Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:59, 21 January 2016

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Dicklyon and Darkfrog24

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 Dicklyon and Darkfrog24

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Users against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Discretionary sanctions :

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

Too many diffs to count. Simply look at the edit history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support. Edit-warring has been going on between these two users for more than a week, filling that edit history with nothing but reverts. Also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register, where a similar situation has arisen.

See also this user page discussion on Darkfrog24's talk page and this user page discussion on Dicklyon's talk page. The dispute has clearly been personalised, with accusations of "lying" going back and forth.

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

Standard DS notice received by Dicklyon (March 2015)
Standard DS notice received by Darkfrog24 (September 2015)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Back on 18 December, a user requested clarification on the MoS talk page about the quotation style used by Wikipedia. This discussion started out collegial, but has blown up into a protracted dispute between two users across many pages. Darkfrog24 and Dicklyon have been edit-warring constantly on the two MoS subpages linked above for more than a week, after discussion at the main page resulted in a stalemate. I haven't even bothered to provide diffs, because the edit history of those two pages consist only of reverts made by either user. WP:3RR has long since passed. Both users are aware of the MoS DS, and this type of behaviour should not be allowed to continue. I would suggest that some action is taken against both parties to the dispute, as other editors who participated in the civil discussion at WT:MOS had no trouble avoiding this type of edit-warring, which is exactly what the MoS case remedies (see remedy 1.2) were meant to stop. Both parties are veterans of MoS disputes. How long does this type of thing have to go on in little watched pages before someone does something about it? RGloucester — ☎ 18:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum – I strongly reject any accusations of being a "provocateur". I was involved in the discussion at the MoS talk page before Mr Lyon was even capable of commenting there, and had been following it as such. Whilst I ceased my participation as I saw that the discussion was becoming fertile ground for conflict, I also saw this continued edit-warring and pointless bickering occurring across multiple pages, with no one to stop it. The two editors in question here are both aware of remedy 1.2, which I mentioned above, which establishes a process whereby changes should occur after consensus is gained on the talk page, not by a process of edits and reversion. I don't understand how I can be at fault for bringing to light behaviour that is directly contrary to the remedies established in the arbitration case. If no one cares about this disruption in little known pages in the project space, fine. That doesn't mean that editors should be able to get away with disruptive behaviour of this sort, which is likely to spill back into more well-known pages eventually. As far as my personal reading on the matter, I tend to agree with SmC and Mr Lyon on the topic matter of this dispute. That doesn't excuse the nature of what is going on, here, again. If no administrative action is taken here, this dispute will continue repeat itself. This is not the first time it has blown up. There are cycles, and until someone stops that cycle, this disruption will continue. This has been the problem with AE for as long as I've been familiar with it. Parties in a dispute, on whatever side, are well aware of the nature of the "boomerang", and will band together against any sort of sanction for any party, because they know both sides are at fault. However, once the dispute is gone from AE and some time has passed, edit-warring begins again. Stop the cycle. RGloucester — ☎ 19:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what Darkfrog24 suggests below, it seems that the dispute has merely moved to a page in the article space. I would suggest a three month topic ban from quotation styles, as suggested by JzG below. The evidence provided by SmC makes the need for this even more compelling. I tend to agree with him that Mr Lyon's behaviour has been less problematic here, and that Darkfrog24 has an apparently long history of involvement in this issue that I had not been aware of. RGloucester — ☎ 18:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf, Liz, and EdJohnston: You administrators might want to take note of the massive bit of canvassing Darkfrog24 has just done, asking for "a hand" and a "character witness". He received a warning from Liz, but denies that he "canvassed". This is getting beyond the pale, pure WP:GAMING and WP:WIKILAWYERing. RGloucester — ☎ 02:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Dicklyon and Darkfrog24

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 Dicklyon

Neither of us has editted Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register for nearly a week. We have confined our edit war to a stupid subpage (Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support) that nobody cares about; not clear why RGloucester thought that to be worth stalking and complaining about. Anyway, as long as the Dark Frog keeps saying that the MOS requires British style, I keep reverting, to the version that acknowledges that the style our MOS recommends, "logical style", is called "British style" by some sources. And I keep adding more sources of "support" for the MOS, as that's what the page says it's about.

If people would prefer to see us stop this, I would be happy to see a ban of any term, hopefully indef, on either of us editing this page. I'd go further and propose it for deletion at MfD, as it's just the DF's place to collect anti-MOS info, trying to set up WP:LQ to be an ENGVAR issue, which it is not. The sources are all clear on this style correlating more with region (American/Canada vs the rest of the world), as opposed to any tie to dialect. The sources I've been adding make it clear that many, or most as one source admits, Americans prefer the logical style; I acknowledge that the dark frog does not. Note that the page is essentially empty except for the one section Wikipedia:WikiProject_Manual_of_Style/External_support#Punctuation_inside_or_outside which was filled in by the DF as part of her campaign against LQ. It is inappropriate for her to be doing this (and yes, I admit it's inappropriate for me to be edit warring, too, but I honestly didn't think anyone would notice or care about this venue).

The closest thing to an accusation of lying was in my edit summary phrase "that's your lie" in this edit. I regret that I expressed it thus. I could have said "that's your interpretation"; anyway, no reason she should be including a controversial interpret of a source that way.

As for the so-called 3RR accusation, I don't think we've seen 3 or more edit cycles in any day. Methinks this is just RGloucester resurrecting his grudge. I have done my best to not interact with him, but he makes it hard now. Dicklyon (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that below DF claims to have shown "sources that explicitly state that the practice required by Wikipedia's MoS is British". This is twisted. These sources do not mention "the practice required by Wikipedia's MoS"; this is her over-interpretation and misrepresentation; reading more closely often shows that what they call British is actually not quite the same as the logical style that our MOS advocates. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Following comment is a response to Newyorkbrad. It was moved by RGloucester.)

I already said I'd be up for any mutual restriction there. Dicklyon (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In closing...

Concerning DarkFrog24's statement "I do plan to continue the support-but-don't-initiate pattern.", this pattern is the problem; so is calling it "support". A recent incarnation of this anti-LQ pattern is seen here:

"We have pretty much zero reason to require British/logical style in American English articles."

This was even after another editor had already explained that it's not an ENGVAR issue, and the discussion had no obvious call for being stirred up. It was the start of her pumping up that section to over 100 edits, mostly from her. If every time an editor asks a question about WP:LQ, DF24 jumps in with the pattern of pumping up discontent, partly by complaining that the MOS "requires British", then these disruptions around the MOS will continue. This should stop; after 7 years it has only served to pump up the noise level. LQ has been OK with WP since before DF24 came to fix it. Time to drop all that. Dicklyon (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darkfrog24

This complaint is an overreaction. As the edits themselves show, this isn't a straight revert-and-revert situation. Dicklyon and I are triangulating our way toward a version that we can both live with.[1] [2] [3] We've both been compromising and giving way to the other here and there. He stopped removing the Chicago Manual of Style from the page after I took it to the talk page and gave a good reason why he should do so (see first paragraph at this link [4]). I didn't remove the ABA reference even though I don't think it's necessary. There are a few points on which I think he's flat-out wrong and I'm confident he feels the same way, but this is a work in progress, not a stalemate.

A few factual corrections to RG's report: There haven't been accusations of lying "back and forth." Dicklyon accused me of lying. To my knowledge, I've never said anything indicating that he doesn't believe what he says. However, this measure is still an overreaction. I went to his user talk page and asked him to stop. He agreed that "lie" was taking it too far, and he hasn't done it again. It's already been dealt with.

I concur with Dicklyon regarding 3RR. I don't usually count, but I don't think either of us violated 3RR. I thought I might have been close once, so I self-reverted just in case. I also deliberately slowed it down starting a few days ago, and it feels like he might've done so too. Dicklyon did mark two substantive edits as "minor," but that might have been an accident. Again, I just went to his user page (same thread as above) and asked him to be more careful. It's already been dealt with.

If RG or anyone feels that the text of MOS:SUPPORTS does not reflect consensus, then the answer is to bring in more people either with an RfC, at a noticeboard, or less formally. I took the issue to the NPOV noticeboard for that reason.

Correction to Dicklyon: I am not collecting anti-MOS info at MOS:SUPPORTS. I hate the British-only rule and would love to see it changed to allow American punctuation in American English articles, but I was the first one to add sources to MOS:SUPPORTS proving that it is indeed correct British English[5] and I didn't add any quotes that specifically said that it isn't correct American English, even though most of the sources cited there do contain that information.[6] Another correction: No Americans do not prefer logical style (better known as British style). Mainstream style guides almost universally require American style. For sources indicating this, see MOS:SUPPORTS and its talk page.

Response to SmC: I would love to apply neutrality rules to WP:SUPPORTS.[7]

In summary, Dicklyon and I are dealing with this just fine on our own. Neither of us should be banned in any way. The appropriate thing for other editors to do is to come to the talk page and give their two cents.

EDIT: If I'm going to respond to SMcCandlish's accusations, I'm going to need more space. Suffice it to say that most of what he's saying isn't true. It's not that he's lying, but he sees what he wants to see. For example, no Wikipedia has not been "criticized in the British press for nationalistic inaccuracy." The writer mentions Wikipedia but all he says is that he thinks one of the examples in one of the articles is wrong.[8] Please read for yourself and take all of SmC's other comments with a corresponding grain of salt. EDIT: SmC's response illustrates my point. Click the link and look at what Marsh actually wrote. Then come back here and look at what SmC concluded about it. Observe how much stretching it takes to get from A to B, and assume that he did that with his other points as well. Again, he's not lying—he just fails to see that his conclusions are interpretation plus wishful thinking and not fact. I've shown him a dozen sources that explicitly state that the practice required by Wikipedia's MoS is British. I'm not the one in denial.

Response to Dicklyon's comment: If anyone wants to see the sources that show that this practice is British, I will gladly supply them.

(Following comment is a response to Newyorkbrad. It was moved by RGloucester.)

I don't think it's necessary. It's a productive process and we're discussing things on multiple talk pages. RG is blowing things out of proportion again. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Following comment is a response to Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s second contribution.)

