Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:37, 7 March 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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sir Joseph

User:Sir Joseph's appeal of the one-week topic ban from Bernie Sanders is declined. EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appealing user: Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Bernie Sanders Topic Ban - One Week

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

Notification of that administrator: [1]

Statement by Sir Joseph

On the talk page there are a few editors who are stubbornly refusing to allow "Relgion:Jewish" in the infobox of Bernie Sander's article even though it is thoroughly sourced through reliable sources and self soured as well. A few editors then came up with a new policy that says that it has to come from Bernie's own mouth, as per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Religion. Firstly, that is not a infobox policy, that is a categorization policy, but even so, the page says right on the top: "guideline,... best treated with common sense...and occasional exceptions..." When a Senator has a press kit on the SENATE.GOV's website we may treat that as his own words. That being said, I still found an article that had Sanders, IN HIS OWN WORDS, say, "I am proud to be Jewish." So I added that to the article as per the talk page. Since the entire talk page consensus was that Bernie's Jewishness could only be included only if he said it himself, here's an article that said it himself and I thought we can put this stupid matter to rest. Those editors opposing the inclusion of the Jewish reference, blindly ignoring all the evidence of his Jewishness, are requiring Bernie saying he is Jewish in his own words. So I found an article that said he is Jewish and proud of it. That is all Wikipedia should be doing. What these editors want to do is now determine level of observance and that is not what the infobox or what Wikipedia is all about. We don't do it for other religions and we shouldn't start doing it for Jews.

As per Liz I am shortening my comments.
JzG what rope? As Spartaz pointed out in his comment, you can't listen to guy Macon and his list of diffs. The ban was updated. So I sill fail to see the rope, and justification for an extension other than me bringing this appeal.
To Bishonen and Laser, again, I never called anyone an antisemite and you should strike that out. As others have pointed out here and elsewhere, when you are scrutinizing only the Jew for special treatment, then something does smell wrong. Whether you mean it or not, it is perceived as such. Especially in 2016, most recently Cullen328 said something similar, Gamaliel, Nishidani and other upstanding editors said similar.
Firstly if I may say I think there is a double standard judging by this and the below AE. Second, I also think many admins are looking at Guy Macon's timeline without realizing that the timeline was before Coffee modified his defective ban and I did not violate any TBAN. I really have no idea why you guys are thinking of a six month extension for something I didn't do. All I did was bring this appeal after I got a one week ban. Is that really such an offense? And I note again that Coffee posted a comment in the uninvolved admin section.
@Coffee, I would be very hard pressed to say you are uninvolved in this AE.

Statement by Coffee

I have nothing to add to what I've already stated at my talk page, the article's talk page, and in the sanction at Sir Joseph's talk page. (Unless this is somehow unclear to other uninvolved admins... which I doubt.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As he is refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK, I've updated the ban to state page instead of article (as requested by Bishonen at my talk page). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: You may want to read the notice at the top of your appeal: "Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED)." — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guy Macon

Sir Joseph is in violation of his topic ban.

(16:58, 29 February 2016) Topic Ban: [2]
(19:11, 29 February 2016) Violation #1: [3]
(19:19, 29 February 2016) I Remove post made in violation of topic ban [4]
(19:22, 29 February 2016) Sir Joseph reverts removal. [5]
(19:23, 29 February 2016) Sir Joseph warned on his talk page [6]
(19:33, 29 February 2016) I explain that per WP:TBAN talk pages are included, ask Sir Joseph to self-revert. [7]
(19:34, 29 February 2016) Violation #2: [8]

Sir Joseph has made six edits on other pages since my request that he self-revert[9][10][11][12][13][14] and has been informed of the ban on talk page comments by several people, yet has not self-reverted. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Sir Joseph's various and sundry accusations towards me, my only interest in Bernie Sanders is to bring it into compliance with the consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes and Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 28#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. As my extensive edit history clearly shows, I have no particular interest in religion articles or political articles. Contrast this with Sir Joseph's edit history, which is pretty much Jews, Jews, and more Jews. I don't particularly like being called antisemetic for attempting to implement the consensus from those RfCs. I choose to edit using my real name and that's the sort of false accusation that tends to follow you around.

I would also like to comment on Sir Joseph's unsupported assertion "The claim that Bernie Sanders is not Jewish is the one that is dangerous and is a BLP violation." That comment is indicative of the problem that the other editors on the Sander's page are facing. Leaving aside for a moment that it is a bald-faced lie -- not one single editor has ever claimed that Bernie Sanders is not Jewish and Sir Joseph knows it -- it also shows a determination to Right Great Wrongs by hijacking a discussion that should be about removing his topic ban and turning it into a discussion about Bernie Sanders being a Jew.

In my opinion, the best interests of the encyclopedia would be served by an indefinite topic ban from all pages relating to Jews of Judaism, broadly construed, with the standard offer that if Sir Joseph shows that he can edit constructively in other areas for six months there is a high probability that a request that the topic ban be lifted will be granted. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevancy
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Related discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Threats by Malik Shabazz --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

Irrelevancy

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

Can we talk about the elephant in the room? Guy Macon is a troll whose disruptive editing started this conflict—when he removed Senator Sanders's religion from the infobox—and he has edit-warred to keep it out, violating 3RR in the process. I don't know who appointed Guy Macon King of the Jews, but it's time for somebody to step up and put an end to his original research that he, and only he, is qualified to determine who is sufficiently Jewish to be be identified as a Jew in their infobox.

I'm sorry that it's come to this, but WP:OR/N is horribly broken:

PUT AN END TO THIS BULLSHIT OR I WILL NOTIFY THE PRESS THAT WIKIPEDIA HAS ONE STANDARD FOR BIOGRAPHIES OF CHRISTIANS AND ANOTHER FOR BIOGRAPHIES OF JEWS. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Curly Turkey

side dispute

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

Someone might want to look into Malik's behaviour as well—he whips out that "King of the Jews" thing at anyone who disagrees with him with alarming frequency, and his "I WILL NOTIFY THE PRESS" is in violation of the spirit if not strictly the letter of Wikipedia:No legal threats. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nishidani: your statement would make sense if this were simply a blowup on Malik's part, but rather it's been his whole persistent approach to the Sanders kerfuffle since day one, both there and in other fora. And he's not known from backing down from his statements, no matter how plainly and undeniably wrong he's proven to be. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jesus, Nishidani, if Malik's behaviour—melodramatically accusing everyone he meets of antisemitism, threatening to take Wikipedia to "the press" is magnificent, and refusing to retract statements he himself know are empirically wrong—is "magnificent", then I have to wonder what behaviour you would object to. He's crossed any number of lines. Well, whatever you think of him, his threat will have to be dealt with. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: You're suggesting an empty Infobox field is OR? The argument is not whether he is or is not Jewish, which is covered in detail in the article body, but whether the Infobox should state: "Religion: Jewish" (and the larger question—whether infoboxes should state people's religions at all, which many of us are opposed to). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Winkelvi

distraction

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

Did Malik Shabazz really just issue a threat to damage Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation with a statement to the press that would essentially state Wikipedia condones and engages in anti-Semitism? That has to fall under WP:NLT. Admins who have commented here need to be made aware of this. Pinging Laser brain, Bishonen, Spartaz, Number 57. I think it's also worth mentioning that Malik is a here as a result of canvassing [15] by SirJoseph. It also should be noted that Sir Joseph has actually violated his topic ban by continuing to discuss the article here, relentlessly, for over a day since the topic ban was imposed. Admins below are endorsing a six month topic ban. I would suggest that this would be not just reasonable but appropriate since SJ continues to violate the topic ban based on discussing the topic/article here and using this forum as a soapbox for discussion, abusing the purpose of this forum. Enough is enough. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted Sir Joseph has continued to discuss the Sanders article here and here, in spite of and in violation of his topic ban. Obviously, he doesn't take the TBAN seriously or care that it exists. Since his violation of the ban is pretty much being ignored, I have to wonder if admins who have commented take it seriously, too. Not trying to cause problems, but, really? Why is he being allowed to continue in this manner? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

