Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:41, 4 August 2016

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

TripWire

TripWire (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all Balochistan related articles, broadly construed, for three months. Both TripWire and Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) are placed on a 'casting aspersions' restriction (described in detail on their talk). This same restriction is applied to all articles in the India-Pakistan area, broadly construed. Further, any edit made by an IP or new editor alleging socking or meatpuppetry may be freely reverted and any accusations ignored on article or user talk pages. SPI is the only place for such allegations. Finally, editors are warned from gaming the process by canvassing or other means; future disruption of this nature may result in a block. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 11:57, 29 July 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 TripWire

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: TripWire (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: ARBIPA

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

9 July 2016 (History of Gilgit-Baltistan) Reinstates an edit , for which another editor just got topic-banned. The edit comes with a combative edit summary: "They dont become unreialble because you say so." Dismisses the extensive discussion at Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan by the curt brushoff: "the sources are fine, it's your interpretation of them that is wrong."
9 July 2016 (Baloch Students Organization) Deletes content attributed to the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) comparing it to "Facebook". Repeats the revert the next day, ignoring the talk page discussion.
8 July 2016 (Baloch Students Organization) Adds "separatist fighter" as a LABEL for the founder of the organization. This fails to be NPOV because the founder was not a separatist fighter at the time and plenty of other sources do not use the description. In the talk page discussion, doubles down on POV and starts comparing the founder to Osama Bin Laden.
4 July 2016 CANVASSing for an RfC at WP:WikiProject Pakistan without a parallel post to WP:WikiProject India. The subject at hand deals with alleged Indian involvement in Balochistan conflict. (The RfC itself is now closed because it was initiated by a banned user, but that doesn't mitigate the obvious attempt of canvassing.)
8 May 2016 (Balochistan conflict) Reverts well-sourced content of Bharatiya29and repeats the revert seven times further. The talk page discussion here and here is throroughly deadlocked due to TripWire's tendentious position and argumentation. The compromises I propose are obsturcted.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

3 July 2015 Future Perfect at Sunrise topic-banned the user from all edits related to Pakistani politics and Indian/Pakistani conflicts. FP's diagnosis: that you are a tendentious editor whose presence on Wikipedia is motivated almost entirely to a desire to push a certain national POV."

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 3 July 2015 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 10 April 2016 and 19 May 2016.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user came back from a topic ban about 6 months ago and went back to the old ways soon after. At the previous AE request on 10 April, I argued against a sanction because I felt the user was showing improvement and a lot of the activity at that time centered on a sock (MBlaze Lightning). That is not the case any more. The user's talk page discussion is merely stonewalling. They constantly tell others to seek consensus, but never strive for consensus themselves. The POV that they push is not merely that of nationalism but of the State. Even AHRC's objections are brushed off.

The edit that breaks the camel's back is the latest edit on 9 July (diff 1). This one reinstates the edit of a user that just got topic-banned, deleting content sourced to scholarly sources and replacing it with OR. Two fake citations (one pointing to the last page of a book's index and another to a newspaper opinion column) appear, neither of which supports the claim that Gilgit-Baltistan "unconditionally acceded" to Pakistan. This is merely the State's propaganda that is being pushed on Wikipedia.

Most other users that have tried to reason with the user have given up in exasperation. I am at wit's end. I think it is time to take action again.

Responses: TripWire's long-winded, rambling response illustrates the same frivilous attitude that pervades all their discussions. This is not the place for content discussion anyway.

Reinstating the banned user's edit at 20:42, 9 July at History of Gilgit-Baltistan was their first edit ever on Gilgit-Baltistan topics. The second edit at 20:48, 9 July at Talk: Gilgit-Baltistan was the brushoff: the sources are fine, which completely ignores the preceding discussion. I see no effort to obtain consensus in this approach, or any regard to reliability of sources and Wikipedia policies. Which sources were fine? The last page of the index of a book? An op-ed that has no mention of "unconditional accesstion"? Why TripWire suddenly got interested in Gilgit-Baltistan at this time is another interesting question. (My own contributions to the articles can be seen on Xtools here and here.)
The explanation that TripWire came to the page because of a twitter feed of anonymous Pakistani edits, is not likely. The last such edit on History of Gilgit-Baltistan was six months ago. It is much more likely that they saw the posts of Saladin1987 on my talk page or SheriffIsInTown's talk page and decided to be the Robin Hood. Saladin's versions on Gilgit-Baltistan could not be reinstated because they had been revdel'ed. History of Gilgit-Baltistan was next.
TripWire also conveniently hides behind the screen of "defending Wikipedia against socks." But a sock has to be reported and blocked before we revert their edits. If, in fact, TripWire had known the sock's identity, why did they canvass at WikiProject Pakistan for the sock's RfC? Besides the sock, plenty of regular editors have also defended the content: Bharatiya29, myself, Kashmiri and Spartacus!.
The defense that TripWire didn't know the relevance of the topic to WikiProject India is also disingeneous, because they themselves mentioned "India" over a dozen times in the talk page discussion. And, they claimed to be well-versed with the CANVASSing policies as well.
TripWire claims unawareness of Saladin1987 being topic-banned; fair enough. But then the question remains what due diligence they did before reinstating content reverted by two experienced users: Thomas.W and me. Did they even look at the citations that were given?

Nationalistic POV: TripWire asks where they exhibited nationalistic POV. At Wikipedia, we aim to provide a fair representation of all the views expressed in reliable sources (WP:NPOV). TripWire's position in diff 1 is that of the Pakistani State, viz., Gilgit-Baltistan voluntarily acceded to Pakistan. Scholars disagree and they are dismissed. In diffs 2, 3, and 5, they support the State's views such as Kulbhushan Yadav is an Indian spy and Baloch Students Organization is a terrorist organization. All contrary views are dismissed. Nuro Dragonfly, a neutral third-party editor that came to mediate on the Kulbhushan Yadav page, had this to say at an earlier ARE case: "All attempts to create a neutral POV consensus in the article have been rejected by either FreeatlastChitchat or TripWire on all occasions, especially once the subject matter turns to the fact that everything that Pakistan has said on the matter is just a claim, exactly the same as everything India says is just a claim."[1]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to TopGun and SherifffIsInTown

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

TopGun comment: I am afraid TopGun throws up a number of red herrings to obfuscate and derail the case. All the reverts mentioned above are to the content contributed by me or Bharatiya29, not those of any socks. And, I am not raising content issues, but those of conduct. Yes, DRN is an appropriate venue when there is a genuine dispute. But if TripWire throws up nationalistic POV on a daily basis, DRN doesn't have the manpower to deal with it all. As for my taking responsibility for "sock edits," I only did so for MBlaze Lightning edits. I am sure TopGun would have done the same if people reverted Mar4d's edits when he got banned for socking. All this is irrelevant to the issues at hand. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SheriffIsInTown comment: SheriffIsInTown is absolutely right that I edit all South Asia topics with the same "state of mind," viz., NPOV. I am not sure why we are talking about me here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On The Wordsmith proposals: I think we are beyond the stage of civility now. TripWire did learn something from their last topic ban. Their strategy now is to quietly push POV without being noticeable. For example, if we look at the diff 1, they deleted content sourced to scholarly sources {{sfn|Schofield|2003|pp=63-64}} and Yaqoob Khan Bangash's journal article, and replaced it with content citing fake sources (the same Schofield book with a meaningless page number 278, and an opinion column from Dawn [2], neither of which supports the new content). In fact the Dawn column argues the opposite point of view. This is just a reckless WP:BATTLEGROUND edit, meant to pick a fight. Anybody looking at the edit would simply think it is a content dispute and wouldn't know that anything is wrong. Likewise, the talk page comment, "The sources are fine. It is your understanding that is wrong." is not particularly uncivil. It is the unwillingness to engage with the actual subject but nevertheless revert edits that makes it BATTLEGROUND. Even after I reported the issue here, TripWire didn't bother to find out what the issues are, calling it simply "WALLOFTEXT." I am not sure how civility parole would address this behaviour. How am I supposed to engage with an editor that has no clue what is going on?

I rarely recommend topic bans. I argued against the topic-ban for Towns Hill and I also argued with Bishonen against the topic ban for Saladin1987, even though, ironically, the latter was banned for edit-wars and personal attacks against me. If an editor brings up valuable points and looks half-way reasonable, I prefer to reason with them rather than to punish them. In the case of TripWire, none of that works. I think topic ban is the right course of action here.

TripWire is of no particular use to Wikipedia. Other than the Kulbhushan Yadav page, where their contribution is apparently 35%, no other article shows any contribution above 1-2%. Their main participation on Wikipedia has been to edit-war and disrupt other editors that do actually contribute. Before TripWire entered the scene in June 2015, the India-Pakistan space was quite stable. As Future Perfect at Sunrise has rightly pointed out, TripWire's entry has been "harmful to the project." Their presence and behaviour has set a bad example to all new editors and derailed even seasoned editors like FreeatlastChitchat . ARBIPA sanctions are here precisely to take care of editors like them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the proposed IBAN: I have quite a few reservations about the proposed IBAN. But I promise to think about it carefully overnight. Meanwhile, I would like to request RegentsPark and NeilN to provide their input on the viability of the proposal. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After an overnight consideration, my reservations about IBAN are unchanged. The edit restrictions on Kashmir conflict pages implemented by RegentsPark have been working well so far. I would welcome their extension to all pages involving India-Pakistan conflicts. As for the matter of DS socks or other socks, I have always acted within policy and will continue to do so. This is not the appropriate place to debate the policy itself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the socks problem: TripWare states that I used [their] edits/comments (diffs) against the sock here at the AE report. I have double-checked all my diffs and none of them involve any socks. On the other hand, until a sock is identified, reported and blocked, we must treat them like any other editor. I am at a loss to understand this idea of "supporting socks." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More on the remedies: As I have said above, I welcome the extension of the entire package of restrictions RegentsPark implemented for Kashmir conflict. I am not confident that the aspersion restriction alone is enough. In fact, I don't believe a serious problem of aspersions on individual editors occurred. It did occur for sources, but that is, to an extent, legitimate, as part of interrogating the sources.

I am also not confident that we, as a community, are at wit's end yet. No serious edit-warring occurred in all the cases I mentioned. No serious breach of civility. Aspersions on editors was also not an issue. The problem was really disregard for Wikipedia policies of Verifiability and WP:NPOV. So I would prefer this to be treated as an issue of individual conduct rather than a systemic issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final (?) comment on the remedies: I don't think the remedy (2) is necessary because the aspersions were really cast on the sources rather than on the editors. But, since RegentsPark has proposed it, I will accept it, and aim to get better in future. The remedy (3) needs more clarity. Does "India-Pakistan articles" mean all of India articles and all of Pakistan articles? Or only India-Pakistan conflict articles? If the latter, does it include Balochistan conflict articles, which is where the problems have arisen at the moment? Finally, if TripWire is going to be sanctioned, I suppose they need to be told why they are being sanctioned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [3]

Discussion concerning TripWire

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 TripWire

Oh, so may WP:ASPERSIONS. Will humbly try to answer:

9 July 2016. This was a perfectly fine sourced edit by another editor which was reverted by Kautilya3. I, having found the edit legit, reverted him back (my only edit on that page). Per WP:BRD, this is the normal sequence of events, why jump the gun instead of discussing it at talk? Second, there was no 'extensive' discussion as claimed, just a WP:WALLOFTEXT by him. He should have discussed the dispute instead of bringing it here.

