Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For for the policy regarding the letters æ or ae, see WP:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.

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

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

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 I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (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 :

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

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (aka jps) and Alexbrn have edit-warred material into the article GMO conspiracy theories based on self-published sources and other poor sourcing, ignoring objections. Jps created the article on January 31, 2016 to look like this. Many of the sources do not meet our sourcing guidelines. I pointed this out here and then took out a number of these unreliable sources [1] [2] [3] [4]. (Please note that Genetic Literacy Project is run by Jon Entine a Pro-GMO advocate. [5][6]; Mark Lynas does similar pro-GMO advocacy [7].) jps went ahead and put the material back in without addressing any of the concerns and without achieving consensus first here. I reverted here. Alexbrn edit-warred the material back in here despite continuing objections here. Tsavage also explained the problematic sourcing here.

At this ANI, jps's behavior was outrageous. Jps lied about the content of sources: [8]. He originally said that Domingo 2011 was "much criticized" [9]. When Petrarchan47 pointed out he was lying and asked him to "prove it" [10] [11], he responded with three journals [12], none of which criticized Domingo. An independent editor Sammy1339 confirmed it was a lie here. Rather than address the misrepresentations, jps made a mockery of the proceedings.[13][14][15][16][17] Jusdafax noted this disruptful behavior [18], as did Petrarchan47 [19].

--David Tornheim (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

CLARIFICATION

Although I did use the word "edit-warring" above, that is not my allegation in paragraph #1. My allegation is the unreasonable insistence on use of unacceptable and unreliable sources. That is the reason I brought this action. When I said edit-warring, I meant that both editors had been alerted to the problem with the sources, yet went ahead and forced those sources back in. This action is about the sources, not the number of times an editor reverted in a dispute. I am sorry I did not make that clear.

I will note that not a single only one of jps's and Alexbrn's defenders has been bold enough to suggest those sources are acceptable. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC) (revised 15:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

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

This warning has been on the article talk page in which both users have participated since 19:27 January 31,2016. I put further reminder pinging user here and another on the talk page here.

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 1/31/2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Regarding Kingofaces43 false allegations that I reverted solely based on "no consensus". Although I did not explain all my reasoning in the edit notes, In every single case, I discussed the revert on the talk page, and King was present in every one of those discussions. Often I created a section on the talk page and pinged the editor.

• For [20],[21], I restored material that had been stable in the article for a long time. The deletions were one-side and I and other editors discussed the non-NPOV removals here.

• For [22], see discussion and my comment

• For [23], see [24]

• For [25], the edit note gives other reasons. I further discuss on the talk page here: [26] (part of this discussion).

King's remaining diffs are just as poorly represented, but to spare Liz and others, I will limit providing more diffs:

• For the sentence about "pull[ing] a full 180 degrees" to "edit war content back in":
  • The first group of 3 is covered in this complaint: I was not adding but removing material that was based on blogs and self-published sites by pro-GMO advocates.
  • The next 3 diffs I restored well-sourced relevant material that was removed unilaterally. I even improved one of the sources.

The key difference between material I removed in the first 3 diffs and material I restored in the next 3, is the quality of the sources. That is why I brought this action. There is no reason for editors who have been here as long as jps and Alexbrn to waste our time trying to force material with such shoddy sourcing into the encyclopedia, when they know better.

For the remainder of King's diffs, he actually brings up actions taken against me by a now-topic-banned editor--I brought those exact actions as evidence at the ArbCom that resulted in that editor being topic-banned.

Regarding Shock Brigade Harvester Boris's statement:

Neither of those two editors are new to GMO's or new to Wikipedia. Both were at the GMO ArbCom proceeding. And both had edited and commented on GMO articles prior to the creation of the conspiracy article, advocating pro-industry positions. However, a new editor BarrelProof has shown up that immediately saw the problem that brought this action. [27]. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Bishonen's statement:

Why is jps immune from prosecution? How can you be sure jps is innocent when you have not even looked at the evidence? What kind of justice system is this? --David Tornheim (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding King's accusations of WP:Fringe:

Consider these two allegations: diff1 diff2.

Mentioning the fact that GMO's are banned or regulated more strictly in other countries is not fringe. The material in diff2 comes straight from the World Health Organization [28] and International Council for Science [29]. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[30] [31]

Discussion concerning I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

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 I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

Claims of edit warring are pretty strange. Certainly no violation of 1RR or even anything close to that (weeks in between reversions?) has occurred by anyone active at the article. I have encountered a lot of resistance from people of a certain political persuasion when it comes to the GMO controversy. Unfortunately, discussion on the talkpage has occasionally degenerated into problematic arguments by anti-GMO activists that, for example, sources such as academic books published by Oxford University Press were unreliable.[32] Sorry about my exasperation. I will try to dial back the snark as much as possible.

It would be nice if you all would give David and Petra little breaks from this subject as they are the ones who are most problematic in baiting and changing the discussion from content toward argumentative rhetoric. The AN/I discussion was outlandish for its demonstration that anti-GMO activists are so ideologically inclined to attach themselves to their favored sources, they cannot even understand when the sources are contradicted. I also find it particularly galling when they try to claim that Mark Lynas and David Entine are somehow corrupt sources[33] (e.g., an argument that because Entine works for AEI and climate deniers also work for AEI that therefore Entine is not a reliable source for information on genetic engineering, biotechnology, or food safety -- what?). Petra has gone so far as to claim equivalency between Lynas and Vani Hari [34] which is a level of incompetence regarding the identification of reliable sources that is fairly unrivaled at Wikipedia since maybe the time we were overrun with climate deniers.

jps (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Diffs (for those who like them)

WP:BOOMERANG may apply here as well. These are all David diffs since he filed the report:

• Revert by David. See WP:KETTLE.
• Heavy handed ordering of other editors. Basically asserting an odd form of ownership over the article ordering what edits I can and cannot do without so much as suggesting discussion is possible.
• continuing to harass an editor banned in the relevant arbcom case [35]

Responses

@Liz:: You're absolutely right about the arbcom GMO case. The problem, I think, is similar to what happened with global warming. There are just many editors with the same agendas willing to hop back into the game after their friends are banned and there is no arbitration of content (which is really what is needed because at the end of the day that's where the dispute lies -- not in behavior). What ended up happening in the climate change omnibus case was an outright ban of basically everyone with the deniers remaining banned and the "pro-science" folks slowly restored. We're almost at the point where all the things that the pro-science crowd wanted to do back in 2009 are accomplished, but some might argue that Wikipedia is better for having done the shoot first, ask questions later approach since it was ultimately difficult to pin the disciplinary action on any one ideology. But make no mistake, we know which "side" won that battle and it is pretty clear to me which "side" will win this battle too in the long run. If it takes a Boris-style suggestion of kicking us all to the curb to get it done because of the dysfunctional way Wikipedia administration and arbitration works, I guess that's okay by me. As the mother who asked that Solomon give the baby to the other woman rather than splitting it in twain, I would rather a decision made that will ultimately save the encyclopedia from becoming a haven for anti-GMO paranoia rather than preserving any small part I may have in helping this situation along. But you might consider whether the article I have written (for the most part) really is as bad as my esteemed colleagues who have dragged me here would have you believe. jps (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: It's pretty awful when no one can tell what your actual argument is upon filing. It's even worse when your argument is that you don't like the sources. There is essentially zero precedent for an WP:AE ruling over content like this. You're at the wrong venue. jps (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

This is more complicated than what the filing editor describes. Bottom line: jps should be strongly advised to dial back his sarcasm and snark, with the understanding that continuation will likely result in action here: [36], [37], [38].

At the same time, there is some reason for exasperation on jps' part, and some degree of conduct from the "other side" that gets rather close to baiting. I've gone through every single diff that David T. provided. The so-called edit warring isn't quite that, although David was just as much involved in it as anyone else – and I don't see anything disruptive on Alexbrn's part. When David talks about "unreliable sources", he is throwing PZ Myers and Scientific American into the mix, so the content dispute has a lot more shades of gray than what is presented. About the Domingo source, well, we can probably quibble over whether it was "much criticized", or just "criticized". The three sources cited by jps draw somewhat the opposite conclusions to Domingo, and since then another reliable source has directly refuted Domingo: [39]. Anti-GMO activists cling to the Domingo source, which is why it seems to be such high stakes. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The more that I see David T. continuing to use this page to argue about content, the more that I wish he would drop it as inappropriate to this noticeboard, and the more I wish he would direct his editing energy back to article talk pages. It's clear that we are no longer discussing any problem with jps, and the longer this goes on, the more likely a boomerang becomes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

Tryptofish described the overall situation well, but I do have to suggest a boomerang for David Tornheim as jps mentioned for a vexatious AE filing like this, which has resulted in action on other editors before.[40]. David Tornheim does have a tendency to antagonize the situation in this topic by some very clear cut fringe-advocacy behavior, which is only continuing to exacerbate the community's patience as we've seen in jps' case. WP:KETTLE is the most apparent behavior problem associated with battleground behavior for anyone that's been following David's actions in this topic.

Edit warring often occurs with David making demands as jps pointed out[41] or where they revert a new edit 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)[42][43][44][45][46] They still fail to see this problem in their behavior even in their comments in this filing.[47] 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)[48][49][50], and this[51][52][53] More kettle issues come up at the ANI[54] David tries to cite as evidence if someone takes the time to read through their multitude of posts, especially the battleground aspect of bringing up Nazi's, etc.

David has been warned multiple times at ANI now for battleground, edit warring, and general tendentiousness. [55][56][57], plus by admins for peanut gallery type behavior in this topic at admin boards.[58] Continuing that behavior and jumping to AE when someone shows reasonable frustration is just more battleground. We're past the point of warnings, so it's starting to look like the path to a topic ban is already being well traveled. If that doesn't seem clear to admins yet, reading the edit summaries in my diffs should be enough indication for a 0RR restriction for David as an intermediate step at this point.

In short, if someone truly believes there is something actionable here in terms of jps, we pretty much have an unambiguous case for even more severe action against David, especially if admins want to get into more detail than what I've briefly presented. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Responding to Short Brigade Harvester Boris, I don't think we're in such dire straits that we'd need such a nuclear option. We've been making slow progress in this topic with a decent handful of disruptive editors already topic banned. We basically have two core editors left that really frequent the topic (right now at least) with advocacy/battleground issues. David is one of those with their behavior being the more problematic of the two. My hope is that pruning back David's behavior should finally get us to a relative die-down on drama or at least to the point where action might only needed for one or two more editors to really settle things down. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Alexbrn

I see I have been accused of edit-warring on an article where I have only made two (unrelated) edits ever.[59][60]

That says it all. Alexbrn (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

This nonsense has gone on too long. The editing atmosphere is much too toxic for any newcomers to try to contribute, as User:Alexbrn's statement above demonstrate. Suggested remedy:

1. Compile a list of everyone who has edited the topic in the past month. (I would like to exclude User:Alexbrn but this has to be absolute or there will be endless wrangling. Sorry Alex.)

