Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

WP:AE

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

QuackGuru

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning QuackGuru

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: DigitalC (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions

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

User:QuackGuru has an extensive blocklog based on disruptive editing, and has a previous WP:RFC/U which was filed but s/he failed to participate in ([1]). Mediation has been attempted ([2]). S/he was cautioned multiple times ([3]),([4]) about tendentious editing at articles covered under Pseudoscience sanctions, and subsequently blocked for 2-weeks for violating the sanctions ([5]). S/he was further topic-banned for 6 months from Chiropractic-related articles due "Due to persistent edit warring and general disruption of the editing and consensus process,"([6]).

This behaviour continues, and continues to be in an area that appears to be covered under the ArbCom sanctions.

On July 7, QuackGuru made a mass of sweeping changes to the Chiropractic article, including removing sourced text without consensus ([7]), where this text had consensus to be included not only in the article, but in the lead ([8]). The lack of consensus to change this part of the article had been noted earlier the same day [ When this exceptionally bold removal was reverted, instead of taking his controversial edits to the talk page, he instead re-reverted ([9]).
There has been extensive discussion at Talk:Pseudoscience ([10]) and WP:FTN ([11]) over the use of a source (Matute et al.) to verify text inserted into the article. There was consensus that the source was not suitable in the way it was being used, or at the very least no consensus for its use. On July 8th QuackGuru made major changes to the article without discussion on the talk page, and in doing so inserted the Matute reference without consensus ([12]). When this was reverted - noting the lack of consensus - ([13]), QuackGuru re-inserted the text again ([14]). When reverted by another editor ([15]), QuackGuru re-reverted (2rr) - and claimed that that editor supported the use of Matute ([16]).
There has also been disruption at Vertebral artery dissection. QuackGuru has proposed a change in text (in regards to chiropractic manipulation), which was not supported by editors on the talk page. This again centered around the use of a particular source, and spanned multiple subsections of the talk page. The article was stable for quite some time, but QuackGuru then proposed at an unrelated article talk page ([17]) to change the article. Despite having no consensus to make the change, and apparent consensus to not make the change, QuackGuru made a major controversial change to the article ([18]). This contentious edit was reverted ([19]), to which QuackGuru made a similar edit ([20]). This was reverted by another editor ([21]), but QuackGuru made the change again ([22]). This lead to the article being locked.

[Edited to add: It has come to my attention that the issues at Pseudoscience have previously been referred to ArbCom as well - see [23], [24] & [25]. [Edited again - moved from sandbox page and attempted to fix red links] DigitalC (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Edited again - 12 July 2011 - to add the following:] The following is copied from Hans Adler's comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence.

Some AN/ANI sections concerning problematic behaviour:

2007-03 ANI#Talk:Essjay controversy & User:QuackGuru
2007-03 ANI#User:QuackGuru --- "His main userpage is a fork of Essjay controversy."
2007-03 CSN#QuackGuru and Wikipedia-related articles
2007-04 CSN#Proposed article ban for User:QuackGuru
2007-04 CSN#Proposed ban of User:QuackGuru
2007-04 ANI#QuackGuru, again --- "Wales is also a lefty." [26]
2007-05 CSN#proposal of community article ban --- "this smacks of attempting to win an edit war through the backdoor"
2007-06 ANI#Watch List on Project Space --- Report by QG, demonstrates his extreme stubbornness.
2007-06 ANI#QuackGuru --- "My sense is that QuackGuru cannot walk by a pile of smoldering cinders on Wikipedia without pouring on a can of gasoline. The above AN/I thread, in which QuackGuru accused User:Levine2112 of 'identity theft' (as far as I can tell), is a good example of this tendency."
2007-07 ANI#Canvassing accusation --- QG makes a baseless canvassing/meatpuppetry accusation.
2007-09 ANI#Block of QuackGuru --- "I have blocked this user for 24 hours for edit warring. This is the third time in the last few days that he has reverted three times - on Jimbo Wales, Larry Sanger and Essjay controversy respectively. He was warned on all 3 occasions"
2008-01 ANI#User:QuackGuru --- QG released from an undiscussed indef block.
2008-02 ANI#Stealth canvassing --- "Not only is there a strong suggestion that he engaged in email canvassing, but he also accused another editor of canvassing by using highly cherry-picked diffs and conveniently failing to note that the editor in question had notified people on both sides of the fence"
2008-03 ANI#Vandalism by Classic Tendentious Editor--- Classic boomerang report against Levine 2112.
2008-04 ANI#QuackGuru
2008-08 ANI#Levine2112 again --- Completely baseless report by QG.
2008-09 ANI#QuackGuru and Kelly going at it --- "He is revert-warring her sandbox, currently at 9RR (not a typo)."
2008-10 AN#QuackGuru topic ban --- The linked discussion is archived at Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 28#Topic ban.
2008-12 ANI#Harassment at my usertalk by User:QuackGuru --- "It was bad faith by DigitalC to accuse me of wiki-lawyering and harrsment. It was bad faith by Surturz to accuse me of bullying. An editor falsely accused me of readding comments to a talk page. We have a lot of WP:AGF violations today." -- "AGF does not mean OCTBIGFISOAETTC (Obstinately Continue To Believe In Good Faith In Spite Of All Evidence To The Contrary)."
2009-03 ANI#Disruptive editing by User:QuackGuru on Larry Sanger
2009-04 ANI#User:QuackGuru --- "The concern here is QuackGuru editing Jimbo's userpage to state that he was co-founder, not founder of Wikipedia." -- "Is this the longest running edit war in history?!? He's been doing this semi-regularly for YEARS now."
2009-05 ANI#IP puppet show (my oh my) --- "[...] Quackguru did not just put a sockpuppet on Levine's talkpage, but [...] he completely blanked out Levine2112's User page twice, and replaced it with a big Sockpuppet accusation, even though QuackGuru had filed no WP:SPI report."
2009-05 ANI#Admin needs to gain consensus first before considering to unblock --- "I do not think your posts here are helpful, nor is threatening Mangojuice with a block. [...] There is no need for admin intervention in a case where an admin just is doing his job."
2009-08 ANI#QuackGuru: continued harassment and edit warring/baiting --- "If I go to a talk page and see multiple archives with no search, I will add the template Template:search archives so that the editors on that talk page can easily search the archives. QuackGuru has reverted my addition of the search box on the Larry Sanger talk page, and posts that I am a sockpuppet"
2009-12 AE#Request concerning QuackGuru --- QG reporting himself.
2010-02 ANI#Uncivil behaviour after warning or is this how things go at Wikipedia-land --- Frivolous report against Rvcx for disagreeing with Larry Sanger.
2010-10 ANI/Problem on BLP noticeboard --- Ludwigs2 reports Ronz for blatant behaviour at BLP/N#Noticeboards, source criticism and claims of BLP issues, and QG for supporting him. Focus is on Ronz.
2010-12 ANI#User:QuackGuru --- Report by SlimVirgin: "[QG] appears to be a fairly disruptive editor. He has a strong POV on various issues, often seems not to understand policy, and is a serial reverter. He was blocked 11 times between 2007 and 2009 for edit warring, including one indefinite block. Nowadays he reverts up to 3RR, then stops to avoid a block."
2010-12 AN#Community ban for User:QuackGuru --- Subsequent ban proposal by Ludwigs2.
2011-03 AN#QuackGuru again - what do I do now? --- Report by Ludwigs2 that led to this case.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Warned on 29 September 2008 by FT2 (talk · contribs)
Warned on 1 October 2008 by Lifebaka (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested: 9 month topic ban on all pseudoscience related articles, broadly construed.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The summary above shows evidence of multiple blocks, and continuing disruptive editing across the area of pseudoscience articles. The main issue is a failure to abide by consensus, and reversion instead of discussion. The last topic-ban, at 6 months, was apparently not enough to prevent this type of behaviour from recurring. A longer topic-ban, or alternate remedy should be considered.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQuackGuru&action=historysubmit&diff=438700979&oldid=438700443