And how would I know that some user has been topic banned? And how could Kautilya3 ascertain that it was that particular edit which caused the ban?

9 July 2016. This Asian Human Rights Commission edit was neither RS nor encyclopedic. How can a petition/appeal posted anonymously at an 'Appeals Website' be reliable or encyclopedic? This was amply explained to Kautilya3 in the edit-summary and even at the talk page that AHRC isnt reliable nor official as the website itself states in its "About Us' that it is "non-governmental body" which he conveniently ignored.

I gave FOUR reasons for the revert in the edit-summary, all ignored by him.

It's strange that Kautilya3 himself deletes/reverts sourced content (attributed to three RS: Express Tribune, Dawn and even a Book) in the same article, and when I revert his deletion of sourced content, he uses the same against me here. But when his own poorly sourced edit gets reverted, he ironically uses the same too against me?

Moreover, Facebook example was used to make Kautilya3 understand that online appeals launched by random people cannot be used to build WP, or can it be?? How can an appeal launched at "FB Causes" be synthesized into saying that Facebook "severely" condemns the whatever action stated in the appeal? Especially when the appeal itself does not even use the word severely?? A classic example of WP:FAKE and WP:NPOV.

Last, the edit followed WP:BRD, no edit warring, dear Admins, what's wrong in that?

8 July 2016. This shows Kautilya3's bias. Kautilya3 used this Al Jazeera source and attributed it thrice in the article. But when I used Kautilya3's own source to add portion of info which was deliberately omitted (that the subject was a "separatist fighter"), I am projected as the bad guy?! I even mentioned this in the edit-summary and at the talk-discussion (ignoring of which was fine by Kautilya3, but he accuses me of ignoring talk discussions). How on earth can only Kautilya3 use portions of the source which suits his POV and omit, and then revert the portion of the SAME source (already used by HIMSELF) that does not line with his opinion? How can this be acceptable? Admins???

For clarity, Kuatiliya had made more than 19 edits at BSO in one day, and I made fol 4 edits (not reverts):

02:16, 9 July 2016. add. I removed Kuatilya3's WP:OR which was not supported by the given source and replaced it with what the source said. (The complainant to please remind me which policy did I violate by doing so?)
02:22, 9 July 2016. allegedly. I added the word allegedly which was supported by BBC. (yes, BBC! What's wrong in that when Kuatilya himself has used blogs and Baloch propaganda website frequently to build the article?)
02:28, 9 July 2016. expand per source already used. I added "separatist fighter" by REUSING the source already used by Kuatilya3 (wonder why would he miss it at the first place).
05:32, 9 July 2016. Got a blanket revert by Kuatilya3 alongwith a vague reason.
14:30, 9 July 2016. Removal of sourced content. Did you even read the source? Stop pushing your POV. The ONLY revert that I had made to Kuatilya3. Prior to this revert, I also commented on the talk page. How else does WP work?

Now, everybody is welcome to point out where did I go wrong so that I may improve myself. If not, WP:BOOMERANG will be in order.

Regarding this 4 July 2016. One, how can a post about an RfC concerning Pakistan at WP:WikiProject Pakistan be termed 'Canvassing'? I seriously object to Kautilya3's poor choice of words. Two, I had genuinely thought of posting the same to WP:WikiProject India but didnt do it as the issue related to Balochistan and Pakistan. A Pakistani province (unlike Kashmir which is disputed) had no direct link with India, but may be I should have done it because the discussion did involve India. This was my first such post at Country Project Pages so I was unaware of the procedures, and if the Admins think I should have posted the same to WP:WikiProject India, I apologise for not doing it as a genuine mistake.

8 May 2016. This is no diff. Just a facade. But allow me to explain what Kautilya3 wants to say:

Balochistan conflict has contentiously been infested with socks, particularly DarknessShines2, a notorious sockmaster. Just see how his socks have made POV edits at the page and opened up discussions which were fervently supported by Kautilya3:

Freedom Mouse a banned sock added POV and then opened a talk-page discussion: Content removal. This led to exhaustive discussion just because the sock was supported by Kautilya3. Had he not done so, precious time could have been saved. Thanks that Freedom Mouse got banned soon and the duel ended.

The same sock then again caused disruption which was again supported by Kautilya3 which again led to a lengthy discussion namely "Edits by Freedom Mouse aka Darknesshines". Later, when the second sock got banned the discussion ended with a consensus against Kautilya3.

Now most recently his third sock 2a00:11c0:9:794::5 re-added the same content which led to six talk-sections, namely Chuck Hagel, James Dobbins, Siraj Akbar, Kulbhushan Yadav, Israel, and even an Rfc!.

All these sock-edits were being diligently supported and fueled by Kautilya3. He even removed longstanding content on sock's suggestion and prolonged the discussion until the sock was banned and Future Perfect at Sunrise hatted the entire discussion.

That was me alone Vs 3 x socks and Kuatiliya3 and yet he cannot point out a single policy that I actually violated during the entire discourse. What does this say about me? Am I the bad guy here or the one reporting me? I fight 3 x socks, its supporters, follow polices, the socks then get banned and WP stays as it was before socking, and this is the reward I get in return? Can anyone deny that I wasnt fighting socks or that they werent banned during the discussion or that I upheld WP as a project? I am seriously getting tired of my efforts here. The bottomline here seems that if you fight socks, it's you who would get blocked even though you dont violate any policy but just give lots of diffs for people like Kuatiliya3 to quote here randomly while the socks who doesnt care for a block and its supporters go around disrupting WP.

Now, if challenging socks/vandals all while remaining within WP polices and following WP:BRD is wrong, please penalize me. But if I was able to prevent socks from disrupting WP without edit-warring and by participating in ALL the discussions and by following WP:BRD then why Kautilya3 is accusing me of doing 'seven reverts' i.e. digging up my entire history and cherry-picking random reverts that I might have made?

The real question here should be that why a guy who prevented socks from disrupting WP is being reported by the same editor who have been in support of these socks, and has been let scot-free?

Topic ban: I was topic banned a year from now (not 6 months). That's history. No need to bring it up over and again. I have improved, changed and my edit-history is a proof. By posting links to the topic ban thrice, Kautilya3, what were you trying to gain?

AE's: Just a way to divert attention. Last time, even the editor who reported me was about to get Boomeranged until he had to apologize and withdraw his AE report against me for the report being frivolous and false. I guess, had it actually boomeranged, things could have been simpler.

Kautilya3's Selective/Discreet Approach to push Nationalistic POV

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

Kautilya3, apart from supporting socks, always advocate other editors not to use WP:NEWSORG to construct articles as he considers them to be unreliable. Two latest instances are on GB page and BSO page (more examples can be dug if required). What Admins should take note of is the second, BSO page example. He tells me not to use reliable WP:NEWSORG like BBC, Al Jazeera to add content, but at the same time he totally reconstructs the entire BSO page from WP:NEWSORG including blogs and unreliable websites which totally aligns with the Indian government's POV on the Baloch issue. Examples:

1. Uses crisisbalochistan, a Baloch (news) website having C of I. And a NewsOrg, torontosun.

2: Uses Aljazeera.

3: Uses balochistantimes, a Baloch NewsOrg with C of I.

4: Uses a Blog gmcmissing.wordpress.com and a NewsOrg thefridaytimes.

5: Uses an unknown website/NewsOrg nakedpunch, twice.

He ventures as far as quoting unreliable blogs, Baloch propaganda websites and even WP:OR to push his nationalistic POV, but when I reinstate a SINGLE 3rd-party book-sourced edit at Gilgit-Baltistan, he cast WP:ASPERSIONS and accuses me of POV-pushing? How can this be acceptable at WP?

All above edits are from the same article for which Kuatilya has dragged me here. I dont object to the content provided it is well sourced but then Kautilya should follow what he advocate to others and stop gaming the system.

In an another example of bending the rules and pushing nationalistic POV, Kuatilya here, who champions WP:STICKTOSOURCE, lectures everyone to follow RS and quickly revert others if content does not match the source conveniently bypasses WP policy and his own words and pushes the Indian state POV against long-standing agreed upon content which was WP:NPOV. How conveniently he changes "Indian-administered region of Kashmir" to "Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir" despite that the source precisely and clearly uses the term "Indian-administered-Kashmir". And then strangely enough ask others to gain consensus for reverting the POV edit back to what was already long-standing. Brave enough, he accuses others of pushing POV.

Response to Kautilya3's additional comments

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

I get my feed from a twitter account that posts edits made by Pakistani IPs on any WP page. My edit-history is a proof that I have reverted many such vandalism from IPs. It's for the same reason GB article was on my watchlist, so obviously when I saw Kautilya3 reverting a perfectly sourced edit by a new user, I checked the sources and having found them correct reinstated the edit and followed WP:BRD by participating in the discussion. What diligence does Kautiliya3 expects me to show when I dont see any edit by Thomas.W on the recent page history and when all I can see is Kautiliya reverting a sourced edit merely by saying that it's not RS?

I wonder, all this is infact a content dispute that Kautilya3 is unnecessarily highlighting here which should have been solved at the respective talks.

All the rehtorics of topic-ban to that user is a facade Kautilya3 is trying hide behind. All I am concerned about is that the edit was sourced and was correct and was wrongly removed.

As regards his sock-comment, what does it has to do with he accusing me of canvassing? Kautilya3 himself is known for canvassing directly at editor's talk. The socks were reverted per WP:BRD and discussion carried out. Kautilya3 should be asked, when he knew that it were sock edits, why would he support them, not once but thrice?

His last point regarding canvassing, I have already admitted to the mistake, which otherwise is not an issue as already 4 editors mentioned by Kautilya3 himself were participating at the RfC, and the RfC was closed right after I posted it at WP:WikiProject Pakistan for being opened by a sock IP. He is just beating a dead horse. Moreover, as per my understanding the issue concerned "Wikiproject Pakistan". And WP:PAK is followed by many editors including non-Pakistanis. By raising this point it shows the bias Kautilya has against WP:PAK editors

No, Kuatiliya3 was not owning Bhartiya's edits alone, they were sock edits each and everytime. Bartiya29 was not even involved when the sock reinstated the edits and Kautiliya then had to even canvass Bharatiya29 to participate in the discussion restarted by the sock. This was just his way of covering his tracks that he was supporting a sock. But Bharatiya29 just responded to this canvassing at his talk and didn't bother to reply to the discussion at the article's talk.
Admins, can you please look into Kautiliya's repeated accusation of "pushing nationalistic POV" against me? WP:BATTLEGROUND?

Kuatilya is juts trying to confuse the issue. What a six-month-old edit has to do with the recent editing of GB article? An edit on a page that was on my watchlist was subjected to POV pushing by Kuatilya, I saw that and took action. What he wants to imply by bringing up this point is beyond me.

Response to Bharatiya29's comments

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

Please clarify what do you mean by that my behavior "has been disturbing"? Please quantify. We all have already agreed that only third party sources will be used in the article keeping in view its nature being a conflict and that both the involved parties will (always) try to present their POV whatsoever, how neutrally worded it may be. Now, if you cant present a 3rd party source to support your edit why the mud slinging? Your and Kuatilya's biased approach can be seen from the fact that when you want to push something you even find justifictaions to use sources having a C of I, and but when the other party says the same, you go back on your words. I have amply highlighted this point above, and Admins must look into this selective approach which games the system.