2. Topic ban them for the next six months.

3. If any of these editors violates the topic ban even once, or if they file a complaint about any other editor on the list in any venue on any Wikimedia project, the remaining period of the topic ban is automatically and without discussion converted as a site ban.

No, I am not trying to be funny. Nothing else is going to work. We need to make this topic safe for new contributors if anything is to change. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Aircorn

A few babies will go down the drain if SBHB's remedy is used. I don't think we are at this stage though. The major problem revolves around our presentation of the safety of GMO food. The divide between the science and public opinion is large[61] and that is reflected on Wikipedia. Correspondingly most of the problems stem from disagreements over this issue. Good progress had been made on this front (for example Talk:Genetically modified crops#First proposal revised) and before we resort to kicking everyone a better first step would be to get a well run rfc to decide this question for an enforceable period of time. AIRcorn (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

A response to Davids clarification above[62]. Reliability of a source depends on context and blogs by well known experts in the field are reliable for that persons opinion. I wouldn't classify myself as a defender of anyone, but yes these sources are acceptable as reliable source when attributed to that person (as all these were). The question is more an issue of how much weight to give that persons opinion (which can be none at all). This is a discussion for the talk page or a noticeboard, not a reason to come here. AIRcorn (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme

I agree with Tryptofish regarding his recommendation to strongly advise jps to "dial back his sarcasm and snark" but I doubt it will do any good because he has gotten away with it for far too long. I admit that my suggestion comes from first-hand experiences but that isn't why I'm here. I have a suggestion that may help resolve some of the ongoing disputes regarding controversial topics. GMO articles by their very nature attract editors with different perspectives, and as one would expect, involved editors almost always reach an impasse. What I've witnessed from the sidelines appears to be more of a syntax issue that escalates into behavioral issues, most of which are instigated by "sarcasm and snark" when the problem could easily be resolved with the help of qualified neutral copyeditors and/or experienced FA reviewers who can corroborate the prose against the cited sources. Perhaps we should consider a neutral "mediation team" who can step in and resolve these syntax disputes and spare the project further POV imbalance resulting from the use of TBs which actually conflict with our efforts in editor retention. Atsme^📞📧 04:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to add - there's a difference between pro-science and conflicting science, the latter occurring when scientists disagree with each other. Please, let's try to keep things in perspective. Atsme^📞📧 21:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Petra

In response to the claim from JPS regarding my supposed incompetence, "Petra has gone so far as to claim equivalency between Lynas and Vani Hari which is a level of incompetence regarding the identification of reliable sources that is fairly unrivaled at Wikipedia since maybe the time we were overrun with climate deniers."

I would like to note that Lynas is known as a pro-GMO writer. The "Food Babe" was an example I used of an advocate who is known as anti-GMO. I suggested that the reader should be alerted to his advocacy in the same way we would do for Vani Hari. That was my only claim. [But... climate change!(?)]

Admins, do you feel that my suggestion shows incompetence? Is it appropriate for JPS to not only fail to ping me, but to call me incompetent? Just wondering.

Result concerning I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

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

• I think the lack of admin response to this request is due to fatigue regarding disputes in the GMO area which show up at AE on a regular basis. It seems like the GMO arbitration case didn't settle things down one bit. You all have presented dozens and dozens of diffs so it will take a while for me (and others) to weigh the merits of your arguments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
• It is indeed very fatiguing. But before I faint from the oxygen-deprivation of tunnelling into the diff collections above and other background material, I will with my last breath oppose any sanction of jps in this matter. Bishonen | talk 17:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC).

• @David Tornheim: Did I say I hadn't looked at the evidence? I have tunnelled into it, and that's the reason I'm oxygen-deprived, dizzy and exhausted. I'm continuing to look, but wanted to register an interim opposition to sanctions, based on what I've seen so far. I'm still looking, and may be back. Bishonen | talk 11:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC).

Jytdog

No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Jytdog User who is submitting this request for enforcement Dialectric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Jytdog (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#Jytdog_topic_banned : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it March 5, 2016 diff - Bayer CropScience Limited produces agricultural chemicals. Per Remedy 8 in the GMO case, Jytdog is banned from pages related to agricultural chemicals. This is an unambiguous breach of the topic ban. 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) User is mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. Additional comments by editor filing complaint In addition to the above edit which is clearly within the scope of the topic ban, Jytdog has made a number of recent edits to a range of other Bayer-related articles. Per the January 2016 reword of the Discretionary sanctions in the GMO case, companies that produce agricultural chemicals are within the scope of the sanctions, and it could be inferred that this clarification of scope would also apply to topic bans. While the majority of Jytdog's edits here appear to be related to their pharma business, Bayer produces agricultural chemicals and has been involved in the production of, and controversies related to, GMOs (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-07-01/bayer-to-pay-750-million-to-end-lawsuits-over-genetically-modified-rice example ref). @ Kingofaces43 This filing primarily concerns only one diff, evaluation of which should not pose a undue burden to admins. I reject Kingofaces43’ position that this filing is vexatious. Jytdog writes in his statement that he agrees his edit was a violation of his topic ban. Please provide a link where anyone has told Jytdog that he has ‘been explicitly told it's ok to edit,’ Bayer-related articles. The discussion you link for the statement that 'adding companies to existing topic bans did not pass' shows that there were not enough votes either way. I assume this means arbcom members could still vote to pass it. Dialectric (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC) @Kingofaces43 , I believe you are reading more into the arbcom motion than is there. There is no explicit statement that it is OK to edit articles about agchem companies. In fact several arbcom members say explicitly 'don't test the boundaries'. An admin could reasonably take a topic ban on agricultural chemicals broadly construed to include those companies which produce agricultural chemicals, whether or not arbcom included wording about companies. Bayer CropScience is more closely related to GMOs, the core of the controversy, than Agent Orange is related to GMOs. If you would like to discuss interpretation of the arbcom decision further, you are welcome to do so on my talk page.Dialectric (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC) @Jytdog Thank you for reverting the edit to Bayer CropScience Limited.Dialectric (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC) As Jytdog has reverted his edit, I believe this issue is now resolved. If an uninvolved admin agrees, feel free to close.Dialectric (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested notification diff Discussion concerning Jytdog 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 Jytdog I was cleaning up articles around Bayer which had a proliferation of articles that had contradictory/overlapping content (here are my contribs for today), and noted that in my edit note when I redirected this stub to the main Bayer article. There was nearly identical content already in the Bayer article. I see the violation of course, and I reckoned that someone might have a cow over this, but was figuring no one would because it is ... minor... obvious... and it is hard to see why anyone would care or object, I guess. Anyway, no drama - I have reverted the redirect and will leave that piece for someone else. Would have done the same had Dielectric just asked me. But this is for sure a violation and the path to AE was wide open. No argument there. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC) Bayer went through a big re-organization in January. Along with bringing in the disparate articles that had come existence about old corporate structures, I was going to rework the article, tiptoeing around the ag stuff carefully, but in light of this filing I am stopping and will leave the rest to someone else. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC) Kingofaces43 I'm not arguing that it wasn't a TBAN violation. It is just so minor/obvious I just figured common sense would apply. Since it has been called out, I have reverted. No need for drama. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Kingofaces43 There's no violation here, even technical. Jytdog's topic ban covers at most pesticide related content here. For better or worse, ArbCom made it clear that the current topic bans they handed out do not specifically apply to companies producing pesticides as long as the editor is not editing about topics covered by the ban; specifically adding companies to existing topic bans did not pass. [63] Arbs were pretty clear there that edits on this specific area should be watched closely, but would cautiously be allowed. This has come up a few times at AE now, so Dialectric should know better than to file a case like this when we already have another vexatious GMO filing just above this. Some GMO topic-banned editors have been given admin guidance outside of their ban to stay away from the agricultural company articles entirely because they still couldn't disengage from advocacy for other disruptive behavior. Putting in a redirect for an article that does not even discuss any of the topic ban areas is about as far as you could get from that and is in line with what arbs were allowing. We've discussed admin malaise with GMO AE filings above already.[64] What's starting to become interesting is that most topic-bans by ArbCom and filings that resulted in action at AE have been against editors critical of the scientific consensus on GMOs in some fashion. When those same editors file cases here though, they're often found to be lacking merit or even resulting in a boomerang on the filer. In a case like this were Dialectric is effectively using Jytdog's topic ban to push them out of topics without legitimate reason where they have been explicitly told it's ok to edit, we do need to start clamping down on that behavior. It makes me look like I'm out for blood when I end up calling for a boomerang here so often, so would ask that admins be mindful of this trend we have now (just a glimpse of what us regulars without sanctions have been putting up with) when it comes to assessing filings. I would ask admins that if they see a filing that's tenuous at best, to nip it in the bud with a good look at whether it would serve the topic to take action against the filer. Hopefully that cuts down on the litany GMO filings in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC) Dialectric, the amendment decision explicitly says an edit like this is fine. The amendment to add companies was rejected by a majority of arbs as an official clarification, and the oppose votes outline the details of this reasoning rather clearly. If that weren't the case, we would have blocked other editors earlier for much worse as a violation of their GMO topic ban. We had guidance from ArbCom on this, so we shouldn't be ignoring it in this case when we've used the guidance for past enforcement. You were involved in WP:ARCA at the time, so that's why I said you should have been aware. That's all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Adv4Ag Just my opinion, but I agree with Kingofaces43. I couldn't believe Jytdog was facing another ArbCom after the topic ban, so I had to come take a look. My first thought when I saw the Bayer diff was, "You've got to be kidding. An ArbCom over a simple re-direct?!?" It just seems an awful lot like sour grapes to me. I'm a very infrequent editor, so maybe my opinion doesn't matter, but it sure looks like making a mountain out of a molehill. Adv4Ag (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by AlbinoFerret Arbcom did clarify that editors topic banned in the GMO case could edit pages of companies that produce agracutural chemicals as long as it was not about GMO's or agracutural chemicals. But the edit in question appears to remove GMO information. We find this line | products = [[Environmental science]], [[pesticide]] and [[seeds]] Also this (my bold, but could not bold the last refrence and have it show and be bold), <Bayer CropScience Limited''' is the Indian subsidiary of [[Bayer AG]]. Its head office is located in [[Hiranandani Estate]], [[Thane district]] in [[Maharashtra]], India. Bayer CropScience Limited is a part of Bayer Group (India) and is the only [[public company]] of Bayer Group in India.<ref name="About Bayer">{{cite news|title=About Bayer|publisher=Official website|accessdate=September 2015|url=http://www.bayer.co.in/about_us.php}}</ref><ref name="German polymer major views India as growth driver">{{cite news|title=German polymer major views India as growth driver|publisher=[[Business Standard]]|accessdate=September 2015|url=http://www.business-standard.com/article/b2b-connect/german-polymer-major-covestro-views-india-as-growth-driver-115090300153_1.html}}</ref><ref name="Bayer CropScience buys SeedWorks ">{{cite news|title=Bayer CropScience buys SeedWorks |publisher=[[Business Standard]]|accessdate=September 2015|url=http://www.business-standard.com/content/b2b-chemicals/bayer-cropscience-buys-vegetable-seed-firm-seedworks-india-115060101389_1.html}}</ref> and this catagory. [[Category:Agriculture in India]] This is a clear violation. AlbinoFerret 16:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC) @Tryptofish I would like you remoind you that Prokaryotes was sanctioned in a section on this page dealing with the GMO arbcom case, that you started. @EdJhonston I think your correct that since its been self reverted nothing needs to be done, but a warrning not to violate the ban again may be a good idea. AlbinoFerret 01:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Tryptofish I think that this was, indeed, a violation of the topic ban, and Jytdog should have known better. And I am glad that Jytdog reverted the reference to Dialectric supposedly having "had a cow", because I see Dialectric's filing as good faith. But, much as with numerous other recent AE filings coming out of the GMO case, it was a minor and relatively harmless step over the topic ban boundary, it was self-reverted, and Jytdog has made it clear that he will not repeat it. The other similar AE cases did not result in sanctions, and neither should this one. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Where AlbinoFerret points to the Prokaryotes sanction, that situation was nothing like the one here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by JzG This request shows why there is admin fatigue over the GMO case. A technical infringement, fixed by self-reversion, and no evidence at all of trying to game the system. Why are we even here? This just about rises to the level of "meh". Guy (Help!) 16:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Jytdog This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Notice that User:Dialectric who filed this request now believes that Jytdog has made a revert that cures the problem. Unless something more persuasive is posted, I'd close this with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Askahrc

