Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:30, 3 December 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

SageRad

Blocked for one year by unanimous consent of uninvolved administrators. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note after moratorium: review reopened. I suggested recently that this review remain on hold till after the Thanksgiving weekend,[1] but now SageRad has opened it, as indeed I invited him to on his page. He has removed all his month-old posts and added a new statement, also according to my suggestions, so that's fine. The review can now go ahead and hopefully reach closure, and not run into the sands. I agree strongly with Dennis below, before the break, that we must avoid a situation where "SageRad [says] he is leaving Wikipedia forever, then come[s] back in a month or two and we have the same problem."[2] (Let me emphasize that I don't have any notion that SageRad would do that in a manipulative way. But it's the kind of thing that happens when feelings run high.)

Anyway, it seems a good idea to keep the interrupted previous discussion on the page, since it remains highly relevant, but also to have the month-long divide visible. I've tried to achieve this by a new header for new community discussion (moving Sage's new statement to it), and another one for new uninvolved admin discussion (known as "Result concerning SageRad"). Please feel free to change my changes if you can think of a better system (archive templates?).Bishonen | talk 16:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC). (I'll have to do this in installments, since I keep getting edit conflicts.) Bishonen | talk 16:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Adding: Well, the new header for community discussion didn't work, bad idea. (The new header for admin result discussion seems to work as intended.) I've removed it and instead marked all new community sections after the break with Comments after resumption of case in November 2016. My dream is that people will continue to mark any new sections in this way, but if not, I'll try to go in and do it. (Of course there's no need to mark additions to sections that have already been so marked — for instance, this request does not affect you, User:SageRad). I hope that's clear, and sorry for my inefficient clerking. Bishonen | talk 16:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC). [reply]

Request concerning SageRad

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Standard_discretionary_sanctions : discretionary sanctions

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

Note, trimmed and extra content placed on subpage here per Bish here. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SageRad is on a campaign against skepticism and for giving more credence to altmed, and this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, civil as it may be, has been consistently disruptive on fringey medical and CAM topics like fad diets. The key issues are BLUDGEONing discussion with soapbox-y rants against "skepticism" and for "Truth " -- a consistent behavior of using talk pages as forums, talking about "meta-issues", etc, instead of focused discussion on crafting content based on sources per policy and guidelines. He also misrepresents sources in the course of his arguments. In all of that, he fails to yield to consensus and accuses other editors of lacking "integrity". His presence on these topics is a time sink.

The issue goes back at least to SageRad's editing at David Gorski in May 2015 (three article edits and 21 talk edits) which led to a block.

From Dec 2015 to March 2016 at Paleolithic diet - see Talk:Paleolithic_diet/Archive_6 in which SageRad bludgeoned the talk page with 180,000 bytes of talk comments expressing his perception that the article was hijacked by "Skeptics". See first post in Dec 2015 and this also from December and here and here and here and here and here though to near-last post in Feb 2016 saying pretty much the same thing.

What spurs this filing, is that SageRad has continued this campaign -- really WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior -- against the perceived skeptic takeover, in article space this fall.

On Sept 10, opened a section at Talk:Michael Gregerfocusing on his "skeptic" issue here, generally OFFTOPIC soapboxing disrupting already difficult discussions with Greger fans objecting to any critical discussion of Greger. Made 39 comments mostly all on this "skeptic" stuff.
On Sept 11 at the Scientific skepticism pursuing his campaign there, making 6 edits to Talk exemplified by this
On Sept 16 at Talk:John A. McDougall, an article about another diet advocate where we have consistent trouble from "fans", making 9 edits to Talk, again arguing against the fad diet attribution and writing the following (this which misrepresented the source as I showed him here. He went on to invoke Godwin's Law here.
On Sept 25 he joined a discussion at Talk:Detoxification (alternative medicine) in a section entitled "Truth of Toxins" where he helpfully brought a new ref but then misrepresented it here and again here arguing that we should include more positive content about detox diets (the conclusion presented in the source is the opposite as pointed out to him here. He also brought more of his anti-Skeptic campaigning in diff (already cited dif).
Most recently at misophonia which has been a struggle to keep neutral in the face of a lot of advocacy, SageRad has again been abusing the talk page like this and fighting perceived skeptic agenda - (dif, and refusing to engage refs summarized twice (here and later here.

I dread that this is heading into another slog like the Paleo diet discussed above and I have no desire to do that again.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

29 May 2015 block for violating BLP at David Gorski (see relevance above)
topic banned per GMO arbcom case in December 2015
blocked via AE for 5 days for violating TBAN in July 2016
blocked for one 1 month via DS for violating TBAN in August 2016

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

If you look at SageRad's contribs, this anti-skeptic pro-altmed editing is pretty much all they do here (with the exception of some Race & Intelligence work and some scattered editing on basic biology). In all these cases he is making difficult editing situations worse by adding his meta-issue to whatever the local issues are. Am suggesting a TBAN from anything related to health, as it is articles about health/alt med where he has mostly brought his SOAPBOXing and disruptive, time-wasting behavior. I would suggest alt med more narrowly but I don't want to get into endless border disputes. Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

link updated per SageRad's request. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen, I will do no more adjusting. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, while i think restricting SageRad from soapboxing would help, the deeper problem of not dealing with sources and even misrepresenting them, and relentlessly advocating for his preferred content, is not going to be addressed by that. The disruption from SageRad's first edits here have been in the field of health which is why I requested what I did. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tryptofish; while i see how you could suggest that this is at base an interpersonal dispute, SageRad's editing has focused on health from his first days here and there is one consistent arc of behavior that I described in my OP. Yes, that means he and I have clashed since he arrived, since my editing is also focused on health. So yes there is an element of interpersonal dispute, but in my view, it arises from my having to deal with SageRad's problematic behavior on health topics for all this time. I don't seek SageRad out; he keeps showing up on topics I edit and behaving this way. The problems are actual, not perceived by me. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your reply. When I filed this I was concerned it might get framed as an interpersonal dispute. I cannot deny that we have been at loggerheads since he arrived; I don't want that to obscure the facts of SageRad's consistent pattern of POV editing and his behavior pursuing that POV, since he arrived here. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tryptofish I know you nodded at the problem with SageRad's behavior with your suggestion about some limit on his talk postings. However, I contest your description of this as "Some of this may be wits-end exasperation on the part of good-faith editors, but some of it is also a clash between editors who just cannot stand one another." and the mention of RfCs as a possible solution. This is not a DR thing. SageRad has demonstrated a consistent set of problems with regard to POV on content about health and behavior trying to get that content into WP. It is not going to be resolved by treating it merely as a series of good faith content disputes that can be resolved with RfCs. That is why I posted here. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and now i am going to shut the heck up, unless I am asked something. :) i am arguing too hard. I am long term frustrated. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually one more thing. The history between SageRad and me does go back to his very first edits here and I am very comfortable putting that history on the table. Here is his talk page before he purged it at the start of this year; that is where key interactions between SageRad and me took place. I invite anybody who wants to cast this as equivalent to review that from the top down. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, i have no objection at all to the month pause in conjunction with SageRad taking a break Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments after resumption of case in November 2016

User:Wnt In WP:TPG (a guideline) the section about what to do, Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practices_for_all_talk_pages_used_for_collaboration, emphasizes concision, and the last bullet of the section on behavior that is unacceptable links to WP:SOAPBOX, which is indeed a behavioral policy. A whole slew of essays about people who are "not here" discuss bludgeoning talk pages, including WP:Civil POV pushing, WP:NOTHERE, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:STICK and yes WP:BLUDGEON note that going on and on, and not yielding to consensus, to push any agenda are unacceptable behaviors in the community. It all goes back to WP:SOAPBOX. -- Jytdog (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep that was a mistake on my part with regard to SashiRoll. I removed it right after I did it, before they posted here. dif. I mistakenly thought they were carrying disagreements from Singapore to here. My bad. Jytdog (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:SageRad, this is obvious to every one else here, but let me point this out to you. You have written several times that He claims that i never back off when shown to be wrong. (diff in edit note and content; diff, etc. and have written a ton trying to refute that. But the quote from me in the first diff doesn't say that, and i have not written anything like that here. Even here you are misrepresenting things. And then you go on and on about that... even here you are bludgeoning the heck out of this page. Look at how much you have written. Also, you were given very good advice on your talk page about how to proceed here at AE, which you have ignored. Not taking in feedback/advice, misrepresenting, bludgeoning. It is all right here. And you cannot see that but keep asking what you have been doing wrong, and keep framing this as anything to do with your particular POV. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
as this drags on it gets diffused/confused, as drama board discussions tend to do. User: Bob K31416 doesn't understand his/her own edits nor mine, and how they fit into the content dispute, which they explicitly said they were getting involved with below. I explained what is going on at the article talk page in this section. I don't expect admins to waste time on this as it outside the issue of SageRad's behavior, but in case you want to.... Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning SageRad

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

Statement by SageRad

New statement after resumption of case in November 2016: I am WP:HERE as my editing makes clear to anyone who takes the time to look. I edit articles well, according to policies. I have written observations about patterns i see in Wikipedia in places where that is appropriate.

This is an onerous and disruptive request made by Jytdog and if anything, should boomerang back at him for wasting everyone's time with drama and disrupting my ability to edit for a month now.

I request Jytdog to reduce the length of his statement to 500 words and 20 diffs which is a guideline stated on this page for good reason. It keeps things less onerous to respond to. Maybe he'll surprise me and be willing to do so. (((Added: he has declined to do so. Oh well, sorry to readers for length of this case.))) (((Further added: I do not consider linking a sub-page to be actually limited to the 500 words/20 diffs as it's still material presented. Might as well not bother.)))

I care about Wikipedia, but i'm pretty disgusted at this point with this case. A total waste of time. Talk about time-sink.

I respect good dialog, and there is such a thing as good dialog with integrity. It's recognizable when it's present and when it's absent.

We must have good dialog on article talk pages to discuss content.

Different people have different points of view. That's welcome here. Out of this difference comes beauty, when it works. What doesn't work is to pillory other editors like Jytdog is doing here, and which is part of the pattern to which i spoke.

Do you want there to be things that cannot be spoken within Wikipedia, under threat of attacks like this one? If so then let's be clear. You want to restrict the realm of discourse so things you don't want to hear cannot be spoken. That's the way of fascism. That's not the ideal of this place.

This is not a "democracy" but it's also not a locked-down ideological place. People must be able to discuss things without fear of being attacked viciously by actions like this one.

Jytdog's 1,500 word complaint is a character attack and misrepresents me greatly, and misrepresents many things.

There are a couple things that i can learn, though...

Be more brief. Not my strong point. Keep it short.
Don't speak to patterns that i see in article talk pages regarding editor motivations (even if they're screamingly apparent). Keep it to the content strictly.

I can do these things better. When i edit an article, i can keep all dialog to the sources and the content, and not impute non-ideal motivations to other editors, even through suggestions.

Wouldn't it be great if everyone would do that? Because most people who are attacking me here do that constantly. But ok, i can be the bigger person and do that.

Except on Jimbo's page and other appropriate places, i can and will speak to patterns (not specific editors, and i've never named any specific editors).

So i call on whoever closes this to please put an end to the attempt to silence people who speak to patterns on forums like Jimbo's page. If speech like this is chilled then you get a closed ideological system. That's not good.

So much of Jytdog's long rant uses words like "bludgeon" and "battleground" and "soapboxing" -- guess what? I could use the exact same words about him, having observed him for a year. And several others. But i don't take them to AE like this. I'm not that sort. Trying to shut someone down because you don't like what they have said in dialog is a bad thing. I don't like many things Jytdog has said. Some things i do appreciate. But i don't spend my time trying to shut him down, but instead i tolerate that people have different points of view. I wish he'd have more integrity in dialog when it comes down to specific conflicts, but so it goes.

Jytdog's rant is really a pile of fallacious insinuation.

I don't say i know "The Truth" as he says. That's a lie. I often say there are multiple points of view and that's more than ok. That's expected and a beauty of how Wikipedia works -- when it works.
I'm not on a "campaign" -- what a slander word. I have a point of view that i speak, like anyone else.
I don't "bludgeon" -- i speak to the topic at hand when i have something to add.
I do see patterns and speak to them in forums where it's appropriate. Occasionally have touched on that in content talk pages, where it's not appropriate -- sorry for this. I'll not do that anymore ever.
"Battleground behavior" -- not really. There are controversies about many topics, and i often will enter those, going to sources, and sometimes finding and fixing problems in logic of articles or NPOV problems. That's good -- that is what Wikipedia is all about.
"IDHT" -- no. I hear others. Often others are the ones with their fingers stuck in their ears. Really, go to the details. Read the talk page at Misophonia where it seems Jytdog was the one with "IDHT" in neon on his forehead. Seriously not engaging in dialog cooperatively, more obstructionist.
I am not on any campaign about "fad diets" or any other "fringe" topics. I'm on a campaign for good sourcing only. If WP:MEDRS sources show some nuance that should be reflected. Nothing more. Jytdog's slanderous words are just that.

So yeah, this whole rant of Jytdog's is a bunch of slanderous misrepresentations. It's a lawyer's work. I'm not a lawyer. I'll trust others to see through the Wikilawyering and see what's going on. He doesn't like me or my point of view and thought he had enough "stuff" to throw it on a wall and see what sticks.

Well, i'm not perfect. Take any specific thing, bring it to a forum, and i will be more than happy to discuss it, and to recognize how i can be a better editor. Really, i want to learn more, and be a better editor and better person all the time.

But do it right -- do it about a specific thing, not some mega-bomb of insinuations. He's the one on a campaign. He's the one with behavioral problems. He's the one who want to shut me up because he doesn't like my point of view.

I've been generally civil. I always want to get back to the sources and the content, to improve articles. Only in spaces where it's what people do have i spoke about larger patterns in Wikipedia, and it got discussed, and i'm thankful. (After some admin banned me for a month the first time, then i brought it up again and it was a long fruitful conversation.)

Also, whoever reviews this, don't believe the hype of a small group of editors who consistently attack people like me, making comments here. It's like flies attracted by smell to a pile of rotting fruit... they are here by attraction, self-selection.

So, in brief, i'm here. I'm an editor. Any limitation on my editing would be a bad decision here and would enable vague attacks against editors who dissent too often from a "mainstream" viewpoint -- and Wikipedia is not meant to be a "mainstream" encyclopedia. It's meant to be a verifiable encyclopedia. A solid encyclopedia. A neutral point of view encyclopedia. There is no party line here except good sourcing and neutral representation of those sources.

If you want me to be more careful about not ever imputing motives to other editors in content discussions, then yes, i'll do that -- and i'll add that those who would rather see me gone forever should to the same but probably won't, and are ten times worse than me in this regard. But whatever, i'll be the bigger person and do that.

And i'll be more brief.

Treat me with respect and i'll do the same.

I don't expect that to happen here, but whatever. Leave me alone unless you have something productive to say. I've got other things to do.

SageRad (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear. I do not wish to be blocked. I wish to pretty much retire, but not to be blocked. To be blocked would be a huge emotional blow that i would not forget easily. It would not be "merciful" as Mjolinarpants tries to portray it. That is not a good reason to block someone. I don't need or want that. No sympathy blocks please.

Tryptofish, when i speak here in defense, and i say things to counter the many many many accusations by Jytdog, you then make this out to be a problem? What is going on with you? This is a defense and so when Jytdog in his accusation that i speak about "The Truth" and it's a lie then i say "I don't say i know "The Truth" as he says. That's a lie." --- And no, i do not do those things again here in this statement. You're really twisting things. Notice that i did say there's one aspect that i've done wrong occasionally -- speaking about motivations on content talk pages -- and would cease that altogether. So there's one thing i say i've done wrong, ok. And then i write counter to the charges made. You cannot interpret me defending myself here as another "crime"... what a Kafka-esque situation. SageRad (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am i doing the right thing adding here? Assuming it's alright.

To clarify for Littleolive_oil, i responded to Jytdog's reply on my talk page which i had asked for a more friendly discussion to resolve this. Of course it's his choice to decline, but then re-quoted his first paragraph here and acted as if his judgment is unquestionably right and represents a consensus, which isn't correct. SO i replied here a bit curt, yes, and called it "arrogant" to act like your point of view is assuredly correct about another person.

The Paleo diet stuff was way back in January and i'm a learning being. Secondly, among the copious text you can find a handful of diffs that in isolation of context seem a bit jarring. Keep that in perspective.

My intention with Paleo diet was for the article be become more NPOV by representing the sources on the diet accurately and with due weight. The fact of it taking a lot of words is not evidence of wrongdoing by me. It matters what was said and why. I saw a certain group -- and this is inescapable because they show up on these topics in a place with thousands of editors -- seriously pushing for a particularly negative presentation of the topic despite a more mixed reception by reliable sources. So it was not NPOV. Why so many words? Because i care what is right according to the sources and policies of Wikipedia. You cannot assume it's me who is the problem when there are many exchanges in a dialog. I tend to want complete dialog, to leave nothing hanging, and to be clinically accurate about sources and policies. What's wrong with that? I dislike dialog that is evasive or insulting or otherwise not as direct and good-faith as possible. So, 11 months ago i wrote many comments on a talk page of Paleo diet to see about fixing an NPOV problem that i saw in the article (which had been seriously changed recently in this direction). So... what's my crime there? 11 months ago... discussion NPOV issues... and you blame me for this?

I have said i can cease to even make the occasional insinuation of non-ideal motivations on content talk pages -- but then let us agree that everyone must do the same and this must be applied with equity. Those on the so-called "other side" must also cease onerous and frequent comments about other editors. Why do we not see these being reprimanded? Why is no editor ever blocked for continuously casting rather nasty aspersions to editors when out ~~"fringe-hunting"~~*? Let's see it stop everywhere. I will do my part. But the hypocrisy is astounding. People who so frequently lambaste other editors with all kinds of characterizations of motivation then want me blocked for a year because of occasionally saying things of a similar nature when i see it? And i do promise to even cease ever implying anything regarding motivations on content talk pages.

I do not have an "anti-skeptic agenda". My only agenda is for NPOV. Only if a particular ideological agenda is threatening to NPOV content then i say "I see a pattern here that seems problematic" and this is what i have done. I see a dogmatic set of beliefs that do fit largely with those of the "Skeptic" movement (which is not wholly skeptical in a most ideal sense) and i've said this simply. Anyone can see if they think this fits reality or is off-base. Glad we had the discusson on Jimbo's talk page (finally, after a couple blocks initially). It's a fair question and it's not a "campaign". (Once, i questioned whether "skeptic" is a fair title for an author, but that's a content question related to this topic. Still, not a campaign.)

I am not on some campaign about "altmed" or any such thing as Jytdog claims. That's nonsense. I've edited on a wide range of things, some of which are controversial. I like to find edges -- the borders between the known and unknown -- and see that define them correctly. That's one of my attractions and interests. It's not about "alternative medicine" and most things in that category i couldn't give a hoot about.

I absolutely never have "followed Jytdog around" as alleged somewhere in this case. Like American Express he just seems to be "everywhere you want to be" as a super-prolific editor with a clear interest set. If anything, it seems that he is interested in alt-med in a sense. Admirable as long as he sticks to sources with integrity.

