement for this case. Thanks. STSC (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: I found it incredible that you just jumped the gun to echo all the accusations without looking into the evidence, the background and the original sources of those edits. STSC (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark: I would be putting more effort to write a better edit summary. STSC (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith and Rhoark: You failed to look at my reasoning in the discussion regarding the article title - "Wikipedia is neutral and should not make judgement on the Chinese internal policy (cracking down on Falun Gong) for the good of its society"; I was pointing out the Chinese POV, it does not imply supporting the elimination of any religious group. STSC (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheBlueCanoe

Over three weeks have elapsed. I am resurfacing this case so that a decision can be rendered.TheBlueCanoe 16:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark

It is not policy to sanction an editor for having a POV, and I don't see any clear content or behavior violations in the diffs. The one thing that deserves censure is STSC's prickly response to other editors asking for better edit summaries. Given the staleness of diffs, and that AE actions should be preventative rather than punitive, I suggest only a warning at this time. Rhoark (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Having seen the diff The Wordsmith linked, I support an indefinite topic ban. Rhoark (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]
I'd be OK with putting this AE request on hold until STSC is back from his trip. A maximum of three weeks' delay could be considered. I'd collapse this AE and put 'On hold' as the result. If STSC doesn't return, then we should decide the case anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TheBlueCanoe makes a good point about the many small diffs. It would be hard to illustrate STSC's annoying habit of inserting "allegedly" all over the place (See WP:ALLEGED), or the many wikilinks to "cult", or the tag-bombing, without a lot of little diffs. I don't think those put undue strain on the attention of the reviewing admins, the way forty links to argumentative talkpage posts would. Since the need for "permission of a reviewing administrator" is invoked in the page instructions, I'll just state that I'll allow TBC's diffs. As EdJohnston has already reminded STSC on his page, the three weeks for which the request was put on hold have elapsed. Pinging Newyorkbrad, too. Time to decide on this request. Bishonen | talk 22:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I find these diffs troubling. Particularly this one, which openly supports the "elimination" of a religious group as a good and necessary thing. To me, that seems to demonstrate an agenda that is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of Wikipedia; therefore I believe that the best thing for this topic area is to remove the editor indefinitely. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MjolnirPants

Rhoark is cautioned that further enforcement requests without solid evidence of wrongdoing will not engender leniency. Creating frivolous complaints often results in quick sanctions. MjolnirPants is advised that upholding Wikipedia's policies on Pseudoscience is not an exemption from civility. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:59, 27 April 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 MjolnirPants

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Rhoark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: MjolnirPants (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 :

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

[86] Casting aspersions Everything you've argued is based on a very biased interpretation of policy, and your POV is not more important than factual accuracy.
[87] Reverts to re-include a BLP violation: calling a living person a "scientific fraud" using a self-published source.
[88] Implies agreement with removing the questionable source. I don't much care which notable source says something like "this is an anti-vax film by a guy who lost his medical license," so long as it's said. My only interest is in making sure the lead accurately summarizes the article, and that no anti-skeptic/anti-science/anti-vaccine POV is being pushed on the article. (These conditions are still met by the article after removing the BLP violation.)
[89] Asserts demanding reliable sources on Wikipedia is equivalent to 9/11 trutherism
[90] Casting aspersions Your arguments (both of you) are straight up wikilawyering to cover your own attempts to whitewash the subject.
[91] Restores the BLP violation again.
[92] Casting aspersions Your might want to cover up, because your bias is showing.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Participated in an arbitration request in this area against TeeVeeed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TeeVeeed

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I first encountered this topic through the above enforcement request against TeeVeeed, and then examined the related Talk discussions and RS/N filing. As I commented in that case, MjolnirPants edit warred and filed against TeeVeeed based partly on an edit MjolnirPants themselves had endorsed on the talk page. I further noted an air of ownership in the warnings given to TeeVeeed and disproportionate hostility to TeeVeeed's having noted the fact that a blog by David Gorski is self-published. TeeVeeed responded to these provocations with an unfortunate turn of phrase, and did show some degree of credulity for pseudoscience, leading to a topic ban.

This left a poorly-sourced claim still on the page, and the justifiability of MjolnirPants' filing unsettled to my mind, so I set about to test the waters. I brought essentially three objections: that statements about the movie rather than science are not in David Gorski's area of expertise, that his notability does not warrant naming him separately in the lede from all the other sources calling the movie propaganda, and that a self-published expert cannot be used for BLP claims per WP:BLOGS. These are all correct judgements, but the last in particular has force of ironclad policy behind it. My suspicions of battleground mentality and ownership were immediately confirmed, with several editors leaping to conclusions that removing any pro-science viewpoint, no matter how improperly sourced, is indicative of pro-fringe POV pushing. To their credit, most editors eventually recognized either that I was acting in good faith, or that local consensus cannot override WP:V.

MjolnirPants, however, persists. Consensus is moving towards excluding the BLP violation, but MjolnirPants' potential for disruption remains. I do not wish to remove any anti-fringe editor from Pseudoscience topics in the long term, but without administrator intervention I do not think MjolnirPants will undertake the necessary introspection to separate sourcing that is pro-science from sourcing that is actually scientific and verifiable, nor separate editors that are pro-fringe from those with policy and evidence-based disagreement about fringe topics.

@MjolnirPants: It would be pointy to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, but it is not against policy to improve articles to make a point. My edit was endorsed by policy and improved the article by making it more trustworthy. Nor did I edit with the specific aim of eliciting sanctionable behavior. I suspected one or more editors might respond uncivilly, but had no clear expectation of who. I did not rush to file, instead at the point behavior became sanctionable, recapping arguments and allowing two days for the summary to be digested. Rhoark (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: The purpose of sanctions is to prevent disruption, and I would not file if I did not think the effect would tend towards the prevention of disruption. That is why I did not file against anyone who seemed possibly unaware that the material was removed for BLP reasons (or anyone possibly following me to the topic.) I do however agree you are a good faith contributor, and most want from this situation for you to see that I (and Wnt, and TeeVeeed, and whoever may come along next) are good faith contributors. Rhoark (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every filing should invite scrutiny of the filer, which is not often enough practiced, so I do not begrudge it in the slightest. The criticisms are misplaced, though.

There is no disagreement about the number of reverts that were performed by various users; however, my going to a third revert in 24 hours was under cover of WP:3RRBLP, and the total sequence of reverts includes a period of 48 hours I allowed for discussion after my most comprehensive talk post. Meanwhile those restoring were in violation of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, even at a single revert.
It is mischaracterizing to say I was out to "teach a lesson" as a punitive measure. The policy position I presented was, in Staszek Lem's words "irrefutable", and if an editor's attitude impedes article improvement, its not improper to seek to change that attitude as a preamble to changing the article. Furthermore, it would not have been necessary for me to share my motivations, were they not in the first place questioned and impugned to be pro-fringe. That in itself is prima facie evidence that attitudes needed to be changed.

