Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:10, 11 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

Minor4th

No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Minor4th

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Alexbrn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Minor4th (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

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

1RR violation:

Yesterday: initial revert (@ 08:31, 20 December 2015) to modify lede to remove mention of "cancer", then today:
revert @ 15:40, 21 December 2015‎
revert @ 16:14, 21 December 2015‎ (note also a WP:CRYBLP in the ES)

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them.

Minor4th writes "... based on the DS and 1RR restrictions on this article ..." just prior to the final revert in the above sequence.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor appears to want to remove the word "cancer" from the lede, and is edit-warring in pursuit of that apparent objective.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Responses to the statements of others

@Minor4th: Your statement makes it seem you think you have access to The Truth™ of this matter, and so can edit-war to correct what you see as an "error". I think you're wrong and your use of sources here is selective and muddled. But this is not the place for that content dispute (which continues on the article Talk page), but to address the question of your 1RR violation. Alexbrn (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: We do not need a WP:MEDRS to tell us what a journal article claimed, since that question is one of textual interpretation, and obviously not a WP:BIOMEDICAL question subject to procedures like systematic review etc. However if you want a journal article than mentions "cancer" then check out the title of PMID 23430588. Generally, the medical literature uses the more technical caricno-stemmed wording, which we should translate into lay terms for our audience. Alexbrn (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: You appear to be incorrect in saying Séralini avoided cancer claims. His paper mentions it has found "serious suspicion of carcinogenicity" and our 2012 Nature news source[1] tells us: "Séralini has promoted the cancer results as the study’s major finding, through a tightly orchestrated media offensive". Alexbrn (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: I did not violate 1RR. I take it you know consecutive edits by an editor count as but a single edit? I would also question your self-designation as "uninvolved" given you've just been party to a case investigating problematic GMO editors. Alexbrn (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Minor4th

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 Minor4th

General response to enforcement request

Diff #2 [2] provided in the OP is not a revert. It is an edit. The only revert in the 24 hour period by me was the single revert shown in Diff #3, wherein I also cited the BLP violation. There is no dispute that is a revert, and whether or not you agree that it remedies a BLP violation, it's only a single revert and does not violate the ARB restriction.

Clarification needed: If I am wrong about this, then I need someone to clearly explain how diff #2 is a revert. If that's the case then virtually every edit could be called a revert because nearly every edit changes some previous editor's work. If that's the rule then I'll abide by it, but that essentially means that editors can only make one edit (or several consecutive edits) per page per day in the topic area. I don't think that is what was intended.

Specific responses to comments

Alexbrn is edit warring in the word "cancer" in the lead contrary to the scientific sources - and that creates a BLP issue because he's attributing the conclusion "there's a strong link between GMO and cancer" to a scientist who did not make that conclusion. This is intentional to make the scientist look like a lunatic by falsely attributing outrageous claims to him. This is a prima facie BLP violation. Minor4th 17:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I agree to self revert, but I cannot concede that "cancer" and "tumors" mean the same thing in this context because that is false. If the closing admin or anyone making comments here does not understand the difference between "cancer" and "tumor" in this study, then you don't understand the study or the science. And if you don't understand the study, you don't understand the whole underpinning of the "Seralini affair." One must be able to properly evaluate the sources in this area to edit with competency.

For reliable sources regarding "cancer" vs. "tumor", see the following related RS:

1. Retractionwatch [3]:

Seralini and his colleagues provide a timeline in the press materials of their version of events. One element in particular caught our eye:
Wallace Hayes wrote an article to defend his position that raises doubts about his understanding of the study and raw data. He mentions in his defense he was unable to conclude that “there was a clear link between GMO and cancer.” An obvious error of W. Hayes as the term “cancer” has never been mentioned in the paper of Séralini’s research team. And it does not affect any aspect of the research on Roundup.

Now, “tumor” and “cancer” are not necessarily the same thing. But the original paper certainly referred to tumors repeatedly, and Seralini, as Nature reported at the time,

2. Republication of the retracted paper [4], clarifying that the study was not a cancer study:

This study constitutes a follow-up investigation of a 90-day feeding study conducted by Monsanto in order to obtain commercial release of this GMO, employing the same rat strain and analyzing biochemical parameters on the same number of animals per group as our investigation. Our research represents the first chronic study on these substances, in which all observations including tumors are reported chronologically. Thus, it was not designed as a carcinogenicity study.

3. Nature [5]. This is the EXACT quote that Alexbrn proposed on the talk page when we started discussing this a couple of days ago, and now he is complaining that I am edit warring the word "tumor" in:

Séralini's team had found that rats fed for two years with a glyphosate-resistant type of maize (corn) made by Monsanto developed many more tumours and died earlier than did control animals. It also found that the rats developed tumours when Roundup was added to their drinking water.

(edited) Minor4th 21:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohntson - I was fixing a factual error, not just playing around with wording. Minor4th 06:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

' Kingifaces43's aspersions - Kingofaces43 is casting aspersions by calling my edits "advocacy" and describing me as being the subject of many warnings and disputes in this topic area. That is false on its face. Please look at Kingofaces43's continued aspersions against editors he doesn't like and how it promotes battlefield editing in this controversial topic. Sanctions against KOA are appropriate per DS. Minor4th 00:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish - I have agreed to self revert and stated that I did not intentionally violate any editing restriction - but it's improper to ask for a concession on the substantive issue of whether "cancer" = "tumor." Minor4th 19:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masem has evaluated the situation exactly right. Minor4th 19:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw has correctly described the edits and distinguished a legitimate edit from a revert. Minor4th 21:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Tornheim

Alexbrn is violating consensus. I will explain further after doing more research. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AlexBrn is just as guilty of edit warring (see list of diffs below). But worse, he has attempted to edit-war in the cancer claims both without consensus and in light of misrepresentations about the study. The discussion continues on the Seralini page and the lede, a discussion I started here. Others are currently working together to try to come to a consensus decision (Tyrptofish here KingofAces43 here and me here). AlexBrn's claims of "consensus" like this, and this comment are not helping. AlexBrn's attempt to force in the language "claimed there was a strong link between genetically modified organisms and cancer" is not helping. The original study does not even mention any connection to cancer. AlexBrn correctly pointed out that the revised republished study does speak of a "serious suspicion of carcinogenicity"; however, the Abstract clearly states that the study "was not designed as a carcinogenicity study." And in the sentence before and after the quote about a "suspicion of carcinogenicity", it is reasserted that it is a toxicity study and not a full carcinogenicity study. The texts says a full carcinogenicity study "would be a rational follow-up investigation". (Republished Study) In responding to the Editor who was hired to retract the original published study, Seralini said:

In fact you clarified your position in a statement published in FCT: “To be very clear, it is the entire paper, with the claim that there is definitive link between GMO and cancer that is being retracted” (Hayes, 2014). Yet we made no such “claim” in our paper. We drew no inference and made no claims about “cancer” ; nowhere did we claim a “definitive link between GMO and cancer”. It should be noted that tumorigenesis is not synonymous with cancer. Tumours can be in some cases more rapidly lethal than cancers because their size can cause hemorrhages and possible impairments of vital organs, as well as secretion of toxins.

reference

AlexBrn's edit-warring in cancer claims without consensus and with disregard for misrepresentations about the study is in violation of WP:BRD:

[6] Revision as of 07:27, December 20, 2015 -- AlexBrn added language "claimed there was a strong link between genetically modified organisms and cancer,"

[7] Revision as of 15:44, December 21, 2015 -- puts the language back in after being reverted

[8] Revision as of 16:02, December 21, 2015 -- again puts the language back in after being reverted.

--David Tornheim (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re Mystery Wolff's post:

I agree that Minor4th's edits are GoodFaith and should not be sanctioned.
I disagree about GMO Page Protection. I do not believe I have sufficient space to explain why here.

--David Tornheim (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

For purposes of evaluating whether edits were reverts, I do not think that, in this context, it is useful to treat "tumors" as different than "cancer". (There are such things as benign tumors, but the source material here is about cancerous tumors.) I also think that we need to be careful about invocations of BLP. I'm no lawyer, but it is hard for me to believe that a successful defamation claim would result simply from saying that a scientific journal article made some conclusions about carcinogenicity; I suspect that the defamation was more about accusations of scientific fraud. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree strongly with Looie's comment about the need to start setting boundaries (in a dispute that I think is metasticising more than Seralini's rats). I also consider the special pleading that has been rife in this discussion, that maybe Seralini said that the tumors were benign tumors, and that that makes edit warring justified, to be a distraction. This isn't an AE about which sentence should use the word "cancer". It's an AE about disruptive conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back here, in terms of the advice from the administrator about conceding the point, it sure looks to me like no one is conceding anything, and that's all the more reason to set boundaries. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

This was not an accidental violation, IMO. For some reason that entirely escapes me, both Minor4th and David Tornheim seem to want to use technical jargon (tumour, mutagenic) in place of the plain English preferred by many of the reliable sources on which we base the article. The claim that this is a WP:BLP violation is without merit, since it is not our claim but that of the reliable independent sources (example). It's worth remembering that a significant part of the criticism of this study centres on its prior release to journalists via a press briefing. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the source of the link to cancer is Séralini himself - many of the news articles are, after all, illustrated with a photo of Séralini holding up a rat with cancer. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: the diffs you present do not constitute more than one revert to the article. Nor are they problematic: they restore consensus versions following discussion on Talk, in each case removing POV WP:BOLDly added by one or more apparent partisans. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: MEDRS does not apply in this specific instance because we are not claiming that thr Séralini affair does or does not cure cancer, we are covering the Séralini affair as a drama that played out in the popular press, largely because of Séralini's media manipulation (dramas solely within the scientific press are rarely notable). We don't need a MEDRS to say how the popular press represented what they were spoon-fed by Séralini, to go back to what is defensible from the paper is fallacious precisely because Séralini's message, i.e. the Séralini affair, went far beyond what could be defended from the actual study results. Which is why the paper was retracted, and why we have the article in the first place. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Looie496

This is now the fourth enforcement request derived from the GMO case, none of which have produced any action. Admins should consider that each violation that slips by will only encourage further violations, increasing the magnitude of the enforcement actions that will ultimately have to taken. Worse, it is likely that the violations that are ultimately sanctioned will come from editors who don't really want to violate the remedies but feel forced to in response to violations from others. In other words, failure to set clear boundaries is only going to end up hurting the editors you are trying to be nice to, because they are going to keep testing the boundaries regardless of how far they have shifted. Looie496 (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capeo

The RS say "cancer" so cancer is what we should say. That's why we prefer secondary sources over primary ones. We need not reflect Seralini's equivocating that he never said cancer when his entire emphasis, and the impetus for the criticism and notability of this whole affair, was the cancerous tumors in the rats that he showcased more than any other thing. There's no BLP violation in following the RS characterization of the paper. Capeo (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn already stated this but there's no MEDRS claim so there's no need for MEDRS compliant sources. This is about describing why the paper was controversial and what AlbinoFerret called a letter to the editor is actually the editor in chief of the journal describing why the article was retracted. A person more than qualified to contextualize the paper. And what AlbinoFerret calls gaming is usually called consensus. Capeo (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, this isn't an article about the paper itself. It's and article about the controversy surrounding it and the main cause of the controversy is that, despite Seralini's equivocating, the paper connected GMOs to causing "cancerous" tumors, which is wording Seralini has used in interviews on his own web page. This connection was reinforced by Seralini himself as the tumors were the emphasis of his own press releases. The fact that he backed off on it after being called on it has no bearing on what caused the controversy itself. Even the republished paper is still loaded with pics of rats with tumors despite his claims and he rightly got called out about it yet again. Capeo (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I have to laugh that people are talking about MEDRS when a retracted paper republished in a zero impact journal isn't a MEDRS in the first place. Capeo (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, the paper has zero scientific notability at this point and falls firmly into WP:FRINGE. Its only notability is the reaction to it connecting GMOs to cancer. The article already mentions that Seralini claims he never said cancer. Generally speaking we need to mention why this event is even notable in the first place in the lede before anything else. That's aside from the fact that Seralini says things like " In our study, we never mentioned the word cancer, because there were tumours, which varied from more or less cancerous." [9] That doesn't even make sense. And Seralini outright claims the very WP:FRINGE POV that his paper proves GMOs are toxic and cause tumors. This isn't a scientific topic. It's purely fringe and should be treated the same way we treat other fringe topics. Capeo (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, it says nothing about it being a "cancer study" and makes no claim that is was. It says simply what the RS say, which is the only reason it is notable, which is that it connected GMOs to cancer, which is what we should say. That can then be followed up with Seralini's denial and why RS completely rejected said denial due to Seralini's own sensationalist emphasis on the tumor results over all else. Tumors he himself called cancerous. Capeo (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually from the retractionwatch source Minor4th posted above. They note Nature reported that Seralini "has promoted the cancer results as the study’s major finding, through a tightly orchestrated media offensive that began last month and included the release of a book and a film about the work." Capeo (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlbinoFerret

Looking at the sources, a letter to the editor, a news article in a journal, one in the popular press. I question if these pass WP:MEDRS because the sources are coming to a biomedical conclusion (cancer). Are there any MEDRS sources that use the term cancer? This is also a problem mentioned in the Workshop, multiple editors reverting. Sadly the abs didnt put a stop to multiple editors jumping in and reverting. What it ends up doing is editing by mob rule, whoever has the biggest group wins instead of discussion. That is gaming the system. AlbinoFerret 14:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn As pointed out in Masem's post below, The original paper did not mention cancer. Sources coming to that conclusion should be MEDRS compliant. AlbinoFerret 17:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

In addition to the reverts and gaming of BLP described here, there are also violations covered by pseudoscience/fringe discretionary sanctions.[10] Those sanctions deal with behavior issues closely tied with content. Improper escalation (such as this BLP invocation) is also covered in this related case. Even in Minor4th's section above and the article, they have violated WP:OR in the manner they have tried to argue that reliable sources are "WRONG" from personal opinion and trying to unduly validate the WP:FRINGE point of view of the BLP subject.[11] The events of the controversy are already accurately described by multiple reliable sources even without WP:PARITY in mind.

Especially given the variety of issues here they are still digging in on (and lack of enforcement so far in other cases), we've reached the point at least with this editor that the time of warnings being useful has long passed considering they've followed drama on this topic for awhile now. We need the sanctions to be enforced to stop disruptive behavior like this or remove editors with ingrained problems. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that Atsme below is highly involved in following the drama on this topic being extensively involved in the ArbCom case, especially after many editors involved in WP:MEDRS and fringe topics tried to deal with their problem behaviors at fringe BLP topics (e.g., [12]). Not directly involved in GMOs per se, but highly involved in purusing editors that have tried to deal with their behavior problems at ANI, etc. in the past. Peripheral editors like this are a problem in this topic (as seen by the number of people that come to GMO enforcement cases), but I'm not sure if or how that can be handled. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: I'm not going to engage your behavior issues here further [13][14] However, those issues[15][16][17] are going to be mentioned when you claim yourself to be uninvolved when inserting yourself into topics at ArbCom or noticeboards related to editors you have been very involved with dealing with your behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, the key detail you missed was that Seralini did try to make the association to cancer, both in media interviews after publication and within the paper (i.e., waving around a bunch of pictures of rats with tumors with no controls or statistical tests). When a WP:FRINGEBLP is criticized for their actions and they backtrack contrary to actual events that they never said something, we don't give that point of view any weight at the article or here at this board. The characterization that Seralini did not try to portray a link between glyphosate, GMOs, etc. and cancer is distinctly a fringe point of view.

I'll also ping @EdJohnston: to read the above since they've been pinged recently about Masem's summarization. Additionally, we so far have a few policy violations by Minor4th, some of this case being muddled by the fringe content aspect, and comments like Atsme's that are trying to go after Alexbrn for responding to Minor4th's advocacy in a reasonable manner. We're in a situation where some editors will push and push the line, and other editors will go after the editor who tries to respond to that in these boards. I don't have any solutions for that, but any thoughts on how to potentially handle this situation we've had in the last few requests here? Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

I am an uninvolved editor regarding this article. I don't edit articles involving GMOs, etc. but I do edit BLPs. I ask that the admins who are following this case to please make note of the following before drawing their conclusions:

ALEXBRN REVERTS (uses TW to avoid individual reverts which also needs to be noted, and also uses rather evasive edit summaries to diffuse attention to the fact he is edit warring and changing the context of a statement):

It appears Alexbrn has also violated 1RR and has established a patterned behavior of edit warring. Just look at how the edit history plays out which is why I can't understand why Minor4th has been targeted as the sole violator:

December 21st

Minor4th (cur | prev) 16:14, December 21, 2015
Alexbrn (cur | prev) 16:03, December 21, 2015
Alexbrn (cur | prev) 16:02, December 21, 2015
Alexbrn (cur | prev) 15:44, December 21, 2015
Minor4th (cur | prev) 15:40, December 21, 2015
Alexbrn (cur | prev) 14:53, December 21, 2015

December 20th

Minor4th (cur | prev) 23:38, December 20, 2015
(two in-between edits by another editor)
Minor4th (cur | prev) 13:27, December 20, 2015
Alexbrn (cur | prev) 08:31, December 20, 2015
Alexbrn (cur | prev) 07:34, December 20, 2015
Alexbrn (cur | prev) 07:32, December 20, 2015
Alexbrn (cur | prev) 07:27, December 20, 2015‎
Alexbrn (cur | prev) 07:02, December 20, 2015

Thank you for attention to this matter. Atsme^📞📧 16:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, your attention, please

The diff Kingofaces included to discredit me was unwarranted and worse, based on a false allegation of me being a SPA in an old AN/I case. My edit history has long since proven my purpose on WP and that the allegation was false and unwarranted. I tried to get ArbCom to address his behavior but since it was not within the locus of the case, they dismissed it. I have not mentioned his name in this incident prior to now so why is he allowed to besmirch my reputation, and attempt to discredit my statement here as an uninvolved editor? If it's not considered bullying, it is certainly harassment and actionable behavior either way. He has been warned more than once, but because he keeps getting away with it, he keeps bringing it up. Ignoring it does nothing but embolden him all the more, and that isn't what should be happening right under the noses of multiple admins. Please stop his disruption and attempts to divert attention away from this very important case. Atsme^📞📧 21:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingofaces, your harassing me does not make me an involved editor but it does draw attention to your bullying. I'd offer you a backhoe but you're digging a pretty deep hole without one. Atsme^📞📧 23:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, since you are the admin overseeing this AE request, please take the appropriate action against Kingofaces for his unwarranted attempts to intimidate me by dredging up diffs that have no relevance to this case, and that clearly demonstrate his intention to besmirch my reputation. According to WP:Civility, such behavior is actionable, especially when it is repeated over and over again as Kingofaces has done...and he's doing it right under your nose. Atsme^📞📧 23:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, with all due respect....as I've been advised by an admin in the past - even if you believe you are right you cannot edit war. As you know, the number of reverts are not a requisite for an editor to be blocked for edit warring,[18]. It's rather obvious who made the most edits/reverts/changes and created a battleground, and it wasn't Minor4th. Also, Kingofaces violated WP:CIVILITY policy by dredging up diffs in his relentless attempts to besmirch me and diffuse my participation in important discussions. The fact that his behavior continues to be ignored is shameful, especially at this venue, and is beginning to smell a lot like the stench of bias and double standards. Atsme^📞📧 19:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alexbrn whether you violated 1RR doesn't really matter. Admins know the rules about battleground, gaming strategies, group support, and the like. I'm simply stating facts and presenting diffs to support them. You were edit warring, and doing so is just as actionable as violating 1RR so there is no need to belabor or argue the point. Furthermore, your strawman argument that I was named in the GMO ArbCom case has nothing to do with your battleground behavior at the Seralini BLP. I never edited that article - you did. My recommendation here is a good trouting for the edit warriors, and an iBan against Kingofaces for his unconscionable behavior toward me and his aspersions against Minor4th on this noticeboard, not to mention other venues. He has a serious issue in that regard, and it will require admin intervention to correct it. Atsme^📞📧 20:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Masem

Reviewing the base situation from someone uninvolved with GMO articles, but otherwise able to look at the scenario from a scientific viewpoint:

A professor, whose past publications and statements have appeared to make him critical of GMO, publishes a reviewed paper that from lab studies that certain GMO products cause rats to develop more tumors and die sooner than control specimens. The paper appears to purposely avoid attaching the word "cancer" to the results.
The paper on publication is criticized by many third-parties (attracted by the established aspect of the professor's criticism of GMO), claiming that the linkage of GMO to "cancer" (their words) was not shown by appropriate scientific methods. The paper is ultimately pulled, even with the editor-in-chief commenting on the claim about timing GMO to cancer.
The professor restates that his paper was not a cancer study, and before it was pulled, has the work amended to make this clear.

While "tumor" and "cancer" may be synonymous in some areas (such as everyday language one might use with friends or family), this seems like a matter of scientific precision in a hotly contested area (GMO) and the need to distinguish between the two (as the professor apparently took steps to do and had to clarify this), even if others in the scientific community felt the tumor study was really an obfuscated cancer study. So for our article to claim, factually, that the professor wrote a cancer study is not appropriate. It's an edge case of BLP, as we are putting other people's words to speak for the professor's intentions when he has made it clear in verified manners of what his intent was (not a cancer study), even though we are otherwise not talking about specific claims about the professor himself that BLP normally covers. It is still is fair to include the fact that other scientists took the paper as a cancer study and thus were very critical of how the study was done that they saw the linkage of GMO to cancer, but in introducing the paper for the first time in the lede and in the body, it should not be called a cancer study if the professor has been very clear this was not the intent. Even if every other scientist in the area commented that the professor's paper was a cancer study but the professor remained insistent it wasn't, we should still be respecting the claim of the professor first followed by the claims by everyone else to stay consistent with BLP. If anything this is more a situation that falls under WP:YESPOV, where we clearly have a controversial statement (if the paper was a tumor or a cancer study), so there's a proper way to approach this.