So. I continue to maintain largely innocence and to call this a lawyerish "takedown attempt" by someone whose ideology or point of view is different from mine. That should not stand. This is not a place where one person gets to take down another because of different point of view. You don't get to remove people because what they say is "inconvenient" or a "time sink" to you. Believe me, Jytdog is extremely inconvenient to me and a huge time-sink to me, but i am not trying to get rid of him. I actually appreciate his point of view very much despite frustrations with other aspects of his editing style. There is no "house POV". Dialog is where things get worked out. You don't get to purge people who see the world a bit differently from you.

SageRad (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One final note. I used the term "fringe-hunting" in a derogatory way above. There is so much good to "fringe-hunting" when done in a good way. All points of view must be in tension to produce the best content. There is too much "fringe pushing" and i am grateful to those who do the work of trimming the unsupported aspects. Jytdog's voice here in Wikipedia is valuable. I wish he'd be more civil and less "BATTLEGROUND", and i wish i would always be the same. But our voices in a good tension are what Wikipedia needs to refine the edges between what is known and what is not known to science (and other disciplines). I've done my own "fringe-hunting" at Race and intelligence and there is much further to go to keep discussion to sources and content. I am thankful to editors of all points of view, when they state their concerns in a thoughtful and civil way. Looking for NPOV content in all directions is good work to be done. "Fringe-hunting" is a service if done in a good way supported by reliable sources, and watching out for excesses of "fringe-hunting" pushing the pendulum too far in the other direction is likewise good work to be done. Wikipedia needs both Jytdog and myself, and many others, in a friendly tension to produce and refine excellent content.

SageRad (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must give all that i can, for i do not wish to be banned. I wish to see justice prevail here.

Jytdog claims above and here:

as for SageRad's claim that all he wants to do is represent refs accurately, I presented several diffs (of the many times he has done it) of SageRad misrepresenting refs in pursuit of his agenda and not backing off that, even when shown it. The claim is part of the self-delusion.

I can show diffs of myself seeing that i'm wrong and acknowledging that, thereby disproving Jytdog's claim and accompanying personal attack ("self-delusion"). If i show that his claim is wrong and that the attack is unjustified, it must erode his case against me. If i can show that he actually shows the exact behavior of which he accuses me, then it further erodes his case and even argues for a boomerang result.

Here is a discussion in which i am citing solid MEDRS sources with the very simple point that they call misophonia a "condition" and therefore so should the article. Simple. Yet Jytdog refuses to accede this, and instead goes into an argument about nosology here and then here i point out that he is incorrect' in his nosology argument and that he's also doing WP:OR and WP:SYN as well as contradicting the most recent MEDRS sources on this very simple question... and still he has not acceded this point nor produced better arguments or sources to support his position. He is doing exactly what he's accused me of here. Stubbornly sticking to a point that he seems to want to control the article even when it's not supported by sources, and pushing SYN and OR.

Now to prove Jytdog's claim about my behavior wrong. He claims that i never back off when shown to be wrong. Well, here is Jytdog's reversion of my edit to Polychlorinated biphenyl. I saw that he is actually correct, and went investigating review articles on the subject. Then i wrote on his talk page here to say:

Jytdog, i hope you will not mind me posting here to say that i agree with your edit where you corrected my edit. I was mistaken to think that this source satisfies the WP:MEDRS requirement of being a secondary source (review article). I will be more careful in the future regarding this.

And so i have lived by these words. I've never made that mistake again, and i admitted when i was wrong.

He replied "great, thanks" showing that he saw what i wrote. Therefore for him to say that i never admit to being wrong is either a memory failure or misrepresentation.

Please take this into consideration when evaluating his interpretive claims about me. He's wrong here and he's also wrong in many other regards. I am not perfect but i'm not the evil agenda pusher that he paints me. I'm a good editor and i admit when i am wrong.

In short, please take such accusations with a grain of salt. Given 20 hours and enough resources i could show most of what Jytdog says to be either wrong or exaggerated or interpretive polemic. Anyway, i had to counter this wild claim and now i must go to work. Please use a sober and calm mind and invest enough time if you wish to judge this case. It's quite important and is not to be taken lightly. It affects me greatly as well as Wikipedia in general.

SageRad (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone posted this supportive anonymous statement which was swiftly removed by Bishonen who is the one proposing that I be blocked for a year. The statement is quite good and true as by my estimation, and why should something be removed? Please see the dynamic going on, many layers of suppression and chilling of speech. SageRad (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the above, Bishonen, why would someone post while logged out? Maybe the atmosphere here is a Reign of Terror. Maybe people fear to speak what they see, because they get drawn and quartered like you're doing to me here. Seriously, you all really don't seem to get the way you're being and how it's so oppressive. People are afraid to defend others because they're afraid that there will be reprisals against them. This is a place of intense persecution of some people, and the line is not purely about their behavior. It's more about their alignment. This is an atmosphere of political purging. The denial here is thick and sickening. I used the word McCarthyism about 50 times because it feels very accurate.

I've edited with pretty good practices. I've been much more civil than some others who are on the persecution side of this thing. The hypocrisy is astounding. I continue to be unable to believe the level of nasty stuff that is allowed here, and yet to call it crap is anathema. This place is captured. I name that problem and that's why these people don't want me here. You can say goodbye to any shred of credibility that this is a place where integrity matters.

@Dennis Brown: -- when you say that after reviewing my talk page, you see nothing's changed, and therefore think a block is good -- please specify what you mean. What about my talk page and what do you think it shows about me? I'd really like to know what people see in me. What's the deep dark evil you see or the behavioral problems.

State a concise case. What did i do wrong? In simple terms, what did i do wrong that justifies excluding me from Wikipedia? SageRad (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Above, i showed that a claim by Jytdog in his screed was absolutely and provably incorrect. He said that i never admit to being wrong, and i showed where i clearly admitted to him that i was wrong and said thank you to him for pointing it out.

Here, i have another point in his screed that is provably wrong. Please pay attention. This is how he's distorted things in nearly every point. It's too tiring to go through it all, and he is relying on the appearance of a bulk of accusations to make it seem that "SageRad must be bad because there's just so much here!" Well, think again.

He wrote:

"* On Sept 25 he joined a discussion at Talk:Detoxification (alternative medicine) in a section entitled "Truth of Toxins" where he helpfully brought a new ref but then misrepresented it here and again here arguing that we should include more positive content about detox diets (the conclusion presented in the source is the opposite as pointed out to him here."

But i didn't misrepresent the article! You can go and read the dialog! For one thing, i quoted the entire abstract of the article and then i summarized it as "There is little clinical evidence to support the use of these diets. That's true. That is lack of crucial evidence. However, there is some evidence that certain foods have detoxification properties. This is an area that needs more research, according to the above review article." After i cited the MEDRS source (recent review article in relevant discipline), another editor wrote "If you want to make a medical claim for us to assess, or make arguments based upon such claims, point out the MEDRS sources. The entire idea of "detoxification" in the context here is pseudoscience. FRINGE (and the associated ArbCom decisions) place a very high bar on presenting pseudoscience as something else." Then i replied, "That which I quoted is a MEDRS source." Then Jytdog wrote, "you have starkly mischaracterized the conclusion of the source," and quoted from the source. But i didn't misrepresent the source. I said other things that the source said, accurately. There was no contradiction. I replied with "I didn't misrepresent the ref. I quoted the entire abstract." The Jytdog, instead of pursuing this or acknowledging it, replied with "Please read and follow the guidance in WP:NOABSTRACT." And yes, i know WP:NOABSTRACT which says not to rely only upon the abstract of articles. Fine. But i didn't misrepresent the source. He and i sort of talked past each other.

But further, he said of me, "arguing that we should include more positive content about detox diets" but this is not what i said. I was simply pointing out that the sources do have some nuance to them. I didn't change the article or argue for anything specific. It was, to me, a reasonable discussion on a talk page. And now he wants to use it as fodder to ban me?

And that's one single example of how Jytdog misrepresents what happened. I didn't misrepresent the source and i also didn't use it to add anything to the article. I commented on the talk page to show that the 100% demonization of the concept was going too far. That is all.

If you go into 95% of his accusations, you will see that they are mostly misrepresenting dialogs and my character. SageRad (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see the suggestion by Count Iblis about a 0RR limit. I find this interesting, though i'd point out that i have hardly ever even gone to 1RR in my editing. I do strongly prefer dialog on the talk page. If you see the example above about the "Detoxification" article, i didn't even edit the article at all. I know that there is so much work to do in studying the sources, before even considering to edit an article. Also there is usually a need to get clear with other editors why an edit is useful. So a 0RR would really not change my editing much. Please, i hope you weren't under an impression that i edit war much... i don't. I think i am a good editor. I seek good dialog. Thank you for your suggestion. It might be fine, not onerous, because i don't revert things ideally. Ideally people discuss and come to some consensus -- as long as everyone is truly WP:HERE. Most of the real work is in the discussion on talk pages, anyway. The meeting of minds, the converging of points of view. SageRad (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Count Iblis, i fully agree with your comment. I do think that making only a few, high-quality talk page posts would improve my editing. I worry that one talk page comment per week is too few, but perhaps two or three talk page edits per week would suffice. And being more precise / avoiding hyperbole / focusing on content strictly would improve my editing. I am learning. I have learned a lot, and i have much more to learn. Thank you. SageRad (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more case in which i admitted that i was wrong, contrary to Jytdog's claim that i never admit when i am wrong:

Here is a diff in which i urge everyone to slow down and return to good sourcing. And here is a comment in which i actually did admit to Jytdog that the sources do seem to categorize the Whole30 diet as a "fad diet" and i did not oppose its categorization as such. I looked to the sources and saw that you were correct, and admitted it.

Like i said, i am attracted to edges. I like to discern what is known and what is not known. Sometimes this leads to cutting "fringe" and sometimes this leads to rolling back some cutting that may have gone too far, when there actually is good sourcing to support some content that's been cut. SageRad (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog:, response to [3] No, it is not "obvious to everyone else here" -- that's your delusion / gaslighting phrase. That is evidence of your behavioral problem -- your domineering and distorting speech. Sorry but you're not God. I take good feedback, but i don't grovel and beg against my principles. I edit well, and you wish to assassinate me. You're more the one who cannot admit to ever being wrong, even when evidence stares you in the face. And you are the one attacking me and trying to get me banned, so keep that in perspective. Now blaming me for defending myself and trying to gaslight the conversation. People ought to take note of that if anything. SageRad (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IF i were to propose a condition for myself, i would say "SageRad may not speak of motivations of other editors on article talk pages." I might also propose some kind of interaction limit between Jytdog and myself -- bidirectional. Something like "SageRad and Jytdog must be exceptionally careful to speak without aspersions and to keep all discussion strictly to content and never make insinuations about the others' motivations or otherwise insult the other." SageRad (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

THOSE who discuss how to circumscribe "the topics SageRad is disrupting" are accepting the arguments of Jytdog that i am disrupting. However, i've shown several of his arguments to be false and to misrepresent what's happened, so bring that into your thinking.

There are no grounds to assume that i'm guilty just Jytdog says so, and a few of his friends say "yeah yeah!"

Think for yourself, look into the case deeply. You'll see more than is apparent if you only hear those who shout the loudest. SageRad (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Soham321: asked me to demonstrate that i am capable of self-criticism. Yes, i am, most certainly. If you read the whole of the above (i know it's a lot, i'm sorry) you will see that i say several times that i can improve, and i want to.

I would make fewer comments on talk pages. I would never impute motivations of other editors in any specific content disputes.

I would go into more esoteric topics and not walk this "edge" of what's known and not known, which is interesting because of the controversy but also fraught with tension.

I truly enjoy working with Wikipedia, as it's fun, it's a thinker's diversion by which i have learned so much.

I would get my sourcing right before adding an edit instead of making an edit with less than the best sourcing and then having to find better sourcing to defend it.

I would not go so close to the edge. I would stick to less controversial and cutting-edge topics.

I would not go looking for controversy, or looking for the "edges" of fringe versus not-fringe.

I would not concern myself at all with the so-called "Skeptic" movement even though i retain my reckoning of what it is, i would not care anymore what they all do. I would unwatch the "Fringe" noticeboard. I would be satisfied with what i've already said on Jimbo's talk page. Others can discuss it in the future. Enough for me. I've found out what i wanted to, and said my piece.

I'd go editing Locust and Experimental evolution and Shays' Rebellion and such things that are not so controversial for whatever reasons.

Thanks for asking, Soham321.

I would like to point out that i strictly observed the one-month voluntary break, Bishonen and perhaps i could get credit for that. I lived by my word. Also, note that your assumption that i would have had 20 hours if i'd waited to the 28th is not correct. I have other things i must do in life and the case hanging over me was onerous so i wrote a quick thing. Your assumptions and reasoning need to be checked. Pretty much all your judgments suffer from the same one-sided viewpoint and lack of understanding.

If this has "gone on long enough" then why not drop the request? Why would the bias be toward blocking me?

I am not a burden to Wikipedia when i'm not under fire in this way. I'm only writing to this extent because the trial is purporting to judge me, and with so many bad assumptions and misrepresentations, one wants to protect one's reputation and ability to edit in the future.

Like i said, i want to go off into the night gently. I respected the one-month voluntary wikibreak to the extent to you, Bishonen, had to email me to bring me back. I can do that again. I want to be the hell out of here, but this case is onerous and i'm being judged ridiculously. Let this go drop the charges, let this end.

What's going on here is ridiculous.... and a huge time-sink for me... but this doesn't mean that simply blocking me for a year is right. It would be very, very wrong. Jytdog's assertions are all so very interpretive and fuzzy, and based on essays and soft concepts, and i have shown him to be wrong on many counts.

I'm not a perfect person but i'm not a bad person. I'm a good editor. I know the policies and i desire to follow them. So i've apparently ruffled feathers by the combination of being pretty sure about some sourcing when it's extremely simple and another person is opposing it vehemently (like misophonia which really seemed to trigger Jytdog but look at the evidence yourself, please).... and by speaking about trend observations on Jimbo's talk page. Those two things seemed to make me Public Enemy Number One despite not breaking any policies.

You must see past this and how it's a political persecution, not a proper punishment or blocking to "protect Wikipedia" -- it only protects certain interests on Wikipedia, certain interpretations. SageRad (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wordsmith, i see your note. If everything is dropped here, no block or ban, we would not end up here in a month, unless another editor has stored up a year's worth of grudges to air in this way. Please, it's not me who has done this. Jytdog has apparently been building up frustrations for a year and saving the diffs, etc. My editing these days is sparse, and is at the very most as you may see at misophonia which is a condition i have and which is quite interesting scientifically. Or adding an excellent source to locust. Or helping the talk page dialog at Race and intelligence to get people to clarify their positions and sources. I have a family and work, and other than this horribly time-sinking case, i would rather be off Wikipedia save for a few times a month to while away some hours with some scientific pastime, reading journal articles and improving articles in subtle and non-controversial ways. If you buy into the assumption that i've been horribly harmful to Wikipedia because Jytdog says so, it's up to you but i would ask you to please look into some of these things, and also to mind that so much of it's from a year ago... and i have learned and mellowed since then. Except for this case because it irks me to be under judgment and microscope of others in this way, but may this please end soon! Please consider that dropping this request would not result in the "same thing" coming up in a month unless someone brings another onerous case (and shouldn't those who do that be challenged instead of obeyed?) SageRad (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capeo, in response to this the logic is not good. I do not have the time to do this and it's disruptive to my life but i will not stand by and let something roll me away without a fight. Your logic is flawed. It is a huge drain upon me that this is occurring and unfair. And your claim about the misophonia article is mistaken. It's two MEDRS sources and both refer simply to misophonia as a "condition" (as shown in this diff) and there is no complication except what Jytdog is trying to introduce through OR with nosology and even that argument is flawed because an idiopathic condition is still called a condition. You are incorrect there. Please check the facts of the matter. Please redact what is incorrect and note to that effect. This is too important to get wrong. Integrity matters, and integrity means representing things accurately. The record is absolutely available and incontrovertible what i am saying and what Jytdog is saying there. Misophonia is a condition and this is the simplest litmus test regarding integrity possible to evaluate that dialog correctly. SageRad (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, if the shoe fits. SageRad (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, i do mean well. Thank you. I do not have access to "The Truth" but only to reliable sources. I've never claimed to have "The Truth" on my side. I have admitted to being wrong. I am introspective. I am not perfect and i will say that again. I'm not railing. I don't take disagreements personally. I take this personally because this is an action to block me, and i don't wish to be blocked. Please understand this. Please also dig into this case. You'll see that some of the things Jytdog has alleged are not true, which is verifiable through diffs i've linked above. That must count for something? Please understand the position i am in. SageRad (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the comment by Capeo -- what "consensus"? Read the entire misophonia talk page. It is mainly Jytdog and myself in actual dialog with Samara-x occasionally chiming in, often critical of Jytdog. Jytdog very often left open questions asked of him unanswered. Another editor (CFCF) did re-revert an edit in the same direction as Jytdog but when i pinged them and invited them to discuss here they never discussed anything. You say Your response was to ignore consensus, harp on a single word without examining what the sources in question actually conclude... But as i read the talk page, there was no "consensus" as you wrote in your comment. Seriously, there was only myself an Jytdog in dialog, disagreeing. How can there be "consensus" there? I also didn't "harp" on a single word. It's about getting the article right. The word is a symbol of the concepts and i certainly did read the whole Cavanna & Seri paper, i engaged with it. I think i was quite polite and thorough, despite my sensitization to Jytdog prior to that dialog. You've misrepresented things in your comment. That's how this place goes... the drumbeat is sounding and i'm to be killed. Oh well. But you cannot do it with deceptions and distortions. Just kill me because you WANT TO and because i'm "inconvenient" for you... it's not a righteous thing. If you do it while misrepresenting the story, painting me as a bad person, then it gives you an excuse. Go ahead, block me. But don't pretend it's because i'm a bad person. Just do it because you can... because you want to. Just use the raw power and block me because of raw power. That's all it is. And i will use the word INTEGRITY because it matters. I think you misrepresented what happened at misophonia. How could there possibly be a "consensus" that i went against when it was only Jytdog and myself in dialog there at the talk page, and when i didn't force my preferred wording into the article -- as you can see from the edit history? You might be right about the correct interpretation of the sources, but you weren't there at the talk page, and Jytdog left questions with his logic and claims unaddressed there and clipped the article greatly -- against the wishes of others. So, while your content-related comments may be correct or not, you weren't there at the talk page to discuss this at the time, and your behavioral claims about me are not correct as far as i can tell from the talk page dialog. I was very willing to figure this out with Jytdog there on the talk page, and i'd gone to the NPOV board to encourage him to use the talk page well and explain his edits. These things could have been resolved well, but he brought it here as if i am the problem here. I wish you would distinguish your view on whether misophonia is a "condition" from your assessment of my behavior at the misophonia article. Also, adding a "POV" tag is not a bad or hostile thing. It's a tool used when there's a POV question that's not been resolved, as a warning to readers and a call to other editors to work on it. There was a POV dispute and this seemed appropriate. Why do you make it seem wrong how i edited there? Please explain better why my editing there was wrong, if you would? SageRad (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

SageRad has taken it upon himself to be arbiter of "integrity" on Wikipedia. The recent discussions on Jimbotalk showed that Sage rejects conflicting opinion as invalid, and considers that intergrity is measured by consonance with his ideology. On his user page he links to a website promoting an "ethical skeptic" agenda, which promotes Brian Martin (conspiracy theorist and supervisor of Judith Wilyman's substandard and anti-vaccine PhD) and the website where Rupert Sheldrake, Dean Radin and others rant against pesky science for not accepting their beliefs. He has adopted the rhetoric of Rome Viharo, who was banned for sockpuppetry while promoting Sheldrake and woo-meister Deepak Chopra (where he also had a COI, IIRC). Sage has used the name of Viharo's website, Wikipedia, we have a problem, as the title of at least one o his threads: [4].