Distraction

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

Could we lay off Malik Shabazz. That's not a legal threat. He's quite correct that there is something odd in the way, as distinct from other ethnicities, issues regarding Jews lead to humongous, ill-informed threads. I believe he is wrong to identify this as coming from only one side: Sir Joseph and others have relentlessly tried to pull Sanders into a conventional Jewish religious identity on the basis of his Jewish identity, confusing ethnicity with religion, birth with metaphysics. That Identity issues are extremely sensitive matters, particular in this regard, and upset people is only to be expected and we should not make a mountain out of a molehill. Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Turkey. If Malik, whose editing I've observed for nearly a decade, happens to perceive something I've missed, or can't see, I think about it. If he is pissed off, I'm not going to grizzle. His record has been, aside from one slip caused by having to edit with a fucking idiot, magnificent. So don't niggle away. There were lots of stupid remarks said on both sides, and it is pointless fussing. Drop it.Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Sir Joseph

Statement by Darkfrog24

At first this looks like just a content dispute, but according to Coffee's official notice, Sir J was sanctioned for failing to get consensus before adding disputed content.[16] And Sir J seems to be saying "Even though I didn't wait for the other editors to say 'okay' on the talk page, I did find exactly what they asked for, so I shouldn't be topic-banned." Is that correct? As for content, I've been in a similar situation and it is very frustrating, but editors don't always say what it is that they really want (or they don't list all their reasons). What worked in my case was that a neutral party came in, figured out what the additional issue was, and then we ran a clearly worded RfC that addressed that issue directly. In that case, the other editors were asking for reliable sources, but the additional issue was the subjective editorial decision of whether the content improved the article. I didn't understand why no matter how many sources I found they still weren't happy. Once we were able to deal with these matters separately, things proceeded in a quick and civilized fashion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC) EDIT: Okay, I went through the RfC thread and I don't see any clear version of "Just find us a reliable source that says X and we're fine with the addition." Rather, the discussion focuses on ethnic vs. religious Judaism, on participation and on whether Sanders' Jewish status is notable. Maybe Sir J found what one or two of the many participants said they wanted, and props for the legwork, but that's not enough to reasonably assume that most of the participants would be satisfied. (Also, Spacklick seems to be addressing the editorial issue directly.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

"Jewish" has multiple meanings. It's original research to label someone as professing a religious faith when they may simply be commenting on part of their ethnic background. There are lots of agnostic/atheist Jews, and so on. So, it doesn't matter how many places he says he's proud to be Jewish, it has no impact on the infobox parameter unless and until we have him saying he's religiously Jewish. And that is probably something that should be a self-statement, for a BLP, especially one subjected to racist and faith-based slurs from Christian rednecks and the like. E.g., if Fox News claims he goes to synagogue, that's not a reliable source. An infobox religion parameter is a very blunt instrument. What Sanders's "Jewishness" entails, to the extent it's even encyclopedic, is a matter best explored in the article body, like the "Irishness" of various individuals in certain parts of that island in various time periods, and so on. Not every group label is a cut-and-dry matter. I don't see any recognition of this complexity and nuance on the part of the appellant, just a certainty that a great wrong is being done by not putting the word "Jewish" into that slot in the infobox. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Only in Death

BLP is quite clear, and has consistantly been upheld at the BLP noticeboard on this: we dont make blanket statements of fact over controversial issues regarding living people where there is contradictory information. We explore the contradictions in the prose. No one has denied Sander is Jewish. However there is enough contradictory sources, including statements from the subject, that having religion in infobox state 'Jewish' is not appropriate. No one has suggested it cant be explored in the article, as that would be the appropriate place. Infobox's however only allow for definite facts. Of which Sander's religion is not one.

Malik's threat above however is frankly ridiculous. We apply the same criteria to other potentially controversial infobox subjects like sexuality. Absent a clear declaration from the subject they are X, we dont state subject is X. Sanders states he is Jewish, but does not clearly state his religion is Jewish. There are no excuses - everybody should be aware by now why there is a difference, and if they are not, they shouldnt be editing articles on Jewish people.

Personally I think anyone making threats to go to the press unless they are allowed to tag public figures as religious Jews should be banned for life from all Jewish-related articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to JamesBWatson - His PR presspack (which was available on the website) listed his religion as 'Jewish'. -ninja edit- Appears to still be available on right hand side via 'download press package' button. If there were no contradictory sources, as a primary source this would usually be enough. However when the subject themselves also states they are not religious it gets a bit murkier. Its just not clear cut enough for a definitive infobox statement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JamesBWatson

SMcCandlish and Only in death are perfectly right: I have known many people of Jewish ancestry who describe themselves as "Jewish" despite not believing in or following the Jewish religion, so describing oneself as "proud to be Jewish" is not proof that one follows that religion. Since Sir Joseph makes it abundantly clear that his ban appeal is because he wishes to persist in his campaign to include Jewish as Sanders's religion, substantially on the basis of the statement "I am proud to be Jewish", without indication whether that means "religiously Jewish" or not, the appeal should not be allowed. Furthermore, Sir Joseph also makes the bizarre claim that putting "Jewish" as ethnicity is "antisemitic", and if he intends to edit in relation to jews on the basis of such weird views as that, then that is further confirmation that he should not be trusted to edit in relation to jews. He goes on to say "All the other politicians do not have to worry about their religious observances but if you're Jewish then you need to measure it up or you might not get to be labeled Jewish enough by the Wikipedia editors", but if after all that has been said to him about this issue, on various pages, he still has not grasped that the whole point is that neither he nor anyone else has produced evidence that judaism is Sanders's "religious observance" then that is yet further confirmation that he is incapable of editing in this area, and that the topic ban should stay.

Side discussion

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

Malik Shabazz's comments about different standards for Christians and Jews is utterly absurd: does he really not know that the word "Christian" is used only to mean people of a particular religion, whereas "Jewish" is used to refer both to religion and to ethnicity, so that the two are not comparable? I would counsel him to be cautious about carrying out his threat (childishly shouted at us in capital letters) to "expose" us to the press for treating the two as different cases, because the two are different cases.

One last point: Sir Joseph says "Relgion:Jewish (sic) is on his Senate.gov website", but I have searched http://www.sanders.senate.gov and various subpages of that page, such as http://www.sanders.senate.gov/about, and nowhere can I find that stated. Can Sir Joseph tell us exactly where in that web site the information is to be found? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maunus

I second SmCandlish's statement. The argument for putting the label in the religion slot, ignores the fact that unlike the word "Christian" the word "Jewish" is polysemic and does not only refer to religion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

Is this section meant to be broken up by sub-headers? No matter I guess.