In terms of the actions of the editors, I do think that the BLP issue is there, but it is very much an edge case which did not need immediate attention as most BLP violations typically require but instead more discussion and possibly more eyes on it. Actions by both editors should be at least trouted and warned against, particularly as at the time across these changes there was an active discussion. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved replies to Capeo and Kingofaces43 to User:Masem/GMOcaseComments due to statement length)

Statement by uninvolved MarkBernstein

Masem is correct: the distinction between "tumor" and "cancer" is indeed significant, and is not merely semantic evasion. I have not reviewed the paper or the subsequent literature, but if Masem’s review is correct, @EdJohnston:’s preliminary conclusion cannot be.
With respect, I disagree with JzG that we should prefer “plain English” to technical terms such as “ tumor" and "mutagenic". Jargon should be avoided where possible, but precise language is sometimes necessary. Evidence has been presented that the test animals developed tumors, but not that these tumors are in fact malignant; it makes sense that the article reflect this until the question is settled.
You can’t settle this without assessing the scientific evidence; if you try, you may embarrass the project.
As other editors have said above, you can’t punt the issues indefinitely without nullifying the GMO decision. The latter might be the best course of action, though this is probably not the place to do that.
Does misstating or misrepresenting -- perhaps unintentionally -- the conclusion of a scientific paper written by a living person violate BLP? I cannot think that it does, reserving possible exceptions for malice and for unreasonable or incredible distortion. If scientific articles are to be simultaneously edited by experts and by laypersons, misunderstandings will arise. Do we want to place every scientific and engineering topic under discretionary sanctions? A considerable portion of the technical literature, after all, is written by people who are currently living.
1RR as currently understood may prove unfeasible in contentious technical areas. As JzG demonstrates, one editor may reasonably perceive a merely semantic distinction where another editor perceives a substantive correction. This invites games of gotcha.MarkBernstein (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Montanabw

Looking at the history and the current version of this article, it appears that Minor4th made an appropriate correction and it was the other user who was edit-warring and attacking Minor4th. Minor 4th made an edit, was reverted and then restored the edit -- that was an edit 1RR, not 2. I think that a warning should suffice on this one, as it is clear that NPOV and proper phrasing of a BLP trumps other matters. Montanabw^(talk) 18:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Mystery Wolff

I am now familiar with GMOrganisms and related pages from this AE page due to my short time needing to check it for another article set. Reading the comments I believe I agree most with Montanabw above, except I do not believe Minor4th should be warned because its not 1RR. Also 1RR is such a tight standard good faith NPOV and really minor edits, should be allowed. The BLP points are also well taken.

But what I really think is that what I will call the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly solution should be deployed. WP:[GBU]?
In the movie of the same name North and South are fighting over the same bridge, each day, lots of deaths, no progress, cease fires to clean up the bodies and rinse and repeat. The only solution to stop the carnage and deaths, was to blow up the Bridge.

This situation is just going to keep on going for GMO and related. So I think the Admins should just agree to blow up the bridge, and put in Full Protection of the entire set of articles. Then on a once a week move schedule, an admin will move into the articles, the agreed upon changes out of TALK. Nothing is going to be earthshakingly different that article and the outside readers won't benefit from a more stable viewable article.

Its just far to big of an Enclopedia to see these same topics coming back and back to AE. 3 times in 2 weeks, at least for GMO. And just like GBU, there seems to be more and more bodies that can get banned for GMO. Just blow up the bridge. Take away the thing they are fighting over. You can generated more ARBs more AE's and more methods to techically bypass the DS and warnings. Or just blow up the bridge, send to full protection. Given the science and controversy I don't think it will every come out of Full Protection, but that is OK, because of the sheer time savings to all.

Summary: Send to full protection.....Blow up the bridge per WP:GBU. Mystery Wolff (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Minor4th

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

The difference between 'cancer' and 'tumor' in the lead doesn't appear enough to justify Minor4th's claim of a BLP violation. Even if you insist that 'cancer' should be 'tumor' the first time around, the word cancer still appears multiple times elsewhere in the lead, and also appears in the title of one of the references provided (Arjo et al):"..an in depth analysis of the Séralini et al. study claiming that Roundup™ Ready corn or the herbicide Roundup™ cause cancer in rats". Since Minor4th is only tweaking the wording and not fixing a factual error, this series of edits is just a plain 1RR violation by Minor4th. A block should be discussed unless Minor4th will concede the point. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 1RR rule is established to allow quick action on simple violations. Since the complaint has been open for five days there is no more chance of a quick action. Our article on the Séralini affair article doesn’t put Séralini in a good light. It passes along the published criticism to our readers. The reverts that were submitted for admin action in this complaint don't change the overall verdict much, so the intensity of the brief revert war seems out of proportion to anything that could be gained. This request should be closed with no action. All parties should be aware that continued edit warring won’t be tolerated. EdJohnston (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I generally concur with EdJohnson, including his last sentence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek-personal attacks and incivility

No action taken Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:14, 7 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 Volunteer_Marek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Volunteer_Marek (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

You are warned that further comments which constitute personal attacks or incivility, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anna_Politkovskaya&diff=680892973&oldid=680890853 this will result in a block or other sanction. This is a logged warning issues under the discretionary sanctions authorised by the Arbitration Committee's decision on Eastern Europe (which you are "aware" of due to this alert). The procedure to appeal this sanction are here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)] :[reply]

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

congratulations, you just managed to turn the article into an even bigger piece of POV crap than it already was 22:37, 22 December 2015 Hostile and insulting description of another users edits, that is unconstructive and incivil
Can the POV get more ridiculous? , Gimme a fucking break. Can you at least pretend that you're trying to be neutral here? , “And also note that the edit stupidly leaves the "against Hungary" 22:45, 22 December 2015 Hostile attack instead of trying to discuss the issue, from start confrontational and incivil, uses swear words to attack another editor, calling his edits stupid
false edit summary which claims that it just "add source with quote" (please don't lie),You are using false edit summaries to hide the fact that you are doing nothing else but edit warring 22:02, 22 December 2015 Accusses other editor of lying, obvious incivility

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

Was warned about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 21 July 2015

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) warned for making a personal attack and that further personal attacks or incivility will likely result in a block or other sanction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

VM has been warned several times about being incivility he engages in with other editors and personal attacks. He was warned by admin twice to stop being incivil and abusive towards others. In the past I have requested this as well several times[19],[20]. The above examples are only recent. If required I can provide examples going back a month or more.This is an ongoing and persistent issue.

While there will be always disagreements about wording of article, sources or content, such disputes should be done in civil way worthy of encyclopedia. Shouting at other editors, using swear words, naming their edits as crap goes against this principle. VM was warned to stop being incivil and attacking others and in my view he violated his warning in the examples I have provided.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [21]

Response to Bishonen

Like MastCell, I might have used different words than VM, but I'm against sanctioning editors for speaking impatiently to those who try to degrade content, or for using swear words. Volunteer_Marek was already sanctioned and warned due to his incivil behaviour by an administrator earlier. Hence I am calling for enforcement. This is not a single slip or incident.It is an ongoing issue that VM has been asked time and time again to correct( I believe I asked him to stop this three times at least).He constantly acts incivil and offensive towards others,and this is a behavior that has been going on since years(links can be provided if requested). As I mentioned earlier-due to this he was warned earlier to act in civil way way by an administrator-twice and warned that incivility and personal attacks should stop least he be blocked. If he or you want to appeal his warning and removed from sanctions lists-be my guest, that's fine. But here I am asking for enforcing an already existing sanction, not making a new one.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

To prove that this is not a new thing and result of ongoing incivility, please see my edits over the years where I have asked VM time and time again to stop personal attacks and incivility. I am also posting my comment from last November where I have pleaded for him to stop, and that I will be forced to ask for official intervention if he continues the attacks.

[22]

[23]

I have asked you many times to stop offensive behavior and personal attacks.This was done wit kindness and with hope that you could stop and engage constructively on Wikipedia. Not just today but many months ago and several times.Unfortunately not only you are engaging in continued attacks, but have also engaged in threats now as well. For sake of our old work together, I really don't want to do this, but if you continue to act this way, I will have to ask for official intervention. This is my last request to stop the incivility and attacks Revision as of 02:54, 9 November 2014 (

[24]

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kingsindian

This is a transparent attempt to win a content dispute using this board Please see my links above. VM has been engaging in such behavior for years. I have asked him to stop already last year in November and stated that I will have to ask for official intervention if he doesn't cease.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Drmies and EdJohnston

The phrase "internal security" is used commonly used in political writings on the subject. This was debated here already and pointed out by Kingsindian here Also, the term "internal security" often refers to the security of the regime, rather than security of the population. This is the way in which internal security is used routinely in political literature. See [https://books.google.com/books?id=oXysBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA504&lpg=PA504&dq=internal+security+eastern+europe+warsaw+pact&source=bl&ots=4aiPUPavPu&sig=S4f32gsNzDNJCWRVBeyt5JUfG8I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO1p-ZqfrJAhWQBo4KHdThDVQQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=internal%20security%20eastern%20europe%20warsaw%20pact&f=false this, this and this for examples.] If you want other examples

Alliance behavior in the Warsaw PactDaniel N. Nelson - ‎1986 deployment in another East European state in Soviet-led operation tor internal security

The Armies of the Warsaw Pact Nations: Organization, Concept Friedrich Wiener, Franz Kosar, Franz Grũber - ‎1981 Troops for Internal Security ln all the Warsaw Pact nations there are special troops, in addition to the police who take care of normal law and order, that are used for internal security purposes

Warsaw Pact, the Question of Cohesion Teresa Rakowska-Harmstone, Canada. Dept. of National Defence. Operational Research and Analysis Establishment - ‎1986 The author of a Soviet study of the WP writes that the alliance conducts joint activities among the internal security forces

I studied politology and history in Polish university after 1989 and we used these terms as well in analysis of the subject. In political works definitions like "internal security" are commonly used to describe situation without judging the nature of the political regime.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a western source directly saying that Warsaw Pact served internal security in connection to Czechoslovakia THE WARSAW PACT'S CAMPAIGN FOR "EUROPEAN SECURITY" A. Ross Johnson United States Air Force under Project Rand. "greater importance placed on the internal security function of the Soviet military presence in Eastern Europe, as of Warsaw Pact as a whole, "after Czechoslovakia."[25] Just like I stated this is a common expression in political analysis, and certainly not a "Stalinist propaganda". It's just a term scholarly works on the subject use in neutral way.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I'm not sure how closely you read the source you're citing. In its preface, it states:

In any study of Communist intentions such as this, the use of Marxist-Leninist terminology is unavoidable. Its usage for descriptive purposes does not imply uncritical acceptance of its meaning in the Marxist-Leninist lexicon. The reader will quickly see how little "European security," in the standard Warsaw Pact interpretation of the term, has to do with lasting military security and political legitimacy in Europe. ([26])

That's right: the source you're citing in fact explicitly explains that the "security" wording is Soviet propaganda. The source also warns against the uncritical acceptance of such transparent euphemisms, yet here you are trying to get us to uncritically accept them. You might want to read the whole document, rather than just the snippets you Googled to support your case. You're working very hard to hoist yourself with your own petard here. MastCell ^Talk 01:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to My very best wishes

Knowing Molobo and his role in EEML case, I am sure that's the latter. My very best wishes I quite surprised by this statement since I was never sanctioned for anything in EEML case, and as far as I remember VM was. Aren't you also one of the former EEML members who changed his user name(IIRC Biophys?) who was very active there? If you want to re-open this case, it's your choice. In any case I left your EEML group long time ago, is is still active? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by VM since this request has been filled

Since this request has been filled Volunteer_Marek has engaged in edits that were incivil and personal attacks

Yet, you show up here a month later, trying to poison the well, and try to start up a little lynch mob. I cannot but conclude that you are just holding a grudge over... not sure what exactly. It's exactly this kind of petty behavior This is an incivil comment and personal attack against another user.

undo ridiculously POV edits. It's your turn, Mr Single Purpose Account which resembles previous banned users

Again a personal attack.If the user is indeed a sockpuppet, then a proper procedure should have been requested to confirm this, instead of resolving to personal attack. I believe both examples to be in violation of his sanctions. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Volunteer_Marek

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 Volunteer_Marek

1. The edit describes the article, i.e. content. One might disagree with the assessment (I do wish there was a template which said "Unfortunately, currently this article is crap" that could be slapped on appropriate articles but alas!) but feigning offense and trying to use that to win a dispute is far more disruptive than the use of the word "crap". And yes, the article was bad to begin with. MyMoloboaccount, who has never edited this article before (AFAIK) jumped in the middle of my attempts to fix it, because of the dispute we had at another article, Economy of Poland. I believe this pretty much defines the concept of "revenge reverting"

2. Well, for this one you just need to actually see the comment itself. Here is the diff again [27]. MyMoloboaccount changed text ""The Warsaw Pact's largest military engagements were aimed against its own members—in 1956 against Hungary and in 1968 against Czechoslovakia" to the obviously non-neutral "The Warsaw Pact's largest military engagements were aimed at internal security of member states during 1956 against Hungary and in 1968 against Czechoslovakia" (describing the bloody repression of the Hungarian uprising in which thousands of people were murdered and tens of thousands repressed and tortured as "a matter of internal security" is not only tasteless, but obviously POV). The edit also made a grammatical mess of the sentence and resulted in a statement which contradicted itself. I'm sorry but this is pretty much the definition of over-the-top POV pushing and calling it what it is is perfectly warranted.

3. MyMoloboaccount did in fact use the edit summary "minor changes" [28] (and [29] here again) to ... "label", edits which were non-minor, and in fact were a pretty blatant attempt to POV the article. Here is the relevant exchange on talk (which for some reason MyMoloboaccount failed to link to - wonder why) in which he tries to evade the question and continues to pretend that his edits were "minor". The conversation clearly indicates lack of good faith on the part of the user. In my time on Wikipedia, this kind of behavior has been generally regarded as extremely disruptive and dishonest and has quickly led to a block, especially when done by an editor who's been around for a long time and should know better. To make highly POV changes and hide them behind false edit summaries, and then complain when someone points out that your edit summaries aren't exactly 100% kosher, really takes some chutzpah.

MyMoloboaccount repeatedly edit warred to reinsert text which misrepresented sources - even after I've asked him about it several times on talk. And even after I've explicitly pointed out to him that the text misrepresented the sources. And even when I asked him point blank about which part of a particular source was suppose to support the text. The relevant talk page discussions (or actually, lack thereof, on the part of my MyMoloboaccount) are here (note lack of response), here (basically evading the question) and here (same as the diff above - but note that here I am forced to ask the same question for the third time without a response).

The above discussions clearly indicate WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior on the part of the user. For the record, this kind of pattern has been noted before by others, for example by User:Iryna Harpy (for example here and here, there's more though it might take a bit of time to find it). Likewise, this isn't the first time that MyMoloboaccount has tried to misrepresent sources on Wikipedia (see here and here for detailed explanations). Dealing with such a user, although they pretend at "civility", is extremely frustrating and it is a textbook example of someone who is not engaged with the project in good faith and is in fact... well, driving people crazy, with WP:CRUSH.

Also, for the record, it should be noted that while the user MyMoloboaccount may appear to have a fairly clean block log [30], the actual block log, in all its full page glory is here. The lack of blocks between the new and the old account has to do with the indefinite block that was in place in between (the indefinite block which was lifted after, I'm sorry to say, to a significant extent because I personally argued for its lifting because I believed that MyMoloboaccount/Molobo deserved a second chance. No good deed... like they say) (or maybe that was a bad deed, I didn't realize it at the time, and now I'm just getting my comeuppance?)

Anyway, Happy Holidays and Wesolych Swiat. Volunteer Marek 09:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz. Ok, look, Spartaz, do what you think is appropriate and whatever it is I'm not going to hold it against you. I've been on Wikipedia a long time and I've donated a lot of my free time, which I value highly, to the project. The way I see it, I'm doing Wikipedia a favor by editing here, not vice versa. Of course Wikipedia drives one crazy. The backstabbing, the gratuitous lynch mobs, the lying-with-the-straight face and most of all the thick thick hypocrisy, all more than present in this request and its comments. I realized long time ago that the only way I could continue participating here is by approaching in a way which did not implicitly accept, perpetuate and enable all of those things, in as straight forward manner as possible. Not bullshiting people but not tolerate all the bullshit that falls in one's lap either. So yes, my comments are always direct and to the point, I state my objections explicitly, I express my frustration when someone's obviously not acting in good faith, and I speak the way that grown ups in the real world speak (yes, even in professional settings). Of course this being Wikipedia people will try to use that against you to win disputes and as a way of furthering their agenda. Shrug.

So no, I don't think I made any "personal attacks". I used words which some people will try and pretend they find offensive. I was critical of another editor's editing behavior. But neither of these are personal attacks. Saying to someone "you POV'ed the article" is NOT a personal attack and you won't be able to find a Wikipedia policy that says so. Maybe I didn't put it in the most diplomatic way possible but so what? If I had said "you're a bad person because you POV'ed the article" or some version of that THAT would've been a personal attack. But calling people out on their atrocious behavior and disruptive editing (and I'm sorry but MyMoloboaccount WAS blatantly misrepresenting sources, using false edit summaries and then playing coy about it and pretending they didn't know what the issue was) is not a personal attack and in fact, given how Wikipedia works, it is sometimes necessary to actually improve article content. Volunteer Marek 17:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LjL - why are you here? This has nothing to do with you. About a month ago we had a dispute on an unrelated article. You violated a 1RR restriction on it repeatedly and I pointed it out to you. You kept claiming "consensus" on the article where really the matter was still being discussed. You say I "defied consensus". Total baloney. I disagreed with *you*. And what eventually happened? I left the article alone and let you have your way because I decided it simply wasn't worth the effort. The current state of the article, AFAIK, reflects your point of view. How is that "deifying consensus"? Yet, you show up here a month later, trying to poison the well, and try to start up a little lynch mob. I cannot but conclude that you are just holding a grudge over... not sure what exactly. It's exactly this kind of petty behavior that makes Wikipedia a social wreck and such an extremely unpleasant place to contribute at.

Wasn't there a restriction on WP:AE reports (originated by User:Sandstein or User:Future Perfect at Sunrise IIRC) which forbid uninvolved parties from showing up to pursue grudges, clutter up the discussion and form little "peanut galleries" (their words, not mine) on these reports? (basically the same thing applies to User:Erlbaeko who's also here opportunistically to pursue grudges and as a way of getting an upper hand in an unrelated dispute (which is/was under mediation). God, I sometimes really hate Wikipedia.) Volunteer Marek 20:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Flashout1999 - It's ridiculous to say that I am "harassing" MyMoloboaccount when in fact they were the one who followed me to the article in the first place, because of a disagreement we had on another article. If anything, it's the opposite.

Likewise, your claim that the section heading "Can the POV get more ridicoulos?" (sic) is a "personal attack" but a section heading "POV in the lead" is not doesn't hold water. They both say the same thing, one is just in the form of a question and the other one is not, and neither "attacks" anyone. It specifically points to problems with content.

You are mistaking strongly worded criticism of article content and user behavior with "personal attacks". These are not the same thing. One more time - saying "you POV'd the article" is not not not not not a personal attack. Never has been, isn't now and probably (it's Wikipedia, so who knows?!) never will be. Disagreement are likewise not "personal attacks". Volunteer Marek 20:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And actually let me add a little bit here to my response to Flashout1999. MyMoloboaccount repeatedly restored text which misrepresented sources and also made obviously highly POV changes with misleading edit summaries ("minor changes"). The proper response to my objections, which I made on talk, would have been to correct the misrepresentation of sources and if they felt something was missing, or if they felt that a particular piece of text was actually true (just not in that particular source) would have been to go out there and find new sources and faithfully paraphrase them. This is not MyMoloboaccount did. They just kept restoring the existing problems via blanket reverts. Yes, they did add some new sources but these were generally misrepresented just like the previous ones (the Crumb one in particular).

On the other hand, and to your credit, your response was more or less what I outlined above. You did go out and get new sources (the state department etc., although the History Channel one was a dud) and you appear to be open to discussing how to reword the text to make it NPOV.

This difference actually illustrates both the problem with MyMoloboaccount's approach and the proper approach. MMA, instead of doing the work necessary to find compromise and improve the article decided upon a wording which suited their POV first and then tried to pretend that sources supported it. Didn't really discuss the issues. When they didn't get their way, they came running here, to WP:AE, as a strategy of "winning" a dispute with allegations of "incivility" and lack of good faith (to quote User:Collect "The person who most frequently speaks about assuming good faith is least likely to assume (or act in) good faith.") That's often a very good sign that the person who's complaining about "incivility" is on the wrong end of the actual underlying *content* dispute. Because that's the only "argument" (and not a good one) they got. See also WP:CRUSH.

