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

Onefortyone

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 Onefortyone

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Excelse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Onefortyone (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/Onefortyone#Onefortyone_placed_on_Probation :

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

[1][2] Canvassing.
Use of false sources and misrepresentation of source. Already pointed on his talk page[3] and here[4], he use this source on Graceland(edit) for claiming that Biltmore Estate is more visited than Graceland. However that source doesn't mention Graceland anywhere, neither they say that Biltmore is 2nd most visited. He made this new edit to the article, however this book[5] is not comparing Biltmore with Graceland or calling it second most visited either. Thus violating WP:OR too.
Personal attacks: referring opposition as "Elvis fans",[6][7][8] and considers fair edits to be "vandal" or "vandalism".[9][10][11][12][13]
Edit warring. Already told by user:EdJohnston [14] not to add any controversial material without gaining consensus first. There was discussion about his edits on three different venues.[15][16][17] Yet he selected to re-insert non-consensus and incorrect edits again.[18][19]
Stonewalling. After he saw that consensus is against him, he resorted to stonewalling by copy pasting cherry picked quotes[20] and pasting same feud on at least three pages ("did user Excelse present irrefutable arguments..")[21][22][23]

This all comes from last 9 days. If we were to talk about his decade of editing, there have been many complaints and they can be pointed too. Excelse (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is one more serious issue, it is that Onefortyone considers his opponents to be socks. Including WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I have already described before that I am not a sock, neither these identities[24][25] were mine. Onefortyone has been told before to file a sock puppet investigation if he want to make these allegations,[26] but he is not wanting to do it and continuously copy pastes these misleading accusation of socking on multiple venues.[27][28] I have been editing for two years and I went to check Onefortyone's recent edits because his editing seemed like trolling, when he made this edit to "Graceland", this article is on my watchlist, not only it did misrepresented sources it considered fair removal of irrelevant content as "vandalism". I only targeted those pages where he was claiming such edits to be vandalism. I saw that he has been adding rumors and I also found out that he is the only one who has been edit warring[29][30] over removed content[31][32] and non-consensus content for over 6 years, and that's how I described it on edit summary, that somehow led him to claim that I am here for more than 6 years. It is actually obvious that Elvis Presley had over 1000s of biographer, Onefortyone happened to find a couple of biographers who have echoed some unpopular stories about Elvis only as "plausibility" and not as anything authentic, Onefortyone pushes such stories as "they are academics", while rest are "Elvis fans" as seen on WP:RSN too. Excelse (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent links included by Onefortyone[33][34] for supporting his edits are rather menial and failing to address the points already raised against his edits on their talk pages for years, one must see :[35][36][37], yet Onefortyone cites few small edits of others as exemption from making disruptive edits which is beyond me. Excelse (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc yes there are a few evidences of recent misconduct. His comments show lack of remorse and includes false charges of socking. Even after I pointed out canvassing above, OneFortyOne has again attempted to canvass[38][39] those people who are totally unrelated to his editing on these links that I have provided. He is still denying on this recent link that it was wrong to consider fair edits as vandalism. Not to forget this kind of aggressive quote spamming, even after being told that he has cherrypicked the text from the book, no one except him agrees with his edits, while three people including myself have agreed with the opposing version.

If Ed's reminder had actually worked, Onefortyone wouldn't be misrepresenting sources like he did on Graceland with his original research just after that[40]("according to same source") It is usual that he is going to continue edit warring and check everyday whether his version is current or not despite apparent disagreements and resort to canvassing. Excelse (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Callanecc, Onefortyone made this new edit to the article, however this book[41] is not comparing Biltmore with Graceland or calling it second most visited either. That's how it is not only source falsification but also OR because onefortyone believes anything crossing 600,000 visitors in a year(not every year) is more visited Graceland. Excelse (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Callanecc you see that book is not saying that Biltmore estate is 2nd most visited or more visited than Graceland nor comparing with Graceland with Biltmore estate, then why we should compare them? Biltmore estate happened to have more visits for a year, but it is not regarded by any to be most visited or more visited than Graceland even if we take recent years or last 20 years. That's how onefortyone is misusing the source and doing OR. Graceland's is still 2nd most visited.[42] Excelse (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc Yes there was attempt to solve these issues on his talk page.[43] I discussed changes of about 5 articles. I didn't opened discussions on talk pages of articles because most of the content was about Elvis and things related to him, and it would look repetitive if I open almost same dispute on each article talk page. But he never discussed the content, instead he attacked that his edits are all good and only "Elvis fans" don't like them.[44] Still we can say that he had been told to use a source that disagrees with Graceland being 2nd most visited, and explicitly states it.

Furthermore, it had been pointed out that his edits to Graceland are also problematic because he is citing a polemic, when it is completely irrelevant to do so. At Graceland#Basement, he continues to paste irrelevant quote of Albert Goldman, by hyping this unreliable polemic as "décor throughout the house has often been criticized. Critics such as..", then quotes his words "it appears to have been lifted from some turn-of-the-century bordello "), finally when they have to do nothing with basement. Mind that this edit, same edits were also made by this user on Toilet-related injuries and deaths.

Mind that these edits came after he recognized the reminder from Edjohnston and also had warning not to repeat these edits before consensus,[45] and discussion about these sources related to Elvis Presley's death were already being discussed at WP:RSN,[46] as well as his own talk page. Excelse (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where the problem exist. While failing to describe his disregard of WP:CONSENSUS, and edit warring, Onefortyone tells that he finds Memphis apartments[47] website or a self-published Memphis service help website[48] that he posted twice should considered as WP:RS. This how, Onefortyone use of self-published and unreliable sources has been also prevalent.

After that, Onefortyone begins his original research, in the sense that he believes that because Biltmore estate had 1 million visitors, thus its more visited. He forgets to mention that Graceland is also said to have been having over 1 million visits a year.[49]

He believes that the more you copy-paste the more you are correct. Thus he doubles the length of his reply everytime as also seen on WP:RSN [50], despite whole discussion was entirely unfavorable to him he fails to accept WP:RS. Best he could come up with is, "Wikipedia article on Graceland is not a fan site," that's why misleading rumors and crank material must be allowed, even if it is entirely irrelevant to the subject. Clearly that's not fair. Excelse (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc, yes that's the thing that actually made me file this report. The aggressive quote-farming of sources, and most of them being self-published gossip sources, as described on WP:RSN.[51] Thus its WP:GAMING, to post same rejected information on multiple pages just to make a WP:POINT. I have replied on this article talk page[52] for a record now, and analyzed the credibility of his sources that were already discussed on WP:RSN. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is an issue here. Like User:EdJohnston points, this sort of disruption is actually going on for many years and has been sanctioned before and reported. Excelse (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc, I recommend you to see my reply[53], and you can figure out the problem with his editing. It happens that a number of sources states otherwise or contrary to the established view and at the same time they are unreliable, self-published. Onefortyone fails to observe it, and that's why in his recent reply on here,[54] he pointed the removal of his gossip sources on other articles to be worrisome. Who use the sources like The Gossip Columnist? Only Onefortyone.[55]