Sir Joseph is clearly in violation of his topic ban, I mean there can be no question, this entire appeal is continuing to discuss Bernie Sanders, the topic that Sir Joseph is banned from. I expect to see appeals in the form, "this topic ban is invalid because <evidence the ban rationale was incorrect>" or some such. For example, Sir Joseph could argue that Coffee was mistaken and SJ actually didn't add contentious information ~~with~~ without (corrected 20:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)) firm consensus, and/or point to the discussion which established that consensus, or that he didn't edit war to reinsert it, or perhaps Sir Joseph would argue that he was not aware of the discretionary sanctions. But that is not Sir Joseph's approach, he's merely continuing to argue that he's right. But let's assume he did make an appeal of that sort.[reply]

Was there consensus for the edit? The large, open RfC on the talk page suggests not. It's still open, of course, but I think it's a pretty big leap to say it's going to close as support. So there's no consensus.

Did Sir Joseph edit war to add the edit? He sure did. Not to mention that these edits came while the matter was still being hotly contested on the talk page, he ought to have known, sourced or not, that these edits would be contentious.

Was Sir Joseph aware of the discretionary sanctions? I find it hard to believe that anybody edits in topic areas like these without knowing about the WP:BLP policy and related DS, but just in case he also missed the editnotice, there's this warning on his talk page.

Is the blocking administrator WP:INVOLVED? No reason has been given as to why Coffee should be considered involved here, and I can't find one.

So I don't see any reason that this ban should be overturned. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Liz

Since you asked the question, JamesBWatson if you go to his About page there is a box that says "PRESS PACKAGE DOWNLOAD (PDF)". If you download this biography, which I assume is official, it states that Sanders religion is "Jewish". I don't think any editor of Wikipedia is qualified to judge how religious Sanders is or what he means by Jewish. It's his self-identification. Any interpretation of this by a Wikipedia editor is pure original research. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

As only involved in responding to discussion at BLP/N and OR/N, the issue is that while the press kit (which may or may not be authored directly by Sanders) says that, his statements directly recorded by the press as self-identification beg the question of his religion. The press kit is conflicting with his statements to a point where saying "Religion: Jewish" in the infobox may be wrong. It would be OR to try to come to a conclusion either way from these sets of conflicting statements. It's well recognized that what his religious beliefs are is important, but can't be readily summarized in one word. Hence, a solution that I offered at OR/N that seems to have consensus is to have "See (Religion section)" as the entry in the infobox - it doesn't deny he has stated some type of faith, but it is something not readily captured by one or two words. In my eyes, this is the similar practice that we allow people to omit infoboxes from bio articles if they believe the infobox is insufficient for capturing a person in a brief snapshot. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darouet

Distraction
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was summoned to the RfC on the Sanders religion issue, and SMcCandlish hit the nail on the head describing that discussion. Masem's proposal is also reasonable. But Malik's comment on Guy Macon is way off - certainly insulting at the least - and unfortunate given their otherwise positive contributions. -Darouet (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Sir Joseph

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

The topic ban seems reasonable to me. The page has an obvious edit notice that quite clearly states "You must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits, must not engage in edit warring." You were fully aware that the RfC on the talk page has not yet been closed one way or the other, so it was clearly inappropriate to make the edit and even more inappropriate to edit war over it (for the record, I gave an opinion on the RfC but have otherwise had no involvement in the article, so no idea whether that makes me "involved" or not). Number 5 7 18:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ban. I see Sir Joseph has claimed, in his appeal to Coffee, that he didn't know his edit was contentious.[17] To someone who has spent an hour today reading the RfC on Talk:Bernie Sanders, as I have, that is an absurd claim, and I find it difficult to assume it was made in good faith. Compare also the diffs Coffee supplied in his reply here. It looks to me like a topic ban is the only way to stop Sir Joseph from trying to get his opinion into the article by sheer weight of edit warring on the article + repetitiousness on the talkpage. Have a read of WP:REHASH, Sir Joseph. (And incidentally of WP:CANVASS to, regarding this message.) I'm frankly not sure a week is enough. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Adding: Sir Joseph's broad hints in his most recent post that his opponents are motivated by antisemitism ("antisemitic", "troubling")[18] are completely unacceptable. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Sir Joseph: It might be better to give evidence for your claim that I'm not uninvolved than to keep "reiterating" it. I think people would be more interested. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Support existing ban and extension to six months. I concur that there's no way Sir Joseph didn't know this was a contentious edit. I am also very troubled by his statement above about antisemitism—I note that he has been blocked in the past for calling other editors terrorists. --Laser brain (talk) 19:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked Sir Joseph for edit warring to reunsert a topic ban vio. clearly they cannot control their editing, which eans we need the topic ban. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Now unblocked as I hadn't realised the sanction had been updated and the talk page edit predated that. Still support refusing the appeal. Endorse ban extending to talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ban, which should include the talk page. Debating what religion should be ascribed to someone in the infobox of their article is obviously a hot-button issue. I see no case here for lifting the topic ban. Agree with User:Bishonen that a one-week ban may be considered short, so I would advise Sir Joseph to be careful in the future. It is worth noting that User:Laser brain has proposed an extension to six months. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support the six months too, Ed. Bishonen | talk 17:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

For the record, at this point, I also support extending the ban to 6 months. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The topic ban is clearly righteous and needs to be extended to cover the talk page and I agree that it should be extended to six months. This is a textbook example of WP:ROPE, if nothing else. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing soon: The original ban was by User:Coffee, and it was for one week. As modifiied, it covers editing any page related to Bernie Sanders. It will expire at 16:58 on 7 March. Although User:Coffee has commented in the admin section, his opinion is not counted for purposes of the appeal since he is the banning admin. According to WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications, appeals can be granted at AE only by the 'clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators'. Among the five admins who commented (not including Coffee) nobody supports granting the appeal. So the appeal will be declined when this closes. To avoid confusion, I suggest that any admin who wants to extend the ban to six months should go ahead and do so as an individual admin action after this closes. Then that new action can (if necessary) have its own appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

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 I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (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#Discretionary Sanctions :

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

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (aka jps) and Alexbrn have edit-warred material into the article GMO conspiracy theories based on self-published sources and other poor sourcing, ignoring objections. Jps created the article on January 31, 2016 to look like this. Many of the sources do not meet our sourcing guidelines. I pointed this out here and then took out a number of these unreliable sources [19] [20] [21] [22]. (Please note that Genetic Literacy Project is run by Jon Entine a Pro-GMO advocate. [23][24]; Mark Lynas does similar pro-GMO advocacy [25].) jps went ahead and put the material back in without addressing any of the concerns and without achieving consensus first here. I reverted here. Alexbrn edit-warred the material back in here despite continuing objections here. Tsavage also explained the problematic sourcing here.

At this ANI, jps's behavior was outrageous. Jps lied about the content of sources: [26]. He originally said that Domingo 2011^[1] was "much criticized" [27]. When Petrarchan47 pointed out he was lying and asked him to "prove it" [28] [29], he responded with three journals [30], none of which criticized Domingo. An independent editor Sammy1339 confirmed it was a lie here. Rather than address the misrepresentations, jps made a mockery of the proceedings.[31][32][33][34][35] Jusdafax noted this disruptful behavior [36], as did Petrarchan47 [37].

