Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Ohconfucius

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 Ohconfucius

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TheSoundAndTheFury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ohconfucius (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_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun_Gong_2#Request_for_amendment_.28June_2014.29

User:Ohconfucius was previously indefinitely topic banned from Falun Gong-related page by Arbcom. The topic ban was provisionally suspended for a one-year trial period per this motion. I think a review of his conduct is in order before the probationary period expires.

During Ohconfucius’ one-year reprieve, he has continued a pattern of POV editing, edit warring, and commenting inappropriately on other users. Most worrying, he restored a polemical anti-Falun Gong essay in userspace after being told by arbitrators to permanently delete it.

Background (see also WP:GAME)

In July 2012, Arbcom voted to indefinitely ban Ohconfucius from Falun Gong-related topics due to edit warring, incivility, and violations of WP:NPOV.

In April 2014, Ohconfucius appealed to lift the topic ban, and assured arbitration committee that he would not return to editing Falun Gong.

Arbcom’s response to this request was tepid, but seven arbs ultimately agreed to provisionally suspend the ban with a probationary period of one year. One arbitrator said his agreement was conditional and asked Ohconfucius to "steer well clear of matters of controversy" related to Falun Gong.

Ohconfucius reneged on his promises and quickly resumed making controversial edits to Falun Gong articles. It seems to me that he had gamed the system, and not for the last time.

He was brought back to Arbcom. The arbitrators again urged caution; one arb said to "move on" from editing Falun Gong, and another told him that he must permanently delete all of the anti-Falun Gong essays that he kept in his userspace and refrain from commenting on other editors or else he (the arbitrator) would request reinstatement of the ban. [1]

Ohconfucius deleted the offending essays in his userspace. After the ArbCom case was closed, however, he simply reposted a permalinked version on his user page.[2] This week he restored the page entirely.[3]

Violations of WP:ATTACK, WP:HARASS, WP:POLEMIC

[4] – Ohconfucius’ polemical essay on Falun Gong contains attacks against named individuals, groups, and several Wikipedia editors (myself included), violating WP:NPA, WP:ATTACK, WP:HARASS, and WP:POLEMIC. Note that Ohconfucius has been told on two occasions, by two members of Arbcom, that this essay is inappropriate. User:Seraphimblade told him to permanently delete it or else face reimposition of the topic ban.[5]

Violations of WP:NPOV

Ohconfucius has continued previous patterns of POV editing. Most edits involve deleting/whitewashing reliably sourced information on the Chinese government’s human rights practices or claiming material is not supported by sources when it actually is.

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

Violation of WP:WAR

Ohconfucius made multiple reverts on September 9 on a Falun Gong-related article, ignoring talk page discussions. (Note: I initially thought these were a 3RR violation, but because some were performed in succession, it’s actually more like 3 reverts).

[14] – misstates facts about the history of the 610 Office

[15] – reverts (apparently convinced that he's right, while he's not)

[16] – deletes information because it was unsourced (see bottom of diff)

[17] – after a source was added, deletes it again

[18] – deletes information from lede

[19] – deletes again

[20] – adds quote from Chinese government source and omits Ownby's views

[21] – same edit again

[22] – deletes information about man in Chengde

[23] – deletes again (he's right about this one, but a revert nonetheless)

Violations of WP:CIVIL

[24] – This talk page discussion is representative of an inability to assume good faith and a reflexive tendency to personalize discussions – something he’s been warned about repeatedly.

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: yes
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above: yes
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months (see the background section): yes

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Just a quick comment. I believe Ohconfucius' reply elucidates the problem. Instead of addressing his apparent breaches of policy and ArbCom rulings, such as direct personal attacks and using Wikipedia as a platform for ax-grinding and polemics, we get more name-calling from a seemingly unblockable ivory tower and "no further comments." I am not a Falun Gong activist or a so-called Falun Gongster and fundamentally do not see this as a content dispute. Neither have I said that Ohconfucius is "pro-regime." I stated that the direction of his edits on this topic generally serve to improve the image of the Chinese government. Note that he admits to editing from an "anti-Falun Gong" viewpoint instead of NPOV and seems to perceive the Falun Gong namespace as a zero-sum game. There were valid reasons for his indefinite topic ban in the first place; later he was put on probation, and I simply believe the situation should be assessed once again. Best regards. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[25]

Discussion concerning Ohconfucius

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 Ohconfucius

I have said time and again that I try hard to leave my personal opinions outside of the mainspace articles. Nowadays, I only make a very small number of edits on Falun Gong topics, yet I still get continually attacked by Falun Gong activists, so I'm not going to dwell on the issue before us. Falun Gong are known for their tenacity and relentlessness, wearing their critics down. The attacks were stressful for me in the past. I just find their attacks on me tiring. Tiring that the Falun Gong activists manifest the very intolerance of criticism of their movement that the Regime does with people who criticise their rule. I have repeatedly asserted that the Falun Gong and the Regime are heavily shaped by the Cultural Revolution, and are thus the antitheses of each other, and this observation/position appears to rile Falun Gong activists.

This request is yet another content dispute with the filer of the request and User:TheBlueCanoe, both of whom have a history of editing Falun Gong articles from what I believe is a highly partisan and advocate's viewpoint and with whom I have had running content disputes over the years. A new and inexperienced Falun Gong editor, who for the moment shall remain nameless, has joined their ranks recently, and may have contributed with text copied verbatim from elsewhere. I would merely say that I find copyright violations equally objectionable as the propaganda of the Falun Dafa and of the Regime, and part of that editing work is to remove copyvios or otherwise make clear that these are positions and not fact. All my edits have, I believe, adequate edit summaries explaining my rationale. Whilst the complainant has only found examples he objects to showing my bias, he failed to give me any credit for this comment (for example), which certainly shows that I am editing objectively and in good faith.

The Regime almost insists upon the "L'état, c'est moi" conflation between the party and the state in the same way as Falun Gongsters insist on labelling all people who do not support their movement as supporters of the Regime. IIndeed, I restored the essay within my own userspace after learning about the former's complaint to EdJohnson, in which he repeated his previous provocative smear that I was somehow "pro-Regime". It made me suspect whether he understood that anti-Regime people can also be anti-Falun Gong. If the distinction between the two is not clear in his own head, one must question whether he ought to be editing such polemic topics on Wikiepdia.

In view of the foregoing, I would state that the assembled should not be too surprised if there were no further comments from me on this case. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 05:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not be misled into confusing my fatigue of Falun Gong shenanigans with arrogance. I certainly do not feel I am unblockable, though my two principal accusers seem to share the belief that I think I'm immune to sanction. I am but an ordinary editor who does not want any further personal emotional reaction (i.e. stress) to this topic, and certainly no further drama. The editing issues being complained of here are content disputes – exactly the same as the last time – despite the attempt to position them otherwise. As I already stated above, I reinstated my essay because there seems to be some fundamental questions as to my allegiances and stance. Even after its reinstatement, it appears that there continues to be miscomprehension and even misrepresentation of my personal position and editing stance. Notwithstanding, to save myself reinventing the wheel at every juncture, I feel that the content of my essay is of value. Writing essays is a valid expression of one's personal sentiments, and serves to document emotional and editing issues faced every day on Wikipedia, so I would oppose its outright deletion of my effort because editing of Falun Gong articles is a rather unique experience. However, as it appears that there may be some sensitivity to the naming of names therein, I will make suitable redaction. I hope that will be satisfactory. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

It is worth noting that this subject has already been discussed with Ed Johnston at User talk:EdJohnston#Request for reinstating indefinite topic ban on User:Ohconfucius and the comments Ed made in response.