Rhoark (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog has presented more than I could possibly respond to, but I'll hit the highlights.

I concur with what Jytdog says about the real-world importance of vaccines.
My edits as a new user, especially prior to February, 2015 were often bad. They aren't probative to this case.
I edit Gamergate and other contentious topic areas. I stand by the soundness of every edit after the 3 month page ban I got for filibustering.
Jytdog linked a talk page discussion about the definition of pseudoscience that I participated in, but has not articulated any reason why my arguments for a rigorous and consistent definition should be considered disruptive.
I can see exactly why TeeVeeed was banned, which was said in my filing above. That doesn't mean everyone else had clean hands.
Jytdog was named by ArbCom for incivility and battleground mentality in the GMO dispute, a close cousin to pseudoscience disputes.
Jytdog reacted with disproportionate ~~hostility~~ incivility[93][94] to TeeVeeed's innocent and accurate observation that David Gorski's blog is not as reliable as other sources being used in the article.
To his credit, Jytdog has not continued to suggest I support the anti-vaccination movement after I made it clear that I do not.

Rhoark (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought an uninvolved administrator would readily admonish MjolnirPants about the behavior I've outlined, but as Jytdog is someone MjolnirPants respects, his statement Yep. MjolnirPants was too harsh in arguing. Please warn him to cool it. (MjolnirPants, I say that as one who is too harsh myself sometimes; being harsh that way is to your longterm detriment here) fully fulfills what I had hoped for from this filing. I feel comfortable in withdrawing the complaint. This is of course a symbolic gesture that in no way limits uninvolved administrators from sanctioning MjolnirPants, myself, or random bystanders. Rhoark (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: if you can concisely specify something I've done wrong, I'll readily acknowledge it, but I won't be held responsible for any time wasted trawling my entire edit history on your own initiative. Rhoark (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[95]

Discussion concerning MjolnirPants

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 MjolnirPants

Oh lord. For starters, contrary to what is stated above, I have only reverted edits removing this content twice. Once here and once here. There have been 5 other reverts of Rhoark and one other editor's attempts to excise the material in question, by 4 other editors. There is broad agreement on the article talk page and at an RSN thread about this that the quote is appropriate and useful. I've explained my rationale, and even offered a compromise which was completely ignored. As for the rest of the diffs, I don't have space to respond to them all. Suffice it to say, his characterization of me is very biased. I will respond in detail if necessary, but honestly, I feel like it's pretty clear that Rhoark doesn't understand what exactly is going on here.

To that end, there is this diff in which Rhoark describes his goal in pushing this. My primary aim is to prompt introspection that will make you a better advocate for science in the long term. I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to be editing to teach other users a lesson. It's also worth pointing out that Rhoark has racked up three reverts in the past 24 hours, (here, here and here), and brought this up after another editor reverted them most recently. It's worth noting that the other editor removed the specific words Rhoark objected to with no response from myself. In addition, Rhoark virtually admits to engaging in this whole crusade in order to teach me some kind of lesson, even though he seems to have missed the fact that I've shown already that I care about NPOV in this article, as well as in other fringe articles. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark: Do you really think edit warring and filing AE notices against good-faith editors isn't disruptive? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark: You seem to think you know quite a lot about my intentions and character for someone who's only ever read what I had to say about encyclopedia articles. I think the simple fact that you admit you're trying to teach me a lesson should be a red flag that you're overstepping, but then at this point, it's for an uninvolved admin to decide. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: Aside from PeterTheFourth's list of Rhoark's reverts and Rhoark's admission to getting involved only to teach me a lesson above, there's not much else I could put up to support a boomerang. Personally, I find it very worrying that someone would take this tactic on an subject under discretionary sanctions, but I can see how you could conclude that one worrying event isn't worth sanctioning someone over. Perhaps a warning to focus on constructive editing and not to focus on other editors would be enough. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: My remarks concerning Loose Change were made to contextualize what Gorski knows, not what I know: in effect, I was analogizing what you said at the RSN. My point was that Gorski knows enough about the contents of the film that he doesn't need to know the exact narrative to make the statement he did. If I didn't make that clear enough, that's my fault, but I wasn't suggesting that Gorski is acceptable because I know he's right, I was suggesting that Gorski knew enough that his statement couldn't be discredited with the argument that he hasn't watched the film. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: I understand what you're saying, but your criticism seems based on the assumption that I was making the argument that Gorski's inclusion was acceptable because I knew he was right. At least, that's what you statement But we are wikipedians, and our knowledge is not an argument: it is a a guide in search of arguments published in WP:RS. strongly suggests. I'm trying to parse this statement in the context of you understanding that I was not presenting my own knowledge as an argument, and coming up with nothing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LadyofScoonthorpe: Weird that your only contribution to WP would be an accusation of canvassing. Weirder still that you would find that, and not find this, or this or this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark: Your smearing of Jytdog is not helping you here. His part in all of this is merely to give his opinion, and your response is an extended ad hominem. Your and my histories are relevant to this, but his is not. More specifically, the "disproportionate hostility" you attributed to him in the first diff you provided reads to me like Jytdog civilly responding to TeeVeed's claim to be trolling us. There's nothing at all hostile about his response. Perhaps you could argue he was being condescending, but claiming hostility is an extreme stretch of the truth. The second diff is just him editing his response, so adding it on reeks of dishonesty, like you're trying to suggest it was two different incidents. To be perfectly honest with you, the more you write, the more I agree with Jytdog that you should face sanctions. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PeterTheFourth

Given that MjolnirPants was dealing with an editor whose misconduct has now gotten them indefinitely topic banned from the area, and from a position of quite a large consensus, I find the assertion that he was "edit warring" against them with a total of 2 reverts a bit hard to swallow. Indeed, I'll note that Rhoark themselves has reverted more than Mjolnir- [96] [97] [98] [99].

@Gongwool: The editor I'm referring to when I say 'indefinitely topic banned' is TeeVeeed, not Rhoark. I could have made this clearer- my bad. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gongwool

I believe this is a frivolous complaint and I haven't the time to investigate diffs etc. I agree with PeterTheFourth above. But from what I know MjolnirPants has been trying to restrict WP:FRINGE breaches to such topics. I suggest close this complaint. Gongwool (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wnt