*Re Pakistan government's POV": A baseless accusation as none of the sources used in the article which say that India is involved in Balochistan are Pakistani, but instead are 3rd party independent/uninvolved sources. Whereas, Pakistani govt have been raising the issue of Indian involvement in Balochistan at international forums but it has not gain much currency. Conversely, it is the Indian govt that have bee specifically giving air-time to Baloch dissents and their separatists leaders to farther their views which you and the socks have been trying to push in the article. Also, as all this info is ONLY sourced from Indian sources, to me it seems that it is rather you and Kautilya3 who have been trying to push the Indian government's POV in the article while cloaking it as being NPOV. How can I do that when no Pakistani source is allowed in the article? If a 3rd party RS like a renowned US politician or a known website like BBC says something which might be inline with the facts on ground, blame the source not the one who is using them per WP polices. But if you blame the source, then sorry, but you wont be able to use the same source to support your POV. That's commonsense.

*Re BSO being a terrorist organization: What "3rd party" sources did India or you present to declare All Tripura Tiger Force (ATTF), Al-Umar-Mujahideen (AUM),Babbar Khalsa International (BKI), Communist Party of India (Maoist), Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) People's War, Deendar Anjuman (DA), Dukhtaran-e-Millat (DeM) etc as terrorist organization per Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, less the law itself?? BSO is a Pakistani organization which was declared as a terrorist organization per country's law just like any other country-specific organization. Sorry, you are just trying to muddy the waters, nothing else.

*Re Bhartiya's new comments: First he says that there's no 3rd party source that says BSO is a terrorist organization. I responded to that. Now he talks about BSO's notability which was never under discussion. The notability issue was with Kareema Baloch, but here he directs our attention to BSO itself. Bhartiya is just shifting his goal posts as he cant find any worthwhile points to complain about. Bhartiya, this is not BSO's talk page nor DRN where you are trying to resolve a dispute. You had time to do it at the talk, which you did not. Why do it here? Your comments concerning a dispute wont merit a response here.

....complaints' "own conduct may be examined as well."

Re Regentspark: Sir, I do agree with you and will surely try to follow your advice. I cant help but mention that this is what I already have been doing - trying to gain consensus constructively by positively engaging with the involved parties including the socks. Surely, per your advice, I will try to improve if there's any shortcoming. No argument on that. As for the socks, well sir, if an info was not allowed to stay in the article previously, it means that there's been a consensus not to include it at some point in the past. Now, using socks to push it again wont solve the matter, nor would it automatically mean that the edit become legit because a sock is repeatedly trying to push it. Not unless fresh evidence is presented which may change the consensus, and I am all for it. Legit edits dont require socks to add them. That's what is observed in remaining Indo-Pak conflict pages. The rules regarding usage of sources were set by Kuatilya himself, and he alone cant selectively follow part of those rules, reject the other part that does not suit him, and then change the rules altogether when other editors try following them in letter and spirit. Thanks.

Response to Kautilya3's fresh WP:ASPERSIONS:

I think Kautilya3 misunderstood The Wordsmith's advice against casting aspersions and that's why he has continued with his mudslinging unabated by even reusing the same diffs that he has already provided for like an umpteenth times. Or may be, his fresh aspersions against me were precisely due the same unbending, churlish attitude Kautilya3 have been displaying that have caused so much disruption on Indo-Pak topic area. I'll leave this for the worthy Admins to decide.
I also dont understand how and why is Kautilya3 drawing a comparison between me and other editors, while at the same time he also displays his 'holier than thou' attitude and his ample 'magnanimity' for not asking a topic-ban or some other punishment for editors X, Y or Z during his other conflicts. This misunderstood sense of superiority over other editors and authoritative behavior as if he sits at some higher pedestal among the hierarchy of WP coupled with the false understanding of being perfect and someone who can never go wrong is the actual cause of this commotion and the sole reason behind his impossible justifications which are nationalistic and which he often retracts once confronted. Someone with such an attitude who also provides refuge to chronic socks makes it almost impossible for other editors to constructively engage with them.
Lastly, his comments about my contributions to WP is a textbook example of WP:NPA. Who made him the judge to decide that editors who only contribute a certain percentage of content to articles are the only legit editors? Going by his understanding, editors who only add/remove categories, only correct spelling/grammatical mistakes in articles, fix syntax, fight vandalism, prevent sock disruption etc should all be banned from WP, right? My contributions to WP are well documented in my edit-history and seriously I dont require any certification from someone. Speaking truly, it is precisely because of the refuge that editors like Kuatilya provide to chronic sockers which he then also uses to further his POV that editors like myself and those named by him above are unable to contribute much content to WP. One can only do so much in fighting vandalism, preventing sponsored socks from disrupting WP and contributing content. After all, editing WP is not my day job. I take WP as a hobby and apart from building it, preventing it from disruption goes along with my editing experience. That's what we all do at WP, dont we?

IBAN: I'll abide by what the worthy admins decide, but what remedy will be there to prevent Kuatilya from willfully/knowingly own chronic socks, barring him for assisting socks in airing their views, comment and actually edit indirectly through him despite being universally banned, and stopping him from using these socks/edits as a cover to push POV, which infact was the main reason behind what had ensued here?

Response to Sutish: I am sorry, but I think there's some misunderstanding here. The points I raised are not entirely groundless. I beleive that you must be familiar with a chronic socker DarknessShines2‎. Off late, he has gone so bold that he dont even bother to hide his identity as can be seen from his SPI archives. Just see, despite being blocked how he approaches Kuatilya after he has been interacting with him at talk. In another example, DS asks Kuatilya to restore restore his version of the article once he was challenged. And it gets stranger when a blocked sock is able to get a FULL article published at WP which is deleted THREE times by Bbb23, Future Perfect at Sunrise and NeilN respectively and even then DS pleads to Kuatilya to get his deleted article restored! Why did this happen? Because it was Kuatilya who gave space to a blocked sock by owning his edits and let this cat and mouse game to extend over a considerable period of time by letting the sock to engage in discussions of considerable length and indirectly sponsor them. A few examples: [4], [5].

The question here is, why block the socks if we are to listen to them?

Allow me to explain how this works:

A sock (Curro2) adds a false 'citation tag' to a content which is properly cited/sourced at Balochistan Liberation Army article. Then comes the second sock (DarknessShines2) and he builds upon the false case initiated by Curr02 and repeatedly removes the tagged info [6], [7], [8], [9]. The game is then caught, DS' IP is blocked and the info is restored. However, Kuatilya uses the diffs to my attempt to prevent disruption to WP by socks here against me to add to weight to his AE report. Now, DS' sock is again back and precisely doing the same thing from where he had left. If, now, I revert the sock, I may very well be presented as the culprit once again.

Kuatilya tags some info in Balochistan Liberation Army as being unsourced, days later comes DS who remove the info tagged by Kuatilya and in that garb also removes Musharraf's statement which he was already trying to remove earlier but had failed and also remove two sources. Meanwhile, the same sock also goes on WP:ADMINSHOPPING [10].

DS' sock goes on an edit-spree at Balochistan conflict page. Opens several talk-page sections [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], and even an RfC. All these discussion are supported by Kuatilya, Bhartiya29 and Spartacus!. Kautilya comments in favour of the Sock at the RfC, removes content from the article as suggested by the Sock, and then uses my edits/comments (diffs) against the sock here at the AE report against me.

Now, it isnt hard to see what exactly is going on here. How a group of editors is systematically ganging up against me to get me off WP without getting directly involved. I was reported at the AE previously by Spartacus!, an involved editor who also supported the socks, who then had to withdraw his report. Before that I was reported here by D4iNa4 with whom I have never ever interacted at any of the conflict pages, but oddly he reports me for the same articles. And now Kuatilya. The bottomline, the casus-beli for all this was DarknessShine and his socks and the open support provided to him by certain editors. Seriously, as I have mentioned earlier, DS have never attempted to hide his identity and it wasnt difficult for these editors to see that they are supporting a sock, but they did it anyway. Ofcourse, a lone editor like myself wont be able to counter this onslaught, still I never edit-warred, nor crossed 3RR and constructively engaged with all the opposing editors, No wonder none of them have been able to point a single policy that I have violated. But, ofcourse, if you get reported at the Admin Boards for enough time, you are bound to received some sanctions, and this is probably what they are aiming at.

Re-Recap: Sir, a topic-ban on me for Balochistan related articles for preventing disruption to them by socks? If that's how you want to go about it, I am afraid this will continue to happen. Which will further be complicated when the counter socks will then do this. I have no problem with staying away from the topic area provided there is a remedy for the sock-fest and the backing they get. I would humbly request to have a re-look at the decision as it was The WS himself who was against issuing topic-bans. Thanks.

Socking Aspersions: First, I'll like to clarify that I have never accused Kuatilya for socking, only that he did nothing about it, rather a tacit support was provided - an action which was challenged by me and which infact resulted into registering this report. Following are just a few socks/IPs (of DarknessShines2) which were active (only) on Balochistan related articles (all previously being edited/watched by Kuatilya). These all are now blocked. But the point to note is that none of them were ever reverted and / or reported to SPI by the complaint or the editors who have commented against me. All of these were blocked either by an SPI by myself, some other editors or directly by Admins once it was brought to their attention. Topic banning me from Balochistan articles may provide a free-run to these socks, unless there's an alternative. I would request the Admins to go through the block log / contribs of these socks and you'll know what I mean (Data from DS SPI archive]):

Statement by TopGun

I commented on the last TripWire AE and generally know most users/socks and disputes in this topic area so the admins might benefit from my views on this. I've been following three sets of socks closely and trying to get them blocked for a year now: [18] [19] [20]. All three of them are disruptive, persistent and try to create this kind of mess each time they return. Unfortunately, there are not many active editors who recognize them and by the time I or another experienced editor report them, the victim articles are under complicated disputes. The balochistan conflict topic area is facing the exact same situation. To add to the fuel, Kautilya3 has demonstrated that he wants to assume responsibility of all edits of socks (in wholesale) as he said here. This can not be done without him having to clear WP:BURDEN instead of asking others to do so and is an issue per se as well. The Darkness Shines sock was just blocked after my report and his threads were hatted (as it happened in his previous attempts at disrupting the same article)... however the same is happening here with the dispute dragging on and Kautilya3 taking up the dispute. It's over and there's no need to drag it and if an editor thinks another user is not agreeing to their arguments, it's the basic right of an editor to participate in consensus in that way as far as they are civil and WP:DRN exists to resolve that to form a clearer consensus as already pointed out by an NeilN at the end of that discussion, not AE. If the traveling circus continues even after the sock is blocked, their purpose is achieved.

Furthermore, notifying WP:PAK is not canvassing. This was established at this proposal that was infact made by me: Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing/Archive 5#Canvassing Country / Nation level Wikiprojects. If I, even being the proposer of a policy against such notices, can accept that consensus is against terming such notices canvassing, it should be easy for others to follow. WP:PAK is infact the right venue to notify per consensus. Canvassing would have been posting talkpage messages to select editors.
This report is not as complicated as it seems and has been plagued with sock disruption which is common in this topic area.
Both editors should be recommended to go to WP:DRN and if they can not resolve their issues by discussion, I would recommend a simple interaction ban where both can edit the article(s), participate in RFCs, discuss on talkpage (not with each other) but not interact with each other, reverting/reporting each other or edit parts of an article edited by each other. We need to get rid of reporting editors for the sake of reporting so add to this ban any other editors who are bent on wasting every one's time here at AE.