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 Askahrc

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Manul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Askahrc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience :

1. 2 March 2014 "Askahrc (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for using an IP address to harass other users and waste the community's time (see the SPI). Askahrc is warned that any attempt to harass other users, waste the community's time or edit logged out or with another account in contravention of WP:SOCK will result in an extended block. Askahrc is also restricted to using the Askahrc account only when editing pseudoscience or fringe science related topics and is banned from notifying any user of pseudoscience or fringe science discretionary sanctions. See the warning for further information."
2. 5 March 2014 (Previous AE request) "Tabled for now, with the understanding that there is a low bar for reporting newer disruption."

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

Note: Please hold off on evaluating this case until I've made it conform to the requirements. I've been granted an extension on the word count but I am awaiting other information. Update: I had to ask Arbcom an additional question; awaiting a response. Manul ~ talk 16:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Since this matter was originally intended for Arbcom, who sent it here (for background see the deleted text here), it involves a bit more detail than the usual AE request, so I am formally requesting a space extension.

Askahrc has orchestrated a number of deceptions on Wikipedia. He has only been sanctioned for the first point below. Items 3 and 4 are new issues not brought before, and item 5 is an ongoing problem extending to the present moment (the recent diffs from 3 March 2016 are at the end).

1. Askahrc harassed editors with an IP sockpuppet[65] for which he was given strong warning in the DS log.[66] Three admins affirmed the sockpuppetry.[67][68][69]
2. By issuing threats under the disguise of the sockpuppet, Askahrc was trumping up the "bullying" evidence for his Arbcom case, "Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors". Indeed the case begins, "This request for arbitration is to resolve recurring threats..."[70]
3. Askahrc used the fabricated harassment evidence to rile up support in his off-wiki canvassing: "Nearly a dozen editors who have disagreed with the skeptical majority's opinion on the Sheldrake page have been threatened with banning."[71] To be clear, Askahrc himself issued the threats and then complained about them in order to generate "buzz", and indeed the story was picked up by blogs.
4. Askahrc knowingly permitted Tumbleman's sockpuppet SAS81 to disrupt Wikipedia, standing by while Tumbleman (as SAS81) attacked editors with whom he and Askahrc had prior grievances (evidence to follow). Admins at Tumbleman's AE called him "pure WP:SOUP", "likely just a troll", and "a thoroughly disruptive editor, and either a troll or else someone with serious WP:COMPETENCE issues".[72]
   • Askahrc and Tumbleman had already been affiliated via the off-site harassment prior to the appearance of the SAS81 sock.
   • Askahrc is the founder of ISHAR[73] where Tumbleman worked.[74]
   • Out of the millions of topics on Wikipedia, Askahrc "just happened" to become involved with the topic of Deepak Chopra soon after Tumbleman (as SAS81) appeared. Askahrc's first Chopra-related comment on Wikipedia is at BLPN where he replies to Tumbleman.[75] Hours later he jumps into a COIN discussion to defend Tumbleman and "help mediate".[76] And after joining forces with Tumbleman, Askahrc was effectively an SPA for Chopra.
   • Examples of attacks by Tumbleman as SAS81 may be found in the "harass" and "bias" section of the SPI.[77] In a thread in which Askahrc participated, Tumbleman strongly attacked me with wild and false accusations, calling me "unscrupulous".[78]
5. Presently Askahrc has relaunched his campaign to falsely paint me as someone who files fraudulent SPIs.
   • This began with his campaigning in favor of Tumbleman after Tumbleman's block,[79][80][81][82] e.g. "a large number of innocent editors have been blocked as collateral damage".
   • The campaigning additionally included WP:POLEMICs on his talk page[83][84] which were copied to the off-wiki harassment site.
   • Other examples from the long campaign:
     • Suggesting I have an "an inappropriate tendency to accuse people who disagree with them of sockpuppetry"
     • Suggesting a "high number of editors who have been accused and blocked" by me for sockpuppetry. (In fact it was just one person with multiple socks.)
     • Suggesting the SPI was somehow equivocal, and falsely claiming that an admin told me to "stop".
     • Suggesting that I engaged in misconduct by filing SPIs. (No admin has ever suggested this.)
   • Finally the recent campaigning (evidence to follow). Note the off-wiki harassment site has latched onto my new name, and later I quite publicly mentioned the name change in an RFA and user talk page, so whatever modicum of protection from Askahrc it served is now gone.
     • Falsely claiming that it was "eventually proven" that I had been "citing inaccurate information".
     • Falsely claiming that the SPI evidence was "solidly debunked".
     • Making the misleading statement that "the SPI conviction was not supported by a Checkuser". There was no checkuser request, of course, because checkusers won't link usernames to IPs due to the privacy policy.

Askahrc and Tumbleman (Askahrc's former co-worker at ISHAR and co-contributor to the off-wiki harassment site) have a strong interest in promoting the view that I am some kind of crazed editor who haphazardly files fraudulent SPIs against others. This is the basis on which the off-wiki harassment rests. Askahrc even has a financial interest in promoting this view now. Nothing can be done about off-wiki harassment, of course, but I won't tolerate it being brought on-wiki. In the past my pleas to stop it were ignored. I had hoped Askahrc's campaign was over, but it yet continues. This is harassment, and I am citing the logged sanction against him, "Askahrc is warned that any attempt to harass other users..." Manul ~ talk 12:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Littleolive oil: A couple days old is not stale. It's important to show that the problem has been ongoing, extending from the past to the present. I've added a note for clarification. Thanks for your help in improving this request. Manul ~ talk 06:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Askahrc has responded in the same problematic way I outlined. My response:

• Askahrc claims some issues are "from years ago that have already been discussed in front of admins several times".
  • Reality: It has never been discussed that Askahrc knowingly teamed up with a sockpuppet of a blocked user in order to influence the Chopra article. Askahrc's off-wiki harassment and canvassing activities have also never been discussed. These activities continue today, by the way.

Manul ~ talk 15:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Response to Askahrc's second reply: I would just implore admins to look at the evidence and not take what Askahrc says at face value. For instance the STICK reference is invalid, as I've never brought up the second SPI save for when Askahrc does (e.g. his second frivolous arbitration request). It is Askahrc's ongoing false statements about the first SPI that are a problem here. Manul ~ talk 12:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 2 March 2014

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

Discussion concerning Askahrc

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

Statement by Askahrc

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

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

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

3) As far as off-wiki harassment goes, I don't know what to say that hasn't been said already (7). I spoke in Tumbleman's defense years ago, before the full scope of his behavior was known, and have since publicly severed all ties with him and his actions. I apologize if you feel I'm somehow engaged in a "campaign to discredit you," I'm not.

The recent "harassment" Manul/Vzaak is upset about boils down to the fact I wrote two edits explaining to an admin why the old SPI's against me ought to be reviewed (without any mention of negative action against Manul/Vzaak). It is not WP:HARRASS or WP:ASPERSION to civilly disagree with Manul/Vzaak's opinions (8, 9, 10). I have no interest in tracking down and bothering Manul, but the opposite does not seem to be true. I'd rather not have to spend my days worrying about their walls of accusations, so I'd request an WP:IBAN. If they are honestly concerned about me "harassing" them, this would also resolve that concern. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 11:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your statement that you never claimed I had anything to do with a death threat or suppressed edits, I apologize if I misinterpreted the issue of suppression, but you directly argued I was conspiring to issue death threats (11). Worse, you continue to insist (even here) that, despite the fact I was unequivocally absolved, the evidence is still very strong that I committed this criminal act.

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

Jytdog, I know you have strong feelings on the topic and have been frustrated by Tumbleman in the past, but I do not condone his actions nor share his behavior. I've tried to be transparent about my interactions, posted notifications when I spoke to Tumbleman off-wiki, declared my CoI when I was approached to work on ISHARonline, and announced the fact that SAS81 had been let go from that organization, his conduct (and socks) on WP being factor in that (12). I don't blame anyone for being suspicious of my conduct, I made an error in judgement in trusting someone who violated WP policy.