I also think it worth noting that the previous arbitrations have made it rather obvious that this is a vital article to the Falun Gong movement, which is remarkably active in the West, and that editors associated with the movement have been much more "sanctioned" historically than others. As for the claims that Ohconfucius' edits are ideologically-driven, I would be interested in knowing what "ideology" is allegedly driving him, because that has not so far as I have seen been indicated, and he has in the past reacted very strongly and negatively to allegations of being on the side of the PRC, understandably, I think. I also note as per his history that he has edited other, related articles in the broad qigong field, and that it is primarily on the basis of his work that the only FG FA out there exists. None of that is indicative of any sort of ideological involvement to my eyes, let alone being driven by ideology. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting closing, and basically supporting the idea that at most Ohconfucius be given a warning. AGF unfortunately really doesn't apply when the evidence of the history and nature of the self-declared (and otherwise) biases of a number of editors involved with the topic is so clearly visible as it is in this case. And, again, we should also note that it is, apparently, the opinion of one of the larger "advocacy" groups dealing with China in the Western world, from which we draw most of our editors, and that on that basis is likely to still be subject to POV pushing from that side. Kww has said in an active request for arbitration that there were basically two reasons to impose discretionary sanctions, one to prevent incivility, and the second to keep the content up to the standards of policies and guidelines. The second is, probably, more important than the first in general, and I have reason to believe, knowingly or unknowingly, Ohconfucius is probably acting in accord with that principle, even if he might be, perhaps, outnumbered in doing so. It might make more sense to place the related content on indefinite full coverage, so that edits can only be made by an uninvolved admin after consensus for such changes on the article talk page, and it is a kind of narrow topic, at least in terms of directly related articles, so it might be workable here, but I don't know whether it is permissible by the existing rulings. If it isn't, maybe we should seek an ARCA for such. John Carter (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: I'm not so sure that "righting great wrongs" is the best way to describe Ohconfucius's approach here. Falun Gong is, unfortunately, a political hotbed issue, particularly regarding China and Chinese expats. And it is one of, maybe the, leading critic of the PRC regime in the Western world. A lot of people including editors are both sympathetic to their efforts (including me, and I think Ohconfucius himself) while at the same time acknowledging that the efforts of their "political machine" crosses the line about as often as the partisan political machines of the various political parties in the West do. Some might say that the political machines fairly consistently stay on the wrong side of the line, actually. No one, including either him or me, really in any way agree with the PRC, but at the same time we have to acknowledge that given the dearth of information we have on internal matters we are more or less obliged to give its press releases due WEIGHT, because we don't have any real evidence to the contrary. I remember in Ownby's book, for instance, where he basically gave the press statement about a Western spy being involved in the formation of Falun Gong about the same amount of space as the total length of the one and only statement from the PRC to date about it. He can't give more, because the statement is more or less a stand alone, but he did, basically, almost repeat it. The almost knee-jerk Western dismissal of PRC statements is one of the issues which it is hardest for most people to overcome, and I think in that regard he might be one of the few who really is working to keep the content in line with the policies as they can best be applied in this definitely sub-optimal situation of a lot of partisan sources on one side and damn few partisan sources on the other, but those partisan sources being between them pretty much all that is available. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by coldacid (uninvolved)

Despite the conversation on EdJohnston's talk, this essay is certainly questionable, and considering Seraphimblade's comment in the June 2014 amendment request, it seems that Ohconfucius is definitely tempting fate. Whether this is the editor taking the WP:ROPE they were given and hanging themself with it, or not, I can't say. For sure, though, we should hear from Seraphimblade on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by coldacid (talk • contribs) 02:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with TheSoundAndTheFury's "quick comment". Regardless of the content dispute, Ohconfucius' attitude even here on this AE request demonstrates that the editor should be strongly encouraged to edit other topics. At the very least, they should be topic-banned from anything relating to Falun Gong, and their attack essay deleted and salted. Ohconfucius has been given enough rope. @Seraphimblade: Would still like to hear from you on this. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 15:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by My very best wishes

This edit by Ohconfucius strikes me as very recent and highly problematic (I know how important this article is to Falun Gong propagandists, but you should accept it as an unfortunate consequence of one of your fellow FLG editors choosing to plagiarise an entire chunk of it). Otherwise, I am not sure this AE request would be reasonable, given that most other diffs/edits by Ohconfucius were rather old (although also problematic), and Arbcom did not ask for reviewing this matter after a year, judging from their motion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that editors in this area should be cursed and treated as "Falun Gongsters" (per Ohconfucious). During FG-2 case I talked with some of them, and they looked as good-faith and highly educated contributors, and in particular, User:Homunculus, very different from crude political SPA I have met in other subject areas. Unfortunately, she is no longer active in the project, just as many others, possibly due to the disputes and sanctions...

I think it would be fine for Ohconfucius to express his opinion about editing FG in his essay. However, he targeted several specific contributors: "more sophisticated undeclared/clandestine FLG advocates who are well versed in Wikipedia's policies appeared. Homunculus and TheSoundAndTheFury ..." and links them to WP:COI (in the end of the paragraph). I do not really know: perhaps there is an evidence of their WP:COI? If so, Ohconfucius must provide his evidence here, and these contributors should be sanctioned? But I did not see anything about their WP:COI during FG-2 case... My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re to comment by Ohconfucius on my talk page [26]. Yes, Ohconfucius removed these passages from his essay dated April 2 2015. Yes, that would be fine and sufficient, but he continue blaming others as "Gongsters" and "Falun Gong advocates" on this very page (see his statement above) and even on my talk page. No, this is not a fair assessment of these people, given their contributions to the project [27]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, I think this is hardly a reasonable AE request based on the most recent diffs (and it could be left without action), however given the suspended topic ban, a review of editing by Ohconfucious during the entire year and based on all provided diffs would still be reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheBlueCanoe

Here’s what Seraphimblade said at arbitration:

“If Ohconfucius' pattern of commenting on editors rather than edits continues or speculating on their motives, I'll be in favor of reinstating the topic ban. In that vein, Ohconfucius:, I will be requesting reinstatement of the topic ban if you do not get rid of all of your userspace material on Falun Gong and leave it gone.”[28]

Reposting an archived version of the userspace essay less than a month later was clearly defying the spirit, if not the letter, of the request[29]. More interesting is that Ohconfucius completely restored the essay last week, after a complaint about it was filed on EdJohnston’s talk page.[30] I have no idea how to account for this--tempting fate, or maybe Ohconfucius thinks he's unblockable.

On the NPOV issue, some of these diffs bear examining more closely:

[31] Deletes information claiming it’s not in the source, but it was.

[32] Deletes information about torture, saying he wasn’t clear on the source, but the source was clearly cited.