So, anyway, whatever the outcome of this report, and whatever else you say about me down in your section below, I do want to thank you in particular for taking the right approach to improving the article and if I was overly harsh in my criticism of you I apologize. Volunteer Marek 21:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to MyMoloboaccount's newest allegations

This is just diff padding and more of the same. At best these diffs just show that MyMoloboaccount has tried to use this tactic before, when confronted about the POV nature of their edits. Let's go through'em, shall we?

Ok, let's go through the diffs provided by MyMoloboaccount in the para beginning with "To prove that this is not a new thing and result of ongoing incivility..."

This diff provided by MMA is just a message he left on my talk page. What edit of mine is he responding to when he accuses me of "incivility"? This one. What I said is, quote: "crap source - the guy says that increases in poverty CAUSE increases in GDP". I called a ... crappy source, crap. If you think THAT is incivility, I really got nothing to say to you. It was a crap source and pointing that out is perfectly fine.

Then there is this diff, which is also MMA coming to my talk page and accusing me of, this time, "following him around". Ok, let me try to figure out what the hey he's talking about........ July 17....... Here at least is the full conversation (at bottom) which basically shows that this was MMA being passive-aggressive. Let's see, I said something (on my talk page) about that being an absurd accusation [31].

Hmmmmm. In July of 2014, the only article that both myself and MMA edited was Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Now, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 actually crashed on July 17 of 2014, it was of course all over the media and the article had been just created. There was a lot of activity on it. I made edits to it - and over the next several months I did a lot more work on the article than MMA who's only contribution was throw in some POV text right at the beginning. I can't remember who edited it first but who cares. Previously MMA had been following my edits around to the articles on:

Unemployment in Poland (my first edits were right after the article was started on 6/3/14, MMA showed up shortly thereafter to edit war on 6/5/14),
Balcerowicz Plan (I made edits in August of 2013, as well as 6/5/2014 - MMA showed up shortly therafter, same day, 8 hours later, to edit war) and
Poverty in Poland (I made edits in March of 2013 - when MMA and I got into a disagreement on another article, MMA switched over to this one to undue my changes out of revenge)

This is why my response to MMA's comment about me supposedly "following him around" was... well, let me quote it in full, because it applies to the Warsaw Pact article now as much as it did to these other ones then: "I do sincerely hope that you have enough self awareness to realize how absurd you sound above."

MMA had spent a few months following me around - EXACTLY the same as with Warsaw Pact article - and then had the chutzpah to come to my talk page and accuse me of doing that.

If that doesn't convince you that MMA is a tendentious editor who tries to WP:GAME policies and win disputes which they cannot win based on sources by threatening, falsely accusing, and spuriously reporting people I don't know what will. And yes, just like he misrepresents sources in terms of content, he misrepresent editors he disagrees with in noticeboards such as this one. Volunteer Marek 23:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I love that MMA is complaining about this edit of mine. Completely different topic area. Race and Intelligence. Which as anyone who's even dipped their toe in that topic area knows is overrun with sockpuppets and meatpuppets of blocked and topic banned users, who keep trying to use these articles to push racist garbage POV. In this particular instance an essentially brand new, single purpose, red-linked account changed the text so that descriptions of 19th century racist thinkers idea read as facts. Yes, the account was basically using Wikipedia to write "Black people are dumber than white people" (instead of "Racists *believe* that black people..."). Of course it was dressed up, the SPA account was perfectly "civil", there was some sources tacked on to it to make it look legit and of course the response was "discuss on talk!!!". But at the end of the day it was just racist garbage. I am not going to apologize for that edit nor am I going to apologize for that edit summary (in fact, I toned it down from what I originally wrote because I had a sneaky suspicion someone would try to use it against me). Again, this just shows that MMA has a very Machavallian attitude to editing Wikipedia where they're willing to use ANYTHING to win a content dispute.

(Btw, since I made that revert, I've had five different users thank me for it, including User:Maunus, who's probably the most veteran of the veteran editors in that topic area, as well as User:Caballero1967 [32]) Volunteer Marek 00:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caballero's Comments

My comments here are in relation to my thanks to User:Volunteer Marek's editing work here. The article is a subject intimately familiar to me since I have taught it in graduate courses for four years already, and have published about it. Before User:Volunteer Marek intervened today I had written about my concerns with the ideological changes taking place in the article's Talk Page. And User:Volunteer Marek was bold, yes, but direct and correct in his manners. When the user making the disruptive changes asked him to edit the changes rather than blank them in full, Marek's response was right and to the point: there is nothing unbaised and nothing to edit. So, it may be that Marek's is a bold editor, but his work (up to what I have seen), is not easily matched. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Erlbaeko

Note that the same pattern of personal attacks and incivility can be seen in other articles/topics. See e.g. Talk:Ghouta_chemical_attack/Archive_6#same_ol.27_POV_pushing_which_just_won.27t_stop. Also note that I notified him about Syrian Civil War sanctions on 27 August 2015, ref. diff. Here Volunteer Marek attacks an editor saying "Will you please stop lying so blatantly?" I would not have had a problem with that if it was a lie, but it is not. I checked the statement and it's only slightly inaccurate. I replied here. I see no justification for that attack, and no apology was ever given. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Volunteer Marek attacked the new editor on the article here by calling him a "brand new throw away accounts to help out in the edit war", and here by insinuating sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry (without any convincing evidence). The editor has explained that he is a Wikipedia veteran here and documnets that he started editing 7 and a half years ago here. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: To clarify a bit. I don't see the attacks itself as a big problem. We all make mistakes from time to time and I don't care to much about an attack or two or some rough language. The problem is the pattern of lesser personal attacks that continues throughout a discussion despite warnings (as in the discussion I linked to above). It is when that pattern is used to disrupt progress toward improving an article it became a problem, and that problem is called disruptive editing. It is like he is living after the Paul Krugman citation on his user page: "As the old lawyer’s line says, if the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if the law is on your side, pound the law; if neither are on your side, pound the table. I’d add: and demand “civility.”. I am afraid he will continue to "pound the table and demand civility" if the behavior is allowed to continue. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Rubin: Do we want to continue? I don't know, but I do. I don't see no justification for your 1 week block for "actions on Warsaw Pact, commented on at WP:AE". Ref. Block log. Here you said it was due to "discretionary sanctions for Eastern Europe". What excatly did you block him for? Erlbaeko (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin, I see you have unblocked MyMoloboaccount, ref. block log, and that you admitted that you made a mistake here. Thanks. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: That section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Drinking buddies should use the sections above. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I agree that a little humor or some rough language doesn’t hurt anyone. However, when four editors and one uninvolved administrator tell you that there is a problem with Markes pattern of uncivility and personal attacks, that it has been going on for years, and that it disrupts progress toward improving an article, I do expect you to address that problem seriously. Instead it looks to me that you dig into the history of the user who filled the report to find something to use against him. That do raises some flags, so maybe your “longstanding antagonistic relationship with Volunteer Marek” has triggered a conflict of interest, and that is not a joke. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LjL

I have also been at my wits' end with this editor, but eventually I decided to do nothing about it. But given that finally I'm not the only one wanting to complain, I'll add diffs for things that had seemed to show WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF issues, with my emphasis on them (but honestly, other behaviors from this editor were more of a burden to me, yet it's trickier to put them together to clarify the situation):

Can you stop being dishonest? There is NO "overwhelming consensus" as you claim above. You're making shit up. There is NO "clear consensus" as you claim above. You're making shit up. [33]
For fuck's sake, this is suppose to be an article about a terrorist attack IN FRANCE, which killed more than a hundred people IN FRANCE in a greatest tragedy since WWII. It is NOT about Poland's politician's hang ups about refugees from Syria. It is NOT about your own personal hangs up about refugees from Syria. How about we keep the article on topic that it's actually suppose to be about rather than go off on POV tangents to pursue personal political agendas? [34]
LjL, MyMolobboaccount, EVEN IF you guys were right about previous consensus - which you're not, you're making shit up - my last edition concerned an official statement [...] MyMoloboaccount shows up and removes it. I undo. LjL jumps in to edit war just because. And then you claim consensus for that too. Please stop being ridiculous. [35]

Note that the "consensus" the editor challenges in the above quotations was repeatedly established, and summarized here, and he was virtually the only editor disrupting it. LjL (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do, like Kingsindian, also wonder what exactly MyMoloboaccount, the OP, was now blocked for (without notifying this discussion, even though he was purportedly blocked because of it), since neither the block log nor the talk page notifications seem to make it very clear what edits caused the block (I do not see obvious edit warring in the involved page's history). I think it would be appropriate at this point if the blocking admin, Arthur Rubin, made a statement here. LjL (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Rubin: thanks for your statement. I am concerned that you seem to be looking at the specifics of the content dispute rather than administrative issues. I don't really feel qualified to comment about Warsaw Pact specifics, but if I were an administrator I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable blocking on such content disputes... especially while the blocked user has an outstanding arbitration enforcement request against the other party, and that is a very administrative issue where any civility issues with Volunteer Marek can be gauged (but you're choosing to stay away from that administrative concern). All I really know is that Volunteer Marek has defied consensus in not-very-civil manners before, and so far, the complaining party has been blocked instead. I think Spartaz or any administrator looking at this ought to keep that in mind. LjL (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Flushout1999

I can confirm the bad behavior from Volunteer Marek. However I believe this talk page [36] speaks by itself. He managed now to make it a total mess creating new sections not related to the content which should be present in the main article, but just creating them in order to attack the other users along his personal opinions. Also he avoids persistently to discuss reliable sources' content which are not according to his personal beliefs, starting to apply denigratory labels, being uncivil and keeping to say that there is a "misrepresentation" as an excuse to revert entire paragraphs, while never providing links nor going into details (like making at least some citation) in despise of the most common editing discussions rules, as the ones reported here [37]. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: In my opinion that particular MyMoloboaccount's edit on the lead was not good at all, but not that bad to justify VM reaction which as been disruptive at least. This could have been solved in a very easy way as the new edit [38] from Kingsindian shows.

VM attitude in the talk page as been rather uncivil, rude and degrading the talk to a WP:BATTLEGROUND creating messy new sections with titles aimed only at attacking MyMoloboaccount personally. ("Can the POV get more ridicoulos?" should have been titled something like "POV in the lead" for example).

In my opinion his behavior could qualify also as repeated offensive behavior aimed to target a specific person (MyMoloboaccount) with the purpose to make him feel threatened or intimidated (which however did not happen).

Now that other users like MastCell are justifying these kind of personal attacks, incivility and offensive behaviors towards the other editors, only because one just don't like what he perceives as a different point of view from his, this is really disappointing to me and this is for sure the most undesiderable outcome here in wikipedia, that everyone starts to feel excused when treating the others in a belittling and insulting way only because they have different point of views, while instead is very easy to discuss civilly, achieve neutrality in the article and solve issues if one just wants to.

Also I don't understand MyMoloboaccount block, he made a single bad edit (perhaps misunderstood), we are now going to block people only because of a single bad edit? -- Flushout1999 (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek I'm sorry Marek but here I am going to disagree with you. First: disagreements are ok, to discuss them incivilly and just in order to intimidate the others is not. Second: who is the one that is really following the other? For example, my first edit in the Warsaw Pact is at 23:08, 29 July 2013 [39], yours is at 21 October 2015 [40] and you came only to revert my old edits [41] while in the same moment you deleted all of my old edits in The Harvest of Sorrow [42] while discussing there with me. As the two articles are totally unrelated, this means you took a look to my contribs and then you engaged in a ravaged deletion of my past edits you disliked (and you even used the excuse of "suspect copyvio" in the Warsaw Pact article. My source was not an english book, so I could not copy anything, in that case I had rewritten all in my words). I tell you, I perceive (and I perceived) this not only as a form of WP:HARASSMENT but also as WP:WIKIHOUNDING made towards me.

But I'm glad you now realized we could perfectly discuss in a civil way and understand each other, we could have it done that also in that occasion. I believe that if we all take in consideration each other thoughts and we respect each other than a solution is always available. For example see this: Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent, perhaps me too I am still not able to do that, but probably Wikipedia is all about this. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sad enough, it seems many wikipedia users judge the others' actions not on what actually a specific user (in this case VM) have done towards the others but basing their comments only on the fact if they are friends of VM or if they share his POV: assuming bad faith, being uncivil, diminish the other editors, being rude and insulting is perfectly acceptable when done by a "friend" or by someone who share the same POV on certain topics.

Delete most of others' edits without discussing, as VM usually does, because "it is POV crap (from other users)" it means simply that wikipedia will be left only with what is good according to VM's point of view. Still "POV crap (from VM and others)" will be left and everyone can see it.

This is totally embarrassing because in WP:UNDUE (examples from Jimbo Wales) and WP:NPOV is perfectly explained how facts/opinions from sources have to be reported correctly in the articles. Instead to discuss in order to achieve neutrality following the rules, VM chooses the option on being uncivil, insulting and delete everything which is not according to his POV, failing to put aside his personal prejudices and beliefs.

Again, VM being blocked or not is not what is important here (and I personally don't care), what is important is that a great amount of users appear simply unable to understand something so easy like what is the base of everything here and fail to communicate and collaborate with the other users in a civil way.

PS: Just a final comment: not everyone is plenty of time to spend here on wikipedia. There is also life outside wikipedia: work (because money do not come from writing here), family, real affections, just simply real life. To make an argument about people not being present here every time, every day, every hour, is really ludicrous. Not everyone is so "fortunate" to be able to stay here in WP permanently, but yes again, let's assume bad faith because one does not have the time to stay here everyday in front of a computer. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

This is a transparent attempt to win a content dispute using this board. All three descriptions by MyMoloboaccount are seriously misleading. VM's conduct on the talk page is not ideal, but MyMoloboaccount's conduct is as bad or worse, which directly led to VM's conduct.

The major diff is here. By no stretch of imagination can this be called "minor changes", as stated in the edit summary. This alone should raise doubts about MyMoloboaccount's conduct.

Let me first point out the kernel of the matter. The Warsaw Pact was in part a reaction to NATO. That is not all that it was: historical events rarely have a single cause or motivation. There were plenty of nefarious motives as well. The writing on this issue needs to be nuanced. The Laurien Crump source is accepted by all sides as a good source, and it needs to be presented carefully.

Let's now go through the diffs:

The first diff is a description of the article. Anyone who has worked in any contentious area on Wikipedia knows that many articles are POV crap. Whether or not that is correct in this instance, this is hardly an offence.
The second diff, contrary to MyMoloboaccount's account, "instead of discussing the issue...", indeed discusses the issue, with some rather minor incivility. The edit made by MyMoloboaccount was indeed atrocious.
In the third diff, the problem is that text which was disputed earlier, was reintroduced with a misleading edit summary by MyMoloboaccount. The actual issue, minus all the heat, is that a nuanced version of the text can be written which is supported by the sources.

In such topics, people have their own POV. It is unavoidable. People have to work together in spite of this.

By the way, why is MyMoloboaccount blocked? The block log says something about AE, which I can't fathom. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid Arthur Rubin crucially misreads the edit made by MyMoloboaccount. The statement does not say that the purpose of the Warsaw Pact was to protect the internal security, but that the major military engagements were to protect internal security, which is a rather different thing. The stated purpose of something need not coincide with the actual use of the thing.

Also, the term "internal security" often refers to the security of the regime, rather than security of the population. This is the way in which internal security is used routinely in political literature. See this, this and this for examples.

That said, the edit made by MyMoloboaccount was very POV and certainly not "minor" (again a misleading edit summary). There is also a larger point. Are we now blocking people based on POV pushing? I would then suggest that a large portion of the editors in Israel-Palestine or Eastern-Europe area should be blocked then. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My own viewpoint is that it was not OK to block MyMoloboaccount based on one edit, which the blocker misread anyway. POV-pushers are ubiquitous in any contentious area on Wikipedia. If there is a pattern of misbehaviour by MMA then it should be presented before acting like this. Regarding conduct by all parties, my own viewpoint is: I see plenty of discussion of actual content on the talk page, mixed with the odd incivil comment. The latter is not ideal, but nobody behaves like a saint all the time. I don't see anything too bad. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Please see my comments above regarding "internal security". If people are going to be banned on the basis of single edits, I am willing to bet that at least half the people in the area, and IsraelPalestine would be banned. Indeed, I am not sure how long I would be able to survive in such a climate. Plenty of people insert Russian propaganda, American propaganda, Israeli propaganda, Palestinian propaganda. Propaganda often contains a germ of truth, and in this case, it did. If a pattern of editing is demonstrated, I have no problem. Kingsindian ♝ ♚

Statement by Arthur Rubin

I cannot see this edit by MyMoloboaccount as being in good faith; the claim that the Warsaw Pact was intended to support internal security of the nations involved is contrary to fact and to the wording of the Pact. The pact was written as to protect external security of the nations, and reliable sources suggest the secondary reason was to protect the Soviet Union against threats from the other signatories. (I'm not sure the references to West Germany are sourced. I don't want to get involved in editing the article.) The statement must be considered Soviet propaganda, and propaganda (except as opinion) is not permitted on Wikipedia.

I am not commenting on Volunteer Marek's alleged incivility. However, if addition of propaganda is considered WP:vandalism, VM should not be cited for edit warring, as removal of vandalism is a permitted exception. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to investigate all of MyMoloboaccount's diffs, I would probably suggest a topic ban from (at least) Warsaw pact, and all actions taken by the Soviet Union under the Pact. Do we want to continue? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

@Spartaz: For what it's worth, Marek is right. Now, I would probably use different language: I would say that Flushout1999 (and Mymoloboaccount) are tendentious editors who are systematically and somewhat dishonestly degrading the quality of our article on the Warsaw Pact in service of their political agendas. Marek would say that they're turning the article into an even bigger pile of POV crap than it already was. Both of those are true statements.

I suppose the proper response to this complaint comes down to a philosophical question: which is the bigger threat to Wikipedia as a serious, reputable reference work? Dishonest, agenda-driven obsessives, or people who lose patience with them? My personal view is probably evident from my framing of the question. MastCell ^Talk 06:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maunus)

Editors should assume good faith - untill that becomes impossible. Likewise, editors should use civil and courteous language - but should not be excessively punished when their patience is put to the test by long-term blatant, tendentious editing. (Note that I don't know Mymoloboaccounts editing patterns, but refer to the POV pushing that VolunteerMarek reverted at R&I)·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iryna Harpy

I wish to apologise to VM for not having added my 2¢ as soon as Mymoloboaccount embarked on this underhanded fiasco for fear of exploding myself. Should the admins and volunteers evaluating this AE wish to wade through years of diffs demonstrating Mymoloboaccount's bad faith editing practices, I'm willing to present them... but please be prepared for at least a day of reading through diffs. This is by no means the only article surrounding Eastern European history and current affairs Mymoloboaccount crops up on on a regular basis in order to undermine consensus decisions made across multiple articles. Presenting single incidents provides no overview of the years of gaming engaged in by the user. Naturally, if Wikipedia were Utopia and editors could all be understood to be honest about whether they're truly HERE, we wouldn't need AGF or CIVIL as part of our guidelines and policy. The reality is that it's not a perfect Wikipedia world. As 'nice' as it would be to not have editors like VM be pushed to the point of a meltdown, bad faith editors (who quickly disappear into the woodwork as soon as they know that the heat is on, only to return months later to the same articles in order to start the same arguments again when consensus has clearly not changed) who refuse to back down after years of the same antagonistic, dishonest behaviour have forfeited all rights to cry "attack". Calling SPADE may not be desirable but, in this instance, it's imperative. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

This edit by Molobo (just noted by EdJohnston) is indeed very strange. It is so ridiculous that one must ask the question: does Molobo really believes that such edit improves content or he made this edit on purpose: to engage VM in discussion and report him to WP:AE? Knowing Molobo and his role in EEML case, I am sure that's the latter. My very best wishes (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am really surprised that Molobo continue trying to justify his very strange edit on this noticeboard. None of the sources he indicated (for example, sources in this diff) uses term "internal security" in the same meaning as was used by Molobo. For example, first source ("Encyclopedia of intelligence" [43]) tells about Martial law in Poland, which is something very different and indeed can be viewed as an internal "security" operation. My very best wishes (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Volunteer_Marek

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

I'd like to hear any justification/explanation Volunteer Marek can offer for those diffs. At first look they appear to be clear personal attacks and incivility and breaches of Cannanecc's warning. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment appears to have crossed with the statements.
- Diff #1 - Its a more than a bit disingenuous to say you were describing the article when your edit summary is clearly aimed at MyMoloboaccount. This looks like a clear violation.
- Diff #2 - Gimme a fucking break. Can you at least pretend that you're trying to be neutral here? Clearly personalising a discussion and at the very least this skirts the civility policy - depending on how tolerant you are of swearing. To me, its too strongly worded and sweary.
- Diff #3 - Nothing actionable here IMO.
- The rest of VMs statement is attempting to tar MyMoloboaccount rather than addressing his own behaviour and has been ignored. My judgement is that this actionable and that a block and TB are appropriate. I'd suggest 24hours and a 1 month TB from eastern European areas. Other options are of course available.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like MastCell, I might have used different words than VM, but I'm against sanctioning editors for speaking impatiently to those who try to degrade content, or for using swear words. Defending tendentiousness by combing the opponent's posts for bad words is one of the oldest tricks on Wikipedia, and I'd like to see a boomerang here. Bishonen | talk 21:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
My general take on this situation parallels Bishonen's, and I don't see any value to either blocking or topic-banning Volunteer Marek, although despite how strongly he feels, I do think it would be better if he toned down some of the language, in order to avoid distracting people from the merits of his positions. On the other hand, while I understand why Bishonen makes her "boomerang" suggestion, I suppose an AE report that another admin has found merit to can't be categorized as frivolous on its face. So subject to others' input, I would close with no action at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per Bishonen, any action taken here should address more than the apparent incivility of Volunteer Marek. The comments above by User:MastCell about the neutrality (or lack thereof) of MyMoloboAccount's edits of Warsaw Pact are relevant. In particular, the talk discussion at Talk:Warsaw Pact#POV in the beginnings section and the rest of the page raise questions in my mind about MyMoloboAccount's ability to edit neutrally about Soviet foreign policy:

"The Warsaw Pact's largest military engagements were aimed at internal security of member states during 1956 against Hungary and in 1968 against Czechoslovakia".