Discussion concerning QuackGuru

Statement by QuackGuru

Comments by others about the request concerning QuackGuru

The evidence on the sandbox page does not appear to rise to any sufficient level for the penalty sought, IMO. Collect (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jojalozzo

QuackGuru has been advocating doggedly since last fall for the use of a research paper (Matute et al.) as a source in Pseudoscience. The consensus there and in Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard (where QG recently sought support for his position) is that the paper is not suited for QG's proposed use. As I understand it, one of the reasons for this enforcement request is QG's recent edits in Pseudoscience that included the disputed use of the paper in violation of consensus and two reversions of other editors' attempts (including mine) to enforce consensus.

I find QG's discussion style tenditious, accusatory, repetitive, and notable for not-hearing. QG's talk page posts often consist of cryptic prose interspersed with links to policy and old diffs and unexplained quotations from Wikipedia articles and journal papers. I have rarely received a response to requests for clarifying explanations. I have not seen QG back down gracefully from a dispute even when doors are held open and I have seen little sign of skill in handling interpersonal friction. The result is a pointless standoff that drives many participants away and sucks all joy from the work.

The cost to the project in energy and time expended on this single proposed use of one research paper is disproportionately large. As I understand it, this experience is being repeated in other articles and has been going on for years (see here). There is no indication that QG is able to correct this behavior beyond regular periods of lying low and unfortunately this ducking down has been rewarded with shortened bans and leniency despite the lack of real behavioral change. Even with the proposed remedy, the most it appears we can hope for is nine months of respite before we are all back at it again on the same issue or something similar. There are those who see another side to QG and advocate for mercy but in my experience the costs significantly outweigh any benefits. Jojalozzo 05:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While QG has not participated here, s/he left a good example message on my talk page (not the first by any means) since I posted the comment above. It is representative of the discussion style I have described though understandably more accusatory. Jojalozzo 20:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ten days into this request for enforcement and still QuackGuru resists consensus at Talk:Pseudoscience and continues to insist those in opposition to her/his proposal repeat their reasons. Not only is this more evidence of not hearing about that dispute but also not hearing about this request. Jojalozzo 02:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Becritical

My views on this subject are here. I've had only one slight interaction with this user since, but it's obvious my opinion does not need modification. And I do not see any reason for a topic ban: an indef block is called for. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this exchange is a good microcosm of why we're here:

On the contrary, you are involved (in the content dispute) and have refused to collabrate. QuackGuru (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Telling you I don't want to be involved doesn't equal involvement. I made one comment on the Pseudoscience talk page, months ago. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That's from here. QG saying I'm "involved" in the content dispute and "refused to collaborate" after one comment months ago is one of those things that reminds me of the quote from Mein Kampf, where he says that the people are suspicious of little lies, but since they don't tell big lies themselves, they aren't suspicious of big lies. Sorry to pull the Nazi card :P Ah here it is [27] I do notice this principle at work on Wikipedia sometimes. In this case QG is basically pulling so much chutzpa that he's unlikely to be challenged, or so that refutations seem weak by comparison. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 13:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I just made an edit to the Chiropractic talk page having to do with consensus and QG. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DigitalC

I have been asked to further substantiate this request, which I find suprising given the overwhelming evidence of disruption, especially looking at the second to last ANI thread. I was told that it is needed to show that "there is something unusual about the current situation that marks it as more than a routine content dispute", which I think should be clear from the fact that his disruptive editing has persisted for years, across many areas, but largely focused on topics related to pseudoscience. He has been involved in multiple ArbComs, and this current case shows that it is not simply a content dispute because the behaviour is spread over three articles, with three separate disputes.

At Chiropractic, there was consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiropractic/Archive_33#Changes_needed_in_the_LEAD],[28]) to include the source (Bronfort et al.) in the article, and no consensus to remove it. QG's edit was to remove this source against consensus ([29]), even though at least 4 people supported its inclusion and he was the only one who did not support its use.
The issue at Pseudoscience also involved the use of a source, (Matute et al.). At FTN it appears QG was the only one arguing for use of this source, with 5 dissenting editors. An RFC was conducted at the article talk page, with a referendum showing 5 users supported removing the content, with only QG disagreeing ([30]). A poll for consensus was also conducted ([31]) which did not show consensus for the sources use - editors who contributed to the discussion were generally against its use, while editors who supported its use generally did not respond to follow up questions/comments. Despite knowing s/he was editing against consensus, QG inserted the content & source into the article ([32]) and edit-warred to try to keep it there.
QG was also editing against consensus at Vertebral artery dissection, where 6 editors appeared against his changes, with only QG supporting the changes. ([33],[34]), yet made the change anyway ([35]).

Editing against consensus is not a content issue, it is a conduct issue. Wikipedia by necessesity relies on a collaborative editing process, which cannot work when editors ignore the input of others (WP:IDHT?). This behaviour is not limited to one article, and the behaviour has continued for years despite previous sanctions. DigitalC (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to reinforce DC's position, that we are not asking for resolution in the current disputes. Where there are supporters for QG's position we should be able to resolve our differences quietly ourselves. These disputes are only live examples of a years-long problem of tenditious editorial conduct that shows no signs of abating or responding to administrative action. We are asking for an end to QG's not-hearing, uncooperative, POV-pushing, debilitating style of participation. Jojalozzo 01:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ocaasi

QG is a difficult editor to work with. He slings policy violation accusations around and he always interprets policy extremely narrowly to support his views. When he finds consensus against him he posts long a accusatory talk page comments. When they are ignored he waits for a few weeks before starting again.