After seeing TeeVeed's protest at Jimbo Wales' talk page, I looked at the article and decided that the Gorski blog was not suitable, per policy, for calling someone a "scientific fraud". (I'm OK with using it to call the film "propaganda") The importance of this was muted since reliable sources in the article were making similar statements, but technically, it was a violation of a core policy. In my talk page back-and-forth, MjolnirPants seemed too focused on, well, truth rather than verifiability. I think it is more important here that we establish clarity about what the BLP policy demands than that anyone be sanctioned. I would be much more interested in seeing MjolnirPants' stubbornness credited as a mitigating factor for TeeVeed to have a chance to get rehabilitated and to have a real way out of the usual downward spiral of sanctions than in seeing any action taken against MjolnirPants. The really fundamental problem at that article was a lack of editors and neutral voices to settle policy issues, and harsh administrative actions don't make that any better. Still I should note that it is important even for rationalists to understand that we're here to make a comprehensive and demonstrably neutral encyclopedia, so gathering and featuring the reliable secondary sources most prominently is something of an goal in itself. Extra note: ~~In regard to the above comment,~~ (stricken: [100]) Rhoark's comments on BLP were essentially identical to my own, so I don't regard it as "fringe POV pushing." Fairness and open-mindedness should not be viewed as problems requiring administrator intervention! Wnt (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: came up with a satisfactory solution, providing third-party coverage of the Gorski quote from the L.A. Times (though personally I would prefer some other quotes from that article made in their own voice). So I am nonplussed by his section here about Rhoark. It might be that Rhoark has an interest in conflict resolution - an editor shouldn't have to be an admin or even an admin wannabe to have that interest. Any editing history free of any clear restrictions or warnings should not count against him, more so if he actually touched Gamergate that often without getting stung. You can do "opposition research" on any editor, and you can make some argument or other about his motivations - the sheer number of available hypotheses when you do that guarantees you can find some weak statistical support for some detrimental notion or other. But Rhoark's policy argument was clearly appropriate for an editor in good standing, and he deserves to be treated as one. Wnt (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Staszek Lem

<sigh> I believe everybody deserves a trout slap in this drama including myself. I came to [[Vaxxed] page from WP:RS noticeboard where it was asked whether Gorski's blog is a WP:RS. I have a firm opinion that in context of this article Gorski does have expertise. And therefore noticing his quotation removed with edit summary being a link to a talk thread which was tl;dr I jumped in with revert. (trout in my face) I was reverted with edit summary "WP:BLOGS prohibits this use regardless of expertise". . A little better, but still confusing, so I asked it the talk page and finally got a convincing explanation. Here is a troutpiece to Rhoark: Had he put this one short phrase that directly pointed to the problem, I would not have run my face into a trout.

That said, both sides are obviously smart persons, but their eloquence serves them bad. We all speak out of some context sitting in our head and some of our premises we forget to mention, taken for granted. While your opponent may just the same neglect to mention some other premises. Here goes a trout to the other side of the dispute: MjolnirPants wrote: " What you're saying is akin to saying that I have to watch Loose Change in order to know it's full of truther bullshit." - in reply to some philosophical remark of Rhoark. If you look at this phrase in isolation, M-Pants appears to be right: yes, one may know that Loose Change is full of it without actually watching it. But we are wikipedians, and our knowledge is not an argument: it is a a guide in search of arguments published in WP:RS. We (including experts cited) often "know" things by mistake, by hearsay, by a preconceived notion, etc. Therefore MjolnirPants' objection, while being smart, is a non-argument in the context of wikipedia.

The problem with eloquence in wikipedia is that a long rant may contain both valid and dubious claims. And your opponent, unless of extremely disciplined mind, will reject your position basing on arbitrarily picked pieces of your rant. This is exemplified by the following statement from talk page: "have all explicitly or implicitly endorsed the inclusion and refuted arguments against including it". I have no idea what the arguments were' "tl;dr", but I accepted that my position was countered by a single irrefutable argument. I don't know whether it was buried somewhere in that talk page above. Moreover, the contested edit was easily remedied by removal of only two words from the contested piece rather than by full-metal revert.

Therefore we have to learn to chop our arguments into digestible pieces and stick them to the corresponding pieces of the disputed text.

So, once again, peace and trout to y'all. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gongwool: I would like to remind you that one of the lessons with Gamergate controversy in wikipiedia, please avoid personal accusations, such as "POV pushing" stickers, without solid proof, otherwise the boomerang may fly in a completely unexpected direction. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: I did understand your intention, but only because I saw the whole enchilada and only because I happen to partly agree with what I think you wanted to say (but, IMO, failed to deliver unambiguously). In fact, I provided this example not because you were wrong, but as an example where discussion may readily go awry because of sloppy communication. That's my point: speak short and clear, not smart. The goal is not to defeat or deride the opponent, but to (a) understand him, (b) convince him, (c) find a common ground, and in fastest possible time, too; unless your whole life is wikipedia, socializing. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the educational threat Staszek Lem, I'll take that as WP:HA and WP:BITEing. I have changed my comment above to suit your demands. I was asked to come here and make a comment, and for doing so I get threatened. I now have no opinions as is required of Newbies. I will no longer make comments on ANI pages and such. I have no idea what Gamergate is, and really don't care about the lessons you're trying to lecture me about. Don't comment to me here or on my talk page Staszek Lem, I request that you no longer try to make contact with me in any way. End of discussion with you. Bye Gongwool (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will change your attitude about lessons after being here on wikpedia for a while, especially the ones about our core policies and rules of engagement. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up WP:LESSONS but the policy has been deleted. So some alledged expert lecturing me "I hope you will change your attitude about lessons" has no basis as I can see. As requested maam, DON'T TALK TO ME AGAIN! Bye bye. Gongwool (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jytdog

I want to note that I received notice of this AE from MjolnirPants. I had CANVASS concerns, but if you look at their contribs, he notified all the editors who have been active on the page and can still discuss the topic. The notice is (mostly) neutral, as well. So it is actually OK, I believe.

To the point:

Yep. MjolnirPants was too harsh in arguing. Please warn him to cool it. (MjolnirPants, I say that as one who is too harsh myself sometimes; being harsh that way is to your longterm detriment here)

My focus here is on Rhoark - I had a POINTy vibe through this whole thing. I am glad to hear them say now that they were indeed "testing the waters", but it is still bad behavior. That it was driven by doubt about whether TeeVeed was disruptive is yet more troubling with regard to their judgement in general. I don't want to re-litigate Teeveed's TBAN but for me the killer thing was that after several (!) exchanges I had with TeeVeed about about PSCI and DS and asking them to be careful, all through which they kept arguing with others about content, they finally wrote this to me, where they said " I don't even know what the PSCI is!" (in other words, what the PSCI issue is, in the Vaxxed article). And at that point I knew they were either incompetent or completely bad faith, and in neither case was it going to end well. So I struggle to see how, if Rhoark really looked at what Teeveed did and was saying, and understood our policies, there could be significant doubt.

Anti-vax is serious - kids are getting sick and dying because their parents -sometimes other kids parents - believe this stuff. And this being the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", we have to deal with anti-vax advocates all the time, relentlessly. So the kind of tra-la-la testing the waters thing, the whole spirit of it, and the motivation for it from questioning Teeveed's TBAN, in light of the context here in WP, is disturbing to me.

This led me to look at their contribs. Rhoark joined us in Nov 2014 and it was Men's Rights/Gamergate that drew them. here is their first-ever unpromising edit, which was on Microaggression theory. They went from there to Frankfurt School conspiracy theory and then on to GamerGate, where their editing let to a TBAN via an AE for 3 months in Feb 2015: here. When that ended, they were right back to Gamergating.