Well you'd have to ask Dicklyon to make sure we're on the same page, but I think we got the job done. The only editing I've done there in the past day or so has been to format some refs. So I'd say it's moot. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to RG)

If RG or anyone wants to make this about me, then we'll need more room, for them to make specific complaints and for me to respond. For now, I'll say that all my actions are within Wikipedia's rules. I'm allowed to cite sources and bring in new ones. I'm allowed to challenge and remove unsourced and improperly sourced material. I'm allowed to say "this rule is rotten and we should change it," so long as I don't disregard said rule before it is changed. I'm allowed to disagree with people on talk pages. When someone else says "this editor is wrong," I'm allowed to show up with Chicago MoS or Oxford and say, "actually, that editor's right, and these sources say so." Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to EdJohnston)

See response to Tony1. I'm reasonably content with the text that Dicklyon and I worked out for MOS:SUPPORTS. As far as I'm concerned this matter has run its course. If you want to talk about anything else, I'll need more space to respond. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, if you want to accuse me of something else, you must be specific about what it is that you think I've done wrong so that I can respond. I haven't started a challenge of WP:LQ in years. When someone else does, I support them, but it's not like I'm the one who keeps bringing it up. It's been challenged at least once a year going back to long before I joined Wikipedia. [9] [10][11] [12] MOS:REGISTER lists literally dozens of challenges to this rule, and it does not include all of them.

When someone comes to the MoS saying "Hey, isn't this wrong?" I say "Yes and here are some sources," but when someone comes to the MoS saying, "How do I use this in the article space?" I say "Here's how." I want this rule changed but in the meantime I am not undermining the MoS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a serious accusation, then I need some specifics and confirmation that I'm allowed to go past the 500 word limit, which I passed a while back. Here's the short version. Talk pages: I decided a while ago not to create a new challenge to WP:LQ unless I had something new to say that I reasonably believed might change consensus, like a new source, but that I would support challenges raised by other editors. The last time I brought up WP:LQ myself was to suggest that we fix a misplaced comma in one of the examples. This is a plan, not a promise, but I do plan to continue the support-but-don't-initiate pattern. Article space: I've removed unsourced and poorly sourced material per WP:V and WP:NPOV. I have not opposed content that I do not like so long as it can be sourced. I believe these comments sum it up well: [13] [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkfrog24 (talk • contribs)

I am quite taken aback by SMcCandlish's post this morning and I am not sure where to begin.

Let's start with an example:

What SmC says about me: try to turn MOS's own FAQ into a rallying point for "challenging MOS" to get "satisfaction":

Kind of makes me sound like some crazy Don Quixote who thinks he's a knight, huh? But here's what I actually said: Please exercise judgement if you are considering challenging this part of the MoS. Consider reviewing previous discussions first to see if your concerns have already been addressed to your satisfaction.

That should give you a good idea.

some more responses

First, I have to say that SmC has some significant problems with AGF, and not just with me.[15] He claimed straw man tactics where the rest of us saw a non-issue. For example, a few days ago, another editor wanted to revert some of SmC's changes to the MoS. I said this: [16] Sounds solid to me, Chris. I'd say remove it for now. If SmC has a good reason for making this change, we should all hear him out. Then SmC responds with this[17]: I already gave the reasons, both in the text of the material and the in the edit summary. You auto-opposing whatever I support here and supporting what I oppose is tiresome, not helpful to the project, and always seems to be predicated on a demand to provide that which has already been provided. I went to his talk page to try to explain what I really meant. Here's how he reacted: [18] Whenever I guess SmC's meaning wrong, he accuses me of lying.[19][20] When he guesses mine wrong, nothing. I'm not the one making assumptions about other people's motives.

SMcCandlish's issues with me have drawn the attention of other editors: [21]

I did not accuse the MoS regulars of being liars. I said they'd neglected to mention something.

He says I make claims based on belief and OR. I do not. They are based on sources. For example, SmC has repeatedly taken issue with the fact that I refer to British punctuation as "British." But this is what it is called by sources on both sides of the Atlantic: Chicago Manual of Style 14th ed (The 15th does as well, but I only have that on paper) Scientific Style and Format Oxford Dictionaries Garner's Modern American Usage I can supply more if needed. This isn't a matter of "some sources conflate them." The flip side: I do not tell SmC that he can't call American style by his preferred term "typesetters," on talk pages, only that he needs to provide at least one source if he wants to do so in the article space.

He says I attempted to "recruit" @Garagepunk66:. Here's what I actually said to GP.[22] What did I tell him to do? The same thing the others were telling him to do: Look at MoS:REGISTER to see previous disputes. After that, GP decided not to run an RfC. I'll also add that that GP said he felt "out-gunned a million-to-one and that other editors were viewing me as crazy" and thanked me for what I posted there. My take on the matter is that anyone who gets involved in WP:LQ should know what they're getting into. They will be targeted in some way.

He says that there is no evidence to support the idea that British and American punctuation are British and American, respectively. There are literally dozens of sources that say "in American English, do this but in British English do that." I've already cited Chicago and Oxford, but there are many more. During a 2013 challenge of WP:LQ initiated by AmericanDad, I started a sub-thread meant to line up the sources on this issue to see if they really did differ along national lines, and other editors and myself brought in just under thirty.

Through all of SmC's posts, do you know what you don't see? You don't see me going into articles that use British punctuation and changing it to American. I was brought up on AN/I for doing that when I was a new editor, even though the articles were already using mixtures of British and American style, even though I was making other edits (and yes, I changed some to just British too). I've kept my word.

I hope this is enough to give everyone an idea of how much salt to add to SmC's words before taking them. I can, if necessary, go through his page line by line if anyone thinks that would be necessary or helpful. I request a heads-up before further action is taken. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SmC is accusing me of campaigning against WP:LQ. I want this rule changed but I want it changed in accordance with the procedures that Wikipedia has put in place for that purpose. Let's look at this from the positive side: I was first to post sources supporting this rule at MOS:SUPPORTS. You've seen the content that I've added to the FAQ, urging caution. When people come to the MoS asking how to use British style, I tell them. So long as this rule is here, we should get it right.

As for the article space, within the past few months alone, I caught and repaired a multi-year error [23], kept links up to date [24], and removed longstanding content that turned out to have been sourced unreliably [25]. Everything I've done in the articles has been consistent with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. SmC prefers to call them "my views," but they're really the views of almost every reliable source. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: I'm currently in conversation with LaserB about this matter. From over here, you and EdJ asked me to do something but didn't say what it was you wanted me to do. I'm trying to find out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC) Newyorkbad, I happen to feel similarly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC) As for RG, I asked at AN what the etiquette was on this matter and didn't get an answer. BTW, please take his view of "canvassing" with some salt.[26] "Pure of heart as a lily" indeed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do have something to add. If I can't change your minds about a topic ban, consider drawing a distinction between infospace and the article space. Pages that are subject to WP:NPOV and WP:V, in which editors have to cite sources to add or retain text and are discouraged from adding their opinions, have generally seen my involvement as an gain. I happen to see the MoS that way too, but I think there's enough of a difference that those who don't agree in one case might agree in the other. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SmcCandlish, I've added that link that you pointed out was missing. As for questioning my faith, you have repeatedly called me a liar. You get so offended whenever I guess your meaning wrong but you're perfectly willing to take my words out of context and dress them up to make them look like something they're not, and it's pretty clear that you are doing it on purpose. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: The last RfC that I started myself was a few years ago. I deliberately haven't started more because I figured that would make things worse. People are already complaining that I talk about this too much even when I limit things to threads that other people have started. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: I think that a distinction should be drawn between the MOS and the article space. I don't think I did anything wrong in either place (if I did, I wouldn't have done it in the first place) but I think you'll find a difference on pages that are subject to WP:V and WP:NPOV. The discussions are shorter, for one thing, because the rules are clearer.

I'm currently in discussion with Laser Brain about the voluntary matter that Ed J suggested. I also asked Ed J about it, but he did not answer my questions and LB did. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: @Guy: @KillerChihuahua: @Laserbrain: @Liz: @Newyorkbrad: @Thryduulf: Per discussions on Laserbrain and Killer Chi's user talk pages, since the objection here is not what I am saying but that I am saying it too much, a 1RR situation seems like the appropriate response. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony1

I agree with the comment below that this is lame; but not that sanctions are appropriate here. Both involved users are valuable participants on MOS and other WP pages. They should simply agree to cool off and undertake to avoid cross-editing.

RGloucester is a well-known provocateur, and I believe started the thread here out of pure mischief. Regard his first post at the talkpage in question, then the starting of this thread at AE just 23 minutes later, before any futher activity on either the article page or talkpage there. Note also his statement that the page in question "has no standing within the MoS, no community consensus backs it, it is essentially a user essay, and should probably be put in the user space." It is, then, heavily ironic that he should seek to cause maximum disruption by using the apparent "DS" status of that page to start a thread here. It is disingenuous and not in the spirit of calming ruffled waters. Tony (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, are both parties willing to give that sub-page a rest for a few weeks, as suggested below? This thread is getting old. Tony (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

TL;DR version: This sums up the problem perfectly: This is a "hate"-based personal WP:BATTLEGROUND matter for one editor, who will never, ever drop the stick of their belief that logical quotaion "is British" and "is wrong" for Americans, no matter how often this is disproved by citation to sources showing American publishers and style guides using logical quotation, and British style guides defining various conflicting styles, none of which are actually logical quotation, just superficially similar. All Darkfrog24 ever brings to the table is relentless equating of LQ with British to every audience available (based on nothing but the failure of some American sources to bother to distinguish them), making a bogus ENGVAR case so that Darkfrog24 can do whatever Darkfrog24 wants. This campaign against MOS consensus has been going on for 6.5 years and needs to be ended, with a topic ban. Dick Lyon reverting anti-consensus, polemic PoV and OR in the page in question (before it gets MfDed, which I plan to take care of as soon as possible – it's a WP:NOTHERE problem to have a page devoted to externally sourcing internal documentation instead of sourcing encyclopedia articles) is not comparable to Darkfrog24 editwarring to re-insert their PoV, OR and anti-consensus polemic. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC) Shortened (again). 02:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General response: Ultimately, it simply does not matter whose sourcing regarding off-WP quotation-mark usage is correct (if anyone's) – except in mainspace at Quotation marks in English (which also at present mostly just reflects DF24's views). Being an article, it can be dispute-moderated by the usual ways.

It's an impermissible behavioral problem to spend years pushing a point of view about the matter, tendentiously against consensus, across both projectspace and mainspace. WP has an internal consensus to use LQ for actual reasons, and it doesn't matter which external sources agree with us (though plenty do, [examples elided]).