QG has an extremely literal interpretation of policy and a declamatory way of speaking to other editors. In practice it means he will take any quote from any peer-reviewed source and restate it in an article as plain fact. He does not think editors can consider the quality of the source, the context of the source, the quality of the quote (whether it is a passing statement or a researched conclusion), the claim being made, alternative sources, or anything involving editors' discretion. He then tells other editors who disagree with them that they are violating policy; he states this as a simple fact without attempt at communication, consensus, or compromise.

What particularly bothers me is his response to other editors' good faith attempts at collaboration. I recently tried to write some pseudoscience/public-health text with User:Orangemarlin and QG continued slinging accusations and criticism on OM's talk page where he was neither involved nor invited. Talk page thread (midway down and in collapsed box).

This behavior has a chilling effect at articles. Simply, people don't want to deal with QG's objections and accusations when they have constructive suggestions to make, and they don't want to hear his policy declarations when he has suggestions to make. They get tired of hearing the same arguments over and over and not having their own opinions considered. QG has tired out some of the most mainstream and respected editors I've come across on the entire project with his narrow views, endless point-making, and generally uncooperative approach.

Given that, I'd like to try something different to redirect his editing efforts. Perhaps a topic ban, perhaps a mentor, perhaps an agreement not to accuse editors of violating policy. I'm not sure what the community feels is best but I think some explicit guidance for QG would be helpful.

Comment by Jfdwolff

My only disagreement with QuackGuru has been over the phrasing of 1-2 sentences on vertebral artery dissection, an article which I brought to GA status earlier this year. I am not given to support pseudoscience-based treatments such as chiropractic, but QuackGuru's approach has found me siding with his opponents. I refer to DigitalC's statement, which shows that QuackGuru started fisking the content of vertebral artery dissection on Talk:Chiropractic. A revert war ensued, followed by the article being protected in the "wrong version". QuackGuru has not persuaded anyone that his version is any better. His almost robotic insistence on using a particular source that has demonstrable weaknesses has been mind-numbingly frustrating, and I personally can still not get used to his habit of mockingly echoing someone's response. JFW | T@lk 20:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by QuackGuru

pseudoscience: I am offering a cmt by DreamGuy which is still relevant to the current personal disgreement with reliable sources. Do you accept the text is sourced from a reliable peer-reviewed source. See this diff. See diff. See diff. See diff. These diffs show I tried to explain the text is relevant. Do you accept that with certain articles editors are unable to justify there edit. For example, an editor wrote The source does not support the claim(s).. But I did provide V on the talk page. Does anyone agree the edit did not match the edit summary. I think this is a serious matter of WP:WEIGHT and I propose the dispute be taken the the NPOV noticeboard where uninvolved editors could participate and determine the WP:CON based on Wikipedia policy and not a disagreement with mainstream research.

chiropractic: I did not delete the report from chiropractic completely. I removed the text that failed verification, however.

vertebral artery dissection: Ernst E (2007). "Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review". J R Soc Med. 100 (7): 330–8. doi:10.1258/jrsm.100.7.330. PMC 1905885. PMID 17606755. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) This source is not relevant to VAD (WP:COATRACK) while editors are unable to provide V for the text that is OR.

I might have convinced editors that the text is closer to NPOV version and possibly better.

Ernst E (2010). "Vascular accidents after neck manipulation: cause or coincidence?". Int J Clin Pract. 64 (6): 673–7. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02237.x. PMID 20518945. I propose to replace the coatrack source with the relevant source. QuackGuru (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at the article history there are other editors that do support the inclusion of the public health matters. There were comments in favor of using the source for the public health issues.

I am waiting for admins to close the three named debates to determine CON, especially for the pseudoscience page. According to CON editors must abide by CON. This is not my rule. This is Wikipedia's consensus for all editors. As for the pseudoscience article a possible compromise is to quote the source so there won't be any issues about sourcing. I realise there are WP:FRINGE editors that will be part of the consensus process. QuackGuru (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Hans Adler

There is nothing much to add to QuackGuru's bizarre claim that he has "CON" on his side in all those discussions. But it's worth repeating what Becritical said above: This is not just about pseudoscience. QG behaves like this in all areas in which he is active; it's just that he is more active in pseudoscience-related areas, overall, than in others. I had a similar dispute with him 1 1/2 years ago at Talk:Citizendium#editorializing?. Then 1/2 year ago at Talk:Citizendium#Won't someone please think of the article?, you can see how QG made it clear to David Gerard and SlimVirgin that they can't rewrite the article because he owns it. A topic ban would probably channel QG's activity to non-pseudoscience topics, which is a good thing only insofar as this would lead more quickly to a full, indefinite site ban. Hans Adler 06:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by WhatamIdoing

I have waffled about posting anything. I don't have anything positive to say about this person, and Wikipedia is not generally made a more collegial place by publicly telling people how badly they're failing. I generally avoid QuackGuru as a hopeless waste of time unless the article turns up on a noticeboard, in which case I try to do my bit to resolve the dispute. I no longer believe that QG has the WP:COMPETENCE to be a successful editor. No amount of mentoring on Wikipedia is going to change that.

A typical discussion with QG looks something like this:

QG: I say it's foo.

Six other editors: No, it's not foo.

QG: I say it's foo, and I have a source that says so.

Six other editors: No, it's not foo, and your source has the following flaws:...

QG: I say it's foo, and I have a source that says so, and I say you haven't provided V.

Six other editors: No, it's not. Your source is badly flawed, and here are three high-quality sources that say not-foo.

QG: I say it's foo, and I have a source that says so, and I say you haven't provided V, and I say that the CON is that it's foo.

While I'm aware that the community consensus could vest with a single individual—one good editor plus the community "outvotes" any two spammers you care to name—but it is astonishing how often QG believes that uniform opposition from multiple experienced editors, or very lopsided majorities directly opposing his plans, is somehow proof that everyone agrees with him ("consensus"). Query: If the consensus really was with QG, then why is his version almost always successfully edit-warred out of existence? Isn't "lots of people keep removing my stuff" pretty much the definition of "no consensus to include my stuff"?