--lTopGunl (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bharatiya29

TripWire's behavior at Talk:Balochistan conflict has been disturbing. He has constantly tried to block any attempts at making the article neutral and has objected to the addition of those contents which are not in agreement to Pakistan government's POV. The article has a section dedicated to Pakistan's allegations on India of supporting Baloch separatist groups. When I have tried to mention Baloch group's denial of this allegation, TripWire reverted me just because he maintains that the group is not reliable since it has been declared as a terrorist organisation by Pakistan government (although he hasn't cited any third-party sources to prove this). TripWire also seems to have an unfounded assumption that Indian media constitute Indian propaganda. His sole motive here is to confine WP to the views of the Pakistan government and he has argued against all other editors asking for NPOV.. Bharatiya 29 13:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to TripWire's comments:What’s more disturbing than pushing a nationalistic POV? I never said that only third-party sources should be used; rather I have always said that the views of all the stakeholders should be mentioned with due weightage. Would you please explain to me that what does the Indian government have to do with interviews of notable Baloch nationalists by independent media houses? If you are really convinced that all the Indian media coverage is influenced by the Indian government then you must prove your point. I have repeatedly told you that the fact that Pakistan has declared BSO as a terrorist organisation is not enough to prove its non-reliability. Bharatiya 29 08:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to TripWire's new comments:I have never said that only third-party sources should be used, instead statements by all the parties should also be given space. You should know that even if Karima Baloch is not notable as an individual, she is the chairperson of an involved party, and that is what makes her statement worth mentioning. I am being forced to discuss about all these stuff here since you are accusing me of having an biased approach. The discussion here is regarding your behavior, and so this was the last time I responded to your baseless allegations. Bharatiya 29 15:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SheriffIsInTown

Being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is about fact telling and should be about fact telling. It should not be used for political propaganda. Using an encyclopedia for political propaganda defies its purpose of being an encyclopedia. Kautilya3's editing has been nothing but political propaganda. He tries to find less than encyclopedic information which suits his POV and adds it to encyclopedia. He calls founder of a nation as "internet beast", a clear indication that he personally considers him a villain for pursuing to create modern day boundaries in South Asia. He also at one point said that he does not recognize modern day boundaries in South Asia and it seems like his edits are more centric towards an undivided South Asia. Not recognizing the present day boundaries in South Asia makes the region look like the map in Akhand Bharat article where there is no other country except India in South Asia. Going in with that state of mind and editing a contentious topic area such as WP:ARBIPA can only create neutrality issues. Neutral editors like TripWire are needed to ensure that articles are not sidetracked by editors who display such political prejudice. If we will start banning editors like TripWire who did not violate any principle set forth in WP:ARBIPA but only challenged less than neutral edits of Kautilya3 who clearly displayed political prejudice at several times in their editing then we will only make Wikipedia, a non-neutral politically motivated information portal which is not what an encyclopedia should be. If anyone who deserves to be topic-banned from WP:ARBIPA is Kautilya3 and not TripWire. I am not sure if these findings can call for a Boomerang but if they do then I will suggest one against the nom. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by D4iNa4

Report is legit and action is necessary, since TripWire came off from a topic ban just some months ago, he had to be more careful but he is not. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

@Lord Roem: IBANs just create more drama, as is nowadays frequently noted at ANI. Such a remedy will achieve absolutely nothing here. I could have predicted where this will end up even before TripWire's previous sanction and I really shouldn't have to spell it out: sooner or later they will be indef'd, unfortunately. And if there is blame to be attached to Kautilya then any remedy should be proportionate, bearing in mind the concept of first "offence".

I think you (all commenting admins) might benefit from giving NeilN some time to respond as they're relatively familiar with the subject matter and the participants (both those specifically named here and more generally in the context of South Asian articles). - Sitush (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And this comment from TripWire after my message above says it all. If they think Kautliya is tag-teaming/meatpuppeting then they need to prove it, and ditto for the ludicrous claim that K is socking - WP:SPI is >>>> thataway. It is demonstrative of the battleground and nationalist-centric position that TW adopts and it needs to stop. Just do that topic ban, please, and if deemed necessary then give K a slap. - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TripWire

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

The last time an Enforcement request was made against TripWire, it was dismissed as frivolous and was about to boomerang when another admin allowed the filing party to withdraw. This one is more complicated. As I am not an expert in India-Pakistan relations, I'll reserve judgment until some other editors and admins weigh in and hopefully offer more context. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TripWire: Your statement is far beyond the limit. Please refactor for length, or hat unnecessary parts. Thank you, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave this to someone else to judge but TripWire should note that reinstating edits made by sockpuppets is perfectly valid and repeatedly invoking the fact that the edits were originally made by a sock is not constructive. At some point, you need to accept that there is support for that content and get down to the business of seeking consensus in good faith. If this closes with no action, I urge TripWire to constructively engage in the compromise discussion or resort to dispute resolution where sources can be evaluated, npov can be judged, and consensus wording hammered out. It is true that this area is plagued by socks and that their presence is disruptive, but that should not be used as an excuse to avoid a consensus seeking discussion. --regentspark (comment) 15:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've rescued this from premature archiving. The diffs I see here could be interpreted as tendentious editing, but they could also be seen as good faith efforts to improve these articles. I'm far from an expert in this topic area, so I'm unable to decisively determine which. The rhetoric from editors on both sides of the nationalistic conflict further obfuscate the matter. That being said, I don't see anything that rises anywhere near the level of making a block or topic ban necessary. My instinct is that it would be best if TripWire were admonished for tendentiousness, and works to be more careful in the future. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the walls of text here and on my talkpage, plus the copious diffs presented, it is clear that there is a huge problem in this topic area. The battleground mentality is pervasive, and nobody here has entirely clean hands. Something obviously has to be done. However, I'm not convinced that handing out a few topic bans will actually solve anything, and there are a number of editors who have terrible attitudes but nonetheless contribute quality content. I'm thinking that we need to get more creative with Discretionary Sanctions than we ordinarily do. I'm not sure what the exact solution is, but I'm thinking something along the lines of a topic-wide ban on casting aspersions. There is also precedent for a civility parole placed on individual editors, with varying results. I would rather not have to go there, but I won't hesitate if I think it necessary. Before actually enacting anything, I'd like input from some other AE admins. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the time to go through this as well. I'm with The Wordsmith on their hesitation for a new topic ban here, but I do like TopGun's suggestion for an interaction ban. This would allow Kautilya3 and TripWire to edit the content in dispute and seek content dispute resolution while cutting off an aspect of their editing which is disruptive. If tendentious editing continues after a sanction like that, I'd then come to the conclusion that a topic ban is necessary. I'd like to hear The Wordsmith (talk · contribs)'s views on this idea before implementing it. As for your proposed civility/casting aspersions restriction, I personally would prefer a more focused remedy than something topic-wide, at least at this point. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to give a more conventional two-way IBAN a try. We can always revisit the civility parole idea if necessary (and I'm sure this topic area will be back at AE again), there's no need to be hasty to impose an old restriction that hasn't been tried in years until the conventional means have been exhausted. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. I'll hold this open for another day to see if there's additional feedback from other admins or the editors involved. Otherwise, I'll close this with a two-way IBAN under the usual parameters: "banned from all interaction, undoing each others edits, making reference to or comment on each other, replying to each other in any discussion, editing each others user talk space, or filing ANI or AE reports about each other except to clarify or abolish this interaction ban or to report violations of the interaction ban." Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinged here. While I'll be on here, it will be only for short stretches of time. I might be able to go through this in the next day. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ping response. I'm not a big fan of IBANs because they end up creating more drama than is good for Wikipedia, especially when the editors in question overlap in editing interests. I'm busy in real life and cannot look into this in detail but, and this is in extension of what I've said above, it does seem to me that Kautilya3 has been making a good faith attempt to seek a consensus solution while TripWire has been stonewalling (re the discussion on 'compromises' in Talk:Balochistan conflict). The easiest short term suggestion is to topic ban TripWire from Balochistan related articles for a brief period (3 months) and put both editors on an aspersion restriction (no commenting that any editor is biased or has a nationalistic pov). I implemented an aspersion restriction on Kashmir conflict related articles which worked well there (though it seems to have driven the problem into other areas) and making it a blanket restriction may not be a bad idea. --regentspark (comment) 00:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The aspersion restriction is an interesting idea, RegentsPark. How did you phrase that in the past? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, SpacemanSpiff! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To preserve my sanity I refuse to admin or edit in this area but I think RP's suggestion on the aspersion restriction is probably the best way to go and it should be applied to any and all articles in the India-Pakistan conflict area. The text of that is in this diff. —SpacemanSpiff 05:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An additional element that I can think of that'd be helpful would be DS semi-protection (I don't think the 50/300 rule will be incrementally helpful here though) of both the article and talk pages within this topic area. As was apparent even in this ARE, a lot of the disruption originates from a handful of sockmasters, mostly IP socking, though some pick up accounts soon. This would also have minimal collateral damage as very few real new editors come to Wikipedia thinking "I'll go edit about this conflict and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS". In addition any time an IP or new editor throws out an accusation of the other person being Nangaparbat or DarknessShines, that should result in a block as it just proves that they aren't new. —SpacemanSpiff 14:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of an aspersion restriction on India Pakistan conflict articles. With the caveat that it is not always clear that an article is about the India Pakistan conflict. For example, the Balochistan related articles, the ones that are the source of this AE request, appear to be only peripherally associated with that conflict but, somehow, India vs Pakistan has become the flashpoint there. I guess a 'broadly construed' would address that but, clearly, we've got to put an end to this "you've got an Indian POV" or "you've got a Pakistani POV" stuff. That's not productive and overpowers the discussion on content. --regentspark (comment) 00:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the above suggested restrictions, along with a reminder that posting amounts of text that could bore a judge is disruptive and sanctionable in itself as an effort to bludgeon others into submission. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are two major issues exacerbating the conflict here. 1) IPs and "new" editors on both sides alleging sock and meatpuppetry. 2) Pakistan's and India's antagonistic history being reflected in their respective media and other sources (think reading news reports from the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War). Thus, one editor's reliable source is another editor's propaganda machine. So, in addition to the aspersion ban (I don't think an interaction ban would work given overlapping interests), I'd like to propose that any edit made by an IP or new editor alleging socking or meatpuppetry may be freely reverted and any accusations be ignored on article or user talk pages. WP:SPI is the place where established editors can present their cases. A more formal venue will hopefully discourage these hit-and-run accusations. I have no good solution for the second issue. I would usually recommend WP:RSN but frankly, we don't have enough uninvolved editors who would be interested enough to pick through the issues. On the Balochistan conflict talk page, I made this suggestion: "If you are stuck, then perhaps WP:DRN could help? Or each of you could create a separate section on this talk page, proposing your specific wording and sources, and then others could comment, focusing only on content." That got zero responses which may indicate editors are pretty much tightly tied to their positions. If that's the case, we can start by enforcing strong and strict aspersion restrictions on everyone involved in the area (comment on the content, not the contributor) along with a directive that activities that would normally get your hand slapped (e.g., canvassing, cherry picking content from a source) will result in a block or topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. I agree on the aspersion restriction. Redacting spurious accusations of sockpuppetry is also something I can get behind, and can be folded into the aspersion restriction sanction. Your last part I tentatively agree on, only because this area has factions that are so deeply entrenched that nothing short of extraordinary measures will dislodge them. In situations such as these, Arbcom has repeatedly passed an "At Wit's End" principle, which states "In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt exceptional measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia." I believe that is what we're facing with India-Pakistan. We would have to come up with proper language to log as a sanction, but I support the idea of adopting seemingly Draconian measures as a last resort. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, to sort of recap here, it seems there's consensus behind the first two and proposals for the second two: (1) a short topic ban for TripWire from Balochistan related articles, (2) putting TripWire and Kautilya3 both on an aspersion restriction, (3) an aspersion restriction writ-large for the entire India-Pakistan topic area, and (4) possibly a 'socking accusation' ban, as proposed by NeilN above. Have I missed or misinterpreted anything? This AE request has gotten uber complicated so I want to make sure I--or any other closing admin--has everything straight. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's my understanding. I would support the second two as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is well summarized Lord Roem. I support all 4, including the socking accusation ban. We should make it clear, as NeilN says, that socking accusations can only be made in a formal SPI case and nowhere else. Also, I'm assuming that the aspersion restrictions apply to any articles that have an India-Pakistan overlap broadly construed and, of course, they apply everywhere to Kautilya3 and TripWire. --regentspark (comment) 01:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support all four but would like to know how short the short topic ban would be. Would like to see some language strongly discouraging gaming (e.g., canvassing, selective use of a source, etc.). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Tornheim