[33] - Adds a notability tag to the article, saying all mentions of the subject are trivial. The subject was the central focus of articles by several major news organizations--something no impartial editor would call trivial coverage.

[34] Says reports of torture is merely a Falun Gong allegation, which it’s not.

I’ve tried to give the benefit of the doubt that these were all honest mistakes, and maybe they are. But looking more closely at the history I’m not so sure, and it does seem that the user is ideologically driven. Certainly some of the reasons he’s given for deleting cited information on these pages are pretty flimsy (e.g. [35][36] )

It also goes without saying that I don’t appreciate the insinuations that I’m a sock, a “meatpuppet” or a “Falun Gong propagandists” for trying to address and correct the issues I see on these pages.TheBlueCanoe 16:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:EdJohnston, Ohconfucius has blanked his userspace page at your request, but he still links to an archived version of it from his main user page. And given his record of reneging of promises made during arbitration proceeding, there is no guarantee that he will not simply restore it again in a couple weeks or otherwise continue to speculate inappropriately on other editors' motives. Secondly, it may be true that Ohconfucius sees himself as "manning the barricades against a tide of Falun Gong editors," and that this is what's behind his incivility and breakdown in good faith, but this doesn't accurately describe the reality on these pages, and hasn't for several years. I've edited Falun Gong articles for a couple years now, and have seen no such tide of Falun Gong editors (one editor, who emerged in the last couple months, does not a tide make). Instead, three of the main articles on Falun Gong have been promoted to Good Article status on the basis of solid editing by the very people whom Ohconfucius likes to accuse and disparage. Meanwhile, I have not seen Ohconfucius make any real or meaningful contributions to Falun Gong pages. Aside from minor formatting changes, a major thrust of his edits is to either sanitize information on human rights abuses by the Chinese government or to advance Chinese government narratives against Falun Gong, often in a way that is inaccurate and requires correction. He is certainly not the one who is defending pages against activist editors on either side.

Finally, it seems that he has been warned already on several occasions. After being banned indefinitely, he's been given several more lengths of rope, each time accompanied by a reminder from the arbitration committee to exercise better judgement, to stop commenting on other editors, to steer clear of controversy, to move on, etc. But since he himself has never issued any kind of mea culpa, it's not surprising that his conduct doesn't change. TheBlueCanoe 12:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Ohconfucius

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

As a purely procedural note, the view I expressed regarding Ohconfucius' userspace material was an opinion of mine, and was not part of the formal terms of the restriction being suspended. That does not, of course, mean that I'm particularly thrilled to see they were restored, but that is not in itself grounds to revoke the suspension. There may exist other grounds to do so, if so, I'm sure the admins here will make that call. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored this complaint from archive 15 April. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before filing here, User:TheSoundAndTheFury posted a request at my talk page (permalink) asking for an indefinite topic ban on Ohconfucius. The same talk thread includes some responses by me. Ohconfucius sometimes leaves intemperate edit summaries and sometimes accuses people (such as BlueCanoe) of being 'FLG editors' without enough reason. For a while he was declining to blank or delete a page about Falun Gong conduct matters at User:Ohconfucius/essay/Editing Falun Gong articles on Wikipedia, but he has now done so. Ohconfucius also edits on topics that are not controversial and is credited with 22 Good Articles. Ohconfucius sees himself as manning the barricades against a tide of FLG editors and this affects the tone of his edit summaries. He should realize that that the problem has now been drawn to his attention, and continued activism may bring new complaints. I don't see him as a defender of the Chinese government. The imminent expiry of the suspended sanction isn't urgent because the FLG discretionary sanctions allow a new topic ban to be imposed at any time. I recommend this be closed with no action against Ohconfucius. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that Ohconfucious tries really hard to keep his personal bias in check when editing in this area. I accept that he fails often enough to be a problem. The deep-rooted problem of Righting Great Wrongs seems to me not to be going away over time, and I think the restriction should be reimposed, because otherwise I foresee escalating drama and potentially the loss of someone who is, in every other area, nice to have around. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nado158

Blocked one month for topic ban violations. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Nado158

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Nado158 (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/Macedonia#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

24 March 2015 Editing article about a Serbian soccer team to chnage the name from the English language version to the Serbian language version (this is very similar editing to that which resulted in his indefinite ban)
29 March 2015 Editing article about a Belgrade soccer team to change the name from the English language version to the Serbian language version (again, the same pattern as previously)
11 April 2015 Removed mention of the involvement of Serb Chetniks alongside Axis troops in the Kozara Offensive, with the edit summary "No Chetniks". This is a clear POV-warrior move, as the academic literature is crystal clear that a Chetnik leader called Rade Radic and his detachment participated on the Axis side against the Yugoslav Partisans during this offensive.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

22 February 2013 Nado158 is banned for 1 year from "from all articles and discussions related to Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania, broadly construed"
15 June 2014 Nado158 is topic-banned from everything related to Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania (this was an indefinite ban).

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

Most recently given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 15 June 2014 by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I would probably not have come across Nado158 if it was not for the most recent edit. I had some minor dealings with him over some problematic edits back in 2013, but nothing since then that I can recall. Having looked at his edit history and previous bans, it would appear that he is continuing with exactly the same behaviour he was previously banned for.

I will just add that Nado158 clearly doesn't care about the TBAN, as he appears to think that this is about the content of his edits rather than the fact that he has contravened the TBAN. The community can't have editors who ignore TBANs. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 16:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

Discussion concerning Nado158

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 Nado158

Oh come on, first the Name is not BSK Beograd, this is a false lemma, as well as "Sabac Stadium". On WP are lemmas to be preferred in the local language, you know that. The name is Beogradski SK and not BSK Beograd (which is a artificial lemma which does not exist). Also, the stadium Name is Gradski stadium Sabac (Sabac City Stadium) and not Sabac Stadium. The current versions are wrong. I also have removed tha part about the Chetniks, because there is no source available. Your intentions are clear, I see absolutely no willingness for cooperation from your side. But, I see insinuations and offensive behavior against me without reason. Did I revert you? No. Have you tried to start a discussion? No. You acted instantly offensively and unbiased, and way is clear who processed here every day in this field. I am not the POV-Warrior here.--Nado158 (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ban previously were exaggerated, based in part on incorrect facts and were so picky placed in the wrong light as you try now and have nothing to do with the things now. Again, did I revert you? No. Have you tried to start a discussion? No. Did i removed somethin what had a source? No. Did i put my POV ther? No. Did I removed the correct names and put the wrong name there? No.--Nado158 (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don t understand. really. I had beem previously unjustly punish. Because of this processing (See here [37]) Please keep in mind exactly. I updated the article, add sources, and the other User reverted me. On prejudice, without arguments, discussion or sources. How can that be? He broke the WP-rules, not me. And i would punished??? And this with the support of the Croatian and controvers Admins Joy, who often abused his position for his controvers POV. How can that be please? Not I broken the rules, the other user. And Joy abused his admin options. Luckily someone else had seen. Nevertheless, I was punished for nothing. Look here [38]). Please look and this. I was punished, although this processing has proved to be true. I cant believe it till today what have you done to me. To date, the lemma is false. I tried to improve and to update this article, but I was constantly attacked, accused, etc. Although I was right at the end and that's why I was punished??? Where is the justice? This is very very unfair what are you doing with me. At the time I tried to explain everything, but nobody answered to me, no one was listening to my arguments, just like today. All wrote and talked as if I do not exist. Why??? That's not fair.. Like now. That's not fair. Look here ([39]). This is not a profile of a rampaging nationalist user or POV-Warrior.