One could put this down to the aftermath of ARBGMO, but long before that he was inserting accusations of censorship against David Gorski based on Gorski's banning him from commenting for trolling. The skeptic community is generally skeptical about anti-GMO rhetoric, and this seems to have set Sage against organised skepticism pretty much from the outset.

All this would be fine if Sage were capable of understanding the difference between his opinion and objective fact. He consistently demonstrates that he is not.

Sage is intelligent and articulate, but he lacks the ability to accept that any conclusion differing from his own might be grounded in truth. The diffs above clearly show this. The biggest problem is that any topic ban would have to include all areas subject to skeptical activism, and I don't honestly think he edits anything much else. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: I am not sure this actually is a case of editors who can't stand each other. I can't speak for Jytdog, but I do not dislike Sage at all. That's part of the problem: I feel very conflicted. I like him but his constant m:MPOV is vexing. In my opinion, if he could accept the possibility of any valid conclusion other than his own, he would be a valued contributor. He has the time and intelligence to read sources, after all. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SageRad: You ask "What do others want to ask me or have me respond to?" Really? You can ask that still, after the recent discussions at Jimbotalk? I'd say that [5] and [6] contain a pretty complete answer to exactly that question. Your problem is as I state above: you seem unwilling or unable to accept that any conclusion other than yours could possibly be valid, and you clearly consider that anybody who states a conclusion other than yours is ill-informed, stupid, corrupt or some combination of the three. [7] followed by [8] set the tone, and I reckon the whole reason we are here is that if you took a straw poll of those who have spent time trying to work on articles alongside you, most of us would be of the opinion that left to your own devices you would make those edits again right now. It would be lovely to be proved wrong, but I have never seen any evidence of you even acknowledging that these are matters where reasonable people may differ, let alone being open to changing your mind. Guy (Help!) 15:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Fine with that, Sage has a new baby I think - I can still remember the effects of infant-induced sleep deprivation even two decades later. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments after resumption of case in November 2016: @Bishonen: Your six month review is fine as long as the topic areas don't include those under current dispute. I would not consider six months at Wikibooks productively writing anti-GMO material to be evidence of rehabilitation, and I don't think you would either. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JerryRussell, no this is not an extended content dispute. And Jytdog is absolutely right: the definition of mainstream is that which has predominant support among the relevant scientific community. We have mainstream views on everything, because that is what WP:NPOV means. The status of WP:MAINSTREAM is irrelevant: the definition of mainstream, along with the canonical policy WP:NPOV, means that Wikipedia is, de facto and by design, a mainstream encyclopaedia. WP:FRINGE also has consensus, and if you think this is an accident you can see Jimbo's take at Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I don't have anything particularly global to add, although I agree with Bishonen's concern that there is a genuine time-sink going on.

Some of this may be wits-end exasperation on the part of good-faith editors, but some of it is also a clash between editors who just cannot stand one another. See also: User talk:SageRad#Talk:Misophonia. It's not as simple as white-hats and black-hats.

Instead of editors getting sucked into tl;dr arguments where nobody persuades anyone else, have content RfCs been adequately explored as a way of moving past logjams? (Example RfC question: "Below are some sources that say that misphonia is a genuine disorder, and some sources that say that it is not. Taking the sources together, should this page present it as a genuine disorder?")

I've been trying to think of a possible DS restriction on SageRad that might be practical to design. Perhaps a word limit for talk page comments about AltMed pages? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I did not say it was interpersonal at its base. It isn't. But it is, partly ("some"). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy: I agree with you that Sage has a lot of potential as an editor, and I was referring more to Jytdog than to you, but despite the replies from Jytdog and from you, I still think that my statement is accurate. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I IAR put back (collapsed) the version of Sage's statement that he had reverted, and I think that it is a better statement than his original one. @Sage: you are permitted to add to your original statement, so you can always add new stuff (well, there's a word limit that is not being followed at the moment) as long as you don't delete the old stuff; you can also strike through anything you wrote. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

I've been seeing problems with SageRad continue to brew on my watchlist after their GMO sanctions. Just in the context of their previous sanctions from GMOs, part of the reasoning why they were topic banned was the exact same behavior we're still seeing here. When people start to complain about how a topic is being antagonized by SageRad's continued soapboxing, they're often met with SageRad's "What, who me?" responses when told to knock it off just like we are seeing in their response to this AE. Basically, disruption in fringe and health topics followed by playing the victim when they're behavior on article pages is called out. Add in the obvious battleground behavior, and we're back to where we were with SageRad before the GMO ArbCom case. That's especially apparent with their "othering" (i.e., "bullies") of editors that try to curtail the disruption SageRad causes in topics where they engage in advocacy or soapboxing about their personal ideals. It's becoming apparent SageRad just won't listen even after their sanctions. Same behavior as GMOs, just different topics now.

At the end of the day, I don't have strong convictions about specific action against SageRad since I don't have to deal with them in my topic areas anymore (mainspace at least), but it's apparent they just moved their behavior issues outside their topic ban. I do feel for editors that still end up putting up with this behavior pretty regularly though. Here area a few ideas for sanctions to impose on SageRad that should at least stop the disruption and maybe turn them around:

1. One-way interaction ban when dealing with Jytdog. I don't have super strong support for this as it's really just a band-aid, but the continued battleground behavior is obvious while Jytdog has been acting at least relatively reasonable (though obviously frustrated) in the face of this string of continued behavior. I'm usually open to less complicated two-way bans, but I think we can agree SageRad's behavior is the core issue here to work on first.

2. Expanding topic bans as JzG mentioned. Probably the most concrete topic ban would be a broadly construed ban on any topic related to health (including environmental contamination for clarity). A topic ban on any WP:FRINGE topic could be a secondary consideration, but that's harder to define for avoiding wikilawyering. Word limits might have been a consideration back when SageRad was newer to Wikipedia, but the issue here seems to be they just can't let go in these topics.

3. Long-term block. SageRad has used tons of rope already still showing behavior (regardless of what they actually say) that they are not WP:HERE and are instead using Wikipedia more for soapboxing and hyperbole. Maybe that can change if they are handed a topic ban that gets them out of this activism mindset and into topics where they can act like a normal editor. I think we have to acknowledge though that if this all continues, the WP:ROPE is going leading to this last option. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing The Wordsmith's and Dennis Brown's comments on on applicable DS for a topic ban, this ArbCom case explicitly imposes DS on "all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted". In terms of DS, there would be no issue with a WP:FRINGE topic ban option, and the case could be made under that for a medical topic ban because that's where the fringe issues occur. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments after resumption of case in November 2016:

It looks like SageRad hasn't shown any improvement over their break. There already was a pretty clear admin consensus that a block was needed (after multiple blocks already), and SageRad was given a whole month after that to organize a response. They pretty much squandered that and went back to soapboxing, going way over the word limit to near 5,000 words (after complaining about other editors that actually did scale back to 500 words), and still engaging in obvious battleground mentality, especially with the Jytdog this and Jytdog that comments. That's especially after they are trying to bargain their sanctions about speaking to editor motivations and avoiding Jytdog only to immediately turn around and start taking potshots in their next edits (i.e,Jytdog is not God). Not to mention mention restoring and endorsing an IP edit here that casts WP:ASPERSIONS about me too (we'd need to hand out interaction bans left and right to tamp this behavior down). This shows a complete personal disregard for the disruption SageRad is causing.

It's very clear by their continued actions (regardless of what they say) that SageRad is not WP:HERE by their primary actions here being kicking up battleground drama. Things like 0RR or editing restrictions could have been useful in the past, but Sage lost the ability for that much rope many blocks and sanctions ago. It's clear that nothing is going to fix Sage's battleground mentality across the board. They just keep digging their hole deeper here, so this really should be a strong candidate for a block with all that in mind, especially when such an editor continues behavior they know they are going to be sanctioned for. The recently proposed editing restrictions will just end us up right here again due to SageRad's editing mentality apparent in their actions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Skyring

After a tangential mention in discussion below, a tangential comment. SageRad has his own strong views, is well-informed, intelligent, and productive. There's a place for him here. But when he encounters opposition, rather than discuss the points of opposition in the context on improving the article(s), he takes it personal and tries to convert other editors to his views, which he considers to be the rational factual objective plain truth, and everybody else is a deluded fool or a tool of big business or something, and ultimately Wikipedia is fatally flawed because of this evil and that evil.

Well, it's not. It works, it's a valuable reference, it's an internet marvel. SageRad should get offa his soapbox, work with those who have contrary opinions, and for the love of ghod, stop filling pages with long rambling rants! SageRad, we love you, we want you, it's just your behaviour needs a bit of a tweak. Okay? --Pete (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alexbrn

As an editor who has had a role in the current Chemophobia article I was surprised to see, on 20 October, postings by SageRad on both the article's Talk page and at WP:FT/N report a "POV issue" because "This article presents 'chemophobia' as if it's a psychological phenomenon ..."

[9]
[10]

On re-reading the article I saw (as did a number of other editors) that this is simply not the case: the article says precisely the opposite. This has been pointed out but since then no retraction, explanation or further comment has been made. On top of SageRad's editing history this looks far from being constructive activity. What is going on?

Because of SageRad's problematic stance towards skepticism I don't think a TBAN on health content is quite right - a TBAN needs to cover (probably in addition) any topic covered by the WP:FRINGE guidance - broadly construed - though I fear this will not succeed because SageRad seems to have a novel view of what is, and is not, fringe that is out-of-sync with the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

@Wordsmith, discretionary sanctions are authorised for a number of areas SageRad has been problematic in. So realistically you could apply any sanction you wanted (provided you felt it had merit). The real issue is that SageRad is not topic-bound in his disruption. He has an anti-skeptic agenda which manifests in disruptive editing wherever skepticism is evident. He is not pro-fringe as it was, just anti-evidence-based science. His editing MO is to show up at an article, declare bias, argue with people until he finally gets they dont agree with him, then rants about how everything is unfair.

The problem is fringe and skepticism cover a huge range of topics. From pseudoscience, lifestyle, history, medical etc. Normally a targetted topic ban would suffice, but to limit SageRad's disruption would require a 0/1 revert restriction AND some sort of enforced character limit on discussions. And even *then* that would really only just keep disruption to a minimum, it wouldnt prevent anything as SageRad has a worldview that is incompatible with how Wikipedia populates article content. Alexbrn has laid out the most recent example. Jzg and a couple of others say SageRad is clearly intelligent etc, but I disagree. SageRad has repeatedly failed to grasp basic wikipedia concepts & policies, and as Alexbrn's example shows above, clearly has an issue in reading comprehension. There is a CIR issue here. This may be because he skim-reads and fails to grasp what is actually said - Jytdog has listed a number of examples where SageRad cherry-picks/looks at brief abstracts/summaries instead of reading and understanding what material actually says.

But this disruption is not limited to Wikipedia, this is just his latest venue for pushing his POV/Agenda. He came here (and was subsequently sanctioned) after getting into conflict with Gorski. He previously linked to his rants/comments offsite - and even a basic internet search shows his attack-dog mentality when criticised (just in case anyone thinks to accuse me of outing, SageRad has previously linked to his offsite comments himself, then deleted them when it was pointed out they showed his bias). If you are unable to actually implement a workable sanction, this will need to go to ANI or Arbcom for a site ban discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Annnnd we reached the hysterical McCarthy accusations again (this is an ongoing theme, if you take a look at SageRad's talkpage history, specificially their interactions with MjolnirPants). Essentially this illustrates the problem - where multiple people disagree with SageRad, its everyone else that is the problem. Keep in mind, this is multiple editors in multiple topics over an extended period of time (since SageRad came to wikipedia). This is simply a case of 'this person is not suited for wikipedia'. Failure to agree with others is generally fine. People are not required to agree all the time. Failure to agree plus disruption plus personal attacks, plus agenda pushing plus inability to accept consensus is not ok. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'cool down blocks' imply there is something to cool down from. Or that SageRad is acting out currently. This is not the case. SageRad's current behaviour is completely normal for him. Both during his entire tenure at Wikipedia, and his off-site activities. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments after resumption of case in November 2016:

Just popped in from my holiday to address Wordsmith: any topic ban by necessity would need to be so broad as to be unworkable. "Things Sagerad decided today he thinks are biased" would about cover it. Likewise unless you are going to interaction ban him from most of the contributors to the fringe, RS and NPOV noticeboards, again fairly pointless. The point of restrictions on an editor is to minimise disruption to the editing process of the encyclopedia - at this point the simplest and effective way is *at least* a one year block until they learn to play with others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plea by DrChrissy

I am not here to comment on the merits or otherwise of this case, rather, I am here to make observations on Sage's behaviour and a plea for a moritorium. Sage's most recent behaviour on this noticeboard and at other places is very uncharacteristic for him. He is making unfocussed edits and flailing around in the multiple threads regarding his behaviour. He has even resorted to swearing which I don't think I have ever seen him do before. His baby is a new baby, I think only 6 weeks old or so, and I think is his first. To make this brief, I believe Sage may be experiencing some sort of melt-down. A moritorium would show compassion and allow Sage to either calm down and/or make decisions in a more rational way which Arbcom would be more able to deal with. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

Unfortunately, I see two problems here. The first has to do with the subject editor, User:SageRad, who has been editing aggressively since May 2015 with a strong point of view on medical and agricultural topics. The second has to do with the history between the subject editor and the filing editor, User:Jytdog. Jytdog has long been editing aggressively in accordance with Wikipedia policy to try to ensure that medical and scientific articles follow Wikipedia medical reliable source guidelines. Jytdog is almost always right with regard to policy, and has made enemies in Wikipedia, and SageRad is one of them, and SageRad has been aggressively attacking Jytdog since he began editing Wikipedia in May 2015. (SageRad made a few scattered edits before then.) Jytdog is absolutely correct in writing:

Actually, one more thing.  The history between SageRad and me does go back to his very first edits here.

Jytdog is completely correct in writing:

I don't seek SageRad out; he keeps showing up on topics I edit and behaving this way.

I first became familiar with SageRad when he showed up at the dispute resolution noticeboard hounding Jytdog and claiming mistakenly to be a DRN volunteer. SageRad has been going after Jytdog at least since June 2015.

It is impossible to reason with SageRad to advise him that his behavior is disruptive. SageRad has, since May 2015, seen all efforts to advise him to modify his behavior as "McCarthyism" and "bullying". SageRad was topic-banned by the ArbCom from the topic area of genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals. (In case anyone argues that there was a kangaroo court proceeding, he wasn’t just banned by one kangaroo under discretionary sanctions. He was banned by the community-elected panel of kangaroos, except that we are not kangaroos because we are great apes.) He has recently been blocked twice, first for five days, then for one month. It isn’t clear why SageRad is so determined to change Wikipedia when he has apparently decided that Wikipedia is such an ugly corrupt place, but that is SageRad.

If any editor other than Jytdog had been the one filing this request, I would suggest that SageRad be Site-Banned. As it is, Jytdog is the wrong editor to be filing this request, because Jytdog is right, but it looks too much like (almost justified) revenge. I suggest that SageRad be blocked for another month, and that Jytdog be asked to let other editors deal with SageRad after he is unblocked this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capeo

I was trying to avoid commenting here because I've butted heads enough with Sage that it just feels like piling on. That said, what the admins here are seeing as a meltdown is actually pretty par for the course. Outbursts claiming McCarthyism (such as here [11] against Guy or here [12] against... everyone I guess) are fairly normal with Sage, though the Stalinism claim is a new one to me. This has been an ongoing issue when it comes to such hyperbolic claims against other users or WP in general. Capeo (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a further note to admins, it seems unlikely SageRad will accept a voluntary editing restriction after saying they wouldn't accept an enforced one. I highly doubt it will work and will just serve to incite more drama. Perhaps I'm wrong, and SageRad will be fine with it, but I don't think you're going to get the response you're hoping for. Capeo (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because SageRad keeps insisting that folks look at the Misophonia talk page I did. As well as the article, its history, its sources and the current research. The article was a mess earlier in the year with extraordinary levels of advocate editing. To the degree that editors were adding things to the article, openly in edit summaries no less, to favor particular researchers. The majority of editors on the talk page over the last couple years I looked at also say they have Misophonia. It was brought back to some semblance of balance by Jytdog and others back in February. It quickly spiraled back to being a mess in the interceding months. Looking at the current research "a proposed condition" is exactly the proper way to characterize Misophonia according to the preponderance of RS. There is no diagnostic criteria for it. It's not listed in any diagnostic text. It's near invariably associated with other conditions such as OCD (primarily), anxiety disorders, Autism spectrum or Tourette's Syndrome. SageRad's selective use of a sentence from the Cavanna abstract is not engaging with the actual sources or even the abstract in question, or even Cavanna's actual paper. Even in the abstract itself, it's admitted "At the present stage, competing paradigms see misophonia as a physiological state potentially inducible in any subject, an idiopathic condition (which can present with comorbid psychiatric disorders), or a symptomatic manifestation of an underlying psychiatric disorder."

Cavanna and the one study he cites that agrees with him (that aren't his own) is the only person I can find that presently suggests it might be a primary condition. Even then he admits, in regard to the current definition of Misophonia, "This definition challenges the subsequently proposed views that misophonia is a discrete/idiopathic condition (which can present with comorbid psychiatric disorders)8 or a symptomatic manifestation of an underlying psychiatric disorder, at least in a proportion of cases.4 If confirmed by future systematic studies in large populations, the presence of high rates of comorbidity would go against the argument that misophonia should be labeled as a primary diagnosis. In fact, it would suggest that it is a symptom manifestation of other underlying or comorbid diagnoses and should more appropriately be labeled as a symptom, rather than as a stand-alone diagnosis. Either way, the addition of misophonia to nosographic classification systems of psychiatric disorders, such as the DSM, would require careful consideration." 8 is the study I mentioned. 4 is a short paper by Cavanna. Long story short: Jytdog's wording is correct and it appears SageRad is ignoring the caveats the source in question, which he provided, which isn't even close to the totality of sources in question. Capeo (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants

I'm not going to post my usual, fifteen paragraph explanation of every nuance of my own thoughts about this. I'm just going to say two things.