Furthermore, it was Laser brain[56] who reported to EdJohnston first. I don't think I am an WP:SPA, its just I got active on wikipedia after over a year and have contributed on different subjects,[57][58] its just I want to sort out this problem first. Excelse (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc, I am not getting why he just can't accept consensus and go along with it. Actually this sort of WP:CHERRYPICK and WP:BLUDGEONING [59] is far more disruptive. The way he repeats same quotes from same refuted material. Mind that he is repeating the same quotes as well as those "medical examiner" quotes that were refuted already at WP:RSN. And in this reply[60] he also tries to prove that his random self-publisher authors are reliable sources, one example is when he says that "Victor Pross is a reputed artist" and that "..published by AuthorHouse, a subsidiary of Penguin Random House". And his use of talk page as WP:FORUM, "Her account must be true as you will never get this image out of your brain, if you are the first person to see your love lying dead on the floor." Like really? Excelse (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

2006 Topic banned on few Elvis articles for 2 months.
2006 Topic ban violation block.
2006 Topic banned for two months from Elvis Presley article.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [61]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [62]

Discussion concerning Onefortyone

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 Onefortyone

As many diffs show (see, for instance, [63] [64] [65] [66]), Excelse and his supposed sockpuppets or meatpuppets (see [67] [68] [69]) are new users whose edits are nothing more than an attempt to remove well-sourced content from Elvis-related pages that is not in line with their personal opinion, but was part of these articles for many years. From time to time, some of these Elvis fans took me to arbitration, because I am not always singing the praise of the mega star, having a more balanced view of the singer. However, according to arbcom decision, my opponents in these cases were all banned from Elvis-related articles, as all of my contributions are well-sourced (see, for instance, this more recent list of sources here), and their massive removal of content was thought unjustified. Here is what the arbcom says: "Onefortyone's editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions." Therefore, Lochdale, one of my former opponents, who had shown "evidence of misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" and "has removed large blocks of sourced material from Elvis Presley," was "banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley." See [70]. As Excelse says in one of his recent edit summaries, "Six years passed, only second self published forums cite these gossips other than this page" (see [71]), it could well be that he was deeply involved in the former edit wars and is one of these banned users, especially in view of the fact that in the past I had been more than once the victim of attacks by sockpuppets of Elvis fans. See [72]. So some warnings against Excelse may be necessary, as most of the sources I have used are mainstream biographies of Elvis, studies published by university presses and books written by eyewitnesses. See also this discussion or this one. Onefortyone (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly has happened during the last weeks? There was an edit war between two editors. On the one hand, there is user Excelse removing paragraphs from Elvis-related articles without plausible justification simply because this content is not in line with his fan view of Elvis Presley. On the other hand, there is user Onefortyone reincluding this well-sourced content, which was part of the said articles for many years and was written by different editors. See, for instance, this massive removal of well-sourced content or this removal of content, which was written by at least three editors, namely DomiAllStates, ElvisFan1981 and Onefortyone in 2009 and 2011.