The user who is accused me constantly are involved in conflicts and has an anti-Serbian attitude. Please look at his profile and his resume on WP. Please. As soon as I'm back, he is trying to represent me like a bad man for nothing. You's doing me wrong, again and again and gives me no chance. Simply because I am going to upgrade Football Articles and for that i will be punished, ridiculous, sorry. This are Serbian Football not Croatian ect. Did i make racist statements or POV? No. And, I've removed the Chetniks, because after the sentence was not a source. The rest of the text I have not read. Also in the infobox I saw no Chetniks. So that's why I removed it. Why he has not show me the source? And beside this, I also have not reverted him or anything, just for this I am attacked so hard. I did not even reverted. I saw later it was true. This is ridiculous what's going on. Sad.Nado158 (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FK_Partizan_Kosovska_Mitrovica, Nobody was interested until this article till today, he was false and miserable, so I had updated the text. I have pointed out before, wanted a discussion, at some point I started to work with my own hands, because nobody react, and what you do, you ban me out for correct information and because of the updat of the WP article, and the one who broke the rules and acussed me, reverted all the work which was sourced you let unpunished, I was punsihed for the info which was correct. He remains unpunished. THANK YOU WP-Team. Now the same again, now for three words, 2 right words and 1 removed word for a thing, because i didnt saw a source there. New record for the WP-guiness book. Thank you.Nado158 (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter...I belive i speak with a wall here. I said I was bannade before unjustly. Because of this processing (See here [40]) Please keep in mind exactly. I updated the article, add sources, and the other User reverted me. On prejudice, without arguments, discussion or sources. How can that be? And the funny thing, I made the update, the things was correct, and I was punished???????? And you speak about my topic ban, the topic ban was fake. And Again, my Edits was right, Beogradski sport klub (Belgrade Sports Club) not BSK Beograd. You can se this. For funny things i am attacked.Nado158 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OccultZone

@Zad68: Yes the blocking admin was involved and it was not an AE block. You can read more at User talk:Joy#Use of very long blocks in a case in which you are involved. Nado158 is not an active editor and his sanctions were updated by Sandstein on 15 June 2014. Thus the block from 2 June 2014 should not influence on this complaint. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nado158

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

From a June 2014 AE, "Nado158 is topic-banned, as described in WP:TBAN, from everything related to Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania". The first diff shows editing about football in Serbia. So we can tell these edits are contrary to his ban without needing to look into the actual naming issues. I'd recommend an AE block of appropriate duration. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is actionable. Last AE blocks were in April 2014 for 48 hours, and then one in June for one month, but the block log says the block was "Removed" because the blocking admin was involved. So we do not count that one at all? I am inclined to ignore that June 2014 block altogether. ~~Given the length of time since the last block and the duration of that block I'm leaning toward something like a block between 2 days and a week.~~ Striking the part discussing duration because I want to look at it a bit closer. Zad68 15:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid we need an AE block of a medium duration here, the user is very explicit that they are not going to respect the topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored from archiving 18 April. 05:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Unless other admins disagree, I'm planning to block for one month. Nado158 is currently banned from Serbia, Kosovo and Albania but is not following the ban. Their above statement expresses their disagreement with the ban, which they think is unfair. That's not what we are discussing here. We assume the ban is valid and we want to do whatever is needed to be sure it is followed. Edits to change the name of a Serbian football team violate the ban from Serbia. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a good decision.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse the proposed one-month block. Even if we could argue about the first two diffs (the names of the football clubs), the third is is clearly within the scope of the topic ban, and Nado158 does not seem to be willing to abide by the restriction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per the discussion here, I've blocked User:Nado158 for one month as an AE block. Closing this request. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Parishan

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: Parishan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Parishan (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Ban from the article Caucasian Albania and its Talk page for one week, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ninetoyadome

Administrator imposing the sanction: Zad68 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: [41]

Statement by Parishan

The sanction was applied for "(1) edit warring, (2) baiting, and (3) failing to cite reliable sources".

I do not believe that three reverts in a three-week period really qualify as "edit-warring".
I had made a sincere effort to warn the other user (Ninetoyadome) to make better use of talkpages on Armenia-Azerbaijan-related articles instead of reverting them blindly. I certainly did not wait around for the 1RR restriction (in place for the article Caucasian Albania for all users) period to expire to make that edit; if one looks in my history, that was my first edit on that day (not counting a small edit I made just a minute prior). If I had had an interest in baiting Ninetoyadome, there were multiple opportunities for that weeks earlier because he had reverted that article more than once (and not only that one, cf. his block for a month for edit-warring and violating his 1RR restriction on many AA2 articles) and had been ignoring the discussion page for two weeks, leaving questions addressed to him with regard to his recent addition to the article unanswered. I referred the user to the talkpage one last time in my edit made to remove the controversial addition (it also seemed the only way to direct his attention to the article in question). He chose to revert me, again without replying. Logically it does not make much sense for someone who is out to bait a user to give so much chance to the 'baited' user to redeem themselves, therefore I question the accuracy of this observation by Zad68.
I do not see how I was expected to focus more on reliable sourcing than I had already done. I was one of the few users who actually did refer to reliable sources and suggest that others had not done so. It was not me who added new information to the article, to begin with. Hence it was not up to me to provide sources to substantiate it. I do not believe "failing to provide sources" is accurate criticism in my case.

User:EdJohnston, I think the admins are getting the wrong idea, because none of those who has responded addressed the particular issues I raised in the questions above. I am not necessarily arguing the suitability of the sanction. I am questioning the applicability of the terms "baiting" (of which there is absolutely no evidence) and "failing to cite reliable sources" (for which the ball was not in my court) when imposing the sanction. One can imagine a reliable source that supports the pertinence of a template. But how in the world can one imagine a reliable source that argues against the inclusion of a template? With regard to leaving comments in the month of April, whom would I have left them to, if there had been no response to my March comments? Parishan (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zad68

I have already given my reasons for the (very mild) sanction I applied, both here and at my User Talk. I don't really have anything to add, but would be happy to answer any (new) questions. I would genuinely welcome input from other uninvolved admins about whether my actions were appropriate and furthering the goal of reducing disruptive editing in this contentious topic area. Zad68 00:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Cale Davinci)

My comment does not concern the merits of the sanction, but my frustration in regards to the editing of the article Caucasian Albania mentioned here (which caused the said sanction). My position is made clear in the talk page. I offered an alternative that neither of the two editors involved here replied to. I don't know if Parishan even agree with that alternative. The only reply I received which directly had anything to do with my proposition was from Hayordi, who mainly made clear that he was absolutely not open for any sort of concession. Personally, I believe that the box removed by Parishan had little place there, and I am completely neutral when I write that. On the other hand, it is hard to not add anything as alternative, given that the only material scholars have of that country from that country was written in Armenian (from what one can gather from some basic search in the relevant databases without using any filters). What I proposed was to drop Armenia and replace it with a more appropriate box (I have given two alternatives).