Phrasing about 'internal security' when referring to suppression of Czech and Hungarian independence movements does sound Orwellian. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this board do boomerangs? Yes, VM uses salty language, and in this case--IMO--understandably so. MastCell and Bishonen and others are right on the money: getting it right should be first and foremost in an encyclopedia; we should really ponder boomerang options. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just looked at User_talk:MyMoloboaccount#3RR_Warning_2. Arthur Rubin blocked MyMoloboAccount for "violating Wikipedia principles", pointing specifically at the edit about "internal security" cited on this page a few times. MyMoloboAccount protested, and Rubin kindly unblocked. However, if this phrase is indeed "Soviet propaganda", then discretionary sanctions are applicable here since the edit is an obvious violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I will not be applying sanctions to MyMoloboAccount since my longstanding antagonistic relationship with Volunteer Marek may muddy the waters (it's all about the Iron Bowl), but I fully support something along those lines, like, say, a three-month topic ban, which should be long enough to memorize WP:POV. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Erlbaeko, I'm glad I am not the only one here with a sense of humor! Drmies (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Kingsindian, I think that there is plenty of evidence here to suggest there is a pattern of inappropriate conduct. Remember, this isn't just about quality of edits and awareness of Wikipedia content policy, it's also about behavior. I have not done a headcount of those who think BOOMERANG applies here but I think there's enough of them to warrant a sanction based on behavior as demonstrated here alone. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

930310

Clear consensus for a topic ban from Longevity, broadly construed Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:19, 7 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 930310

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Legacypac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 930310 (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

[44] Voting Keep on an effort to consolidate, arguing that it is easier to compare info on separate pages
[45] Voting against Wikipedia policy on RS and for the GRG being exclusive "verified" source.
Date "the anti-supercentenarian crew AfD-nominated.." (us vs them mentality)
[46] "Updated article due to repeated destruction of article by User:Commanderlinx"
[47] Updated article due to repeated destruction of article by Commanderlinx
[48] Undid revision 692532327 by CommanderLinx (talk)Undid vandalism
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Ann_Neve&diff=prev&oldid=692526144 (Undid revision 692422449 by CommanderLinx (talk)Undoing destruction)
[49] (Undid revision 692337985 by Legacypac (talk)Destructive edit undone)
[50] This is the most ridiculous crap I have ever heard. (on an SPI)
[51] It's more like some POV-Pushers have been more actively caballing and canvassing to scare off neutral, third-party input. This particular comment by you, EEng, reflects a long-standing pattern of edit-warring and battle-grounding on this subject. 930310 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
[52] starts ANi thread against a "group" of editors and gets no sympathy. Says "I propose that a topic ban regarding longevity related articles is given to both of them since they are obviously only out to destruct articles about longevity and show clear disrespect for the deceased by saying things such as the ones mentioned above."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

Participated in the ArbComm case relevant here [53]
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [54] on talk page in Aug 2015
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [55].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Editor is a long term, single purpose account only editing in the Longevity area. They disrespect other upstanding editors as seen in the diffs and edit summaries. They tried to have 2 to 5 editors topic banned at once in ANi and the idea of boomarang was raised. The off Wiki canvassing and spas continue to be a major problem in this topic, but at least we can use these discretionary sanctions to topic ban POV pushing editors like this one that pretty consistently argue against Wikipedia policy. Regularly specifically names and agrees with recently topic banned editor Ollie231213 [56] and engages in the the same abuse toward policy. Thank-you for your consideration of this report. 11:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Response to Alansohn's allegations: As an editor that enjoys cleanup (including Neelix, pageants, and recently longevity) and editing ISIL (also a DS area), I've attracted more then my fair share of attacks at ANi, 3RR and even a failed effort to brand in SPi by POV pushers and edit warriors. I don't maintain a tombstone list, and am not always successful in XfD, 3RR reports etc but there have been thousands of deletes/redirect effected based on my nominations. I continue to edit with a clean record while people that see me as an opponent end up blocked, topic banned, etc. I've also never been interested in off wiki coordination. Perhaps a case against Alansohn should be prepared next for he also engages in the same agenda pushing behavior as Ollie and 930310 Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing: One editor below was sent here to comment by a recently Longevity topic banned editor [57] while another is discussing this case with the same topic banned editor [58] in evident violation of that editor's topic ban. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [59]

Canvassing: I was "sent" here, as Legacypac states, only because I requested to be informed. Attempting to build a case against the user in question for canvassing under these circumstances seems to be a misrepresentation of the actual events. Of course, misrepresentation seems to be the norm in this case.Jacona (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning 930310

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 930310

Statement 1 Hardly surprising that this user goes on an attack towards me as well. There are so many instances of you having done this because of users you don't like so I won't even bother with making any comments to protect myself towards this nonsense. I have been a user on Wikipedia for almost ten years, and if people check my history I did not register or was a SPA back then, which I am not now either. So how can I be nominated for being such? I post or edit where I feel like and currently longevity related articles are my main interest. Is there anything wrong with having interests? 930310 (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement 2 Regarding some of the examples used as evidence against me:

1. Disagreeing with another user is certainly not against Wikipeda policy, and in fact, if we look at a number of LegacyPac's "efforts", he is receiving widespread opposition.

2. It's actually LegacyPac who is violating Wikipedia policy by not paying any attention to WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:VALID, and WP:WP:BESTSOURCES. To quote from the latter: "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements." It's quite clear from looking at other reliable sources that the GRG is considered an authority on the subject. Arguing that Wikipedia should reflect this is ABSOLUTELY NOT a violation of policy. Read this, it explains the situation perfectly.

3. Actually, loads of other users have openly admitted that this is a "them Vs us" situation. See here.

4. All I did there was improve an article.

5. Ditto.

6. I apologize for this. One shouldn't call policy-based edits "vandalism".

7. Ditto.

8. In this instance my actions were justified since LegacyPac removed sourced information because he disagreed with what was written in the source. A clear violation of WP:OriginalResearch.

9. I could have been more tactful here. The argument for suggesting I was a sockpuppet was however very weak.

10. The anti-GRG editors (as mentioned above) have made a clear and concerted effort to "prune" longevity articles (see here), and in a number of cases, they have received widespread opposition from uninvolved editors (here, here, here, here, here, and here.

11. A number of uninvolved editors have expressed frustration at the actions of the anti-longevity editors.

930310 (talk) 13:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being a SPA, which I do not consider myself to be, is not against Wiki-policy. The reason as to why I am editing longevity-related articles is because I am interested in them. I have explained clearly why I believe that I am acting in line with policy. What specifically have I done that is in violation of policy? 930310 (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EEng

The user's contribution history practically defines "SPA". [60] [61]. Not visible via those links is fact that his/her userpage and sandbox were for years two of the many WP:FAKEARTICLE/WP:NOTWEBHOST longevity lists that have finally purged: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:930310 Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:930310/sandbox. EEng (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth remembering this Arbcom finding from February 2011:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#WikiProject_World.27s_Oldest_People_urged: WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Wikipedia policies and community norms.

That didn't happen, which is why the mess continues. SPAs' lack of experience in the wider project continues to plague discussions. EEng (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alansohn

These allegations regarding 930310 -- together with the more disturbing result above regarding User:Ollie231213 -- are clear examples of what comes off as a rather clear tag team mentality by both User:EEng and User:Legacypac. The instances cited here of "edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it" are examples of Orwellian thought crimes. Just take the first two examples:

Both of these are examples of situations where 930310 challenged one of the mass of repeated AfD nominations by EEng / Legacypac, cited relevant Wikipedia policy and now have this used as "evidence" against them. I can't even figure out how either of these can be viewed as violations of policy under even the most strained view of Longevity-related policy violations. These are quintessentially appropriate votes in each case.

The repeated SPA allegations from EEng appear to be intended as a provocation, in the same manner as what was done to Ollie231213.

Any objection to boomerang nominations for EEng and Legacypac? Alansohn (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG - In describing this as "a clear case of SPA vs. Wikipedia" you have prejudged the matter without justification. The diffs offered are run-of-the-mill examples of rather ordinary back and forth discussions, at worst. In no example is any of the required policy violation offered, nor is any consideration given to the rather belligerent harassment and provocation by both EEng and Legacypac. If you're proposing a topic ban of any length, offer the community some specific example of what the basis is for this use of administrative authority. On the contrary, a look at the history stats for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian supercentenarians shows the tag team of EEng and Legacypac with 42 of the 97 edits -- more than 43% of all edits to the AfD -- where edits by EEng and Legacypac include:

And this is just a taste of what's to come. The problem here is the tag team. A permanent topic ban on LegacyPac and EEng will solve 99% of the battleground mentality, baiting and provocations taking place at Longevity-related articles. Alansohn (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 7&6=thirteen

I concur entirely with Alansohn and his reasoning. Eeng and Legacypac have incessantly waged a war of attrition on longevity-related articles. It is the WP:PROD of the day. And Legacypac at least got nasty when others try to derail their express train. So much so that even Eeng told him to cool his jets. Topic banning ought to be last resort. I for one have basically avoided the topic, not for lack of interest, as I am afraid of affronting The Red Queen, as we have "discretionary sanctions" with little or no warning or guidance as to what is expected. You can shut off all dissent. Or if you are applying sanctions you should do it even-handedly, whatever standard it is that you are applying 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JaconaFrere

Legacypac has been on a tear at AfD, belittling other editors who vote keep on any longevity or pageant articles while removing other editors fairly passive statements as personal attacks, and accusing experienced editors such as 7&6=thirteen single-purpose editors because they opposed their position on an afd. A boomerang for Legacypac is in my opinion long overdue. Jacona (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David in DC

930310 offers this thread for the proposition that there's something wrong with efforts to prune the longevity walled garden. But the thread proves something quite different. I started the thread on the WOP wikiproject page in an effort to get the logjam resolved by cooperation and consensus. Please review the thread carefully. The chirping of crickets after my initial posting and subsequent plea for dialogue is telling. David in DC (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ricky81682

One has to ignore the greater dispute here and focus on the actual editors involved. I don't particularly find Legacypac and EEng's prods and AFD campaign entirely perfect but I think the overall consensus following each one of their listings is at least some level of support for their policies. I suggest someone filing separate AE requests on them if they find it prudent. As to 930310, we tend to disagree, but I think his/her conduct here is sufficient for a limited topic ban to see if the editor can work outside of this area at the moment. 930310's comment at the SPI, note that the SPI was originally titled Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/930310 and only later moved when 930310 was found unrelated to the other editors, a proposal that I supported. While not perfectly civil, the comment would be something I would expect from anyone tagged with an SPI report basically naming everyone who voted keep on a single AFD discussion. 930310's comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Snavely (2nd nomination) was in part a procedural speedy keep based on the month-prior closure of the same AFD. That isn't necessarily objectionable to me, as I can imagine a number of other editors with the same mindset just based on the timing of the AFDs. However, the ANI complaint (which admittedly names me as well) is about the same issues that permeate this entire AE request, namely the proposals to prod and take pages repeatedly to AFD. The fact that 930310 is so emotionally tied to these articles that listing their biographies for deletion (or discussing the concept) is considered "disrespectful" makes it difficult if not impossible to have any objective discussions about them. I suspect we'll have more AE disputes as the topic ban discussions can go here rather than at ANI which is probably a bit better. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn: I don't think AE works for boomerang nominations as JzG notes below. If you want to propose sanctions requests against the nominator and others, new sections should be started. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning 930310

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

This is a clear case of SPA vs. Wikipedia. Regardless of any issues with the filing party (which should be addressed via a separate request if people feel so strongly about it), the involvement of SPAs has been highlighted as a specific issue with the walled garden of articles around longevity. A topic ban for 930310 is entirely in line with policy and the arbitration finding. I propose a TB with appeal allowed after 3 months if 930310 makes significant contributions outside of the contended topic area. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:JzG that there should be a topic ban of User:930310 from longevity. A reading of the ANI thread does not inspire confidence in 930310's judgment, when he speaks of 'ganging up' by opponents of keeping these articles. Evidence was presented in the thread that members of the '110 Club' were solicited off-wiki to participate in the recent series of AfDs of longevity-related articles, though without any claim that 930310 was personally part of that canvassing. It is unquestionable that articles in the longevity area must adhere to the same content standards as expected in all other parts of Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ricky, and thus with Guy and EdJohnston. I do think that EEng and Legacypac aren't very good at reaching across the aisle, but as acerbic as they come across sometimes, it is clear that they are here for the betterment of our beautiful project and not to ride their own hobby-horse all over the place. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HughD

Blocked one week for violation of topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning HughD

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: HughD (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: [[62]] :

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

Dec 21st HughD was told on December 11th by {U:Ricky81682} that the Watchdog.org topic was part of his topic ban. For violating that ban his Tea Party, broadly construed topic ban was expanded to all US conservative politics 2009 and later. The WP:TBAN guidelines state that a topic ban covers "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." Asking for an RfC that HughD created on the page that resulted in his expanded topic block looks like discussing the banned topic.
Dec 23 Citizens United vs FEC is a topic that falls within conservative politics. The article makes mention of conservative groups on a number of occasions including the group "Citizens United". The case was brought before the USSC in 2009 and decided in 2010. Thus the date of the case is within the topic ban. The subject is conservative politics.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Aug 28 HughD topic-banned from "any articles involving the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers, for one year."
Oct 11 After AE request, HughD warned that "further violations of the TBAN will likely result in a block (even if just minor)."
Oct 29 HughD blocked for one week "following editing on Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity." An appeal of this block was declined at AE [63].
Dec 11 HughD informed that the TBAN was expanded to all US conservative politics 2009 and later, broadly construed.
[64] WP:BLUDGEON admin Ricky81682 regarding limits and justification of TBAN.

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

Editor's sanctions were expanded less than 2 weeks back.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[[65]]

Discussion concerning HughD

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 HughD

Thank you to my good colleagues Guy and Ed for your comments. Of course I would welcome an opportunity to apologize for and strike any edit which a consensus of my colleagues agree is a topic ban violation.

"Regarding the first diff: he is asking for someone to close an RfC about watchdog.org that he himself opened." I started an RfC at Watchdog.org 8 December, before the topic ban expansion, but I did not request a close. Prior to the RfC, three threads of preliminary talk page discussion were started by colleagues informally collaborating on improving the coverage and neutrality of article Watchdog.org, threads representing successive refinement of the content eventually proposed by the RfC. On 7 December, prior to the RfC, involved editor Paid Editor 009o9 requested a formal closure of these three threads that clearly did not need closure let alone formal closure. As per WP:CLOSE, "Many informal discussions do not need closing." Significantly, Paid Editor 009o9 failed to notify of the request for closure at article talk. 20 December I noticed the unusual request for closure among the backlog at WP:ANRFC, and commented in hopes of an WP:ANRFC patroller archiving the request for closure and helping reducing the backlog. In summary, the record is clear that I did not request a closure of an RfC (and neither did Paid Editor 009o9). ~~I see the request for closure is still there at WP:ANRFC, sigh, so my effort was in vain.~~ I apologize to the community I did not anticipate my good faith attempt to help clear a spurious request from our WP:ANRFC backlog might be considered a topic ban violation. I would be more than happy to strike my comment there, particularly if someone would be so kind as to come behind me and click archive the ill-advised request for closure. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

29 December the pointed, disruptive request for close was archived without action with a comment "per Hugh's comment above these weren't RFC's. There appears to be no reason to apply closes." Hugh (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand well Citizens United (organization) is in scope, but I did not edit it; not so obvious to me is that a US Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. FEC is in scope, and even less obvious to me is that a WP:MOS issue with an abbreviation in an article title is in scope. I did not edit Citizens United v. FEC article space; I weighed in to an ongoing article talk discussion regarding an issue of style in favor of expanding the abbreviation in the title of the article from FCC to Federal Communications Commission for the benefit of our readers. I believe in good faith that this comment is specifically authorized by the bullet 4 of WP:TBAN, which empowers conscientious topic banned editors to continue to contribute to our project, including to those parts of articles which are not within scope. The style issue of whether or not to disambiguate FCC in the title of the article cannot be considered by reasonable persons to be directly related to American conservative politics. If a consensus of my colleagues agree I am mistaken, I will gladly apologize to the community and strike through. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to my good colleague Fyddlestix for their prodigious accounting below, it means a lot to me, thank you for your time. At this time I would add just one diff: an administrator of our project asking the complainant to cease his harassment 18 October 2015; my preference would be a separate filing focused on complainant's harassment. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am grateful for an opportunity to apologize and would be more than happy to strike any comment that I made in good faith that a consensus of uninvolved administrators believe I should. May I respectfully suggest that requesting unarchiving of an archived thread at WP:ANRFC for the purposes of striking a good faith helpful non-disruptive comment may not be the best use of our volunteer time. Respectfully request clarification from uninvolved administrators regarding how our project's policy WP:TBAN specifically bullet 4 does not apply to a good faith non-disruptive talk page comment on the style issue of the usefulness to our readers of an acronym in the title of an article, as I seem to have a misunderstanding of WP:TBAN bullet 4. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

There's no love lost between me and HughD, but I fail to see anything actionable in the diffs provided. Guy (Help!) 01:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update 7 Jan: HughD seems to be emboldened and if anything is doubling-down on this, so I revise my view: his behaviour is now I believe in violation of the sanctions applied. Guy (Help!) 19:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ricky81682

While the request to close the RFC on a violating page is a violation to me, I'll agree with EdJohnston that striking the comment is sufficient. Citizens United is one of the key decisions that relate to Tea party politics and to conservative politics 2009 onward, so I agree that it's also a significant violation and hopefully striking the comment will be sufficient too. As to point 5 under the previous sanctions, those types of antics are typical for HughD in response to sanctions and while annoying personally and while I would just prefer HughD bringing his/her concerns here, the refusal to do so is not a violation of any sanctions. Absent that, I think more aggressive blocks are necessary. HughD did not discuss or specifically dispute the sanctions directly and instead badgered me enacting them without a direct request that they be re-considered. This kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior has not lessened as time as passed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fyddlestix I agree that Springee's actions are sub-optimal to put it mildly. HughD at least seems to be trying to calm that down by making a fair request that Springee's comments on HughD's talk page will not be responded (which is his right) and Springee seems more intent on antagonizing him. I was just alerted to possible canvassing concerns by Springee by User:Scoobydunk who has in the past been against Springee's conduct and say pro-the side of HughD (not directly in favor but you get my point). The problem is being used by either side to get the other side banned for political reasons (or let's say to allow for or to stop editing that would either improve or worsen how these articles look if one was a partisan actor, not that anyone is). It's pure WP:BATTLEGROUND antics all around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Springee As I stated on my talk page, this and this does not help this ARE discussion. I'd suggest you immediately stop anything further about it and drop it. As to anything further, a separate AE request could be made about Springee but that's best for another day. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley That conduct is standard behavior for HughD whenever he is engaged in an RFC, namely removal and reorganization of the comments of others, and repeated responses with passive-aggressive statements hounding some, thanking others and requesting that they depersonalize or deescalate or whatever the situation. I was first involved with HughD and enacted the first sanctions due to his conduct and chaos at two dual simultaneous RFCs at Talk:Americans for Prosperity for the same request which involved not just one extensive ANI discussion but two of them at the same time. The same issues persist since August. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

HughD has clearly been testing limits for a while. On Dec 22nd-23rd this editor violated the 3RR rule [[66]]. HughD is particularly bad about engaging in topic page discussions vs acting on the article page. I have had a number of disagreements with HughD. They boil down to both a bludgeoning attitude and a refusal to engage on the talk page and gain consensus vs just acting. Even when he is posting on the talk page his comments are often not meant to discuss. Since I'm far from an uninvolved editor my views should be seen as such. I would suggest Ricky's POV be given a lot of weight in this discussion. HughD is an editor who will certainly push the rules again and badger admins again if he is unhappy with rulings against him. Springee (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Fyddlestix: Please note that since the unsuccessful ANI was brought against me regarding HughD I have largely not interacted with him on any work. The only direct editorial interactions I've had are related to his attempt to improperly include a Mother Jones article into a large number of WP articles ("The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change" which HughD has inserted into about a dozen articles") which dates to before the failed ANI in question. Hence you are seeing a large number of interacting WP pages though they are all related to a single topic. Looking thought my edit history since October (ie about the last two months) I see only three editorial interactions for all of November and all were related HughD attempting to reinsert a MJ reference against the limited consensus of a NPOVN and RSN discussion in three of the previous articles [67],[68],[69]. All edits done without talk page discussions on HughD's part. The talk page interactions here [70] are again related to the attempted insertion of the same MJ article. You will find the same thing with the December interactions. My posts on his talk page recently (other than the two notices which are required) was short and simply asked him to self revert a 4RR posting. If there were a large number of interactions on new subjects I would agree with Fyddlestix views (I think Fyddlestix is a very level headed editor) however, in this case the interactions have been limited to a single, previous topic which HughD has inserted into many WP articles. Springee (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 7th Update: In the time since EdJohnston noted that HughD has not moved to strike his comments which violated his TBAN HughD has not taken action to correct his violations. During the time that this complaint has been active, two editors, NewsAndEventsGuy and William M. Connolley have noted disruptive behavior on the ExxonMobil article and related talk page. This includes deleting and moving other editor's comments against their wishes as well as WP:tendentious behavior with respect to his recent RfC (not notifying editors of previous noticeboard discussions on the same source article, adding new notices when it appears the existing discussion is not going as he would wish). The above is the exact sort of behavior that resulted in the current topic ban. Springee (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fyddlestix

I've been watching these two users interact for a while, and am getting increasingly uncomfortable with the extent to which Springee seems to be out to get HughD.