I'd love to have another competent anti-garbage editor. QG, unfortunately, isn't going to be that person. I think we would actually be better off without him. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning QuackGuru

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

Some people might consider this to be a simple content dispute at three different venues. But if QuackGuru is clearly reverting against consensus, some action could be taken. The problem is determining what the consensus is. I suggest that the submitter, DigitalC, ask at a noticeboard for an uninvolved admin to close the three named discussions: those at Chiropractic, Vertebral artery dissection and Pseudoscience. This AE request might be put on hold temporarily, without prejudice, while waiting for those threads to be closed. I observe that QG has been topic-banned from chiropractic for as long as six months in the past, and his current behavior is getting close to the line. If he agrees to accept the consensus in the three cases, action may not be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My check of the Pseudoscience debate indicates that consensus is against including the Matute reference as a source for the public-health significance of pseudoscience. I would welcome an assurance from QuackGuru that he will refrain from restoring this reference again as a source for the statement "Pseudoscience related issues are a critical matter that involves public health" until consensus changes. Are there any other AE admins who are not on vacation? I'd welcome assistance in checking consensus in the other cases, chiropractic and vertebral artery dissection. I suggest that if QuackGuru is willing to respond here and discuss the issues, that would be a favorable event. We could then adopt a closure of this AE which results in settling the three named disputes. If he won't respond here, we should consider imposing editing restrictions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish more admins would join in here, but the way this is going suggests a restriction is needed. The submitter requests "9 month topic ban on all pseudoscience related articles, broadly construed." At first this seemed excessive, but the tone of QuackGuru's submissions suggests that he is not open to any negotiation about his style of editing. His behavior in the three discussions reported in the complaint matches #9 in the essay on WP:Tendentious editing, "One who repeats the same argument without convincing people." Jfdwolff, who I might have guessed would often be joining with QG to defend mainstream medicine, asserts above "His almost robotic insistence on using a particular source that has demonstrable weaknesses has been mind-numbingly frustrating.." EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account the evidence by DigitalC (which I find especially compelling) and the long history of non-constructive contributions, I support the proposal to topic-ban QuackGuru, and am willing to support one with a duration of nine months (though I would have opted for six months unless there are previous topic-bans that I have missed). Also, thank you to Ed for keeping this process ticking over while the rest of us enjoy the summer :). AGK [•] 23:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I broadly concur with EdJohnston and AGK. T. Canens (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One caveat: given the extensive history here, I cannot help but think that a WP:ARBRB-style indefinite topic ban would be a better option. T. Canens (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reenem

Topic banned for 3 months. T. Canens (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Reenem

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: asad (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Reenem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, WP:Minor edit

Reenem continues to ignore WP's policy on marking edits as minor when they are in fact not minor. All the edits are typically involve changing the status of East Jerusalem from being occupied to either being "captured" or part of municipal Jerusalem. Of course, these are in no way minor edits. In fact, in a topic are so contentious as the I/P area is, it is nothing more than disruptive and sneaky editing practices.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

13/07/11 Changes status of East Jerusalem from being occupied to being "captured". Marks the edit as minor.
13/08/11 Removes the word "reportedly" from a sentence saying that activists had used gas masks in their attempts to fend off the Israeli navy during the Gaza Flotilla raid in 2010.
11/07/11 Removes the word "including" when referencing the West Bank and East Jerusalem in an obvious attempt to severe the connection between the to entities -- which is, needless to say, a contentious matter in the I/P area. Marks the edit as minor.
06/07/11 Adds that Jerusalem is Israel's capital (something that nearly the entire world doesn't recognize) and adds that it is Israel's largest city (which is only true of the population of occupied East Jerusalem is included again something that is very contentious). Marks the edit as minor.
04/07/11 Removes East Jerusalem from the Mount of olives article and replaces it with "Jerusalem". And again, marks the edit as minor.

Reneem has been warned numerous times about this very situation.

Warned on 04/07/11 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)

I then continued on the same thread to further clarify with Reneem why the edits were being marked as minor -- Reneem never responded.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

~~topic ban~~ Upon further thought, I think it would be better if Reneem was sternly warned that that continuing the action of marking un-minor edits as minor would lead to further action in A/E and that Reneem gave a statement committing not to continue such actions. Also, if such a warning could be logged here. I think this is a fairly considerable request considering that me and another editor have gone out of our ways to inform Reneem editing like this violates WP policy -- all to receive a insincere response or, my case, no response at all.

Then again, the editor has made dozens of edits and has not once replied on this thread or to the thread on their talk page. I think a block is needed now, if only at least to get their attention. It seems this user also has no interest in working collaboratively. -asad (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user seems to have a disruptive practice of editing in the I/P area in general (as is evidenced by the numerous complaints by other users on Reneem's talk page about various subjects relating to the conflict).

@TC - You're correct. I struck it. -asad (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!! -- Yet again, Reenem makes an edit that would be viewed very controversial by many and marks it as minor. I really hope some action will be taken, I think there is no better time for a block than this. Reenem seems insistent on spitting in the face of those who wish to work by the policies of WP. (BTW, this wasn't the first time Reneem made such edits and marked them as minor with regards to the Golan Heights, see here and here). -asad (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[36]

Discussion concerning Reneem

Statement by Reenem

Comments by others about the request concerning Reneem

Comment by ElComandanteChe

Reenem is a massive content contributor: 92% of his 20000+ edits are in article space. He had and still have problems with edit summaries, but these have nothing to do with the alleged disruptive editing in the P/I area. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to confirm that the editor does not take part in discussions, does not justify their edits, and does not respond to questions. RolandR (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, this is not accompanied by edit warring, incivility, stalking and other acts of bravery typical for this board. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query by Jaakobou

Why would the mountain of olives be in "East" Jerusalem?? Unlike the removal, whomever pushed this political bit into the lead made quite a provocative editorial choice. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's in East Jerusalem ? Just guessing. GeoHack - Mount of Olives can help you find your way if you are lost. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason 'East Jerusalem' is not a separate city on any map. It's political hackery of the lowest kind shoved into the first paragraph on a neutral encyclopaedia project. Reminds me of a picture I've recently seen with Mubarak Photoshopped to walk in front of Obama instead of alongside Netanyahu -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/egyptian-newspaper-alters_n_719504.html. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sean's explanation and your objection is perfect proof of how it was an entirely disruptive edit when Reneem removed "East" and marked the edit as minor. In the end, this thread is about marking un-minor edits as minor, not about Jerusalem vs East Jerusalem. But thank you for demonstrating the contention in the subject area. -asad (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any objection here shows a preference to politically motivated polemics over a proper first paragraph on an encyclopaedia. Although not as obvious, it is akin to vandalism. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OUTSTANDING I've had the fortitude to click on the 'zoom in' button a couple times in the link provided by Sean. You know what it said? Jerusalem (not "East Jerusalem"). As such, I reiterate my initial statement that, unlike the removal of this borderline vandalism (akin to the image of Mubarak), whomever pushed this political bit into the lead made quite a provocative editorial choice. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

@Ed - FWIW, in the diff you gave the law does specifically apply to Palestinian residents and not all residents.