^ Domingo, José L.; Giné Bordonaba, Jordi (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants (5 February 2011)" (PDF). Environment International. 37 (4): 734–42. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423.

--David Tornheim (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CLARIFICATION

Although I did use the word "edit-warring" above, that is not my allegation in paragraph #1. My allegation is the unreasonable insistence on use of unacceptable and unreliable sources. That is the reason I brought this action. When I said edit-warring, I meant that both editors had been alerted to the problem with the sources, yet went ahead and forced those sources back in. This action is about the sources, not the number of times an editor reverted in a dispute. I am sorry I did not make that clear.

I will note that not a single of jps's and Alexbrn's defenders has been bold enough to suggest those sources are acceptable. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This warning has been on the article talk page in which both users have participated since 19:27 January 31,2016. I put further reminder pinging user here and another on the talk page here.

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 1/31/2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Regarding Kingofaces43 false allegations that I reverted solely based on "no consensus". Although I did not explain all my reasoning in the edit notes, In every single case, I discussed the revert on the talk page, and King was present in every one of those discussions. Often I created a section on the talk page and pinged the editor.

For [38],[39], I restored material that had been stable in the article for a long time. The deletions were one-side and I and other editors discussed the non-NPOV removals here.

For [40], see discussion and my comment

For [41], see [42]

For [43], the edit note gives other reasons. I further discuss on the talk page here: [44] (part of this discussion).

King's remaining diffs are just as poorly represented, but to spare Liz and others, I will limit providing more diffs:

For the sentence about "pull[ing] a full 180 degrees" to "edit war content back in":
- The first group of 3 is covered in this complaint: I was not adding but removing material that was based on blogs and self-published sites by pro-GMO advocates.
- The next 3 diffs I restored well-sourced relevant material that was removed unilaterally. I even improved one of the sources.

The key difference between material I removed in the first 3 diffs and material I restored in the next 3, is the quality of the sources. That is why I brought this action. There is no reason for editors who have been here as long as jps and Alexbrn to waste our time trying to force material with such shoddy sourcing into the encyclopedia, when they know better.

For the remainder of King's diffs, he actually brings up actions taken against me by a now-topic-banned editor--I brought those exact actions as evidence at the ArbCom that resulted in that editor being topic-banned.

Regarding Shock Brigade Harvester Boris's statement:

Neither of those two editors are new to GMO's or new to Wikipedia. Both were at the GMO ArbCom proceeding. And both had edited and commented on GMO articles prior to the creation of the conspiracy article, advocating pro-industry positions. However, a new editor BarrelProof has shown up that immediately saw the problem that brought this action. [45]. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Bishonen's statement:

Why is jps immune from prosecution? How can you be sure jps is innocent when you have not even looked at the evidence? What kind of justice system is this? --David Tornheim (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[46] [47]

Discussion concerning I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

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 I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

Claims of edit warring are pretty strange. Certainly no violation of 1RR or even anything close to that (weeks in between reversions?) has occurred by anyone active at the article. I have encountered a lot of resistance from people of a certain political persuasion when it comes to the GMO controversy. Unfortunately, discussion on the talkpage has occasionally degenerated into problematic arguments by anti-GMO activists that, for example, sources such as academic books published by Oxford University Press were unreliable.[48] Sorry about my exasperation. I will try to dial back the snark as much as possible.

It would be nice if you all would give David and Petra little breaks from this subject as they are the ones who are most problematic in baiting and changing the discussion from content toward argumentative rhetoric. The AN/I discussion was outlandish for its demonstration that anti-GMO activists are so ideologically inclined to attach themselves to their favored sources, they cannot even understand when the sources are contradicted. I also find it particularly galling when they try to claim that Mark Lynas and David Entine are somehow corrupt sources[49] (e.g., an argument that because Entine works for AEI and climate deniers also work for AEI that therefore Entine is not a reliable source for information on genetic engineering, biotechnology, or food safety -- what?). Petra has gone so far as to claim equivalency between Lynas and Vani Hari [50] which is a level of incompetence regarding the identification of reliable sources that is fairly unrivaled at Wikipedia since maybe the time we were overrun with climate deniers.

jps (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs (for those who like them)

WP:BOOMERANG may apply here as well. These are all David diffs since he filed the report:

Revert by David. See WP:KETTLE.
Heavy handed ordering of other editors. Basically asserting an odd form of ownership over the article ordering what edits I can and cannot do without so much as suggesting discussion is possible.
continuing to harass an editor banned in the relevant arbcom case [51]

Responses

@Liz:: You're absolutely right about the arbcom GMO case. The problem, I think, is similar to what happened with global warming. There are just many editors with the same agendas willing to hop back into the game after their friends are banned and there is no arbitration of content (which is really what is needed because at the end of the day that's where the dispute lies -- not in behavior). What ended up happening in the climate change omnibus case was an outright ban of basically everyone with the deniers remaining banned and the "pro-science" folks slowly restored. We're almost at the point where all the things that the pro-science crowd wanted to do back in 2009 are accomplished, but some might argue that Wikipedia is better for having done the shoot first, ask questions later approach since it was ultimately difficult to pin the disciplinary action on any one ideology. But make no mistake, we know which "side" won that battle and it is pretty clear to me which "side" will win this battle too in the long run. If it takes a Boris-style suggestion of kicking us all to the curb to get it done because of the dysfunctional way Wikipedia administration and arbitration works, I guess that's okay by me. As the mother who asked that Solomon give the baby to the other woman rather than splitting it in twain, I would rather a decision made that will ultimately save the encyclopedia from becoming a haven for anti-GMO paranoia rather than preserving any small part I may have in helping this situation along. But you might consider whether the article I have written (for the most part) really is as bad as my esteemed colleagues who have dragged me here would have you believe. jps (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

This is more complicated than what the filing editor describes. Bottom line: jps should be strongly advised to dial back his sarcasm and snark, with the understanding that continuation will likely result in action here: [52], [53], [54].

At the same time, there is some reason for exasperation on jps' part, and some degree of conduct from the "other side" that gets rather close to baiting. I've gone through every single diff that David T. provided. The so-called edit warring isn't quite that, although David was just as much involved in it as anyone else – and I don't see anything disruptive on Alexbrn's part. When David talks about "unreliable sources", he is throwing PZ Myers and Scientific American into the mix, so the content dispute has a lot more shades of gray than what is presented. About the Domingo source, well, we can probably quibble over whether it was "much criticized", or just "criticized". The three sources cited by jps draw somewhat the opposite conclusions to Domingo, and since then another reliable source has directly refuted Domingo: [55]. Anti-GMO activists cling to the Domingo source, which is why it seems to be such high stakes. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

Tryptofish described the overall situation well, but I do have to suggest a boomerang for David Tornheim as jps mentioned for a vexatious AE filing like this, which has resulted in action on other editors before.[56]. David Tornheim does have a tendency to antagonize the situation in this topic by some very clear cut fringe-advocacy behavior, which is only continuing to exacerbate the community's patience as we've seen in jps' case. WP:KETTLE is the most apparent behavior problem associated with battleground behavior for anyone that's been following David's actions in this topic.