From their edit count, they spend way more time arguing on Talk pages than they do creating content:

article

34 R v Elliott (which they created - here is where the burst of creation put it)
24 Gamergate controversy
18 Gender representation in video games

Talk

426 Talk:Gamergate controversy where they wrote stuff like this from Dec 20 (they opened their account Nov 20) Please do have a look at that
15 Talk:Vaxxed
11 Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre
10 Talk:Masculism
9 Talk:Parapsychology (where they made wikilawyering arguments about parapsychnology not falling under PSCI like this, in this section back in June 2015 which appears to be their first interaction with PSCI.

So that is where Rhoark has come from. Up to their entry into the Vaxxed article, on PSCI/altmed topics pretty much all they have done is that unpromising toe-dipping into the parapychology article.

So I will be frank here - that is far enough. The last thing the community needs is importation of Gamergate-trained relentless Talk page wikilawyering into PSCI topics; no focus on actual content creation. The POINTYness, the "let's test the waters to see what other endless philosophical contentiousness I can get involved in" of this whole thing, including the "gotcha" of the AE filing itself, is really bad, as is the lack of ability to see why Teeveed was TBANed. Further entry is going to be a drain on the time of other editors who actually are productive in creating and maintaining content. I will put a stake in the ground and request that Rhoark be TBANed from PSCI and alt med topics. In general, Gamergate is a terrible training ground for the rest of the encyclopedia, and has attracted many people who are not here to build an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC) (amend Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

User:Rhoark - Yes folks know about my GMO TBAN, I acknowledged my history of too-harshness in my first substantial comment above, and you probably learned about the TBAN from reading my userpage where i disclose it, openly. Although you write here oh-so-smoothly, bringing that as a "gotcha" is just gutter tactics that, like this filing, says things about you.

More importantly nothing you wrote addresses the heart of what I raised here. Which is that you came to this article about an actually socially important topic and gamified it. You played a little game, it came out like you expected, you filed an AE. Nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia.

Changing the citation on Wakefield being a fraudster who took money from lawyers suing vaccine makers and who even filed a patent application for an alternative treatment shortly before he published his fraud, does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. (one source and there are zillions)
"Taking down" someone who does actual good work maintaining the neutrality of articles in the face of PSCI POV pushers doesn't help build an encyclopedia.
wasting everyone's time at the article with your game, and yet further with this AE, which has been met with a "meh", takes time away from people who are working to improve the encyclopedia

You did not come to the article to improve it. Nothing you wrote addresses that. If you had actually wanted to improve the article (not just cause drama), this would have been the edit to make.

Admins, gamergatification of alt med and PSCI topics is a nightmare that will be an endless time-suck for good faith editors; you can stop that right here. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rhoark it is great that you are withdrawing your AE request but in the absence of acknowledgement of the concerns that have been raised (and you should note that even before I wrote anything here, the only issue for The Wordsmith was whether this should boomerang), I am not withdrawing. This wasted a couple hours just of my time (I didn't write what I wrote without doing research), not to mention the time of others who interacted with you at Vaxxed and who commented here. Jytdog (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

offering side discussion here. Jytdog (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by D. Creish

My comment concerns Jytdog's section: the ratio of invective to diffs here is unacceptable. Especially so in a contentious topic area. On examination, this behavior mimics that which earned his GMO topic ban. A reminder or council from more authoritative editors seems in order.

I'll review the rest of the evidence and amend this section correspondingly. D.Creish (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lizzius

I ended up on the page that started this AE responding to an RFC on a related topic, and I am astonished at how different the tenor of this article/talk-space is relative to most other editing spaces on Wikipedia (well, at least editing spaces that I have encountered so far). I thought reading through the discussion here would help me understand where the disconnect in content originated from, but I am left scratching my head. On that note, I couldn't agree more with Jytdog concerning his point that turning topics like this into a bit of a quagmire could have nightmarish consequences for the legitimacy of the encyclopedia.

@D.Creish: I'm admittedly very new to editing Wikipedia (though your history would suggest you are too) and certainly new to participating in discussions like this, but what specifically about Jytdog's reply worries you? I see you haven't been terribly active in editing the topic at hand, though you and Jytdog have had some overlap while editing in other areas that I won't list here. Lizzius (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning MjolnirPants

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

I'm still in the process of reviewing the Talk page and archive, but based on the 20 diffs that were presented I don't see anything actionable. I'm on the fence as to whether or not this should boomerang. Unless someone can provide more compelling diffs either way, tomorrow I'll close this as no action taken. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwillkane

User:Wikiwillkane is warned to observe the terms of the 500/30 general prohibition. Further edits like those listed in this complaint may lead to a conventional ARBPIA topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Wikiwillkane

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 :

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

25 April 2016 Editing in the topic area
25 April 2016 Editing in the topic area
25 April 2016 Creating article in topic area
26 April 2016 Editing in the topic area
26 April 2016 Editing in topic area
26 April 2016 Editing in topic area
26 April 2016 Editing in topic area
26 April 2016 Editing in topic area

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Not applicable

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

Not applicable

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Informed by Huldra of the arbitration decision barring users with less than 500 edits from editing in the topic area on 25 April. Warned by me that continuing to edit in the topic area may result in being reported. Continued to edit in the topic area without responding. I dont know if its just they dont know to click on the link that says you have new messages or not, but something should be done to make sure the editor is aware that their edits are in violation of that decision (regardless of the general quality of the edits, which is bad) and that they agree to abide by the decision and refrain from editing in the topic area until they are allowed to do so.

The last edit was following my warning, all the ones from the 26th were after Huldra's notification, which as the editor is here responding to this makes me think that it was not simply being ignorant of the big you have new messages link meaning something. But regarding Dafna Meir, its an article on a woman killed in Israeli settlement by Palestinians. I dont think it gets much clearer than that, but hey who knows, maybe Im wrong and this new account knows something I dont. Pretty sure I did not reference a Roseanne Barr edit, but hey as the user brings it up, material on BDS is fairly clearly within the topic area as well. nableezy - 20:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Wikiwillkane

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 Wikiwillkane

I was given a warning from Nableezy regarding the 30/500 and heeded his/her advice, and have not edited since on a page that came up with a 30/500 warning. However, Nableezy seems to be unilaterally expanding the 30/500 to anything related to Israel. Editing Roseanne Barr's page with the simple fact that she was a keynote speaker at an anti-BDS conference in Israel seems well beyond the scope of the 30/500 and does not seem to be the original intent of the rule. If the 30/500 rule is placed on the Boycott, Sanctions, and Divestment (BDS) Movement, you will need to stop thousands who are presently editing on that topic without 30/500.

Regarding the Dafna Meir page, it never mentions "Palestinians" or "Terrorists," so, again, it should not be part of the 30/500 rule. It was about the murder of an Israeli woman.