The problem is that editors are free to edit, but everyone has his own standards which is dependant to their inherent à priori biases. If I ask Parishan what standards he uses to include and exclude material, those standards will be different than his opponents. So what I basically proposed was a standardized structure everyone could agree with and how to achieve that. But after much writings and being unheard, I decided it was better for me to just quit before I regret having been here. Cale Davinci (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Parishan

Result of the appeal by Parishan

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

A one-week topic ban from Caucasian Albania is a very mild sanction. Parishan did not make any posts at all at Talk:Caucasian Albania during April, even though that is the period he was making these reverts. Yet he was claiming the absence of any posts by the other guy on the same page justified his reverts. I see both sides making unconvincing arguments for the inclusion of their respective history templates. Caucasian Albania is an unusual case. The land it occupied is part of the current territory of Azerbaijan. But in historic terms it is not really part of Armenia nor of Azerbaijan. The most practical solution may be to omit both the {{History of Armenia}} and {{History of Azerbaijan}} templates. This is up to the consensus of editors. But if User:Ninetoyadome and User:Parishan plan to continue editing Caucasian Albania I hope their talk page contributions will show good understanding of the material in the references and will reassure us of their intention to edit neutrally. I would decline this appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find Parishan's arguments persuasive. In any case, it is now April 20 and in less than 24 hours his sanction will have expired. At that time he can go back to normal editing at Caucasian Albania. If there are no more admin comments I would decline this appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xtremedood

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 Xtremedood

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: OccultZone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Xtremedood (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:ARBIPA.

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

Edit warring across multiple namespaces.

Battle of Lohgarh.[42][43][44][45][46]

Battle of Muktsar.[47][48][49][50][51]

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.[52][53][54]

Apparent eagerness to make many reverts.[55][56][57][58][59][60][61]

Using an outdated source[62] without consensus and endlessly arguing over it,[63] while misrepresenting an official source as primary source, even though figure is supported by independent sources such as this.[64] Furthermore he questioned these unchallenged figures without showing any evidence and right after claiming that "Wikipedia is not the place for this type of original research that you may be proposing." Next sentence reads "These figures (8,000 for India and 3,000 for Pakistan) should therefore remain. It is certainly better than the Government of India source (which is definitely not neutral)."[65]
Content blanking.[66] Edit summary reads "Do not revert, if you have issues take it to talk page." Although it is him who had to describe these controversial edits first, and they had to be discussed upon using the article talk page.
Attempted to nominate a highly notable subject for deletion.[67] This comment, no matter how meaningless it is, but clear attempt to WP:SOAPBOX. Other attempt to soapbox include, Indo-Pakistani War of 1965("re-quoted from Indian Express Group, not neutral".) Here he found a WP:RS to be non neutral for no special reason.

Referring non-vandalism edits as 'vandalism', which is generally considered as a personal attack by many.[68][69][70][71][72][73] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:32, 16 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [74] since 1 April 2015.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Yamaguchi先生 is not pushing your POV in this edit[75] that you have added as support towards your edit. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: There are sources supporting both sides of Sikh Mughal battles, that's why more discussion is needed on these articles. Current environment of these articles is hostile. Editors are willing to discuss only when the next one is also interested in doing the same. There is a clear possibility of better and more meaningful content after he will understand the standards and norms. I can only recommend that since this is first AE report, he should be pointed out to a few important factors that we have to keep in our mind.

WP:CON: Discuss every major edit upon using the article talk page.
WP:EW: Revert only when it is necessary, and the "necessity" on which anyone can agree.
WP:CIVIL: He should not refer non-vandalism as "vandalism" and stop casting aspersions from now.
WP:SOAPBOXING and what wikipedia is not.

At last he should be aware by now that any other misconduct in the future would lead to restrictions, even if that is going to happen right after the closure of this complaint. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [76]

Discussion concerning Xtremedood

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 Xtremedood

Hello,

All of those reverts stated were based on reasonable and sound justifications. Feel free to ask me about any of them.
The source is a legitimate source. It was published approximately 11 years from the actual incident and is being utilized by academic sources that are more recent. It was published by a well respected and reputable publisher, Sage publications. The source by the Indian Government belongs in the Indian Claims section. Since the section exists (which it did prior to my making these edits), then it certainly belongs in that section. A review of the history details this. If you have any other neutral sources feel free to include them, however as it stands with the figure by the Government of India verses the figures by Small and Singer, the only neutral source that is justified to be in the main section (non-Indian claims) is this. Calling a source outdated just because it may not adhere to a nationalistic understanding of historical events is not justified in my opinion. It is certainly the closest to neutral source available for kill counts on the page so far.
The Battle of Lohgarh and Battle of Muktsar issues follows some extreme vandalism of these pages and also some other pages of the category involving the Mughal-Sikh wars. [[user: Richard Harvey|Richard Harvey] also left a comment regarded the extreme vandalisms of users like AK107839 and Aradhyasharma who also left nasty comments on my talk page. Their extreme vandalism (operating under a multitude of different aliases) prompted swift reactions from users like Kansas Bear and other concerned wikipedia users. As we can see, there is continued vandalism with 223.225.234.94, 223.225.241.71, 223.225.247.171, etc. refusing requests of Kansas Bear and others to stop vandalizing the Mughal-Sikh Wars section.[77] As we can see in this link, the vandalism is extreme. Vandals continually refused Kansas Bear's requests to discuss the situation. [78] [79] It was not only Kansas Bear and I that are trying to revert the vandalism on the Battle of Lohgarh and Battle of Muktsar pages. Other well-respected users are also trying to remove the vandalism on Mughal-Sikh War pages. For example, users Yamaguchi先生 and Richard Harvey have tried to stop the vandalism issues as well.[80][81].

My comments are therefore justified. I request OccultZone to stop acting upon nationalistic tendencies and rather to focus on impartial and sound sources, which are neutral and correct. Hindu and Sikh nationalism is not an excuse to promote biased and incorrection statements. It is also not a justification to attack those who want sound and correct information on Wikipedia. Xtremedood (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis: As of yet, the Small and Singer source for the 1971 source is legitimate and a well-respected publication. It is not outdated as it is being used by more recent publications. I was working to counter the vandalism on the Mughal-Sikh Wars section that continues on.[82] I am doing something similar to what Kansas Bear,Yamaguchi先生 and Richard Harvey are doing by countering the vandalism. I am requesting to not revert, as long as you do not have a credible source to back up your claim (which those who are doing the vandalism have not shown). Nationalistic tendencies is not a justification for vandalism. Nationalistic tendencies is not a justification to call the Small and Singer source as outdated). Xtremedood (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some more points (I will include, to counter OccultZone's fallacious claims):

Second Battle of Anandpur was a Mughal victory, as shown in that source. All reputable sources that I have come across say this. This is just the way it is. The series of reverts was to oppose the extreme vandalism that was going on at the time. Mis-attributing sources to a false-claim is the issue here (done by those who were doing vandalism). I was trying to oppose that.
Battle of Lohgarh was also a Mughal victory. This is clear. Check any source.
Battle of Muktsar was extremely vandalized and the right and balanced conclusion should remain.
Vandalism fits the appropriate description for those changes. I was trying to bring it back to its original. Ghatus was banned for a period of time for edit-warring. I reported him. Xtremedood (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kansas Bear by Xtremedood

I did talk with the users, I requested them to provide a source for their claims. Is there a single source that the Mughals lost the Battle of Lohgarh, Second Battle of Anandpur, and Battle of Chamkaur? The users under a variety of different aliases were making the same edit time after time that the Mughals lost and the Sikhs won. This however is not provided in any source that I have come across. I therefore referred to it as vandalism since the same edit was being made time after time with no source to back it up. Let us not forget that you, and other users did the same thing. Perhaps you may not like my style of writing, but I have been a victim of a systemic campaign to have my articles attacked and to have many of my legitimate (and cited with legitimate sources) removed by the same group of people. I therefore believe that my claims that they were would constitute vandalism is sound.