Edit warring often occurs with David making demands as jps pointed out[57] or where they revert a new edit basically demanding in edit summaries that material cannot be changed without their approval even when they don't attempt to open up initial talk page discussion on it, which runs entirely against WP:DRNC.(just need to read edit summaries here)[58][59][60][61][62] They still fail to see this problem in their behavior even in their comments in this filing.[63] However, when it comes to David's own edits, they pull a full 180 and try to edit war content back in they are already aware didn't have consensus such as this string (some intermediate edits not included)[64][65][66], and this[67][68][69] More kettle issues come up at the ANI[70] David tries to cite as evidence if someone takes the time to read through their multitude of posts, especially the battleground aspect of bringing up Nazi's, etc.

David has been warned multiple times at ANI now for battleground, edit warring, and general tendentiousness. [71][72][73], plus by admins for peanut gallery type behavior in this topic at admin boards.[74] Continuing that behavior and jumping to AE when someone shows reasonable frustration is just more battleground. We're past the point of warnings, so it's starting to look like the path to a topic ban is already being well traveled. If that doesn't seem clear to admins yet, reading the edit summaries in my diffs should be enough indication for a 0RR restriction for David as an intermediate step at this point.

In short, if someone truly believes there is something actionable here in terms of jps, we pretty much have an unambiguous case for even more severe action against David, especially if admins want to get into more detail than what I've briefly presented. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Short Brigade Harvester Boris, I don't think we're in such dire straits that we'd need such a nuclear option. We've been making slow progress in this topic with a decent handful of disruptive editors already topic banned. We basically have two core editors left that really frequent the topic (right now at least) with advocacy/battleground issues. David is one of those with their behavior being the more problematic of the two. My hope is that pruning back David's behavior should finally get us to a relative die-down on drama or at least to the point where action might only needed for one or two more editors to really settle things down. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alexbrn

I see I have been accused of edit-warring on an article where I have only made two (unrelated) edits ever.[75][76]

That says it all. Alexbrn (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

This nonsense has gone on too long. The editing atmosphere is much too toxic for any newcomers to try to contribute, as User:Alexbrn's statement above demonstrate. Suggested remedy:

1. Compile a list of everyone who has edited the topic in the past month. (I would like to exclude User:Alexbrn but this has to be absolute or there will be endless wrangling. Sorry Alex.)

2. Topic ban them for the next six months.

3. If any of these editors violates the topic ban even once, or if they file a complaint about any other editor on the list in any venue on any Wikimedia project, the remaining period of the topic ban is automatically and without discussion converted as a site ban.

No, I am not trying to be funny. Nothing else is going to work. We need to make this topic safe for new contributors if anything is to change. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aircorn

A few babies will go down the drain if SBHB's remedy is used. I don't think we are at this stage though. The major problem revolves around our presentation of the safety of GMO food. The divide between the science and public opinion is large[77] and that is reflected on Wikipedia. Correspondingly most of the problems stem from disagreements over this issue. Good progress had been made on this front (for example Talk:Genetically modified crops#First proposal revised) and before we resort to kicking everyone a better first step would be to get a well run rfc to decide this question for an enforceable period of time. AIRcorn (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

I agree with Tryptofish regarding his recommendation to strongly advise jps to "dial back his sarcasm and snark" but I doubt it will do any good because he has gotten away with it for far too long. I admit that my suggestion comes from first-hand experiences but that isn't why I'm here. I have a suggestion that may help resolve some of the ongoing disputes regarding controversial topics. GMO articles by their very nature attract editors with different perspectives, and as one would expect, involved editors almost always reach an impasse. What I've witnessed from the sidelines appears to be more of a syntax issue that escalates into behavioral issues, most of which are instigated by "sarcasm and snark" when the problem could easily be resolved with the help of qualified neutral copyeditors and/or experienced FA reviewers who can corroborate the prose against the cited sources. Perhaps we should consider a neutral "mediation team" who can step in and resolve these syntax disputes and spare the project further POV imbalance resulting from the use of TBs which actually conflict with our efforts in editor retention. Atsme^📞📧 04:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Petra

In response to the claim from JPS regarding my supposed incompetence, "Petra has gone so far as to claim equivalency between Lynas and Vani Hari which is a level of incompetence regarding the identification of reliable sources that is fairly unrivaled at Wikipedia since maybe the time we were overrun with climate deniers."

I would like to note that Lynas is known as a pro-GMO writer. The "Food Babe" was an example I used of an advocate who is known as anti-GMO. I suggested that the reader should be alerted to his advocacy in the same way we would do for Vani Hari. That was my only claim. [But... climate change!(?)]

Admins, do you feel that my suggestion shows incompetence? Is it appropriate for JPS to not only fail to ping me, but to call me incompetent? Just wondering.

Result concerning I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

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

I think the lack of admin response to this request is due to fatigue regarding disputes in the GMO area which show up at AE on a regular basis. It seems like the GMO arbitration case didn't settle things down one bit. You all have presented dozens and dozens of diffs so it will take a while for me (and others) to weigh the merits of your arguments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed very fatiguing. But before I faint from the oxygen-deprivation of tunnelling into the diff collections above and other background material, I will with my last breath oppose any sanction of jps in this matter. Bishonen | talk 17:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@David Tornheim: Did I say I hadn't looked at the evidence? I have tunnelled into it, and that's the reason I'm oxygen-deprived, dizzy and exhausted. I'm continuing to look, but wanted to register an interim opposition to sanctions, based on what I've seen so far. I'm still looking, and may be back. Bishonen | talk 11:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Jytdog

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: Dialectric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:52, 5 March 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: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Jytdog_topic_banned :

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

March 5, 2016 diff - Bayer CropScience Limited produces agricultural chemicals. Per Remedy 8 in the GMO case, Jytdog is banned from pages related to agricultural chemicals. This is an unambiguous breach of the topic ban.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

User is mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In addition to the above edit which is clearly within the scope of the topic ban, Jytdog has made a number of recent edits to a range of other Bayer-related articles. Per the January 2016 reword of the Discretionary sanctions in the GMO case, companies that produce agricultural chemicals are within the scope of the sanctions, and it could be inferred that this clarification of scope would also apply to topic bans. While the majority of Jytdog's edits here appear to be related to their pharma business, Bayer produces agricultural chemicals and has been involved in the production of, and controversies related to, GMOs (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-07-01/bayer-to-pay-750-million-to-end-lawsuits-over-genetically-modified-rice example ref).