Obviously, the 30/500 rule is not clear as some pages have the warning, others do not.

What about Roseanne Barr? At what point does the 30/500 not exist? If the word Israeli, anti-BDS, is that entire article now part of the 30/500? Dafna Meir did not mention Palestinians at all. She was a murder victim.

Statement by Huldra

Obviously, this editor does not believe that WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 is valid for them. After being warned, they start the article about Dafna Meir (nominated for deletion), claiming that it should "not be part of the 30/500 rule." (!) Please, could someone make this editor understand that WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 is also for them? Huldra (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that if Wikiwillkane actually creates an article on Simone Zimmerman "a Jew hired to be Bernie Sanders' Jewish Outreach Coordinator. She was let go because of her expletive-filled tirades against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and her detailed support of BDS" ---according to Wikiwillkane, then he should be blocked immediately, Huldra (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And if he has any information/proof of " Paid operatives" on wikipedia, I suggest he looks at WP:COI, on how to deal with that, Huldra (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter James

The restrictions specifically mention "page" and "article". If editors intend to apply it to related content in generally unrelated pages an amendment should be requested. Peter James (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RolandR: @Wikiwillkane: I would regard the Dafna Meir article (and others mentioned) as related - perhaps the subject wasn't but the event that is the only reason for the article's existence is, and Wikiwillkane is aware of this. I was referring to the Roseanne Barr article. Peter James (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: The Scientology case adds "or discussions on any page", should this case be amended to add that? Peter James (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikiwillkane

I agree to stay away from the Israeli-Arab conflict until I have reached the 500 edits. However, Wikipedia's 30/500 rule now seems to be extend an extremely board net over what is considered the "Arab-Israeli conflict." The 30/500 rule was on certain pages of that conflict, such as "Israel" the "West Bank," etc. Now it moved into an area that is discussed, especially regarding BDS, in almost every university campus today. Are you stating that a college student cannot write about a visiting lecturer who discusses BDS because they do not have 30 days or 500 edits on Wikipedia? Roseanne Barr is an internationally known celebrity who was a keynote speaker at a conference in Israel and it was written about extensively. This NOW is under the umbrella of 30/500??? Does that mean that nobody can write on the Students Justice for Palestine Wikipedia page because they discuss BDS? Hillary Clinton is a vocal critic of BDS. Does that mean that nobody can edit her page to reflect this or to write about a speech she gives? Wikipedia must look how many users are now using the 30/500 rule specifically to stifle the voices with opinions different than theirs. Deleting my comments that Roseanne was a keynote speaker at a conference in Israel based on 30/500 is such an example. When an administrator must do a search to see that one news article listed Dafna Meir's murder as terrorism in order to justify that she falls under the 30/500 rule is again an example of far-reaching.

I would like further clarity from EdJohnston. Are you stating that all users without 500 edits and 30 days on Wikipedia are not allowed to edit anything that is connected to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement... not just on the BDS page, but any pages totally unrelated to BDS. So, if Howard Stern goes on a rant against BDS, a user without 500/30 cannot update Stern's webpage? Is that what you are stating?

Without responding to my previous questions, EdJohnston asked me to agree to his terms. I still don't have clarity, but I'll agree to this: I will stay away from marked pages of the Arab-Israeli conflict, as well as unmarked pages such as Israeli Palestinian Conflict and the Palestine Liberation Organization. However, I will not refrain from simply editing in Roseanne Barr's page that she was a keynote speaker at an anti-BDS conference in Jerusalem or from editing about Student's for Justice in Palestine, or anything related to BDS. By doing this, you are limiting thousands of students from editing on a topic that is discussed daily in universities globally.

Better you look at your own 500/30 policy and how editors are using it specifically to limit other (less biased) POVs. This is the crime more than having a historian edit on Wikipedia with less than 500 edits.

And I will be creating a Simone Zimmerman article. This is a Jew hired to be Bernie Sanders' Jewish Outreach Coordinator. She was let go because of her expletive-filled tirades against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and her detailed support of BDS. The slippery slope you've created about how 500/30 extends is getting slippery and slippery.

Rather than Wikipedia spending its time and efforts attacking people like me who simply want to edit, why don't you create regulations against paid operatives who are trolling Wikipedia for users like me, who have different opinions, then throwing the 500/30 net to limit their ability to edit? Sock puppetting no. Paid operative abusing the 500/30 rule okay.

If Huldra wants me banned because I've said that I will create a Wikipedia page about Simone Zimmerman, then I suggest you get ready for the onslaught of hundreds, if not thousands of editors that you will need to sanction. This is not a threat. It is a reality about BDS and the debate that is happening in our colleges across the country. This 500/30 has become too far reaching and is well beyond either the original intent or scope of why it was created. I am now signing off for the end of Passover and the Sabbath, and I'll return on Sunday (if I need to respond to a question).

Statement by RolandR

Peter James above engages in the most egregious wikilawyering with his quibble about "page" and "article". The sanction explicitly refers to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". Every one of the articles noted in the original complaint (Israeli-occupied territories, Palestinian political violence, Dafna Meir, Omar Barghouti, Judea and Samaria Area) is unequivocally related to the conflict. Indeed, it would be unreasonable to construe any of them as unrelated. RolandR (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter James continues his irrelevancies. The article on Roseanne Barr was not mentioned in the complaint, and has only been raised as a distraction manoeuvre by Wikiwillkane. In any case, editing an otherwise non-related article to add a reference to the conflict is indeed covered by the sanctions, as has been confirmed in a case relating to edits to Mobile, Alabama. RolandR (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darwinian Ape

rant on

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."

The problem comes from the sanction itself rather than the editor conduct. 500/30 restriction is the antithesis of Wikipedia, yet here we have a broad spectrum of (current and future)articles with that restriction. Wikipedia, encyclopedia anyone can edit, unless it's a contentious topic, then you have to first go edit articles about broomsticks and teaspoons. Oh and did I also mention you have to wait for a period of 30 days? Same as acquiring a gun! Yes editing Wikipedia and guns, totally the same thing.

rant off

If we put my little objection to the sanction aside, the problem is not adding the brand new extended protection to all pages that are "reasonably" construed as related to Arab Israeli conflict. Doing so will prevent this kind of AE requests to a degree. And it's only fair that we have a standard in preventing these lowly new editors and IP's from editing other than the involved editors of their respected articles.(What I'm trying to say is they may be unconsciously biased in their reporting.) That is my humble opinion on the matter. Darwinian Ape^talk 18:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Wikiwillkane