As far as "just dropping it", I had done so before this AE was brought. I think there's been confusion about what I've actually been saying (vs. what Manul/Vzaak has been describing). I followed WP:APPEAL by asking the enforcing admin to review the evidence behind the one SPI I was found guilty of, given that a later SPI using similar evidence had proven the filer was mistaken in identifying me as a sock (in that 2nd SPI, to be clear) (13, 14). I agreed to the terms set by the admin and accepted their decision that it had been too long a time to reconsider the SPI (15, 16). I don't see how that's lying to the community, nor why it would justify you filing a WP:TOPICBAN against me. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 21:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Statement by olive

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

Statement by JzG

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

Statement by Looie496

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

Statement by Jytdog

Askahrc I interacted a ton, both on wikipedia and via email, with SAS81, your fellow founder at ISHAR with whom I know now you were MEATing, and who was himself a SOCK. I tried very hard to teach that person how to be a Wikipedian and I feel filthy and stupid for having tried. It defies common sense and everything else on the planet that were you were not colluding with SAS81.

You have (apparently) been a decent member of the community since then. I suggest you drop your efforts to "clear your name" and accept it that you have a filthy past. Just drop it. Your effort to do so, is apparently what prompted this... overexuberant posting from Manul. If you agree to drop it, I am sure that Manul will in turn drop this AE case. If you intend to keep pushing, I will advocate for your being topic banned from the Chopra article per the DS, because the push shows, to me, a desire to lie to the community about what happened back then or bury it. Let me know. Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Askahrc Thanks for replying but I am completely uninterested in all that justification garbage. I frankly do not believe it and I am not going to waste yet more of my time trying to figure it out. What I or anybody else believes about the past, is only relevant because you are dredging it up. There does not need to be any drama about the past. You are creating that - you are stirring things up, and it is disruptive. That will be the justification for my seeking a topic ban. So let it go. You have some support from some very high quality people here based on your recent past behavior, but as long as you continue to contest the past, you absolutely do not have mine, in fact you will have the opposite. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Askahrc: Clerk notes

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

Result concerning Askahrc

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

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

Gaijin42

not actionable. Spartaz Humbug! 23:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
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 Gaijin42 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Felsic2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Gaijin42 (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/Gun control : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 16 October 2015 Adds paragraph of unsourced opinion, which he now says was taken from this opinion piece written by the NRA-ILA.[85] 17 October 2015 Replaces factual description by liberal MediaMatters with the uncited NRA-ILA opinion, while leaving the Media Matters citation in place, acknowledging a POV problem 10 March 2016 Defends the edit in part by saying that, per WP:SILENCE, since no one caught his fraudulent edit then it must be OK. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Gaijin42_.28topic-ban.29 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#October_2015 Additional comments by editor filing complaint Gaijin42 was topic banned and appealed his ban. In his appeal he gave three examples of the editing he'd do if the ban were lifted.[86] See "example areas of potential work". Of those three areas, he has done no work on two of them. These edits were made in the days immediately following the lifting of his topic ban, when presumably would have been most careful. While this happened six months ago, it was only now discovered. Misreporting what a source says is one of the most pernicious forms of POV pushing, since it may go undetected for so long. This is a case of really, really bad editing. Gaijin42 makes a source say the opposite of what it really said, using an undisclosed source which never would have been acceptable for anything but an attributed opinion. In December Gaijin42 brought an enforcement request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive185#TruthIsDivine - he reported a user who was upset that "fraudulent" material was in a gun ontrol-related article, including material that Gaijin42 restored.[87] He refused to address the substance of the complaint. He later said that the material was, in fact, significantly wrong.Talk:Defensive_gun_use#Pro-gun_fraud_in_this_article[88] So his first recourse was to edit warring and enforcement, rather than listening and dealing with the problem. That is an example of battleground editing. Battleground editing and putting undue weight on issues were among the reasons Gaijin42 was originally topic banned. This editing is of the same type. In re: the somewhat peripheral issue of the Defensive gun use article and user:TruthIsDivine, it appears Gaijin42 contacted Gamaliel off-Wiki at the time.[89] In re: Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act, the article has other POV issues regarding weight and sources that trace back to Gaijin's editing, so I don't think it can be held up as an example of fine editing. However the highlighted edit is the worst. In re: off-wiki contact. There's no way for uninvolved users to know the content of such discussions. This. isn't the basis for the complaint - it just stood out. The basis for this complaint is the misleading editing of a gun control-related article. @EdJohnston: - In re: "thin complaint" - I've looked further into Gaijin42's recent gun control-related editing. These don't look good either: 7 February 2016 Deletes scholarly source simply because the scholar is not 'notable' - an inadequate reason for removing sourced, scholarly material that should form the basis for WP articles. 8 February 2016 Adds material about knivfe laws to an article about gun laws. 10 December 2015 dismisses a mainstream newspaper in the San Bernadino area for the article on the 2015 shooting there 2 October 2015 22 October 2015 22 October 2015 - Spamming the same minor content (a proposed bill) into three articles. 16 October 2015‎ This edit is art of the orginal complaint. In addition to the already mentioned issues, Gaijin42 picked an inflammatory quotation ("We are going to hit them where it hurts, in the wallet". )instead of a more reasoned one ("You can't expect the status quo on businesses which make money and then have no responsibility to us as citizens.") That appears intended to put a spin on the issue. Also. He used a primary source for one of the paragraphs, arguably creating an argument based on a WP:SYNTH. These are the types of POV pushing edits that got Gaijin42 topic banned and even blocked before. In re: "boomerang for grasping at straws?" below - Gaijin42 seems to be saying that complaining about his editing is a bannable offense. Since he is on what amounts to probation on this topic, he should expect his edits to be reviewed closely. The fact he made and let stand for six months a horribly misleading and POV edit is not my fault. @Gamaliel: Gaijin42 leaving the bad edit in place for five months makes it worse, not better, IMO. As for the other edits, someone who appealed for a second chance while giving false claims of what work he'd do, someone who has made less-than-optimal edits across a variety of articles, someone who accepts bad sources and discards good ones, that seems to me like someone who needs to avoid the topic altogether. But you guys are wiser than me, I'm sure. Maybe this time Gaijin42 has learned to avoid outrageously misleading and POV edits in this topic. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning Gaijin42 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 Gaijin42 The edits in question to the PLCAA article are from 6 5 months ago. They were part of a large rewrite/addition I did to that article. As I said in the article talk earlier today, in retrospect, that particular sentence was poor. However, when taken in the context of the rather large changes I made to the article at the time, it is clear that that one sentence was the exception rather than the rule (diff of before/after of my entire chain of edits) [90] Note that even at the time, I specifically drew attention to that edit saying that it could use some NPOV help. (see edit summary) [91] I admit, I should have taken more time to double check that sentence for neutrality and sourcing. But a single sentence 6 months ago, and when challenged I readily admit a problem and do not object to any changing... I'm not sure why everyone's time is being wasted here. Regarding the other matter, a sock User:TruthIsDivine of a banned indeffed user User:Kingshowman was disrupting the article. The version that the banned user objected to was in fact sourced. He repeatedly insisted that the 33 million number was not in the source, even though the location of that number was pointed out to him multiple times, by multiple editors After the disruption ended, I initiated a discussion to build consensus Talk:Defensive_gun_use#Issues_with_the_33_million_number and made edits to improve the neutrality and accuracy of the article, in a fashion contrary to my own POV. Somehow thats a problem I guess. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC) For those that care to dig deeper regarding the truthisdivine issue, the source in question is http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/JQC-CookLudwig-DefensiveGunUses-1998.pdf and the 33 million number that he objected to is visible in the table on page 121 (p11 of the pdf) in the table in the lower left hand corner, which gives a range of 12.9-33.1 million DGUs). After discussion, we decided to use the smaller 4.7 million number which has tighter exclusion criteria, from the second column, but 33 million is absolutely sourcable. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC) As the December AE report is at issue, pinging the involved admins at the time @Gamaliel and Rschen7754: Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Regarding the ygm ping to Gamaliel, note that it was sent AFTER the case was closed. For the record, the message I sent is below. clearly an inappropriate communication. This is approaching WP:HOUND. Thank you for your intercession on the recent flare up. As I am on probation in the area, and wish to remain in good graces to have the sanction completely lifted, if you have any comment regarding my conduct in this instance, I would appreciate it. Also, if you think you are going to keep the ban in place, you may wish to log it on the case page. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC) boomerang for grasping at straws? This is ridiculous. Felsic is grasping at straws on some kind of witch hunt agenda now. You may agree with or disagree with any of the edits or talk page comments listed, but they clearly fall well within the bounds of normal editing and WP:BRD and WP:CON. Yes, I deleted the unattributed opinions, sourced to the article "Gun rites: hegemonic masculinity and neoliberal ideology in rural Kansas" written by a nobody activist, in which the relevant portion reads " The third objective is to interrogate the ways in which particular material practices and gendered discourses regarding gun use are reinforced by settler colonialism, whiteness, heteronormativity, enabledness, and nationalism.". WP:BRD WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV WP:WEIGHT The open and concealed carry laws in Wisconsin were changed to cover both knives and guns. I discussed the change on the article talk (Talk:Gun_laws_in_Wisconsin#article_name_change), and got support for the proposed change. That this is being brought up as something possibly negative is asinine. The content suggested from the site "pe.com" which lists no editorial board or other signs of WP:RS was "BERNARDINO SHOOTING: Gun buyer, shooter's brother married to Russian sisters". I commented on the talk page that I thought better sourcing would be needed for conspiracy theory style BLP info. for both BLP and WEIGHT concerns. Apparently merely having the opinion on a talk page that BLP/RS policy might apply is a sanction-able issue. Yep, I put in a information about a bill into 3 articles that would be directly affected by that bill. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC) I chose one portion of a quote. Felsic apparently prefers a different portion. It is undisputed that the quote and the lawsuits the quote refers to are causally related to the topic of the article. Felsic, the main edit in question, I have freely admitted was problematic. I take full responsibility for the issue. But a single edit 5 months ago, that nobody is fighting over is wasting everyone's time. Past that, you are grasping at straws, and frankly misrepresenting the diffs in question in an effort to buttress the one diff that is a problem. (Oh no, I said in a talk page comment I thought a better source might be needed! oh the humanity!) You are clearly reviewing my entire edit history for the past several months and coming up with either completely appropriate edits and talk page comments, or at the worst insignificant issues which occur regularly as part of normal editing process. Either you have a personal agenda against me that I was not aware of, or you need to take a deep breath and rethink the level of nitpicking you are engaging in. This entire debacle could have been (and in fact was) resolved with a simple talk page discussion. Unless you come up with something that truly demands a response, I'm done letting you waste my time. Admins, please close this so we can get on with making an encyclopedia. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Gaijin42 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Per this discussion on his user talk Felsic2 is a replacement account for User:Felsic for which the password was lost. So we may as well entertain this report, though Felsic2 is not yet confirmed. The argument so far is thin, so unless more evidence of misbehavior by User:Gaijin42 is presented, I would close with no action. Gaijin42's ban from gun control is directly from Arbcom, but it was suspended in October 2015 for a period of one year. Links to these actions are in the above report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC) I can confirm that the text Gaijin42 posted is the complete and accurate text of the email he sent me at the time. I have no idea why this email is being brought up as the contact was in no way inappropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC) The October 16 edit is extremely troubling, and were this reported in October or November, I would consider it sanctionable. But it is also extremely stale, and the rest of the complaint seems like a grab bag of stuff Felsic2 doesn't like as opposed to actual violations or problematic behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Volunteer Marek

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

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

Appealing user

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

"You are hereby banned from making any edits to the article Bernie Sanders for 1 week."