Furthermore, in his statement below, administrator EdJohnston has raised the question "whether Onefortyone's zealous efforts to add certain material to Elvis-related articles crosses the line into disruption". Perhaps it is possible to explain which of my contributions have been disruptive. I have only reinstated well-sourced material that has been removed by Excelse and I have rewritten some paragraphs, adding additional sources. To my mind, Excelse's massive removal of well-sourced content, accompanied by false accusations, is disruptive. According to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, "some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions ... An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." This exactly describes the behavior of Excelse. Administrator EdJohnston also claims that "Onefortyone does not seem to be eager for careful discussion of his proposals". My contributions on the talk pages say otherwise. See [73], [74], [75]. Onefortyone (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are also of the opinion that Excelse should not remove any reliable sources from Wikipedia articles. See [76]. Onefortyone (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Excelse falsely accuses me of source falsification concerning Graceland and Biltmore Estate and falsely claims that Biltmore "is not regarded by any to be ... more visited than Graceland even if we take recent years or last 20 years", here are some further, and more recent, sources: According to the Memphis City Council Summary Sheet (2014), Graceland is "the third most visited residence in the United States, after the White House and the Biltmore Estate ..." See [77], [78]. "Graceland hosts 600,000 visitors annually, making it the third-most visited home in the U.S. behind the White House and Biltmore." See Memphis Daily News, VOL. 129, NO. 233, Monday, December 01, 2014. "Graceland is the third-most-visited home in the U.S., after the White House and the Biltmore in Asheville, North Carolina, according to Elvis Presley Enterprises, which manages the attraction." See [79]. Biltmore Estate "hosts almost one million visitors every year." See [80]. "The largest private home in the United States and a National Historic Landmark, the house welcomes approximately one million visitors each year." See [81]. "Biltmore Estate ... attracts nearly one million visitors a year." See Ellen Erwin Rickman, Images of America: Biltmore Estate (2005), p.130. "Graceland, the mansion estate of Elvis Presley, is one of the most frequently visited private homes in the country. In fact, the late King of Rock’s home places third only after the Biltmore Estate and the Whitehouse." See [82]. These sources have now been listed on the related discussion page. Concerning the critical remarks by Professor Goldman and other academics about the décor at Graceland, these remarks are part of a special section entitled "Critical voices about the décor". As the Wikipedia article on Graceland is not a fan site, such remarks are not "irrelevant" but necessary for reasons of balance. They should not be removed, especially in view of the fact that these are opinions by academics. Interestingly, in his statements above, Excelse is not referring to the diffs including the entire discussions. Compare, for instance, this diff given by him and this diff including the entire discussion, which is certainly supporting my view. Another example is this diff given by Excelse, which omits the entire discussion here. As every unbiased reader will agree, most accusations by Excelse are untenable and can be disproved by evidence, i.e. the many reliable sources I have cited. Query: did Excelse improve the content of the articles in question? No, he didn't. He has only made false claims and removed large blocks of well-sourced content, as his short contribution history shows. Onefortyone (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is now the false accusation by Excelse that my well-sourced contributions are "original research" and most of the sources I have used are "self-published gossip sources". In fact, many of these sources are mainstream biographies of Elvis and studies published by peer-reviewed university presses. Furthermore, after I had provided additional sources, user Laiser brain says on one of the discussion pages, "I think we're making headway here. ... I like "Mainstream biographers are of the opinion" because that's precise and it doesn't suggest that the biographers are medical experts." See [83]. Therefore, Excelse is wrong in claiming that the "whole discussion was entirely unfavorable" to me. Indeed, what is written in the biographical studies I have cited is also supported by several medical observers. See [84]. It seems that Excelse does not like what these sources say. Onefortyone (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I do not understand the following statement by EdJohnson below: "So Onefortyone has decided that he is personally in charge of rectifying the situation and did not wait to achieve talk page consensus before re-adding his material." To my mind, exactly the opposite is the case. It is true that two weeks ago or so, I have added an additional source to the article on Graceland. See [85]. After that date I didn't contribute to that article. Instead, in order to show good faith, I have now started a discussion on the talk page concerning my sources. See [86]. As for the other Elvis-related articles in question, the material removed by Excelse has not yet been re-added, though I am of the opinion that this massive removal of well-sourced content accompanied by false claims in the edit summaries and without leaving explanations on the talk pages is not O.K. See [87], [88], [89]. It is a mystery to me why the many false claims by Excelse, which can be disproved by the evidence to be found in the many reliable sources I have cited, have not yet been discussed on this talk page. Onefortyone (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that two other SPAs have recently appeared on Wikipedia, who removed exactly the same paragraphs from Elvis-related articles as Excelse repeatedly did (see [90], [91]), supports the view that Excelse may be a single-purpose account. This strongly reminds me of another user who was edit warring with me and then reported me for alleged probation violations at arbitration enforcement some years ago. However, the sockpuppets of this user were all banned. Onefortyone (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excelse continues to make false claims. He says, "he just can't accept consensus and go along with it." However, there was no consensus against me, as this discussion shows. Excelse further claims that the "medical examiner" quotes I have given "were refuted already at WP:RSN". This is an obvious lie, as Dr Warlick's opinion cannot have been refuted as it was not cited there. In fact, user Laser brain only thought that Peter Guralnick, who cites the opinion of the medical examiners, might have been misinterpreted. Concerning my sources, Laser brain has also stated, "I have found the quotations in the sources given without a problem. ... The real question is whether the sources are reliable (probably yes) and whether they're being used appropriately (likely not)". Later in the discussion, Laser brain adds, "I think we're making headway here. ... I like 'Mainstream biographers are of the opinion' because that's precise and it doesn't suggest that the biographers are medical experts." On the talk page I have now added the opinion of Dr Warlick, who was present at the autopsy. He supports the view that Elvis died on the toilet, as the mainstream biographers say. Such a medical source was requested by Laser brain and I have provided it. Excelse seems to be the only user who questions the reliability of these sources, calling my edits disruptive. Onefortyone (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, what makes me suspicious is that for a relatively new user with less than 100 edits, Excelse is all too well-versed with specific Wikipedia terminology such as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; WP:GAMING; WP:POINT; WP:RSN; WP:FORUM; WP:CHERRYPICK; WP:BLUDGEONING, etc. (see his statements above), as would only have been expected from a user who in the past was deeply involved in similar edit wars and arbcom cases. So a reappearance of one of my former opponents should not be ruled out in his case, especially in view of the fact that he has only removed content from Elvis-related pages - content similar to those paragraphs that were repeatedly removed by my former opponents who were later banned from Elvis-related topics by arbcom decision. Onefortyone (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to avoid edit warring and personal attacks, though it is not easy to keep calm if massive content has been blindly removed from the article pages, only accompanied by false claims in the edit summaries. As you can see, in order to show good faith, I have now started intensive discussions on the talk pages. See [92], [93]. However, this seems to be a waste of time, as Excelse is still unwilling to accept my sources, and he continues to remove content that is not in line with his personal view from the article pages (see [94]). So a warning against this user should also be considered. Isn't there an arbitrator who can help solving the content dispute from a neutral point of view? Onefortyone (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser has now shown that Excelse and Related0977 are confirmed sockpuppets (see [95]), although Excelse has explicitly claimed that they are different users (see [96]). It is likely that he has also used this IP in order to remove content and to avoid the 3RR. So he may indeed be one of my former opponents who was banned by arbcom some years ago, and with reporting me for alleged probation violations he seems to be the person who is gaming the system here. In view of this fact the well-sourced content recently removed by Excelse and his sockpuppets from Elvis-related pages, which was part of the said articles for many years, should be reincluded as fast as possible by the administrators. Onefortyone (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gwen Gale

Please be aware that there is a ten-year background of sockpuppets edit warring off-and-on with Onefortyone in this topic area. See also this from 2007. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Onefortyone

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

See:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone (Nov 2005)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone (Nov. 2005)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis (Nov. 2006)

Probation from 2005: "He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research."

A ban on Elvis-related editing should be considered. There has been a previous discussion at User talk:EdJohnston#Onefortyone. The question is whether Onefortyone's zealous efforts to add certain material to Elvis-related articles crosses the line into disruption. Since there are three relevant Arb cases, the committee has already judged some of his past edits to be disruptive and they did enact a probation which allows for bans. One of the options is to go ahead and enact a ban from Elvis-related material, but that would need some evidence of recent bad behavior. The above complaint is more complete and thorough than the one left on my talk page, so I think the option of a ban should now be considered. Would like to hear from others who can look at the diffs in the above complaint and give their opinion. I became aware of this editor through a post by User:Laser brain on my talk page. Without carefully judging all the material, and just observing the attitudes of the participants, Onefortyone does not seem to be eager for careful discussion of his proposals. He is quick to accuse the people who revert him of various misdeeds: "Don't you see that Excelse is one of those POV warriors who are here to remove well-sourced content from articles that is not in line with their fan view?" EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a more recent discussion of User:Onefortyone's editing, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive616#Onefortyone. Lots of TLDR there from the accused person, which makes it hard to understand exactly what's in dispute. The level of disruption from Onefortyone seen in 2010 would probably be enough to justify a topic ban under the standards that are currently applied to others at this noticeboard. If he gave any hint of being open to negotiation, or being willing to express himself briefly, it might be taken into account.