I agree that Reenem better come over here and defend himself before he finds himself smacked with a restriction completely disproportionate to what he's been doing and his history of previous sanctions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Chesdovi

Am I allowed to comment here under Topic ban? Chesdovi (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add something to what Jakobau has said? Chesdovi (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi, you're not allowed to comment here unless someone makes a complaint about *your* editing. In that case you would be entitled to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I complain about Asad's editing in this area? Chesdovi (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't post here or at any admin noticeboards since you would be complaining about Asad's editing of I/P. You are "banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces, for one year." EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was the reason why I was banned this time, b/c I brought a case against Asad from 5 months ago, (okay, it was in response to his report against me, but still). You see, if in one year I complain about things now, I wil get banned again and Asad will kept on with his edit style! Oh well, sometimes you can never win. Chesdovi (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Peter Cohen

It's about a year and a half since Reenem was last blocked and that was shortened after discussion. Rather than jumping straight to a long block or topic ban, mightn't a short block attract his/her attention, at which point you might be able to engage him/her in a discussion about the original issues raised?--Peter cohen (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by jd2718

I'm concerned that Reneem's editing, with few summaries and non-minor edits marked as minor, extends beyond the bounds of this arbitration decision. And he's prolific. And he tends to edit in more controversial areas. His contributions show this, and his talk page is littered with it. Get his attention (block). He needs to commit to (accurately) summarizing his edits for other editors to see. Jd2718 (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ohiostandard

Reenem's editing style came to my attention for the first time last month after he undertook a strongly POV 3 and 1/2 hour rewrite of one of our most contentious articles, Gaza flotilla raid. I objected and, along with other editors, tried to address his changes on the talk page; that extensive effort is very fully documented in these three sections.

That AGF effort was entirely wasted with respect to Reenem: He ignored every editor who contributed to the talk page, despite the strong consensus there that he needed to discuss such sweeping changes. He didn't make even a single response to any concern raised about his desired changes, but in subsequent editing sessions simply reinstated them.

Reenem does not use talk pages to work with other editors. It's my impression that he thinks it's more effective re his goals here to simply try to unilaterally rewrite the articles to suit his POV, rather than to engage in any consensual or collaborative effort. – OhioStandard (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mirokado

A lot of my time was also wasted with the incident mentioned above by Ohiostandard. Reenem is still failing to provide edit summaries for that article. (For full disclosure, I have just reverted those changes, see the edit summary).

I suggest that the admin taking action address both the concerns raised in the comments here – inappropriate marking of edits as minor and lack of edit summaries – as they both make it systematically difficult for other editors to review the changes made.

We need admin action to "encourage" Reenem to edit responsibly because the only practical way a normal user can deal with a succession of such edits is to revert them wholesale straight away. We would then of course hit 1RR on many of these controversial articles and might appear to be hounding Reenem or being petty. I have already provided an objective criterion which I will use when deciding to revert unexplained edits. --Mirokado (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Reenem

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

Unless I missed something, diff #4 was not marked as a minor edit. T. Canens (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this AE request was opened, Reenem has continued to edit and has not responded to any messages left on their talk. They are still marking edits as 'minor' on I/P articles that are not minor. The most recent was this one, at Racism in Israel, which changes 'resident' to 'Palestinian resident.' Since User:Reenem won't reply or negotiate, if we consider this issue significant our only option is to impose a block or restriction. For example a ban on labelling any edits 'minor' on I/P articles for three months. Another possibility is a 24-hour block. The problem of the minor edits which are not minor has continued for several months, judging from their talk page. They have pushed other boundaries as well. The editor was warned that they broke 1RR on Itamar attack on 6 June. They did not acknowledge the warning or undo their edit. Reenem has already been notified under ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can't have editors refusing to engage with others when making contentious edits in a difficult area. Propose a 3 month ban from all I/P related articles. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Spartaz. T. Canens (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with my colleagues, a 3 month topic ban, with a crystal-clear warning that if problems return in October, the next one could well be permanent. Courcelles 04:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This request has been open for a whole week now, and Reenem has had ample opportunity to respond, yet failed to do so. Per the consensus of uninvolved administrators above, and under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, Reenem (talk · contribs) is hereby banned from all articles and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all non-Talk namespaces for three months. Reenem is allowed to participate in discussions related to the topic area. Should Reenem be able to demonstrate their ability to engage with other editors, this ban may be lifted early; conversely, continued refusal to discuss with editors with good-faith concerns may result in extension of the ban, up to and including for an indefinite period. T. Canens (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Communicat

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Communicat

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: HiltonLange (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Communicat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II#Communicat_restricted

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

User Communikat (talk · contribs), who claims on his talk page to the same user as Communicat (talk · contribs), has started editing the South Africa article. Most of his edits have been reverted or challenged by editors at that page, and he has almost immediately resorted to personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith.

5 July 2011 Accuses Nick-D (talk · contribs) of stalking and hounding him.
16 July 2011 Accuses Edward321 (talk · contribs) of vandalism after a single revert which Edward321 clearly justified with a lengthy edit description.
16 July 2011 Accuses Edward321 (talk · contribs) of a pattern of disruption and harassment, referring to previous interactions they have had on other articles. (Final paragraph)
16 July 2011 Claims that Edward321 (talk · contribs) has a history of hounding him.
16 July 2011 Concludes that Edward321 (talk · contribs) intentions are not to improve the article. (Final paragraph)
18 July 2011 Accuses me (HiltonLange (talk · contribs))of being too busy with "edit warring, disruptive point scoring, exagerated claims, importing external disputes, reviving WP:DEADHORSE, expressing WP:IDHT, painting rosy POV pictures, ignoring the warts; and all the rest.". (Final paragraph of the edit)

I have tried to read the arbitration history, but am not previously familiar with Communicat, but two other aspects concern me. He claims that he is free to use Communikat under WP:SOCK#LEGIT, but that policy specifically excludes accounts under sanctions to evade scrutiny. User Communicat is still under restriction from previous rulings. Additionally, he has revealed on his talk page that he is Stan Winer [(diff)], author and publisher of http://www.truth-hertz.net. Since most of his previous conflicts seem to be around trying to get editors to accept that website as a reliable reference, and he has repeatedly used it to reference his edits, isn't that an intentional attempt to sidestep WP:OR, or even a kind of sock puppetry?