I actually do 'like' SageRad in that I get the impression I could have a few beers with him, work alongside him, or have a friendly relationship with him as my next door neighbor. I would likely befriend him if I knew him IRL.
I absolutely, wholeheartedly, 100% without reservation support a permanent site ban. His views are immutable, and they are utterly incompatible with Wikipedia. He constantly expresses angst and frustration at his participation here. This is one of those rare cases where a permanent site ban would (eventually) make everyone happier, including Sage. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments after resumption of case in November 2016: After the break, I just want to express my support for the proposal by Bishonen below. SageRad, I would much rather you spend time with your family than spend time fruitlessly banging your head against the wall here. Like I said above, my main reason for supporting this is because I see it as being best for you as well as WP. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SageRad: What we want and what is best for us is often not the same thing. For example, I want everyone I argue with here to bow to my superior intellect and post glowing praise about how intelligent and eloquent I am, to be responded to by the few who have met me in real life, adding how devastatingly handsome, well-endowed and skilled in the sack I am. But I think we can all agree that would result in me becoming pretty much the exact opposite of all those things. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SageRad: In consideration of the way you have often reacted to humor, I have written a much more serious response here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Roxy the dog)

I'm going to tender for the WP:ROPE supply contract with wikipedia. Must be racing up in value. -Roxy the dog™ bark 08:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

Comments after resumption of case in November 2016: In general Jytdog is doing an excellent job keeping Wikipedia clear of quack edits and pseudo-scientific arguments. SageRad has shown problematic behavior in this respect. The case of articles like the one about Michael Greger are, however, a special case where the consensus is wrong. We have to keep in mind here that unlike in case of a topic like climate change where the scientific community has been able to keep unreasonable skeptics from polluting the science with false arguments, in case of nutrition the science has been compromised, see e.g. what this article says about Dr. Alderman's conduct. What has happened as a result of this polarization within the scientific community, were frankly some scientists are getting away with conduct that would be considered to be scientific fraud if this were going on in another field, is that the dangers of a bad diet will not be highlighted as much as it should. So, while we all know that smoking is bad because it raised the chance of getting lung cancer by a factor of ten, few people know that the same i true w.r.t. not eating enough fibers and the chance of getting colon cancer. This this then why people like Greger, Klapper etc. speak out, attract huge audiences but people looking at Wikipedia only see the watered down consensus view where the truth seems to be deeply buried.

Then because the Wikipedia community has failed to deal with this problem (which amounts to giving scientific articles written by people like Dr. Alderman a lot less weight than the people who have done proper scientific research), advocate editors who may well have the wrong sort of agenda on most other topics, step into this subject and are then able to raise arguments that get some traction. That then leads to the article in question getting locked because it's then not only SageRad anymore that you could eliminate to fix the problem.

Apart from this issue, there of course do also exist other articles about genuine fad diets that may be edited in unacceptable ways by their supporters. But I think it is very important for us to make sure the real problems that do exist within the science of nutrition are dealt with here in a better way, as that will allow us to deal with problem editors much better. Count Iblis (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a 0RR restriction for SageRad and a one edit per week per article limit (including talk pages, so it's one edit to the article and one talk page edit per week). If you can only make one edit that you cannot revert, then this is a waste of time unless you know that your edit will stick. If it is not seen to be good enough and reverted, you can use the talk page to explain what you wanted to do, but you can only have one attempt at making your point, so unless you can write down something that your fellow editors will consider to be good arguments, it will be futile.

Giving people just one attempt to get it right, make whatever they've done a waste of time if it's not right, can work wonders. When I was at university, a professor told us on the first day that we had to study hard because there was only going to be one make-up exam, after that we would have to wait until next year. Also he had the habit of not raising his voice at the start of lectures if the students were not yet quiet. It is amazing how quickly a class full of loud students would become quiet simply due to the professor being inaudible and the fact that it would be a problem if you don't pass the exam. Count Iblis (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SageRad: I agree what edit warring isn't the issue, but I do think that limiting the amount of edits you'll end up focusing more on the core of your argument. By moving away from talk page conversations to a more formal presentation of your point of view where you write something there as if it were a journal article, you'll automatically tend to stay away from invoking things like "Stalinism". After all, if the other editors cannot accept what they are reading, they'll not take on board your arguments and you don't get to argue with whatever they have to say. The best you can do is to make your arguments as acceptable as possible, which means staying away from hyperboles, basing it on peer reviewed articles as much as possible. Count Iblis (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JerryRussell

Comments after resumption of case in November 2016: This is an extended content dispute. And in my opinion, Jytdog is in the wrong. The problem is described at this diff: 1 where Jytdog argues that Wikipedia is a "mainstream" encyclopedia. It is not: WP:MAINSTREAM is a failed proposal. The appropriate policy is, that Wikipedia is not censored!! All of the so-called battleground behavior that is described above is a result of Jytdog and his allies attempting to push "mainstream" views to the exclusion of other views which are also supported by reliable sources. JerryRussell (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG:, do you dispute my statement that WP:MAINSTREAM was a failed proposal that failed to achieve consensus because many editors opposed it? What about WP:SPOV, also a failed proposal, right? Of course I agree that Wikipedia completely describes the "mainstream" view, identifies it as such, and gives it pride of place per WP:NPOV. But, Wiki also represents so-called "fringe" views neutrally.

@Bishonen:, in your new statement and call for a block, you mention SageRad's criticism of Jytdog here, as further evidence that SageRad needs to be blocked. But since SageRad is asking for a boomerang, isn't this the one venue where such criticism gets a safe harbor? Or am I mistaken?

@Tryptofish:, your comment he is taking a sort of Thomas More role, and there's only one way that can end is very apropos. For one thing, it plays into the blood metaphor -- which I think is over-the-top, but SageRad started it. More importantly, Thomas More met his end under King Henry VIII, one of the most notorious tyrants of history. Is that our model for running Wikipedia?

You mentioned that SageRad should have listed his accomplishments here, rather than at his user page. Well, we can fix this. Here's what he said:

Have i "ruined" the article on the Paleo diet? How about Misophonia? How about the dozen or more articles i've created? How about adding sources on Locust? How about improving Field-effect transistor? How about working out issues on Race and intelligence? How about helping work out conflicts at James Watson? Really. I have done much good work and i do not deserve this. Especially as i have stated that i am totally willing to not speak to anyone's potential motivations on any article talk page. That's the crux here, isn't it? Isn't that the one thing i really did wrong on occasion? And isn't that something done so so so often by others when it's the "other direction" in terms of point of view? In the "dominant viewpoint" that's been crystallizing on Wikipedia? I would really appreciate (honestly) a simple and direct from-the-heart answer to this.

Pages created:

Sporomusa ovata (species of bacteria)
Counterwill (psychological concept coined by Otto Rank)
Chief Squantz (native leader in the time of colonization by Europeans)
Zadoc Benedict (first hat maker in the "Hat City" town of Danbury, Connecticut)
Charles Burnham (geneticist) (a noble man who helped develop blight-resistant American chestnut through back-breeding)
Tory's Cave (Springfield, Vermont) (sources were used in the Tory's Cave (New Milford, Connecticut) article that were misleading as they applied to a different Tory's Cave, this one. I created an article for that Tory's Cave, and transcribed a poem about the cave into the article. I hope that the people in the area pick this up and develop the article more. Rather than throwing away good sources, i preferred to create a new article for the other cave. I wish all editors had a generous attitude in regard to editing -- to build rather than to simply delete. This historical work is fascinating.
Batcheller's Cave (a cave in Roxbury, New Hampshire where a noted Tory sympathizer hid. Continues my spelunking expedition begun with cleaning up Tory's Cave (New Milford, Connecticut).)
Breed Batcheller (an early settler of Roxbury, New Hampshire who did not support the American Revolutionary War and ended up run out of town and hiding in Batcheller's Cave)
Chief Waramaug successor to sachemship after Chief Squantz, lived well, was highly respected.
Samuel Orcutt Connecticut historian and genealogist of colonial times. (copied from SageRad's user page) JerryRussell (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complaints are coming in from the admins below, that this case is becoming a time sink, therefore it's necessary to issue the block and get it over with. Wouldn't it be equally just as easy to end the time sink with a "not guilty" finding? And that would have the advantage of taking the wind out of SageRad's "McCarthyite" charges.

I just noticed that user:Jytdog has a COI statement at his user page. He says he works for a small startup pharmaceutical company. He promises not to edit articles directly related to his company or its products, or anything to do with acute neurological disorders. He says that should draw a fence around his COI. But, does it really? Obviously, as a person who works in the industry, he must have other friends who also work in the industry. According to WP:COI, one should avoid editing in areas related to one's friends. Could Jytdog's industry connections have anything to do with the very powerful POV displayed in Jytdog's conflict with SageRad?

And, why aren't the admins asking any of these questions? JerryRussell (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC) tweaked at Bishonen's request, see my talk page JerryRussell (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement 2 by Tryptofish

Comments after resumption of case in November 2016: When I see an editor who is in a protracted dispute but who seems to me to have it in them to be a good and productive editor, I try to find a way for them to become such a good editor. Here, I have failed, and I feel very bad about it, because I like Sage and I really do believe that he has it in him if he wants. Yesterday, I tried hard at his user talk to give him useful advice, and I see that today, he has thanked me and said that he followed about half of my advice. You are welcome, truly. But I guess you followed the wrong half. In his new statement here, he has a bullet list of things he says he does correctly ("I don't say..."). Unfortunately, he does most of those very things wrong right here in his new statement. On his user talk page, he listed articles where he has made good contributions, and I wish he had done that here instead. In any case, Sage genuinely believes in what he says here, and he is incorrect. I guess he is taking a sort of Thomas More role, and there's only one way that can end. Bishonen's proposed solution is as good as anything that I can think of. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the comments that were pinged to me, and I really cannot think of anything more that I can say here. I also want to note that some editors have made new comments, but have put them in the pre-break section. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the more recent comments by admins, about whether there could be an alternative to a block that would allow Sage to continue to make content contributions, something like a civility restriction, and I wish I had a good idea about how to make that work. But I think the problem would be that, per what Sage has been saying here, it's a sure-thing that he will say something that would send us back here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by olive

Comments after resumption of case in November 2016: I am traveling and on a borrowed computer with internet that may quit anytime, so these are quick observations rather than a statement.

*Dennis Brown Per your comment on the recent discussion on Sage Red's talk page. Sage Red is understandably upset. Why during an AE that Jytdog opened is Jytdog on Sage Red's talk page reprimanding Sage Red. If I assume good faith, that Jytdog was trying to help, this is at best poorly judged and shows an ongoing propensity to push editors too far. How far did Jytdog push his agenda on article talk pages and why aren't we asking that question? I don't see that this is a one sided problem. A fair resolution might be an interaction ban. Is it fair to judge Sager Red on that page during this time?

I see a listing here of articles Sage Red has contributed to in a substantial way. Why is he being removed from these articles as would happen with a site ban? A site ban says, you have not contributed in a way that is valued. Is his behavior on these article sanctionable? If not, and I don't see sanctionable behavior, we should be able to discriminate between potentially problematic articles and others, with a sanction that also discriminates. I am not suggesting a sanction of any kind, to be clear, beyond an interaction ban.
Frankly, I looked at the last article Sage Red was involved in and was surprised when an AE was filed. I saw a discussion about sources; I saw two editors, not one, who felt strongly about the way sources should be used. Neither was automatically right.
Sage Red has said he will be brief in his comments in the future. I'd also suggest that no editor should be determining how much another editor needs to explain a position. I've worked with editors who are so brief as to be impossible to understand. One is not better than the other. I wonder if time sink means impatience with another's viewpoint. This is a collaborative project which means non one controls articles or talk pages and no one controls a discussion. When they do its called ownership. Attempts to "control" are bound to create problems in a discussion like frustration.
I believe, and especially given my own experiences, that we have at best a somewhat skewed version of what went on in these discussion and at worst the wrong end of the stick completely.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

- This is the most enlightened comment I've seen throughout this AE: Credit Count Iblis remarks here

Giving people just one attempt to get it right, make whatever they've done a waste of time if it's not right, can work wonders....

and

@SageRad: I agree what edit warring isn't the issue, but I do think that limiting the amount of edits you'll end up focusing more on the core of your argument. By moving away from talk page conversations to a more formal presentation of your point of view where you write something there as if it were a journal article, you'll automatically tend to stay away from invoking things like "Stalinism". After all, if the other editors cannot accept what they are reading, they'll not take on board your arguments and you don't get to argue with whatever they have to say. The best you can do is to make your arguments as acceptable as possible, which means staying away from hyperboles, basing it on peer reviewed articles as much as possible. Count Iblis (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

What many may not understand here is how it feels to be accused as SageRed was or is, how it feels to be to told you should have listened by the person or people who have been in conflict with you, or the desperation one feels when misunderstood. Instead of a steam roller remedy could we implement something more specific to the perceived problems which will preserve an editor's abilities while helping them integrate into a culture that is very specific to Wikipedia. I have also been in conflict with Jytdog and I can tell you he is not always right nor is his manner always easy to deal with. As we should with Sage Red, we protect Jytdog for what he does right. I'd like to see us try a more humane, enlightened approach to disputes making it possible to hold on to editors with talent and abilities, and as in Jytdog's case commitment, rather than toss away what is not replaceable.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

- As always the limitations of arbitrations AE and AN, AN/I notice boards is that it is truly impossible to have a sense of a situation unless one has been involved and following closely. Sometimes the decisions almost accidentally hit the mark and are accurate; more often though the experienced editor can produce diffs that paint a picture that with out context and the experience of being in that situation cannot be disproved. I am not going to question Jytdog's motives here; I don't know what they are. Nor am I going to question Sage Red's, but what I would like to see this community move towards is the knowledge that we don't ever really know the whole story, that our particular views may be slanted, that we don't have body language and voice to judge truthfulness. What we can do is see that editors are valuable and that we can, once the light shines on a problem situation, who ever created it, design remedies that act as guides to the boundaries the community has developed and give the editors and I say editors a chance to learn to function within those boundaries. I think this system is archaic. Can't we be more enlightened with how we treat people, with how we deal with problems , with understanding the limitations of a computer screen and a few diffs.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by SashiRolls

Comments after resumption of case in November 2016:

I will testify that I have read the 6 diffs adduced to the Scientific Skepticism page and don't see anything untoward in them whatsoever. Nor do I see a serious problem with any other diff I have looked at (in misophonia and in detoxification)
I will say that I think SageRad's contributions seem impressive.
I will mention that I've interacted with Jytdog on Talk:Singapore and found him preemptive and unpleasant in calling an RfC "putrid". While I completely agree with his conclusion that the OP's gallup poll should not be included in the lead, I think he could be less combative in stating his POV.
I will admit that when I read @Tryptofish: calling SageRad Thomas More, my first thought was for Utopia or WP:NOTNOTHERE and not for SageRad's head. I think all might do well to re-read WP:NOTNOTHERE incidentally.
I will keep quiet about all that I am meant to keep quiet about, except to say that I think the arguments made by JerryRussell above about WP:MAINSTREAM being a failed proposal are important ones. While you are all discussing in a scientific domain, where some seem to think there is a verifiable and replicable truth, imagine how much trickier it becomes in parts of Wikipedia where it is a question of less verifiable sciences... voodoo economics, sociology and the like.
I will moan that I have suffered much worse attacks from editors than what I see any evidence above that SageRad has been guilty of. In fact, perhaps because of where I've clicked in the Smörgåsbord of diffs above, I've yet to see an attack.
I will note that I find the suggestion that SageRad be forced to leave for his own good decidedly paternalistic (which does not mean to say it is necessarily untrue).
I will close by asking you to be clement. AE should not be The Terror. SashiRolls (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After posting:

I will be threatened by Jytdog as follows for making this statement (the "this" in the following citation from my talk page refers here): "this was unwise. Your battleground behavior will be obvious to admins at the AE, and if you keep editing promotionally on Singapore and that becomes an issue we need to bring to ANI, that diff will become a key piece of evidence for your being WP:NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)"[reply]
For the record, I have been on "the anti-promo team" if I've been on any team at all at that page and have done as much as anyone there to ensure a pleasant editing environment. I have also been thanked by several editors for my work trying to restablish NPOV on that page.
Is this how AE works? Ignore the users, allow those who bully them to carry on... business as usual? User:SashiRolls this morning, before work & coffee timestamp

After work:

Sorry Jytdog. That just kind of broke the Monday morning routine into "panic", wondering what I'd done and if there really was a cabal and everything. I need a Wiki-break. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Wouldn't it be simplest just to reassure us that the charges aren't true Bishonen, rather than sending us to study someone's talk page? That's a lot of folks who seem "wp:involved" and a lot of us who are just gazing on with wonder. Remember our discussion about transparency? Smear s(m)ells, light is better. SashiRolls (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment concerning experiments and new users

I would like to thank Bob K31416 for testing the waters over at misophonia, because it makes clear how a new user tends to be "broken into" a page. My own experience with Jytdog, above, also speaks to this issue of how new "unknown" users are treated. While I am not criticizing either Jytdog or Roxy the Dog, I do think it is telling that both reacted without trying to understand what Bob K31416 or I were getting at, but instead both seem to have chosen to either ABF and/or invoke their power as holders of a certain preestablished consensus (what SageRad has called House POV). I will not belabor the point by comparing this at length to my own experience, though I would note that one actor below (Tryptofish) has been active in both cases (and was incidentally the first commenter on the GMO RfC, and if I've understood correctly, the author of the winning formulation). The ways in which this RfC has been used are unhealthy, though admittedly coming from an environment (José Bové land) in which the opposite conclusions are the media consensus, it is an interesting change of POV. While I know that the specifics of this case are not directly related to GMO, I do know that I was brought to AE for allegedly violating the same RfC on GMO. This was rejected as a "red herring" relatively quickly in my own case, and by observing my topic ban (despite later developments showing that I was not the problem on the page in question) I have started enjoying Wikipedia more, since I no longer deal with aggressive character attacks (perhaps because I'm starting to be known a little bit and have learned when not to push -- which, actually, quite often is when it's time to hit "save" for a change that page "owners" would dislike.) What happens on pages like the presidential candidates' pages or pages related to GMOs is completely unlike the sorts of behaviour that are tolerated on other pages (cf. Sciences Po where a user seems to be blocking all forward progress with impunity...) Please do not execute SageRad. Best wishes to all involved for a happy December. SashiRolls (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Skyring

Comments after resumption of case in November 2016: I see SageRad's articlespace contributions as generally valid, and he's willing to discuss his edits. WP depends on contributions from many different viewpoints, and we need editors to find good sources and include their material. Whether he's anti-skeptic, pro-GMO or whatever, it's unimportant. Our way of working corrects most distortions.

I don't really see any anti-SageRad crusade going on. On the contrary, some of his strongest articlespace opponents have spoken up for him here and elsewhere.

His behaviour on talkpages and admin noticeboards etc. is the problem. Long screeds accusing others of this and that. A lot of time has gone into dealing with his behaviour.