RGloucester is correct that the editwarring would resume (and not just at that page) after a while, but it would be by DF24 against anyone who disagrees, as the slow-editwar history of MOS:FAQ demonstrates, as does the related pattern of OR-based PoV pushing at the other MOS-related pages, the article in question, and the related Wiktionary articles. Our actual content is being warped to support a personal agenda, and we've been publicly criticized for the nationalistic inaccuracy in the British press.

Direct quote, since Darkfrog24 denies it:
From The Guardian: "Wikipedia, which claims to bat for Britain on this subject, gives the following misleading advice: [quotes the WP article's errors equating logical with British quotation.] Not so. The Guardian would follow the so-called American practice, and I think many British publications would agree with us." [27].

The denialism expressed by DF24 above is symptomatic of the issue with this editor. You see, sources simply do not say what they say if DF24 doesn't want to hear it. It's just a form of OR. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC) Updated with direct quote, 01:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC); shortened, 11:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R to Slimvirgin's comments: 'Three people (with whom I often disagree) post more than I like on another page' isn't an AE rationale for sanctioning multiple parties. The length of the discussions is entirely traceable to the ICANTHEARYOU pattern of the one editor being considered for a topic ban. There is nothing difficult or complicated about 'don't change the punctuation in quoted material'; it is the simplest possible quotation style devisable – just copy and paste – and certainly simpler than the various "British" (not North American) styles (which are often "fiddly"). DF24's 6.5-year campaign to confuse LQ with "British" is the one and only reason for any confusion about how to use LQ, a problem about to be rectified. WP's use of LQ for over 10 years, despite slow-editwar activism and multiple RfCs against it, clearly indicates the consensus for it is stable. Besides, anyone can start another RfC whenever they like. The claim of low compliance was recently disproved by both my and DF24's own statistical analyses [28], and the bulk of the partial-compliance cases are instances of confusion of simple LQ with mutually conflicting British styles. The rest of SV's commentary is non sequitur, and not responsive to the AE request. This page doesn't exist for re-argument against the LQ consensus (and it's all already been addressed many times before, incl. why this is not an ENGVAR matter, how WP always cites a source when directly quoting (that's the source to which LQ would be applied), why "both styles" is a false dichotomy since there are about a dozen styles, etc., etc.). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence: Since there's now discussion here of resolving this with a topic ban, I have gathered in one page much of the evidence I've been working on for an RFARB case to examine Darkfrog24's editing behavior patterns with regard to style matters at MoS pages and in mainspace. Looks like no such time- and effort-wasting case may be necessary. Whether a remedy that only extends to quotation marks will do much good seems dubious to me, as the editor's tendentiousness covers the breadth of the WP:ARBATC "broadly construed" topical space, including in articles. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darkfrog24's diff of me noting that the rationales DF24 demands were already provided (sound familiar?) does not support in any way DF24's claim "SmC has some significant problems with AGF, and not just with me", for which it was supposed to be evidentiary. So, that makes it an unsupported aspersion-casting, per WP:ARBATC#All parties reminded, like the others I diffed already. I suggested a broader-than-quotation-marks topic ban for a reason. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC) Shortened, 00:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer1 states that Darkfrog has not editwarred about this matter in the text of the guideline itself, but my diff page already shows otherwise, just as recently as 09-2015. My diffs skip almost everything from 2009 to 2015, and late 2015 to 2016; I'll be happy[? not really the right word] to diff additional evidence that this is a long-term pattern by DF24 at Wikipedia:Manual of Style itself, if necessary (may need 24 hours or so). Dirtlawyer1 correctly observes that various, mostly American, editors would like to make quotation style and various others be ENGVAR matters. But they are not, for good reasons. ENGVAR was created to forestall disputes like color vs. colour, or people rewriting entire articles to be in Australian instead of Canadian English for no reason, and other matters where WP has no intrinsic reason to prefer one stylistic point over another. This is not the case with LQ, and WP:AE is not the place to "re-legislate" consensus on that matter. Yet another RfC can do that if necessary. A very narrow TB is being considered for DF24 because of the enormously disruptive pattern of sustained activism on this topic, not because of an opinion held by the editor. It's a behavioral matter. And the primary reason that some American editors confuse LQ with "British style" and become irritated seems to be because DF24 has spent so much time and energy sowing this very confusion, agent provacateur style, at MOS itself, at WT:MOS, at MOS:FAQ, at the Quotation marks in English article, at MOS:SUPPORTS, even at Wiktionary. On all other matters – those without a dedicated activist – WP editors adjust with little if any conflict to whatever consensus settles on at MOS (as we would expect; who is not already aware that different publications have house styles, and that we use them when we write for them?), with only rare exceptions like en dashes, date auto-linking, and capitalization of common names of species. British/Commonwealth editors are under no such illusion that LQ is "British". LQ is a style that does not have a national tie (no matter how hard anyone tries to manufacture one), and is used here because it's accurate and simple (no style could be simpler than "don't change the quote"). Consensus may well swing against it some day, but not because someone will fight forever to force it to do so. PS: The diffs already provided clearly demonstrate that it simply isn't the case that DF24 gears up this fight only once a year. It's ongoing and continual, migrating from page to page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin

Darkfrog asked me to comment. The issue at WT:MOS is that it feels as though no one can get a word in, and this seems to be because Dicklyon, Darkfrog and SMcCandlish are highly active there. It's arguably unfair to topic ban only one. I would suggest asking all three to limit the number (and, above all, length) of their posts about any topic there, and to ask Darkfrog not to initiate any discussion of LQ.

It would be helpful to open a well-written RfC about LQ, but as things stand it's likely to be filibustered away. So we persist with a complex, minority punctuation style without knowing whether it has real consensus.

LQ is a complicated style to get right. Almost no one does on Wikipedia, in part because it's fiddly, and in part because you often need access to the original source. Newspaper copy editors don't get it right either. It's particularly difficult with LQ, I would say impossible, for new editors to glean the rule by copying what others have done, whereas it's easy to copy typesetters' style – where punctuation is placed inside quotation marks – and that should be a major factor for us. In my view we should allow both styles, along the lines of STYLEVAR, ENGVAR, CITEVAR and DATEVAR (either strong national ties or first major contributor).

These are the issues that are frustrating Darkfrog. But while I have every sympathy, it's sometimes important to accept that one is raising something ineffectually and that continuing in the same way risks becoming disruptive. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Garagepunk66

Perhaps the best thing to do before instating any kind of ban on an editor perceived as tendentious would be for he or she to make a formal pledge to stay off of this particular topic for "x" amount of time (say for at least a year). From speaking to both Darkfrog24 and SMcCandlish, I can attest that they are both dedicated and conscientious editors, but that they have a very intense disagreement on this issue. I am trying to be neutral, and (surprisingly) I have a friendly rapport with both. Though I expressed the concern that the quotation policy could use some slight modifications (i.e. exceptions in certain prescribed circumstances), I have accepted that the issue has been hotly debated and is very contentious--and that it will get nowhere at this time. So, I have chosen not to further pursue the topic. But, I realize that Darkfrog24 feels that the issue still needs to be challenged. I am not against the idea that the debate could be revisited at a much later time (after all, any policy can be re-evaluated at a later time), but that maybe we have to wait a good long while. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dirtlawyer1

I was not going to participate in this discussion, but I felt the need to speak up as two or three administrators have started to push for a topic ban. The one-sided claims against Darkfrog24 are both exaggerated and unfair. I want to be clear that I take no sides on the silly little edit war between Darkfrog24 and Dicklyon over a mostly meaningless essay; one participant above correctly described this teapot tempest as "lame," and frankly it would have been better ignored by everyone including Darkfrog24, Dicklyon and especially Rich Gloucester.

Darkfrog24 is a long-term and highly productive contributor, who is respected for her usually measured, logical and well-researched comments on a wide variety of MOS-related issues. And the same could be said of both Dicklyon and SMcCandlish (the other chief antagonist on matters of so-called "logical quotation"). This is an issue which divides MOS talk participants about 55/45 in favor of the existing MOS:LQ guideline, and it leaves a strong, if not overwhelming majority of American editors angry and frustrated that MOS forces them to use a convention that they perceive as both unnatural and incorrect from the viewpoint of standard American majority practice. Many American editors believe passionately that Wikipedia articles about American topics written in American English should use the quotation practice which is the overwhelmingly standard practice of 300 million Americans, and Darkfrog has periodically advocated on MOS talk pages for a change in quotation practice to permit American editors to use the majority American practice pursuant to WP:ENGVAR. Dicklyon and SMcCandlish have both advocated equally forcefully to maintain the existing guideline for the mandatory and uniform use of "logical quotation" for all Wikipedia articles, regardless of ENGVAR. Both sides have valid points, but I have often said that MOS works best when it tracks the majority style practices of the real world. In this case it does not track majority practice (at least not for American English), and as a result previously uninvolved American editors show up at MOS talk pages to angrily complain about what they perceive is the imposition of "British punctuation" on articles written in American English.

As far as I can tell, Darkfrog has done absolutely nothing wrong other than periodically raise the issue on MOS talk pages; she has not edit-warred over the wording of the actual guideline, nor has she rewritten Wikipedia article space content in contravention of the existing MOS:LQ guideline. All she has done is advocate for the application of ENGVAR to quotation punctuation -- a position that many of her fellow editors believe is quite right and reasonable. I strongly urge the participating administrators to step back and accept the fact that Darkfrog represents most American editors when this issue is raised, and acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with "blowing off steam" on this topic once a year. Consensus can change, and Darkfrog is giving voice to many of her fellow editors who agree with her and not the existing MOS:LQ guideline. Selectively muzzling Darkfrog with a topic ban comes dangerously close to punishing someone for a having a very widely held point-of-view. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Izno

I was notified of this WP:AE at my talk page by DF24.

Having observed WT:MOS for a while now, it is clear to me that DF24 either needs to drop the stick or start an RFC on WP:LQ. As DF24 has not done the latter in the apparent lengthy frame of time in which DF24 has campaigned against LQ, that leads me to believe that an RFC won't be started in the near or far-term by DF24, making the discussion there more-or-less tendentious (and quite wearying, from my point of view).