@ Kingofaces43 This filing primarily concerns only one diff, evaluation of which should not pose a undue burden to admins. I reject Kingofaces43’ position that this filing is vexatious. Jytdog writes in his statement that he agrees his edit was a violation of his topic ban. Please provide a link where anyone has told Jytdog that he has ‘been explicitly told it's ok to edit,’ Bayer-related articles. The discussion you link for the statement that 'adding companies to existing topic bans did not pass' shows that there were not enough votes either way. I assume this means arbcom members could still vote to pass it. Dialectric (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingofaces43 , I believe you are reading more into the arbcom motion than is there. There is no explicit statement that it is OK to edit articles about agchem companies. In fact several arbcom members say explicitly 'don't test the boundaries'. An admin could reasonably take a topic ban on agricultural chemicals broadly construed to include those companies which produce agricultural chemicals, whether or not arbcom included wording about companies. Bayer CropScience is more closely related to GMOs, the core of the controversy, than Agent Orange is related to GMOs. If you would like to discuss interpretation of the arbcom decision further, you are welcome to do so on my talk page.Dialectric (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog Thank you for reverting the edit to Bayer CropScience Limited.Dialectric (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Jytdog has reverted his edit, I believe this issue is now resolved. If an uninvolved admin agrees, feel free to close.Dialectric (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification diff

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

I was cleaning up articles around Bayer which had a proliferation of articles that had contradictory/overlapping content (here are my contribs for today), and noted that in my edit note when I redirected this stub to the main Bayer article. There was nearly identical content already in the Bayer article. I see the violation of course, and I reckoned that someone might have a cow over this, but was figuring no one would because it is ... minor... obvious... and it is hard to see why anyone would care or object, I guess. Anyway, no drama - I have reverted the redirect and will leave that piece for someone else. Would have done the same had Dielectric just asked me. But this is for sure a violation and the path to AE was wide open. No argument there. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bayer went through a big re-organization in January. Along with bringing in the disparate articles that had come existence about old corporate structures, I was going to rework the article, tiptoeing around the ag stuff carefully, but in light of this filing I am stopping and will leave the rest to someone else. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingofaces43 I'm not arguing that it wasn't a TBAN violation. It is just so minor/obvious I just figured common sense would apply. Since it has been called out, I have reverted. No need for drama. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

There's no violation here, even technical. Jytdog's topic ban covers at most pesticide related content here. For better or worse, ArbCom made it clear that the current topic bans they handed out do not specifically apply to companies producing pesticides as long as the editor is not editing about topics covered by the ban; specifically adding companies to existing topic bans did not pass. [78] Arbs were pretty clear there that edits on this specific area should be watched closely, but would cautiously be allowed. This has come up a few times at AE now, so Dialectric should know better than to file a case like this when we already have another vexatious GMO filing just above this.

Some GMO topic-banned editors have been given admin guidance outside of their ban to stay away from the agricultural company articles entirely because they still couldn't disengage from advocacy for other disruptive behavior. Putting in a redirect for an article that does not even discuss any of the topic ban areas is about as far as you could get from that and is in line with what arbs were allowing.

We've discussed admin malaise with GMO AE filings above already.[79] What's starting to become interesting is that most topic-bans by ArbCom and filings that resulted in action at AE have been against editors critical of the scientific consensus on GMOs in some fashion. When those same editors file cases here though, they're often found to be lacking merit or even resulting in a boomerang on the filer. In a case like this were Dialectric is effectively using Jytdog's topic ban to push them out of topics without legitimate reason where they have been explicitly told it's ok to edit, we do need to start clamping down on that behavior.

It makes me look like I'm out for blood when I end up calling for a boomerang here so often, so would ask that admins be mindful of this trend we have now (just a glimpse of what us regulars without sanctions have been putting up with) when it comes to assessing filings. I would ask admins that if they see a filing that's tenuous at best, to nip it in the bud with a good look at whether it would serve the topic to take action against the filer. Hopefully that cuts down on the litany GMO filings in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dialectric, the amendment decision explicitly says an edit like this is fine. The amendment to add companies was rejected by a majority of arbs as an official clarification, and the oppose votes outline the details of this reasoning rather clearly. If that weren't the case, we would have blocked other editors earlier for much worse as a violation of their GMO topic ban. We had guidance from ArbCom on this, so we shouldn't be ignoring it in this case when we've used the guidance for past enforcement. You were involved in WP:ARCA at the time, so that's why I said you should have been aware. That's all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Adv4Ag

Just my opinion, but I agree with Kingofaces43. I couldn't believe Jytdog was facing another ArbCom after the topic ban, so I had to come take a look. My first thought when I saw the Bayer diff was, "You've got to be kidding. An ArbCom over a simple re-direct?!?" It just seems an awful lot like sour grapes to me. I'm a very infrequent editor, so maybe my opinion doesn't matter, but it sure looks like making a mountain out of a molehill. Adv4Ag (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlbinoFerret

Arbcom did clarify that editors topic banned in the GMO case could edit pages of companies that produce agracutural chemicals as long as it was not about GMO's or agracutural chemicals. But the edit in question appears to remove GMO information.

We find this line | products = [[Environmental science]], [[pesticide]] and [[seeds]]

Also this (my bold, but could not bold the last refrence and have it show and be bold),

<Bayer CropScience Limited''' is the Indian subsidiary of [[Bayer AG]]. Its head office is located in [[Hiranandani Estate]], [[Thane district]] in [[Maharashtra]], India. Bayer CropScience Limited is a part of Bayer Group (India) and is the only [[public company]] of Bayer Group in India.<ref name="About Bayer">{{cite news|title=About Bayer|publisher=Official website|accessdate=September 2015|url=http://www.bayer.co.in/about_us.php}}</ref><ref name="German polymer major views India as growth driver">{{cite news|title=German polymer major views India as growth driver|publisher=[[Business Standard]]|accessdate=September 2015|url=http://www.business-standard.com/article/b2b-connect/german-polymer-major-covestro-views-india-as-growth-driver-115090300153_1.html}}</ref><ref name="Bayer CropScience buys SeedWorks ">{{cite news|title=Bayer CropScience buys SeedWorks |publisher=[[Business Standard]]|accessdate=September 2015|url=http://www.business-standard.com/content/b2b-chemicals/bayer-cropscience-buys-vegetable-seed-firm-seedworks-india-115060101389_1.html}}</ref>

and this catagory. [[Category:Agriculture in India]]

This is a clear violation. AlbinoFerret 16:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish I would like you remoind you that Prokaryotes was sanctioned in a section on this page dealing with the GMO arbcom case, that you started.

@EdJhonston I think your correct that since its been self reverted nothing needs to be done, but a warrning not to violate the ban again may be a good idea. AlbinoFerret 01:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I think that this was, indeed, a violation of the topic ban, and Jytdog should have known better. And I am glad that Jytdog reverted the reference to Dialectric supposedly having "had a cow", because I see Dialectric's filing as good faith. But, much as with numerous other recent AE filings coming out of the GMO case, it was a minor and relatively harmless step over the topic ban boundary, it was self-reverted, and Jytdog has made it clear that he will not repeat it. The other similar AE cases did not result in sanctions, and neither should this one. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 6 March 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.

Notice that User:Dialectric who filed this request now believes that Jytdog has made a revert that cures the problem. Unless something more persuasive is posted, I'd close this with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Askahrc

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 Askahrc

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Manul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Askahrc (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/Pseudoscience :

2 March 2014 "Askahrc (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for using an IP address to harass other users and waste the community's time (see the SPI). Askahrc is warned that any attempt to harass other users, waste the community's time or edit logged out or with another account in contravention of WP:SOCK will result in an extended block. Askahrc is also restricted to using the Askahrc account only when editing pseudoscience or fringe science related topics and is banned from notifying any user of pseudoscience or fringe science discretionary sanctions. See the warning for further information."
5 March 2014 (Previous AE request) "Tabled for now, with the understanding that there is a low bar for reporting newer disruption."