He has had ample time to reflect, to read the copious amounts of excellent advice sent his way, to gain an understanding of the problem. He has been told the best course forward, but he rejects it. There seems no alternative but increasingly lengthy blocks until his behaviour changes. Wikipedia cannot simply be lenient to those who have had every opportunity to work productively with other editors and turned away. It is not fair on those editors who play by the rules that SageRad continue on. --Pete (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment by Wnt

Comments after resumption of case in November 2016: I have not examined this case and have formed no overall opinion at this time, but looking at @Jytdog:'s complaint, the "WP:BLUDGEON" argument alarms me. It is not merely that WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, but the way he proposes applying it virtually guarantees that anyone arguing against an entrenched interest would be subject to sanctions. The WMFlabs xtools were probably never certified for forensic use, and there are some obvious risks in simply counting up bytes, not taking into account that there are large quotes, for example, of proposed article text presumably to satisfy demands that edits be discussed on the talk page. But even if I take those numbers as a given, an editor can be expected to contribute half the edits on a talk page whenever it happens that a few other main participants are disagreeing with him. It should not be a Wikicrime to disagree with two, three, even five other editors on the talk page! I am also not impressed with the claim that he submitted a series of identical edits when, for example, in one such edit he was saying that not all Paleo diet believers are trying to lose weight, and in another he is arguing that an article about a special diet (whatever its merits) ought to be permitted to include a cookbook. (And I'll add that citing a cookbook, or any other source, should not require that the source be "notable". We are not here to condemn the paleo diet, but to let readers have an easy road to understand what people following it eat!) Whatever action you take, please don't take action against him based on this flawed basis that he talks too much - editors are apprised of no such rule when they enter Wikipedia, but rather are at every opportunity urged to go to the talk page, and if they heard of something like this, they would perhaps decide that edit-warring is a safer approach. Wnt (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC) @Jytdog: Your response about SOAPBOXing also seems inappropriate where that series of comments is concerned. In those edits SageRad is concerned there about labelling something a "fad diet", about general bias toward the article subject matter, about whether a cookbook should be cited ... in all of them he is very sharply focused on Wikipedia content. Expressing a strong opinion about how an article should be written is not SOAPBOXing. We know these disputes over content will exist, we know they are annoying to all involved, but we also know that letting them simmer on the talk page is the least worst way to deal with them. Wnt (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Soham321

Comments after resumption of case in November 2016:

The Wordsmith writes:

My first preference would be for some sort of I-ban or Civility Parole that restricts casting aspersions and allegations of fascism/Stalinism/etc. Does anyone have any ideas? I'm trying to dig deep into archives to look for a similar case where a restriction fixed the problem, but not immediately coming up with anything.

Wordsmith, using your Admin tools could you please check the archives for the history of this user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Atsme She (Atsme) was involved in two ANI discussions in quick succession, in which several Admins and editors were asking that she be blocked (perhaps indeffed). I had participated in those ANI discussions as had DrChrissy who has participated in this discussion also. The reason for why it was being demanded that Atsme be blocked, from what i recall, were similar to the reason being given for blocking SageRad. As per my recollection, it had to do with how she was interacting with other editors, and also the allegation that she was pushing her own agenda, and that she was a disruptive editor. I think she escaped getting indeffed narrowly. I've forgotten details of the case, but perhaps you could take a look at the archives to see if it could help with the present case. Its worth investigating that case because Atsme is now a very prolific WP editor; her WP user page says she currently has rollback rights, auto patrolled rights, and pending changing reviewer rights.

I'd like to know if DrChrissy also sees parallels between this case and the case involving Atsme. I'd also like to ask Jytdog if he sees parallels between this case and the case involving Atsme, since he was involved in the Atsme case as well. Soham321 (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, how about imposing a one year topic ban on Sage for all WP pages he has currently edited till date?
SageRad, could you demonstrate to us in a few paragraphs that you are capable of self-criticism? Do not do any finger pointing at others, do not blame or criticize anyone else. Just write a few paragraphs criticizing yourself based on the criticism you have received so far from the other editors and Admins here. Soham321 (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DrChrissy

I am writing here only because I was pinged by Soham321. I'm afraid I can not comment on the details of this case. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

I interacted with SageRad on a few occasions. I am not sure he does anything bad on purpose (although this is entirely possible), but his comments and behavior are highly counterproductive and lead to significant waste of time by other contributors. Does it warrant a one year block? Well, simply the length of the discussion above shows that the problem probably reached the tipping point, so it possibly does, although I do not have time to check it more carefully. My very best wishes (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement after re-opening by Capeo

For someone who stated they had neither the time nor inclination to deal with this AE, SageRad has managed thousands of words since on WP. Most with same hyperbolic claims of oppression and victim-hood that some of the Admins here thought was the result of unusual stress. As I said in my statement above, this is SageRad's MO and isn't unusual.Capeo (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to note again, since SageRad has harped on it here and at Jimbo's talk page as some kind of defense, that they were wrong about the misophonia review. Is it MEDRS? Yup. Is a single paper, that admits it is against the majority scientific consensus that misophonia is a symptom of an underlying compulsive disorder, sufficient to state the researcher's opinion in WP's voice? In the lede no less? Nope. Capeo (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SageRad, I read the papers. I read every source provided and did some of my own research. The overriding consensus is that misophonia is a symptom of OCD and similar disorders. The newest papers are about as equivocal as can be and merely suggest that it may be a standalone condition despite evidence to the contrary. The existing lede expressed the current science well. You tried to make an unequivocal claim in WP's voice. Hence why you were reverted by multiple editors. Your response was to ignore consensus, harp on a single word without examining what the sources in question actually conclude, throw a NPOV tag on the article and claim synth and OR because nobody agreed with you. Also... please stop with the integrity bullshit. As though everyone who disagrees with an edit of yours lacks integrity. Capeo (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SageRad, when your edit is reverted multiple times by different editors it is clear your edit is against consensus. Slapping a NPOV tag on an article over one edit is pointy at best. Those tags are generally for protracted issues that effect large portions of the article. How should you have proceeded differently? Stop trying to make an edit that was just going to be reverted. Try to come up with a compromise edit that satisfies all parties. Or simply just drop it. Wait for new research that fully solidifies your edit. Science, and science based articles, tend to move slowly as scientific consensus itself does.Capeo (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

Regarding the proposal to limit edits on article talk pages: this would essentially throttle discussion by everyone to the same limit, or the restricted editor will not be able to engage fully. Neither of these outcomes would serve to achieve the objective of imposing a limit, compared with a topic ban. isaacl (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Starke Hathaway

No comment on the substance of this complaint, but if the consensus is to block I wish someone would just do it already. Leaving this open is not doing SageRad or anyone else any favors. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bob K31416

FWIW, I looked at the Misophonia Talk page regarding SageRad's discussion with Jytdog about the issue of using the term "condition" vs "disorder" in the first sentence of the article, and it looks like there was a considerable miscommunication between the two of them. They both seem to think that "condition" is the correct term but Jytdog seems to be disputing something else and didn't seem to be aware that the term "disorder" was being used incorrectly in the first sentence of the article, which was SageRad's point, and seemed to think that the term "condition" was being used there instead.

I wanted to see for myself what would happen if I tried to change the term from "disorder" to "condition" in the first sentence so I made the following edit [13]. It was reverted with a somewhat reasonable edit summary [14], which I addressed when I made my next edit there [15]. This time it was reverted with an edit summary that I thought was irrational [16]. Considering the situation, I wasn't inclined to spend more time over there so I stopped and just wrote it off as a part of Wikipedia that contains misinformation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After my message here, Jytdog made the change "disorder" to "condition" in the first sentence of the Misophonia article [17]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New statement by Robert McClenon

I see that several of the commenting editors here say that they personally like [User:SageRad]]. I don’t, and perhaps that should get my remarks discounted. However, eighteen months ago I tried to caution User:SageRad, and he characterized my cautions and those of other editors as bullying and even as “punches to the face”. This is an editor who has shown for a very long time that he is unwilling to heed advice. I still don’t know why he wants to edit Wikipedia, given that he has decided that it is such an ugly corrupt place. A month ago I said that if any other editor than User:Jytdog had filed this, I would recommend a Site Ban. A month has lapsed, and SageRad is just as combative as ever. Unfortunately, I think that a full site ban is the only plausible option. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SageRad

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

I hope I'll have time to return to this request — it requires a daunting amount of reading for someone not already familiar with the relevant discussions — but I have a couple of initial points:

A. I don't see a problem with SageRad's posts on Jimbo's page. They're the kind of thing that page is for. But it's another matter to keep "adding his meta-issue to whatever the local issues are", as Jytdog puts it, to various article talkpages. I agree that is disruptive and time-wasting. To get the flavour, I've read through the Talk:Paleolithic diet/Archive 6, that Jytdog referred to and I see exactly what he means by timesink. (I admit I didn't read quite all of the archive, but a good chunk, maybe half, and it was one of my worst hours on Wikipedia.) SageRad's bandying of phrases like "witch hunt" and his assumptions of bad faith of editors like Johnuniq and User:Skyring are just depressing.[18] ("Thanks sir, who I have encountered before in a rather bullying fashion"... "another editor who has used bullying tactics against me in the past... the gang shows up.") The best thing might be a topic ban from going on about meta-issues on article talkpages, as well as the persistent accusations of people "ganging up" on and "bullying" him as soon as they disagree with him. But formulating such a ban properly and usefully is no doubt impossible. I see JzG too has a problem with what a ban might cover.

B. SageRad's comment "Didn't even read the long diatribe by Jytdog" in his response here is really unpromising. SageRad, I have read the "diatribe" carefully and found it full of interesting stuff and food for thought. Well, I would guess you have read it too by now, but for you to start by blowing off your opponent like that looks just like an unfortunate illustration of what JzG said above about a lack of ability to accept that any conclusion differing from your own might be grounded in truth. I hear what you say about real life busyness, but there's always the option of requesting more time to reply.

Oh, and C, just a PS to Jytdog: updating the link just now was fine, but for goodness sake don't otherwise fiddle with your initial statement any more. Fluidity in that makes it much harder for others to evaluate and respond. If you must make new points, please do so below your main signed and dated filing, with a new sig and datestamp. Bishonen | talk 16:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: @SageRad: I see you ask above how much time you may have, and saying you don't have time to dedicate to finding diffs and being a lawyer. I suggest you put a request above, at the end of your statement, something on the lines of "I'm busy in real life, can I please have a week (or whatever specific time span would fit your circumstances) to supply a responsive and factual statement?" I'm sure the admins would agree to put this on hold for the time you need. However, if what you mean is that you will never have time to make a reasonable defense, or supply any evidential diffs, then we might as well deal with this as speedily as possible. Please let us know. Bishonen | talk 15:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Continued note: I see @SageRad: says he wants a month. (Please stop adding stuff for a minute, as that's making it rather hard to respond.) Of course that seems a lot. When I wrote my original note, I hadn't seen your latest edits [19][20][21] ("This place is damned.. This place is gone..This place is captured by an ideological crew..." etc), which strongly supports Jytdog's complaint. If you stand by that, we may IMO as well siteban you and be done with it. But if what you need is some cooling-off time and then a new statement, it's fine by me. A month of not editing (since you're busy IRL. and will also be busy writing up a statement here) would work for me. What do other people think of a one-month moratorium, please? We could archive this request temporarily and bring it back on 25 November. Bishonen | talk 16:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I'm still reading through the copious amounts of content presented as evidence. I think there is probably a need for some sort of action here, though I'm not quite sure what the best course is yet. As a point of order, however, I would like to note that this board and its administrators do not have the power to issue a topic ban from "health content"; that would be something to be brought up at one of the conventional noticeboards. The most severe topic ban available to us would be "pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine" or some narrower subset of that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading SageRad's latest postings, I think the assessment that he is in some sort of meltdown is essentially correct. Given that he is also dealing with a newborn child, I think compassion ought to reign here. Provided Sage agrees to take some voluntary time off editing, I would have no problem with putting the request on hold for a month or so. If he returns to editing, it can be resumed with cooler heads all around. Getting some sleep and adjusting to his new family situation might help the behavior problem on its own. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are empowered to implement any conventional sanction even though it is here at AE, treating it as a non-Arb issue without moving it to another board. OID raises some interesting points, and I have to admit only going through part of the evidence, yet this looks like one form of WP:Tendentious editing, albeit not a textbook example. He seems to be taking a singular position on a general theme (skepticism) and bludgeoning multiple pages and refusing to listen to consensus, to the point that it is disruptive to other editors that are simply trying to build an encyclopedia. It does seem to be a pattern of behavior that extends beyond a single venue, which has gone well beyond spirited debate and to the point that it is hindering the building of the encyclopedia. Again, WP:TE. I would like to read more and will later today, but this is how it is shaping up in my eyes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm was about to propose something else, something not as palatable as Bishonen's idea, but would entertain Bish's idea. What I don't want to happen is for SageRad to say he is leaving Wikipedia forever, then come back in a month or two and we have the same problem. I would only accept if we continue this in one month, even if it is in absentia. What I would have proposed is a 6 month block and 12 month ban on pseudoscience/medicine (to include skepticism, which is a stretch), to run concurrently. That would allow a long enough period of time as to prevent disruption for 6 months at least, and perhaps past that knowing the next block is indef. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I've learned anything in my decade plus experience here, SageRad, it is that people often say things in the heat of the moment they regret. A sanction doesn't require consent by the sanctioned. My first concern is all the other editors that are affected by your behavior. People leave Wikipedia because they get frustrated by people doing things like what you are doing, because they can't edit in a normal fashion and the frustration is too much. That is the purpose of a sanction, not to benefit you, but to benefit them, and by extension, Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"If you let this happen, you have blood on your hands." Oh dear. If that was a statement made under what we can call extenuating circumstances, it's probably best if this editor stays away from Wikipedia for a while. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: What I suggested above was that we put this on hold for a month with SageRad voluntarily abstaining from editing during that period, which is apparently The Wordsmith's opinion also. Having watched SR continue to "flail around" (per DrChrissy) makes me a bit dubious about the voluntary part; is he in a state where he can and will comply with a voluntary restriction? A one-month block for recent and ongoing disruption might technically be better. But I don't like to consider it, because people generally take blocks as humiliating. (Not me, I'm proud of mine, but it took me a few years to attain such block zen.) Humiliation is very bad and goes counter to the compassion principle. Therefore, I suggest a one-month moratorium with SageRad taking a wikibreak that has nothing to do with blocks and block logs. (Please briefly indicate if you agree to do that, @SageRad:.) If he edits anywhere in a disruptive way during the moratorium, he will then be blocked, and I advise against editing at all. And we collapse this until 25 November, but it can be re-opened earlier by SR himself, if he feels ready for it. He will be free to remove all his own posts here and start afresh, if desired. And I agree emphatically with Dennis that we must avoid a situation where we close without action, SR leaves, and then returns in a month or two, unsanctioned. We need to protect Wikipedia and other users from the bludgeoning that has been going on. The case should be discussed again in a month at the latest, even if in absentia. Is this acceptable to other admins? Bishonen | talk 20:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

For the record, that's more or less what I was suggesting. I'm not a fan of WP:COOLDOWN blocks when not absolutely necessary, and I'm not convinced this case warrants it. His conduct needs to be dealt with, but letting cooler heads prevail is a much better path for everyone involved. I endorse this proposal. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Can't hurt to try as long as we don't forget it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, all. Sigh... let's focus on the edit summary and first sentence of SageRad's statement here, that he is actually, now, taking a wikibreak, and put this on hold for a month. I hope he means it, because if there should be further ABF harangues in the coming month, I believe he should be blocked. Closing. Bishonen | talk 08:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Post-break discussion of result concerning SageRad by uninvolved admins, from 26 November 2016

I'll kick it off. Most people above seem to agree that the encyclopedia needs to be protected from SageRad's battleground editing, ABF and bludgeoning. I'm distressed that we have so long been squandering the energy and enthusiasm of the many editors who are affected by it, and I don't see much of a change in his new statement, either. (I figured it was hopeless when I saw the mention of flies and a pile of rotting fruit in the new statement, and the new attacks on Jytdog.) But finding the best scope is a problem, since SageRad's wide-ranging anti-skeptic agenda doesn't fit very well into the way our discretionary sanctions are constructed. I've been trying to figure out a tailormade topic ban, as you can see others doing above before the break, and if somebody has an even slightly watertight idea along those lines, I'll support it. But till then, I propose a one-year block. A request for unblock in six month's time should be regarded favorably, provided he has done some constructive editing of other Wikimedia projects in the meantime. Bishonen | talk 16:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Littleolive oil: you criticize Jytdog for coming to SageRad's page: "SageRad is understandably upset. Why during an AE that Jytdog opened is Jytdog on SageRad's talk page reprimanding SageRad. If I assume good faith, that Jytdog was trying to help, this is at best poorly judged and shows an ongoing propensity to push editors too far." If people are interested in your charges, I hope they check out for themselves how and in what context Jytdog posted on User talk:SageRad. He did so twice, both times to answer pings from SageRad with suggestions and accusations: "Jytdog, what do you say...", "Jytdog: Are you saying..." Would you have liked Jytdog to ignore the pings, Olive, or to withdraw his case so as not to "reprimand"? Who did the pushing? Bishonen | talk 16:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@SageRad: re the anonymous post you're complaining I removed from this board, thereby evincing my "many layers of suppression and chilling of speech",[22] you may find the IP's talkpage interesting. I and other users frequently remove trolling IPs from arbitration-related discussions, because people who log out to avoid scrutiny aren't welcome there. (Compare my edit summary.) But if you genuinely believe the IP's post would help your case, please feel free to restore it. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@SashiRolls:, re 'sending you to study someone's talk page':[23] Study? study? Look at it for five seconds and you will be enlightened, if you're capable of it. No, I will not dignify "charges" such as "JzG and Bishonen routinely appear on the offsite complaint boards for blocking political opponents" with any denials. It may be perfectly true for all I know; I don't follow Wikipediocracy. It strikes me that I'm myself foolish for responding to stuff on this level from SageRad and SashiRolls. I'm done. Bishonen | talk 22:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