As far as your claim that I did not use the talk page is concerned, if we look at the Battle of Lohgarh talk page, we see that it is you who defended the claim that it was a Mughal victory. You stated exactly: Taking the fortress = Mughal victory. Anything else is your opinion. Please refrain from posting primary sources, since they are biased and one sided accounts.[83] I was simply trying to implement that which seemed objectively clear. In the Second Battle of Anandpur it was you who stated exactly: According to Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: A-E, ed. Tony Jaques, page 49, "Imperial troops were repulsed in northern Punjab at Basoli and Anandpur, and Emperor Aurangzeb sent Generals Wazir Khan and Zaberdast Khan to besiege Sikh Guru Gobind Singh in his stronghold at Anandpur, northeast of Ludhiana. Facing starvation, the Guru capitulated in return for safe passage, but the Sikhs were treacherously attacked at the Sarsa(20 May - 20 December 1704)". Seeing how the Sikhs capitulated, then the Mughals won this siege. I would suggest Aradhyasharma stop edit warring and bring his concerns here.[84] you made the decision and I was simply enforcing what was clear. In the Battle of Chamkaur I only made 3 reverts, and 2 of them was against a banned user who [[user: Richard Harvey|Richard Harvey] warned me about on my page [85]. This user was Aradhyasharma. I was once again enforcing PREVIOUSLY DECIDED decisions, this one by Richard Harvey who warned me on my page about Aradhyasharma's edits.[86]

For all three cases I was not acting upon my own opinions or whims. I was either enforcing what you (Kansas Bear) had made clear or what Richard Harvey had made clear. To make the same revert again and again without provided any new sources constitutes vandalism.

All of the reverts that you stated pertaining to the Battle of Lohgarh and Second Battle of Anandpur go along with the conclusions of talk-page discussions, which were concluded by your above statements. It would have been redundant for me to state the same thing you already previously did. The few reverts that were on the Battle of Chamkaur article go along with the statement Richard left on my page regarding the blocked user.

As for my language here, it is generally impartial. I try to maintain an academic tone. Maybe I went a little overboard in my above statements, but there has been a collective effort to defame me and attack me and I was feeling quite upset. I do make mistakes and I am not perfect. There also has been a collective attempt to censor legitimate claims (from legitimate sources) pertaining to South Asian history. I apologize if I made any incorrect statements. I, however, believe that the concerns behind them are based on sound reasoning and experience.

As for the Bbb23's warning, I only made 2 official reverts. He implicitly acknowledged this.[87] He explained that there is subjectivity pertaining to what constitutes a revert. His definition was different from mine and that of many others. The other user in question,Ghatus, got banned for a period. I was simply warned. What he stated may be seen here [88]. Xtremedood (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the following statements by Kansas Bear are defamatory and I wholeheartedly condemn them (especially the last one):

Xtremedood appears too eager to hit the revert button <--- This is unwarranted as I have explained above.
rarely engages on the talk page <--- This is also unwarranted as specified above.
has serious issues dealing with other editors based on his opinion of their ethnicity <--- I do not have such issues with anybody regarding their ethnicity. Opposing nationalistic tendencies amongst a select group of people within an ethnicity does not make me biased against the whole ethnicity. None of my statements state that all Indians are like that. This is an immense accusation. While I was speaking about a select group within a community, you are accusing me of being against all of them. This is totally unwarranted and I believe a sincere apology should follow. Also, how do you know about my opinion about their ethnicity? I never made any claims about all Indians. Xtremedood (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ghatus by Xtremedood

Can you please indicate why it is outdated and bogus? I am open to reasonable and rational discourse into the matter, however the figure of 3,843 is from the Indian Government. I am fine with including this in the article, but it should be under the Indian Claims section. If you want to include on the first line that may be fine as well, we may write 3,843-8,000 killed or something like that. The source for the 8,000 killed for India is legitimate as it belongs in a well-reputable book that was published by a well-reputable publisher, Sage publications. If you do not wish to utilize the scanned pages, we may attribute the source to the following page [89]. This is fine with me. However the source is legitimate and has been used for more recent publications. Academic sources have used this and I would like proof that it is outdated or bogus as some other users claim. Xtremedood (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is my POV?

Both OccultZone and Ghatus have claimed that I am trying to enforce my POV. This is false. I would like to ask anyone to provide me a SINGLE statement in which I have stated my POV in any of the Mughal-Sikh or Indo-Pakistan war articles. Can you show me one single statement that I have made that makes my POV clear? I would very much like to see it. On both the Mughal-Sikh war articles and the Indo-Pakistan War of 1971 articles I listed EXACTLY what was stated in the source (without plagiarizing). I made the exact point that was in those sources. This is validated by statements by Kansas Bear, who although may or may not like me, made it clear by stating what was in the Tony Jaques source (see above). The following accusations by both OccultZone and Ghatus are therefore unfounded and display a lack of academic vigor:

OccultZone said: "Yamaguchi先生 is not pushing your POV in this edit[75] that you have added as support towards your edit. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)" <---I would like to reiterate, what is my POV and where is your proof that this is my POV? My justifications for calling it vandalism are clear. This is no way proves my POV.

Ghatus said: "Xtremedood is not only doing Edit Wars, but is involved in pushing his PoV also" <--- Again, what is my POV?

Assurance

Okay EdJohnston, I give you my assurance. Like I said, I am fine with including the Indian governmental figure of 3,843 (although it sounds better in the Indian Claims section), but maybe it will sound better if we do not limit it to this source. Perhaps the casualties are better written as: 3,843-8,000. The source that OccultZone is utilizing[90] is a source by the Indian Institute of Advanced Study, which is affiliated with the Government of India. I think the Small and Singer source, which seems to not be affiliated with the Indian Government in anyway, is therefore more neutral. Xtremedood (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kansas Bear

Since, I have been mentioned I will highlight a few points. I have encountered numerous issues in the area of Mughal/Maratha/Sikh wars, battles, etc. However, I checked Battle of Lohgarh, Battle of Chamkaur, and Second Battle of Anandpur, Xtremedood has not used the talk pages for any of these articles. Yet Xtremedood has a combined 34 edits/reverts on these articles.

Also, the latest statements by Xtremedood show his battleground attitude towards other editors that hold a different perspective than his.

"I request OccultZone to stop acting upon nationalistic tendencies..."
"Hindu and Sikh nationalism is not an excuse to promote biased and incorrection statements."
"It is sad that many users who have a long history of Wikipedia but are of Indian origin will resort to such dirty tactics."