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

User was blocked 6 weeks ago for violating the same sanctions. [[37]]
User was blocked 1 month ago for violating the same sanctions. [[38]]

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Since multiple sanctions against the user have not changed his behavior, and he has repeatedly over the course of many months and multiple dispute resolutions continued to violate his restriction from attacking other editors, he should be blocked.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Communicat's page
Communikat's page

Discussion concerning Communicat

Statement by Communicat

~~I intend contesting this matter within one week, when time permits. Watch this space. Communikat (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Summary

This request should be dismissed as premature. The requesting party has not attempted properly to resolve his complaints through discussion as per WP:DR. Editors on both sides of politically charged subjects can rationally discuss their positions, find common ground, and unemotionally document their differences. Nine hours after filing his enforcement request, the filing party manifested a willingness to resolve through appropriate discussion a certain issue of contention. I declined pending withdrawal, if any, or formal conclusion of his AE request. I believe the filing by him of his AE request was impulsive; and he is using a sledgehammer to swat a fly.

The requesting party further and inappropriately resurrects immaterial issues that have already been comprehensively dealt with and attended to previously in extensive Arbcom discussion. The conduct of the requesting party is itself inappropriate and open to scrutiny.

Others named below have deliberately induced a climate of hostility by introducing tendentious references, as here and here, to earlier Arbcom proceedings and enforcements affecting me. No matter how ostensibly “polite” the language used, it is unacceptable per WP:CIVIL “… to attack a user who ... has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee.”

I believe the foregoing to be a direct result of my past, present, longstanding, well-documented and continuing efforts to introduce NPOV encyclopedic content while countering systemic bias, viz., bias through omission.

Background

The South Africa article at issue is part of a project rated “B-class, Top-importance”. The article displays an “improvement” tag dating back to 2008. Prior to commencement of my editing there, the article had been dormant and otherwise inert for at least a month, both in article space and at discussion page. The requesting party, by his own admission, had not been noticeably active at the article prior to my involvement there; and he had not been active at all in the three months period preceding my current involvement at the article. Since involving myself at this article, I have collaborated amicably and productively with one other editor, htonl (talk), Two other parties implicated by the requesting party in this matter had never worked on or shown any interest in the article prior to commencement of my editing there. For my part, I am a South African national, I live in South Africa, and I have in-depth professional knowledge, familiarity with, and understanding of the topic. The bulk of my cumulative, past 360 edits in [39] article space, have been at the related History of South Africa article, and about 40 edits have been done at South Africa. It is true that certain South Africa article content is controversial by virtue of the article’s nature; hence the inevitability of at least some controversy arising during the course of discussion and editing. It is also true that I am not responsible for the inherently controversial nature of the topic or its subject matter, nor should I be held personally responsible for same.

Following the commencement of my efforts to improve the article, there was a sudden and predictable rush of WP:HOUNDING, producing a frenzy of reversions and/or deletions of my content edits, including in-line deletions that were not edit-summarised as reversions. The content reversions and deletions were IMHO gross violations of editing rules including especially WP:PRESERVE. This to the extent that the revision history itself eventually became so confusing it was almost impossible to follow, as corroborated by astute editor notoni with whom I was collaborating productively. Reversions and interference by Edward321 included the substitution by him of inaccurate and misleading text; to replace accurate text and refs contributed by me. (diff and revision history missing without trace). The disruptions further include reversion of accurate text and reliable refs on the grounds that the source is a “corrupted” file that allegedly could not be read. Nobody else actively editing at the time experienced the same purported “problem”, nor was the inappropriate reversion reinstated by Edward321. Earlier, Edward321 had reverted separate edits by me at History of South Africa, citing falsely my topic ban on World War II and its aftermath as “justification” for the reverts, which very clearly had absolutely nothing at all to do with topic from which I am banned. The reverts were IMO done in bad faith and they amount to acts of vandalism. I believe this to be part of a wider pattern of harassment and disruption. It is interesting to note from revision records that when I temporarily halt my editing, everyone else involved seems to cease activity as well. I assume they have nothing better to do with their time other than make editing unnecessarily difficult and unpleasant for me.

Rebuttals

Re: (Communikat)… accuse(d) me (HiltonLange) of being too busy with "edit warring, disruptive point scoring, exagerated claims, importing external disputes, reviving WP:DEADHORSE, expressing WP:IDHT, painting rosy POV pictures, ignoring the warts; and all the rest.".

In fact, the requesting party has misread / misunderstood my “accusation”, which was in reality directed not at the requesting party (HiltonLange) but directed at user Edward321. Edward321 has not been named as a party, nor is there any evidence that Edward321 has formally been notified by the requester. Edward321 has himself not complained, neither here nor at the article discussion page or anywhere else related. The requesting party’s charge should therefore be disregarded. Note should also be taken of the requesting party’s evident propensity for misperception and misrepresentation. I would have provided detailed evidence to prove a persistent pattern of harassment, disruption and apparent vandalism on the part of Edward321, had he become formally involved here and complain accordingly. This applies equally to the five further instances of “personal attacks” and “bad faith assumptions” claimed by the requesting party. Since diffs do not provide comprehensive context, arbitrators may care to acquaint themselves with the full context of the forgoing, by reading and understanding this thread and this, and perhaps especially this.

Contrary to HiltonLange’s charge that I have "attacked" him, I am in fact the only editor who has supported him in his article improvement suggestions.

In fact also, I did apologise to him even though his perception of a personal attack on him was evidently misconstrued. My verbatim apology reads: "I'm interested only in improvement of this article, with specific reference to content, not to person. Please assume good faith and accept my sincere apologies if my comments have been perceived as otherwise." [40]. He has evidently failed to accept my apology even though, strictly speaking, the apology to him was actually unwarranted. Moreover, his claim of a personal attack, regardless of whom it was directed, hardly falsl within the meaning of WP:NPA#WHATIS, and this too was brought to his notice in the same diff.

Alleged sockpuppetry: RE: (Communicat) … claims that he is free to use Communikat under WP:SOCK#LEGIT, but that policy specifically excludes accounts under sanctions to evade scrutiny. User Communicat is still under restriction from previous rulings. Additionally, he has revealed on his talk page that he is Stan Winer [(diff)], author and publisher of http://www.truth-hertz.net. Since most of his previous conflicts seem to be around trying to get editors to accept that website as a reliable reference, and he has repeatedly used it to reference his edits, isn't that an intentional attempt to sidestep WP:OR, or even a kind of sock puppetry? The suspicion of alleged “sockpuppetry” was comprehensively interrogated, dealt with, settled and dismissed after lengthy discussion during my recent request for clarification. He is apparently attempting to undermine me by reviving a WP:DEADHORSE, with which he has apparently not even bothered to familiarize himself. Thus, while alleging “bad faith” on my part, Lange himself exhibits bad faith in extremis. He makes serious charges against me while at the same time acknowledging that he is not familiar with the background to those charges. That is hardly a convincing demonstration of his own good faith and/or integrity.