After reading the conflict on SageRad's talk page, I see that nothing has changed. I was pinged here as I participated in the previous discussion but that plays no part in my opinion, demonstrated by the fact that I'm maintaining my previous position. As for a solution, I think Bishonen's idea above is satisfactory. If they are that busy in the real world, being here is a distraction and likely leading to the bad behavior here. Regardless, being here is a burden that outweighs the benefits at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To be perfectly clear now, since I'm not very active, no one is suggesting a sympathy block and I'm not swayed by promises to retire. It is a simple matter of what is best for the English Wikipedia. Without picking apart individual elements, it is my opinion that SageRad has lost perspective, lost clue, and his recent entries only reinforce this belief. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Bishonen's proposal of a one-year block. Discretionary sanctions allow for a block and they would also allow a topic ban, but it seems too difficult to find a ban that addresses the complete set of areas where SageRad has been disruptive. SageRad's new statement of November 28 is over 2,700 words and it greatly exceeds the 500-word limit. I mention this because Jytdog and MjolnirPants have both revised their statements to make them shorter. (User:Jytdog's change was here). EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hesitant about the one year block, but at the moment I'm not going to explicitly oppose it. SageRad has had positive content contributions, and losing that is obviously undesirable. SageRad's biggest problem is how he interacts with others, which is something that many content contributors (including Jytdog) also struggle with, though not to the same degree. My first preference would be for some sort of I-ban or Civility Parole that restricts casting aspersions and allegations of fascism/Stalinism/etc. Does anyone have any ideas? I'm trying to dig deep into archives to look for a similar case where a restriction fixed the problem, but not immediately coming up with anything. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Count Iblis's suggestion is compelling, though I think two or three talk page edits per week might be more efficient for holding a conversation. @Bishonen, Dennis Brown, and EdJohnston: any thoughts on the idea? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @The Wordsmith: as I've already said, I will happily support a suitable topic ban if somebody can come up with one. But not this kind of editing restriction, because Sage's posts after he got a month's moratorium (for the explicit purpose of writing a reasonable defense here) have remained spectacularly unpromising. He said if only he could still have another 20 hours, he could write up an irrefutable defense ("i could do it right... the case would write itself given 20 hours" ellipsis in original), but when I told him he could, he went on to post this defense on AE without waiting very long. Take a look at it: he proposes a boomerang for Jytdog "for wasting everyone's time with drama and disrupting my ability to edit for a month now" [sic]. He promises to be "more careful about not ever imputing motives to other editors in content discussions", states in passing that others should promise the same but probably won't, and are ten times worse than him in this regard. And promises to be more brief. That was on November 26, and he has done little else other than "impute motives" ever since, and not briefly. Count Iblis suggests that getting to make only one edit per week per talkpage might focus Sage's mind and make him automatically tend to stay away from invoking things like "Stalinism". I don't see it. I believe, rather, that any restriction, whether of one edit or three or more per week, would be more likely to push that single edit or those few edits in the direction of really long harangues about Stalinism and the Reign of Terror on Wikipedia, and we'd be back here yet again, and yet a little more exhausted. Miles of WP:ROPE has already been extended and a lot of time has been spent. Again, I'm not insisting on a block, I'll be happy with a workable topic ban — workable in the sense of not generating reams on discussion at every turn as to whether the user has violated it or not. Bishonen | talk 18:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC). Adding after (edit conflict) with Dennis: essentially, I'm in sympathy with Kingofaces43's recent comment here, especially the question in the edit summary. Bishonen | talk 18:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  - I still think the only solution is a long break. I can wind on and on about it, but I'm not likely to be persuaded after seeing the way he makes excuses and such. This is more complicated than a behavioral problem. And let me add, this isn't saying anyone else is innocent of anything, I'm simply saying it is in Wikipedia's best interest if SageRad took a long break. As a side note, it probably wouldn't hurt him either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - After listening to my fellow admins, I've come to the regrettable conclusion that the only way we don't end up back here in a month is to endorse the proposed block. Unless someone has something else substantial to add or wants to conclude things sooner, I'll close this request sometime tomorrow. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if a topic from anything covered by WP:ARBPS might be a start, but looking through the list of articles that SageRad has been disruptive on, many (i.e. Paleolithic diet) aren't covered. Unless someone can come up with a cunning idea that could adequately cover SR's range of disruption, unfortunately I have to agree that a long break is the only option. We can't allow such a time-sink to continue indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And today's comments at Jimbotalk describing such proceses as this as Kafka-esque, McCarthyist, and (oh dear) fascist just back the point up, I think. Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate, because I do think SageRad means well. Unfortunately, we can only keep giving so many chances to improve. I just don't think Wikipedia and SageRad are a good fit. Wikipedia can be rough and tumble; SageRad seems to take disagreements very personally. Wikipedia reflects the consensus of the most reputable sources; SageRad seems to think that this is a conspiracy to suppress The Truth™ rather than just the normal way editing gets done. Wikipedians tend to prefer discussion of content; SageRad focuses on people. At some point, even with good intentions, we have to prevent disruption. Topic bans aren't doing that, and I don't see a way to formulate a topic ban to do that. And I certainly have doubts about SageRad's judgment, when while this is ongoing, he's railing about how everyone but him is wrong and at fault. So, SageRad—I wish you nothing but the best, and I mean that, but I don't see any alternative to the lengthy block proposed above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doc9871

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 Doc9871

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Doc9871 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :

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

11/22 Telling other editors (in particular me) to "shut up" (misspelling it doesn't make it better). Compare it to this diff which is what led to Doc's original topic ban, and this statement by Bishonen (talk · contribs)
11/22 Discussing other editors instead of content, speculating about other editors motives and making groundless accusations. Making some kind of threat. Note that this is *exactly* the kind of comment that led to Doc9871's initial topic ban. He is just repeating it.
11/22 Discussing other editors instead of content. Doc seems to be more interested in insulting other editors than actually discussing article improvements. Note the edit summary.
11/22 More insults and incivility. Completely pointless and gratuitous too. Like, what's the point of this?

More minor, but indicative of the fact that the editor is WP:NOTHERE

11/22 Taunting other editors in edit summary
11/22 Taunting other editors (wasn't aware I lost any elections)

And for good measure

"Fuck off now". It's on his talk page, so by itself wouldn't be a big deal. But part of a pattern.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

8/1 Doc9871 was topic banned for 1 month from all pages related to Donald Trump. Furthermore, the closing admin, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights stated, reflecting admin consensus on that report, "(Doc9871) is further warned that any disruption in the topic areas covered under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 will lead to an extension and/or broadening of the ban". The diffs above show that such an extension and broadening are needed.

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 8/1 by The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [24] which was originally imposed by Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [25].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Exactly the same problem as the one which led to his original topic ban. Almost like reading from a script. Doc9871 is incapable of discussing this topic without immediately resorting to insults and abusive language. This behavior derails productive discussion. It's also completely pointless as it offers no suggestions for article improvements. It's just gratuitous insults made for their own sake.

@Lankiveil - what "plea bargain" are you talking about? I just left a message on his talk page asking him to remove the personal attacks (like telling me to "shut up"). I actually dislike having to report people to WP:AE and try to give them plenty of opportunity to correct/revise/strike/undo. Is there something wrong with that? Hell, I get messages like that on my talk from admins once in awhile too ("you might want to reword that") Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[26]

Discussion concerning Doc9871

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 Doc9871

It's not a "personal attack" to say that Volunteer Marek (VM) is heavily biased against the subject. There is absolutely no question about his anti-Trump bias. So how is it a personal attack to point this out? It's just a simple fact.
Statements like this[27] show how VM, a very ardent anti-Trump editor, has been holding the article hostage for months, and abusing the process quite severely. It's not a "personal attack" to point this out. He claims that only things "central to the life of Donald Trump" can be included[28], yet when challenged on what is "central"[29] he not only can't explain what that means, but instead suggests more, only negative, info that should be included.[30] Please read VM's very pointed response more than once for traces of "incivility".
His assertion in the diff above that adding very reliably sourced material in the bios of the "goofy" celebrities who took to the media to announce they were leaving the U.S. would somehow automatically violate BLP should be of grave concern to every responsible editor here.
VM offered to let certain "personal attacks"... "slide" if I removed some statements (that were not personal attacks) to his satisfaction. Specifically: "All the insults and personal attacks"[31]. Nothing specific was mentioned that could have been reasonably stricken were there a concrete issue. As a reward, I would not be reported here. I don't do "plea bargains" when they are not warranted.
There's been absolutely no "disruption"; rather just a bruised ego. I've done some good work on the article recently; decent enough that I have been thanked for those edits by multiple editors, including admins.[32] It's all there in the article history. This is a meritless, spiteful report. VM's claim that I am NOTHERE after nearly 9 years and 23,000 edits is similarly meritless.
Future Perfect at Sunrise: I did not come up with the "goofy" thing. That's why I keep putting it in "scare quotes". "The answer is that this is an article about Donald Trump. Not about some goofy celebrities."[33] Those were his words, not mine. First he tried to dismiss it all as "textbook trivia", then we discredit the sources, then the celebrities themselves.
An indefinite ban as recommended by EdJohnston seems heavy-handed, as bans are to prevent disruption and not meant to be punitive. The last ban was for a month, and there's been no "disruption" until I dared to question VM's iron-clad notion of exactly what is UNDUE and "allowed" at the article. This has morphed from allegations of personal attacks into something else. I haven't done anything to any of the "goofy" celebrities' articles, gleefully or otherwise. The true disruption is that I'm a little too sarcastic for some at times, and I am supporting an unpopular subject. I admit I am biased for Trump, as that's obvious. I've not broken the rules here, but I expect to be punished for it anyway.
My very best wishes - I wouldn't exactly say that we "talked". It was more like you jumped in and took over a conversation to deliver several scathing lectures on a page that had absolutely nothing to do with you at all. You, who are not an admin and have never made an edit to that talk page before, decided to "set me straight". Any length of sanction is appropriate, yes? Doc talk 09:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My very best wishes - I’m surprised and extremely disappointed at the theory that I am basically incorrigible, needing a permanent ban on all things Trump because I had a little argument with a user on the talk page. I’ve been very insulted being told here that I’m a dishonest, unreasonable, irrational editor. That my "political sensibilities” have clouded my judgement so severely that I must be banned; that I am incapable of editing peacefully; and, most insultingly, that I am incapable of avoiding disruption in this topic area "even if they want to". We’ve gone straight from “Take back the insults, or else!” to excommunication for disruption. I expected a little better faith, for certain. Doc talk 08:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Laser brain - What is editing "peacefully"? Doc talk 12:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Laser brain - I'm incapable of editing peacefully... but only in this area, correct? Doc talk 14:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:EEng

(Just happened to stumble on this thread since, ahem, this page recently came onto my watchlist...) I think it's important to bear in mind that editors need not be neutral, and it's OK -- even desirable, when you think about it -- that they reveal any biases in discussions. It's only their edits that need to be neutral.

If we only allowed editors free of bias, we'd have no editors at all, literally. E Eng 08:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved) Calton

Doc needs to read WP:NOTTHEM at some point. --Calton | Talk 10:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Cas Liber

@Doc9871:, why did you change sources here? From reading it, both sources can support the statement, but (a) why swap and (b) the edit summary? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can comment in this section, right? That diff, I believe, I was already punished for. I'm sure it was because the Breitbart source was unilaterally declared to be a non-RS, despite lengthy discussions on the RSN that didn't fully conclude that it is a non-RS that must be removed. I'll note that the actual reliability of the source doesn't always apply.[34] Doc talk 11:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My question was, why did you replace the source with the Breitbart one in the first place? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Breitbart source already was there - I didn't insert it. I re-inserted it because it was declared a non-RS. It actually was inserted back on July 17[35] by MelanieN. VM tried to declare it a non-RS here[36], and I reverted him. Doc talk 12:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources support the sentence. Hence the edit summary was wrong. And you'd have to agree that a definite RS is better than an arguable one. So it was a real WP:BATTLEGROUND edit, wasn't it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it was a real battleground edit on my part. An admin put that source in in good faith. One user gets to declare it a non-RS all on their own? On what basis? Doc talk 13:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is declaring Breitbart a non-RS all on their own. There is a hierarchy of sources, some better than others. Easier to use more widely accepted ones rather than pushing it borderline ones. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VM's edit summary is unambiguous: "replace non-RS with RS".[37] It occurred to me that removing Breitbart sources in favor of more widely accepted sources was a factor in the swap, but the reason for the swap from Breitbart to CBS was due to it being declared to be a non-RS by VM in that edit summary. Doc talk 11:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John

I see enough here to concern me, and I was taken aback to discover this was the behaviour of someone coming back from a shorter ban.

Removes a perfectly valid and referenced statement from the article, with the edit summary ""Non-scientist". Not a word. Do better, please."
Chides me at my talk for using the term "non-scientist":
Sarcastically posits that different standards apply to descriptions of people with different political views.
This is either consciously dishonest or the user has allowed his political sensibilities to cloud his judgement. As has been pointed out, this could not reasonably be characterized as an attempt to plea bargain.
This statement just above contains the highly disingenuous "I admit I am biased for Trump, as that's obvious. I've not broken the rules here, but I expect to be punished for it anyway" (my emphasis) Given the problematic behaviours preceding this complaint I would have been more reassured to see a more insightful and self-reflective statement than this.

There is enough here to make User:EdJohnston's suggestion of an indefinite topic ban seem like a reasonable one. This user seems to have been overwhelmed by his political zeal in this one area and to therefore be unable to edit objectively. --John (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out, I'm involved in 3 additional currently active threads on the very same talk page.[38],[39],[40] I'm not surprised at seeing the same old enemies pile on here. I guess I'm just completely out of control and must be stopped. Doc talk 11:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the "disingenuous" statement? I said I am biased for Trump! How is that highly disingenuous?! It would be disingenuous to say I am not biased for Trump when I am. I don't let that bias get in the way of NPOV. Big difference there. Doc talk 11:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

I talked with Doc9871 here. Based on their responses, he does not see his behavior as problematic and will continue doing exactly the same. Therefore, the sanctions are warranted. My very best wishes (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc9871. Let's be rational. You have been banned already for making very similar comments. What else can you possibly expect this time? My very best wishes (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc9871. I am only telling that your recent comments are exactly of the same kind as comments which led to your previous t-ban. Therefore, they are not OK, and you know it. You do not behave rationally, even though you are definitely a rational person. Why? I do not really know, but my best guess is that you do not like people who disagree with you and therefore want to make their life on-wiki miserable. My very best wishes (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JFG

I have had moderate interaction with Doc on contentious political pages, and I don't understand the pile-on against him. OK, he's a bit sarcastic and rough around the edges, but so are many many many editors (especially those willing to engage into editing such topics, you do need nerves of steel and a good dose of humour); it's no problem at all. Our friend VM reporting Doc today can be quite abrasive himself, but has never been sanctioned for that. I see Doc as a good-faith contributor who shouldn't be t-banned for such peccadillas as reported here. This sounds more like a personal vendetta than a genuine attempt to quell disruptive behaviour. I would personally let him go with an admonishment to smoothen his talk page comments, that's all there is to it. That being said, let the wisdom of the admins fall where it may… — JFG ^talk 19:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Doc9871

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

If it doesn't sound too pretentious, I'll "recuse" from this complaint, since I was deeply involved in the previous complaint against and sanction of Doc in August.[41] Bishonen | talk 16:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I'm looking less at the diffs about Doc's talk interactions with VM, but more at Doc's initial posting on the talkpage [42] that sparked this latest altercation. His tone in gleefully proposing to stamp several BLP subjects ("bigtime celebrities") as "liars" (for not immediately following through with their declared intention of leaving the US if Trump won), combined with the way he's been speaking about them here ("goofy celebrities"), shows that his interest is not in creating fair coverage of the Trump campaign but in systematically discrediting his opponents. I'm not particularly impressed with VM's tit-for-tat counter-proposal of adding more coverage of Trump's misuse of Twitter either, but maybe that's another issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the last AE as linked by Bishonen, seeing the new complaint and noting the warnings issued by the other admins last time (User:Laser brain, User:Seraphimblade, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights and User:Lord Roem), I propose an indef ban of User:Doc9871 from the domain of WP:ARBAP2. It seems that Doc9871 behaves quite badly on talk pages and that behavior hasn't changed since the last time around. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Doc9871, do you have any diffs or other evidence that VM tried to make a "plea bargain" with you? If these events took place as you described them, I'd consider that a very serious matter indeed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

If I'm reading the diffs right, this is supposed to be the evidence for the "plea bargain" claim. I don't remotely read that as an attempted plea bargain, nor do I see how any reasonable observer could do so; it's clearly a notification by VM that if matters aren't resolved he's going to consider requesting formal action, not an attempt at a bargain. ‑ Iridescent 18:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll AGF that VM didn't mean it that way, but I can definitely see how that would be interpreted as a threat, especially in a charged atmosphere. Bravo for giving them a chance, just be a bit more mindful of the chosen wording next time. On the other hand, Doc9871's behaviour is problematic and most worryingly I don't see that they understand why it is a problem; without understanding the issue I don't see how they can improve even if they want to. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I don't see any reason not to permanently remove Doc9871 from this topic area, as they have proven repeatedly they cannot edit in it peacefully. Endorse an indefinite topic ban from ARBAP2. --Laser brain (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc9871: Broadly, I'd say focusing on content and not personalizing issues, focusing on being civil and professional rather than making posts dripping with sarcasm and invective, and focusing on logic rather than behavior coming from an emotional response and designed to produce an emotional response. It's been well-documented in this filing that you are incapable of editing peacefully. --Laser brain (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheTimesAreAChanging

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 TheTimesAreAChanging

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MelanieN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2

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

Nov. 21 Added a sentence to the article Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations.
Nov. 23, 00:14 Re-added the sentence after it was deleted as controversial. They quickly reverted themselves, but then
Nov. 23 00:16 added it back, describing the removal as "vandalism". This violated the prohibition against restoring controversial material.
Nov 21 removed longstanding material from Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 as a "hoax"; not supposed to remove longstanding material without consensus.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Oct. 17

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

See their talk page for recent previous incidents/warnings:

User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging#Be careful about your editing at articles under Discretionary Sanctions from Nov. 5-7
User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging#Friendly Reminder (which refers to this edit of Nov. 22)

Reply to User:Soham321: You argue that it is better to warn a person than to threaten sanctions, and that a warning can allow the situation to be "easily resolved". I agree, and that is what I do, for a first offense. See the link just above in this section, where I did just that. The reason for this report is that the problematic behavior recurred after that warning. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Soham321, I hadn't noticed previously your "clarification" of items #1-3, which you seem to feel exonerates TheTimes. It was not necessary to cite here, although it may have been necessary at the time to clear things up for BullRangifer. Your explanation of what happened tallies exactly with mine. #1, he added something to the article: good faith, no violation. #2, he re-added it but immediately self-reverted, so again, no violation. #3, he then re-added it knowing it was controversial, and for good measure he described the previous removal of it as "vandalism", even though there had been a content-based edit summary with the deletion. Restoring content which had been challenged was a violation; arguably so was calling the removal "vandalism". Only after restoring the material (Nov 23, 00:16) did he start a talk-page discussion (Nov. 23, 00:55). (That discussion in itself is a piece of work, misquoting/distorting the edit summary that had been given for the deletion, and adding that the whole article would not exist "If it were not for the fact that women are extraordinarily privileged in modern American society."[43] ) --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[44]