A topic ban from punctuation in the context of quotation seems appropriate, at least in the MOS space. I am unsure of a topic ban from punctuation in the context of quotation (or, "quotation marks", I suppose) in all space, is necessary. If such a topic ban were passed, I would be careful to word it such that DF24 may add any new punctuation of quotation in any form he or she desires. --Izno (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog24: You have talked more at length in the past year (singular) than a single RFC to confirm or remove WP:LQ would have allowed for, so I don't buy the reasoning/excuse (though I won't suggest you didn't in good faith believe it to be so). I won't comment here further on any points. --Izno (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dicklyon and Darkfrog24

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

Staggeringly lame. Both should be banned from that and related pages for at least three months. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with JzG. It appears the editors have dug into position here, and are not even pretending to try to find consensus or see the other editor's view. Killer Chihuahua 22:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two comments above were left before the involved editors posted their statements.

Would both editors agree to stay off that subpage for at least a few weeks? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"stalking"? "Handling this just fine"? Stand by Guy's first suggestion. Howsoever, certainly in any event voluntary distance is preferable to sanctions imposed from outside. I'd support either. Killer Chihuahua 19:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If a voluntary agreement to disengage cannot be reached, or if that agreement doesn't end this matter, I think a topic ban from the subject of quotation marks, that would apply in all namespaces, would be justified, probably for both parties. Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear that Darkfrog24 continues to advocate fiercely against MOS:LQ. We should take whatever action appears sufficient to damp down the furor. If that means topic bans for two parties from quotation marks, that is one way to do it. Darkfrog24's comments above appear diplomatic at first glance, but basically they want to be able to continue the advocacy indefinitely and don't see any problem with it. An agreement by both parties to desist would be sufficient, if it were offered. Dicklyon has said he would accept any mutual restriction, so I think it is now up to Darkfrog24 to make a voluntary offer sufficient to forestall a ban. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darkfrog24 has now responded here. This doesn't address the problem, in my opinion. It looks like they are planning to keep on beating the dead horse forever on the topic of logical quotes. A topic ban of at least Darkfrog24 from the topic of quotation marks now appears necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the responses from Darkfrog24 don't evidence understanding of the issue, so I think we do need to impose a topic ban from quotation marks. As for Dicklyon, I am wondering about a suspended topic ban that can be activated by any uninvolved admin if they are involved in any disruption in the topic area in the next 3 (6?) months. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that a topic ban for Darkfrog24 from quotation marks both in project space and article space would be the healthiest solution here. This is clearly an area of extraordinary interest to Darkfrog24, and I don't see any sign of the campaign stopping. --Laser brain (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: I think a topic ban from just quotation marks is all that can really be supported based on this AE section. Hopefully it will send a significant message that they need to stop, but if it does not then either they will be blocked for breach of the topic ban or the disruption will move elsewhere. If the latter happens, then the topic ban can be expanded. If that also fails (and I hope it never gets to that point), then it's more likely that arbcom will take the case with clear evidence that community DR hasn't worked (although I hope it does). Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me that there is a rough consensus for a topic ban from quotation marks here. If nobody objects or has further comments about the scope (e.g disagreeing with my comments immediately above) then I'll enact it in a day or so. Pinging @Newyorkbrad: and @KillerChihuahua: to see if they have comments. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only on Wikipedia could someone be "topic-banned from quotation marks". For how long are you proposing it? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the least onerous sanction I have come across on AE. I wouldn't make it indefinite but then I often underestimate the ferocity of debate over MOS issues. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agreeable to topic ban, voluntary or otherwise. As voluntary doesn't appear at all likely, let us make it otherwise. Indef, appeal after one year? Killer Chihuahua 00:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking this does need to be indefinite (not meaning infinite) as SMcCandlish and others note this has been going on for years already. I was thinking of allowing an appeal after 6 months, but if others prefer 12 I'm not going to object to that. Wording is of course important, and we need to be clear that this is not a ban on using quotation marks, but from discussions about them. So I propose the following:

Darkfrog24 is indefinitely topic banned from articles, discussions, and guidelines, explicitly including the manual of style, related to quotation marks and quotation styles, broadly interpreted. They may use quotes and quotation marks, and edit pages that include them, subject to normal editing rules (e.g. regarding edit warring). This ban may be appealed no sooner than 6 months after it is placed.

Any comments or suggestions? Hopefully it goes without saying that any disruption in other areas will at the very least mean that appeals will not be granted any times soon and will quite likely result in it being broadened. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That wording seems OK to me. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the discussions in histories throughout, as well as ongoing on Laser brain's and my talk pages, I would prefer a year. I'm not inclined to disagree if others feel six months will be sufficient. My concern is that Darkfrog24 appears to me to be trying to find out what he needs to do in order to keep trying to "win" this argument. This is WP:BG and I don't see it being easy to get past. There's a fundamental difference between getting enough time off of something you feel strongly about and personalize so that you can refocus, learn to work with others, moderate your approach, etc - and doing your time so you can get back in the fight. One puppy's opinion. Killer Chihuahua 17:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KillerChihuahua: If this were a finite topic ban you would have completely convinced me that it should be 12 months. As it's just when appeals are allowed, which will not be successful without a change in attitude, I'm going to leave this open a little while longer to see if there are other opinions about the length. If there aren't then I'll place it for 12 months. Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: You have indicated you would abide by a mutual restriction, if you hold yourself to the same restriction proposed above as a voluntary topic ban I don't think there would be any appetite for further action at this time. Is that something you are happy to do? Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BjörnBergman

BjörnBergman is subject to 1RR on Longevity broadly construed. This sanction is valid for a period of 6 months from today Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning BjörnBergman

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Legacypac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Motion:_Longevity_.28August_2015.29 : :

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

[29] Inserts a line about Zhou Youguang turning 110 today, which is fine, until you see his next edits where presumably this edit becomes "unverified". Zhou is a particularly famous person that invented Pinyin, a system credited with increasing Chinese literacy dramatically and making it possible for English etc speakers to pronounce Chinese words.
[30] Undid revision 700167425 by Ricky81682 Remove Zhou Youguang. He is not yet verified. This is a lost of VERIFIED supercentenarians.
[31] Another article - Zhou Youguang is unverified. This list includes VERIFIED supercentenarians.
[32] Undid revision 700171497 by Legacypac (talk) Why should Zhou be included if he is unaccepted by GRG???)
[33] reverts a notification that I reverted his edit with (Revert spam)
[34] reverts User:Ricky81682's cleanup of the lead to preserve the GRG special focus.
[35] reverts another attempt to dialog with him calling my message spam
[36] files a ANi vandalism report against me on longevity.

And in all this fails to engage on their own or any article talkpage they are editing.

[37] reverts oldest people edits without explanation. (added Jan 17 Legacypac (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]
[38] (Undid revision 700313889 by Legacypac (talk) Stop adding Zhou Youguang! He is no validated supercentenarian!)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Jan 16 which they immediately blanked [39] also the DS are mentioned on all the main Longevity talk pages. I recognize that it appears they were not notified on their user page about the DS until just before I filed the report, so if Admins feel that the talk page notices are not enough to cover a topic ban, perhaps appropriate guidance can be given at least.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The refusal to follow WP policy in favor of GRG being the only source of any verified longevity claim, discarding all other sources, make this user problematic in this topic area. We are dealing with pure craziness in this topic like this [40] so it is important to bring editors into policy or remove them from the topic area. Legacypac (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to BabbaQ: No one can put his disregard for policy in his head but himself. I've not looked at his edits outside this topic area as that is of no concern to this matter. The edits are not all against me either. Now we have IPs attacking these articles saying the same stuff as him. See edit history of Zhou Youguang for example. Legacypac (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an adjunct to this report I've filed a 3RR report [41] since the editor has gone beyond 3RR on Oldest people since this report was filed. I chose to do that because it is easier to see 3RR in standard formatting at the 3RR board, but have cross linked here and there. Legacypac (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GreatGreen is topic banned two sections up [42] and should not be commenting here.Legacypac (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [43] (since reverted [44])

Discussion concerning BjörnBergman

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 BjörnBergman

Statement by BabbaQ

Seems like BjörnBergman has gone for the old "baiting" trick. If you consider the overall edits between the two users it is clear to me that BjörnBergman should not even have been reported in the first place. At best this situation should have taken to admins incidents noticeboard or similar. And calling another users edits " pure craziness" as stated above by Legacypac about other users seems to be just the kind of baiting used to start this discussion in the first place. I would suggest that both BjörnBergman and Legacypac should take a cooling-off period and stay out of each others ways. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GreatGreen

There is no need but the problem is these are your own "rules" - if you only accept that SCs being verified can be only 110+ in reality in every list you also have to accept this here. It is one of your own contradicting rules.GreatGreen (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by clpo13

BjörnBergman has reverted on WOP articles multiple times, citing the lack of GRG verification ([45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]). However, they've only participated in the discussion at Talk:Oldest people once ([51]). That discussion, however, was in relation to their unilateral redirection of various pages, such as List of the verified oldest people ([52], [53]), List of oldest living people ([54], [55]), and List of the verified oldest women ([56], [57]). Now, I'm sure there's something to be said about reorganizing these disparate lists, but BjörnBergman did it without discussion and reverted (multiple times) when challenged. The aforementioned talk page comment ([58]) shows that they apparently don't understand why their actions were reverted. Combined with the lack of discussion regarding Zhou Youguang and his inclusion on Oldest people and related pages, I'm forced to concluded that this editor should stay away from longevity articles until they can demonstrate a collaborative mindset to editing this topic. clpo13_(talk) 00:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish (uninvolved except to comment in talk about GRG and undue weight)

I was passing by and took a look at Zhou Youguang. What I see is Bergman adding an age update, then later an anon begins editwarring with comments like "Birth date not verified by the GRG, no truth to it" and deleting all the birth information [59]. There's no demonstration of a connection between these edits. Previous edits (even disputes) elsewhere involving Bergman and a potential WP:UNDUE weight being given to the Gerontology Research Group (which, no, is not the only possible reliable source for birth date information for old people) doesn't automatically mean every edit relating to them in their favor is by Bergman. If there's a suspicion of sock puppetry, try WP:SPS first and get evidence. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning BjörnBergman

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

This is concerning. I'd like to hear from BjörnBergman before making up my mind but at first sight edit warring around an insistence that GRG is the only valid source for claims of longevity is problematic and evidence of a battleground mentality. It is not behaviour that we should encourage in an area subject to arbitration enforcement. Hopefully, the user will be open to a wider perspective on this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BjörnBergman has edited since my comment but not chosen to engage with this report or make any undertakings to work within our existing system. On that basis, it leaves us little choice but to impose some form of sanction. I am imposing a 1RR sanction as the disruption appears to be around edit warring rather than anything else. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TFBCT1

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 TFBCT1

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: TFBCT1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Motion:_Longevity_.28August_2015.29 :

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

There is a talk page discussion at the oldest living people talk page about whether to include Zhou Youguang as a supercentenarian (there's argument at Zhou's talk page that, since the GRG hasn't verified his age, his birth date should be removed there regardless of the other sources we have). There's a separate discussion below about the lede and the criteria. Rather than communicate in any way, TFBCT1 first rewrote the definition of the page so that it requires GRG approval and then in the Zhou section and not the lede section posted that he had changed the meaning to the oldest people page and QED Zhou doesn't count (first talk page comment since September 2011). I noted that it was a lowball way to win the point and it is disruptive. He was pinged to comment rather than revert but has yet to comment or discuss this any further.
Reverted again to state that "notability and sourcing have nothing to do with longevity research."
Reverted again to mirror the oldest people page (which has much worse problems with edit warring), still no attempt to engage on the talk page.
The editor's history is almost always consistently of nothing more than "updating" longevity tables. Note that these updates change the names and rankings of people include the additional of new people without sources and don't show any changes to the GRG citation which is the source so it's actually more difficult to verify what the actual source is for these changes. See 1, 2, 3 (still allegedly citing the September 2015 version), removing a claim which I presume in limbo (whatever that means), etc., etc.