Calling other users edits "vandalism":

Edit warred 26 March - 1 April on Mughal–Maratha Wars without any dialogue on the talk page until 8 April. This instance, which had gotten out of control, was when I notified Favonian.[95]

Warned by Bbb23 for edit warring.[96]

Xtremedood appears too eager to hit the revert button, rarely engages on the talk page, and has serious issues dealing with other editors based on his opinion of their ethnicity. Wikipedia is not a battleground! I would suggest to the Admins a permanent 1RR/article with mandatory talk page discussion for every revert. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ghatus

1)I say again that the data "Xtremehood" has used in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 regarding the number of deaths ( India 8000 vs Pakistan 3000) is from bogus and outdated sources. It was a war where Pakistan was cut to two pieces and Pak Army surrendered. Indian casualty can not be greater than Pakistan's -the country that was thoroughly defeated. He did not give any primary source. On the contrary he presented some scanned papers. Modern sources like this[97] as given by another user(@OccultZone:) clearly indicate that Indian casualty was around 3800. I would wait for some time for this problem to solve, otherwise I will have to take other remedies in Wikipedia. This reverting war can not go on. Thank you.Ghatus (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2)The source is "bogus" and "outdated" as it provides NOT A SINGLE primary source or anything in order to justify the number it claimed. Sources have to follow WP:RS. It does not even say where from it got it numbers. Xtremedood is not only doing Edit Wars, but is involved in pushing his PoV also.Ghatus (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Xtremedood

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

Whatever sources are available online generally appear to support Xtremedood's conclusions about the 18th-century battles involving the Sikhs. I'm more concerned about Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 which ought to have widely-available sources about casualties, including some by reputable historians. The sketchy quote from the Small/Singer book of 1982 giving 8,000 deaths on the Indian side (with no details) does not seem weighty. Unless Xtremedood can somehow assure us that he will wait for consensus on that article, I'm thinking that an article ban should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arzel

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 Arzel

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics#Motion:_Arzel_topic_banned_.28February_2015.29 :

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

18 April 2015 Refuses to acknowledge the connection of climate change denial to American politics.
18 April 2015 Ongoing argumentativeness in climate change politics.
7 April 2015 Clearly edit-warring in an area that is related to US politics (broadly construed).
22 March 2015 Clear involvement with US politics

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

18 February 2015 Clearly made aware of his topic ban.

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

It's pretty clear this user has no intention of complying with his topic ban. jps (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

Discussion concerning Arzel

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 Arzel

It is this kind of crap that makes people stop editing on WP.

1. Anthony Watts is in the categories (1958 births, American television meteorologists, Climate change skeptics, Environmental bloggers, Heartland Institute, Living people, People from Chico California). I view it as a BLP issue. I don't see American Politics in that list, I don't see politics in general in that list. He is not a politician and this issue has not been about politics.

2. JPS Canvasses to try and get some same thinking people to edit on his behalf and he calls my noting of it "Ongoing argumentativeness? He should be getting at minimum a warning for that kind of behavior.

3. I made one revert to the Anthony Watts article. Under no circumstance can that be called edit warring. JPS has made 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 edits, if my one edit "Clearly edit-warring" then his definitely edit warring.

4. Hands up, don't shoot has as its categories (2014 introductions, Gestures, Phrases, Race and crime in the United States). @Future Perfect at Sunrise: how in the world is that clearly an American Politics article? I made one talk page edit almost one month ago on that article (March 22). Since I made that one edit, not a single editor has made a single remark about it being American Politics until now. And that is only because JPS is really struggling to find something to pin against me.

I have been very careful to stay away from any article in the American Politics categories. If you are going to topic ban someone from a topic then it needs to be clear how to determine what is included in that topic. If you think an article is related to American Politics then that category should be added to the article.

I won't repeat everything that AQFK or Peter have stated about JPS as it was stated quite well by them. But I will say that JPS's resorts to WP:HARASSMENT to try and force those that disagree with him off those articles by intimidation and a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. His attempt to change the MOS so that WP:LABEL would not apply to his attempt to call Watt's a "Denier" really takes the cake though, or maybe his edit warring over it is even worse. Arzel (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Hands Up, Don't Shoot". I still don't see the connection to American Politics. The saying didn't originate as a political saying, it is a race/police issue outside of politics. That some people tried to use it for some political gain is not relevant. Politicians co-opt stuff ALL THE TIME. By this logic there is nothing that is not related to politics in some way. Additionally, if it was so clear than why is that not a category for American Politics? Please state why it is clearly American Politics. Personally I don't care about that article, I was simply making a note that there was no discussion regarding a known fact which was being edit warred. I made one edit and haven't edited it since and reiterate that if it was a big deal why didn't Mr. X report me those many weeks ago? He got me American Politics TBAN'ed in the first place and I made my comment ON THE SAME DAY.

Regarding Watts. Please state the Clear American Politics angle on that article. There is no mention of politics that I have seen, he is not a politician and Climate Change is a scientific and global issue. By the logic stated there is nothing that does not have some abstract political angle. Jobs, Healthcare, Farming, Manufacturing, Small Businesses, Churches, Sports, Military, Economics, Astronomy, Space Exploration, Hospitals, Whales, Entertainment, etc. All of these article have some connection to American Politics in some abstract way either through specific legislation or lobbying or regulation or political talking points. One has to ask if the goal is to uphold a TBAN or silence someone. Arzel (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

Unless I missed something (which is entirely possible), none of the diffs presented show Arzel discussing anything political, American or otherwise. This seems like a frivolous request.

However, this brings into question the filer's own conduct. Let me plainly state that the filer has been banned and sanctioned more times that I can possibly count for their repeated disruptive and battleground mentality. (I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc has used numerous account names, including ScienceApologist, Joshua P. Schroder and Vanished User 314159. Look up their record.)

Their pattern of battleground conduct goes back years and has not ceased. I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc has shown repeated and recent misconduct including threats, harassment, BLP violations and other battleground conduct:

"I am happy to take you down." - Threatening me on my talk page.
[98] Unsourced WP:BLP violation which I correctly removed.
Bizarrely, rather than apologizing for inserting unsourced negative content about a living person, or seeking clarification on my talk page if they honestly didn't understand that unsourced contentious content about living persons is a BLP violation, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc immediately launched into battleground mode by filing this AN/I report[99] which was so ridiculous, it went nowhere without me even responding.
"asshole move" Self-evident.