David Tornheim is topic banned from the topic of genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed. EllenCT is indefinitely prohibited from discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors, as well as the actions of corporations or persons related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed. Jusdafax is warned that making future accusations not supported by evidence is likely to lead to sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:28, 28 July 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 David Tornheim

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Discretionary_Sanctions

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#1RR_imposed

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

David has previously been warned multiple times at ANI and by admins for battleground, edit warring, aspersions about COI, and general tendentiousness:

Warned March 2015 at ANI of a block for battleground behavior in GMOs with another ANI a week later.
Warned Feb. 2016 by Spartaz.
Warned May 2016 by Laser brain.

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

Battleground

Aspersions towards editors at talk section titled Scrubbing of views of scientists that have concerns about GMOs

Taken to Jimbo Wales talk page to rant and cast aspersions with the talk section labeled Monsanto must be pleased while opening talk sections on this non-content discussion at article pages.[21][22]

In the midst of doling out battleground and aspersion comments, they also accuse editors of not trying to work with them [23] (i.e. WP:POT).

Often refers to editors as "pro-industry" as a vague aspersion as part of the battleground mentality even in their responses below.

Edit warring and WP:DRNC

1RR was imposed in this topic, and arbs mentioned that WP:GAMING of it should be handled by DS. That sanction was meant not only to allow quick action on simple violations, but crack down on long-term edit warring behavior that doesn't explicitly cross 1RR.

David very often reverts basically demanding in edit summaries that material cannot be changed without their approval even when they don't attempt to open up initial talk page discussion on it, which runs entirely against WP:DRNC.(just need to read edit summaries here)[24][25][26][27] However, when it comes to David's own edits, they pull a full 180 and try to edit war content back in they are already aware didn't have consensus such as this string (some intermediate edits not included).[28][29][30]

A recent example of this pettiness is at Atrazine. A new editor added a few wikilinks,[31] but also added one to a reference title that I removed while leaving the others in the body. [32] David again resorted to a revert and ask questions later approach, but was quickly reverted by another editor reiterating that wikilinks in reference templates are problematic.[33] In the meantime, David took to the article talk page to cast aspersions towards me because the specific edit I reverted had a somewhat ranty edit summary[34] rather than David focusing on the extremely minor content issue at hand of ref formatting.

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

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on September 2015.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After patiently trying to work with David Tornheim in the GMO topic for years now, it appears they cannot edit in the topic calmly without engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND that only serves to agitate the topic. A lot of this has not been single acute events easily dealt with at AE, but persistent under the radar sniping, etc (also quickly hit the maximum diff and word space because of it). This has become especially pronounced after the admin-moderated RfC closed where their behavior has continued inflaming the topic while other editors try to focus on content and keep things civil. I'm at a minimum (i.e., WP:ROPE) suggesting a 0RR restriction for David to reduce at least some of their behavior issues, but I'll leave it to others to discuss how to address the larger battleground behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments on aspersions towards me at this AE

:There are a number of aspersions below by involved editors towards me I cannot address entirely due to the word limit (this will ideally be my last comment with that in mind unless admins ask for more clarification). However, I will remind reviewing admins that at Arbcom, we specifically drafted this principle: An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes.[35] It was passed so admins at AE could crack down on this behavior instead of passing it back to ArbCom. AE is where the buck needs to stop, and the principle needs to be enforced rather than encouraging editors to continue these aspersions. Enforcing it will reduce this situation of editors creating a toxic atmosphere and then turning around and accusing the editors trying to work with all of that of battleground behavior.

In fact, I actually drafted that part of the language in large part because of evidence at Arbcom that EllenCT would follow me around to boards casting aspersions exactly like below and blatantly misrepresent me when I explained how I actually used the source in question even though they are fully aware there characterization of me below is false, directly calling me a paid shill, etc.[36] The fact that EllenCT is still doubling down this after being warned at ANI and having the Arbcom principle passed in concerning, but I'm not going to engage that further for now since this particular AE is about David Tornheim's behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: I overall like your sanction idea over a broad topic ban (it would also work if we ever get people casting aspersions about the parallel organic industry too). Whether it's a warning or this sanction, more severe sanctions are expected if an editor continues problem behavior after either instance, so I'm curious how this would functionally differ from yet another (would-be-4th) warning. Just procedural things for admins to mull over, but I'm hopeful it will cut out this toxic behavior that has persisted after the RfC. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: I've tried to keep to the word limit focusing on David, so I'm going to keep my comments extremely brief on the somewhat separate matter of EllenCT. Ellen actually has not cooled off outside AE and indicated they are still not seeing that the continued aspersions towards me are inappropriate.[37] My Arbcom comments have more detail on history if need be. Similar to David, they've been warned at ANI for aspersions etc.[38] and is coming fresh off a near-unanimous topic ban[39] for this same behavior in economics where this casting of aspersions about select corporations could be a gray zone (like this) in the current ban. I won't comment on this AE further unless an admin asks me something, but I'm on board with whatever action simply gets this behavior to stop (I've probably been trying to ignore it far too long) while accounting for what hasn't worked in the past. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[40]

Discussion concerning David Tornheim

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 David Tornheim

Notice of Appeal and Stay of Proposed Decision

I have filed two actions at WP:ARCA regarding this case (action 1,action 2). The first case is a request of a STAY of the Proposed Decision below.

--David Tornheim (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old Introduction

No surprise here. King has long sought sanctions for me. I am not alone, King and Tryptofish are constantly asking editors to be sanctioned for pointing out or challenging pro-industry POV edits. This constant push from these two started at GMO ArbCom and picked up ([41] [42]) right after Jytdog was topic banned from GMOs (e.g. against Prokaryotes (here), Wuerzele [43], Vergilden [44], Minor4th [45], DrChrissy [46], SageRad [47], Petrarchan47, etc.). Yet, King files here saying I have the WP:Battleground mentality. His first diffs are from a year ago where Jytdog was harassing me for standing up to his behavior that has been so aggressive that he has been indef. blocked.

King cannot stand when I point out pro-industry edits that remove well sourced RS. When I recently pointed out his editing habits here, one of the closing admins said that his edits "twisted" the result of the RfC [48], yet he continued [49]. Even Tryptofish said King's edits were concerning [50].

If it doesn't conform with the industry view, King identifies the source as "fringe" to justify removal from articles:

GMO labeling is "fringe" and "psuedoscientific":

"We really don't even need to give the viewpoint the time of day in this article (GMO food), so there's no reason to bring it up." [51]

Precautionary Principle and GMO [52]

Intellectual property rights [53]

Regulations on GMOs abroad [54]

Example contracted to reduce word count

Example:

Original: "studies found a conflict of interest to research outcomes."
King's revision: "Other concerns include research outcomes being affected by general conflict of interest, but there is no evidence of study outcomes being affected specifically by financial conflict of interest." [55]
Abstract: "While financial conflict of interest alone did not correlate with research results (p = 0.631), a strong association was found between author affiliation to industry (professional conflict of interest) and study outcome (p < 0.001)."

This filing is retribution for shedding light on pro-industry editing [56].

--David Tornheim (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casting Aspersions

WP:NPOV is policy.

The "Casting aspersions" sanction is being used here to prevent anyone from raising issues of edits that violate the WP:NPOV policy, if the POV edit favors industry. Unacceptable.

King even admits he wrote the sanction to keep people from calling attention to his editing.

This logic of "casting aspersions" appears to be:

(1) if editor X claims that editor Y makes an edit that favors industry, then

(2) editor X is *always* wrong for saying so, even if the edit favors industry.

(3) editor Y's edit need not be reviewed to see if it is pro-industry.

(4) We must assume good faith that no edits are ever pro-industry or lack WP:NPOV.

(5) calling an edit pro-industry implies the editor is paid by industry or a "shill"

I hope it is obvious such logic makes it impossible to address pro-industry POV issues.

Item (5) ignores other explanations:

We cannot infer motivation of anonymous editors. I did not ascribe motivation; I showed evidence of POV with diffs.
Does an American Zionist's pro-Israeli edits imply payment from Israel?

Now, Can anyone look at my diffs above and with a straight face say those edits are not pro-industry?

--David Tornheim (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hiatus

Per Lord Roem's request, I started 1 week break from GMO article/talk page editing. Tryptofish who talks about WP:battleground below continues. [57] --David Tornheim (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EllenCT

I have not edited on these topics for at least a year, until today, but I strongly approve of David Tornheim's recent work on the issue. I am a proponent of genetic engineering, which I see as no different in principle than animal husbandry and crop hybridization, but I am opposed to the present commercial situation where rampant consolidation has led to monoculture issues in agriculture instead of robust competition between seed producers.[58][59][60]

My primary issue is with Kingofaces43. My first interaction with this editor was in asking his opinion of the most reliable WP:MEDRS-grade source on the relationship between bee population decline and neonicotinoid insecticides. He responded with Fairbrother, et al (2014) "Risks of neonicotinoid insecticides to honeybees", which is not a comprehensive literature review, and the meager review it includes is not on the title's topic. In fact, it includes only a short review of very select sources on, "guidance in the United States and Europe for assessing the risks of pesticides to honeybees" -- not at all on the risks themselves. The paper says, "Funding for the development of this manuscript was provided by Bayer CropScience Ag Research Division." Bayer CropScience is the largest producer of neonicotinoid insecticides. Kingofaces43 has never explained why he considered that the most reliable source on the topic, saying, "Funding source is not relevant in assessing scientific studies, it's the content that needs to be addressed." [61] But he never addressed the fact that the review was not on the title's topic, and has since joined attacks on me at every opportunity, even when they pertained to areas that he has never edited on.