Springee has reported HughD to various noticeboards multiple times [71][72][73][74][75] and has himself been previously reported at ANI for hounding HughD [76]. There's also the issue of Springee having followed HughD to a large number of pages [77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93] very often to either revert or tag one of HughD's edits within a few hours of it being made. There would be even more examples there if I were to include talk pages, such as this review of one of Hugh's GA's, which I can't fathom how Springee would have come across other than by stalking HughD's contributions. Note also that HughD recently banned Springee from his talk page [94], and that Springee has since made three posts to Hugh's talk [95][96][97] (2 of these were a notice of Springee creating a noticeboard report against HughD).

I have no comment on Hugh's recent edits/actions (I've tried pretty hard to tune the squabbling of these two users out), but it's clear to me at this point that Springee is just not going to be satisfied until they succeed in getting HughD blocked. Personally I believe an IBAN is way past due here, but that's up to the admins - I'm posting now just to make sure that commenting admins are aware of the long-running animosity between these two users, as I believe it's relevant context here. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arthur Rubin

This is not the first (or, second, or, third) time Hugh has pushed the edge of his topic ban(s). If he had struck the comments among his first actions after (or, preferably, before) commenting here, I would recommend against further enforcement action on this complaint, in spite of the fact that I feel his edits are harmful to Wikipedia's neutrality. However, he only offered to strike; he hasn't yet done so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by William M. Connolley

I don't have an opinion on this request, but I draw any interested admin's attention to recent edits at Talk:ExxonMobil; here seems as good a place as any William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also offer [98] as an example of HD's bad faith, and how difficult he is to get on with William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy

Having noticed HughD's combative attitude at Talk:ExxonMobil, on 20:13, January 1, 2016 I added a query on that page, whether edits of those sort would be barred by a TBan on conservative US politics? I didn't name Hugh, but of course I was trying to inspire a collaborative approach. Regrettably, the comment Hugh left two days later on WMC's page (which william linked above) shows Hugh being unwilling play nice in the area of climate disinformation/denial, of which abundant RSs link to conservative side of contemporary US politics. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS I just realized the HughD is the good article reviewer for Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand; Meanwhile, looking at just the lead at Climate change denial, we find three instances of the word "conservative", associating climate denial/skepticism with conservative politics. seems like this editor is still finding ways to violate the Tban on conservative politics. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change denial = subset of conservative politics. After all that has been said here in last week or so, I see today's wonderful vitriol from Hugh's editsum in watchlist

"move disruptive harassing immature blatant edit war baiting interpolation into my statement of position in survey section, threaded comments in separate section below as per clear unambiguous bold italicised RfC instructions above WP:IDHT"

When this is closed, could the closure scold Hugh for that tone anywhere anytime, and say that a continuation in the climate change denial pages will be viewed as a Tban vio? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

HUGHD HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG. As stated below, he's been open minded about his topic ban. Frankly, everyone else here should be banned from ExxonMobil. William Connolley has too much of a climate change denial bias to effectively edit the topic.

Result concerning HughD

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

Both of the edits listed above appear to be violations of HughD's topic ban. Terms of the ban are stated stated in DSLOG. "...that ban has been redefined and expanded to cover everything related to conservative US politics from 2009 to the present, broadly construed until August 28, 2016.."The widening of the ban was enacted by User:Ricky81682 on 11 December.

Regarding the first diff: he is asking for someone to close an RfC about watchdog.org that he himself opened. It was technically OK for him to open the RfC on 8 December, but after 11 December he should be keeping hands off the RfC per the terms of his ban.
Regarding the second diff: Citizens United (organization) is included in Category:New Right organizations (United States) so it is related to conservative US politics. The court case discussed was decided in 2010 so this is covered by conservative US politics from 2009 to the present. HughD's point about Bluebook citations might be OK if made elsewhere, so long as it were not made on the talk page of a court case he is banned from discussing.

I recommend that HughD offer to cure his ban violation by striking out both of the comments named in this request. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This editor seems receptive to guidance as to whether the two subject edits violated the topic-ban. I believe they did, but in view of his comments, I believe that pointing this out and cautioning against a recurrence is a sufficient response. I don't think the editor should be required to strike out the two comments, though; I understand that that would be a gesture of compliance with the topic-ban, but the net result would be to call more, not less, attention to the comments that shouldn't have been made and that I trust won't be made again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calling HughD 'receptive to guidance' would be an optimistic conclusion given the debates he has engaged in at User talk:Ricky81682. Nonetheless HughD has made a statement above suggesting that he won't continue. ~~So I'd be OK with closing this with a warning to HughD to make no more edits like the two diffs cited at top of this complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)~~ Revising my opinion: I see no move by User:HughD to strike out either of his ban-violating comments. So I'd favor going ahead with a one-week block for violating his ban from conservative US politics since 2009. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. I'm blocking HughD for one week for violation of his topic ban from US politics since 2009, per the two diffs that were supplied by the requester. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kachelus

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 Kachelus

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Kachelus (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

This editor is a long-term WP:SPA who's involvement at Wikipedia since September 2009 is (almost all) editing longevity articles. Discretionary sanctions are warranted against accounts that have a "clear shared agenda" such as those who consistently edit articles, and vote in AfDs to favor the position of the Gerontology Research Group, as opposed to the goals of Wikipedia. This is that type of editor.

August 20, 2014 and June 29, 2014: Example of the typical editing by Kachelus which is of typical hyper-technical listcruft for the WOP tables, revising location of an alleged supercentenarian with no source provided (one being a edit summary to a random obscure GRG subpage with zero evidence for its credibility).
December 19, 2015 Restoration of the nonsense that claims are "unverified" when they are classified as "unverified" under the GRG as opposed to when they are unverified as meant under WP:V. This has been well settled since August 2015.
December 20, 2015 Reverting at Australian page to again assert GRG's "verified" status as opposed to what Wikipedia cares about.
December 30, 2015 In an AFD, demands that "First create a list on wikipedia with all verified dead supercentenarians in a sortable table, sortable to gender, to year of death, to place of death, and then all the other lists could be merged or deleted. But not the other way round, because in this way there is danger of losing information in case of being not installed of the big table. So I wait for the big table." showing a complete disassociation for what is useful and productive here.

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

Editor has been editing in this area for many years and while there is almost no talk page comments, this one at that time had the ARBCOM notice on the talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Kachelus As was suggested with respect to 930310 above, if you have any concerns about Legacypac, please propose a section here that explicitly explains the issues. It did no good in the section above and it will do no good here either. As to Ollie231213, I don't need to rehash the fact that a number of outside admins with no involvement in this area that agreed and supported the topic ban. If the same happens here, so be it. As to your editing, first, the issue is that the GRG has those categories and yet Wikipedia discussion after discussion among people who work on the entire encyclopedia and not the supercentenarian hobbyists have found the GRG unverified claims as not reliable sources. There have been numerous RFCs and debates on this policy with clear-cut support against the vast minority viewpoint that the GRG needs to be separately distinguished in any way. If you don't agree with that, fine but those views are considered disruptive and counter-productive here. It is not your opinions per se but the fact that your opinions reflect a complete disregard for the fundamentals behind Wikipedia's sourcing policy here with such things as demands to create a directory of supercentenarians before even considering deleting anything here that are problematic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning Kachelus

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 Kachelus

Ok firstly sorry I have to say you are wrong, Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In English wikipedia my main itenerary is longevity, yes, in other Wikipedias it is amateur soccer, politics, history and geography, but these are things you didn't know. So long-term WP:SPA is only partly true, because this topic is only dealt in English wikipedia. Over the years I tried to get the several lists in this topic to a similar content and show the correct historic names of regions about 110 years ago if they were not already written in these lists. In Wikipedia is not only GRG a source, several other media also reported supercentenarians I showed. Unfortunately GRG did not prove them, but that is not my fault when wikipedia lists made differences between verified, pending and unverified cases — it was not me who introduced that. I just want to keep information on wikipedia before people wish to remove them for reasons we cannot really understand. Over the years no one concerned about that, just now, I don't know why. But now I understand your wish to ban everyone who is not on your opinion (e.g. Ollie231213) and I think that is not what Wikipedia stands for. Legacypac nominates for AfD, and you wish to ban editors who have the opposite opinion (keeping), sorry that is not the way I want to waste my free-time for arguing against, I am not paid for that. Do, what you wish to do and be lucky with that. I wish you a very Happy New Year!--Kachelus (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Legacypac

The editor concerned named me in this discussion but did not tag or notify me. I only stumbled on it now. The tenacious editing, throwing all appeals to policy out the window is annoying. I suspect this editor is part of the off wiki coordinated efforts to clumsily vote keep on everything ever copied from a GRG list, then duplicated several times on Wikipedia in an effort to boast the credibility of that organization. Like the editors they defend who were banned, this editor needs some time to edit in an area they are less personally invested in.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Kachelus

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

This post by Kachelus does indeed appear to go against the usual Wikipedia content standards so I can see an argument that his continued participation on longevity articles is not a net benefit to Wikipedia: "..these lists were generated by many users in lots of months, even years. Is it your wish to destroy their work?" (See WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). If there was an entire group of defenders of a set of articles willing to deploy this kind of argument in deletion discussions, you can see that it might have a bad effect. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The post highlighted by EdJohnston is very concerning. Does that amount to a topic ban? Perhaps not if this is a lone voice but we cannot have groups of editor's trying to impose an different standard of notability for their pet editing areas. Open to alternative suggestions on how we deal with this? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Wolff

Topic ban from electronic cigarettes. May appeal in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Mystery Wolff

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: AlbinoFerret (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mystery Wolff (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/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles#4.3.2 :

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

12/26/2015 Removal of long standing MEDRSsourced (review) material.
12/26/2015 Placed primary source on a medical claim.
12/30/2015 Reverts back in stray letter and leaves it in.
12/30/2015 Reverts to remove long standing MEDRS sourced material and reinsert primary source.
12/31/2015 Places edit warring template for single reverts in 24 hours.
1/1/2016 Reverts to remove long standing MEDRS sourced material again.
1/2/2016 Removal of long standing MEDRS sourced material again
1/2/2016 Leaves another edit warring message on my talk page for one revert in 24 hours.

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 11/29/2015
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 12/19/2015 by Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Removed 12/22/2015

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Mystery wolf is a disruptive SPA. Over their editing history, only 1 edit is not on the topic of e-cigarettes. The insertion of primary sources was discussed here.[99] Mystery Wolff did not have consensus to insert the material. Kingsindian even offered to help Mystery Wolff gain consensus. He also is removing long standing material from the page that is sourced to a MERDS source, a review. I have tried to discuss this.[100]. Rather than discuss Mystery Wolff reverted again today. The claim can be found in the source here [101] Page 5 in the middle column starting with "Recent studies have demonstrated that nicotine from electronic cigarettes also deposits on indoor surfaces" and going into the next column. The removal of sourced material without consensus is disruptive.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Responses

Kingsindian, I dont think you did anything wrong, in fact I applaud you for trying to help. The sad thing is, he didnt listen or take you up on your offer to help. Instead he just kept being disruptive. AlbinoFerret 07:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Wolff here are the facts.

You are trying to remove long standing material. The material was recently moved over from Safety of electronic cigarettes when Electronic cigarette aerosol and e-liquid was made a true daughter page per consensus[102] the entire Aerosol section was moved over and then eliquid was merged in.[103] The removed line was added in March 2015 to Safety.[104]
The source is listed as a review by Pubmed. Go here[105], click on Publication Types and see for yourself.
There may be a controversy between the sources. But what you cant do is remove one source, a review which is a secondary source, and replace it with a primary one. Per MW's own words, my bold, "AlbinoFerret reverted the follow-up study" it is a primary source.

If you disagree with a policy or guideline, you cant ignore it. You cant just edit contrary to it. PAG (policies and guidelines) have broad community consensus. You can try and have them changed, but you cant ignore them. I also think that you are trying to bring WP:TRUTH to the articles. AlbinoFerret 13:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, Thryduulf, and Spartaz With the latest response here by Mystery Wolff[106] we see 2 quotes taken out of context to try and justify his behaviour, after the fact. But what really is impressive is cherry picking two quotes to make it look like other editors agree with him. The SPACKlick quote about Mystery Wolff calling the review a primary source, but pubmed lists it as a review. The johnbod quote is from where johnbod is the only one suggesting its undue. Not that it was OR as Mystery Wolff says. Trying to make it look like I am off on my own opposing everyone. Then he tries to make me look like some over attached editor. These days I consider myself primarily a NAC on WP:ANRFC and while the topic of e-cigs is interesting to me there is a wide difference between myself and Mystery Wolff who is fixated on the topic and edits nothing else really. A classic SPA with only 2 edits to unrelated articles. AlbinoFerret 02:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have WP:CANVASSING [107] of editors ( Rjwilmsi, Doc James, No such user, and Hunenmensch: @Bluerasberry, Sizeofint, Jayaguru-Shishya, The Anome, and Nomoskedasticity) who were not even in the talk page sections with a ping. Then posts on their talk pages [108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115]. This is just sad. AlbinoFerret 03:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Mystery Wolff

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 Mystery Wolff

New editors have the right to be treated with respect and civility. AlbinoFerret asserts in this AE that I am disruptive SPA, labeling me a such as if it is a fact. The first time I interacted with AlbinoFerret when he and S Marshall where telling me to not interact with QuackGuru because he would topic banned, in relationship to an ARB on S Marshall. The next day SMcCandlish requested to Lankiveil that the Alert be posted on my Talk page, and L235 did the follow-through. All 4 of these editors involved with the historical context of the previous ARBs and AEs on Electronic Cigarettes. My edits were not being questioned as much as the discussion pages, talking about edits before edits were done.
AlbinoFerret then posted in defense of S Marshalls edits on my TALK page and said the ECIG article was being edited as it should. He then threatened to bring me to here to the AE panel and report me as disruptive SPA. SPA is defined as a negative term, especially as used. He said I was in violation of the ARB.
Amoungst other things taking up the suggestion of EdJohnston, I pinged the ARB and asked the article be put into full protection because after the topic ban of QuackGuru a blizzard of edits were being put in, and on the ones I objected to, I was told by S Marshall he would simply move on. I made the point one editor puts in 10 edits every day, any other editor objecting to the change by BRD would be FORCED into an edit war.
After that suggestion of FP of the article, AlbinoFerret made good on his assertion, and created an AE on me. Not for my edits, but rather for what I was saying in TALK, and for requesting FP.
As usual for wrongly accused, I represented myself, did not understand the AE process, drew ire for TLDR, and worked through the process. All the while editing the articles and having my edits in the articles reviewed and the majority unchallenged. My edits are helpful, and useful.
AblinoFerret when he created the AE on me went out to most of the editors and notified them on their TALK pages. I thought that was simply a way to drive home his point of calling me disruptive SPA. [116] [117]
The much of the linage and timeline of the above can be view on my own TALK page.

After the outcome AlbinoFerret went to immediately threaten another AE against me, on Spartaz TALK page. Sparta took no involvement in that at all. A sockpuppet came out of cloak reverted me, the same sock was active during my previous AE critical of me, DeltaQuad banned them and reverted their REVERT of my edit that AlbinoFerret was complaining about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spartaz#Do_I_need_to_open_a_new_AE_section.3F Regarding this case now, I took the step of Edit Warring Warning AlbinoFerret here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AlbinoFerret AlbinoFerret did not accept the warning as valid. Threaten an AE, INSTEAD OF ANY OTHER DISPUTE RESOLUTION

I believe this AE request by AF to be an abuse of process, predicated on wanting to control the pages in question, and edit with editors that share the ideas on what the pages should be. I believe the goal is to remove me from editorship, and to reinvigorate S Marshal to do editing with him again. I wonder out loud why AF is involved with all these ARBs and AEs, and the premise is the entire problem with the articles is being attributed to QuackGuru.
This AE is entirely premised on an ongoing TALK discussion of the edits I warned AF about. I have now been accused of being a liar, in relationship to those edits. I am not. Putting this to AE is completely inappropriate and skips all the steps. AF follow through with his threat of AE, but its is not the right thing, it skips all the normal DS steps, and makes this AE an arbitrator of content discussion, that are in process. NOTHING in this AE is even a claim against the Discretionary Sanctions, its simply that the AF thinks my edits are wrong.

Its a good edit I stand behind. There is no explanation of how this violates the ARB. The AE requires that to be explained.
Its a good edit I stand behind. There is no explanation of how this violates the ARB. Primary is not a code word for can not be used, per WP guidelines. The AE requires the violation to be explained.
This is part of a two part revert for a single item, where a stray character prevented. How does this violate the DS?
I am undoing here AlbinoFerret that REVERTED 5 of my edits. Each had an explanation when put in 4 days earlier. I warned AlbinoFerret for edit waring. How is this a violation of the DS. I am using the proper process.
I place a warning for edit warring on the above 5 edits. HOW is this a violation of the ARB? I AM TRYING TO RESOLVE A CONTENT DISPUTE. This is really frustration to see this as an AE item. Its not a violation, its me trying to deal with an editor who owns the page.
This is not really a revert. Its me deleting a sentence for the reasons I describe. I stand behind the edit....and I am in process of doing that within the ARTICLEs TALK. This is not a violation of the AE. Nor is a reason explained why it is.
This item is me Reverting AlbinoFerret who had reverted me. Please note I did not take it to an edit war. I also said to take the discussion to TALK. This is being listed as a violation of the ARB. It is not. Its a goodfaith effort to resolve the item.
This is not another edit warring warning, its the same one. I stand behind what I was saying. HOW is this a violation of the ARB. I just had 7 items reverted by AlbinoFerret and I am trying to resolve it....per WP processes.

Next AF refers to the previous AE. Additional section remarks: I am not a disruptive SPA. When he says I have only edited 1 other article, that number is wrong. AF is asserting I need to have approval to put in any content, that is NOT true. I agree my edits need to be done properly in all respects. I am saying the sourced cite does not make the claims as written into Wikipedia, and I stand behind that and it needs to be resolved in TALK and not inserted into the AE option of AF's first resort. I have NOT edit warred, and I am working the processes to resolve it before I get sucked in. Removal of a sentence that I am asserting is not sourced correctly....and then taking it to TALK....his last line in his comments....IS NOT "disruptive" it is an editor simply trying to improve the article. Geeez. I have to show this edit was important enough now in the TALK page, an step where I have been accused of being a liar in that TALK page. So I have an interest in presenting why I did that the edit. But that should be in TALK and not this AE.

Lastly: I took Kingsindian up on his offer to put the questions of MEDRS being only and always from Primary....to find a forum or board to take that too. I am having a dialogue with him on the TALK page. I expect both of us are not doing this full time or anything. So when AlbinoFerret says I did not listen, that its sad, and uses my interaction with another editor to make his claim here, its insult to injury.

TLDR: Consider the negative effects that come from this AE board being misused by AlbinoFerret. Consider how much an editor like me has to jump through hoops to just edits these pages. Please understand that I want to edit the pages I am editing, but I have not intention of doing that improperly or violation the rules. Being Bold should not be gamed by myself or others. It is not helpful to threaten the AE on people. If all other DS methods fail then sure take it to AE. The case in point never made it out of the TALK pages. Why are sockpuppets and editors who are unrelated to the articles coming in and reverting my edits????? Why is AlbinoFerret telling me about boomerangs when I keep my stance in the TALK pages.
The talk discussion has not even finished to the set of edits. If I don't get satisfaction after that I was going to take Kingsindian up on next steps. If my edits get sustained, then other editors can escalated it in Dispute Resolution. Why are we doing this now? This is really a harsh atmosphere for editing and you can see the reduction of editors because of the threats of AE on editors. I HAVE NOT LIED, OR CREATED FAIRY TALES as has been asserted by William M. Connolley https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=698000777 If this is to be an AE, there should be something being asserted that is violation of sanctions, look at the 8 lines by AlbinoFerret, is there even one that explains to the AE the violations? A line from the movie CLERKS.....I am not even supposed to be working today! Mystery Wolff (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian: I have responded in detail on the TALK here: [118]. In a nutshell to the sentence, it is undue weight, premised upon an Opinion article published talking only to the Debate, and public policy. See abstract here [119] When I say its OR by the cite, this is why. It is not a review. There is a larger question on MEDRS and application in WP that I may ask for help on creating a proper venue for a discussion, that will be after I see how this all goes. MEDRS is being used as some sort of stamp of approval of content, however its not. Its a protocol for inclusion in articles, it is not a mandate that information be put into articles. In this case the Opinion article formed new conclusions, by combining outdated sources, and conflating two different scientific topics in its presentation. Specifically it took information on SMOKE, and combined it with VAPOR, as if combustible cigarette smoke is a perfect corollary to vapor products. Its OR is within the sentence that starts with THUS.