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

Notified about sanctions here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Apologies for another longevity enforcement request but TFBCT1's refusal to engage in any discussion and game-playing to redefine the criteria so that only the GRG's list is counted is par for the course with these proponents. Even if the editor was in good faith supporting the logic that we await approval from another "super source" beyond our regular sourcing requirements so that someone can be added to the tables, their refusal to discuss it in the actual lede discussion in favor of changing the lede and the criteria specifically to exclude a claim (while arguing that we should focus on "longevity research" as opposed to our sourcing requirements) is frustrating. I've started an RFC at Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people#RfC:_How_should_we_word_the_lede.3F and I fully expect that none of the GRG proponents will ever comment at the RFC and will just revert and revert to get what they want as they have done for a decade. This disruption is spreading to other biographies until the insane delusion that the only source we can have the moment someone reaches age 110 is the GRG and that everything else must go out the window. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz The edit war has stopped because I and anyone else didn't continue. If you look at the RFC, there's zero support for the version that TFBCT1 put there. Are we just waiting for the RFC to get closed and enacted with someone else and then we'll see if TFBCT1 has changed? Should I just change it now and see if he responds? He's clearly not going to comment on the talk page or justify his version (neither have the other supporters of that theory). What about the complete refusal to communicate beyond the simple "I've changed it to a version that I and I alone support, one that is against all polices here" after years of editing in this topic? Since then, he's continued with his "table updates" moving names around with no changes in sourcing or any explanation at all and also an edit to add a cite needed to Zhou's claim on the Asian supercentenarians (the exact same person who he's removed and fought to remove from the oldest people page). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the small chance that TFBCT1 isn't just going to get to continue on, I note that while he's advocated for this "international bodies" requirement for living people to exclude Zhou, he has no issue reporting people's alleged death dates here based on clearly non-reliable sources such as dignitymemorial posts. Clearly he doesn't care at all about actual reliability of sources (or to even dignify us with a response here) but only about keeping out the non-GRG-approved claims. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning TFBCT1

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 TFBCT1

I made good faith edits to what I thought were standards that have been in place in the longevity section for over a decade. When things changed through consensus; I stopped my edits. My change to the lead in the List of oldest Living People was nothing more than copying and pasting the lead to the List of the Oldest People. I have been updating the longevity tables daily for over a decade- they need to be done manually. There was no ill will on my part in any respect.TFBCT1 17:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by clpo13

The lack of discussion by TFBCT1 is concerning. They've only made a single talk page comment in over four years ([60], [61]). I pinged them to a discussion on Talk:List of oldest living people regarding the lead of that article, but they haven't chimed in beyond the diff I linked. They have, however, continued to revert to their preferred version of the article. clpo13_(talk) 23:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Legacypac

Reverts User:Calton who notes GRG does not set wikipedia standards [62] with "no consensus for this edit as per below."

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TFBCT1

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

Minded to close this in favour of the demand that the edit war on Oldest people stops. I'm inclined to dishing out 1RR restrictions rather than topic bans for this revert war but can be persuaded to desist in exhange for a commitment to start talking. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary of this edit by TFBCT1 seems to make Ricky's point, that this editor considers GRG the only adequate source. "Notability and sourcing do not deal with longevity research". By saying this he appears to be contradicting WP:V. How about we propose a topic ban here, and notify the editor. Give him a chance to explain how he will avoid the problem in the future. If he continues with his practice of never responding on talk pages or noticeboards, that will make our decision simpler. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @TFBCT1: Please can you comment on Ed's question about how you intend to edit these articles on an ongoing basis? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mystery Wolff

NOTE: Because of items brought up newly within the Meta Discussion, and discussion on with which group reviews the item, this is moved to the A/R/E board, intact. Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user: Mystery Wolff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=698914028#Mystery_Wolff

Indefinite Topic ban from the subject of Electronic Cigarettes, imposed at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement%2FArchive187&type=revision&diff=699532847&oldid=699532827, logged at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2016 -->

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

Notification of that administrator: Done here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Your_noticing_of_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

Statement by Mystery Wolff

EdJohnston is an editor whom I interacted with, and was involved with my editing. He asked that I respond to sockpuppet assertions on the TALK pages, which he ultimately used as part of his justification to ban me indefinitely. He was involved with another AE opened on me that was rescinded, and was the person who suggested as the first measure of any sanction or warning to me that I be topic banned for 6 months.

I was not part of the ARB that created the Discretionary Sanctions, however an involved editor to the ARB requested that an Alert be posted to my Talk page.
Prior to the first AE, and the continuation AE posted above I have not had any sanctions or edit warring notices, or any other formalized process violations.
Other editors who were part of the ARB (CFCF) have been brought into the AE, and been given warnings. However in my Case, EdJohnston asked for a 6 month ban of me, as an involved Admin, and that recommendation skewed and controlled the output of the AE.
The ARB decision provided that : "Enforcement of restrictions Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
EdJohnston sought and got sanctions against me that far outstripped the guides of the ARB. This was the ARB that EdJohnston as an involved Admin, said he was enforcing, however the enforcing is not using the ARB as a template. It reflects that EdJohnston is NOT assuming good faith, NOT avoiding biting genuine newcomers and NOT allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom.
EdJohnston posioned the well, when he assumed me to be a sockpuppet, in TALK, before the first AE, and before he recommended I be banned for 6 times the amount of time provided for by the AE.
This AE in question is highly unusual. It surrounds edits where I warned the editor reverting me to not engage in Edit Warring. My edits were then reverted by a known SPA indentified in the ARB, who was discovered and banned by DeltaQuad.
The AE surrounds a state where the AE was pointing to edits that were already reverted out, and all the pages were operating without issue.
The AE here in question should have been closed with no action taken. My edits were already out, and I was actively using the TALK pages to resolve the issues where it was a dispute of MEDRS quoting within articles.
More editors than not, had already said on TALK they agreed with my edits which were reverted out.
Multiple long term editors of the pages, tag teamed to have me removed. S Marshall has made many personal remarks about my editorship, something he had been previously been warned about. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:S_Marshall#Mystery_Wolff
AlbinoFerret began intimidating me here, before he opened the AE https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spartaz&oldid=698086939#Do_I_need_to_open_a_new_AE_section.3F
I wrote on the Talk page of EdJohnston about his INVOLVED Administorship regarding me and this specific topic here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&oldid=698583165#Egregious_use_of_Admin_privileges.2C_and_your_involved_commentary_pretensed_as_.22Uninvolved_input.22
EdJohnston has refused to give me any insight to what actions I was taking that cause him to suggest first, and then him to judge me at the AE. Here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Your_noticing_of_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction
This AE stayed open with me editing, and contributing for days and days, up to the point where EdJohnston came back to something he was involved with, and pushed for an indefinite ban.
No other editors of the pages involved with, MADE ANY REMARKS, on the AE. Again, I was editing properly and using TALK, and my edits were reverted out, and I was not edit warring....YET, EdJohnston pushes for an indefinite ban, premised upon his own actions. It is entirely circular and looks like bias.