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

Last year I privately emailed this and other evidence to Arbcom who, despite the evidence containing a real name, suggested that it be handled on-wiki. Askahrc identified himself when he brought attention to his contributions to an off-wiki harassment site containing his name,[80] and an Arbcom member had recorded the page.[81] In several emails I politely implored Arbcom to look at issues involving Askahrc, but did not receive a reply. If Askahrc or anyone else has a problem with reference to the name then please take it up with Arbcom. Out of courtesy I will not mention the name in clear text here. I notified Arbcom of this AE request before submitting it.

I changed my name from Vzaak to Manul in order to mitigate the off-wiki harassment from Tumbleman and Askahrc,[82] and I eventually dropped the Askahrc matter altogether. Unfortunately Askahrc has recently renewed his false attacks against me on-wiki (evidence to follow). Since this matter was originally intended for Arbcom, who sent it here, it involves a bit more detail than the usual AE request, so please give a little latitude on space.

Askahrc has orchestrated a number of deceptions on Wikipedia. He has only been sanctioned for the first point below. Items 3 and 4 are new issues not brought before, and item 5 is an ongoing problem extending to the present moment (the recent diffs from 3 March 2016 are at the end).

Askahrc harassed editors with an IP sockpuppet[83] for which he was given strong warning in the DS log.[84] Three admins affirmed the sockpuppetry.[85][86][87]
By issuing threats under the disguise of the sockpuppet, Askahrc was trumping up the "bullying" evidence for his Arbcom case, "Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors". Indeed the case begins, "This request for arbitration is to resolve recurring threats..."[88]
Askahrc used the fabricated harassment evidence to rile up support in his off-wiki canvassing: "Nearly a dozen editors who have disagreed with the skeptical majority's opinion on the Sheldrake page have been threatened with banning."[89] To be clear, Askahrc himself issued the threats and then complained about them in order to generate "buzz", and indeed the story was picked up by blogs.
Askahrc knowingly permitted Tumbleman's sockpuppet SAS81 to disrupt Wikipedia, standing by while Tumbleman (as SAS81) attacked editors with whom he and Askahrc had prior grievances (evidence to follow). Admins at Tumbleman's AE called him "pure WP:SOUP", "likely just a troll", and "a thoroughly disruptive editor, and either a troll or else someone with serious WP:COMPETENCE issues".[90]
- Askahrc and Tumbleman had already been affiliated via the off-site harassment prior to the appearance of the SAS81 sock.
- Askahrc is the founder of ISHAR[91] where Tumbleman worked.[92]
- Out of the millions of topics on Wikipedia, Askahrc "just happened" to become involved with the topic of Deepak Chopra soon after Tumbleman (as SAS81) appeared. Askahrc's first Chopra-related comment on Wikipedia is at BLPN where he replies to Tumbleman.[93] Hours later he jumps into a COIN discussion to defend Tumbleman and "help mediate".[94] And after joining forces with Tumbleman, Askahrc was effectively an SPA for Chopra.
- Examples of attacks by Tumbleman as SAS81 may be found in the "harass" and "bias" section of the SPI.[95] In a thread in which Askahrc participated, Tumbleman strongly attacked me with wild and false accusations, calling me "unscrupulous".[96]
Presently Askahrc has relaunched his campaign to falsely paint me as someone who files fraudulent SPIs.
- This began with his campaigning in favor of Tumbleman after Tumbleman's block,[97][98][99][100] e.g. "a large number of innocent editors have been blocked as collateral damage".
- The campaigning additionally included WP:POLEMICs on his talk page[101][102][103] which were copied to the off-wiki harassment site.
- Other examples from the long campaign:
  - Suggesting I have an "an inappropriate tendency to accuse people who disagree with them of sockpuppetry"[104]
  - Suggesting a "high number of editors who have been accused and blocked" by me for sockpuppetry.[105] (In fact it was just one person with multiple socks.)
  - Suggesting the SPI was somehow equivocal, and falsely claiming that an admin told me to "stop".[106]
  - Suggesting that I engaged in misconduct by filing SPIs.[107] (No admin has ever suggested this.)
- Finally the recent campaigning (evidence to follow). Note the off-wiki harassment site has latched onto my new name, and later I quite publicly mentioned the name change in an RFA and user talk page, so whatever modicum of protection from Askahrc it served is now gone.
  - Falsely claiming that it was "eventually proven" that I had been "citing inaccurate information".[108]
  - Falsely claiming that the SPI evidence was "solidly debunked".[109]
  - Making the misleading statement that "the SPI conviction was not supported by a Checkuser"[110]. There was no checkuser request, of course, because checkusers won't link usernames to IPs due to the privacy policy.

Askahrc and Tumbleman (Askahrc's former co-worker at ISHAR and co-contributor to the off-wiki harassment site) have a strong interest in promoting the view that I am some kind of crazed editor who haphazardly files fraudulent SPIs against others. This is the basis on which the off-wiki harassment rests. Askahrc even has a financial interest in promoting this view now. Nothing can be done about off-wiki harassment, of course, but I won't tolerate it being brought on-wiki. In the past my pleas to stop it were ignored.[111][112] I had hoped Askahrc's campaign was over, but it yet continues. This is harassment, and I am citing the logged sanction against him, "Askahrc is warned that any attempt to harass other users..."[113]

Due to concern for length I have not even touched on the problems with Askahrc's other behavior and editing. For more on this topic, a starting place might be the two "pleas" in the previous paragraph. I am sure other editors have something to say on the matter.

@Littleolive oil: A couple days old is not stale. It's important to show that the problem has been ongoing, extending from the past to the present. I've added a note for clarification. Thanks for your help in improving this request. Manul ~ talk 06:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Askahrc has responded in the same problematic way I outlined here. My response:

Askahrc claims some issues are "from years ago that have already been discussed in front of admins several times".
- Reality: It has never been discussed that Askahrc knowingly teamed up with a sockpuppet of a blocked user in order to influence the Chopra article. Askahrc's off-wiki harassment and canvassing activities have also never been discussed. These activities continue today, by the way.

Askahrc claims the actions brought against him were "more often than not with questionable or outright refuted evidence".
- Reality: In the first SPI, admins concluded that Askahrc was using an IP sockpuppet to harass users. In the first AE, two admins concluded that his behavior in addition to the sockpuppeting called for additional sanctions, though because of Askahrc's then-inactivity the request was tabled (not dismissed) with a "low bar" for reporting further disruption. The second SPI contained substantial evidence as well, and I am nowise at fault for filing it: a checkuser was requested and a checkuser was run, affirming that I the evidence I gave was sufficient.

Askahrc suggests I have a WP:GRUDGE.
- Reality: No, we are only here because Askahrc continues his campaign to discredit me, described above. If Askahrc had stopped then we wouldn't be here. I have no grudge and would be happy if Askahrc would let it drop, but that hasn't happened. As outlined above, Askahrc has a very long and ongoing WP:GRUDGE against me because I caught him harassing editors with a sock, as three admins affirmed.

Askahrc suggests that I "tracked him down".
- Reality: I was only alerted to him because I follow Callanecc's page. I've had many discussions with Callanecc in the past.