I can't rule out that some of Onefortyone's opponents may be socks, but irrespective of who is on the other side, the long term issue of needing consensus for controversial material remains. I hope that Onefortyone knows there is a right way and a wrong way of bringing up sock charges. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2015 (
Signing again to delay archiving. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is enough here to warrant a TBAN. A lot of the misconduct (such as personal attacks [97] [98] and edit warring at Toilet-related injuries and deaths) occurred before Ed's reminder about the probation so I'm willing to believe that Onefortyone has pulled their head in a bit. If a sanction is needed, I wouldn't go any further than a logged warning unless there is additional (recent) evidence of misconduct. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Excelse: How do you know it's original research? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excelse, Onefortyone quotes this from the book, which seems to support their point. Am I missing something? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah I see what you mean, but I'm seeing this a content dispute (ie whether to compare or not) rather than necessarily a conduct issue and I note that there was no attempt at talk page discussion (on that article's talk page). I'm still not convinced that a TBAN is necessary (but I wouldn't objection to someone else placing it) at this stage through I believe a warning definitely is. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Alright, the latest evidence presented by Excelse has convinced me that a TBAN is likely necessary but I'd like to give Onefortyone a chance to respond to the evidence and analysis from Excelse. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Having seen Onefortyone's replies to the evidence I'm content that a topic ban is not needed here but instead a warning for personal attacks and edit warring. I'm still not sure on the misrepresenting sources claims especially now that Onefortyone has posted additional sources on the talk page. @EdJohnston: what are your thoughts? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc, regarding new behavior since my November 5 reminder to Onefortyone of this probation, see Talk:Graceland#650,000 visitors. His last post in that thread has a date of 19 November. He states "However, this has recently been removed by Excelse, which is not O.K. Therefore, I have reincluded the correct information, adding some sources." So Onefortyone has decided that he is personally in charge of rectifying the situation and did not wait to achieve talk page consensus before re-adding his material. Having noticed that his attitude never changes, and that any problems are always the fault of someone else (who are often socks, in his opinion) I'm voting for a topic ban from Elvis-related articles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- His two recent edits clarified his meaning which I think explains what he meant more clearly, and is more consistent with the page history. On the other hand, Excelse (all but 8 of their 67 edits were in the last month and a half (ish)) looks a lot like an SPA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't believe that Excelse's latest comments are accurate and they don't show the level of misconduct I believe is necessary to consider a ban, so I'm still with a logged warning (especially since the reminder has improved Onefortyone's conduct). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Excelse: What consensus? I agree that there are other issues present in what you've brought up but I'd rather add those (eg FORUM) to the warning than topic ban. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The best reason for a topic ban would be to facilitate normal development of Elvis-related articles, free of attempts to push a POV or to use low-quality sources. At present I don't have the patience to dig into edit histories to see if banning Onefortyone would help achieve that. In the current thread, I have found that the statements by Onefortyone and Excelse have not been helpful in allowing admins to reach a conclusion. In the absence of informative statements I'd need to do my own analysis going back over several years, which I haven't the time or patience to do. For whatever reason this AE complaint has not attracted regular editors who work on the Elvis articles, who might have provided background. Since there isn't time to do a thorough analysis, I'd settle for a logged warning if User:Callanecc can suggest how to word it. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this thread from my talk page about two weeks ago, if you have time. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: How does this look:

In response to this Arbitration Enforcement request you are warned that even if you believe that other editors are acting inappropriately it is never acceptable to make personal attacks ([99] [100]). You are also warned that any further edit warring ([101] [102] [103] [104]) will result in sanctions unless clearly covered by an exemption. Your use of Wikipedia as a forum [105] is also ill-advised and should be avoided. You are explicitly warned that any further misconduct in the Elvis Presley topic area will likely result in an indefinite topic ban.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I support the warning proposed by User:Callanecc. One of my concerns was the aggressive tone with which Onefortyone defends his own changes and criticizes others. This includes misuse of the word 'vandalism' about other editors. An example of this is in the thread which Gwen Gale provided above: "a new vandal removes content primarily from Elvis-related articles", followed by three links, one of which was Special:Contributions/Excelse. So my interpretation of Callanecc's wording is that Onefortyone may be blocked if he makes more incorrect charges of vandalism against people who remove his changes. Callanecc, thanks for your patience in drafting an appropriate message. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll include a specific mention of inappropriately labelling edits as vandalism when I put it on 141's talk page. It's worth noting though that Excelse was socking, doesn't change my belief that a warning is appropriate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakobou

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 Jaakobou

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jaakobou (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:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions :

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

01:05, 13 November 2015 Discussing the real world conflict
12:13, 12 November 2015 Discussing the real world conflict

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

04:16, 8 March 2012 banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Didn't feel like adding every diff, but pretty much every edit made by the user since October 30th has been a violation of the topic ban. And add the stealth canvassing to a discussion opened in violation of the ban.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Jaakobou

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 Jaakobou

This complaint is with no merit and should be quickly dismissed. I requested a review of a flaw in how policy is implemented.[106] Following that suggestion to go to WP:UP, I prepared text and pinged multiple admins.[107] I Listened to feedback as well.[108][109] Discussion on UP was very slow and with little participation, thus I contacted French, who have some recent knowledge on militancy. I have no special reason to think they support Israel or my preferred addition to the polemics policy -- which you can see does not mention Israel:

" Poetic militancy in support of or promoting violent acts, quotes and paraphrases to raise the spirit of fight and other forms of political militant activism are not permitted." (on user-pages)

I did mention that there are a lot of stabbing attacks in Israel and ~~changing~~ clarifying the policy is not going to hurt the project. If there is real belief on Arbcom that by mentioning real-world casualties of terrorism in Israel I have crossed the line, I apologize. I've made a considerable effort to make the matter general.

Side note: Nableezy (talk · contribs) has a bit of a history of grinding[110] axes with those "he is disallowed from naming".[111] I actually believe he's in violation of WP:POLEMIC as well, keeping a list of wiki-enemies on his user-page. I hope that others who comment on this request will disclose any COI which they might have. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also: this. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re: @Serialjoepsycho:

I contacted the French wikiproject and a few contributors on the article for the recent Paris attack. I did so due to low participation rates (RfC) and assuming they are aware of what "militancy" means nowadays. I ~~had no reason to~~ did not think they would favor my preferred policy amendments and I wanted to get the discussion going. I don't endorse a "let's count votes" mentality. I think they can add insight to the discussion. Perhaps persuade the parties of point a or b or raise a new point or new suggestion as well. In my process, I have contacted for input admins who have disagreed with me as well.[112] I do apologize for losing my patience (after three days and more of this) and using emails. That ~~wasn't a good idea~~ was a bad idea and I will refrain from doing that. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC) clearer Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC) + note, links, rephrase. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re to[113]:
- For some reason, maybe "ideological struggle", maybe not, two prominent participants' statements do not comply with WP:BARS. On and off-wiki matters have been presented with low degree of truth. This happened as well. I am a firm believer in proper disclosure on these matters. Comments like this show you want a balanced reputable Wikipedia. Not sure why, but this came to my mind as well. I will use that last diff as opportunity to reiterate my apology and acknowledgement of misjudgement in sending out a few emails. We've had very few participants and I got impatient and reached out to a project with some knowledge on the issue presented.Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC) + Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC) +balanced reputable Wikipedia Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) + Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC) m Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re [114]:

"ban over turned"