Bottomline The AE has most of the information. The AE was created by an editor who wants me to not edit. I should be afford the opportunity to work properly and edit properly without having other editors act as owners of the article. I do not believe I should have been sanctioned at all. I was editing correctly. And I was using the Talk pages. The indefinite ban is overkill, by any measure and reflects the biases and true "involvement" with EdJohnston with this case. He recommendations poisoned the well with the other admins. The ARB he is enforcing does not specify that the first saunction would be a 6 month ban. In fact it says it should not exceed 30 days. I was not part of the original ARB, but its subsequent enforcement to other editors are nothing near what EdJohnston has pushed on me. EdJohnston has refused to point out my edits in a question. Long term sockpuppets were interacting with my edits, with no investigation by EdJohnston to why. His mind was made up
This should be reversed. And at a very minimum the TB should not exceed the bounds of the ARB, and go beyond 30 days. Without keeping to process, Wikipedia becomes a boys club where newbies are pushed out, without the means to appeal with any significance, or to just make the process of appealing be beyond that of anyone wanting to contribute.
This has been tremendously frustrating, I am able to answer questions asked here. Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to @Ivanvector:: I do not believe this is cut and dry at all, and that is part of the problem, it takes more investigation to understand the context of what is operating. Specifically, the many edits that I did, that were uncontested and remain in the articles are not being given any weight by your remarks. I also did not "earn a topic ban" previously. Spartaz, stated that it was done in error, and apologized, and rescinded the TB. It was not lifted, it was expunged...yes it is a factor here because the same editor who began that, because I was requesting Full Protection of the article. It is a factor because AlbinoFerret, who opened the first AE went over to Spartaz TALK and started lobbying the closing Admin that another AE should be opened on me, and then ultimately did.
I did not refuse help, I did not ignore advice, and the 2nd AE was not for the same behavior as the first. The 2nd AE relates to the pages, where my edits were reverted, they remained out, I continued to edit without any events, and there was an ongoing TALK discussion about the nature of the edits and how they related to WP:MEDRS Doc James said he would review the this AE, that was communicated, however the AE was closed before that could happen. Why it needed to be closed before any other involved editor could speak to the issue is also unknown.
The edits in question of the AE, had more support for being in the article than being out of the article by the editors on TALK, saying that I am disruptive, is without any reference. That exact type of broad-stroke without specificity is part of the what I am asking for examination within this appeal.
Sanctions are not to be used as constructive criticism. That is not WP policy. There are ample avenues of dispute resolution. My edits were in good faith, and they largely remain in the articles to this day.
Whether or not it is your view, my view is people should contribute to where they have subject matter expertise, and that was my choice.
When you say that Electronic Cigarettes is "a topic that happens to be one of our most volatile and unstable." That should give you pause, and you should reflect to why that is the case. The nature of the article predates me. I edited well. I was reverted out, by a SOCKPUPPET who was banned. This is what AlbinoFerret noticed on Spartaz's talk page when canvassing that to begin another AE on me. However the AE was created on a different topic after the SOCKPUPPET who was part of the ARB was removed. The first AE was created because I was requesting for a Full Protection with moving in of consensus edits out from talk, by an Admin. That was me trying to solve a long standing issue.
This is a complex appeal. Because it its contained in a small amount of time it can be useful as a case study of what processes are going wrong. The Topic Ban of me, only rewarded the very same tactics which you are saying contribute to the unstable article. Again Ivanvector, regardless of your stance, this is not cut and dry. I relates to how MEDRS is used in items that are not are medical for only parts of their content, and relates to primary vs secondary sources, which are complex, and Topic Banning the editor who is attempting to resolve them, only leaves a status quo, which you consider "most volatile and unstable"
The nature of a collaborative editing project, requires that rules be in place, and that admins, monitor those rules. It means that editors who are familar with the AE and asking for saunctions should not use those skills to do and end-around of the normal dispute resolution processes.
Ultimately Ivanvector, I believe you should look at my edits, the ones still in place, the TALK pages where I was discussing those edits. I asked L235, to place the Discretionary Sanctions warning badge on the page itself, which they did. That is not the actions of someone trying to game or do anything but edit the articles properly. Which my edits were in fact doing.
Please look at the AE and the 8 differences, and the my responses, those are not the stuff of a 6 month Topic Ban.
Lastly, the ARB did not call out for 6 month topic bans as reasonable. In fact the ARB said a one month TB should not be exceeded. WP needs to stay with process over convenience, as without adherence to the guidelines the process and content will fail. Mystery Wolff (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz: I followed the template instructions and moved out you Statement, from the section only to be used by the closing Admin. The template and process instructions, said that other comments are to be moved to the correct sections. To your specific question, its contained in several spots including the very AE itself. Did you read my responses to EdJohnston in the AE the appeal is about? To delineate it further it will take time, to find more of the differences in your request, which I will do as soon as time provides me.

Procedural note:In reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Enforcement I believe the nature of this appeal is asking for a peer review. As you were involved in this AE, and EdJohnston cited you in his commendation, prior to your responses within the AE...Would I be correct in thinking that this appeal, is to be done by Admins who were not participants in the AE in question? Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Hi, you edited the template bottom section which had text This section is to be edited by the closing administrator only. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above., and changed it to "uninvolved administrators". I used the template that filled the text, and it placed in "closing administrator", I have not been able to replicate the problem with the template, but I suspect it had something to do with the AN board it was changed to. There is a glitch somewhere. I seem to be able to QC test stuff just by my nature...but I wanted to mention why that text was found, and used, and why I moved out text per the instructions. Mystery Wolff (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz:

Directly above I explain (as best able) why the text --- was inserted into this appeal. It was done by the template itself.
Yes, I have read [63]. I raised those very same concerns to EdJohnston during this AE here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&oldid=698608937#Egregious_use_of_Admin_privileges.2C_and_your_involved_commentary_pretensed_as_.22Uninvolved_input.22} He never responded.
The first AE was struck (rescinded) and was for entirely different items to boot. I was accused of being a Sockpuppet, and it was asserted that I was personalizing on TALK pages. Neither of these are part of the 8 items listed on this AE. During the first AE, I made it clear that my prior interactions with EdJohnston, gave him such a bias, and that bias was manifested in his suggestion of 6 months ban instead of a warning, instead of any number of other options. It was unfair because I was treated as sockpuppet for matters I had nothing to do with.
I am not solely raising EdJohnston's involved status as my rationale to why the topic ban is grossly excessive and improper. I have listed 16 items above. I cite the actual AE and the other links above. It is my believe that the only fair appraisal for an appeal is with Admins who have taken the time to read them. The banhammer is being used as the only tool, and that is not right. Admins need to balance the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom...Explain their enforcement actions; Not issue a grossly disproportionate sanction; nor to enforce discretionary sanctions beyond their reasonable scope.
Spartaz, the nature of this appeal is to have a peer review of the Topic Ban. I asked you a question whether or not you intended to participate in the Appeals process, because you questions to me here are advocacy of a position. I believe the right to appeal an AE decision is the right to have fresh eyes look at the outcome. Much like in law, the appeals process is a different set of judges. Administrators may not adjudicate their own actions at any appeal though they are encouraged to provide statements and comments to assist in reaching a determination. I believe you interactions here now go beyond making statements and comments....you are quizzing me and questioning me, and challenging through questions. That is adjudicating, that is not offering a comment. Its a problem. And it is poisoning the process, it does not give me an appeal per process. It is simply not fair, buy the rules of the appeal.
CFCF was part of the ARB, and was sanctioned by it. AlbinoFerret opened an AE on him also, just like the 2 he did to me. Why is it that CFCF gets a warning, and I without any previous history or sanctions, gets a indefinate topic ban? How is this fair? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive186#CFCF
In AlbinoFerret's AE on CFCF -- AlexBrn points out this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive880#Proposed_topic_ban_for_AlbinoFerret AlbinoFerret threatened me with BOOMERANGs in the past, and I hate the entire concept because I think its WikiInsider Gaming.....but I should expect that the AlbinoFerret who has opened 3 AEs on Electronic Cigarettes should be at least examined. I would suggest he has taken battlegrounding to a new art form after he volentarily left these articles for 6 months. I would suggest that none of the 8 differences he listed in the AE raise to the leave of Topic Ban. I was reverted out of the article, and taking the discussion to TALK. I was working with the other editors.
Again Spartaz, I have listed out where EdJohnston had me explain why I was not a sockpuppet in the article talk. He also suggested the idea of a Full Protection. He complained that I asked the AE to take that up. He started off with a 6 month ban, which exceeds the ARB. I will ask ARCA for clarification of that.
The appeal needs to have a full examination. It can not just be "oh he is protesting and appealing the TB, I don't have time to read what he is saying....I don't have time to read number 13 in first list. And someone should have read the 8 differences and my 8 responses in the AE itself. Because there are systemic problems certainly larger than myself....I think the entire matter should be pushed into a new formal ARB process. Because banning me indefinitely does not touch the core, and its not proper too. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Role_of_administrators Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Responses by Mystery Wolff

@All. I am simply looking for a fair appeals process of the decision by EdJohnston to enact a recommendation he first suggested to indefinitely Topic Ban me. AlbinoFerret has opened up three AE requests on the Electronic Cigarettes, and is no interjecting in the appeal. I do not believe this is proper, it certainly is out of the norm for appeals. Spartaz who was a participant in the AE in question, is now interjecting in the appeal. The process as defined says that a person subject to a TB can either ask the Admin to change the decision, or to ask for an appeal. I believe ARCA needs to clarify both of these items, and that should be done Before, this is closed If necessary this Appeal should be paused to get that information back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment
A 3rd discreet and defined question which I have already raised here, which I will ask the ARCA, is that the AE went beyond Arbcom, by 6 times. Specifically the Arbcom stated. "Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year." EdJohnston needs to use the formed and agreed process, and explain his rationale.
As all other avenues of dispute resolution were bypassed by AlbinoFerret, and he canvassed Spartaz TALK page only to have a Sockpuppet from the Arbcom, discovered banned and reverted by @DeltaQuad:. The Arbcom talks about "Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;" which the AE should have examined as part of the evaluation of the Requester AlbinoFerret, which is simarly done with 3RR requests. The AE process fails if that reciprocity check is not completed. I believe it is entirely germane to the appeal to get a determination if Arbcom are intended to displace ALL other avenues of dispute resolution. The AE in question, does not raise edit warring, or point to disruptive TALK. It points only to my edits which were reverted out, and a TALK discussion on the merits of the edits. In other words the AE was opened prematurely, and the Recommendations by EdJohnston is dramatically over what the Arbcom stated [64] ARCA should respond to all of these before closure of this appeal.
One of the things that EdJohnston did, was to close out the AE before an involved editor @Doc James: could review. Doc James was a good set of eye to look at this because the entire set of edits were Primary Source and 2ndary sources of MEDRS items. The Talk on the pages that I was conducting was asking for a RFC on MEDRS in not drug categories. This is important. I believe that that effort will sadly be abandoned now, however I was working with @Kingsindian: to set up the RFC.
@Spartaz: My appeal states my understanding of Involved. I have responded to you, see: #2 above, where I say YES, link to what I have read. Spartaz, I asked you a process question, will this appeal be determined by the same people who determined the AE outcome, if so that would make this a request for reconsideration, which is different than an appeal. When you say "I am not involved either", I do believe you have a strong view of support for the AE decision, and EdJohnston closing it, and whether he is involved.
@SMcCandlish: You are posting in an uninvolved editor section. Within a week of my editing beginning, you asserted I was a sockpuppet and requested to @Lankiveil: that the Alert be posted on my Talk page, and @L235: did the follow-through. That assumption of bad faith was then continued by EdJohnston taking a remarkably similar template and posting it to the TALK page, where I had to publicly explain myself and that I was not a sockpuppet before all the editors in TALK. Its why EdJohnston is involved, and I certainly would expect you to know your position on my editorship. There are sections for involved editors, I am simply trying to have a fair Appeals process. Thank you. I share you concerns that the appeal process is not being discarded without review. EdJohnston has not responded here, he has not responded on this Talk page with any specificity. Rules for Admins and this process require otherwise. I ask you let EdJohnston oblige himself to the agreed process for an appeal. Its is literally why a requirement is that I post to his TALK page and then come back to the the Appeal and show he has been notified.
@Roger Davies: The substance of the appeal is several fold. EdJohnston is involved, if you do not agree, there are still the remaining items on the Arbcom stating starting with 30 days, and EdJohnston using some unknown process of starting with 180 days instead. EdJohnston accused me of being a sockpuppet in the Talk pages, and I had to respond if I wanted a level playing field. If you read the above you see the differences. Yes that is out of bounds to process and gives the appearance of involvement at the least. Roger: If you look at the 8 items listed as Diff in the AE I am appealing....I would like to know what you feel justifies what EdJohnston has pushed out of an indefinite ban.
@Ricky81682: Ricky, The Appeals template has not even been filled out yet. It is too soon to close it. @EdJohnston:has not replied. Ed represented in the AE he did not interact with me in TALK before the AE. That is not factual. I know it, and he knows it. His recommendation for a indefinite ban is far in excess of the items listed out in the AE. I have asked EdJohnston for specificity and he has refused with only WP anachronism boilerplate, without connection to any part of the AE. And Yes, ARCA needs to clarify some items also. I am existing in a Topic Ban right now. I think you can agree there is no pressure or need to rush a close.
@Onel5969: I am Appealing the process and the actual decision, by which I was Topic Banned. Beyond EdJohnston being an involved Administrator. EdJohnson stated after 6 months I can ask for a change of terms. This Appeal is not that is not that. I take major exception to your remark "MW's actions since the ban, in my mind, simply reinforce the correctness of the ban." My actions have been to Appeal the decision. To suggest the act of appeal a decision, is justification for the decision, is circular logic, and its just wrong on a fairness level. Onel5969, I have the right to Appeal, and EdJohnston stated the same. Onel5969, if you read the 8 Diffs in the AE, and my responses, which of those makes for an indefinate topic ban. I have not even ever been brought up for edit-warring to a noticeboard, nor have I edit warred, or have I even been accused of bias. Tossing around that I am disruptive by my mere existence of editing is simply disparagingly wrong. Onel5969, how do you come to indefinite as the term. Please note I have not been sanction prior to this AE. (Spartaz rescinded and apologized and struck out the first AE, which was on different topics.
As stated above I need to ask ARCA for clarification on 3 items. I am not editing, there is no time pressure....and EdJohnston has not yet even responded, to the substance of the Appeal, which is not solely based on his prior involvement and assertions upon me in the pages TALK. Please do not close until those 4 items are returned. Thank you. Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA request for Clarification Opened Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_https:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FWikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FEditor_conduct_in_e-cigs_articles.23Final_decision. The are stated generically. The response should help Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