It is obvious that Monsanto engages in coordinated and sustained efforts to astroturf.[62] I recommend sanctions against those who try to censor contrary efforts.

Reply to Tryptofish

@Tryptofish: I am not stating or trying to imply that Kingofaces43 is personally editing on behalf of Monsanto. The evidence I have presented stands by itself. I note that he claims on his user page to be employed working on pesticides. I do not understand his perspective on these issues, and I have even less understanding of yours. EllenCT (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kingofaces43

I withdraw my comment from September 2015 regarding being convinced Kingofaces43 was a paid shill at [63]. I stand by the remainder of the statement, and until an explanation is forthcoming, I remain very suspicious of the possibility. Perhaps if Kingofaces43 didn't show up to demand sanctions against me every time anyone else has ever complained about me, especially regarding topics on which Kingofaces43 has never edited, I would likely feel considerably less hounded. EllenCT (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jusdafax

It is my strong belief that David Tornheim is not the problem editor here. In brief, any careful examination of the edit histories of his detractors show an obsession with the GMO topic, and with creating an environment which is toxic to anyone who questions their methods. I'm hoping this clear overreach by the filing party will make it obvious that we are dealing with a case of tendentious editing, per WP:TEND. Again, just looking at a few diffs is insufficient, what needs to be considered is the larger pattern. I thank all Arbs and admins considering my statement. Jus da fax 19:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see both The Wordsmith and Laserbrain are commenting in the "uninvolved admins" section. The content aside, I ask that they remove the comments at once, and if they fail to do so that a truly uninvolved administrator redact their comments. Again, these two admins are hardly uninvolved, despite claims to the contrary. Jus da fax 19:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I see that David has pinged, at User talk:Coffee, all of the administrators who were involved in supervising or closing the GMO RfC, [64], and that's a good thing. I'll add a ping to Laser brain, whom he overlooked. I suggest that any decision here should wait for their input.

David cited a diff by one of those admins (KrakatoaKatie). I'd like to add a diff of what I said in response at the time: [65].

I see editors seem to be saying that Kingofaces is editing on behalf of Monsanto, or at least strongly implying it. It would be helpful if they would actually present evidence to back those accusations up. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David has added a diff for his statement that "Even Tryptofish said King's edits were concerning": [66]. I urge administrators to see what I actually said there: I wasn't criticizing King, but rather trying to reach out to David after the RfC in what I hope you will agree was a friendly and well-meaning way. (I ended up reverting it, by the way.) Here is how David responded to me the next day: [67], [68]. And what's "Even Tryptofish" about (rhetorical question)? And David says that I'm always trying to get other editors sanctioned, which is strange given that just a few days ago I posted this here: [69]. When I saw this AE filed, I didn't want to escalate it, because I hoped that things would calm down, but seeing what David is continuing to say about me, I've brought up these things that have, indeed, been bothering me. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, with each passing day the GMO thing is getting more and more battlefield-y. Now, from EllenCT: [70]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For Admins who want to look at pages where disputes are most active at the moment (besides Jimbo's talk), I think it's Genetically modified food controversies and Kevin Folta. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this post by EllenCT goes beyond aspersions, into a direct personal attack: [71]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat in agreement with MastCell. I'm willing to try things as The Wordsmith proposes, and I agree that David is capable of being a beneficial contributor to GMO content. Then again, there is a difference between being capable, and actually doing it, and I'm pretty sure that there will just be another AE pretty soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Random IP

I stumbled onto this page from Jimbo's page. The pro-monsanto person that made the initial complaint wrote 900 words and (by my rough count) 32 diffs. The top of the section says he's supposed to keep it to less than 500 words and less than 20 diffs. 209.197.171.107 (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KrakatoaKatie

My involvement here begins and ends with closing the RFC. I agreed to help close it because this is not a subject area in which I have any edits and no history of enforcement in the area (to my knowledge and recollection). I fail to understand, however, how the RFC can be interpreted to delete or add additional text other than what was agreed to by consensus over a month of discussion.

The results of the RFC now need to be enforced by uninvolved administrators, and I have no desire or plans to comment further in this AE request or in the GMO area. Katie^talk 15:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capeo

It's long past time David be topic banned from GMOs and Monsanto and anything related. As he states on his user page, he's an activist in the real world and taken part in many anti-industry campaigns. That activism has now firmly found its way into his editing as shown by King's diffs where he's soap boxing the same stuff in multiple places. Similar behavior was displayed during the recent GMO RFC where kept posting the same arguments in multiple areas of the talk page. The same arguments he's posted above, that confuse regulation with scientific research, which most editors clearly didn't find compelling. That fact didn't stop the bludgeoning. Capeo (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur with Mastcell here. Look at the example David gives above to make his case. It basically amounts to any edit he perceives as "pro-industry" is inherently a POV edit. For one, rather than say pro-industry he could simply say the edit doesn't seem neutral or gives undue weight, etc. On the contrary though, if he disagrees it's pro-industry and pro-industry equals a POV edit. This issue is not going away. Capeo (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

I think we should take a conservative attitude when considering intervening to deal with less than ideal ways of arguing. I'm mostly against the arguments of the anti-GM movement, they do make some valid points, but on most issues I disagree with the political stance taken in Europe against GM-foods. The way David argues can have some tabloid-like elements in it, ArbCom may have ruled that this isn't actually allowed. However, in principle, it's better to let the community itself correct someone who steps a bit over the line and steer that person back toward presenting his/her arguments in an acceptable way. It's best to only intervene when such feedback doesn't work and what we see is a degeneration in the topic area due to the contributions of that person. I don't think that's the case here.

E.g. the thread title used on Jimbo's talk page may not be ideal when judged by rigorous standards, it's not something you can use in a scientific paper, but it's not all that untypical for tabloid style newspapers. So, it is actually within the editorial standards of how people in daily lives like to communicate. The scientific nature of this topic also adds an extra layer of protection. The community has already decided to apply strict guidelines that give priority to scientific articles, this automatically creates a solid wall protecting the topic area from degenerating due to bad arguments. If this were a political topic without a hard scientific core, e.g. Scientology, or Israel/Palestine, then one has to be far more proactive in intervening to prevent the editing in the subject area from degenerating. Count Iblis (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: I agree that one should intervene using sanctions where necessary, but don't underestimate the positive effects of a minor infraction triggering a response from the community like this response by Jimbo Wales, this can work better than imposing a sanction. Count Iblis (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cathry

I read David Tornheim's propоsals in the last RFC(GMO). As for me it was detailed analysis with reference to the reliable sources. I was very disappointed when any sources from peer-reviewd journals with criticism were simply ignored by community. Just as was ignored last scientific review on this topic by toxicologist (Domingo, 2016)

As to Kingofaces43 I was faced with his behavior here when he without a rational explanation moved significant data from lead and here when he stated that it is "original research" to compare 64%-101% and 23%-33% (protective impact of conventional and GM soybean) and that "the actual percentages are undue weight (simply not needed information for our audience)". Despite the fact comparison was in other source. As far as I see, I am not only one who noticed Kingofaces43 non-neutrality. Personally I'm not very interested in Kingofaces43 motives. But it is obvious for me, Kingofaces43 edits pull topic into biotechnology and pesticides advertising, especially it they continue without balance from editors like David Tornheim.Cathry (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alexbrn

As one of the editors on the receiving end of the "Monsanto must be pleased" post, I have to say I find some of the proposed remedies here disappointingly limp, and strongly suspect they will not improve things. Surely, given the long history of warnings, either a site ban or topic ban is the right course of action now. This follow-up posting[72] in response to this AE only further shows that Mr Tornheim is incorrigible. Alexbrn (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning David Tornheim