No. That is a misinterpretation. I asked for a 'review on the way I was herded off'.[115] Meaning, I felt my concerns about pro-stabbing content was mishandled. 'This does not require any review of my contributions, past or present'[116] qualifies my lack of interest in discussing about the ban itself (a comment which was ignored). My first comment in 2015, btw, was to the same admin.[117] Anyway, I found some less busy audience and kept the issue on the wider picture rather than making it user specific. e.g. "I did notice you wanted concrete samples but I am concerned that pointing fingers would end up with comments about how bad/acceptable a/b/c examples are and distract from the idea of establishing a clear no 'mukawama' policy."[118] Yes, wider perspective included mention of propaganda that relates to real-world attacks on Jews, which is in some way connected to the conflict I am topic banned from. I did ping @Timotheus Canens: (a 3rd time), @Foxj:, @Kim Dent-Brown:, @Black Kite:, @Crazycomputers:[119] -- involved admins (including ones who voted to ban me) to see the issue I was raising for discussion. While I can understand the interpretation you made from the word 'review', nowhere in there is a request to have the ban lifted. Also, you are seriously misrepresenting the upfront manner in which I addressed my concerns. There's a plethora of ways to it inappropriately, mine is pretty high on the "up-front". Also, I could care less about poking editors. My concerns are another 3 stabbing attacks that occurred today and this site's mishandling of its own policy where heavy political bias is introduced. This is easily applied to any ISIS, Taliban, Ukrain, Boko Haram, etc. conflict that includes attacks on civilians and writings which advocate for it.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have lost my cool back in 2012. Another four stabbing attacks today as well. The combination of terrorism and circumvention of policy are at the core of how I was herded off wikipedia.

1) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda...and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. (Passed 11 to 0)[120]

The fact that anyone would be forced to argue about such things is absurd but Serialjoepsycho and Nishidani think there's nothing wrong with it. Anyway, I'm not asking back. Just that the POLEMIC policy is made abundantly clear for everyone. Either it is allowed for everyone, or disallowed.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC) +1 Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re: @Nishidani:

Proper disclosure, though his user-page was ~~the only~~ a clear standout from the few I looked at, I refrained from bringing it as example to the POLEMICS discussion.[121] "'Even Gandhi would understand the Palestinians’ violence"[122] is one of a few things that caught my eye. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that others who comment on this request will disclose any COI which they might have.

p.s. This is irrelevant, but Jerusalem is in Israel. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+ Since Nishidani's user page doesn't do any advocacy or use of the term "violence" I must take back every statement made and haven't made that he is not reliable and a long term detriment to the project, working behind the scenes with friends to block people he disagrees with.

Al Rosh HaGanav:

Proper disclosure on my part with this. Apologies for using an old and often humorously contexted proverb regarding the COI/'direct interest' issue, that wasn't helpful. I was taken by surprise seeing Serialjoepsycho showing clear bias (per: "subjugated population") after he repeatedly insisted that no one needs to disclose anything. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Not intending to be rude, but a few statements made by Serialjoepsycho about the Israeli-Arab conflict are incorrect. Sample. Anyway, everyone's entitled to their opinion. Though, I hope wiki user-space advocacy and soapboxing favoring violence would find its way out the door.[123]

Respectfully, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC) + link Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to my last note: polemics about Israel's military, Palestinian violence, and links to, among others, a dead child are not "nothing polemic".

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re [124] by @EdJohnston::

a) I am not claiming user-space on wikipedia causes violence. Obviously, people with guns don't go around reading wikipedia user-pages. This point is irrelevant.

b) I asked about bringing this to ARBCOM[125], but was answered that this type of material "is already prohibited"[126]

c) Like I mentioned to @Callanecc: on their MFD suggestion. It would seem there's always someone reputable to defend policy violations when it comes to a certain small country.

d) 3 adjacent quotes/paraphrases about Jews, Israeli settlers and Zionism at the top of a user-page. One specifically links "sharpen the weapons with which he will secure his victory" against a certain group of people. Shakespeare, it's not.

e) It is: "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups"[127]

f) I have no intention of targeting a specific user or making this an Israel-Arab issue. It is the principle of polemics circumvention.

g) If user-space were to support and/or promote ISIS aggression against Europe, it would be promptly removed. Having to argue about this is an absurdity.

h) More-so when (outside the West-Bank) the wide scale wave of attacks include 80-year-old women (Rishon Lezion, November 2, 2015) and School teachers (Marseille. 11 hours ago) - not given exception, I am refraining from linking. The point in mentioning this not the conflict I'm living, but the general disrepute such activities can bring to the project and the environment that these type of writings creates for writers in already heated areas.

i) ISIS support and songs about how the Paris theatre massacre "scratched the enemy’s face, broke his dreams and stopped his satisfaction with time" could be viewed as "very profound and of great value to us in these revolutionary times."[128] -- but are they "already prohibited" or not?

j) I reiterate my desire is to clarify WP:POLEMIC so that there won't be confusion anymore about what is allowed and what is not.

Big picture: Support and promotion of terrorism against civilians is inappropriate for wikipedia's user-space.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re @Callanecc::

But is it already prohibited? I'm not allowed to talk about it anymore so this is my last. Who will speak for the trees? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re @EdJohnston::

Should the policy read: "advocacy related to violent conflicts is fine as long as it is not the direct cause for violence"?

Also this just happened in "subjugated" Tel-Aviv.

Let me know. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re [129] @EdJohnston::

Why are you ignoring every single point I mentioned to you? (sample: [130]) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I won't ignore your note, though. I will refrain from further participation on that RfC. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re @Nishidani::

That's not advocacy. - Nishidani 22:09, 20 November 2015

I cannot participate on the RfC and it seems proper to also refrain from further input on this one.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it already prohibited?

~~ARBCOM members should~~ Please disclose your view on this. It appears many admins and fellow editors haven't got a clue what POLEMIC is about and these editors apply personal biases and whim (e.g. "unwavering belief in freedom of speech"),[131] lending a hand to systematic bias. If users (mentioned here or not) start supporting "revolutionary" ISIS against "Western colonialists", can they use their Wikipedia user-space to advocate the righteousness of militancy against civilians or not? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- "What on Earth does it have to do with Wikipedia, except expressing a political position" [132]

- "I find nothing polemic about either thing" [133]

I immediately disclosed that my motivation for raising the policy issue a second time was related to real world stabbings. To assume this is meant to circumvent the ban on Israel-Arab related matters and/or poke at certain editors; to prevent the conversation, is a horrible case of bureaucratic failure and lack of common sense. Just look at recent "jihadist"[134] discussions in France. Serialjoepsycho disagrees with the policy completely but he, at least initially, felt (rightly so) that "This falls outside of ARBPIA.". He struck through this statement of support only following our discussion about whether it is OK or not to post a notice on Wikipedia project France. Btw, I did contribute here and there to Wikipedia in the time passed. Only without logging in and outside the scope of the ban. I wanted to address the policy issue up front. There's nothing wrong with that. The opposite is true. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Serialjoepsycho 2