Again cite is an opinion piece speaking to the public policy. The WP sentence is premised in significant part on this sentence. "Recent studies have demonstrated that nicotine from electronic cigarettes also deposits on indoor surfaces79 and is absorbed by non-users.80,81" AlbinoFerret reverted the follow-up study of source 79, the followup refutes the original. The follow-up is reviewed by the FDA. Sources 80 and 81 both speak exclusively airborne, which is called 2nd Hand, and NOT 3rd hand, which is the topic here. The article itself is on public policy.

I am using the premise of properly using sources to avoid junk science from injecting itself into WP....and that is the entire basis of MEDRS. Having hours of work reverted by an editor, who drops in, and then out, seemingly for end-arounding of 3RR, and then calling me a liar, is not fun. We can have a debate about nurture vs nature, and subject matter expertise vs WP editing chops in a different forum than an AE, and that would be a good discussion to have. 3rd hand exposure is surfaces, the sentence removed is talking about inhalation...its a strong clue to why the sentence should be removed, I just did the work to confirm it. The argument of AlbinoFerret amounts to, it was included once, it must be right, and that would mean that no WP article could ever be improved. Mystery Wolff (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: Yes I did remove the sentence because of its source, its undue weight, and when I did that, I replaced an in-vitro study, with the followup study that was done with as a controlled study, looking at no source, compared sources 1 and 2. You reverted that citation. Instead of joining your edit war, I warned you, and will bring it back when I have the link for the FDA review of it. A Sockpuppet got banned because of their reverts of me, and now another editor has reverted me, who is calling me a liar. I have not created an AE, I spoke to them on their TALK page. The follow-up to the in-vitro study which I want included, refutes the very same author's own in-vitro study and it was presented at a FDA conference, as review. I am confident it is a proper cite.
You are confused to what items are secondary and which are primary, and which are primary quotes listed in articles published as "controversy and debate" The cite in question is not a review. It lists out its purpose as : "A Neglected Element in the Electronic Cigarette Debate.""This paper synthesizes relevant literature regarding biological properties of nicotine and its effects during development, and presents potential measures for consideration to protect the health of these vulnerable populations." It specifically quotes that in vitro testing and applies that to a different subject of Smoking, than draws a new conclusion. It even claims that nicotine is a carcinogen by itself, which is fully discredited by multiple sources.
I am trying to bring WP:Truth to the article....that page says "This page in a nutshell: Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source." I am doing just that, I have verified through reliable sources. I have examined the reliable sources. The only disruption is that of proper editing to something that you seem to want to retain, on pages you seemingly are talking ownership of. But my changes are simply the nature of editing, and nothing more.
Lets talk about this AE, and not the content of the TALK page, and attempting to litigate it here. This all boils down to you threatening to bring me to an AE multiple times, for edits done properly, and in middle of discussion on a TALK page. Where at least two other editor agree with my edit, in this case, specifically. I believe this is an abuse of the AE system. You have not raised anything other than an ongoing TALK page discussion.
I believe you are talking edits to this page personally and I wish you would not do so. I know you have recently created an AE on CFCF. I just have to say that this AE is no proper, it does not present cognizable violations of the DS. I was not party to the ARB in question, but an editor who was, did place that Alert on my page. With which I asked that the ALERT be put on the Talk pages. I am obliging myself to talk discussion on my edits. I don't own the page, and neither do you. This rush to AE should stop. Will you? Everything in this AE is basically just a duplicate of the TALK page, except editors are more familiar with the subject matter there. Mystery Wolff (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Our only interaction was your explanations after I raised concerns to EdJohnston here. Before I could reply, it appears you posted below. You use the pejorative calling my defense of self wikilawyering, which WP says "Some Wikipedians allege that the charge of wikilawyering is used, particularly by Wikipedians more influential than them, to avoid giving careful attention to their claims." I would concur. I do not believe that you have read the edits that are being questioned by this AE. Because you first found this on EdJohnston's TALK, I would guess you have not looked at the ongoing active discussion on the page in question. Several editors support the edits of this AE, more than don't want them. I am trying to talk to the point of the edits, why I made the edits, and I am also here trying to explain why I should not be banned. AlbinoFerret has threatened me with boomerangs, and he has recently done it with other editors in the AE.....and I guess he has a point....if my defending of the edits being called out are the context entirely of why you think I should be topic banned. But what else can I do but explain my actions and raise up that EdJohnston is involved, was involved, and his rush to go for sanctions on me, is over the top. Perhaps if I was savvy I would have said nothing, and this would have been closed with no action. But I have no intention of becoming an expert in AE defense. I replied to you on EdJohnston's TALK perhaps you should not read that now. I really do not understand the basis of my edits in question which makes you support such punitive actions, can you explain those edits or items in the talk pages of the articles, or is it just simply my wikilawyering (as you call it), in my response here at AE, or my raising concerns to EdJohnston? Thanks, please let me know. Mystery Wolff (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to EdJohnston: AlbinoFerret created an AE on me after I took you up on your suggestion on a one month Full Protection of the article. You also had me explain in the TALK pages if I was a sockpuppet and why I choose to edit. I responded because I believed I needed to. It was from that I created the request to AE to followup on the ARB and put in Full Protection. Only after that did AlbinoFerret create his first AE. At that AE I stated same and explained why you were involved. It was not Spartaz who suggested I be topic banned for 6 months it was you. ( [120] at the very bottom ) That of course created a reaction by me. Perhaps I don't have all the ablities to handle an AE, but it should not be a chinese finger handcuffs either. That AE was about TALK pages, not edits. That AE was saying I was a sockpuppet. That AE was rescinded. Not to say that I did not listen....but to say that its being made out like it was shortened. Again I did take the feedback
This AE is about an ongoing TALK page item, which has not been resolved. This AE was created by AlbinoFerret after he reverted 5 of my edits and then again, that I had made days previously. It got to the point where I thought I should bring AlbinoFerret to AE, but I decided not to and also not to NoticeBoard 3RR to AlbinoFerret, and instead use the copy and paste warning. AlbinoFerret did not take well to that, and quickly this AE was created, as he promised.
The edits are still being done on the page, and are middle of resolution in TALK. I want to make clear I did not edit war, and I used the TALK pages to get concensus and agreement. I think I need to say that again. The discussion in TALK is ongoing and I did not edit war, and this has been going on concurrently along with this AE.

I believe if you look at the content of my edits I am staying at the top three levels

When you say "People who are still coming up the learning curve on Wikipedia should stay away from troubled areas. Up till now E-cig has been the only area he works in. So I'd make the topic ban from electronic cigarettes indefinite" That is over the top. If you believe that, then you can just have AlbinoFerret or whomever else make a topic so contentious that all editors are shunned away. You will see less and less new editors. And POVwarriors will have won. I choose to start with a topic that interests me. The standard I should be held to is the content of my characters, the ones I edit with. I have made many edits in these pages that remain, and are useful. I have been threatened with boomerangs enough to know that I am not throwing them, they are not returning to me.
As I have said on your talk page, we have interacted, and those items with which we have are in large part what AlbinoFerret is using to ferret me. The discussion should be resolved on the TALK pages before the AE was started. The AE should not be the first resource. And involved Admins give the appearance of bias.
EdJohnston, in relationship to me, I think you are biased and involved. And your rush to ban me at first in the first AE, for 6 months really feels like thumb on the scale. By me saying that, I am sure you can find many who will support you, but that is again you, and not the content of what is being done here. I concede any popularlity contests. I lose. But for a fair process and for Wikipedia to work, we need to focus on the edits and the conduct in TALK. If people want to toss terms out like SPA at a drop of hat, they can, but it should not be a code word for admins to run with.
What I am asking: Let the dispute be resolved in the TALK page. There is an ongoing discussion which relates to MEDRS, Primary, whether all article parts belong in MEDRS, and sorting out confusion on MEDRS. Already Kingsindian has pointed out to AlbinoFerrett places where MEDRS is not the measure. Its ongoing. And 2ndly I would like you to not have you being pushing the way the AE. I believe you are involved, and I said so at the rescinded AE, what you are concerned with I would have not done if you had not actually asked me to respond, and then I did not take your suggestions and try to have them done by the ARB itself.
6 month ban as my your first answer you had and suggested to others....I am just asking you step back from this one. Let perceived uninvolveed admins look at the merits. I responded to each of the 8 items, and AlbinoFerret has not explained how they are a violation of the DS, beyond he he wants my edits gone. The actual TALK pages is working this. Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: this entire AE is concerning an active discussion going on here: [121] and here [122]. What in the edits listed above and my responses are in violation of this AE?
:I realize an encyclopedia is a large animal, but that does not mean that I should just open a page of the book and edit it. I am editing a topic to which I have some reasonable amount of knowledge on. Wikipedia should not de-evolve into a mob rules mentality. The assertions in AlbinoFerret's first AE on me were rejected ultimately, I am not a sockpuppet. I have many edits that are and were well taken, and remain. The page in question of this very AE is one page that I created, that I agreed to having merged with another. That are not actions of not working the process and using consensus. I placed an edit in GMO, it was accepted and then further improved.
:Another editor who stopped editing is being urged to come back to these articles by AlbinoFerret after the last AE by AlbinoFerret ended without satisfaction. He urges him to hold on until the new year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:S_Marshall#Mystery_Wolff Then I get this AE created against me for an ongoing normal discussion on editing. Its all highly short circuited.
:If not for EdJohnston, perhaps the first outcome would have been a warning to me. Instead of going after a 6 month ban. Perhaps I am defending myself, with the in-artful skills, but I do think I am not being fairly treated.
:Where does the 6 months as a first warning even come from. I read the ARB, the first warning is supposed to be 30 days. It this rush to judgement, terms like indefinite ban are being push around. How is this?
:Why not let the twin discussions finish out, before rendering a conclusion.
:If you look at the exact topic in question you have 3 editors in favor of the edit questioned here, and one editor analyzing the situation, and AlbinoFerret on the other side, and who has started this AE. This is a short circuit of process, and an quick determination when one does not need to be done. The topics in question are complicated, I have asked @Doc James: who is an editor of these pages, to take a look. (Though he is clearly busy with other items) Let the process work on the TALK pages, content creation is not part of AE. Yes there is a dispute, but it is orderly and well intended by myself. The two other editors who favor the change, perhaps could be queried also. Thanks. Mystery Wolff (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is very important to note here and now. Please review my edits in Electronic Cigarettes Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&action=history I am the last editor, I am doing non-trivial edits and not being reverted for the most part. The last revert came from a sockpuppet who was banned and no one changed it afterwards. There was one revert by SPACKlick, which I did not edit war on, its something I would come back to if I want address his concerns. The other article in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette_aerosol_and_e-liquid&offset=&limit=500&action=history I was reverted twice recently by editors who do not regularly edit these articles, or by my query ever. I did not edit war. The discussion is ongoing. I have asked for a RFC, I have asked Doc James to look at these because AlbinoFerret removed 5 of my edits based on MEDRS. Kingsindian has said the MEDRS check was not valid, however its very complicated, and does need eyes. My edits stand as reverted out, and I am working Talk. I want to note that I see that AlbinoFerret reverted a large section by CFCF, which then had an AE created by AlbinoFerret. I understand this topic of Electronic Cigarettes has been contentious but I am indeed operating inside the lines, and my edits are remaining. I would suggest the historical aspects of why this article is contentious over years, I am not the source. I did edit warring WARN AlbinoFerret which has not been removed....I assume much like the instructions for a formal Edit Warring Noticeboard, that the requester and the subject will both be examined by the AE--IS TRUE? Lastly, the discussion is ongoing, 3 editors want the edit in that the subject of this AE----AlbinoFerret does not----I honestly do not understand why the TALK page discussion is not let to proceed, with now a RFC in the works, and Medical Projects guidance being sought. TLDR. Look at my intact edits, and support by other editors for the edit which is the topic of this AE, in the actual pages TALK. Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: I am flabbergasted by your comment. Conveniently coming to E-Cigs Articles after the ARBcom? Nothing could be further... I was already investigated for being a sockpuppet and cleared, so I don't get the implication at all. Yes the problems with Wiki on ECigs have been well known in the real world for some time, and it is a topic I do have subject matter knowledge of. I have not edit warred, and never had template warning, never been brought to any 3RR, never had any process of Dispute resolution put to me. The only thing is AlbinoFerret continuily putting messages on my talk page, telling me to wait to edit until after QuackGuru was banned, canvassing on Spartaz page. Apparently not part of the process of AE is to examine the Requester. He has been an editor of these pages for years, its his primary editorship. All of the previous ARBs include him. Softlavender, why is it that you have not examined the edits in question before just casting out, advocacy of a 6 month ban. As you can imagine when I hear that, I jump. Yes I may have jumped in my reponse in this Noticeboard, but my actions here ARE NOT my contributions. Look at the histories I posted above of my edits.

Softlavender, the topic of this AE are the edits. Would it surprise you that those edits have support by other editors, and objections by no one else besides AlbinoFerret? The best evidence that I am editing properly and that I have taken advice are my actual edits, these seem to be nowhere in yours and others critiques. Needing a 6 month ban, instead of a warning, is outrageously punitive.

Here are the other editor remarks about the specific topic of this AE, in the TALK

- Personally I'm happy to see this surely far-fetched bogie-claim go. It may be in one source, but the great majority of reviews don't mention it. WP:UNDUE? Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm with MW here, the source used is primary and doesn't appear to reflect consensus among later papers. SPACKlick (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

That is 3 editors in support and 1 opposed. As I went to gather these I notice that Kingsindian just responded, which I will read, but that is my point the discussion has been ongoing.

I have asked Doc James to comment, I am working on a RfC, and the edits remain out of the page, as that process moves forward.

How can it be all that it takes is an unsupported and un-examined accusations with an AE are not reviewed?

Most of my edits remain unchallenged and within the articles. I am working within the TALK pages. Look at each of my 8 responses to each of the 8 items lodged here. Mystery Wolff (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SPACKlick, Johnbod, Rjwilmsi, P Walford, Doc James, No such user, and Hunenmensch: @Bluerasberry, Sizeofint, Jayaguru-Shishya, The Anome, Nomoskedasticity, and CFCF:You have been recent editors to the Electronic Cigarettes articles since I began editing in mid November. This is the second AE request that AlbinoFerret has raised against me. No other editors were notified of this AE when it was created, as was a selection of the editors to the first. I am asking for your contributions to this discussion of my editting of the E-Cig Articles. AlbinoFerret began this here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spartaz#Do_I_need_to_open_a_new_AE_section.3F , and this AE is specifically about the topic being discussed here is this TALK page item and the one directly below it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette_aerosol_and_e-liquid#Use_of_Primary_sources
I will place a request on each of your TALK pages, I would appreciate editors of the pages, to give there views, at stake is an 6 month Topic Ban, to which I have defended at length here. Until now no other editors of the pages have been asked for input, which I am doing now. Thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A re-reading of start of this AE, reflects a content dispute, more specifically how primary, secondary, and MEDRS should be handled on a topic which is ancillary to Medical Claims, but however does have parts which should be MEDRS...and how to update past MEDRS material with updated material in a topic which has dozens of studies being publish and in the near term pipeline. I believe sending this to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard or Formal Mediation would be a more lasting solution in all respects. Mystery Wolff (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

My involvement in this issue is simply to try to help out a new editor with WP bureaucracy. A serious charge of source misrepresentation has been made against MW. I have no knowledge about the topic, so I will simply wait for MW to respond specifically to this point. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mystery Wolff: I simply want to hear from you the reason for the edit summary in this edit. You said that the source didn't support the sentence, while it seems to me virtually a copy paste from there. Could you explain? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My own viewpoint is that MW is acting in good faith, but their actions are disruptive. "Source is engaging in OR" makes no sense in Wikipedia's definition of OR. What MW seems to be saying is that the source made a tentative comment, regarding risks, not directly having to do with e-cigarettes, which the article includes too uncritically. That is indeed a valid point of view, which a couple of people on the talk page also seem to find reasonable. I have no comment on the AE request in general, but would recommend that MW stop editing this section altogether, till consensus is found. I promise to work with them to draft a RfC for this. There is no need to hurry, there is no deadline. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston and Thryduulf: I have no comment on the decision, but I'm just letting you know that MW stated on the their talkpage (in discussions following the last ban/reversal) that they are not generally interested in contributing to other topics currently. Make of that what you will. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

I agree completely with EdJohnston here. After spending some time reading this editor's wikilawyering, I think it would be wise that they spend six months actively editing in areas that have nothing whatsoever to do with e-cigarettes, smoking cessation, nicotine addiction, tobacco and smoking, broadly construed. If they contribute constructively to dispute resolution in entirely unrelated areas of the encyclopedia, and come back with an explanation of how they have learned that their past approach was counterproductive, then I will suppport lifting any topic ban. Note: To the best of my recollection, I have had no interaction with this editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender

Disruptive, edit-warring SPA who conveniently came on board after the E-cig ArbCom decisions. Definitely needs a topic ban (of at least six months), as they have ignored policy, advice, warnings, etc., and have instead continued to repeatedly and voluminously waste the time of numerous good-faith editors and admins. Softlavender (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mystery Wolff

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

It seems to me that User:Spartaz had the right idea when he imposed a topic ban on Mystery Wolff from the area of electronic cigarettes, on 12/19/15. The ban was later lifted. Mystery Wolff first came to my attention through his eccentric posts on admin boards, including AE. But today we are reviewing a complaint about his edits in the E-cig area. From the diffs presented here, he is unable to pursue proper negotiation with other editors on a contentious topic like electronic cigarettes. He edits aggressively, but lacks experience. People who are still coming up the learning curve on Wikipedia should stay away from troubled areas. Up till now E-cig has been the only area he works in. So I'd make the topic ban from electronic cigarettes indefinite, but with the right of appeal in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we need to place a topic ban from e-cigs here. Mystery Wolff, you seem unable to edit in this area in a collaborative manner, even after much advice, several warnings and very nearly having a topic ban imposed previously. Contentious topics make extremely poor learning spaces for editors who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and expectations, and if you don't learn how to engage with other editors in a constructive and collegiate manner then you will end up being blocked. A topic ban is a way to try and avoid this - we want you to become a good editor, but that is not going to happen if you continue to edit the e-cigs area before learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia. There are literally hundreds of thousands of completely unrelated other topics this encyclopaedia covers, so pick one or more of them and spend some time editing them and in six months or so you can appeal the topic ban with evidence that you can edit collaboratively and constructively. With any luck, the e-cigs area will be less contentious by then in any case. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I has been pretty clear when I lifted the topic ban that MW needed to learn to edit collaboratively and that a contentious topic area was not the best forum for learning to navigate our processes. I'm afraid that I was too optimistic in lifting the original TB and I must support Ed's proposal. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing. User:Mystery Wolff is indefinitely banned from the topic of electronic cigarettes on all pages of Wikipedia, but may appeal after six months. EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean

No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Athenean

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mondiad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

November 2, 2015 Called a scholars’ work garbage, while voting on a certain issue. The scholar in question, Kristaq Prifti, is a reliable source, and is the head of the Institute of History of Albania. The edit is in breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. He actually called him the same for a second time [123]] --Mondiad (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC) And here [124] ( January 4, 2015) he calls the work of Kristaq Prifti for a third time garbage in this very WP:AE response.--Mondiad (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
December 25th, 2015 Removed user:Resnjari’s comments from the talk page without an edit summary. The edit itself was perhaps a mistake in good faith, but, the one following is in breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and WP:BATTLEGROUND.
December 25th, 2015 Told Resnjari that this was an edit conflict, called Resnjari paranoid, and said that Resnjari's comments were rants, after Resnjari had reacted and reverted such action [125]. Athenean's edit is in breach of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BATTLEGROUND.
January 1, 2016. Called a contributor an idiot, and his actions idiocy twice, during an SPI investigation, questioning her sexuality, background, and ethnicity. Again in breach of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BATTLEGROUND.

The above are some examples as to how this user several times doesn’t show respect for neither the sources used in wiki, nor for wiki users. Athenean is active in the Balkans-related topics, and I think he needs some cooling off from the Balkans area for some time and reflect about his behavior. He has been a wikipedian for a long time and may know that a cool head is way more productive. He is in clear breach of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL. His battleground behavior puts him in breach of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Some sanctioning may be useful in decreasing the harassment that other users are feeling because of Athenean's recent activity in wiki.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Athenean is not new to feuds with Albanian editors. The above two warnings/bans were a reflection of similar activities that Athenean had committed in a delicate area such as the Balkans. Even though a long time has passed from these bans, it seems like Athenean is back to his older self, where his activity in wiki led to the bans.

11 September 2010 Both Athenean and ZjarriRrethues were admonished and warned; and the interaction between the two was banned.
22 March 2011 Both Athenean and ZjarriRrethues were subject to an interaction ban and cautioned.
Athenean had 3 blocks in the past

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

2 May 2010 by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
7 May 2010 by The Wordsmith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
30 September 2010 by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) .
22 March 2011 by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User was notified. [126].--Mondiad (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Athenean

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 Athenean

This is a rather desperate and frivolous attempt by Mondiad to have me banned simply because he doesn't like me. He deliberately misconstrues and exaggerates for effect.