HiltonLange claims I have “repeatedly used” my website http://www.truth-hertz.net “to reference (my) edits”. Lange provides no evidence to support his false claim, nor does any such evidence exist. The small matter of truth-hertz.net relative to World War II and the Cold War was IMO resolved a long time ago, in fact nearly a year ago, after I had made some embarrassing mistakes while still learning the WP editing rules, which took some getting used to. I am not responsible for the subsequent lynchmob behaviour of those who persist in resurrecting the issue. They include Edward321, whose actions earlier drew this remark from one other editor, addressing Edward321: “Your continued attacks against Communicat are starting to look more like a personal vendetta. I suggest you stop. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)”

HiltonLange’s claim is unfounded, it is immaterial, it is a personal attack, and it is a further instance of WP:DEADHORSE in an apparent attempt to undermine and discredit me, for whatever reason. I challenge HiltonLange to provide any evidence whatsoever to support the innuendo that my new username may be “an intentional attempt to sidestep WP:OR or a form of sock puppet” to “evade scrutiny” (as if that is at all possible). I took a new username because my former unsername was self-cancelled six months earlier, and I did not know how to reinstate it. It’s as simple as that. While alleging “bad faith” on my part, HiltonLange himself exhibits bad faith in extremis. The following sequence of events is also noteworthy:

Sequence of events

14:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC): Communikat (talk) suggests at discussion page that all the “pretty pictures” at South Africa article page give the page an appearance of a “tourism brochure” conveying a lopsided POV of the country. [41]

04:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC), HiltonLange objects strongly to my suggestion that the visual POV is biased. He also claims falsely that poverty among the indigenous population is ”not at all” a major problem. Citing questionablestatistics, he states South Africa ranks only “between 10th and 20th ranked” on the world scale, (out of 192 countries recognized by the United Nations), which in HiltonLange's disputed view means poverty in South Africa is “not at all” significant.

20.03 UTC, 18 July 2011, ): Communikat (talk) complains “someone here:” fact Edward321 had deleted important poverty statistics … the issue of poverty / inequality is something that someone here seems determined to underplay at best or, at worst, avoid almost entirely … I'm open to correction and/or reasoned debate.” [42]

20:45 UTC, 18 July 2011 Communikat posts: “The apparent bias through omission, implied above, is wholly consistent with the fact that the History section of the article mentions the word "slaves" just once, merely in passing, and without any reference whatsoever; while the word "slavery" is similarly mentioned just once, (also just in passing and without citation). Whereas, in historical fact, slavery played a very substantial part in the country's history. I need convincing this article is not biased, perhaps even racist, in its omissions." [43]

Just 12 hours later, at 09:12 UTC, 19 July 2011, HiltonLange files Arbcom enforcement request on grounds of “personal attacks” etc.,

IMHO his filing of the request was impulsive and a knee-jerk reaction to my criticism of the article's apparent racist POV bias and touristy appearance. Moreover, HiltonLange's expressed views on the subject of poverty in South Africa mirror closely / are virtually indistinguishable from a highly discredited minority POV and attitude of poverty denialism still prevalent in South Africa.

It is reasonable to suspect in terms of WP:COMMONSENSE, and given the above sequence of events, that HL’s filing of his enforcement request here (as proxy for an editor who has in fact not complained) is not genuinely motivated by the manifest reasons he has stated, but is motivated instead by latent and unstated reasons, for which the manifest reasons are intended by him to serve as a surrogate. I am open to legitimate correction in this as in everything else expressed here.

Response to Nick-d statement: This administrator, in supporting the filing party, has replicated in his statement here the content of a misplaced “motion” filed by him in recent opposition to my request for clarification. Arbcom disregarded his motion then, and should disregard as immaterial the replication of his “motion” here. It is noteworthy that when I have cited WP rules, it is construed by Nick-d as a “personal attack”. Nick-d seems unaware of the accurate meaning of WP:NPA#WHATIS,. Moreover, when I make just one reversion under the 3R rule, it is construed by him as “edit warring”. His own conduct, meanwhile, is of course beyond reproach. All the relevant diffs and links are contained in the archived record of my request for clarification.

Response to T Canen question

Canen, citing WP:INVOLVED whatever, recused himself from my earlier request for clarification. Now he has decided paradoxically to present himself in this present matter. Previously, since my return to editing after a six-months break, Canen has blocked me twice for one-week periods at the request of Nick-d, citing infringement of editing restrictions. On the first ocassion, the block arose in part because I was unclear about the scope of my topic ban, nor did anyone care to enlighten me. On the second ocassion, in order to establish clarity on the scope of my topic ban, I attempted to engage Canen and filing party Nick-d in relevant discussion. They failed to respond. In my subsequent request to Arbcom for clarification, four parties concurred that the wording of the topic ban were unclear and warranted clarification. A lesser number of arbitrators disagreed. I also requested that the decisions and conduct of T Canen be reviewed. My request was disregarded. All the relevant links and diffs should be contained in the archived record of my request for clarification

Incomplete record

Regretably, the record of my earlier request for clarification as referred to in some of the foregoing is incomplete; some postings have been deleted and there is no revision history of same. As already mentioned in the “Background” sub-section above, a separate diff and its edit history also seems to be missing without trace. Presumably, only administrators have the tools to remove material without the revision history remaining on record.

Closing statement

In related discussion during my request for clarification, I asked for an interaction ban relative to Nick-d, Edward321 and myself. My request was disregarded. If Arbcom wants to grant that request now, then so be it. If Arbcom wants to dismiss as premature the current request for enforcement, then so be it. If Arbcom, in addition to topic banning me from World War II and its aftermath, wants to impose also a ban on my improvement of the South Africa topic, then so be it. If Arbcom wants to site-ban me, then so be it; it will save me the time, effort, bandwith and general unpleasantness of having to deal persistently with what has the all the characteristics of a lychmob mentality. In any event, based on past performance, it is predictable that discussion of this current matter will drag on interminably with the same, tired old arguments being resurrected tediously and refuted likewise. I have had more than enough of that. It is unlikely that I shall be responding further. I can think of more deserving causes for the voluntary donation of my time and bandwidth. Communikat (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Communicat

It's worth noting that this is not only a continuation of the previous article-space related conduct for which Communicat has since twice been blocked since returning to editing a few weeks ago, but also that he made similar attacks on other editors as part of the recent request for clarification (see the diffs I included at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II#Proposed motion to extend editing restrictions on Communicat/Communikat). This is a very consistent pattern of behavior. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Communicat

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

Can anyone tell me why an indef is not a good idea? T. Canens (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't. Though my reading of the enforcement motion only allows for a week long block. The rest would be on your own authority, but as far as I can tell a good call. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And done. One week AE block + indef. This has gone on long enough. T. Canens (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your action is appropriate, given that Communikat seems unable to reach consensus with others. Unless we want to *give* him all these WWII articles so he can slant them according to his personal POV, there seems no way forward. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NickCT