This falls outside of ARBPIA. While the language used is nonsensical it does nothing to specially target the Israel Arab topic area. Poetic Militancy could just as easily target the Ukraine insurgency and it's supporters.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

This is stretching broadly construed far beyond intent. AE is not meant as a sword against your enemies. The subject Poetic militancy. It's core focus is not using Wikipedia to promote and support the violence of groups that have in someway been labeled terrorist. Or more specifically not using wikipedia to soapbox. This would target you nableezy and the soapboxing userbox that you have on your user page. That's why we are here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that this should not fall under WP:ARBPIA or more specifically discretionary sanctions should not be used to handle this. However noting Jaakobou comments I don't wish them walking away thinking their actions were appropriate. They contacted Wikiproject France [[135]] due to the recent terrorist attacks in Paris hoping to find editors favorable to their position. In addition they emailed other users [136] to the discussion. These are very clear violations of WP:CANVASS.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jaakobou, you don't have to explain yourself to me. I really don't care. If you didn't know the canvassing policy before that's fine. You've been made aware of it now. It's unacceptable. WP:Canvass. Contacting wikiproject France would never be appropriate for this discussion. You can't target them at all period. Not because you think they will have a favorable opinion. You can not target them because you think will have some special insight because they were attacked by terrorists yesterday. WP:CANVASS explains how to do an appropriate notification. You can get impatient and seek further comment but with the appropriate notification.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jaakobou, that's not a COI. There's nothing to disclose.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I still don't feel should be held under WP:ARBPIA. I feel this is more of a matter for ANI. However this topic area is increasingly becoming the sole focus of the conversation. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jaakobou, Clear bias? That's asinine. Palestine territories are a subjugated population. They have been under military occupation since 1967. They have been under the control of Israel since that time and have not been allowed to practice their right to self determination.
Further I don't have a conflict of interest. You suggesting that I do brings up a real question of competency. Competence is required here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually becoming pure jackassery at this point. This is not a place to discuss the Palestine-Israel conflict, you are barred from doing so, and your passive aggressive attempts at doing so with out violating that are unclear anyway. I'm some how so wrong but it's not clear what I'm wrong on. Am I wrong that they are under military occupation? Am I wrong that they have been unable to practice their right to self determination? Showing that they have limited self government proves neither wrong, nor does it suggest either is wrong. I would respond to your other comments but like the comments I've already responded to they seem purposeless.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I just need to walk away. The discussion of issue is about a Wikipedia policy. Even if someone is topic banned from something they need to need to be given enough leeway so to discuss it if it's tangentially related to issues that the wikipedia policy discussion is about. Such leeway should be used with discretion certainly, but per the canvassing issue alone I don't think they violated any reasonable discretion. This is not the first time anyone has violated the canvassing policy with out knowing about it. Seems reasonable that they were not aware of it considering their reactions. Still it is concerning that they don't seem to understand the canvassing policy and their comments related to it after the policy was pointed out. Regarding anything else I can't argue that they used in reasonable discretion in this conversation. And thus I walk away.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to retract any statement of support here. Having a conversation with this editor has raised multiple red flags. Reviewing their editing history they stopped editing 2012. They came back at the end of October of this year. They contacted multiple admins in quick succession. First trying to discuss their and overturn their topic ban. This moves quickly into discussing polemics. Before making a decision or taking action it may be apt to review their editing history since returning.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with the policy at all. I disagree with your interpretation of the policy. I disagree with your proposed changes to the policy as well.
Users should be given the leeway to discuss policy and bring up subjects that may violate their topic ban, especially when the policy is social in nature. However any such leeway should be used with discretion. It is only now that you are even using a modicum of discretion and that's only halfhearted. You forumshopped multiple admins, first trying to get your topic ban over turned. Then when that wasn't working you started using ambiguous language to get permission to violate your topic ban[137]. The only thing you haven't done at this point is make a honest attempt at changing the policy. You've used loaded language and canvassed to promote it. I do not support giving you leeway now that it's clear that you are a disruptive editor that holds long grudges. I'm not even sure there's a valid reason to do anything other than indef you, of course this is for the admins to decide. Since leaving in 2012 you've made no meaningful contributions that I can see to wikipedia. Your using your account to sopabox and that's all. I think it's really time for this to stop.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by nableezy

He's using examples specifically within the topic area. this is a direct reference to Tiamut's user page (the Incitement to "sharpen the weapons" against Jews, albeit masqueraded as a paraphrase on Shakespeare (quoted from an Arab newspaper) and whatnot), a user Jaak has an interaction ban with. That same diff discusses "Arab 'mukawama'" (which despite what the user thinks isnt an Arab doctrine of conflict enhancement whatever that is supposed to mean, it's the Arabic word for resistance). And pretty much every article he links to in for example this, this, and this is about ongoing attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories. The user is banned from discussing the conflict anywhere on Wikipedia, so I disagree that this falls outside of ARBPIA. He could have worded it so that it did, but he has not. nableezy - 00:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really dont think its stretching anything, considering what caused Jaak to be banned indefinitely in the first place was pretty much this exact same discussion. Discussing the actual conflict on Wikipedia is part of his ban, not much need for any construal. nableezy - 07:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

I did mention that there are a lot of stabbing attacks in Israel

Jaakobou. You might rephrase that to read 'there are a lot of stabbing attacks in Jerusalem and the West Bank', which are not in Israel.Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this it appears clear that you wish to return to Wikipedia to edit about 'Arab' stabbings, precisely the kind of 'militant' interest in advancing a POV that got you banned in the first place. We have an abundant number of socks, POV pushers, and IPs already diligently applying themselves to fanning the flames here, as witness the remarkable number of redlinked editors jumping into I/P articles since October. Nishidani (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once could consider this evidence of why Jaakobou should not return to Wikipedia. He pings me to reply to the following question: 'Q: Aren't you tired of promotion and legitimization of violence against civilians?. This is a gross distortion of what I do here, and a personal attack on my presence in the I/P area.It is effectively saying that in simply looking after articles on the death tolls of violence in that area, by noting down that there are numerous Palestinian casualties, I am encouraging violence against (Israeli) civilians. How long may Jaakobou be given leave from his sanction to conduct a polite form of character assassination?Nishidani (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakobou. This whole charade of 'concern' about polemic violations is a complete Potemkin village montage, dangling an absurd fantasy that named editors (in diffs) somehow subscribe to terrorism. It's deeply offensive, in both the military and etiquette sense of that word. You are now questioning also the integrity of admins, and badgering them in successive WP:TLDR screeds. This place is for concrete article-work, not for haranguing about some personal beef re the incumbent incitement of Islamic madness as a threat to Wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph. I maintain, because no one else will, a comprehensive, day by day List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015 in which every stabbing, extrajudicial killing, etc. by either side is duly registered, for the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Jerusalem and Israel, the place on each occasion precisely noted. When I noted to Jaakobou he was incorrect in associating this phenomenon (exclusively) with what happens in Israel, since most of the violence is in areas internationally recognized as occupied, and outside of Israel's internationally legitimate boundaries, he came back and insisted, contra-factually, that Jerusalem was in Israel. That is his POV, fine, but it is not true technically. Stabbings of course take place in Israel, but not the majority. And of course, Israel is a duly constituted nation, with international legitimacy, questioning the right of which to exist is a sign of anti-Semitism. I don't know how many times I have said this, even to some pro- Palestinian editors, and one tires of stating the obvious. Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I just wanted to add a statement not necessarily to prove anything one way or another, but the statement by Nishidni about the stabbings rubs me the wrong way. The fact that he had to make an edit just to say that stabbings are not done in Israel but are done in WB or what not does not make one confident that editing in the arena you will be dealing with someone who will be AGF and NPOV. There have been daily stabbings in Israel, and by Israel, I mean Israel proper. Just today, there have been two people killed in Tel Aviv, and I would like to ask Nishidani if Tel Aviv is considered Israel or occupied territories. And this is why perhaps polemics should not be included at all on userpages. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Foxj