Administrator imposing the sanction

Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Holy freakin' crap. I make ONE - that's right ONE - revert to the Bernie Sanders page [92] and I am topic banned for a WEEK for "edit warring". Without warning. Without notification. Just "BOOM!" Is this serious? Did April 1st come early this year or something? And yes, I did start a talk page discussion [93]. I'm sorry but that is simply NOT "edit warring", that's normal WP:BRD. The other editor who has also made one revert [94] was not topic banned (and no, I don't think they should be either - that would be insane, just like this is).

Look. I understand the need for discretionary sanctions on a topic like potentially contentious topic like Sanders (incidentally, why isn't the Clinton - or other US presidential candidates - article subject to the same sanction [95]?). But this is way over the line. The purpose of these sanctions, per the final decision was to prevent "continuous disruption of content as the problems move from one area to another."" Was there any "continuous disruption" here? No, it was a single fishin' edit (and a good one too).

And per DS/definitions "Prior to placing sanctions that are likely to be controversial, administrators are advised to elicit the opinions of other administrators at AE." Was this done? No, it was just .... "BOOM!"

I also feel compelled to point out that this kind of enforcement runs afoul of BLP issues. Under this schema, where a single revert gets you topic banned, the person who ADDS material to a BLP article is "protected", whereas the person who REMOVES material from a BLP article runs the danger of getting sanctioned. I'm sorry but that's completely backwards. Is this really how you guys want this to work? Adding contentious material to BLPs is fine, "protected from removal" even, but removing it gets you a topic ban? Did someone forget to think this one through? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Coffee, what you are effectively doing with your serial and exclusive sanction-slapping on Bernie Sanders, is imposing a 0RR restriction on the article. Without telling anyone about it. And no, the warning that appears when you press "edit" does not sufficiently address that - it says there are discretionary sanctions in place but it does NOT warn editors that they can get a topic ban for a single revert. IF you are going to treat the article as if it was under 0RR - which I'm pretty sure is NOT what the ArbCom decision was meant to do - then at the very least you need to make sure that editors know this. Change that discretionary sanctions notice to say "This article is under 0RR restriction".

Which isn't to agree with there being a 0RR restriction on the article, particularly since it's a BLP, which means reverting will be necessary to REMOVE contentious material. But if that's how you're going to interpret "discretionary sanctions", you need to let people know before sanctioning them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@David, the first edit was not a revert. It was just removing some sketchy info from the article. And please don't accuse me of "dishonesty" - you are engaging in baseless personal attacks on a WP:AE page which itself could get you blocked. And really pissing me off too, as I don't appreciate being accused of being "dishonest" and am tempted to throw a few choice adjectives your way in response.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

And speaking of ... I'm going to call this "inaccuracy", rather than "dishonesty", David, I never said "I made one edit" as you claim. I said "I made one revert". So get your own claims in order before you accuse others of lying.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• You know what? Whatever. I don't even really care about this subject. I was simply looking up something about Bernie in the article, noticed some sketchy text, removed it. Someone reverted me. I started a discussion (although my edit summary was sufficiently descriptive) and reverted the revert. And then BOOM! all of sudden I'm under a topic ban. I was not aware that Coffee has decided that 0RR applied to the article. The sanction notice did not inform me of this. Making one revert is not "edit warring" (unless there's a 0RR restriction). No other article in the topic "American Politics" is subject to such draconian restrictions that I'm aware of (this seems to have been a unilateral choice made by Coffee specifically for the Bernie Sanders article). My edit on the article was NOT disruptive (unless you think making a single revert is "disruptive" in which case I suggest it's time to hang up the tools and do some content-editing because you have no idea how Wikipedia actually works for non-admins) It improved the article too.

• I think this kind of sanctioning procedure is... well, stupid. It privileges addition of sketchy material to a BLP article and protects it from removal. It effectively removes any long standing and well meaning editors from the article since no one in their right mind who figures out that they may be subject to these kind of extreme sanctions will wish to edit this article again (I sure as hell am not going to edit it again), leaving only dedicated battleground and advocacy accounts, along with the usual fly-by-night single purpose accounts. But hey, if that is what you think is the ideal situation for a major article on a American presidential candidate, that's really your problem, not mine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Coffee, ok, so it's 0RR for the person removing material and 1RR for the person adding it. It's a BLP. That actually makes it *worse*.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

And if we're going to get all procedural, here's what WP:AC/DS actually says about alerts and warnings relevant to discretionary sanctions:

"No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if they were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision or have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed). An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months:

1. . The editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
2. . The editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
3. . The editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict."

Notice what is NOT on the list? "Some administrator adds a vague and ambiguously worded template to an article that appears when editors click "edit"" of the kind that a lot of editors might not even notice when editing an article for the first time" is NOT on the list. In other words, no, per ArbCom decision, that template by itself is not sufficient notice of discretionary sanctions.

Now, funnily enough where I myself am concerned, #2 actually applies since it seems I did comment in the original arbitration request [96] (which I don't actually remember, didn't follow the case itself, and if this here happened a week later it would be inapplicable). But in the future you really DO NEED to formally warn editors before sanctioning them, as required per WP:AC/DS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Coffee

This particular ban, is made specifically for the article itself... not the topic as a whole (which allows Marek to discuss changes at the talk page). This, as I said at his talk page, is to prevent further disruption on the article itself. There have simply been too many edit wars occurring on that page, which is what caused me to place sanctions on the article originally (after a report was made a few weeks ago at WP:RFPP). All editors have been made aware of the sanctions, per Arbitration Committee policy, article sanctions are placed in the edit notice. The other editor, who made the revert, was following WP:BRD... reverting his revert is an edit war (BRD stands for be Bold and make an edit, someone Reverts you, now you Discuss the edit... it does not stand for Bold edit, someone Reverts, make one Comment on the talk page and immediately afterwards you Revert - that would be BRCR. This is fairly simple, it is not my responsibility to ensure Volunteer Marek actually reads the very obvious edit notice before making an edit, he violated the sanctions placed there... and is now subject to a personal sanction to simply prevent further disruption. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• The discretionary sanctions in place at the article are fairly easy to understand, but let me paste them here for Volunteer Marek, since he's failing to understand what this means:

You must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits, must not engage in edit warring and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page.

An administrator has applied the restriction above to this page. This is pursuant to an arbitration decision, which authorised discretionary sanctions for pages relating to all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Please edit carefully.

Please note that discretionary sanctions can be used against individual editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any Wikipedia policy and editorial norm.|Discretionary sanctions have been used by an administrator to place restrictions on all edits to this page. Discretionary sanctions can also be used against individual editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any Wikipedia policy and editorial norm.

Before you make any more edits to pages in this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system and the applicable arbitration decision.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Volunteer Marek: I repeat, this is not a topic ban, it is only a ban from editing the article itself. Also, I have placed a sanction on edit warring not a 0RR restriction. If 0RR was in place I would have blocked the other editor who was following standard WP:BRD procedure. No one stated your edit was disruptive, it was potentially contentious (then obviously contentious once reverted) and done without firm consensus being acquired first (another requirement I've placed in the sanction, which you can read above), and the revert violated the second requirement of the sanction (which you can also read above). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• @Volunteer Marek: The alert policy you're referring to has to do with placing sanctions on users, not pages. If you scroll down on the DS page you'll find this policy: "Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place." (emphasis mine) This isn't as hard to understand as you're making it seem. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• @Jnorton7558: As far as as I'm aware, and ArbCom can correct me if I'm wrong, when you use the DS editnotice template it automatically places the page into a category for sanctioned pages. (Akin to how alerts create a tag for the user, and you don't have to manually log those anymore.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• @NuclearWarfare: There isn't a 1RR restriction on the page, as many people seem to for some reason think there is; there is both a restriction on making potentially contentious edits without getting firm consensus on the talk page first, and a restriction on edit warring. From what I'm seeing Marek violated both of those restrictions, which is why I put the rather light sanction in place. This is a highly viewed page (more than any other Democratic candidate) during a very fiery election season. I happen to be the only admin who is enforcing your allowed sanctions regarding the American Politics dispute, which I find odd I must say (but perhaps I'm the only uninvolved admin watching these pages). Sanders' article specifically seems to be the one where edit wars, and content disputes are a constant (I've watched the other pages, and I haven't been notified of anything like it happening on other candidate's pages), and therefore a page sanction seemed most appropriate (especially considering we've already had the media cover it once; if the content disputes aren't controlled in a reasonable fashion I assume will see another article from the media, as the last one was about the edit warring/content disputes - which I don't think the WMF is very open to happening again btw). But, hey if I'm somehow blind to what a violation of the very restrictions I put in place looks like then feel free to correct me. I'm always open to seeing things from a different perspective. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by Sir Joseph

Firstly, where does DS say that DS is 1RR? For ARBPIA it explicitly says that 1RR is the rule. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Volunteer Marek

Gaijin42

Assuming VM's account is accurate that it was indeed only one revert, this does seem a bit trigger happy. regardless of the merits of the content or revert, this seems like a standard BRD issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC) striking per DT's additional information below. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

David Tornheim

It was not "1 edit". There were two reverts in a <24 hours period: [97] [98]. If the article is under 1RR, then it has been violated. I say make the topic ban one month rather than 1 week for misrepresenting the facts and wasting our time with dishonesty. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

MarkBernstein

Let’s not get carried away.

Let me recap the bidding.