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

Sigh I was hoping the RfC would solve these issues, but it seems I was wrong. There have been multiple editors on all sides of this topic area behaving poorly for quite a while. I would really rather not have to topic ban anyone; most people involved here contribute good content. Still, something needs to be done and I doubt admonishments will achieve anything. I'd rather find another option that has more surgical precision. I'm going to continue researching this dispute and try to find another path. Other admins are welcome to chime in. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed that this topic is now being prosecuted on Jimbo's talk page, and I'm unclear about the motivations for doing so. He rightly pointed out that the statements that Monsanto is "pleased" and that this filing is retaliatory are unhelpful. I believe they indicate continued battleground us-versus-them mentality in this domain. I'm likewise disappointed that involved editors continue to be comfortable labeling each other's edits as "fringe", "pseudoscience", "pro-industry", etc. The continued insinuations that editors are involved with or motivated by Monsanto are very troubling, and if anything requires sanctions, it's that behavior. --Laser brain (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Count Iblis: I don't want to see anyone sanctioned, and I share the sentiment expressed by The Wordsmith just above that I was hoping this wouldn't appear here again (the heavy "sigh" as well). However, I'm quite fed up with this practice of bringing up Monsanto's financial interests and implying that some editors are so-aligned. ArbCom was quite clear that such accusations were not to be made without evidence, so David and EllenCT (currently) and others (in the past) are trying to shimmy around it by name-dropping Monsanto in the vicinity of editors' names and then walking away whistling with their hands in their pockets like nothing happened. --Laser brain (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about crafting a sanction along the lines of "X is indefinitely prohibited from discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors, as well as the actions of corporations or persons related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed"? The wording would probably need to be tweaked, and maybe some exception for specifically discussing article content (you can't edit Monsanto if you can't talk about the actions of Monsanto), but I'm thinking something like this might be applicable to multiple editors and could cut out the aspersions without issuing a heavyhanded ban. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN, Lord Roem, Coffee, Newyorkbrad, and EdJohnston: Pinging recently active AE admins to offer counsel on the best way to move forward. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jusdafax: I have a hard time believing you're not familiar with WP:INVOLVED, but please note that The Wordsmith and I have dealt with this topic only in an administrative capacity and are therefore uninvolved. Familiarity != involvement. --Laser brain (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One could argue that Jusdafax's comment is blatant aspersion-casting, no? Making unsupported accusations about other editors? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that way, yes, and I'm awaiting his response to Seraphimblade's comment below. --Laser brain (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jusdafax: You have, in this request, accused two administrators of inappropriately acting while involved. This is a serious accusation, and without any evidence, constitutes casting aspersions. Please either provide your evidence for this claim, or retract it. This similarly applies to anyone else who is participating in this request—if you are going to accuse other editors of misconduct, you must present evidence to support your accusation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Got pinged, so I took a look at all the statements to wrap my head around this. I'm of a similar mind with The Wordsmith: I don't think a topic ban would be helpful here. Your suggestion of a restriction on discussing motivations is interesting, but I wonder how enforceable it'd be in practice. Also, it seems like it could be easily circumvented? I'd need to really see some specific wording on that, though I'm open-minded on innovative solutions here. At this point though, I feel tossing out a tban would be handling this with too blunt an instrument. There's certainly battleground behavior here and if it continues after the discussions spurred by this AE request, I'd then be open to imposing a short-term ban. Right now? Everyone needs to chill, take a step back. It wouldn't be a bad idea for all involved to voluntarily edit in other areas for a week to let things cool off. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The ideal enforcement would be escalating blocks if broken, and the "broadly construed" should take care of gaming. "Civility parole" and ideas similar to it were popular 8-10 years ago, and were successful more often than not. My draft wording would be "X is indefinitely prohibited from discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors, as well as the actions of corporations or persons related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed. This restriction does not apply to discussing these organizations or persons as part of the normal editorial process for article content. If this restriction is violated , or an attempt is made to game them, any uninvolved administrator may impose a block of up to one week. After repeated infractions, escalating blocks may be used up to six months. All blocks under this restriction are to be logged as a Discretionary Sanction." If it works, it might be worth bringing back for other editors and areas where casting aspersions are common, like ethnic conflict topics. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it, the more I'm liking this kind of focused remedy. I'd want to add something in the second part of the restriction, the "as well as the actions of corporations," because as written that might be too broad? My rough read on the policy debate is that there's a dispute as to the legitimacy/illegitimacy of different research on the topic. There's definitely a way to debate that without impugning the character or motivation of other editors. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A major issue here is that various editors are accusing each other of being paid shills, or just sort of indirectly implying that Monsanto must be manipulating the content, saying another editor's name casually, and claiming they weren't making a specific accusation while the implication was obvious. I'm open to rewording that part if you can think of a better phrasing. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the restriction on discussing each editor's motivations in and of itself captures that? If someone says 'you obviously support Monsanto' or 'you're an activist and are trying to ruin the research' or whatever, that's already included. Perhaps adding 'on the wiki' into the second part to clarify this is about alleging company manipulation of article content, not a ban on discussing the company itself (because it's obviously going to come up in terms of the actual merits of this debate). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is stopping things like this, where for the most part editors aren't mentioned by name but the insinuation is clear. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. What do you think about adding 'on the wiki' (or something like it) to that second phrase? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to incorporate that, I think, is to change my sample "...as well as the actions of corporations or persons..." to "...as well as Wikipedia-related actions of corporations or persons...". Does that sound better? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that works great. I'm on board with your proposed sanction. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, also. --Laser brain (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good, that's settled. Now the last question is who to apply the new sanction to. I believe David is the obvious choice, however I think this edit probably merits giving EllenCT a warning for battleground conduct. The diff of her being convinced Kingofaces was a paid shill was over a year ago, plus in Arbcom-space. Stale and out of our jurisdiction (plus retracted), so I see no evidence presented that would justify placing her under the same restriction. Jusdafax was warned by Seraphimblade for aspersions in this very thread, and has not repeated it, so I also don't see any reason to apply it there. Are we in agreement? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agreeable to applying the sanction to David and warning EllenCT. --Laser brain (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to keep my responses organized-- I'm not opposed to the suggestion of MastCell, Ed, and Seraphimblade for an outright topic ban in lieu of The Wordsmith's more limited proposal. I'm not set on any particular outcome, though I will note that every admin to have reviewed this agrees something must be done. Any uninvolved admin may impose a sanction. I'm inclined to say his wikilawyering during this AE (see here) shows he doesn't even recognize the issue with his conduct, or doesn't care. An aspersions-only restriction might very well be too limited then. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you guys have reached a consensus, so I'm not trying to upset the applecart at this late date, but I don't quite understand the thought process here. Why is a topic ban categorically off the table? Frankly, this seems like a black-and-white case where one is justified. David Tornheim's record here indicates, in my view, that he is a tendentious editor on this topic motivated by a desire to Right Great Wrongs; that he views all opposition to his editorial agenda as de facto evidence of hidden industry ties; that he routinely characterizes his perceived opponents as industry shills with zero evidence; and that he's been warned repeatedly for all of these behaviors—which keep occurring in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions where we should be particularly firm in addressing them. I've been doing AE stuff for nearly 8 years, and this is one of the clearest cases of battleground editing I can recall.
It's pretty clear that he views this topic area in Manichean terms, and that is not going to change. You are forbidding him to openly impugn other editors' motivations (something that shouldn't need to be said in the first place, much less after countless prior warnings, and a vague sanction which will lead to further wikilawyering around edge cases). But he still clearly believes that those who disagree with his edits are Monsanto shills, and he's still going to act and edit according to that belief. His attitude and presence are toxic to the topic area. This sanction is cosmetic, at best, and does nothing to address that toxicity. MastCell ^Talk 20:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from. After reading the diffs presented and having observed editors in this area for several months, my first instinct was for a topic ban. However, I think sometimes we jump to that too quickly at AE. If we topic banned everyone who has behaved badly, there wouldn't be anyone left editing the topic. David is perfectly capable of contributing positively, I've seen it firsthand. Civility parole-like restrictions have sometimes worked in the past when we've had an editor with great content work but trouble interacting with others. I thought it would be a good idea to show kindness and try to eliminate the bad behavior while still allowing David a voice. If it fails then the options of blocking or banning are still available, but I believe it to be worth giving a try. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything "quick" about proposing a topic ban here; quite the opposite. David Tornheim has been racking up warnings for battleground behavior for nearly a year and a half with no discernible change in his behavior. The fact that we're still not seriously considering a topic ban exposes those warnings as completely toothless. I also disagree with the framing around "kindness". By giving David Tornheim additional latitude (or "kindness", if you prefer), we're being actively unkind to the subset of constructive, well-behaved editors who have to deal with him. We're prioritizing his continued ability to edit in this topic area (where he's demonstrated that he's a poor fit with this site's expectations and goals) and implicitly assigning zero value to the time, effort, and goodwill of other, less strident contributors. I don't view that as kindness. That said, I also see that you guys have worked hard to come up with a plan here and so I will shut up at this point and let you work. MastCell ^Talk 00:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am late to this discussion, and I do see the merit of a restriction on aspersions, but this section at Talk:Jimbo Wales is hard to ignore. This is the one where David Tornheim put 'Monsanto must be pleased' in a header. It is hard to believe that this can be accepted as good-faith editing. I'd favor a topic ban for anyone who has already engaged in casting aspersions of this magnitude. It is unreasonable to require advance warning that this is sanctionable. It leaps to the eye as a violation of our norms. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit late to the party too it seems (I had to actually get enough time to dig through this mess), but I share the concerns of EdJohnston and Mastcell. At the very least, David Tornheim needs to be topic banned for totally unnecessarily blowing up this issue. Jimbo's talk page is not a rule-exempt zone, and editors are expected to abide the same restrictions there as anywhere else. There comes a point at which we've tried "kindness" and warnings enough times, and we need to conclude at that point that if it hasn't worked it probably won't. I think we're at that point with David Tornheim, and that there needs to be a topic ban placed. Maybe we could make it time-limited to see if some time away from the area helps cool things down. I also would advocate for a topic ban, or at the very least a logged final warning, for EllenCT. Even in this request, she's interrogating people about their real-life identities and speculating as to what they might do for work. That is not acceptable, and to do it in an enforcement thread shows either a total disregard for or an inability to follow our standards of conduct. Comment on the edit, not the editor. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon the forum shopping David Tornheim is doing at ARCA (thanks to Lord Roem for posting the link), I now won't support any less than a full topic ban on David Tornheim, especially given that he's casting the same aspersions that I explicitly warned another editor against engaging in above. Unless anyone strenuously objects, I'll be placing such a ban. His only "evidence" for wrongdoing was a link to an old ARCA where he made the same accusations, and no wrongdoing was found. "I said it before" isn't evidence. EllenCT has at least cooled it, so I'd be more willing to consider the narrow restriction proposed above in her case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems consensus is shifting. After seeing feedback from other admins here, and taking into account the stunt at ARCA and continued poor behavior at Jimbo's talkpage, I believe that my initial proposal won't work. I now see no viable option other than to endorse a topic ban for David, and aspersion restriction for EllenCT. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After reflecting on recent comments here by other admins and observing David's recent behavior, I concur with a topic ban for David and restriction for EllenCT. --Laser brain (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As no one on the ArbCom has indicated any interest in supporting the requested "stay" at ARCA, and it seems we've come to a rough consensus here, going ahead as proposed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HappyWaldo

HappyWaldo (talk · contribs) is blocked for three days for violating their topic ban. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:33, 31 July 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 HappyWaldo

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Topic ban from post-1932 American Politics :

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

30 July 2016 Editing Milo Yiannopoulos, a person closely related (broadly construed) to the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[73]

Discussion concerning HappyWaldo

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 HappyWaldo

I knew of this but didn't know it was enforced or reached any kind of conclusion. For some reason my alerts don't show up on some computers/devices. Anyway, I don't think it's fair that user PeterTheFourth remove Milo's views on feminism, esp the quotes. It demonstrates Milo's provocative, humourous style, and provides necessary qualifiers. PeterTheFourth contends that it's too long, whereas I think it needs further expansion, along with Milo's views on Islam, BLM, and other matters he frequently discusses. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning HappyWaldo

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

I imposed this short topic ban on HappyWaldo as a result of edit warring on the page for the second time in a month. The sanction was posted on their talk page. Clear violation deserves a first block, probably a few days. I see this as pretty unambiguous. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will close this as such. The violating edit was almost a day after the topic ban was imposed. I don't buy that the alert didn't show up; that'd be an infinitely regressive defense since it's unprovable. Unless there's evidence to the contrary, there's no reason to doubt that the message showed up. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doc9871

Doc9871 (talk · contribs) topic banned 1 month from all pages related to Donald Trump by Bishonen (talk · contribs), and is further warned that any disruption in the topic areas covered under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 will lead to an extension and/or broadening of the ban. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:07, 2 August 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 Doc9871

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Doc9871 (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/American politics 2 :

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

On the talk page of Donald Trump

[74] Personal attack. Particularly strange since it was made right after I agreed with him [75]
[76] Discussing editors rather than content. Assuming bad faith. Disruptive derailing of discussion. Note edit summary where he "clarifies" his "PA", which is an admittance that he is making personal attacks.
[77] Again, discussing editors rather than content. States that I "have no business editing this article" (because... he decided so)
[78] Threats and continued refusal to discuss content rather than editors
[79] Refusal to address the issue, restatement that he will "challenge" all my edits, pretty much states that they do not plan on abiding by 1RR on the article.
[80] Another personal attack. False claim.
[81] "Shut up. Signed: everybody". A very explicit personal attack.

Note that most of these comments were made AFTER a notification of discretionary sanctions was issued: [82]

On the Donald Trump article itself. Please be aware that the article is under a 1RR restriction:

1st revert Note that the edit summary is false - the info is in fact in the source as has been pointed out prior to the edit on the talk page
2nd revert Note that the edit summary is false. In fact, it's ridiculously false since the text is in the source almost exactly the same (allowing for paraphrasing). For reference the source is here.
3rd revert Note that the edit summary is misleading (and nonconstructive). My source was an improvement over the previous source.
4th revert This edit summary makes absolutely no sense. What does "Nah. ..." mean? The claim is that the edit was "too sloppy" because of the use of a singular "period" rather than "periods". This is about as spurious and petty of a revert/edit summary as I've ever seen on Wikipedia.

Note that all but the first two of these were made AFTER a 1RR notification was issued: [83] (both notifications were removed)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[84] blocked as part of Arbitration Enforcement on two previous occasions, both fairly recent, for exactly the same article.

[85] Blocked for violations at the closely related Donald Trump presidential campaign article.
[86] Blocked for 1RR violation at Donald Trump presidential campaign article article.