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

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions is marked on its talk page with the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} template. Revert-warring at Roseanne Barr to add mention of a speech at a BDS event also evidently falls under the sanctions. (Other edits of Roseanne Barr would not be covered). Dafna Meir, an Israeli woman killed at the West Bank settlement of Otniel in what is described by the Times of Israel as a 'terror attack' is presumably part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I'd go ahead with a block of Wikiwillkane unless they agree to stay away from the Arab-Israeli conflict until they have reached 500 edits and 30 days' activity. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwillkane has responded and agreed to stay away from the Arab-Israeli conflict until they reach 500 edits. Under my interpretation this means, no more edits like any of those given above as diffs 1 through 8. It also means not posting A-I conflict-related material anywhere on Wikipedia, such as in his own sandbox or on user talk or noticeboards. If he accepts this then the complaint can probably be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The committee has in the past decided that discretionary sanctions can apply to just one section of a larger article. They ruled that the Scientology-related content of an article fell under discretionary sanctions but not the rest. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikiwillwane, creation of a new article about Simone Zimmerman that mentioned the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement would indeed be a violation. It doesn't appear that you have any plans to abide by the 500/30 restriction, so I suggest this request be closed with a block or other sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. Wikiwillane is warned to abide by the 500/30 general prohibition. Should he make further edits like the eight diffs listed in this report, he may be given an indefinite topic ban from all of WP:ARBPIA. This would prevent him from making edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages and noticeboards, and from making A-I related edits to other articles that are mainly not about the conflict, such as Roseanne Barr. This would take away any uncertainty as to what rules apply. EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by STSC

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

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

Appealing user: STSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – STSC (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from the subject of Falun Gong, imposed at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#STSC

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

Notification of that administrator: [101]

Statement by STSC

I appeal the sanction and I want it to be lifted. Based on this discussion on the neutrality of the article title [102], The Wordsmith wrongly determined that my comment "openly supports the elimination of a religious group as a good and necessary thing".

I commented, "Falun Gong was considered [by the Chinese] as posing a danger to Chinese society and therefore [the Chinese considered it] must be eliminated from China"... Wikipedia is neutral and should not make judgement on the Chinese internal policy for the good of its society."

My comment was pointing out that "Falun Gong was considered as posing a danger to Chinese society and therefore must be eliminated from China" is a Chinese internal policy. I used the wording "was considered" by a third party, the sentence as a whole was meant to be expressing the viewpoint of China.

Further statement

Admins are accountable to the Wikipedia community and they must properly explain their actions; and we certainly don't just accept some blanket statements as to what they think without showing any concrete evidence. It's a hasty and poor judgement by The Wordsmith who has not thoroughly investigated the complaint in a fair manner. STSC (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wordsmith's decision [103] was based on a comment in a discussion in June 2015, I have refuted his claim that my comment supports the elimination of a religious group. He then came up with other claims in his statement in this appeal but failed to provide any evidence as to when, where and how. I must ask the sanction to be lifted in the interest of accountability and fairness. STSC (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: Please show us the evidence of "bias and POV pushing". STSC (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Please show us the evidence that demonstrates the "cause for concern to justify the sanction". STSC (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBlueCanoe: I could have replied point by point to your baseless complaint but I did not have the time to do so. Don't try to misrepresent my comment of 1 June 2015, in that discussion about the neutrality of the title Persecution of Falun Gong, I said, "Unlike the main religious groups - Christianity or Islam, Falun Gong is just a cult as classified in China. What the Chinese government did was crackdown on a cult inside China. "Persecution" is not a suitable word to describe the government's operations on the illegal activities within its own country... such process should not be described as "persecution" as if the elimination is undesirable... My main point is Wikipedia must not take sides on this." I stand by my comment which is wholly related to the argument as to whether the word "persecution" is neutral. STSC (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark: You should not take my comment out of the context of whether the title Persecution of Falun Gong is neutral per WP:NPOV. I was pointing out the word "persecution" would suggest that the Chinese policy of elimination of Falun Gong is undesirable, therefore it would make Wikipedia appear to take sides on Falun Gong. As I suggested in that discussion, "Crackdown on Falun Gong" would be a more neutral title. STSC (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryk72: You don't just believe whatever the accuser tells you but can you show us what is wrong in those diffs dated some time ago? STSC (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: If you want any specific information then I will try my best to provide. I don't think The Wordworth's conclusions are reasonable because obviously he has not looked into the circumstances and the sources related to those diffs. STSC (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrigley: I have put too much faith on the admins as I wasn't bothered to defend myself against each accusation. After all, the admins are not qualified judges, but The Wordsmith clearly has not done his job properly; if he had looked into the sources and the circumstances related to those diffs, then he would had found out the accusations are baseless. Besides, those edits happened quite a while ago. To give me a topic ban is quite a joke, I sincerely hope that no element of prejudice has played a part in the admin's decision. STSC (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryk72: I have refuted the allegations in those ANIs so you just leave them out of this case. STSC (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Wordsmith

Obviously I stand by the sanction I imposed. I believe it to be in the best interests of that topic area that STSC be removed from participation. Reviewing their contributions makes it clear that they have lost the ability to edit in accordance with our policies and guidelines. I believe their pattern of bias and POV pushing to demonstrate an agenda that is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of Wikipedia. Therefore, a lesser sanction or finite duration would not have been effective. I arrived at this conclusion after an in-depth review of all the evidence presented and after careful consideration of all the statements given, and I maintain that it is within the bounds of Administrator discretion allowed by Discretionary Sanctions.

I take pride in the fact that of all the enforcement actions I have issued, only one has ever been overturned, and that was in 2010 (and by an editor who was later banned by the Arbitration Committee). However, I'm still human, and therefore fallible. I welcome a review of the sanction issued. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by TheBlueCanoe

It seems highly unlikely that anyone will overturn this topic ban, but here are some quick responses to the discussion:

Yes, STSC was describing the Chinese government's viewpoint. Yet, in his own voice, he then opines that the "elimination" of a religious creed should not be considered undesirable. This is what's problematic, and it speaks to his bias. I thought this was pretty obvious.
Shrigley observes that there is more than one way to interpret the Chinese government's campaign to eliminate Falun Gong. This is true. On the one hand, it involves the use of torture and "reeducation" to force people to abandon the practice. (The notion that this is about enabling people to "return to their families" or reintegrate into society may be the government's purported justification for forcible imprisonment and torture, but it's difficult to sustain in the face of the evidence). When ideological reprogramming fails, physical elimination does occur—this is why some jurists have argued that the campaign may be characterized as a genocide. Large-scale killing may not be the first resort, in other words, but it has happened. The only real question relates to the scale of the killing. Either way, it doesn't seem like a stretch to say that these policies amount to a "persecution", or that they are undesirable from a human rights perspective.
There are many scenarios where central governments prohibit torture but lack the capacity to enforce that prohibition at the local levels. That is not what's happening here. Human rights groups, scholars and journalists studying this campaign instead observe the opposite dynamic: central-level authorities sanctioned the use of torture against Falun Gong adherents, created a quota system that incentivized abuse, and granted impunity to the local enforcers.
I don't think anyone need be concerned that STSC's absence will have any undesirable effect on these pages.