Other admins have already made the observations that I could have added here. A search of the AE archives would give you any necessary background. EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlbinoFerret

As far as EdJohnston, he is not involved. The only edits to the articles were as an uninvolved admin to the talk page and suggested ways that the editors could solve issues (more discussion, RFC, AE, etc). He to my knowledge has never edited any electronic cigarette article, nor voiced any opinions on content on any talk page. Per WP:INVOLVED he is not involved. AlbinoFerret 23:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out WP:ASPERSIONS. So far none of the claims of Mystery Wolff have been proved. Also the 500 word limit has long been passed by him. AlbinoFerret 13:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Mystery Wolff: You are incorrect in your understanding of what happened regarding the text of the instructions for the bottom section:

You filed this appeal at AN by copying the AE appeal form over there
The AE appeal form has the instructions in the final section "This section is to be edited by the uninvolved administrators only", because that section is where the appeal is decided on AE, by uninvolved admins
I determined that AE appeals handled at AN are decided by a consensus of the uninvolved editors discussing it, and not by a consensus of the uninvolved administrators
Because of this, I changed the wording of the instructions on the final section to be "This section is to be edited by the closing administrator only" (emphasis added), since the previous instruction was no longer applicable
You decided to move your appeal from AN to AE, and did so by copying the text of the AN appeal here
In doing so, you copied the "closing administrator only" text
Since that text is not applicable to AE-based appeals, I changed it back to the normal instruction "This section is to be edited by the uninvolved administrators only".

I hope that clears up the issue for you. BMK (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Mystery Wolff

Oppose ~~unblock~~ lifting of sanction - well, I think it's pretty cut-and-dry here. Mystery Wolff already earned a topic ban from e-cigs for this behaviour, was fortunate enough to have had it lifted when several users offered help and advice, refused the help and ignored the advice, and was then topic banned again for the same behaviour. All in the course of not much more than a month. The sanction imposed by EdJohnston is extremely reasonable: MW's inexperienced enthusiasm is clearly disruptive in this topic area, but they very well may become a highly productive editor if they "learn the ropes" in less difficult environments over the next six months. @Mystery Wolff: take the sanction imposed here as constructive criticism. We want you to stick around and help build this wonderful project, but unfortunately you started out in a topic that happens to be one of our most volatile and unstable. Listen to the advice that experienced editors offer you, show that you can participate and collaborate in other topics, and I guarantee that you'll be welcomed back after six months. That's how it goes. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC) thanks William M. Connolley for clarifying my comment Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: I responded in this section when this was originally posted at WP:AN. There is some meta-discussion collapsed above regarding who should comment, as ArbCom's procedures give slightly different rules for appeals posted at AE versus those posted at AN (which seems to be a weakness of the process). Mystery Wolff having moved the entire appeal thread to this board seems to render my comment out-of-process; whoever reviews this can decide if my comments may be accepted or not. Ping me if required, please. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In both modes -- AE-based appeal and AN-based appeal -- this section (i.e. "Discussion among uninvolved editors") exists, so your comment should not be considered "out of process". BMK (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose lifting of sanctions - I'm about as an uninterested an editor in this discussion as you're likely to find, having absolutely no interaction with MW and no involvement on the page in question which prompted their ban. I find nothing wrong with Ed's topic ban. I'm not going to address the voluminous comments made above, other to say that while some good edits may have been made, that does not excuse other bad behavior. Disruptive editing takes away time that editors could be using to make constructive improvements to the site. I also don't have an issue with the length of time regarding eligibility for an appeal. The fact that less than two weeks has passed does not bode well in MW's defense. It also does not bode well in MW's defense he has not taken the suggestion and added a single other edit in different subject matter. While folks on here do have their areas which they enjoy editing in, when someone's editing in a certain area has become problematic, they really do need to attempt to show that they are willing to learn, and willing to work for the good of the project. MW's actions since the ban, in my mind, simply reinforce the correctness of the ban. I would strongly suggest they take Ivanvector's advice above. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One and only response to your reply. Never said you didn't have the right to appeal. Your lack of good judgement in doing so is simply a continuation of your lack of judgement which led to the ban in the first place. And that's all I'll have to say regarding this topic. If there was a scintilla of hesitation on my part about commenting earlier to keep the sanctions, they are totally gone now. You really need to listen to other editors and take their advice. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request: @Mystery Wolff:: Can you completely drop the "involved" claims and all other finger-pointing, and concisely get at what the other bases, if any, are for your request? I believe they're all being discarded because of you dwelling on the "involved" claims and trying to make the admin look like a bad guy, instead of addressing a) why you should be un-restricted (i.e., in what ways your behavior will change and your approach has changed), and b) why the restriction wasn't appropriate, if it wasn't, in the first place, aside from the claims no one is buying. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response to your reply: I don't recall accusing you of being a sock puppet. Raising the question is not an accusation. I also don't care if my comment here is moved to the "involved" section. I was not involved in the decision to restrict your edits, and I was asking openly for you to qualify your position to be better understood and thus have a chance of not being rejected out of hand (I've been railroaded/dogpiled here myself, back in the day (by an admin who actually was involved), so I understand what that's like). But go ahead and "moon the jury" if you like. Doesn't seem like a very useful response to me, though. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request:SMcCandlish, Raising the question, questioning "as if" and accusation in my thesaurus are all synonyms. I am referring to this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=693024964#E-cigs which is the same assertions or if you need, publicly questioning of me in the Talk pages. I absolutely reject your personalization of me mooning anyone...it's false. Please assume good faith upon me, because I am faced with what I regard as a very unfair first sanction, as indefinite Ban. Please look at the 8 differences in the AE which is being appealed. Judge me not on your speculation I am sockpuppet, but rather on the specific edits in question. I would like your feedback on the 8 differences. Mystery Wolff (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Mystery Wolff

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

I'm not following the argument that Ed was involved. please can you provide diffs of the exact edits that you think make him involved. Have you read WP:INVOLVED? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have restored my comment to the correct location. I am not involved either as I have only dealt with you in an administrative capacity. I repeat my question - have you read WP:INVOLVED? What specific edits of Ed's made him involved according to that policy? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - MysteryWolff. the actions you describe do not make him involved. They are administrative actions and therefore not in the editor role. You did read INVOLVED? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the involved issue either. I have had no involvement at all in the area, plus two other admins agreed with the proposal. If the only issue is the admin who closed it, I'd close it the same way. Six months is very reasonable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the later comments, I find the belief that a topic ban constitutes an actual ban concerning and reflective of the need for such a ban. Mystery Wolff, you would still be able to edit anything that isn't related to the topic. If you literally have no other interest here than that topic and editing to push for that topic the way you want, then maybe this isn't the place for you. I think we can closed this appeal. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment, quit WP:WIKILAWYERing this issue. The template is sufficient to make an analysis and your technical arguments do not help your cause. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Ed is not involved and I'm not seeing much else of much substance to this appeal. Roger Davies ^talk 16:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Jack

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 Canada Jack

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Motion:_Longevity_.28August_2015.29 :

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

Editing to restore the "original edit" which I point out is wrong.
The discussions at Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people are largely self-explanatory. The issue is whether reliable sources should determine who should be listed on the page or some other terminology: the phrasing now is "international body that specifically deals in longevity research" but without identifying the GRG as the only actual source in play.
The "no one has 'verified' the age" versus newspapers alleging "reporting" the age (I don't even know anymore) arguing continues here
To determine which bodies are said international longevity researching specific-whatever, "We observe what news sources use" so arguing newspapers are unreliable as a source other than to parrot the GRG as a source.
"Nice try, Ricky. NONE of the sources outside of GRG / Guinness claim that these birthdates are "verified"... unless GRG/Guinness has verified them!" which is false.
"I never said they were the sole authorities, but media around the world use those two almost exclusively, so we should as well, that's all"
It's the oldest living people, yet Canada Jack derails the discussion by repeating arguing about the insertion of Methusalah's age knowing full well that's irrelevant, but calling it the logical consequence and the can of worms opened by the lede saying "reliable sources" alone. The section needs an outside admin to just collapse it.
Canada Jack has been derailing the discussion by pointing to this article in the Canada Star.[65] While never advocating for her inclusion, (a WP:NOTFORUM problem), he's repeatedly referencing it including just to make snipes on other discussions going on.
" This page is for verified claims. The fact a claim was published doesn't establish its veracity."
As noted above, there is an argument about the birthdate for Zhou Youguang (not a claim, just that little fact). The only way Canada Jack sees this is "His claim is accepted on its face by the media. But... there is no mention of Guinness and/or GRG as having verified the claim" in regards to his birthdate. As discussed before, no one cares a cent about this until Zhou turned 110 and then there's arguments everywhere that his birthdate must be removed until it's verified by the GRG or else there exists the possibility that Wikipedia is claiming that a supercentenarian exists that the GRG hasn't identified which I don't know why that matters.
Finally, to summarize this mentality, "Are you seriously trying to claim that it is the Toronto Star which has determined that the proof is "not solid enough" instead of Guinness? That the Toronto Star, not Guinness, bestows the crown of "world's oldest person"? C'mon, Ricky, surely you can do better than that!"