How many second, third, forth, fifth, sixth, etc. chances do we give this same problematic editor? They are clearly not Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. Enough is enough. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected regarding the fourth diff, which appears to be a clear a violation of Arzel's topic ban. Sorry, I missed that reading thru the OP's post. But given that was two months ago, I would think that violation is now stale. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be the voice of reason but:

a) Guy has expressed a strong opinion on the subject during the course of this AE request at another venue, "It is very obviously a climate change denial blog. Only an idiot would state otherwise"[100]

b) Guy has done so in a very uncivil matter, resorting to an ad hominem attack, "Only an idiot would state otherwise".[101]

It's difficult to tell whether Guy's accusation of being an "idiot" applies to reliable sources or their fellow editors. But either way, calling other people "idiots" is conduct unbecoming of an administrator. Have the standards of conduct at Wikipedia devolved so badly that it's now acceptable to resort to ad hominem attacks? Guy clearly has a strong opinion on the matter and by expressing their opinion on the content dispute, they should no longer to be considered WP:UNINVOLVED.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter Gulutzan

The filer also threatened me about WP:AE (here and here), and I agree that it is the filer, not Arzel, whose conduct deserves attention. Recall that I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (aka jps ScienceApologist etc.) filed this after Arzel understandably questioned whether jps was canvassing (here), and that jps's conduct after Arzel mentioned WP:LABEL on an earlier occasion was questioned by a MoS-talk-page editor. I'd also plead that the Anthony Watts (blogger) article mentions no politician or party or election issue outside Chico California -- it's a BLP of Anthony Watts (blogger), and Arzel seemed to me to be sticking to points about that, with respect to guidelines. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cardamon

Climate change, and acceptance or denial of it is definitely an issue in US politics. Since many administrators are not from North America, I will provide a couple of external links to illustrate this. Here, Paul Waldman in the Washington Post discussed the fact that most of the likely republican candidates for president in 2016 deny that man-made global warming is happening. Here, in the Los Angeles Times, Michael Hiltzik discusses how journalists should treat politicians who deny climate change, and mentions the difference between the two main American parties on this subject.

Since climate change is currently an issue in American politics, and since Arzel has been editing the climate change articles, Arzel has definitely been violating the remedy that says he may not make edits related to American politics, broadly construed. Cardamon (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward

This particular article is a BLP who is not political and whose politics are unknown. He disagrees with the scientific conclusions regarding climate change. This puts him at odds with a number of people including politicians. But unless we are willing to say everyone that opines about climate science is political, this claim is without merit. We don't know the political leanings of Watts. His personal choices of solar power and other indicators would make him a green party candidate. Does the same apply to Lindzen and Curry and Mann and Hansen? They all have views. Participating in a democratic society doesn't define a person as political. Nor is a stance regarding science a political one. Anti-vaxers are numerous and cover a broad spectrum of politics but it would be incorrect to imply that every bio of an anti-vaxer is political just because it's also a political issue. --DHeyward (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jps

Arzel makes a good point that topic bans are difficult to understand here on Wikipedia. Many mistakenly believe that topic bans are only subject to narrow designations, and some even wrongly believe that we have implemented software controls that would enable a topic ban. As I understand it, "broadly construed" is intentionally wide-ranging and is used to prevent gaming of the system. I am keenly aware that it is precedent that it is not simply articles that are in a particular category which determine the topic. WP:TBAN tries to explain this, but using a single example "weather" which doesn't really give a hard-and-fast rule that is easy to follow is perhaps not ideal. DHeyward's example of anti-vaxxers shows how confused people get. "Broadly construed" is a heavy burden and, indeed, I think that someone who jumped from a topic ban on American politics immediately into editing a page on anti-vaccination movement or someone who advocated for such would be treading in the subject of American politics, broadly construed.

I think it's not hard to determine that basically every instance of article or talkpage involvement that Arzel has had since his topic ban has been related to American politics.

That said, I do not even think the protestations of Arzel and his supporters are particularly honest in their claimed disbelief that American politics is related to article about a prominent person in the broader popular-level discussions over climate change. Instead, I see wagon-circling on the part of climate change denial supporters and their allies. This is part of the ongoing climate change issues we have at Wikipedia, and it is a shame that these ideologically driven editors which seem determined to slant Wikipedia into claiming that there is some sort of controversy over reality of human-caused climate change. The hope for AQFK, Peter Gulutzman, DHeyward, and Arzel is that we adopt the talking points of the climate change denialists. E.g. they hope to refer to them as "skeptics" in spite of many sources which show that this is an inexact and inappropriate euphemism for denial. They don't want sources that are written by accomplished climate scientists used in the article. They insist that the claimed "controversy" over human-caused global warming be highlighted as a battle between equals rather than a political battle between a vast consensus of scientists and a devoted group of activists who are convinced that they can muddy the waters enough to provoke doubt in the settled science of human-caused global warming.

Finally, with respect to the attempted WP:BOOMERANG by AQFK, I do acknowledge that I find his (perhaps sometimes only tacit) support of climate change denial to be difficult with which to deal and I do think it may eventually lead to a reinstatement of his topic ban on climate change. Together with Peter Gulutzan and DHeyward, there are many issues with article ownership and BLP zealotry that will likely require further dispute resolution (not to mention a lot of instances of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). If administrators want a more thorough account of this dispute, I'm happy to provide it. But things are certainly not being helped by a topic-banned editor engaging in the tag team. I'm trying to work out these issues one at a time, and this seems to me to be the most unambiguous problem.

jps (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheBlueCanoe (uninvolved)

It seems plausible that Arzel was not deliberately breaching the topic ban, at least with respect to the climate change article. After all, very few contemporary social, political, environmental, or security issues are completely unrelated to American politics. I wonder if the administrators in this case would be willing to clarify the parameters of the topic ban, or offer some additional criteria for determining whether the editor is running afoul of his sanctions. TheBlueCanoe 15:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MONGO

Some like to over use the terms denialist, denier, etc. all too often in BLPs. It equates to Holocaust Denial and is oftentimes used in a partisan fashion when many of those subjects have never said anything other than they are skeptical...while others are.merely opposed to alarmist responses to climate change mitigation and merely want a cautious measured response. With that said, an edit dated two.months hence is past sell by date and me thinks this is best left as a caution for Arzel to tread lightly in such issues so he doesn't upset the snake oil salesmen.--MONGO 20:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

The "climate change" edits were not concerned with the 3.3 micron infrared absorption band of methane, or whether changes to heavy precipitation follow Clausius-Clapeyron scaling, or anything else of a scientific nature. The edits instead were within the context of the U.S. political debate over the issue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Irrespective of any involvement by parties, it's kinda weird to see how ruthlessly all significant information has been removed from the article. We are severely harming Wikipedia when we permit this kind of deletion to prevail. --TS 00:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ubikwit

Per Cardamon and others, the material is related to American politics, with the attempt to dismiss the peer-reviewed academic-press book by Mann regarding his statements on the Watts and his "Watts up with that" blog being an illustrative example.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 03:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Arzel

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

I see merit in this request. The argument raised by AQFK, that the climate change topic is a scientific and not a specifically American political topic, appears specious to me: the debate between "climate change proponents" and "climate change deniers/skeptics" is clearly a central issue of American political life, and an article about an American blogger who focusses on this debate seems to me to be well inside the bounds of "American politics, broadly construed". With the fourth link, regarding the "Hands Up" article, there can be no doubt at all that it is within the area of the topic ban. On both counts, a sanction will be in order. I haven't looked yet at the allegations made against the filing party. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Climate change is clearly part of American politics. So is the "Hands Up" article. This is a good moment for Arzel to reconsider his position and withdraw from such disputes. If he won't do so a block appears necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arzel is also commenting on Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger) (Watts is a prominent climate change denier). I would say that Arzel is pushing the boundaries and needs a firm reminder to step back. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 19 April 2015 (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