The first diff refers to the work The Truth on Kosova, by one Kristaq Prifti. I have never heard of this person, but the work itself is typical nationalist historiography in the service of nation-building, which I frankly consider garbage. As you can imagine, there is no shortage of such works in the Balkans, and I have very little time for this kind of stuff. However, this is not a personal attack against any wikipedia contributor, nor was it intended to be. Mondiad either does not understand what a personal attack is, or else is deliberately pretending not to.
The second diff was a result of an edit conflict. I certainly did not mean to remove Resnjari's comments, it just happened as a result of the edit conflict. I was annoyed at the assumption of bad faith by Resnjari, who thought I was deliberately trying to remove his comments. However, that was just a misunderstanding that ended there. That someone would try to use this against me is laughable, and a sign of just how desperate Mondiad is to have me sanctioned.
Regarding the third diff, I am referring to this comment [127] by MorenaReka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom I am certain is the latest sock of Sulmues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a prolific sockpuppeteer that has done tremendous damage to the encyclopedia over the years. Quite frankly, I find the statement "being hysterical is a disease, and affect especially women" extremely sexist and idiotic, as well as suspicious. And socks of users in bad standing (which MorenaReka almost certainly is - I have dealt with dozens of Sulmues socks) are not entitled to the same courtesy as regular contributors.

I am a very experienced contributor in Balkan articles, with thousands of edits and several GAs under my belt. This is a very difficult area to edit in, plagued by nationalist WP:POVWARRIORs, trolls, sockpuppets, and the like. As you can imagine, discussions do get heated some times, but in general I do me best to keep a cool head. None of the above diffs are what Mondiad claims them to be. I have a pretty clean record, (spotless as of the last 4-5 years, in fact). This is in contrast to Mondiad, who is quite rude and incivil himself (Yes, this is what they taught you in school Greek racism and xenophobia are well-known) and was recently blocked for edit-warring [128]. To sum up, this is a frivolous request and an attempt to game the system by someone who opposes me. The fact that Mondiad went digging as far back as 2010 is indicative of the desperation level of this request. If anything, Mondiad should be admonished for filing a frivolous request and attempting to game the system. Athenean (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Athenean

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

Except for use of some bad language by User:Athenean in diffs #1-#4, I don't see a reason for enforcement action. One of the topics of disagreement is a currently-open move discussion on whether Turco-Albanians should be moved to Turco-Albanian (the singular). It is likely that the encyclopedia will still survive, whether we retain this as a singular term or a plural term. The only issue of AE relevance seems to be the possible expression of nationalist sentiments in the move discussion itself. Perhaps an admin could leave a warning in the move discussion telling people to watch their language. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with EdJohnston. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SageRad

No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning SageRad

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Only in death (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#SageRad_topic_banned :

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

02/01/2016 Links to an offwiki website on another (who is also under restrictions) editors userpage and refers them to the usersubmitted comments on the articles by a "SageThinker" that are clearly AgroChemical related. (Comments may not show on all browsers - works on chrome and firefox) Broadly construed this is a violation of their own topic ban, but on top of that this also puts at risk the other editor by engaging them in what could be a potentially dangerous area for them.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

SageRad is under restriction from GMO's and Agricultural chemicals. The above is an obvious link to AgroChemicals, however this seems to be either too narrow a ban, or one that is ineffective given SageRads POV-based editing. Comments like 04/01/2016 on a critic of (anti-industry/bad science/fringe views) BLP talkpage, are indicative of SageRads agenda on Wikipedia. There is also stuff like 02/01/2016 on Love Canal, adding POV tags alledging a pro-industy bias. I will leave the editing history involving PCB's here. Essentially SageRage appears to only be on wikipedia for one purpose, and that purpose is to push an anti-chemical corporation viewpoint. There is a common theme, Monsanto appears on both the Yvette Entremont and Polychlorinated Biphenyl pages. Even if you agree as a large chemical company there is legit material that doesnt infringe on SageRad's topic ban, when it comes to chemicals and pollution..... I am requesting an extension of SageRad's ban to include anything Monsanto related, broadly construed. There is also further reading if needed which can reflect on SageRads insufficient grasp of fringe material etc. I have only looked at the last couple of days, Christmas/New Year being a busy time. Given the above pattern I am sure there is more material available if closer scrutiny is requested. It is however midnight now, and given I have a full-time job, I will likely be unable to respond in detail for about 18 hours.

Tryp, second link, direct quote: "There is definitely POV pushing by the agrochemical industry. Monsanto and Dow and the whole industry are definitely involved. They have been pushing their line on pages like "Glyphosate" and "Monsanto legal cases" and "2,4-D" and all GMO related pages." SageRad is banned from discussing agricultural chemicals. I am not sure how that does *not* qualify. In the past AE has taken linking to offsite material that you are banned from discussing as a violating of a topic ban. Of course while totally irrelevant and I am sure in no way related to SageRad. SageThinkers livefyre profile makes interesting reading.

Ah I see the problem. See comments on the articles rather than the articles themselves. They may not show up depending on your browser due to the pagecoding involved. (They dont on my phone for example, but do on Chome) I have edited the above to clarify.

Just to point out, I did not request a ban from editing, just an extension (which would be allowed under the discretionary sanctions) to their topic ban to all Monsanto-related pages (which would not affect any dispute on paleolithic diets anyway as it is entirely unrelated to GMO's, monsanto or agro-chemicals) RE JzG's comments, while kvetching between editors is one thing, going to a known oppononent of GMO activists biography and announcing its 'biased' while clearly pushing a GMO activist agenda onwiki is another. This is the first step in SageRad's editing pattern. Announce bias, attempt to skew content towards fringe views, argue tenditiously on talkpages against consensus for their preferred version. The aim is to cut this off at the start, not have to repeat the pattern. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So EdJohnston, just to be clear on this, its your opinion that posting external links to material that you could not post on-wiki is not a violation of a topic ban?

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here

Discussion concerning SageRad

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 SageRad

Wow, when i posted those two articles to DrChrissy's talk page, i was referring to the comments by Jimbo in the one article and by Wikimedia Foundation employees in the other one, about the existence of paid editing in Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales vowing to 'not let Wikipedia become a PR platform'... those are the comments to which i was referring. I didn't say "look at the comments section" -- i said "Some very good comments" by which i meant the main thrust of the articles that i passed those on. I didn't see those other comments after the articles. I'd like to get back to work now. smh. SageRad (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingofaces43: would you please knock it off -- I also posted the same damn message to the talk page of the Criticism of Wikipedia article, as well, and it was nothing but a note on meta-level issues about Wikipedia editing, mainly the comments by Jimbo on not letting this place get dominated by bias from various sources. It's completely fair to post that kind of thing and has nothing to do with GMOs or agricultural chemicals at all and i'm getting really tired of the onerous way that people continue to flip me off and bother me. I'm editing in areas other than the topic ban, even though i think the topic ban is a bad result in itself. I'm being honest to my word about it, and i would appreciate it if you could just leave me alone and stay the hell away from me. If you ever see me actually violate my topic ban, bring it up at that time, ok? SageRad (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I am just not seeing anything in the two links within the diff provided, that has anything to do with the GMO case or with the existing topic ban. It is simply stuff about paid editing issues on Wikipedia, but not about paid editing on behalf of any GMO companies. Any proposals for changing the scope of the topic ban belong at ARCA, not here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked again based on the filing editor's further pointers. I don't think it has anything to do with the browser one uses (I'm using Firefox). Again, there is nothing relevant in the actual reports on the pages in the two links, but I can see that the purported issue is about the posted comments at the end, from readers. There are comments from someone with a screen name that is not SageRad, who may or may not be SageRad, and the comments do relate to topics under the topic ban. Even if we speculate that SageRad did make those comments, I think that it takes a huge leap to consider linking to the stories to be a violation of anything. The edits here at Wikipedia do not point to the comments at the end. There simply is not anything posted on-Wiki that violates anything. I urge that this AE request be closed promptly, with no action. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I cannot log in without seeing yet more vexation coming out of the GMO case. I agree entirely with what Looie has said, and I am disappointed in what Kingofaces and Capeo are saying. My advice to everyone, on both "sides" of this mess, is to drop the stick and move on. We should be here to edit an encyclopedia, not to try to play gotcha with one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlbinoFerret

I echo Tryptofish's words that this the links on DrChrissy's talk page do not even come close to a topic ban violation. There is no mention of GMO's or the companies that produce them. AlbinoFerret 00:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Looie496's comment below, I think a WP:BOOMERANG is appropriate for filing this as a way to remove an editor they disagree with on other articles. AlbinoFerret 14:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Tornheim

I agree with the above two editors (AlbinoFerret and Tryptofish) that there is nothing in the two diffs related to GMO's and the topic ban and that this case should be dismissed. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capeo

I see what's being pointed out but I'm not sure how stuff like this is normally handled. Sage linked to two articles and specifically said check out the comments, which are clearly Sage's comments, which if said on-wiki would definitely be a TB violation. Capeo (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the more I think about it, it doesn't matter who made the comments, particularly given there is only one comment on the second link. If linking to a webpage that conflicts with one's TB is considered breaking it then I would think linking to a page and saying "look at this comment" would too. Either way it's a pointy bit of gaming. Capeo (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

Tryptofish mentioned browser issues; you may not be able to view the comments without turning off adblockers, java-script blocking software, etc. This looks like a very direct violation of the topic ban now that I looked for myself. SageRad specifically told DrChrissy and others to look at the comments of two articles. The first doesn't have problems in terms of SageRad's topic ban per se, but the second has only one comment by SageThinker:

"There is definitely POV pushing by the agrochemical industry. Monsanto and Dow and the whole industry are definitely involved. They have been pushing their line on pages like "Glyphosate" and "Monsanto legal cases" and "2,4-D" and all GMO related pages."

Considering SageRad specifically linked to this second article and told people to look at the comments section where the only comment is about GMOs, etc. this is a direct violation of the topic ban.

That violation comes without getting into that the commenter in both links named SageThinker is very likely SageRad based on comment patterns, etc. I'm not sure how/if off-wiki activities being linked here should be evaluated in this context, but we already have on-wiki evidence of the topic ban violation. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SageRad has claimed above, "I didn't see those other comments after the articles." after the comments such as the one I quoted had been deleted from the article. Seems like an attempt to try to hide the involvement with a statement like that. I find the attempt of veiled misrepresentation of editors with those actions problematic, though I'm also not sure if anything really can be done since the off-wiki comments have been deleted. I would ask though that admins at least give a formal warning at this point given the documented involvement in GMOs with those comments and now the attempt to play it off like it never happened. Seeing this and some of the same hypberbole in paleolithic diet that resulted in the GMO topic ban does seem to show they need to be formally told to knock it off at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JzG

Kvetching between users, on their talk pages. This is IMO not actually specific to the topics under restriction, it's just a generic argumentum ad conspiratorium. Wikipedia is a vast conspiracy Man against The Truth™ - and if we want to ban everybody who makes these silly claims then we'd have no editors left. We already know that some of the GMO partisans assert that all pro-science editors are funded by the GMO industry, just as homeopathy fans assert that the reality-based community are funded by Big Pharma and climate change deniers assert that we're in the vice-like grip of climate scientists feathering their nests on the endless bounty of the IPCC. It's bollocks, but it ain't going to change. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Looie496

I don't like this request at all. The filing party has never edited in the GMO domain as far as I know. Instead they have been in a dispute with SageRad regarding the Paleolithic diet article -- which has nothing to do with the topic ban -- and are searching for weapons to use against SageRad. I suggest dismissing this request and warning the filing party not to abuse the enforcement process. Looie496 (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Kingsindian

This is the kind of request which makes me wonder what on Earth is the purpose of this board. How has this resulted in any disruption? Why should one care that one editor is talking about something with another editor, neither of whom can edit in the area? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning SageRad

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

Agree with the post above by User:JzG that there is no need for AE enforcement here. The complaint is about the posting of two links by SageRad, and it's not persuasive. The links don't go anywhere troublesome. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog

DrChrissy blocked for 1 week by Floquenbeam for a vexatious request in violation of an interaction ban. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 6 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 Jytdog

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: DrChrissy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Genetically modified organisms " specifically, the 2-way interaction ban between Jytdog and myself.

Jan 4th 2016 Jytdog was given a 2-way interaction ban with myself. WP:Interaction ban states that editors with an interaction ban should not "make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly" The diff shows that Jytdog has posted a link about the final ArbCom decision on his User page which reports sanctions against me - thereby Jytdog has made a direct reference to me.

Jan 4th 2016 Jytdog has also commented on his User page regarding the Arbcom decision, "...and an interaction ban was imposed with another user." This is an indirect reference to me.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Jytdog has a long history of being uncivil towards me and received a warning about his behaviour here.[129] Admins below do not seem to understand my motivation for filing this. Imagine if you have had a finding against you. Nobody is proud of that - whatsoever. Why then is it considered acceptable that someone posts reference to that finding against you, when that person themselves is not allowed to make a reference to you. I don't really understand Jytdog's motivation to post about his loss of privileges, but, if he wanted to do this he could easily have edited out those findings relating to me and thereby avoiding any possibility of violating the interaction ban. But he chose to include references to me, and the motivation for this surely must be questioned. In my eyes, it is Jytdog who refuses to drop the stick and get on with editing without his clever gaming of the system to taunt and goad me. A 2-way interaction ban is supposed to protect each of the participants, not to end up with suggestions of a week long ban simply for asking a question about an Arbcom finding.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish - apologies if I have misrepresented something. Perhaps you can tell me which facts I have got wrong.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[130]

Discussion concerning Jytdog

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

Statement by Jytdog

Statement by Tryptofish

I thank Floq for pinging me and for what he said, and his description is accurate. I guess that for the sake of completeness, I should point out that I left a message at Jytdog's talk yesterday, cautioning him that he has been getting close to the edge of his own restrictions. However, I do not believe that he has crossed the edge, and he has replied very clearly that he understands my advice. On the other hand, I have indeed tried everything that I can think of, to help DrChrissy, but I cannot save editors from themselves. I think that the three administrators who have commented here are reading the situation correctly, and I think that a boomerang block is sadly necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DrChrissy: I request that you retract that last sentence, in which you refer to me, and in which you get several facts wrong. I can understand that you feel angry here, but lashing out at me only makes things worse. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at issue here, and therefore I am not going to engage in a discussion of details that are irrelevant. I retracted the sentence myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now, it's edit-warred back. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

This is not the first time DrChrissy has tried to abuse Wikipedia processes to remove opponents. I fully support a boomerang block for this obviously vexatious complaint. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Jytdog

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

This complaint doesn't make any sense. User:Jytdog is only linking to the Arbcom case under which he himself is restricted. He is putting a notice about his Arbcom restrictions on his own user page, which is super-correct. His only reference to you in any way is "..an interaction ban was imposed with another user." In my opinion this request should be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to the ArbCom case on his user page, and listing the sanctions against him, is not a violation of the topic ban, and I'm particularly disappointed that this really quite ridiculous AE request has been filed by the same person who keeps getting "one more chance" breaks when they violate their own topic and interaction bans. I'm inclined to block DrChrissy for a week for continuous refusal (or, inability?) to drop the stick. My initial sympathy for DrChrissy, who has contributed some good content over the years in non-GMO areas, has now officially been used up. Several editors, including valiant efforts by User:Tryptofish (who I believe practically begged DrChrissy not to file this on DrChrissy's talk page on January 2nd), have not been successful. Next step is blocks of quickly increasing length. I don't see any other way to stop this. Any objection to such a block by uninvolved admins? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked DrChrissy for 1 week. Note that in addition to filing a clearly vexatious request, DrChrissy is questioning the motives of Jytdog in this very filing, which is a violation of their i-ban. Filing an AE request is not a get out of jail free card to restart a feud in a protected space. Finally, I'll note that Tryptofish's removal of the sentence in DrChrissy's statement might be a touch out of process, but I have no problem with it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with Floquenbeam) I agree with EdJohnston that this complaint is without merit. However, I disagree that this should be closed with no action. Editors under an interaction ban may, of course, submit a request for enforcement should they believe a violation of the ban has occurred (WP:BANEX). However, submitting a report that is so obviously vexatious, so obviously an attempt to carry on the dispute that caused the interaction ban, violates the spirit and purpose of the ban. I was coming here to block DrChrissy for a week for this report and would have done so had EdJohnston not already commented. CIreland (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with User:CIreland that a one-week block of DrChrissy is appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

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 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Fram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (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/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) restricted from referencing external sites to which he has contributed :

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

6 January Link to wikidata (an entry he created) and through it to Findagrave (an entry he created). The same article Coroner of New York City also contains from the last few days other links to Wikidata entries he created, most of them with similar links to Findagrave entries he created. E.g. links to [131],[132]
[133] similar edit made after this case was started

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

September 2013 2 week block for violation of same sanction

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I alerted Richard Arthur Norton of the potential problems with these edits yesterday on his talk page.[134] He replied, and some further discusion followed.[135] Meanwhile, he continued making the same kind of edits (see diff in evidence above).

The original sanction was in part due to problematic links to Findagrave. For the current links, the question is whether Wikidata is an external site or not (if so, it would be an obvious violation of the restriction), and whether avoiding linking directly to Findagrave by linking to self-created Wikidata pages where the (usually) only source is a self-created Findagrave page is enough of a loophole to avoid being a breach of the sanction. To me, these are violations of arguably the letter and certainly the spirit of the sanction, and the discussion shows that he doesn't really care one way or the other and continues anyway, even during the discussion we had. Fram (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: the problematic edits (copyvio images, copyvio texts, and links to copyvios like copies of complete articles from Time Magazine, not "fair use" bits) continued until the ArbCom case, the "nearly a decade ago" was the worst period but the problems didn't end then. Otherwise the ArbCom case wouldn't have been started or would have been swiftly rejected. In January 2013, he added links to pages he created on things like Familypedia and Findagrave with e.g. a full 2012 article (not an obituary) from the Wall Street Journal in it. That's why the sanction was created, not because of edits from 2006 (these only showed that the problem was persistent, not a one-off mistake). That he now seeks a way to include his links indirectly anyway is very problematic, and your misguided or misinformed defense is not really realistic. Fram (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton: please don't try to give motives for my actions. I don't have a clue which AfD you are talking about, but I don't doubt you can find one where you opposed my position. I have participated in many AfDs, and many people have expressed a contrary opinion one time or another. That's hardly a reason for me to go after them in any way. Please accept the more logical explanation that I check your edits because you have been creating copyright violations and/or linking to them for years. I am highly dubious that the Wall Street Journal has in any way given you permission to reprint whole articles on websites (which is a rather extreme interpretation of "fair use" in any case, a reprint of a full article without any comment or reason), and I think this defense of yours only highlights again that your interpretation of what is fair use or copyrighted can not be trusted and is why the restrictions were created in the first place. I presume your subscription has something like this WSJ subscriber agreement[136]? No, that doesn't allow the copying of articles on freely accesible websites ("While you may occasionally download and store articles from the Service for your personal use, you may not otherwise provide others with access to such articles."). That you are still trying to defend the evidence of your links to copyright violations([137]) is cause enough to maintain all restrictions on your editing and to check your edits for further problems. Oh, and please don't change your post a day after you posted it, it makes the discussion hard to follow. Fram (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC) @Richard Arthur Norton: so you are claiming that I am still vengeful since the time of some undisclosed AfD, but not necessarily because of that AfD but because something else whih you don't name? And because I was feeling vengeful for some unknown thing from 5 years ago, I waited two years for the ArbCom case and a further three years for this clarification request, and supported the loosening of your sanctions (in some other aspect) in late 2014 probably as well? Are you going anywhere with that argument, or do you think that extremely vague accusations like that will somehow convince whoever closes this that the case should be rejected? Fram (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton: Murdoch bought the WSJ in 2007, your copyvio was from an article published in 2012 and made by you in early 2013. So your defense is clearly invalid by a quite wide margin. Fram (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: could you explain why? Why do you consider this frivolous and why don't you mention the editing restriction in your reply? It's not about the problem of people linking to Findagrave (or the problem of linking to Wikidata as if it is a Wikipedia article), but the problem of one specific editor with a specific editing restriction against linking to external pages he created doing exactly that but in a novel way. Fram (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[138]

Discussion concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

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 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Another fishing expedition by User:Fram to get me banned. He has been looking at my every edit for the past five years looking for another gotcha! moment that he can bring here. He is still vengeful from when I opposed him in an AFD debate 5 years ago. This is terrible convoluted logic, and a poor understanding of how the transitive property works. I am not to link to Findagrave entries, that I create, from Wikipedia. I link to Wikidata from Wikipedia. Wikidata links to Findagrave. Having me not link to my Findagrave entries was wrongheaded from the start, you are forcing the Wikipedia standard of fair-use onto an external website with a different standard of fair use. The terms of use for obituaries from the New York Times and Newspapers.com and Genealogy Bank and Familysearch, and yes even my Wall Street Journal subscription, ~~allows~~ allowed for the non commercial use of articles from their archive. The terms of service for the Wall Street Journal changed after the ownership changed to Rupert Murdoch and he put articles behind a paywall and stopped sharing on Facebook and threatened to stop allowing Google News to post snippets. You cannot compare the current terms of service to a previous version, my iTunes and Facebook terms of service change monthly. Time magazine failed to fully renew copyrights until after 1945. Calling it "a loophole" or violating the "spirit of the sanction" is poisoning the well. If the law says to come to a complete stop at a stop-sign, you do it. You don't also come to a complete stop at a yield-sign. If you slow down at a yield sign you haven't found a "loophole" or are violating the spirit of a stop-sign, you are obeying the law. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another lesson on logic and semantics. You wrote: "please don't try to give motives for my actions" because I wrote "He is still vengeful from when I opposed him in an AFD debate 5 years ago". Motives are about "why", I wrote about "when", which is the time frame. If I wrote "He is still vengeful because I opposed him in an AFD debate 5 years ago", you would have been correct, I would have been ascribing a motive for your actions, and not describing the time frame. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said the terms of service changed after Murdoch bought the WSJ, I didn't say the day after, or the year after, just after. My iTunes and Facebook ToS change monthly, My CNN.com ToS just changed again today. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