Askahrc claims his recent edits[114][115] were merely him "asking an admin for clarification".
- Reality: Those diffs are a continuation of his campaign to discredit me, as explained in this AE request.

Askahrc claims he "simply used factual statements" in his recent comments about me.[116][117]
- Reality: He made provably false statements about me, as explained in this AE request. This is part of the long pattern of harassment I outlined.

Askahrc is again suggesting that the lack of checkuser evidence is somehow a fault.
- Reality: As was just explained, per the Wikipedia privacy policy checkusers won't connect an IP to a username. The lack of a checkuser in an IP socking case is expected, not some kind of shortcoming.

Askahrc claims that I accused him of "suppressing" edits.
- Reality: Of course there is no such accusation, and the claim doesn't even make sense: Askahrc is not an admin much less an oversighter. He doesn't appear understand anything about the second SPI, which was complicated by a server cache bug.

Askahrc claims that I accused him of threatening "to murder people".
- Reality: What what what? An oversighter can confirm that the edits in question are nothing of the sort.

Manul ~ talk 15:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line: Askahrc's voluminous responses distract from the simple issue. Askahrc was (to put it diplomatically) telling an untruth when he said it was "eventually proven" that I had been "citing inaccurate information" in the SPI.[118] On the contrary, three admins affirmed the sockpuppetry.[119][120][121] Similarly, Askahrc was telling an untruth when he said the evidence was "solidly debunked".[122] This is part of a long pattern of untruths promoted by Askahrc to discredit me, both on-wiki and at the off-wiki harassment site. In the remarks in question (again to be clear: [123][124]), Askahrc is appealing the first SPI for which he was sanctioned; don't fall for the switcheroo with the second SPI (for which, again, there are no wrongdoings). Manul ~ talk 18:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

2 March 2014

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2 March 2014 by Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Askahrc&diff=708535683&oldid=696033693

Discussion concerning Askahrc

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 Askahrc

There's quite a bit to respond to, though it appears all but two refs (1, 2) are years old, and those two were me asking an admin for clarification. For the sake of brevity in responding to a very long accusation, I'm going to ignore issues from years ago that have already been discussed in front of admins several times, and just respond to a few pertinent points.

1) The "harassment" Manul/Vzaak is objecting to was a request I sent to the enforcing admin of the SPI from 2 years ago to review my status. I was not trying to attack Manul/Vzaak, I didn't even know they were still on WP; the user:Vzaak account was inactive. In it I mentioned the original slew of SPI's and AE's from Vzaak seemed to show a level of WP:GRUDGE. This is the fourth SPI/AE Manul/Vzaak has charged me with: I think WP:GRUDGE is not an unreasonable conclusion.

2) On the admin's page I explained the problems with the SPI's Manul/Vzaak brought against me. In addition to this being a far-cry from "harassment", I simply used factual statements. The first SPI accused me of having an IP in Long Beach, CA that I was socking from, and I was warned on the basis of Vzaak's massive list of clues, but with no Checkuser evidence. In the 2nd SPI Manul/Vzaak claimed I was again using a Long Beach IP to "suppress edits" and threaten to murder people. This time there was a Checkuser, and admins confirmed that I was Unrelated to the IP and far from Long Beach at the time of the edits (3, 4), and there was absolutely no evidence I had suppressed edits (5, 6). No need to trust my word, please review the diffs and linked archive.

3) As far as off-wiki harassment goes, I don't know what to say that hasn't been said already (7). I'm not Tumbleman and was not in charge of Tumbleman, and cannot be held accountable for his actions on or off-WP. I spoke in his defense long ago, before the full scope of his behavior was known and long before I began working for my organization, which has publicly severed all ties with him and his actions. I do not support any on or off-WP harassment.

I have no interest in tracking down and bothering Manul, but the opposite does not seem to be true. Given that Manul/Vzaak has come after me 4 times, more often than not with questionable or outright refuted evidence, I don't think this is going to go away. I'd rather not have to spend my days responding to their walls of accusations, so I'd request an WP:IBAN. If they are honestly concerned about me "harassing" them, this would also resolve that concern. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 11:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to keep my response to the lengthy list of "realities" as succinct as I can. First, I need to point out that discussing my side of an AE you brought is not harassment. I apologize if you've felt I'm somehow engaged in a "campaign to discredit you," I'm really not. I didn't even know you were still on WP. I've tried to remove as much POV from my summary of the admin's diffs above, I can't get much more objective.

As far as stating you never implied I had anything to do with a death threat or suppressed edits, I may have misinterpreted your position on suppression (for which I'd certainly apologize!), but you did clearly state I was writing false death threats (Excerpted, emphasis added):

On March 12th Deepak Chopra complained about a death threat in the Ralph Abraham article.[125]
There are two revdeleted edits from 71.119.92.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on March 8th in the article history.[126] Since those edits were immediately reverted by ClueBot, and since there are no visible threats in the recent article history, the death threat mentioned by Chopra must have been oversighted (as opposed to revdeleted).
Therefore it is possible that 71.119.92.56's edits and the suppressed edits are related. This SPI connects 71.119.92.56 to Askahrc.
Immediately prior to 71.119.92.56's vandalism, Askahrc had been complaining about the SPI and AE against him.[127][128] By adding threats to the biography of Sheldrake's colleague, Askahrc was bolstering his warfare idea that there is a cabal of mean Wikipedians out to attack Sheldrake and anyone sympathetic to him.

If anyone thinks wrongdoing is occurring, I support bringing it to SPI/AE. My issue is when admins tell you I have no connection to a sock (one accused of a felony), either by broad geographical region or user agent, and yet you won't drop the WP:STICK. I've asked you in the past to agree to a voluntary WP:IBAN, but you did not (2), and I've repeated the option here, with the only response another wall of accusations. This is exhausting... the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 17:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by olive

This is very strange. Almost all of these diffs are years old; the filer seems to be attempting to use stale information and diffs to implicate an editor. When I first looked at this case I thought I had somehow stumbled onto an old case. Might be expedient to withdraw this complaint before more time is well.... wasted?(Littleolive oil (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by JzG

Askahrc is indeed waging a one man battle against reality-based criticisms of Chopra, but he is open about his COI, polite and in general a decent person. There is a worrying tendency to stonewall and endlessly make the same or very similar requests, but I don't see this as actionable at this point - perhaps an admonition to accept consensus and not spin things out forever might be justified, but no more that that IMO. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Askahrc

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

[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.

[3] Domingo, José L.; Giné Bordonaba, Jordi (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants (5 February 2011)" (PDF). Environment International. 37 (4): 734–42. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423.

[a]

[b]

[1]

@@ Line 180: / Line 180: @@
 {{reflist}}
 --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
+<u>'''''CLARIFICATION'''''</u>
+:Although I did use the word "edit-warring" above, that is not my allegation in paragraph #1.   My allegation is the unreasonable <b>insistence on use of unacceptable and unreliable sources</b>.  That is the reason I brought this action.  When I said edit-warring, I meant that both editors had been alerted to the problem with the sources, yet went ahead and forced those sources back in.  This action is about the sources, not the number of times an editor reverted in a dispute.  I am sorry I did not make that clear.
+:I will note that not a single of jps's and Alexbrn's defenders has been bold enough to suggest those sources are acceptable. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 ;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):

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