• On December 3, the passage in question was inserted [99] by Baebequeue.
• On March 11, Volunteer Marek removed the passage [100], arguing that "cherrypicked and no serious political scientist believes that March polls are in any way meaningful for the general election. Also WP:RECENTISM". This is not an unreasonable argument, though WP:UNDUE seems more pertinent that RECENTISM. Clearly, at this point Volunteer Marek thinks this is a March poll, not a poll from the previous December.
• 150 minutes later, the passage is restored by C. J.Griffin.
• 6 hours later, Volunteer Marek undoes the restoration.

As a technical matter, whether or not this violates 1RR hinges on whether we interpret the first edit on March 11 as a revert. I would be strongly disinclined to call anyone “dishonest” for believing that it was not; had Marek replaced the passage with another passage, perhaps a briefer and more neutral summary, it would certainly not be construed as a revert.

More broadly, it is not clear the VM is wrong on the merits. His talk page defense of the edit has, as I write, received no response. The sanctioned edit is combative, yes, but much stronger responses could be envisioned; for example, VM might instead have added a number of countervailing polls, or a list of countervailing editorial opinions, each of which could in principle deserve our attention as much as this poll does. In 2024, this passage will be long gone: whatever happens, no one will care what a December poll predicted about this candidate's electability. So, VM is bringing the page one step closer to the shape it will have (should Wikipedia survive) in the distant future.

In any case, this already-overheated discussion is emblematic of the mess that ArbCom has invited with its handling of American Politics. I doubt sanctions are useful here; in practice, they're going to expend a lot of volunteer time that could be more profitably spent on protecting the project from attackers. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Rhoark

1RR is a limit, not an entitlement. Regardless of revert count, it was a revert of well-sourced content for hand-waving reasons. It's not beyond the pale to show someone the penalty box for that. Rhoark (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@LjL: It's no trouble at all to state a reason for reverting something; VM gave no less than 5 in this case. Stating a reason is not necessarily better than a blank summary if the reason is not evidently pertinent. (A go-to option, surprisingly not used here, is citing UNDUE since it's an actual policy but too fuzzy to be falsifiable.) Normally this should not trigger immediate censure, but the page of a candidate during active voting is an especially charged setting. The general rule of thumb on what is an appropriate admin action is to prevent disruption. Reverting, rather than refactoring or contextualizing, a passage that does not fail any bright-line criteria certainly constitutes disruption in the context of that page at this time. A 7-day page ban is not the action I would have taken, but it's not disproportionate or inconsistent with the purposes of adminship. Rhoark (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

LjL

I have little sympathy for Marek's ways of editing in general and I haven't followed the incident here, but I want to at least comment on what Rhoark said: first it was "3RR is a limit, not an entitlement", now more and more (and more) articles are falling into the net of discretionary sanctions, making 1RR a limit, but that's not enough! Since 1RR is not an entitlement, as a matter of fact, if you make one revert - not one unjustified revert, but one revert that is only justified with reasons not specific enough ("hand-waving") to convince an administrator, you can be sanctioned? That would really be extreme, a most unwelcome progressive radicalization to basically "you can be sanctioned if you make any edit" of originally fair bright-line rules. LjL (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Jnorton7558

@Coffee:, where is the log entry for this page restriction? "The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place." --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Volunteer Marek

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

• David Tornheim, I don't see how Marek's first edit was a revert--which would be a revert of someone's edit or edits. I see nothing in the recent history that makes this removal a revert of someone's edit(s).

  After a comment above, let me clarify that I don't see Marek's edit as a revert of this edit, since the removal also involved this edit and others, and this has been in the article for months. Sure, Marek should have waited a bit longer--but he's not much of an edit warrior in this article, and that's putting it mildly. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Drmies and I am inclined to overturn the sanction. There was no breach of 1RR, this was Volunteer Marek's only two posts to the page, and the sole revert was accompanied by an edit summary and talk page post, both of which were policy-based and defensible. A one week topic ban is disproportionate and unnecessary. NW (Talk) 22:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• I don't see any mention of 1RR in the page restriction, it was against edit warring and requiring a "firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits". I think the action was within discretion, and that 1 week was a very measured duration. HighInBC 23:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Seriously? A topic ban after two edits? Is that a record? VM must be the worst editor ever, um.. maybe not of course. What seems to be happening is that Coffee is trying to keep a lid on nonsense on a really high profile article and VM has got caught in the cross fire because the only way for a single admin to have any success in these circumstances is to admin with a really sensitive trigger finger. I have expressed views elsewhere about whether Coffee is making the right calls so I probably goes without saying that I would support vacating the topic ban, but VM mustn't take this as carte blanch to be disruptive. That just leads is to consider what we should do with the Bernie Sanders article. Its indefinately semi-protected already but that clearly isn't emough if Coffee feels that they need to be strict with any disruption to the article. Should we consider adding a formal 0RR or Pending Changes to cool it down a bit further? Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• I very much agree with Spartaz--esp. that VM got caught in the crossfire. So, we have an article that falls under DS, and Coffee placed the DS/editnotice as suggested by Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions at the end of February. Coffee interprets VM's second edit to the article as one that lacks "firm consensus on the talk page" and technically that's correct. I would have appealed for leniency: technically speaking Coffee was correct, but they didn't have to topic-ban VM from the article. On the other hand, it's only for a week, and that week is almost over, and VM doesn't seem to have much of a vested interest in the article. Taking all this together I would ask VM to agree to the correctness of the underlying facts, the bare-bones ones, and Coffee to agree that VM hasn't been much of a culprit here and that the topic ban isn't necessary. I'm sort of stuck in the middle since I think I get along well with both editors, and in such cases it's always best to not stick one's neck out, but hey, it's also a nice opportunity to ask if we can all get along. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• As pointed out above, this is not a 1RR restriction, it is a 'get consensus for everything' restriction. Since there has been a lot of trouble on this article, it's reasonable for User:Coffee to be imposing a fairly tough restriction to try to get things under control. It looks to me that VM didn't actually get consensus for these changes, so the letter of the restriction was violated. The problem with any novel restriction is that it takes time for people to figure out what it's saying. I wouldn't grant this appeal but I'd suggest that Coffee consider whether the restriction is likely to get the job done in the future, given the amount of confusion. If you do want to change it to something else, keep in mind that a 0RR is even harder to understand. Full protection, on the other hand, is easy to understand and explain. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• I appreciate Coffee's effort to control edit-warring on a high-profile article, but for the reasons stated by NuclearWarfare, I would reverse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Felsic2

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 Felsic2

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Faceless Enemy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Felsic2 (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/Gun_control#Discretionary_sanctions :

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

1. 10 March 2016 General hostility and battleground attitude: "cut crappy content written for a class by a guy who didn't have a clue how to write for WP"
2. A B C D (All 11 March 2016) Edit warring (followed by a partial self-revert)
3. 12 March 2016 General hostility and battleground attitude: "there's nothing objective about any of this".
4. 12 March 2016 General hostility and battleground attitude: "Stick it" (edit summary), "no thanks to any of you".

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 10 March 2016.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user has acknowledged that they edited under both Felsic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 162.119.231.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and has made no attempt to hide this; this is not a SPI request). Almost all of their edits have been to gun control pages, and I cannot recall a single one that has made a page more in favor of gun rights or less in favor of gun control. The non-article or talk space edits appear to mostly have been focused on requesting sanctions against editors who Felsic perceives as being in favor of gun rights. Under their previous account, two pro gun control editors admonished Felsic for his/her conduct. Felsic's response was "Tell you what, you can spend the whole goddamn weekend trying to work out a compromise. Lottsa luck with that. If you succeed I'll nominate you for sainthood." (with an edit summary of "have fun hitting your head against the wall"). Since their return to active editing (under the new account), Felsic's attitude and pattern of behavior seems to have remained consistent - he/she sees Wikipedia as a tug-of-war, not a collaborative project. The one thing that seems inconsistent is their professed indifference to the topic; Felsic appears to be entirely focused on making Wikipedia more in favor of gun control, using whatever means are available to do so.

Response to Felsic2's comments

I would still call those edits partial reverts. For example, on edit "D", you moved the "legal term of art" language from the lead sentence to the final sentence of the second paragraph. That's seriously different. And honestly I don't care what language you use, whether you say "crappy" or just "bad". This is the internet; I've seen worse. The problem is the attitude behind the language. Telling others to "stick it" would be just as bad if you had said "take that". Note that I didn't say you weren't correct in wanting the article's language changed; it appears you were entirely correct. But spiking the football makes it clear that you see this as a battleground, not a collaborative effort.

As to my conduct, I have my own biases, but I do what I can to check those at the door and stay neutral and balanced; I know I've made edits to remove non-neutral language from both sides. The SPI was filed in good faith and withdrawn when evidence made it clear that you weren't LB's sock. I apologized for it, and I have not raised the issue since then; note that in filing this AE request I made it clear that I did not think you were socking. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Felsic2

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 Felsic2

Faceless Enemy's complaint

Much of this complaint is related to my use of the term "crappy" which Google defines as "(vulgar slang) adjective: of extremely poor quality."[101] Is he upset that I use a vulgar term for poor quality material?

1. The material I removed from Civil_liberties_in_the_United_States was written by a college freshman as part of a class assignment. user:Wood3cm did not know how to write for Wikipedia. The content was "crappy" - it made WP:SYNTH arguments, used poor quality sources, gave undue attention to one aspect of the topic, etc. [102] Here's one 'crappy' bit by the same editor deleted by another editor.[103] The editor has not edited Wikipedia before or since using that username. Though it used a vulgar term, my edit summary was reasonably accurate.

2. As for reverts: what version of the article was I reverting to?
A.This "revert" [104] brought back material deleted without discussion in December[105] Immediately after I restored the material it was reverted out again, still with no discussion.[106]
B. Faceless Enemy reverted an edit of mine,[107] and I reverted it back.[108] Faceless Enemy didn't join a discussion about his revert for more than a half hour.[109] I later fully undid my restoration.[110] Yet he still says this was an actionable edit.
C. This was not a revert.[111] It made a compromise between the text he wanted and the text I wanted, text which effectively defines the scope of the article. I did not revert to any previous version.
D. This was not a revert.[112] It made a compromise between the text user:Miguel Escopeta wanted and the text I wanted, text which effectively defines the scope of the article. I did not revert to any previous version.

3. He says that questioning the objectivity of a list shows "general hostility and battleground attitude".[113] If the scope of the list were objective then it wouldn't be up for alteration by WP editors. The list has three pages of talk archives, showing disagreements over its supposedly objective content. Is it now "battleground attitude" to question the POV of an article?