In regard to the second diff, in case Doc tries to argue that the above listed edit were not reverts, please note the discussion that followed his May 2016 block [87] where the blocking admin, User:Coffee explains to him precisely what a revert is. So he knew he was doing bad.

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

See above. The user has been sanctioned on these articles under DS previously and also received a recent notification (I was not aware he had previous blocks in this area until I started writing this report)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Personally I can't tell if this is some kind of personal grudge (the nature of Doc's comments come off that way) or it's just the topic involved. Either way, it's clear that the user has decided unilaterally that I should not be allowed to edit the article for some reason, and has proceeded to edit war, breaking not just 1RR (which the article is subject to) but even 3RR, making very petty reverts. My edits didn't even change the text, just improved the sourcing so this is clearly a WP:POINT violation, where Doc is basically saying "I will not allow you to make a single edit to this article". Even putting aside the edit warring and the personal attacks, this is disruptive and unacceptable.

In light of the previous blocks the user received ~~on this very article~~ on a very closely related article ("Donald Trump presidential campaign" vs "Donald Trump) I request a two week block from editing as well as a topic ban from anything related to Donald Trump and the ongoing presidential election, broadly construed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also these two previous AN/I threads which document exactly the same problematic behavior in other areas. This means previous warnings have been issued. Repeatedly. [88] a dispute with User:SMcCandlish, closed by User:John, and [89] initiated by User:John (don't know how that ended up).Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[90]

Statement by (Doc9871)

Point #7 illustrates the extremely misguided nature of this complaint. "A very explicit personal attack". Yeah, right. This is a complete waste of time. Doc talk 09:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that Volunteer Marek seems to confuse "this very article" with another article, probably because doing research is bothersome. The Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article I admittedly got into a little trouble for. I have never been blocked for editing this article in any way. Doc talk 10:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the AN/I's - I don't recall having any further issues with that editor, almost a year ago. I didn't get blocked or topic-banned in either case. So it's really a stretch to even bring it up. Doc talk 10:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen definitely has an axe to grind here. For the record: I've never socked, never lied about socking, and never supported socking. Doc talk 10:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can one editor, blatantly biased against me, get to close this that quickly? Is it really that simple? Doc talk 11:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not an uninvolved admin. You are inarguably involved and have an axe to grind with me. I do not trust your decision to be neutral at all. Please note that the thread was not even open more than a few hours before this decision was handed down. This is grounds for immediate appeal. Seriously not in line with due process. Doc talk 11:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish, thanks for another thorough breakdown of my behavior and how it should be effectively addressed. I think it's a little beyond the scope of the Trump stuff though, maybe? Thanks fer stoppin' by. Doc talk 12:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

Would admins please explain to Doc9871 that whacking people with a wet trout is not a substitute for a calm exchange of views, and this diff at User talk:Bishonen#August 2016 is entirely inappropriate. I see several aspersions being cast above, and no evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And this edit at my talk shows that Doc9871 has no idea of what reasonable behavior at a collaborative project would involve. Johnuniq (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

I'm reluctant to get into any dispute involving Doc9871, but this is the same problem as last year. Volunteer Marek diffed my previous ANI complaint, but there were two; the second also closed without action, despite being about immediate resumption of the same behavior after a warning. No consequences = no impetus for adjustment.

There's no excuse for comments like "You really have no business editing this article", and others diffed by Marek (there is no requirement that editors be neutral, only content must be; are any editors neutral about Trump?). The "Don't challenge me ... You have no chance getting me on a "personal attack'" battlegrounding mirrors the stuff last year (e.g.: "Open an AN/I on me if you want."[91] and several other such 'I'm invincible' challenges, "Ask around if I am one to quarrel with. I will 'Wikilawyer' you, and really good. You don't have to like me: you have to reckon with me."[92], "You're playing with fire. You better know when to recognize this."[93], "I will fight this PC nonsense until the bitter end."[94]). (Actually, I just realized this previous matter really is American-political, an anti-progressivism stance.)

Doc9871 uses others' block logs as weapons, and struts that he is immune to repercussions just because his own block log is [somehow] clean [95], [96], [97], [98] (samples from his months-long, bad-faith-assuming and veiled-threat abuse of a single editor, Ihardlythinkso, in a pattern repeated later with me). WP does not need a gangland kingpin. This behavior has to stop.

I suggest prohibiting Doc9871 from:

Namecalling or questioning the good faith of other editors
Menacing other editors on the basis of their administrative enforcement history regarding matters unrelated to the topic
Trying to hound other editors out of a topic
Threatening any editor with harassment, battleground, or editwar tactics, or issuing 'you can't do anything about me'-type challenges.

Give escalating blocks for recurrent transgressions. This would nip this battlegrounding problem in the bud. All four of these behaviors are consistently exhibited in Doc's aggressive soapboxing against Ihardlythinkso, myself, and Volunteer Marek in series, over a long time; it's not a fluke or coincidence. AE should put out Doc's "fire", since ANI never results in action due to Doc having a bit of a fan club. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 12:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: I honestly think the approach I outline above, without any initial block or a particular topic ban, would be more effective, because the behavior is not actually localized. I was once subject to a "not questioning good faith" sanction myself, and it markedly changed my approach to other editors, away from my habitual Usenet-style "verbal combat" tactics. (To someone habituated to it, it does not seem wrong, and it takes a while to learn why it is in this environment and how to shift). It's a form of teaching contextual manners and distinction-drawing. I have faith that it would work in Doc's case, while a not-that-short topic ban will probably feel unfair and punitive rather than preventative, and may just increase the angry mastodon mode in the long run. I also speak from experience here, having been twice subjected to short-term TBs, in ways that effectively supervoted in favor of the other party and gave them free reign, leading to a major mess that had to be cleaned up after the TBs expired (and one of those parties has been indeffed; I was right, just being a WP:JERK about it). I think the cases are parallel; there's a good chance that the underlying NPoV issues that Doc is trying, intemperately, to address are legitimate. So a TB rather than some behavioral fencing might negatively affect the content. TBs are a hammer that should only be used on the nails of long-term (or suddenly massively disruptive) patterns of localized disruption, in my view (not as a matter of strict rules, but of what works and what does not). Matters like this are screws, not nails, and need a more subtle tool. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: It could be a bit fuzzy, but "questioning the good faith of other editors" it not very fuzzy at all, as it directly addresses what the editor writes, in public view, about another editor's motivations. My own restriction of this sort was very fuzzy, reading "prohibited from assuming bad faith about other editors", a matter of mind-reading thoughtcrime, and people did attempt to game it (unsuccessfully). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that we already know the TB will not be effective: "You really think this is going to teach me a lesson?", from Doc's response to the TB [99]. TBs can also lead to cases of myopic "fight the injustice" WP:NOTHERE + WP:GREATWRONGS behavior (which is how and why the aforementioned party got indeffed). I would have concerns in this regard given Doc's followup comment, "What it teaches me is that there is no due process here. I was absolutely railroaded on this issue." [100] The "issue" for him is "censorship" from a particular topic, and he believes the motivation for it is political (see same diff). This would not be happening if the remedy was directly and only targeted at behavior patterns across topics instead of just at his ranting over Trump articles in particular. That's all I'll say about it; I just don't want to be in an "I told you so" position a few months from now, with Doc blocked repeatedly, and sour on WP, instead of being successfully herded into being less verbally hostile (which for me was a difficult and probably still incomplete, but ultimately rewarding transition, with off-WP benefits). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by USERNAME

Result concerning Doc9871

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

I saw the edits on the article talkpage, and was just writing up a warning to Doc before this AE report; I've posted it now. As I imply there, I'm quite prepared to topic ban Doc from Donald Trump-related pages if he persists in his aggressive personalized talkpage posting. Perhaps we can await the result of my warning, as well as of the DS alert and this report, before taking any action. Noting, however, the nasty tone of even Doc's response right here ("probably because doing research is bothersome"), which doesn't exactly suggest he's currently taking any criticism to heart. Bishonen | talk 10:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Adding: Actually, I hadn't realized that some of the worst posts by Doc on Talk:Donald Trump [101][102] were made after the discretionary sanctions alert, which apparently, just like the warnings (including mine), made no impression at all. I've topic banned him for one month from all Donald Trump-related pages. Bishonen | talk 11:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Reply to Doc: Yes, it's supposed to be simple. Discretionary sanctions are actually meant to make it simpler to ban disruptive editors from controversial pages; they're not intended to add a layer of bureaucracy. I'm using my admin discretion, as is the intention of the discretionary sanctions. I would have done it without this AE report — as I said above, I was already writing up a warning to you — and it would be a bit paradoxical to let the report prevent me. On the other hand, I haven't "closed" the report. If other admins disapprove of my sanction, they can decide per consensus right here to void it. (Or to extend it, for that matter.) I'm sure there will be more admin input — America by and large isn't awake yet — so I suggest you may consider defending yourself a bit better before they arrive. For instance, if you're serious about me being "blatantly biased", "looking to settle the score,"[103] etc, you may want to offer some evidence. I don't know what you mean by it, for my part. What score? Bishonen | talk 11:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Reply to @SMcCandlish: you would address Doc's aggressive behaviour specifically, with a ban from questioning the good faith of others. I hear you, but the problem with that is that it has fuzzy borders. It's harder for the user to comply with, and to feel secure that he is complying with it. It's easier for others to play gotcha. A topic ban is a lot 'cleaner': simple to comply with, simple to oversee. That said, Doc can certainly be blocked if he persists in what you call a "Usenet style". I hope he realizes that he's on notice wrt to that now, especially as far as attacking Volunteer Marek is concerned. Bishonen | talk 13:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I concur with the sanction applied based on evidence presented here. If the behavior continues after the month, we can revisit an extended TB. --Laser brain (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Their response in accusing Bishonen of "having an axe to grind" is both unhelpful and demonstrates they don't understand the problem with their behavior (and are thus likely to do it again). Also, see this on their talk page. Very much agree with the topic ban imposed. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with the decision by Bishonen; this is exactly the type of quick action to curb disruption that discretionary sanctions is designed to facilitate, and there was crystal clear cause for action here. Since SMcCandlish has also provided an indication that disruption has occurred outside the area of Donald Trump, I'll also warn in no uncertain terms that if this type of conduct occurs elsewhere in the area of American politics, the topic ban will be substantially broadened, and will be lengthened or made indefinite. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

62.0.34.134

Clear violation after several warnings. Blocked 72 hours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:41, 4 August 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 62.0.34.134

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 62.0.34.134 (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

08:18, 4 August 2016 Editing in the topic area despite repeated notifications that IPs are prohibited
17:06, 1 August 2016 Editing in the topic area despite repeated notifications that IPs are prohibited
12:33, 18 July 2016 Editing in the topic area despite notification that IPs are prohibited
13:36, 19 May 2016 Highly POV edit in the topic area despite notification that IPs are prohibited

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)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor has been repeatedly warned[104][105] [106] that IPs are prohibited from editing any article that may be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Yet the IP continues to make such edits. It would appear from the content that the same editor has been using this IP for several weeks,

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning 62.0.34.134

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 (username)

Result concerning 62.0.34.134

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 665: / Line 665: @@
 ==62.0.34.134==
+{{hat|Clear violation after several warnings. Blocked 72 hours. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 16:41, 4 August 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>
@@ Line 707: / Line 708: @@
 <!-- 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. -->
 *
+{{hab}}

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