@Jaakobou: I'm at a loss as to why I'm mentioned in this request. I would appreicate if I could be dropped from the list of people you ping every time you post on Wikipedia about this topic. Thanks. — foxj 22:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Jaakobou

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

Yes linking to anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict is a violation of the TBAN (which I didn't know about before) including the offwiki articles however I believe that Jaakobou didn't realise it was a violation. I don't believe that sanctions are warranted, so I wonder if Timotheus Canens would consider an exemption to allow Jaakobou to continue the discussion on WT:UP (or lifting the TBAN completely). In any case, Jaakobou, youplease do not make any further edits which relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict (including discussing or linking to 'poetic militancy' related to the Arab-Israeli) until we hear back from Tim. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 19 November 2015‎

I'm not inclined to lift the topic ban or to grant an exemption. T. Canens (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too would oppose lifting Jaakobou's ARBPIA topic ban or granting an exemption. In the early days of Wikipedia there were some userbox crusades. In the ARBPIA area it's enough work for admins just to keep on top of the article edits in hopes of keeping them neutral. On Tiamut's page we have a quote from Shakespeare where the word 'Jew' is replaced by 'Palestinian.' Tiamut's page was cited by Jaakobou in a message to Callanecc. It is hard to view this quotation as an argument for knife attacks on the West Bank. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, do either of you see a need to issue a block or other sanction? I'd rather just remind them of the TBAN and IBAN and tell them to take extreme care (or just leave) the discussion they started at WT:UP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a repeat violation by Jaakobou. See his comment at AN in March 2012: "..Proper disclosure: in what I consider to be an unethical decision, a few admins recently decided that raising this as an issue on WP:AE is disruptive enough to be topic-ban worthy..." That's yet another complaint about Tiamut, for those who have been trying to follow along. The idea that 'Jaakobou didn't realize it was a violation' is no longer credible. It seems like he thinks the March 2012 decision against him at AE was just a quirk, due to particular admins who showed up to rule on his case, so he keeps shopping his complaint around, hoping for a different answer. Anyone looking for the 2012 sanction log will find it on this page. The full AE decision was at this link, which has more details about the Jaakobou-Tiamut dispute. (Nine admins participated in the AE thread). If you review Jaakobou's comments in that complaint, you may get an idea of why the decision went against him. If he still wants to appeal his ban he can do so, but his recent conduct isn't reassuring. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since Jaakobou has already mentioned words from the I-P conflict in his statement of the RfC at WT:User pages#Rephrase suggestion to WP:UP#POLEMIC ("mukawama", "jihad") I don't see how he can continue the discussion there. Anything he says will be a contravention of his ARBPIA ban. Jaakobou's most recent addition to that thread is on 20 November. As User:Johnuniq stated in that thread, " It's pretty obvious that Jaakobou is proposing a change to WP:UP#POLEMIC in order to poke certain opponents in the P-I area.." If Jaakobou continues to participate in that thread, I recommend he be blocked as an enforcement action. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall

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 S Marshall

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: S Marshall (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: Discretionary Sanctions are explicitly extended for the Electronic Cigarettes topic area. Specifically, single purpose accounts may be topic banned or blocked (indefinite or otherwise), if in the view of an uninvolved administrator, they are being disruptive in the topic area.Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy; accounts whose primary purpose is disruption or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely; discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning. The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case. See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#E-cigs_case_closed

See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 23#Removal. On 31 March 2015 SM deleted info on tobacco harm reduction is unclear.[138] On 20 April 2015 SM deleted info on tobacco harm reduction is unclear.[139] On 19 November 2015 SM deleted info on tobacco harm reduction is unclear.[140] The text about tobacco harm reduction was restored.

See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_25#New_Images. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#New_.22full_range.22_image_uploaded. SM deleted two images and replaced it with one image. The discussion was still ongoing.[141] SM also deleted another image, but another editor disagreed.

See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Safety_claim_in_Harm_reduction.. I did state it would be better to shorten the text. There was a discussion to relocate the text.[142] The text was misplaced and it was eventually removed from the harm reduction section. I added some information to the safety section. SM stated my edit to the safety section was a "Rv pre-emptive Quackeditry".

SM stated in the recent AFD that "it was used as a holder for all the semi-relevant junk that disruptive people kept adding to Electronic cigarette to make it conform to their notion of "balance".". SM was making assertions about me without supporting evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I cut and pasted the wrong remedy. I had a concern with the text about tobacco harm reduction was deleted three times.[143][144][145] I could ask an uninvolved admin to review such complaints before I post them at a noticeboard such as this which would restrict myself from making complaints. In the future when someone makes an edit summary such as "Rv pre-emptive Quackeditry" or "No you don't, sunshine" or other such comments directed at me I should stop taking it too personally. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SM is making comments about my current editing without specific diffs. SM previously made comments about me without diffs. I will not know what is your current concern without the specifics. If I disagree with a change on the talk page that does not mean I am being problematic. I am going to start a RfC to try an resolve this dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This comment did not state the text about the different volts was previously in the lede. Before I started a RfC the information about different volts was in the lede of the safety page. I explained on the talk page the lede did not mention dry puffing. I clarified the wording in the lede. The RfC on the e-cig talk page is about summarising text in the e-cig. QuackGuru (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate pages. AlbinoFerret is not explaining the text was in the lede of the Safety page before there was a RfC and is not giving me credit that I clarified the wording in the lede.[146] No editor at the Safety of electronic cigarettes page stated it should be removed from the page or the lede. In fact, AlbinoFerret has recently added a lot of content about the different volts to Safety of electronic cigarettes page. QuackGuru (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of the notification.