4. Someone made what I called a "really, really bad edit". I didn't know who or when it was done at first. I posted about it, then I looked in the history. Later, some univolved editor made a flyby comment that I shouldn't have posted to that page with my obeservation about the edit. Maybe I'm mistaken - I thought article talk pages existed to talk about edits to the article. The other editor was wrong to chastise me for making the complaint. Yet Faceless Enemy blames me, not editor who made the specious complaint and certainly not the editor who made the "really really bed edit". [114]

Faceless Enemy has filed a number of complaints about me. [115] User:GRuban wrote Oh give me a break" and told him to "cut it out". [116]

As for taking sides in a debate, Faceless Enemy has made far more edits than I have to gun politics articles. If there were sufficient space I think I could show that he has made the majority of them in favor of one side. This list of talk pages show that the overwhelming percentage of his discussuon has been about gun-related topics.[117] If one-sidedness is a real problem then I'm not the user to start with. Felsic2 (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Gaijin42's complaint

Gaijin42 seems upset that I filed a complaint against him for making an edit that one of the uninvolved admins called "extremely troubling" and said it would have been sanctionable if found sooner.[118]

He says the material I deleted from [ High-capacity magazine ban]] was about the High-capacity magazine ban. I checked the source and found no significant mention of magazines. The comment in the source was not about high-capacity magazines, which are barely mentioned in the article. [119]

I'm not the only editor who has removed sourced material from that article. So has Faceless Enemy.[120][121] What's the difference?

Gaijin42 says I was combative for saying that a list whose restrictions are arbitrary is not necessarily objective. Yet he was trying to get the scope of the list changed. If it was an objective scope, it wouldn't be subject to change by WP editors. (See above - Faceless Enemy made the same complaint.)

He says I disrupted Wikipedia to make a point. No - I tried to treat articles on gun control organizations the same as a gun organization is treated. The National Rifle Association article has a mission statement in its infobox sourced to Guidestar. I added mission statements to gun control advocacy groups. Faceless Enemy deleted them, whether sourced to Guidestar or not.[122][123] Faceless Enemy did not discuss his reversions.Talk:National_Gun_Victims_Action_Council I asked if the mission statement in NRA was compliant with the WP:MISSION page, and after a day with no response I deleted it. It ain't disruptive to expect similar topic to be edited using the same rules.

For the Starbucks articles, I looked at the sources and did not find any which labeled the protesting group as "gun rights advocates". I am concerned about how people and groups on all sides of the debate are pigeon-holed as being either pro-gun control or pro-gun rights. I used a more general term that was entirely correct. The issue was discussed on the talk page and a consensus version was found.[124]

What is Gaijin42's problem with using the [Category:Civil liberties advocacy groups in the United States] for groups which oppose gun violence? "Right to life" is a civil liberty. Faceless Enemy reverted those additions with no discussion.[125] Gaijin42 also gives no reason for why the category is inappropriate.

PS: I see I was supposed to limit this to 500 words. If some of the complaints are unimportant then delete responses to them. If the complaints are significant then I don't see a good reason for the restrictions on my defense.

Statement by Gaijin42

I'd also point out the section above that Felsic started against me, which could have easily been (and easily was) resolved with a talk page discussion. That he felt the need to immediately bring it to AE is a sign of battleground. His final comment in that section seems indicative. [126]

General combativeness in responses to civil discussion : [127]

WP:POINT [128] [129](after he added a mission statement and it was removed, he proceeded to remove mission statements elsehwere. No argument as to the merits or not of having mission statements from me, but the pointedness of his edit seems obvious)

Arguing that "Second amendment supporters" does not sufficiently cite "gun rights advocates" and changing the content to "gun advocates" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Starbucks&diff=prev&oldid=709299265

mass adding of "civil rights" cat to gun control groups. [130][131][132][133][134]

Removal of content directly discussing high capacity magazine bans with the reasoning that "this stuff isn't about magazine capacity" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High-capacity_magazine_ban&diff=prev&oldid=709195608 Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Felsic2

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

• I think Felsic is mistaken about who added the "crappy" content: it was added in 2009 by 09BennyBoy13, here--though it was indeed written as part of a class assignment: it's typical essay-style argumentative writing, which is quite far from the encyclopedic style we should strive for. Sure, the edit summary was a bit harsh, but that content should have been cut a long time ago. Diffs 3 and 4, calling that "general hostility and battleground attitude" is over the top. I don't rightly understand Felsic's "there's nothing objective about any of this" and it strikes me as a bit uncollegial, and diff 4 is an example of petulance, but (as in the section below) this is making a mountain out of a molehill--not to mention that, as Gaijin said himself, the edit in Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that gave rise to diff 4 was below par. Heated topic, heated debate. Don't expect arbitration to solve every little problem, please. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey

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 Scjessey

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Scjessey (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:ARBAPDS

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

1. March 13, 2016 Tendentiousness/Refusal to accept consensus (Violation of consensus)
2. March 12, 2016 WP:OWN (Violation of consensus)
3. March 12, 2016 WP:OWN (Violation of consensus)
4. March 10, 2016 More heat than light. (Violates behavioral standards)
5. February 22, 2016 Gratuitous cussing (read the entire thread): Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016/Archive 2#Primaries as an example of WP:OWN. (Violates behavioral standards)
6. In this recent discussion, rough consensus was reached for including some content, but Scjessey (mildly) edit warred [135] to keep the content out and stonewalling on the talk page [136][137] [138] (Violates edit warring and consensus)
7. March 13, 2016 Unnecessarily inflaming discussions by politicizing them. (Violates behavioral standards)
8. March 14, 2016 WP:OWN Rejects a 6:2 consensus on the basis of an essay. (Violation of consensus)
9. February 26, 2016] WP:OWN "No, we are not having a "shit magnet" section called "miscellaneous controversies"." ←←← See, this is ownership.

Recent warnings

1. March 10, 2016 Civility warning

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

I want to preface this by stating that I'm not seeking harsh sanctions, nor do I believe Scjessey's behavior has been particularly egregious. In fact, he's a thoughtful editor who does much to improve our content.

Over the past six months or so, the editing environment in American politics has been relatively peaceful, in part due to topic bans of a few problem editors. I've observed that Scjessey tends to WP:OWN certain articles, especially those related to Hillary Clinton. This behavior manifests as edit warring, cussing at other editors, tendentiousness, and refusal to accept consensus.

I'm seeking a creative solution that will get this editor to take a step back, cooperate with other editors, and stop acting as the gatekeeper for every Hillary Clinton article. Perhaps a short topic ban, a 1RR restriction, a final warning, or some combination of these, would help the situation before it gets out of control.- MrX 20:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Wikidemon: You wrote: "the reporting editor, MrX, tells Scjessey that he'd better self-revert or else". Please provide a diff that I wrote "self-revert or else", or kindly strike it. And while you're at it, you can strike "no, I'm taking it to AE" and replace it with what I actually wrote which is: "It's not going to be ANI; it's going to be AE." I would also suggest that you notify Zigzig20s that you have raised concerns here about his conduct.- MrX 03:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies, with great respect, if six editors support inclusion of content either tacitly via editing, or via discussions providing clear evidence of WP:DUEWEIGHT as I did here, and only two editors object with arguments of WP:RECENT (an essay) and arguments of WP:DUEWEIGHT that have been refuted with evidence, then I'm pretty sure that we can declare consensus. Please review the American Politics 1 & 2 Arbcom cases to see similar examples of filibustering and stonewalling that was used to keep critical content out certain favored political articles. Arbcom was clear in both case that this type of behavior in which an editor edits against consensus or blocks consensus. They wrote

"Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes."
— Arbcom

Arbcom was also clear about ownership

"Wikipedia pages do not have owners who control edits to them. Instead, they are the property of the community at large and governed by community consensus."
— Arbcom

I've observed other editors commenting on HRC article talk pages about perceived ownership by Scjessey and I've seen editors loudly complain on other pages that it's impossible to add any critical content to HRC articles. They ask why then do we allow criticism in Republican and Libertarian BLPs. I'm left to explain that we edit by consensus and that good, policy based arguments prevail. I was wrong.

I brought this here so that it could be addressed before it get's out of control. When you combine the intransigence with the cussing, berating, 2RR, and "no no no", it's damaging to the collaborative editing environment that I hope we all seek.- MrX 15:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I certainly value your perspective on this. One correction however. As of now, six editors favor including the content (Gaijin42, Zigzig20s, The Four Deuces, Neutrality, Jonathunder and MrX), while three are in various degrees of opposition (Scjessey, Wikidemon, and Dave Dial). Jonathunder and Dave Dial were the only editors who were not involved prior to me filing this request.- MrX 19:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[139]

Discussion concerning Scjessey

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 Scjessey

• I'm not going to waste my time making a detailed statement based on such a laughable request for enforcement that has been based on flimsy diffs. Am I bit acerbic and profane sometimes? When dealing with POV warriors who continue to use Wikipedia as a platform for their political beliefs, rather than for the betterment of the project, I can get testy and swear a little. But as long as swearing is not directed at an individual (such as "fuck you"), Wikipedia's policy on the matter doesn't have a fucking problem with it. (You see what I did there?) -- Scjessey (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• One other point I would like to make is the wrongness that "consensus" is decided by numbers - something being advocated in this very enforcement discussion. It is decided by the weight of arguments. If 10 editors want something in an article that violates WP:BLP, even a lone voice against that inclusion should be sufficient to stop it from happening. Content disputes are always difficult to deal with, and political articles are magnets for such things. The weight of numbers cannot and must not be used as a bludgeon to force questionable edits into an article. With years of experience in political articles, I can easily tell the difference between a discussion leading to an evolving consensus and a discussion being driven by a tag team of POV warriors. I'm sure Wikidemon (who is even more experienced with this sort of editing) will agree with me. I'd rather see questionable editing forced into formal dispute resolution than just back down, even in the face of lopsided numbers. The project must come first. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• @Gaijin42 - Amazing bit of revisionism there, but at least it reinforces my point that editors are engaging in numbers game, rather than a consensus discussion. Shameful. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Wikidemon