Finally, this may be obvious, but Shrigley is not exactly "uninvolved"—at least not in the broader Falun Gong topic area. Some time ago I recalled that he fought vigorously (and unsuccessfully) to prevent an article about an apparent Falun Gong torture death from appearing as a DYK.[104] There too, he presented himself as a neutral reviewer—which he evidently was not. TheBlueCanoe 18:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

Only wishing to point out here that the elimination of a religious creed of any sort is not in and of itself in all cases definitely undesirable. If it were possible to retroactively eliminate heaven's Gate or the People's Temple, as groups, prior to the eventual suicides, I think most people might find that desirable. And there are or have been a few other religious groups over the years which have had core beliefs which have later been found to be without any reasonable foundation, and I rather doubt that the "elimination" they may have suffered when their beliefs were found baseless is one most people would necessarily find objectionable. Also, honestly, if Christian Identity or perhaps other groups tied to White supremacist ideology were "eliminated" in some way, preferably through means other than killing all of them of course, I wonder how many people would object.

I also, admittedly belately, support a lot of Shrigley's comments below regarding the "political correctness"/"PRC is bad" attitude which tends to prevail relating to FG related matters in the West. By most medical standards, FG practices qualify as quack medicine, which a lot of people in China accept because it is (1) traditional to them and (2) a lot cheaper than more useful Western medicine, which doesn't have the same pseudoscience/quackery issues as FG and other Qigong practices do. The fact that FG is now the standard-bearer of Western criticism of the PRC is another issue. We have had editors here labelled as supporters of the PRC for disagreeing with FG, if I remember correctly, and that same tendency toward labelling of FG opposers seems to me to be even stronger in outside press.

Right now, the assessment criteria of the Falun Gong work group at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Falun Gong articles by quality statistics indicate a total of 28 articles of stub class or similar here, not counting all the NA pages. Is there any sort of way to maybe put them all under pending changes or similar so that maybe the only way to bring really substantive changes to them is through broad consensus through an RfC? That is, admittedly, a rather draconian proposal, but with so few articles, and what is to my eyes a rather obvious Western bias in the issue, it might, maybe, be workable. John Carter (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark

I am unconvinced that STSC was describing only the perspective of the Chinese establishment, and not their own authentic views (or possibly if they are living in China, views that they are compelled to publicly adhere to.) It's plausible that the "must be eliminated" section was intended to imply "from the perspective of the Chinese authorities", but such an interpretation does not concord with the rest of the statement, "...such process should not be described as 'persecution' as if the elimination is undesirable. Wikipedia is neutral and should not make judgement on the Chinese internal policy for the good of its society." This strikes me as the perspective of someone who internalizes official Chinese diktat rather than just describes it. If I'm wrong though, STSC should have no trouble positively affirming that no one should be violently compelled to renounce religious beliefs.

Anyone seized by a fashionable moral relativism should actually read the practices detailed at Persecution of Falun Gong, which is not so much analogous to Germany's treatment of Scientology as to Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany, which I challenge anyone to describe as "internal policy for the good of its society." Rhoark (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrigley

TheWordsmith's comment here, which justifies the sanction, does not show me that he critically considered whether TheBlueCanoe's diffs about STSC correctly impugned STSC's character. The filer of that original AE request is, as is obvious to anyone with experience in the Falun Gong editspace (it is necessary to drop certain cultural biases: more on that later), very motivated to see a sympathetic viewpoint to Falun Gong represented on Wikipedia, and to see unsympathetic viewpoints excised. I wish more people made specific comments analyzing the diffs and how they were presented. I don't have time now, but maybe I will if this appeal stays open a few more days.

If this diff is considered the "smoking gun" of STSC's supposed animus towards Falun Gong, it is weak evidence indeed. In the first place, the sentence structure (admittedly, his grammar is not perfectly native) shows that STSC was describing a viewpoint -- of Chinese society in general or the Chinese government in particular, it is not clear but does not matter -- and not expressing it: Falun Gong was considered... and therefore must be eliminated note "was considered [by China]", not "should be considered [I implore you]". Also, I think STSC was not delicate enough with language on a very delicate subject. "Eliminate" can mean two things.

Falun Gong as a corporate entity, à la RICO, must be eliminated. On an individual basis, this means a kind of intervention by local government officials to persuade FLG members to return to their families, accept medical care that the practice had forbidden, etc. I encourage speaking about the Chinese government's efforts like this, because it is more precise, and it is a dispassionate extension of people-first language. People join the rolls of Falun Gong, and can separate themselves from and denounce the organization (even if FLG continues to count them); they are not Falun Gong until they die, as the extremists would say.
Falun Gong as a collection of people, must be "eliminated". Obviously this language suggests that some kind of horrible mass-killing is going on, which is the image that human rights advocacy groups would like to evoke, but it doesn't quite jive with what the best scholars of Chinese politics and religion think the state is trying to do. "Religious persecution" is similar language; our article on it immediately talks about crimes against humanity. If you think speaking of "persecution" is okay in this case; you are probably a victim of an etic WP:WORLDVIEW. We are much more careful here on en.wiki about describing the laws that, say, the German government uses to limit Scientology as "persecution" of that religion/cult/whatever-group.

A cursory look at TheBlueCanoe's diffs reveals them to be deeply problematic for anyone with specialist subject knowledge. For example, TBC lists this diff as evidence of STSC's bias. However, as with many third world countries, torture happens in China by local governments, despite it being illegal on a national level (and prosecuted by the central government when these cases are exposed!), because of certain perverse incentives to improve crime statistics for increased funding: the idea that certain incidents of torture happened as a planned tool of a national campaign against Falun Gong is pretty controversial. Shrigley (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the comments here, speculating on STSC's personal position on Falun Gong, are out of line. We should not be taking a page out of Joseph McCarthy's committee and demanding that someone denounce the Chinese government in order to edit Wikipedia's articles on these topics. This is a problem that all editors with lived experience or advanced education in the China-related topics area face: just by understanding the Chinese cultural point of view enough to explain it, you are accused of being a PRC government shill, rabid nationalist, or paid public relations specialist. With Falun Gong it's even worse, because answering what they consider to be "slander" is practically a religious precept. (It also boosts their profits and employment.)

I am glad that more people have realized that Thewordsmith's enacting of the ban was immediately based on a misinterpretation of STSC's grammar. In the original AE thread, and here, STSC did not argue vigorously and specifically enough that TheBlueCanoe was misrepresenting the diffs. I could make that argument, but that would just lead TBC to continue to cast aspersions on me. Since unfortunately this discussion has turned into a kind of referendum on how we feel about what's going on in China, I should point out that Falun Gong's activities do not end at China's border. In addition to their propaganda, the organization's exclusionary practices against gay people, mixed-race people, and those who submit to modern medicine, provoke controversy in the Chinese diasporic community. Despite what some editors here imply, FLG's critics are not only one government. Shrigley (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by STSC

What Was Said

The critical edit here, apparently, is this:

Not every cult is harmful. Falun Gong was considered as posing a danger to Chinese society and therefore must be eliminated from China; such process should not be described as "persecution" as if the elimination is undesirable. Wikipedia is neutral and should not make judgement on the Chinese internal policy for the good of its society.