Discussion concerning TheTimesAreAChanging

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 TheTimesAreAChanging

I will respond to Melanie's statements in reverse. The child rape lawsuit against a living person was indeed a hoax and dropped prior to the election, hence why it was largely ignored by the media and not currently included (for lack of consensus) in the main Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article. Clearly, the mention of that lawsuit in Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 (which is already far too long and COATRACKY) reflected no "longstanding" consensus, but was merely an oversight. With regard to the "contentious" material I twice added to Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations: If it had lasted longer than one day before being removed, would it then have gained the presumption of "consensus"? At least with regard to the "Miss Teen USA" content, it is quite clear that SPECIFICO and BullRangifer are gaming the system: Every single source on the topic notes that of the fifteen girls to comment on the matter, eleven—the clear majority—"were doubtful or dismissed the possibility that Trump violated their changing room privacy" because, e.g., they were surrounded by chaperones at all times. By declaring it uncontroversial to quote the four girls that accused Trump, but "contentious" to mention the other eleven from the same source, SPECIFICO, BullRangifer, and now Melanie are in effect arguing that Wikipedia policy actually requires us to intentionally misrepresent our own sources and mislead readers. That is an absurd and untenable position: If "consensus" dictates that the former recollections are within the scope of the article, by definition the same must be true of the latter. Moreover, if that is not the case—if there is no reasonable limit to obstructionism—then why can't I simply refuse to assent to the very existence of an article on Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, per WP:RECENTISM/WP:NOTNEWS/ect.—or blanket delete the "Miss Teen USA" subsection, given that no sources describe Trump's alleged actions as "sexual misconduct" and the whole paragraph thus contravenes WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK? (If I were to do so, would the WP:ONUS then switch to my opponents, or would I be immediately reverted?) In sum, if a source or claim is included in an article, then I don't see how it could possibly violate the spirit of any Wikipedia policy to accurately quote the source and disclose all of the viewpoints it deems credible; in fact, that is exactly what WP:NPOV demands.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to her latest collection of accusations, SPECIFICO reported me directly to two admins and filed this ANI report urging that I be topic banned (which failed to gain any traction with the community because it was obviously retaliation for an ANI report I filed against one of her comrades, since indeffed): She should really stop forum shopping. SPECIFICO purports to monitor and police every aspect of my behavior, including the ideas I express on my userpage, but she still tends to leap to conclusions unsupported by the diffs in question. For example, the "battle cry" in which I supposedly "boasted" about "besting" my "opponents" actually read: "I take my responsibility to edit in a neutral manner seriously, and believe I do a better job of it than many of my opponents." In the same way, Doug Weller warned me not to refer to another editor as a "Nazi," but when I pointed out that the editor in question was an actual unironic Nazi with a userpage devoted to Holocaust denial, he conceded: "Ok, I see why but there were better options that would have led to attention paid to that editor's userpage." Ect. Ect. Ect. Of special interest is SPECIFICO's version of the Dinesh D'Souza conflict documented in the ANI report: "He tries to enlist @Oshwah to assist him in continuing his edit war ... supposedly because 'his' version was 'stable'." (Why is "his" in quotes?) The notion that I advocated restoration to "my" version is simply an absurd caricature of my request; in fact, I urged Oshwah to consider reverting back to a version predating any edits by yours truly! SPECIFICO should be very careful before she accuses anyone of "straw man arguments" or "misrepresentation of other editors."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Soham321: Yes, I am aware that my penchant for colorful, even vituperative language has gone too far and gotten me into trouble on occasion. Sometimes I have treated Wikipedia talk pages more like an online forum; now and then, I have even apologized. I have always tried to draw a sharp distinction between talk page rhetoric (or edit summaries, or my userpage—which SPECIFICO has mined for oppo-research) and edits to actual articles—hence the "I take my responsibility to edit in a neutral manner seriously" message SPECIFICO cites as evidence of the opposite—but I can see how my combative persona can be more of a liability than an asset, particularly when editing articles related to American Politics (where, I have now learned, content disputes are usually resolved by gaming and drama boards rather than substantive discussion). As a character witness, I point to the following comment by Guccisamsclub—an editor with politics well to the Left of my own, and whose opinion of me has fluctuated over time and may well continue to fluctuate, but with whom I have been able to collaborate constructively despite our disagreements: "You might want to stop throwing around terms like 'far-left', 'activist' and 'communist' ... it makes you sound like a shrill regular from Free Republic, Little Green Footballs or worse. Now I've had enough contact with you to know that's not true, but you could easily give the wrong impression to someone else and thus derail the conversation. You had me fooled for some time." (In my defense, Pol Pot considered Elizabeth Becker sufficiently Left-wing to invite her on a guided tour of Democratic Kampuchea, so referring to her as a "far-Left author" on my talk page—while poor form—is not much worse than SPECIFICO's recent attempts to smear Stefan Molyneux as a Nazi, possibly in violation of her Mises Institute topic ban.) @Bishonen: Edit summaries are necessarily snappy and may not include room for nuanced discussion. See here for my detailed thoughts on the "Founder of ISIS" soundbite:

"To be fair to the peoples of the Middle East, there have been many real conspiracies by Western powers in that part of the world (see, e.g., 1953 Iranian coup d'état), and there is obviously some element of truth underlying even the more outlandish allegations (such as the claim that Baghdadi is secretly an Israeli actor named Simon Elliot). Israel, after all, has a well-known policy of providing medical aid to any Syrian rebels that request it, in return for quiet along the Syria-Israel border; there may also be some military assistance and intelligence-sharing—and there is no doubt jihadists have benefited from Israeli largess. Meanwhile, there is far more evidence that "moderate" rebels backed by the United States and its partners tolerated the rise of Islamic State than there is to support the theory that Assad is somehow to blame for the Syrian uprising turning Islamist. When we include ridiculous claims such as John Kerry's assertion that Assad "purposely ced[ed] some territory to them [ISIL] in order to make them more of a problem so he can make the argument that he is somehow the protector against them," it's worth considering that the Western press may be more sophisticated than the Arab press but both can be guilty of propaganda."

Why did I allude to Trump's inflammatory quote? Because, despite all of the "fact checkers" that tow the government line with one voice, nothing I wrote above is controversial to experts on Syria: I urge those laughing at Trump's crude rhetoric (or all the "backward Arabs" that think ISIS is a CIA-Mossad conspiracy) to consider first whether the official U.S. government position they are defending has any more factual merit.

I never suggested SPECIFICO is "a paid Democratic party shill"—don't put words in my mouth. I have profound problems with the way SPECIFICO conducted herself during a recent edit war at Dinesh D'Souza, and my description of her as a "hack" cannot be divorced from conduct such as the following:

Case in point: SPECIFICO's "good faith" ally User:Oneshotofwhiskey leaves comments such as "Your excuses and spins about D'Souza's scam-artisty, journalistic fraud, and unfounded conspiracy theories betray your political agenda. It has no place here. Nor did your failed attempt at a SPI witch hunt that went no where, and was clearly in service of your agenda" and "You claimed oh so arrogantly that you 'know a sock when you see it' and then tried to use that in service of an agenda to silence another editor. Apparently you/ew shouldn't trust your eyes and your credibility has suffered as a result of your penchance for false accusations"; SPECIFICO does nothing. I write "Oneshotofwhiskey's blatant vandalism continues. Compare the old, accepted "Personal life" section with the Oneshotofwhiskey version, complete with a brand-new "Marriage scandal" subsection. Is there any other BLP written in this manner? Of course not; Oneshotofwhiskey is simply making a mockery of Wikipedia policy. Arbitration is now necessary, and probably a topic ban to end the disruption"—and SPECIFICO partially redacts it as a "personal attack." Can you say double standard?

This should tell you two things: 1. I don't attack editors because I am "angry," but because when I am attacked I have found it expedient to hit back twice as hard. (Given that that's no longer true with SPECIFICO stalking my contributions, I promise to cut it out.) 2. SPECIFICO is not a neutral arbiter. More importantly, SPECIFICO already brought these same diffs to another forum in a failed effort to topic ban me from Dinesh D'Souza; this thread has devolved from analyzing a specific DS violation that caused minor disruption into a witchhunt and personal attack on me, based on every unpopular idea I so much as expressed on my userpage. (Of course, my userpage also makes clear that I would be considered Left-of-center on issues like gay marriage, abortion, ect., but that's neither here nor there.) No editor would hold up perfectly under such scrutiny by a dedicated stalker and forum shopper.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely floored by SPECIFICO's behavior, to the point where I have no idea how to respond. As documented above, SPECIFICO brought her list of diffs directly to two admins before trying her luck at ANI and now AE—yet she accuses me of "stalking" her? It's simply surreal! I made a mistake and called her a "hack" because she wouldn't leave me alone on my own talk page, mostly out of frustration because I don't know how to deal with such an unpleasant editor. I wish I could take it back, but compare that to her vicious personal attacks just here at AE: In full view of the community, SPECIFICO has accused me of "lack(ing) ... emotional maturity," "mansplaining," promoting "paranoid conspiracy theories" (over an SPI, of all things!) and "being obsessed with animus and revenge." (She has made far worse personal attacks elsewhere, such as accusing me of "grotesque OR" ... (for) the insinuation that it's OK to punch a woman in the face"—of course, I never suggested "that it's OK to punch a woman in the face," and am deeply offended that SPECIFICO would portray me in such terms!) Combined with the BLP violations and threats against other editors noted by Soham321, I submit that while I am guilty of violating DS one time with the revert mentioned by Melanie, SPECIFICO's conduct here should WP:BOOMERANG. I now realize just what an enormous mistake it was to allow her to bait me with a seemingly never-ending series of drama boards and personal attacks, and will do my best to avoid her.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO recently tried to walk back her "paranoid conspiracy theories" personal attack; rather than admitting error, she added a link to this conversation in which she claims I admitted to being "paranoid," as if that makes me an open target for abuse. Of course, this is very misleading: User:Oneshotofwhiskey was indeffed as a result of the socking I exposed, so it obviously wasn't a figment of my imagination. The conversation in question involved me pointing out a suspicious IP to an admin, then deciding based on the evidence that it wasn't another Oneshot sock: If SPECIFICO wishes to imply that I file SPIs lightly, this is actually very strong evidence of the reverse. Finally, my self-deprecating comment "All the socking has made me paranoid" was clearly not meant to be taken seriously, nor did I admit to promulgating "conspiracies theories." (Does one person abusing multiple accounts even constitute a "conspiracy"?) Context matters; SPECIFICO's personal attacks are uncalled for.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW, for the record: Did none of you notice that, in the the very next edit following my now-infamous "vandalism" quote, I was reverted by BullRangifer, who in turn implied I was guilty of vandalism?: "Whatever games are being played, just stop it." It's not exactly unheard of to refer to large deletions of content with vague edit summaries as "vandalism," though the term should be reserved for the clear-cut cases. But is that really more serious than SPECIFICO baselessly accusing Soham321 of violating DS, then refusing to explain how Soham had done so and moving on to "the butler's bias and apparent senility" when she failed to elicit the desired self-revert by means of threats alone?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the innumerable personal attacks above aren't bad enough, SPECIFICO's assertion that I am "canvassing" merely because I responded to anonymous allegations against me here is way over the line. WP:CANVAS has a specific meaning; accusing someone of "canvassing" is accusing them of a serious violation of WP policy—it's not just an insult to throw around indiscriminately at editors you personally dislike.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: We've clearly gone beyond the realm of legitimate criticism into blatant misrepresentation. There are technical reasons why CU could not be performed. In the SPI, however, DoRD confirmed that the IPs "are also likely this user (i.e., Oneshot)." So I was right! Maybe you've never filed an SPI before, but this was no "battleground taunt" (in fact, I have no reason to suspect Oneshot ever saw it): If you file an SPI against a user, you must notify them on their talk page. I've provided similar notifications to everyone I've ever accused of socking, and no-one has ever suggested it was somehow inappropriate until now. Moreover, I would not have bothered commenting on the talk page of an indeffed user who would likely never see the message if it were not for the fact that I was required to do so. Between this and your continued insistence that "I take my responsibility to edit in a neutral manner seriously, and believe I do a better job of it than many of my opponents" should be read as a POV battle cry, it is apparent that you are not honestly representing my edits. Maybe you should take a step back and ask why that is.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been informed that unlike ANI, there is no rule saying you must notify someone of an SPI. In fact, "it is often counterproductive to give such notices." I thought it was courteous to give those accused a chance to defend themselves, but if an admin feels it is "counterproductive," who am I to argue?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Later in the same userpage, I refer to "Guccisamsclub—a Leftie that not infrequently gets the better of our exchanges." Allow me to break that down, so I'm not misrepresented again: While I do call Gucci a "Leftie," there is no implication that I'm "obsessed with animus and revenge" against him; to the contrary, I acknowledge areas where he has corrected me, noting that he "not infrequently gets the better of our exchanges." Sorry—that's just how I talk! (Although not how I write articles.) Now, I can fully understand how an editor digging through my userpage for dirt with which to indiscriminately attack me might latch onto that and say it is "uncivil" to call another editor a "Leftie." To that I ask: Have we lost our collective mind?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before I persuaded SPECIFICO to create an account, she edited as an IP. One of her first edits was to ask me "TIMES: What is your relationship to Schiff?" because I disagreed with an edit she made to Peter Schiff. That was a bad first impression; I am terribly disappointed that after four years editing under a named account, she is still resorting to these kinds of personal attacks—only on a much larger scale, as documented above.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlexEng

I am entirely uninvolved in this matter, but I am the author of the Friendly Reminder banner on TheTimesAreAChanging's talk page. I just want to be clear that this was in fact a friendly reminder and not an indictment of the user's behavior. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

I don't see why this is at AE. There's little or no disruption and plainly looks like a content dispute.

FWIW, I think TTAAC is making a good case here and on the talkpage for their edits. However, "vandalism" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia: good-faith but wrong-headed edits aren't vandalism - so the term should be avoided. "Hoax" is also imprecisely used; there are questions about the case, but it has not been definitely ruled a hoax AFAIK. We all have opinions about political matters, but it's usually best to make arguments and keep the normative opinions out of discussions. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather surprised by the reaction in the admin section. The focus should be on disruption; apparently, one revert is now considered sufficiently disruptive to take action now? If such standards were applied uniformly, I wonder how many of the people working in politics areas will remain? I only give the example of another case on this very page, concerning My very best wishes (here). Please tell me what would have been the result if one re-insertion before clear consensus means that admins should take action.

I know this: I certainly won't be able to work in the I/P area using these standards. There has been no refusal to discuss the matter on the talkpage by the parties, so why are the admins getting involved? Are we now children that we can't work out such minor things among ourselves and need to go running to mommy?

For the record, I have yet to find a single edit which I have agreed on with TTAAC in my time here, or with MvBW. So this is not about content; it is about using common sense and fair standards. A tight leash is sometimes appropriate, but Wikipedia has a thousand policies and a million ways of running afoul of them. The election is over; most of the disputes have already, or will cool down significantly.

I reiterate my solution above. TTAAC should tone down their language, avoid commenting on editors and avoid using imprecise terms. No other action should be taken. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen's latest comment is about TTAAC's general conduct, not the points raised in the OP (which is fine, if one is looking to establish a broad pattern). I will try to disentangle the valid from the invalid points. I suggest that the focus be firmly on disruption.

Bishonen gives three diffs and says that they demonstrate an unwillingness to collaborate, a battleground mentality and attacks upon other users. Of these, only the third diff is to an article. As far as I can see, the third diff displays no attacks on any editor. It cites an article by Seymour Hersh in London Review of Books for the content. (I don't like the thesis advanced by Hersh, but it is definitely a notable viewpoint.) The edit summary is not helpful, to put it mildly, but the edit itself is defensible. The other two diffs are from TTAAC's own talkpage. It is clear that TTAAC does not like SPECIFICO.

Now I will evaluate the diffs and people can decide whether my evaluation makes sense. Spend some time in any political topic on Wikipedia and you will encounter editors who you think are fools or worse. I certainly do not like many editors here and probably the sentiment is reciprocated. But one does not need to broadcast one's thoughts to the world; nobody cares whether you like editor X or not. In the same vein, keep your brilliant insight about Obama and ISIS to yourself. Again, nobody cares; just make the edit and give a reasonable edit summary. So, as I said before, TTAAC should avoid this behaviour. However, and this is the main point, I do not see any evidence of disruption, either on article pages, or on talk pages. To the contrary, I see reasonable arguments made in defence of reasonable edits, mixed together with some heat which should not be present but commonly is present all over political topics in Wikipedia. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions by My very best wishes

This subject area is going to be very difficult, and for a good reason. I have two practical suggestions.

Please cancel editing restriction about "reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". That restriction has been heavily misused by some contributors to unilaterally remove well-sourced materials they do not like, which goes against consensus. If someone edit war against consensus or without talking, this is sanctionable per se. One does not need additional editing restrictions.
Please enforce guidelines on article talk pages. If anyone is talking not about improvement of the corresponding article on these pages, this is already a violation, and especially if one is talking about another contributor (request just above). My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the original request and diffs, this might be a 3-month t-ban from subjects related to D. Trump, but I do not see editing by TTAAC as something highly problematic in the area of US politics in general. Yes, he is not too friendly, but no more than some other contributors in the same subject area. Yes, he apparently has a conflict with SPECIFICO (and the diffs by Bishonen are probably related to this), but this seems to be a different issue, although some diffs by SPECIFICO below indicate difficult interactions with other users. Therefore, I would suggest no action. My very best wishes (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Soham321

Agree completely with Kingsindian. This is a content dispute, nothing more. Specifically, with respect to Melanie's four points, i see nothing wrong in the first edit of TheTimesAreAChanging. With respect to the second and third points of Melanie, i have offered a clarification here: diff. TheTimesAreAChanging has agreed that my assessment about his edits was correct. With respect to the fourth point of Melanie, note that there is an ongoing RfC about the Jane Doe allegations taking place at this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations and any material pertaining to the Jane Doe allegations is not being permitted to be inserted into the main article. I see nothing wrong in removing material pertaining to the Jane Doe allegations from a different WP page pertaining to Trump until this RfC has been resolved. Soham321 (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it is inevitable that some 'heat' will be generated when editing contentious WP pages. The way to deal with this, almost always, is to tolerate it rather than to seek sanctions on editors one has content disputes with. At the top of the page it says that if you post a comment here then your own behavior can also be scrutinized. So let me scrutinize SPECIFICO's behavior for edits pertaining to the same Trump page from which Melanie has given three out of her four diffs. SPECIFICO warns me on my talk page (TP) and again on the TP of the main article that i am liable to face Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions (DS). What had i done? I had only added a sentence to the butler's testimony from a reference already present in the main article, and given another reference which was corroborating what the reference already present said. Diffs of her 'threats': diff1 and diff2. When i tell her on the TP that i do not believe i am in violation of Arbcom sanctions she responds by claiming the butler is 'biased' and liable to be senile: diff3. Since the butler is still alive i believe this is a violation of WP:BLP and i point it out to her. And giving frivolous threats to another editor about facing Arbcom sanctions is disruptive behavior, plain and simple. I am mentioning all this not because i seek sanctions against SPECIFICO but because i believe the threshold for giving sanctions has to be considerably higher than some of us seem to imagine. Soham321 (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an interesting discussion taking place here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hidden_Tempo (be sure to check the edit history of the page to see a recent edit of Melanie that has been reverted by Hidden Tempo). The relevance of this discussion is that this is again stemming from a content dispute related to the 2016 US Elections which can easily be resolved by giving a warning to the editor to tone down their language; instead we are seeing the editor being threatened with sanctions. Soham321 (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN I have seen the two links you gave to the previous warnings. The one where he called the editor who had introduced an edit in the lead of the Ronald Reagan page, from a self-published blog, an 'idiot' is mitigated by two things. First, removing that edit from the lead of the Reagan page contributed to improving the quality of the article. Second, when he called the person 'idiot' he did not name anyone and it seemed he did not even know who the person who introduced this edit was (probably the edit had not been introduced recently) and this makes his comment less inflammatory than it would otherwise have been. Still he appropriately received a warning about using the word 'idiot'. The person who gave this warning has clarified in this discussion that this was only a friendly warning, not an indictment of the user's behavior. He did not protest against being given the warning, and we have to give him the benefit of doubt and accept that he agreed he had made a mistake by using the word 'idiot'.

With respect to the first link you gave, he explained he introduced the disputed edit back into the main article on the basis of a 4-2 consensus, since he had seen disputed edits placed back in main articles on even weaker consensus. Of course, he is wrong and Bull rightly pointed out to him on his talk page why he is wrong. But i don't see him protesting when Bull tells him he is wrong meaning, again giving him the benefit of doubt, that he agrees with Bull.