• Bad report. There is nothing or actionable in this particular list of Scjessey's edits here, most of which are talk page discussions. As a process matter, this looks like a "he dared me to do it" report —Scjessey tells Gaijin42 to stop grandstanding and either report him to AN/I or not. MrX says no, it's going to be AE. Scjessey says "good luck with that"[140] so, without any further edits on Scjessey's part MrX went ahead and did just that.
• On the specifics: #1[141]: "big effing deal" — hard to believe that a euphemism for a curseword is arbitration material. What's next, you can't say "dang" or "darn?" Gaijin42 (who Scjessey is responding to) and MrX (the reporting editor) are responsible editors here, but Zigzig20s, the one who is making the proposal and started this discussion thread, has been a royal pain in the last few days, making one bad content proposal at another, transparently describing their personal political reasons for complaining about Clinton, while launching accusations on other editors. #2)[142] How is saying on the talk page that you disagree with other editors a violation of consensus? If we are merely counting heads, there are two in favor, two opposed (if you count me, I'm not convinced either way which means not adding the content for now), plus Zigzig20s. #3)[143] again, saying on the talk page that you oppose a one-day old proposal that's got 3-2 support is not ownership or violating consensus; #4)[144] Both editors are getting a little FORUM-ish here; Zigzig20s accuses Scjessey of being blind to Hillary Clinton's homophobia and Scjessey says "for Fuck's sake". This is not arbitration material. #5)[145] "What the fuck are you talking about", agreed, is 3-week-old gratuitous profanity — is that sanctionable? All profanity on Wikipedia is gratuitous and unnecessary, except in articles about the same. Regardless, another editor, Fred Bauder, who has also made a series of weak content proposals coupled with accusations against editors who dispute them, and Zigzig20s, are both accusing Scjessey of ownership, and triggering the profanity, of being a Clinton campaign operative. #6) It takes two to edit war, or in this case four, but there is no consensus over this content, it's discussed on the talk page, and nobody here passed 1RR. The suggestion that arguing against the reporting editor's favored version of content is ownership or stonewalling is ridiculous, and even if Scjessey were outnumbered or out-reasoned, it would be chilling to tell people they can't state their content position on the talk page. #7)[146] Scjessey isn't the one inflaming things here. He's justified in cautioning Zigzig20s to stop accusing people of things, Zigzig20s is rapidly wearing out any patience by accusing people of things without responding to what they say, apparently some testiness and poor comprehension of the discussion thread.
• That's it? I see nothing here. I've participated in a few political articles lately related to Hillary Clinton and the 2016 United States Presidential election, by no means most of them. Scjessey has been editing political articles for as long as I can recall. Though his online gruffness and impatience dealing with bad content and difficult editors leaves some room for improvement, this is hardly an occasion for Wikipedia process reports. Particularly important, Scjessey is a long-time stabilizing influence on some of these articles, responding to editors whose content and behavioral issues are potentially disruptive. Reflexive accusations of WP:OWN by the reporting editor and others on these talk pages are particularly unwarranted, and an attempt to chill discussion – that's the last refuge of somebody with a bad content proposal who cannot gain consensus for making a change. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gaijin42 — it looks like 3-2 for me on a matter under discussion for less than a day. Looks more like trigger-happy arbitration requests than "overwhelming consensus", a case of WP:OWN, or whatever the proponents of the content are calling it. Jonathunder's talk page comment came after this was filed, and if Neutrality has an opinion I don't see that he voiced it on the article talk page.- Wikidemon (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have advised Scjessey, as I have before, that a little more politeness will go a long way. Also, Gaijin42 points out that two editors supported the content by edits on the article page without commenting, hence 5-2. I think consensus is likely to head that way, but it's not (or was not) overwhelming, final, or decided so quickly. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Gaijin42

I second the notion that while Scjessey should not be harshly sanctioned at this time, he needs a very firm "knock it off or else". As wikidemon says, there are some strong POV problems from Zigzig20s and others, and Scjessy is a needed voice to balance them. However, Scjessy's issue is that he mistakes all information he doesn't like for a blp/pov violation

He has a very obvious case of OWN where he stonewalls any information that is anything other than glowing for Clinton. Every issue must be taken to an RFC or have an overwhelming consensus develop before he caves in.

Once one hammers through his reflexive Clinton protection, he does a good job of raising legitimate concerns and working on collaborative compromise to include information while addressing neutrality etc. If he could start at step 2 rather than an immediate revert every time, it would solve 99% of the issue.

• 2r [147] [148]

• explicit WP:ABF on a WP:POVNAME redirect AFD, which was closed as snow keep. Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_21#Hillary_Clinton_email_scandal. As is a typical comment says "The right-wing media echo chamber" is the source, even though many lefty sources also had used the term

• source misrepresentation takes the source statement "Mr. Pagliano told the agents that nothing in his security logs suggested that any intrusion occurred." and puts into the article "Security logs show there was no evidence Clinton's email server was ever hacked" (wikivoice vs attribution, and juxtaposes absence of evidence for evidence of absense [149]

• removal of well sourced opinion by notable voices. edit warring [150][151] [152] Content eventually kept with overwhelming consensus [Talk:Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Arbitrary_break]

• removal of sourced and relevant facts [153]

Wikidemon Your count on this dispute is off. The current standing is 6-2 (Me, MrX, Zig, Jonathunder, Neutrality, TFD), for a two sentences of content that every major source has written multiple detailed articles about. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Wikidemon re Neutrality, while an explicit talk page comment would certainly be more easier to quantify, he edited the content in question, which is indicative of support for its inclusion. [154] Gaijin42 (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey is quite right that consensus is not a vote. His issue is that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not part of WP:BLP. When there are legitimate blp violations, by all means delete them. Something that is well sourced, and neutrally summarized should not be deleted and especially not deleted multiple times by a single editor under the argument of a blp violation.

As I note above, once Scjessy actually gets to the collaboration and improvement stage, things work well (and he has very valuable and important input). The issue is that it takes giant battles to get to that stage. Also as I said above, I'm not looking for a topic ban or anything like that, merely a warning to be a little less reverty, and start out at the collaborative improvement phrase. There are certainly POV violations that need to be nipped in the bud, but these are not them, and the fact that each of these took giant threads to insert one or two sentences each is ridiculous.

• The redirect discussion I used in my original comment is a fairly concise example of Scjessey staking out a position that gets completely blown away. Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_21#Hillary_Clinton_email_scandal. Complains that "scandal" wording is only used by "right wing echo chamber", yet sources using that phrasing include Mother Jones, Slate, Atlantic, Time, Cnn, HuffPo, 538, NPR, etc.
• Another example from 1.5 months ago, the lead of the Hillary Clinton email controversy (and mirrored summary sections in Hillary Clinton) contained no mention that classified content was actually contained in her emails. This is months after the releases of redacted classified emails started coming out (at that time, 1300 classified emails had been released, 22 of them top secret had just been announced, which was the immediate trigger for the discussion). All mention in the section/lead was reverted out. Scjessey repeatedly claimed such mention was a BLP violation. Huge talk page discussion, many sources, general (but not overwhelming) consensus Scjessey fights against. Talk:Hillary_Clinton/Archive_29#Email_controversy_.2F_classified_content Eventually he asks for an outside sanity check [155] (to his credit). Afterwards he drops the BLP objection, edits are made, collaboration, stability is restored.
• In another example (diffs of reverts in original statement), he repeatedly argues when the head of every major intelligence agency gives the opinion that Clinton's server was insecure, and that it is likely that it was hacked by foreign governments (note, not actually hacked, just likely hacked) that those opinions are irrelevant, and that they are just political opponents (even though 3/4 were Obama appointees) and that "none of these people have any expert knowledge of email servers or internet security" (In reference to the heads of the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA,SecDef etc). Another huge thread Talk:Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Hacking_attempts. Eventually something like 8-1 against Scjessey comes out. Edits are made. collaboration, Stability. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Scjessey

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

• I don't see anything requiring sanctions or even a come-to-Jesus comment here. The first three diffs show an editor disagreeing with what at that moment is not a consensus--it's one or two editors wanting something in and Scjessey wanting something not in. In diff 7 one can see a certain presumption, as if the world should pause while the editor is taking a break--but while one may call that silly, it's not a violation of standards. I am a bit concerned that now every disagreement is blown up to DS proportions, and that disagreement is seen as an expression of ownership. That kind of exaggeration is not helpful; one might as well say, with similar rhetorical overkill, that this report is an attempt at censorship.

  Gaijin's edit came 12 March, 21:28, and one could argue there's some consensus for it--but to say "you have full consensus", as Zigzig20s did, is as OWNy as the cited diff 7. Besides, if we're looking around for other poor behavior, we see Zigzag20s calling a section "Secret Goldman Sachs speeches", which is much worse, given that...well, "secret"? One could even call that phrasing a BLP violation, since it implies malicious intent on the part of the living person in question. In a thread filled with OR, "secret" is OR itself. In other words, pot, kettle. Many of the regulars on that talk page speak tendentiously, one of the disadvantages of us following hard on the news cycle. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Mr. X, Scjessey reverted at 13:18 on 13 March; as far as I can tell there were four editors supporting keeping the information: you, Zigzig, Gaijin, TFD. Sure, one could argue that that's something of a consensus, but it's in no way iron-clad. I don't like this constant pointing at policy, which is typically intended to keep stuff in ("it's verified!") without at all considering judgment. I note also that Gaijin (I think?) invoked WP:IDONTLIKEIT--the easiest charge in the arsenal, but it's a double-edged sword: it leads to the countercharge of YOULIKEIT, which also basically means "POV!" You don't have to explain to me what OWN means: I know it. Two edits and a few comments don't mean ownership, any more than you and those supporting your position claim ownership by disagreeing with Scjessey. If there's a longterm pattern of filibustering etc., that needs to be proven. But filibustering? The edits were from the last two days; Wendy Davis would not be impressed. Sorry, but I disagree, with respect and without claiming ownership. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you Mr. X. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• This report appears, on the face of it, to be frivolous. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Chesdovi

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 Chesdovi

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Chesdovi (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/Palestine-Israel articles :

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

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tachlifa_of_the_West&type=revision&diff=710075488 Chesdovi moved the page to his POV version.
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive279#Tachlifa_the_Palestinian Chesdovi discussed my moving his page back to the correct page and Nishidani told him that my version is the more correct version. "I think Sir Joseph's literal version is well grounded in sources."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/707337240#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles TBAN still in place

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I did not add all his recent edits since that's not necessary, but he has begun to edit again in this area.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChesdovi&type=revision&diff=710081001

Discussion concerning Chesdovi

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 Chesdovi

Statement by Jeppiz

I came here as an uninvolved user who has had no interactions with Chesdovi, but the topic ban violations are so rampant it seems to be deliberate and provocative. In the space of one hour, Chesdovi has already violated the topic ban 20 times! I'm afraid an indef block is the only solution, this user seems determined to go on violating the topic ban. Jeppiz (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Chesdovi

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

• Can you provide a link to where the specific topic ban for this editor was imposed? I don't see it on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)