This is neither very clear or grammatical, but of course Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and some editors are not native speakers. If I were copy-editing this, my assumption is that the intended meaning was that "Falun Gong was considered [by the government] to be a danger to Chinese society; therefore, [the government] believed it must be eliminated from China." I would then have inverted the order to remove the passive: "The government considered Falun Gong to be a danger to Chinese society, and that it ought to be eliminated from China. This is not, I think, a strained or unreasonable interpretation, and seems to me to be a reasonable summary of one received narrative.

Even if the sentiments ought to be ascribed to the editor, which I think is doubtful, we have "Falun Gong is a danger to society and must be eliminated from China." This is intolerant and un-American, but I’m not entirely certain that we should be banning people who hold un-American beliefs. I would observe that the Court of Massachusetts felt much this way about Roger Williams in 1636, that American Nativists expressed much the same about Catholic immigration, and that a current candidate for the US Presidency has called for a moratorium on Moslem immigration. Even if policy prohibits the practice of religious intolerance, I doubt that it prohibits its description.

STSC is incorrect in asserting that this "should not be described as "persecution" as if the elimination is undesirable." Persecution is precisely the right word. An non-native speaker, or simply an editor with a limited background, might recognize only the informal, colloquial sense of persecution, and not understand that this is precisely its technical meaning. Otherwise, STSC’s statement makes no sense at all.

I don’t disagree with Seraphimblade -- I’ve not examined the rest of the history -- but I suggest this ill-composed passage has been misinterpreted. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, absent this particular diff and associated Wikilawyering, the remaining 39-odd diffs in the initial filing appear sufficiently compelling. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With actual, rather than pretended, respect, this is not Wikilawyering. It’s close reading and editing of the passage that one administrator considered of special importance. I possess some small expertise in this area, which that administrator might lack; not everyone is called upon to review technical and scholarly papers by non-native speakers. WiikiHounding, however, is contrary to policy. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should understand that the world, and the Wikipedia community, encompasses many persons with expertise in many areas; some of whom perform the task of reviewing technical and scholarly comment by non-native speakers of English on a daily basis. In this particular instance, I do not believe that the original finding was contingent upon this singular diff, and to focus thereon is to follow a red herring. Nor do I believe that the appellant has shown that the original finding was flawed; far less sufficiently so as to uphold this appeal and overturn the finding. WP:HOUNDING is indeed contrary to policy, I encourage those engaging in it to stop. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous ANI filings

I also note the following filings at WP:ANI - December 2015 [105]; February 2016 [106] - which would seem to indicate that the behaviours discussed in the original WP:AE filing are both long standing and wider spread than the Falun Gong topic space. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by STSC

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

The original complaint had more than enough cause for concern to justify the sanction imposed. I'm quite honestly amazed it took that long for it to happen. Needless to say, I therefore recommend to decline this appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MarkBernstein makes some interesting points, but no single statement by STSC was the straw that broke the camel's back so it wouldn't change the outcome. I believe The Wordsmith's conclusions and actions were reasonable and executed within policy. I don't see new information that warrants removal of the topic ban so I recommend declining the appeal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonniefood

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 Jonniefood

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mo ainm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jonniefood (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/The Troubles :

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

[107] First revert
[108] Second revert

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Diff of notification of sanctions

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 2 April 2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Clear breach of the 1RR that is enforced on all articles related to The Troubles. This editor is a single purpose account in the area of the Ulster Banner and the Northern Ireland flag issue..

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification of this request

Discussion concerning Jonniefood

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 Jonniefood

Statement by (Miles Creagh)

The diffs presented by the reporting editor don't seem to show true reverts, as each deals with different material and distinct language in the article in question. Also not sure it is appropriate to comment on the editor rather than content, by mentioning SPAs etc. Miles Creagh (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jonniefood

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 587: / Line 587: @@
 ==Wikiwillkane==
+{{hat|1=[[User:Wikiwillkane]] is warned to observe the terms of the 500/30 general prohibition. Further edits like those listed in this complaint may lead to a conventional ARBPIA topic ban. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 23:41, 30 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 Wikiwillkane===
 ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Nableezy}} 17:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@@ Line 687: / Line 686: @@
 <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
 *
-*[[Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions]] is marked on its talk page with the {{tl|Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} template. Revert-warring at [[Roseanne Barr]] to add mention of a speech at a BDS event also evidently falls under the sanctions. (Other edits of Rosanne Barr would not be covered). [[Dafna Meir]], an Israeli woman killed at the West Bank settlement of [[Otniel]] in what is described by the Times of Israel as a 'terror attack' is presumably part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I'd go ahead with a block of Wikiwillkane unless they agree to stay away from the Arab-Israeli conflict until they have reached 500 edits and 30 days' activity. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 04:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
+*[[Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions]] is marked on its talk page with the {{tl|Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} template. Revert-warring at [[Roseanne Barr]] to add mention of a speech at a BDS event also evidently falls under the sanctions. (Other edits of Roseanne Barr would not be covered). [[Dafna Meir]], an Israeli woman killed at the West Bank settlement of [[Otniel]] in what is described by the Times of Israel as a 'terror attack' is presumably part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I'd go ahead with a block of Wikiwillkane unless they agree to stay away from the Arab-Israeli conflict until they have reached 500 edits and 30 days' activity. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 04:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 :*Wikiwillkane has responded and agreed to stay away from the Arab-Israeli conflict until they reach 500 edits. Under my interpretation this means, no more edits like any of those given above as diffs 1 through 8. It also means not posting A-I conflict-related material anywhere on Wikipedia, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wikiwillkane/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=708547988 in his own sandbox] or on user talk or noticeboards. If he accepts this then the complaint can probably be closed. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 16:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 ::*The committee has in the past decided that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Request_for_clarification_.28April_2013.29 discretionary sanctions can apply to just one section of a larger article]. They ruled that the Scientology-related content of an article fell under discretionary sanctions but not the rest. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 04:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 :*[[User:Wikiwillwane]], creation of a new article about Simone Zimmerman that mentioned the [[Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions]] movement would indeed be a violation. It doesn't appear that you have any plans to abide by the 500/30 restriction, so I suggest this request be closed with a block or other sanction. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 14:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
+::*Closing. Wikiwillane is '''warned''' to abide by the 500/30 general prohibition. Should he make further edits like the eight diffs listed in this report, he may be given an indefinite topic ban from all of [[WP:ARBPIA]]. This would prevent him from making edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages and noticeboards, and from making A-I related edits to other articles that are mainly not about the conflict, such as [[Roseanne Barr]]. This would take away any uncertainty as to what rules apply. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 23:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
+{{hab}}
 ==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by STSC==

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