Discussion concerning S Marshall

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 S Marshall

Hi, Arbitration Enforcement admins! Please investigate QuackGuru's complaints in full and give him latitude to raise new ones against me. I am completely out of patience with this user's ridiculous behaviour since the Arbcom case closed, so it's entirely possible that I've been rude to him.—S Marshall T/C 12:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If close this, it'll be back. QG's behaviour hasn't changed at all since the Arbcom case. In that case, a whole spectrum of problem behaviours came out: controlling; manipulative; editing the article and talk page with insane frequency; refusing change wherever possible; where a consensus is emerging that he doesn't like, making pre-emptive changes that partially implement what other editors are saying but without affecting text he's written; reverting subtly, in nickel-and-dime changes that end up restoring his preferred text over time; issuing spurious warnings to other editors; mischaracterising or misrepresenting others' edits; I could go on and on. QG has never admitted fault, has never acknowledged that there was anything wrong with his behaviour, and has never promised to change. And he hasn't changed one bit.
I'm fairly bitter and disappointed that after a four-month Arbcom case, QG's still pulling these stunts exactly as if nothing had happened. It's this feeling which is making me snarky.
I'd suggest that the resolution is this:- (1) QG admits -- actually articulates -- that his controlling behaviour in this topic area is problematic; (2) He promises to desist; (3) He agrees not to make pre-emptive edits, but to allow consensus to build on the talk page, and to allow the consensus text to go into the article without trying to undermine it later; and then (4) I promise to drop it and desist from the snark.—S Marshall T/C 20:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, QuackGuru. Do not forum-shop by starting an RFC. You've tried to resolve this here, now finish resolving it here. If he starts an RfC then please would an AE enforcement admin close it.
QG, you're asking me for diffs. Before I produce them, please confirm that you have read what Arbcom said to you with the appropriate care and attention but you still need me to produce diffs to show you specifically how and why your behaviour is problematic.—S Marshall T/C 21:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is completely out of order. So far, QG has started five discussions about this revert: 1 (my talk page); 2 (unilaterally adding me to AlbinoFerret's clarification and amendment page); 3 (starting e-cigs 2 in front of Arbcom); 4 (finally starting discussion in the right place, which is here) and now 5 (RfC when this discussion didn't go his way). On past form I predict that he will become unresponsive in this venue.
I need an AE sysop please to close the forum-shopping RFC and bring QuackGuru back here to answer what I'm saying.—S Marshall T/C 11:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlbinoFerret

QG is misapplying the findings of the arbcom case. S Marshall is as far from an SPA per his edit history.[147] Even if we were to double the 446 edits he has made in the area of all e-cig pages and the arbocom case, his total edits of 21,071 make the SPA possibilities a rather bad joke. Of note though is this finding from the case. "QuackGuru (talk · contribs) is warned that continuing to engage in a pattern of disruption to Wikipedia will result in further sanctions." One of the issues from the case is forcing his desired outcome on the page, and making edits to pre-empt changes while discussion is ongoing. AlbinoFerret 12:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a NAC with over 200 closes, I can honestly say the RFC QG started [148] is malformed. It consists of his preferred version with no questions. AlbinoFerret 08:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After now changing the RFC for I think the 4th time QG has a non neutral RFC question/statement that predisposes his preferred version in the header. This is the kind of behaviour that got him the arbcom warning and should be addressed here. AlbinoFerret 20:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark, I dont think S Marsall suggested collecting diff's, I think he was referring to the massive amount of diff's I had already collected for ARCA. Most of which pre-date the Arbocom case closing so I dont believe can be used for AE.[149] Due to the constant disruption QG causes, I wonder how many chances this editor will get. He has been banned numerous times [150] and warned by arbcom. The comments of the arbs in this section are worth reading QuackGuru Warned. AlbinoFerret 22:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QG started an RFC for the summery of Safety of Electronic cigarettes in the main article, and it appears that consensus is against him at this point. But he has already started to edit the changes to his preferred version on the Safety page.[151] The Summery on the main article and the lede Safety page should be in sync as all other daughter pages. Editing the text now while the RFC is ongoing is pre empting the RFC. These are the type of problematic edits that arbcom has warned QG about. AlbinoFerret 03:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark

S Marshall recommended to AlbinoFerret[152] that the latter collect diffs of evidence that QuackGuru tends to take pre-emptive action against proposals under discussion.
QuackGuru takes pre-emptive action against this suggestion by filing a complaint against S Marshall for not having gathered the evidence himself.

Admins should have zero patience for such antics. QuackGuru's block log suggests they will continue to be incorrigible. A one year topic ban would be a restrained response. Rhoark (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning S Marshall

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

QuackGuru if you are going to relitigate the arb case again then I will simply close this as no action. Please remove all the historical stuff (the case closing is a bright line that deals with previous events entirely) . Also take out all the assertion and reformat this with exactly what the restriction is, why it was broken and diffs to both. You shouldn't need more than 3-4 lines max and that means that you don't need to rehash all your bad blood and history with this user, which is not only wearisome to read but suggests you are still carrying a grudge. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems a bit pot and kettle for you to accuse SM of casting aspersions when you have been chasing a single edit of his while relitigating the case around AlbinoFerret's ARCA request, your own withdrawn RFAR and now AE - all the while the article talk page seems to be hosting an notably constructive discussion of the change that SM wants. As far as I can see, while the article is subject to discretionary sanctions, no restrictions have yet been made to normal editing (i. WP:BRD has not been disallowed on the article. Further, SM is not an SPA, nor was he made the subject of any personal sanctions nor was his conduct admonished by the committee. The same decision, however, admonished you for behaving disruptively and warned you that continuing this pattern could lead to further sanctions. Despite that, as soon as the case is over, you seem to be right back to the same disruptive behaviour. This seems very problematic to me. I do not think that we can possibly consider imposing any form of sanction for an editor who makes single edits and then proceeds to engage in civil and productive discussion on the article talk page to help establish a consensus on what the outcome should be. In fact, this kind of behaviour in a contested area is something that should be applauded. Indeed, it is your disruptive behaviour that is obstructing useful discussion. So let me be very clear QuackGuru, I am seriously considering whether you should be topic banned or forbidden from raising spurious noticeboard complaints in order to allow the other editors in this area to continue working towards a consensus on this article. Alternatively, you might wish to reconsider whether it might be more productive for you to stop personalising disputes with other editors and restrict yourself to discussing edits and content rather than pursuing the editors making the comments. I'd be very interested in any comments or thoughts you might have on this and, of course, those of other uninvolved admins. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - QuackGuru That sounds like amn eminently sensible solution to me. S Marshall Cann you cut out the snarky edit summaries please? Waiting for further input before closing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:53, 22 November 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