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning NickCT

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: —Biosketch (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: NickCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA#Decorum/WP:ARBPIA#Editors_reminded

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

12 July – editor accuses me of being "a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior," with no accompanying evidence
13 July – editor repeats the accusation, again with no accompanying evidence.
15 July – editor accuses me of concealing previous accounts, with no accompanying evidence.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Blocked on 21 December 2009 by Ged UK (talk · contribs) for harassment
Notified on 2 March 2010 by PhilKnight (talk · contribs) of ARBPIA ruling
Blocked on 27 May 2010 by PhilKnight (talk · contribs) for personal attacks

Enforcement action requested

Topic ban for a duration of one week to one month, per escalation from previous.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

For the past month or so I've been having to put up with increasingly hostile and personally oriented rhetoric directed against me by editors in the I/P topic area. When at this very Noticeboard Tarc (talk · contribs) thrice accused me of sockpuppetry without citing a single diff as required per WP:NPA#WHATIS, I let it slide. After Nableezy (talk · contribs) attributed to me a batshit insane obsession with his edits for two edits I made, he redacted and I accepted. More recently, Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) called me an ass on his Talk page for trying to engage him in a calm one-on-one discussion; but he too struck the remark per my request and the matter has more-or-less been settled. NickCT (talk · contribs), on the other hand, not only called me "a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior" without any evidence, but into the bargain has been repeatedly suggesting that I'm a sockpuppet or hiding previous user accounts, also without any evidence. I insisted that he withdraw his original comment or substantiate it in three different places to avoid creating a scene – but to no avail.

If people have a problem with my edits in I/P or have gotten into their heads that I'm a sockpuppet, it doesn't excuse attacks against me that violate WP:NPA and WP:ARBPIA#Decorum/WP:ARBPIA#Editors_reminded. I understand Decorum isn't as strictly enforced as other ARBIA principles are, but specifically in the case of User:NickCT, he has been sanctioned here before for his hostile interactions with editors he disagrees with in I/P, so either he genuinely doesn't understand what these policies entail, or else he's incapable of abiding by them. Either way, considering the perpetually tense atmosphere at I/P and NickCT's problematic conduct in the topic area in the past, I am requesting enforcement in this case. Every other means of reaching an understanding with this user has been exhausted in vain.

Appendix: In anticipation of the some of the comments likely to follow, I offer these preformulated responses. It isn't essential that the Admins considering my request read them.

"This is a frivolous request, only one attack." First of all, it wasn't one attack. The first time he attacked me, I templated his remark with Template:RPA, but he removed the Template and reiterated his attack. Later, when I tried in the gentlest way possible to communicate to him the problem with his remark, his response was to attribute bad-faith motives both to my initial comment on User:Malik Shabazz's Talk page and to my comment on his own Talk page. And then, when I took the matter to WP:WQA for community input, he began with his string of allegations that I'm a sockpuppet. These aren't frivolous attacks. They are textbook personal attacks against me relating to an active-arbitration topic area, without evidence to back them up and serving only to discredit me and disrupt my interactions with other contributors. Secondly, the pattern of recurring personal attacks doesn't need to be established by my diffs alone. It is already established by his block log.
"AEs should not be filed against editors one is in conflict with." The response to that is simple. NickCT and I weren't in conflict anywhere in the Project; indeed, as far as I know, this was only the second time he and I ever crossed paths.
"If all these people are attacking you, maybe you're the problem and not them." I'm open to criticism relating to how I edit, as anyone who contributes regularly to I/P should be. I'm also aware of WP:BOOMERANG. If someone's convinced there's a case to be made that my edits are a problem in I/P, let them make it like through the appropriate channels. Otherwise, shifting the blame onto me and making ad hominem remarks in my regard is counterproductive and needs to be identified for what it is – a sordid red herring. This is an AE about NickCT. Any comments not directly relating to that user and his remarks toward me don't belong here.
"This isn't within the purview of AE." The language and context of the attack make it related to the Arab-Israel conflict, broadly construed. If this were an I/P-banned editor, he would not be allowed to attack another contributor as "a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior." Furthermore, NickCT was sanctioned at AE before for similar infractions.—Biosketch (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified at user's Talk page: "You have demonstrated to me that you either do not understand WP:NPA or do not see yourself as needing to comply with it. I have requested enforcement of ARBPIA rulings against you here."

Discussion concerning NickCT

Statement by NickCT

Not sure how seriously I should take this, so I'll just make several quick points -

1) People should probably review this conversation as example of the kind of complaints Biosketch seems to have a penchant for.

2) re "repeatedly suggesting that I'm a sockpuppet" - I never suggested Biosketch was a sock. I suggested he had an account previous to his current account, which he almost certainly has had and additionally, has made no attempt to deny. I explained the difference between those to things here. I'm not sure why he repeatedly mischaracterizes my comments.

3) Bio initially filed a Wikiquette complaint for the material above, which didn't seem to gather any momentum. He seems to be going to multiple places now trying to get someone to agree and act on his complaints. As such, I think AE request could justifiably be called forum shopping.

4) Biosketch really represents the worst of the Israel-Palestine wikilawyers. This kind of "throw some accusations around and see what sticks" tactics has got to stop. It's a waste of time, and distracts from WP's core mission. I think a clear message could be sent here with some punitive anti-wikilawyering measures.

Thanks, NickCT (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning NickCT

Result concerning NickCT

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

Matthead

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Matthead

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Matthead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration enforcement topic ban (WP:DIGWUREN) regarding editing Polish related information

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

13 July 2011 First recent edit in Polish related topic
20 July 2011 Deletion of information about anti-Nazi resistance of Polish minority in Germany

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Warning and short block.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Matthead has been banned from editing Polish related topics due to : habitually engaging in battleground-like conduct related to nationalist issues involving Poland and Germany" from "from the topic of Poland and Poles, broadly construed. For the avoidance of doubt, the topic includes subjects which are or were only partially Polish, or whose Polishness is disputed (by you or others), and the ban includes all articles, other pages, parts of pages and discussions related to the topic"

Recently it seems Matthead started to try to edit Polish related information on Wiki. While the first edit was small(although violating the ban), the second indicated return to his old ways, by including the removal of information regarding presence of Polish minority in Germany and its anti-Nazi resistance movement during Second World War and concealing that removal in edit summary--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested[44]

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Matthead

Statement by Matthead

Comments by others about the request concerning Matthead

Result concerning Matthead

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

Not entirely buying the first diff as a violation (I know zero German though), but the second diff is a pretty clear violation of the topic ban. Blocked for a week. NW (Talk) 20:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

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