I have no idea why people are so out to get Richard Norton. He's a net positive to the encyclopedia; a group of shitty edits a decade ago and it's a never ending vendetta. Quite ridiculous... There is no logic to the original sanction, let alone with Vogonesque adherence to it. Carrite (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

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

I have a really hard time seeing this as anything other than a frivolous complaint. Linking to Wikidata is fine. Linking to Findagrave is fatuous for all values of linking, but pepole seem to like is so whatever. Anyone who can persuade me this is actionable could also probably sell me the Brooklyn Bridge. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The example given of George Charles Tranter shows RAN linking (via Wikidata) to a Findagrave entry that seems to be entirely written by himself. Clearly the restriction wants to keep RAN from linking to material he has authored on external sites. The diffs supplied here show a violation of his restriction. It is curious that this Findagrave doesn't actually point to any grave; it looks like RAN has used their website merely as a repository for the miniature bio that he wrote. This appears to be circumvention. He is currently banned from creating an article on George Charles Tranter himself, but he creates one on Findagrave and then links to it. RAN should be warned not to add references to any Wikidata entries that lead to his own work. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See a related discussion at ANI where RAN is participating on the question of Findagrave links. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey

Filing party blocked for POV editing and likely socl Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:41, 7 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 Scjessey

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mouse001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS on articles related to Hillary Clinton

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

21:18, 9 November 2015 Assuming sock/meat of user:Professor JR without any evidence in edit summary
02:55, 18 November 2015 Personal attack in edit summary ("SPA") and uncivil comment
13:59, 5 December 2015 Assumption of bad faith in edit summary (this edit was reverted by another editor for this reason here)
03:10, 6 December 2015 Personal attack in edit summary
15:56, 11 December 2015 Personal attack and assumption of bad faith in talk page comment
18:58, 15 December 2015 Personal attack and assumption of bad faith in edit summary
22:12, 16 December 2015 Personal attack and assumption of bad faith in talk page comment
19:22, 17 December 2015 Removing long standing text that is in dispute
19:59, 17 December 2015 one of his attempts to use the SPA tag without consideration
22:26, 19 December 2015 Assumption of bad faith in talk page comment
14:22, 21 December 2015 Improper susp. sockpuppet categorization of my IP
15:13, 29 December 2015 counterproductive edit summary, assumption of bad faith in talk page comment
16:31, 30 December 2015 Personal attack and assumption of bad faith in edit summary (related to below diff)
00:53, 31 December 2015 Personal attack and inadequate reason to revert (related to above diff)
00:56, 31 December 2015 Personal attack in edit summary and assumption of bad faith in talk page comment
03:08, 6 December 2015 Deleting warning (#1 in below "Some warnings..." section) and writing assumptions of bad faith and personal attack in edit summary
16:23, 11 December 2015 Disregarding the warning by user:UW Dawgs(#2 in below "Some warnings..." section) and personally attacking him
00:48, 31 December 2015 Deleting warning (#3 in below "Some warnings.." section) and writing assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks and unpleasant language in edit summary
03:10, 06 December 2015 Evidence of Wikihounding, he has never edited the page before he removed my content additions
13:59, 05 December 2015 Evidence of Wikihounding, he has never edited the page before he removed my content additions

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

23:25, 21 October 2015 See result section - an administrator issued him a personal attack warning
11:15, 4 May 2009 "repeated personal attacks"

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

15:32, 22 October 2015

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Some warnings and such given to the editor regarding his behavior in the above diffs:

03:05, 6 December 2015 Warning him about personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith
16:14, 11 December 2015 Warning by UW Dawgs about Scjessey's comment towards me. UW Dawgs cited WP:AGF, WP:CIVILITY and WP:ACDS
21:32, 30 December 2015 Warning him on talk page about the recurring ad hominem attacks
03:15, 6 December 2015 Asking him to refrain from assuming bad faith in edit summary
21:20, 16 December 2015 Asking him politely to refrain from ad hominem attacks in talk page comment
21:26, 30 December 2015 Asking him politely to refrain from personal attacks in edit summary

The diffs that I have displayed show repeated personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, Wikihounding and other unwanted behavior by the editor. Repeated warnings and requests have been given towards him which he has willfully disregarded. As a newcomer I have been treated very poorly. He seems to continuously refer to me as a "SPA" (this is seen in the diffs above) as part of attempts to discredit me based on attacks to my character.

I have tried to maintain civility by ignoring the attacks and in some cases bringing the editor's behavior to his attention. He has been asked many times to stop the attacks but has consistently shown an unwillingness to take notice of them. I believe that the editor's aggressive editing style on topics related to Hillary Clinton is not constructive and may inhibit his ability to edit in a neutral manner.

--Mouse001 (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I may have a "single purpose" of editing political articles for the time being. In any case, it is applicable to Wikipedia policy the editor should focus on the content of my edits instead of attacking my character. I must say that this editor has posted several "warnings" on my talk page, most of which I believe were unjustified and driven by the editor's hostility towards me. However I do agree that I have made a few mistakes in my editing (I am new to Wikipedia), but I have recognized my mistakes and took the appropriate steps to ensure neutral and encyclopedic additions (some examples here and here).--Mouse001 (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the page that user:NorthBySouthBaranof linked, only thirteen of my edits are for those two conservative politicians. So him saying "Their remaining contributions are largely positive edits to biographies of two conservative politicians" is not quite accurate. I am not at fault for every revert war that I took part in and the few revert wars did not always involve inserting apparent negative material. I am trying to edit in a policy-based and neutral manner that represents facts and viewpoints fairly and according to their weight.--Mouse001 (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

02:17, 7 January 2016

Discussion concerning Scjessey

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

Statement by Scjessey

I went through all the diffs provided above. There are indeed a few edit summaries and responses that on their own appear rude or dismissive, but put in the proper context are obviously the result of frustration in trying to deal with what I consider to be a textbook POV warrior. I make no apologies for drawing attention to an obvious single-purpose editor determined to cause harm to the project. I'm delighted he/she decided to seek assistance from ArbCom, thus saving anyone else the tedious effort of compiling diffs to shine a light on Mouse001's behavior. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

Taking a quick look at the filing editor's 140 contributions, fully 83 of them are to article and article talkpages related to Hillary Clinton, and this includes a number of instances of revert-warring negative material into such articles. Their remaining contributions are largely positive edits to biographies of two conservative politicians. When a user's contributions are so clearly politically polarized, it cannot possibly be considered a "personal attack" to describe such an editor as a single-purpose account and raise concerns that they are editing not in an effort to write neutral, dispassionate encyclopedia articles but rather to push a particular partisan POV, to make candidates they support look good and candidates they oppose look bad. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Scjessey

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

It seems to me that Mouse001 is indeed an account with a single purpose, and that that Scjessey's occasionally strong wording does not cross the personal attack boundary. Stating that another editor is an SPA or saying "for fuck's sake" does not constitute incivility. In a different section, an editor commented that the BOOMERANG doesn't apply on AE pages. I am unfamiliar with such a rule, and here is, yet again, a good example of the applicability of that throwing stick: we have here an SPA whose edits appear to have the sole purpose of bringing a living person in discredit by what looks like synthesis and innuendo. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Right from the top of the page: "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." Boomerangs can absolutely fly at AE, and it's certainly happened before. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked the filing party. Not even Mary Poppins would be able to continue to assume good faith at this point. It's a single-purpose POV warrior account, and I do not believe from the contribution history that this is the user's first or only account. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiking

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 Wiking

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA, "general 1RR restriction"

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

5 Jan 2016 16:54: Removes category and entire paragraph, with obvious connection to Israel/Palestine. Part of the paragraph was added here (and subsequently expanded by other editors).
6 Jan 2016 13:47: Does the same again

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor rejected the suggestion to self-revert as a way of avoiding a trip to AE: [139].
I have now indicated the edit that Wiking's first edit reverted. There's nothing in the WP:1RR rule (nor in the ARBPIA decision) that says an edit is a revert only when it reverts a recent edit. Not sure why we would give our blessing to gaming the rules in this way; I pointed out the editor's error and suggested he/she conform to the rule and he/she gave a clear response that surely causes doubt as to whether he/she will do so in the future. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Wiking

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 Wiking

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Wiking

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

Wiking's first edit does not appear to be a revert, so they do not appear to have violated 1RR. Number 57 11:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to the updated evidence, I still don't see the first edit as a revert – the original edit referred to was over three years ago. Number 57 12:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - In response to the further comment, I still can't see this as a revert of any form (otherwise any removal of text can be seen as a revert, even if it removes text added in 2004), not do I see this as gaming the system. Number 5 7 12:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts

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 Lugnuts

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Legacypac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Lugnuts (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 :

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

Date calling established editor a troll
[140] calling editor a troll again
[141] Making clear this is a troll
[142] uncivil behaviour toward other editors by displaying large font F--K on talk page
[143] casting asperstions.
[144] insertion of copy vio, duplicative material against a previous AfD, while failing to discuss it on the talk page in-spite of edit summaries calling for discussion. At the same time counting my reverts and trying to bait me into edit warring violation.
[145] additional name calling after this report filed. Shows total lack of understanding of Wiki policy on RS, copy vio etc in a longevity AfD.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is just this editor's activity today that shows they are not interested in editing the Longevity area in a civil manner. Their past conduct has been unhelpful as well as editors try to clean up this area and bring it within WP policy.

The assertion that most of my AfDs have not been successful is obviously false [146]. Some editors resent their pet articles developed with a gross disregard for policy being deleted. There are notifications of DS on the various Longevity pages. Anyway, DS are not required to deal with the uncivil behaviour. Legacypac (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [147] to which he swore at me.

Discussion concerning Lugnuts

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 Lugnuts

This is the most WP:POINTY thing I've ever seen. Legacypac made three reverts to blank the page List of Japanese supercentenarians. I reverted the most recent with the edit summary of "this needs to go to AfD, per a previous edit summary. And one more revert and you'll break WP:3RR". User:Oscarlake made a similar revert stating AfD would be the best venue. Straight after doing the revert I posted a polite notice on LP's talkpage reminding him of WP:3RR. I have no idea about the alleged copyvio inserts or whatever the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity is. Looking at LegacyPac's recent contributions, he's gone out of his way to take longetivity lists to AfD, which most, if not all have been kept. He's also been told twice (once, twice) that his talkpage edits are not welcome. I'm not going to waste any more time on this pointless event. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've just found this very sneaky piece of work from LP too - reporting me for "vandalism". Which was declinded straight away. That report looks like trolling to me. Oh no, I said the T word. Burn me with fire. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

Tempest in teapot? Users have the specific right to remove posts on their own user talk page. Others who repeatedly repost material once deleted are, indeed, the ones who are misbehaving as a rule. Lug should not have used the F-word, but the context makes its use understandable, even if it ought not have been used. Otherwise, I do not see any reason to keep this "case" extant. Collect (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlbinoFerret

Even if such a case is applicable here, I see no warning of Lugnuts of the DS. It appears that Legacypac is in need of sanctions. Started a merge discussion on the 6th.[148] Mentioning an AFD that was withdrawn.[149] and then waited 2 days and blanked the page with no other editors commenting on the merge.[150] WP:SILENCE is the worst form of consensus and after waiting two days on a merge discussion? Lugnuts did the correct thing and reverted the actions. Looking at the history,[151] Legacypac has been in a slow edit ware to remove the material and has been reverted by multiple editors. AlbinoFerret 16:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the vandalism link Lugnuts provided, Legacypac is involved in WP:FORUMSHOPing. AlbinoFerret 16:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz

Albino Ferret, above, has it right. Legacypac, whose actions make clear they are aware of the applicable DS, is behaving highly disruptively. A six-month topic ban would give more responsible editors the opportunity to sort out whatever might require expeditious action without require repeated, unproductive, tinewasting community intervention. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

LegacyPac deserves the EENg treatment and should be indefinitely blocked per NOTHERE.

Result concerning Lugnuts

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

Arbitration enforcement appeal by User:HughD

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: HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Hugh (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 1 week block, imposed at WP:Arbitration/Requests#HughD, logged at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2

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

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification. I am aware of this appeal, and don't require a notice. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HughD

No violation of topic ban. No disruptive behavior. Good faith edits. Harassment by complainant. Misrepresentations by involved editors in statements in request for enforcement. No consensus for closure of harassing request for enforcement. No consensus for block. Lack of proportionality. Block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to our project. Repeated offer to apologize and strike through ignored. Respectfully request unblock. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

Statement by Arthur Rubin

As should be obvious, there is little accurate in Hugh's statement. To note one of the more obvious errors, he says he "offered to strike" a violation. He had plenty of opportunity to do so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy

Hugh's appeal ironically casts aspersions on those who participated in the original enforcement request, specifically that we engaged in "misrepresentations". Of course, he provides no details or diffs. Does the casting of naked aspersions in the appeal of a block merit extension of the block? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC) I was not involved in the locus of this dispute, but added comment in the enforcement request regarding troubling behavior discussing elsewhere re climate change denial, which is closely associated with conservative US politics. [reply]

Statement by SageRad

What i saw of HughD's recent editing is at ExxonMobil where his dialog on the talk page seems fine to me. Rather my recent treatment by the above commenter, NewsAndEventsGuy, seemed contentious and troubling to me, so i would take his assessment with a grain of salt as it seems probably skewed. Anyway, there is obviously political bias going on in judgments here. I haven't looked to the specifics of why the block happened, but this has the flavor of a persecution based on politics. SageRad (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ricky81682

There's no basis for appeal here. These line-drawing games have gone on long enough. HughD was specifically told that editing on Watchdog.org was a violation of the topic ban and I expressly told him repeatedly to bring it here if he actually wants to dispute that expansion. Regardless of the extensive circular discussion held at my talk page (including a series of typical passive aggressive insults at my editing), HughD never actually requested an appeal of the topic ban here. Instead he directly made a request about it and when called out argued that it was a procedural not substantive issue as is his norm. HughD's argument above that Citizens United itself was in the scope of the ban but the Citizens United Supreme Court was not if kept, is going to make it virtually impossible for anyone to figure out what is or isn't covered by this topic ban as he always has another excuse for why he's done nothing wrong. The fact that he's arguing about style not content is irrelevant: the only to make his topic ban stick is to give him zero ability to play around with it. Further, I hope the separate evidence regarding the actions at Talk:ExxonMobil (which he will probably argues requires a separate topic ban for him on climate change) are just another part of the pattern of behavior whereby he continually removes other people's comments, reorganizes RFCs and then spreads notification after notification around when the results aren't going his way to delay a closing and to further and further WP:BLUDGEON his opponents until they leave it alone. A topic ban means to stay away from the topic, not permissible to edit on the topic "only for procedural or style purposes but not content purposes". Even then, everyone was seemingly in agreement that merely striking out the comments would have been sufficient but HughD chose not to do that evidence that he simply refuses to believe he's violated the ban based on his belief that he's only banned from "non-substantive, non-content-related editing" that only covers the organization but not the legal lawsuit about the organization. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

DENY (banned editor)
THIS IS A PERSECUTION NOT A PROSECUTION. The admin above is not neutral about this. HughD's restrictions should all be removed per IAR until a neutral uninvolved admin has determined that he's actually violated any policies. 166.171.122.92 (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by HughD

It appears to me that the ban is an attempt by certain editors, who disagree with HughD, to silence him. I have looked for evidence of wrongdoing by HughD but I can't find any. Biscuittin (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You looked? Really? Earlier today you flatly refused to review the case history. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the appeal be granted because the prosecution has offered no substantial evidence in support of the ban. The ban is also holding up a discussion at Talk:ExxonMobil because HughD is unable to participate in it. Biscuittin (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor casts asperstions against other editors with no diffs in his appeal. That's not a good start. It's a short ban, just live it out. Legacypac (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by HughD

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

@Biscuittin: There is no "prosecution". This is not a legal proceeding. Gamaliel (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any basis for an appeal. The topic-ban violations are cut and dried. Given the history of issues here, I think that the block should have been for a month. CIreland (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NewsAndEventsGuy (reported by NewsAndEventsGuy)

Ooops. Last summer, at AE I stated "I am retiring for 12 months". It was closed accordingly, and I gradually started commenting at talk pages again, but not article editing. I never really studied the closing instructions in that case. Oversight! I now realize the closing instructions covered the entire scope of wiki.... ANYWHERE on climate issues. After some time had passed, I somehow thought we closed that with a restriction on article space only. Sorry about my oversight. I'll go away from climate now, even on talk pages, per the closing instructions I previously didn't carefully notice. I'll also notify the various editors I've been engaged with lately.

One hedge... to extent anyone complains at ANI/AE about other aspects of my behavior I'd like the flexibility to respond.

Sorry about that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of that close is that you restricted only regarding climate change not anything else, and participating in dispute resolution (including at AN/I and AE) is one of the usual exceptions to topic bans (see WP:BANEX) so I don't think you have anything to worry about in that regard. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, makes sense NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the wording of WP:BANEX I don't agree. The only exemption, for the banned person, is that they can ask questions about the scope of the ban. If NewsAndEventsGuy wants to resume editing talk pages and admin boards on the topic of ARBCC he should go through the steps of appealing the ban. The banning admin was User:Callanecc. But generally we do allow the banned person to respond at ANI if their own edits are questioned there. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're saying the same thing, but I'll illustrate the concern with an example to be sure. First, of course I would have to appeal before talking again about climate change, or initiating a complaint about someone else's actions in that area. However, there is another scenario and it goes like this....

Closing instructions, which I only carefully read today, precluded climate talk page contribs by me. Oops.
I made a bunch of climate talk page contribs during what I shall call "my stupid phase"
Today I wised up and will wait out the ban.
Tomorrow, one of the users with whom I interacted during my stupid phase might allege that during my stupid phase I broke AGF or NPA or something, in my remarks in the climate pages.

DISCUSSION - Although I was in vio of my voluntary ban in my stupid phase, I do not believe my voluntary ban ties my hands to defend against charges I failed AGF or NPA etc. As long as I don't bring up the underlying climate content any more than necessary to be comprehensible, fairness should allow me to explain my behavior in other respects should it be challenged. Is that that you meant, Ed? Finally.... if I honor the ban, such a complaint would be superfluous since ANI/AE is supposedly only for prevention and someone honoring a voluntary ban isn't making any trouble. Now that my stupid phase has come to an end, that is... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Reset Request Recently, AE blocked/banned HughD (talk · contribs) for a month for a Tban vio. Key in that complaint was that he was given a chance to strike out some talk comments and did not do so. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I guess. Hugh is now setting me up for the same thumping, by asking that I revert or strike everything in many different threads. Since my goof predates interactions with Hugh, we should really treat ALL my violating comments the same way. The question should be "What solution is best for the project, overall? What solution is BEST at preventing problems?"

Reverting my violating comments will turn threads to hash. That's bad. Striking them out makes it hard to read, and there's been no formal complaint about the content of the remarks. So making them hard to read is only slightly better than just wasting them.

Instead, I'd like to suggest that the original 12 month clock on my voluntary Tban be reset, but my comments be left as they are. With that simple action, all the threads I inadvertently participated in will still be intelligible, and Hugh need not feel like there is a double standard. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:05, 11 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 1,508: / Line 1,508: @@
 :::::# Tomorrow, one of the users with whom I interacted during my stupid phase might allege that during my stupid phase I broke AGF or NPA or something, in my remarks in the climate pages.
 :::::DISCUSSION - Although I was in vio of my voluntary ban in my stupid phase, I do not believe my voluntary ban ties my hands to defend against charges I failed AGF or NPA etc.  As long as I don't bring up the underlying climate content any more than necessary to be comprehensible, fairness should allow me to explain my behavior in other respects should it be challenged.   Is that that you meant, Ed?    Finally.... if I honor the ban, such a complaint would be superfluous since ANI/AE is supposedly only for prevention and someone honoring a voluntary ban isn't making any trouble.  Now that my stupid phase has come to an end, that is...  [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 01:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
+'''Ban Reset Request '''
+Recently, AE blocked/banned {{User|HughD}} for a month for a Tban vio.   Key in that complaint was that he was given a chance to strike out some talk comments and did not do so.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I guess.  Hugh is now setting me up for the same thumping, by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHughD&type=revision&diff=699310777&oldid=699193046 asking that I revert or strike everything in many different threads].  Since my goof predates interactions with Hugh, we should really treat ALL my violating comments the same way.  The question should be "What solution is best for the project, overall?  What solution is BEST at preventing problems?"
+Reverting my violating comments will turn threads to hash.  That's bad.  Striking them out makes it hard to read, and there's been no formal complaint about the content of the remarks.  So making them hard to read is only slightly better than just wasting them.
+Instead, I'd like to suggest that the original 12 month clock on my voluntary Tban be reset, but my comments be left as they are.   With that simple action, all the threads I inadvertently participated in will still be intelligible, and Hugh need not feel like there is a double standard.
+[[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 16:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

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