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

The talk pages each notify the editor of the discretionary sanctions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is the typical parade of horribles and chaos caused whenever there is an ounce of push-back to even debating the language that doesn't explicitly or implicitly treat the GRG as the last word on the birth date of very old people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response, I first note that if Canada Jack knew he was wrong, the proper thing is to restore the correct version, not to ignore it until called out here but it's been changed again which doesn't matter with the RFC ongoing. I note that this is again a single issue: is List of oldest living people going to continue to be a walled garden that expresses a particular WP:POV about who is allegedly the world's oldest people or not? Our sourcing policy is clear: we are to have a single WP:NPOV everywhere and a single standard for WP:RS. The analogous WP:MEDRS either believes a fact or strips it away entirely; it does not create separate articles with different sourcing standards. Canada Jack's refusal to accept that is precisely the type of antics that brought about the original longevity ARBCOM case. There is literally nothing in his arguments that hasn't been argued for over a decade. Either we should report on Zhou's birthdate as a fact on his biography, put him in the relevant category, and put him in the (all the) relevant articles (which admittedly the oldest living people is not) or we treat that fact as a WP:FRINGE theory and ignore it entirely. The amount of inane arguing over an article that literally no one supports or has even thought to include longevity claims shows the level of hysteria over any pushback that does nothing but drive away all but the most hardened of editors here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning Canada Jack

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 Canada Jack

My reading of the "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" is that it was determined that verified super-centenarian lists from the GRG were considered a "reliable source," and that the non-yet verified lists (Table EE from GRG) were not a "reliable source." However, what we are talking about here is not whether GRG or Table EE is or isn't a RS, it's whether news media reports on longevity claims of those over 110 years old can be used on the "oldest living people" page, if these "reliable sources" suffice to be being included with claims which have been verified by GRG etc., the particular discussion on what the lede should say. The contention here from me and others is the only a recognized authority on verifying these claims should be used in considering these claims "verified," and that news organizations, while "reliable sources," are not able to properly assess these claims, no more than a newspaper, even the New York Times, would publish, say, the latest cancer claims without consulting oncology experts who could better assess and put into context such claims. As Guinness World Records oft stated: "No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood, and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity," hence the need for a rigorous, more scientific approach in assessing claims. Many news organizations recognize the expertise Guinness and the GRG have on this subject as they are cited, from publications around the world, as having "verified" particular claims. I could supply literally hundreds of examples from around the world of them being cited as authorities.

In attempting to change the lede to allow "verification" from news sources, thus removing the need for sole GRG/Guinness verification, a can of worms is opened, which is what the thrust of the discussion here was. I pointed out that by their own criteria of "reliable sources," dubious claims like that of a woman in Canada who will soon turn 120, would warrant inclusion on this page, thus destroying the credibility of Wikipedia. She would be the oldest person in the world. (News sources, citing Guinness/GRG, routinely identify a woman in New York, at 116, as the world's oldest.) I was never seriously proposing to include her on the page, I was using their own criteria to point out that a highly dubious claim would be admissible, and therefore their changes would be detrimental. This approach from Ricky and others are nakedly anti-GRG, those who argue as I do are routinely painted as shills for GRG, a tone I personally find perplexing - it's as if the approach here is to "get back" at GRG, for some undefined reason.

In sum: There should be no sanction/remedy as I have not engaged in discussion on the subjects for which a sanction/remedy is warranted. And, therefore, discussions on whether non-GRG sources should be considered for inclusion is a topic for which there are no restrictions.

As for his DIFFs...

1 was a good-faith edit, I reverted an edit to what I thought was the original edit as a discussion (the one I refer to) was on-going. He pointed out the error, and I made no further edit. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

2 discussions are on the subject Ricky (I believe it was him) initiated. If I am violating something for engaging in discussion, then surely Ricky, who initiated it, is too. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

3 Debating verification is not prohibited - the original decision was the one mentioned above - I'm not challenging GRG as a reliable source; I'm not arguing that GRG's Table EE is a reliable source.

4 He has made a what I consider to be an invalid line of reasoning, making a strawman argument by dismissing an argument I never made. Specifically, that if newspapers are "unreliable" as he claims I am suggesting, then how we can rely on them when they cite GRG/Guinness? But I've never argued the newspapers are "unreliable," just that they are not experts on the subject. Using his logic, if the New York Times cites a cancer expert, we can't say that that person, no matter his/her credentials, is an "expert" as the New York Times is not expert in the subject. I don't buy that line of reasoning, and that was not what I was saying. And, I never suggested we can only verify if cited by a paper, just that newspapers routinely cite GRG/Guinness, therefore they are considered (by media outlets around the world) to be experts on the subject. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

5 He says it is "false" that media outlets don't say a claim is "verified" without quoting GRG/Guinness. But he's never supplied an example of a claim being called "verified" without a mention of GRG/Guinness. I don't think he understood the point I was making. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

6 The quote simply states the obvious - they are considered by media world-wide as experts, so should we. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

7 As I pointed out repeatedly to Ricky, the section in question asked "Who is the world's oldest ever person?" I simply applied the "reliable source" argument - which is at the heart of the discussion here - to that case. It was a Reductio ad absurdum argument directly related to the "verification" and "reliable sources" issues. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

8 Again, as I earlier pointed out that, given the very criteria Ricky and others are proposing, this woman - Canadian Emma Laurent - would appear on this page even though she is three years older than who Guinness recognizes as the world's oldest. The point was to underline the consequences of the actions proposed - destroying the credibility of the page. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

9 Again, this is not debating what was resolved and for which there is sanction for discussing - that GRG is a reliable source; that GRG's Table EE is not a reliable source.

10 Ricky misrepresents the discussion at hand. The point was not whether Zhou was verified or not by GRG, the point was the only difference between the Laurent case and the Zhou case in terms of "verified" by "reliable sources" is that Zhou's article doesn't mention GRG/Guinness while Laurent's does - in saying Guinness doesn't accept the claim. He insists that this mere mention disqualifies Laurent for inclusion on the page and that the "non-mention" of GRG/Guinness in Zhou means it warrants inclusion. That makes no sense, as if Zhou doesn't appear on the Guinness/GRG lists, then they've not verified him either - so Ricky and others are employing a double-standard. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

11 Ricky made numerous false statements on the Laurent article (that Canada copied Haiti's verification of the case - there is no mention of that in the article; that Canada issued a passport on the strength of Haiti's information - there is nothing in the article which says that, indeed the word "passport" doesn't even appear; that the Toronto Star believes the claims is "not proven" when that was the description of Guinness's evaluation of the claim). The final claim is what the quote discusses - his contention that "not proven" means the Star has determined that and, by implication (given the out-of-context quote he used) The Star awards the crown of "world's oldest person," an obvious absurdity. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source. Canada Jack (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Canada Jack

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

Robustly defending your position on an article talk page is not disruptive unless the user is refusing to be bound by the eventual consensus or disruptively edit warring to advance their position. I'm really not seeing enough disruption in Canada Jack's edits to merit any action unless there is a clear indication that they will behave disruptively in future. @Canada Jack: please can you put these concerns to rest by confirming that you will respect the consensus that emerges on verifiability and that you will not take part in further edit wars? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was topic-banned from RT News for 6 months for "disruptive edits" and I challenge this assertion

I was banned from both RT News and its talk page because I was supposedly creating "disruptive edits" by asking for scientific, verifiable proof that RT is a propaganda station, asking for studies or some sort of quantifiable data.

Instead, I was topic-banned for "disruptive editing"; yet as anyone can see at the RT Talk page I was being very polite until one editor begun accusing me of having a fake account and of editing in poor faith.

I think my topic-ban is extremely unjust, and I also call about admins to review the sources behind RT's page, as 'Daily Beast' and Tumblr have never been valid sources, and yet the admin who is attempting to lock debate on the issue of valid sources (he says that RT is "undeniably propaganda"--but that's merely opinion!) has nonetheless attempted to railroad the debate one way, in a way that makes RT look like some sort of propaganda channel, when there is no proof to this scientifically or in quantification.

I ask that my 6-month topic ban be reviewed; It's truly unfair, and I received it all in an attempt to better Wikipedia and find good sources, (which reminds me another reason why Wikipedia is dying), which makes me not want to contribute very much here anymore (And I've been contributing, mostly to history-related articles, since 2012) if I'm going to be topic-banned every time I try and make a valid improvement, only to get railroaded by influential editors with admin friends. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2016 (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]

@@ Line 148: / Line 148: @@
 ::I'm currently in discussion with Laser Brain about the voluntary matter that Ed J suggested.  I also asked Ed J about it, but he did not answer my questions and LB did. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 13:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
-Per discussions on Laserbrain and Killer Chi's user talk pages, since the objection here is not what I am saying but that I am saying it too much, a 1RR situation seems like the appropriate response. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 19:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
+{{ping|EdJohnston}} {{ping|Guy}} {{ping|KillerChihuahua}} {{ping|Laserbrain}} {{ping|Liz}} {{ping|Newyorkbrad}} {{ping|Thryduulf}} Per discussions on Laserbrain and Killer Chi's user talk pages, since the objection here is not what I am saying but that I am saying it too much, a 1RR situation seems like the appropriate response. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 19:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 ====Statement by Tony1====

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