Nothing here deserves sanctions. Not his previous edits, because of which he was warned, and not his more recent edits because of which sanctions have been sought against him. This much said, i think we can ask him to tone down his language, specifically in edit summaries. I agree with Kingsindian's suggestion: "TTAAC should tone down their language, avoid commenting on editors and avoid using imprecise terms." The problematic words used by TheTimesAreAChanging, in my opinion, were 'idiot', 'hoax', and 'vandalism'. TTAAC, do you agree with the assessment of Kingsindian and myself? Do you agree to do what we are suggesting? Soham321 (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (SPECIFICO)

@Soham321: @Kingsindian: -- Most Arbcom violations arise from "content disputes". The issue here is whether this user violated ARBAP2 Sanctions that have been put in place to ensure orderly and respectful discussions and resolutions of those content disputes. TheTimesTheyAreAChanging had been editing disruptively on politics-related articles for some time now. He narrowly avoided a block at a recent AN3. Instead of discussion, he launches into straw man arguments, equivocation, misrepresentation of other editors, and personal attacks. Until recently, His user page read like a battle cry, starting with boast that he bests his "opponents" which he removed after I referred to it at his AN3 thread. His entire user page is a bizarre political rant of the sort I've not seen on any other user's page. This user seems to work constructively on articles relating to video games and other innocuous topics, but he lacks the emotional maturity to work on these difficult politics-related articles. I recommend a topic ban from American Politics. Let's see whether this user can refrain from yet another round of personal attacks on me here. SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to collect some diffs on this editor: Here is a long talk page thread in which he launches into repeated personal attacks on editor @NYCJosh: [45]' Some of the many battleground edit comments -- and these are just from the past few weeks! [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] etc. etc. SPECIFICO talk 21:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here he removed a DS notice from his talk page with the edit comment "not interested, pal" He subsequently denied that he edits articles related to American Politics! He's been warned repeatedly by various users,and recently by Admins: @DoRD: here. Then, here, he tries to enlist @Oshwah: to assist him in continuing his edit war after Oshwah protected a page on which TheTimesAreAChanging was edit warring, supposedly because "his" version was "stable." @Doug Weller: warned him here and the attacks and disruption have only gotten worse. SPECIFICO talk 22:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bishonen: Sorry, I forgot the link. It's here and @Oshwah: observes that TheTimesAreAChanging has violated 3RR here that he's received the DS notice, and that he will be blocked for further edit-warring. SPECIFICO talk 00:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I sure hope that y'all are reading all the comments and links before commenting. 4 Admins warned this user. Other editors politely asked him to stop edit warring on numerous American Politics articles (the ones he claims, in one of the links that he does not edit). Ad hominems, mansplaining, personal attacks and disparagement should not be OK in any article. Under DS users should know that such behavior will surely lead to a block. Actions have consequences. SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened to notice this gratuitous smear of me as a co-conspirator of one of TTAAC's "opponents." I had posted on this user's talk page before he was banned, so TTAAC's message came up on my watchlist. I also had TTAAC's talk page on my watchlist for the same reason, and I saw him straightforwardly tell an editor that he's had a feud with me from 2012 -- a mind-boggling statement, considering that when I checked I found two articles on which we'd both edited that year. On one, Paul Ryan he was page-banned for disruption. On the other he was edit warring unsourced content into an article with typical disparaging and accusatory edit comments and talk page notes. Of the thousands of editors with whom I've shared various pages over the years, I cannot imagine being obsessed with animus and revenge like that. I would like to request, in addition to a TBAN from American Politics, that the Admins also impose a one-way interaction ban so that TTAAC will stop stalking and harassing me. SPECIFICO talk 01:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here, TTAAC is tendentiously canvassing Admin @Hut 8.5: about another piece of TTAAC's paranoid conspiracy theories about one of his "opponents." Then, another battleground taunt on the target's talk page [52] is removed (see edit comment) by Admin @DoRD: here after a TTAAC's second Checkuser request against his "opponent" was declined at the SPI he launched. Then, here, he goes to DoRD's talk page to misrepresent the taunt as a "notification." Another example of hostile misrepresentation is found here: Here, he casually refers to "SPECIFICO's forum-shopping" -- which apparently refers to my having commented on this AE and on his AN3 thread, neither of which I initiated, and which related to two distinct infractions. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by shrike

I never edited this topic area (as far as I can remember) and I don't see here anything beyond content dispute.--Shrike (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning TheTimesAreAChanging

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

This does look like inappropriate behaviour to me. TheTimesAreAChanging added some content which was removed by another editor who didn't think it was appropriate. At that point the issue should have been taken to the talk page, both per usual practice and more importantly the active sanction requiring that "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". Instead TheTimesAreAChanging chose to put it back calling the removal "vandalism" (which it clearly isn't). This is a pretty clear breach of the active sanction. Hut 8.5 12:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTimesAreAChanging:: you really aren't doing yourself any favours with your responses here. If you do have a "combative persona", perceive other editors as "attacking" you and try to "hit back twice as hard" then you really shouldn't be editing in this topic area. Wikipedia is not a battleground and you should be working together with other editors rather than spending your time here fighting with them. This is particularly important in articles involving very divisive issues some editors care deeply about, such as this one. I can see how this style of conduct would explain your behaviour in regards to the edits which prompted this request - when one of your edits was reverted you perceived that as an attack and retaliated by reverting again, disparaging the earlier revert as "vandalism" and leaving this rather aggressive talk page comment. If that is the kind of thing you do habitually when editing articles about recent American politics then I suggest you try editing somewhere else. Hut 8.5 20:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a straightforward violation of the discretionary page restrictions on Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. A few weeks ago, Melanie specifically pointed out on the user's page that they needed to be careful about editing U.S. politics articles under page restrictions.[53] This was in regard to TheTimes' reinstating challenged edits on another article (Political positions of Donald Trump), but you'd think they'd be able to keep the general, and specifically Trump-related, warning in mind. Also I think it's pretty egregious for an experienced editor to play the tired "vandalism" card here in order to justify their revert. New users can be excused for claiming anything they disagree with is vandalism, as they often do, but it won't fly in this case. Bishonen | talk 17:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Adding note: SPECIFICO, do you have a link to the ANI discussion you mention, where you say TheTimesAreAChanging narrowly avoided a block? (Minor point: you refer to him as "TheTimesTheyAreAChanging", but that isn't his name. It could be argued that it ought to be — that your version does more justice to Bob Dylan, and to rhythm — but that's the user's business.) Bishonen | talk 00:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
More: Thank you, SPECIFICO. (That's an AN3 thread, not ANI; you may want to change that in your post). I was aware before in a general way of TheTimesAreAChanging being embattled on Am Pol pages, and I had even looked at his userpage — it reminded me of User:EEng's, mutatis mutandis and without the wit. But I hesitated to act, even to warn, simply because there's so much unpleasantness on those article talkpages overall that it takes much study to be sure one person sinks below the general level. Anyway, I'm interested in your diffs, and note from them especially TheTimesAreAChanging's tendency to put personal attacks and BLP violations in edit summaries. Examples:

13 Oct 2016: "RV patronizing warning from hack editor. I have every right--indeed, obligation--to rollback a sockpuppet attack on a BLP; SPECIFICO has yet to engage the issues on talk, instead lecturing me about "edit wars." Come off it!" Not sure what a "hack editor" is. In the context, perhaps a paid Democratic party shill?

27 Oct 2016: "Under no obligation to make these archives easily accessible for oppo-research by SPECIFICO or others." That's like taking every opportunity for a battleground stance, even for something as anodyne as removing his own archive links from his own page.

19 Nov 2016: "Classic NYT propaganda. Flynn was forced out for warning Obama—the "Founder of ISIS"—to stop!)" Calling Obama the "Founder of ISIS". It has quotes round it, and yes, we all know it's a quote and from where, but why is it there at all?

If TheTimesAreAChanging has some explanation of these edit summaries that will make them sound remotely decent, collaborative, etc, I'll be interested to hear it. If he doesn't, I'm not sure he should be editing American politics at all, when it makes him so angry. I see him editing computer games and related pages in a pleasant and constructive manner (AFAICS); stick to that, perhaps? Bishonen | talk 22:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Kamel Tebaast

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 Kamel Tebaast

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Kamel Tebaast (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/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction :

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

02:58, 28 November 2016‎ first revert
17:53, 28 November 2016 second revert

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

11 October Indefinitely blocked and topic-banned
13 August topic banned

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, see above for previous sanctions
Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, through email with The Wordsmith

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor has already been topic banned twice in less than 6 months. This is his second 1RR violation since having the last topic ban lifted. There is a much larger report covering all of his recent "contributions" to this encyclopedia, and the pettiness and bad faith exercises in those edits, but that will take a bit to compile. For now, here's a fairly clear 1RR violation. This user has proved himself incapable of abiding by the rules to edit in this topic area, and I really hope an admin doesnt indefinitely block and lift that block 2 days later after an off-wiki private discussion that they refuse to release any details about, and then lift the topic ban and allow this person to continue wasting our time.

Putting scare quotes around the right of return is not "solid editing". KTs edits since returning from his topic ban have ranged from mildly bad to outrageous. Id like to say more about this here but I think the more substantive complaint requires an email to the arbitration committee for privacy reasons. nableezy - 20:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith:, the users very first edit coming off the topic ban was to remove a wikilink because it said the word "Palestine". He then, without ever once disputing that the agency in question was actually part of the British government of Palestine, proceeded to continue playing WP:IDHT on the talk page for a week. Along with that, he was arguing on the same talk page that the village in question was named after an ancient site that wasnt even discovered until several years after the village had been established and named. All because he did not want to include the well sourced fact that the name was taken from a nearby Arab settlement. See Talk:Beit_Alfa#Kibbutz_Beit_Alpha_was_not_named_after_an_Arab_village. Following that, KT proceeded to attempt to overwhelm the biography of a computer scientist and mathematician with irrelevant material, turning it into a proxy battle between Ephraim Karsh and Tom Segev, neither of whom are the subject of that BLP (diff. The rest of this cant really be discussed here. But, in sum, this person has repeatedly demonstrated that the agenda driven motives in his edits and the distinct lack of respect for Wikipedia policies, content and behavioral. nableezy - 21:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yall should really institute a rule that involved editors may not comment on an enforcement request. nableezy - 19:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lankiveil: yes, this itself is minor. And maybe Im being lazy in seeing yet another minor violation and reporting it instead of actually putting together a more comprehensive report. But Kamel Tebaast is a terrible editor, an uninformed hyper-partisan who has contributed nothing of any substance to a single article in this topic area and has instead spent his time engaged in full out battle on behalf of his cause. He has personalized disputes beyond anything I have seen in however close to the decade Ive been here. He has been petty and vindictive, disinterested in abiding by even WP:BLP, willing to turn completely unrelated topics into proxy battlegrounds on either the topic or against editors he holds to be his antagonists. So yes, this is minor. But in the five months since this person has been allowed to edit in this topic area, a month after he began editing in topics since abandoned because his aim of being a warrior for the cause of Israel on Wikipedia is fairly clear, he has been topic banned twice for two of those months, and since returning has proceeded to demonstrate just how bad this person is for any project purporting to have the aim of creating reliably sourced neutral encyclopedia articles. As you have oversight Id be happy to email you regarding the private information that made me more willing to report a minor violation.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Kamel Tebaast

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 Kamel Tebaast

Nableezy is correct about one thing: I did violate the 1RR. I wish I could self-revert, which I would, but it is obviously too late.

They should place warnings: DON'T EDIT WHILE ON MEDS. My only excuse is that I'm on heavy medications prior to a surgery tomorrow. I mistakenly thought that I had made a revert on another article. In any case, the revert in discussion was solid and should not to be construed as disruptive editing. If my intent was disruptive in nature or aimed at violating policy it would be one thing. This wasn't.

@The Wordsmith: I made a technical mistake. As noted, I would have immediately self-reverted had someone pointed it out to me. However the 10 minutes between my edit, the revert, and the filing at AE did not allow. I did not revert the same text, so I was obviously not edit waring. I don't understand why I shouldn't be given the same opportunity everyone receives to correct such a minor technical error. Kamel Tebaast 16:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike

Usually users that violate 1RR given chance to self revert.The Kemal was not given such chance and he does accept it as mistake I think warning about being careful in the future will suffice--Shrike (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Monochrome Monitor

It's unfair that he was reported without getting a chance to self-revert. This is contrary to the spirit of wikipedia, where rules are preventative and not punitive. This is simply a "gotcha!" complaint, catching KT (drugged or not) in the act breaking the 1RR rule. Well, from my experience the 1RR rule is easy to break, and nableezy has reported me similarly for doing so without letting me self-revert even though I expressed intent to. But this isn't about me, I'm just saying this because I don't think nableezy understands what 1RR is for. It is not to punish your enemies but to encourage healthy debate, and these vexatious AE reports have a chilling effect.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: Why revert completely if there are parts you dont object to? Why not just remove the scare quotes as you describe them?--Monochrome_Monitor 22:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Malik Shabazz: Can we keep this civil?--Monochrome_Monitor 22:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: If they revert themselves, what's the problem? There is no "impunity" if they self-revert, and even you call it a "mistake". It's a fact that the vast majority of 1RR violations are accidental. Alerting users to their mistake doesn't mean you can't report them, it just means waiting a bit before doing so. The result is the same, their edit is removed, just without getting AE involved. Making people less likely to go to AE is a GOOD thing. The fact is that many users, like myself, never go to AE, and others, like Nableezy, go whenever an "enemy" slips up. (I will gladly take that back if someone can produce an example of Nableezy reporting an editor with his POV for a 1RR violation) If anything we rely too much on 3RR and 1RR violations as "hard indicators" of misconduct, warranting punishment regardless of the circumstances. But WP:IAR is a thing and if anything we should be more reliant on what are currently "soft indicators", namely, being a jackass. The worst offenders who act against the spirit of wikipedia by gaming revert restrictions would fall under that category, but those who politely apologize and self-revert do not.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: I'm not familiar with his baggage but the vast majority of editors (and things in the universe) are not "useless".--Monochrome_Monitor 04:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

Boo hoo! I was drunk, so I'm not responsible for my umpteenth violation of the rules. I'm on the side of the angels, so I deserve a ~~second~~ ~~third~~ fourth chance. I only broke the rules because the evil nableezy caught me, so it really doesn't count. What a bunch of pitiful whiners! — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

I don't know that I've ever seen someone say they may have been temporarily impaired as a result of medications for surgery. If it is true, and I assume it is up to the AE enforcers to determine how much credit they give it, that it was due to such a unique set of circumstances, having myself been in a similar spot in the past, I can see how it might not be unreasonable to maybe allow a single instance of misconduct related to that slide, provided that there is no recurrence. If there ever is recurrence, throw the book or computer at him. The fact that the editor apparently wasn't given a chance to self-revert might also be considered in the decision. FWIW, I edited a wikisource page on a treaty when I was in the same situation, not here, but that was under probably different circumstances. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to Irondome (talk · contribs) for his offer of mentorship below, which seems to me to be one of the better options available here. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Debresser

To me it is clear that Kamel Tebaast made one edit in the evening and a completely different one in the morning, and probably just forgot that he had made an edit the previous evening. In addition, the edits are sound, and I see nothing contentious about them. Nableezy's post here seems like his umpteenth attempt to get an editor from the "other camp" blocked for no real violation. I think this report should be dismissed and that's it. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I echo what Debresser wrote and what I would like perhaps added to the rulebooks is that if you are bringing an AE action for a 1RR you also need to show that the user had notification of the 1RR and time to revert. There is a huge chill in the air in certain areas and it's just not nice to be around anymore. We need to bring back the "fun" of editing and not harp on every edit. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 00:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think to settle this matter, the mentoring offer should be looked into as a valid option. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

A lot of nonsense is being written here. Editors who are known for editing in good faith are frequently given a chance to revert their mistakes before getting reported, but bad faith editors like Kamel Tebaast do not deserve such a courtesy. Establishing this as a "right" would fundamentally alter application of policy and would allow bad editors to violate 1RR/3RR with impunity, knowing that they can back out safely if they are challenged. As for my charge of bad faith, one can mention his edit-warring and bad faith argumentation at Beit Alfa, immediately after The Wordsmith removed his topic ban. At the talk page there you can see him trying to argue that this location was named after an ancient site not known to exist at the time, and refusing to accept multiple sources that clearly identify a government department. Zero^talk 00:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Monochrome Monitor: What we must not allow is an environment where a bad editor can violate 1RR with the knowledge that they will get a chance to back off if the the edit is challenged. There is no such right, and if someone is reported for a 1RR violation it is their own fault alone. Nableezy already allowed KT to revert himself once recently; how many chances should he get? The admins who work here are capable of seeing the difference between a good editor who made an innocent mistake and a bad editor whose violation was not innocent. Note that "not innocent" is different from "deliberate"; someone who breaks 1RR without intending to during a pov-push is also not innocent. However, I personally think that 1RR is the least of KT's sins since he came off his topic ban. He should be re-banned because he is a disruptive useless editor. Zero^talk 01:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Irondome

I am willing to mentor, as a last resort. This entirely depends on whether KT gets the fact that they need help before community patience is collectively exhausted, and community consensus would support such a move. I have in the past briefly mentored one member of the community who is now positively contributing to this discussion. POV is irrelevant if one sticks by the rules, is intellectually honest and is capable of self-reflection. The medical issue I am keeping an open mind about, and am inclined to be understanding. Even so, it was a terribly ill-timed co-incidence of events. Now, Kamel Tebaast, would you accept mentoring? My terms are strict, and I would not hesitate to hand over to admin action if you broke a mutually accepted mentoring agreement. I have watched this issue from the sidelines for some months, and am aware of the overriding problems to an extent. What does the community say? If agreed by all parties, I will present my conditions here. Irondome (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Kamel Tebaast

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

I'm holding off on judgment for the moment, but suffice to say I'm not happy about this case. I had hoped (perhaps naively) that KT would stay out of trouble for the near future. @Nableezy: You say you have additional evidence. I would like to see it, at least the portion that does not have privacy concerns. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- KT has indicated that he's going to be offline for roughly a week to recover from his medical procedure. Unless there is some compelling reason, I intend to hold this request open until then. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be on the extremely minor side of things, and I don't see any reason not to AGF where the explanation is concerned; the user should be aware that using similar excuses in the future will probably not elicit a very sympathetic response. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Hidden Tempo

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user: Hidden Tempo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 6 month TBAN from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed. Imposed here, logged here.

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

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Hidden Tempo

Regarding the reasoning that I deserve a ban because I called Volunteer Marek's edit "filth" (on my own tak page) this user has been harassing me for over a month, following me from article to article, violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF almost every time.[54][55][56]. I also asked him to stop harassing me [57], which he ignored and continued to reply to my talk page edits and proceeded to continue templating my talk page. I submit that I do not deserve a ban on the grounds that I removed a harassing editor's message from my talk page, or that I used the word "filth" to characterize said harassing message.

Bishonen's second point is that I should be banned because I apparently violated WP:SOAPBOXING (as Volunteer Marek, the harassing editor alleged multiple times) with this edit. However, my edit does not fit any of the requirements outlined in that policy. I have never voiced support for any political candidate or revealed my own political views, and yet have been accused of doing so by Bishonen and Volunteer Marek. In that edit, I provided links to RS for each statement. Was my frustration with the lack of neutrality on the Hillary Clinton talk page apparent? Undoubtedly. Did this fit any of the 5 requirements for WP:SOAP to be violated? Absolutely not. I submit that no violation of this policy took place, and strenuously object to a topic ban on these grounds. Bishonen also claims that my comments are disruptive and "foment strife," but is this not what this project is based upon? Healthy discussion and the melding of a variety of opinions are how articles are improved. I welcome (civil) conflict, and challenging the status quo brings about positive change. Whether or not I am viciously attacked by other editors is out of my hands, and therefore provides no justification for a topic ban.

Bishonen's final reason for my topic ban is that I violated WP:BLP violations with the aforementioned edit: "Plus, you phrased wholesale attacks on Clinton and her family members ("Chelsea Clinton using Foundation funds to pay for her wedding") in a way that's not supported by the sources you linked to." With this accusation, Bishonen submits that my statement(s) (oddly characterized as an "attack" by Bishonen, therefore violating WP:AGF), meets the standards for a BLP violation. In actuality, whether or not an edit is reflected accurately in the source material is entirely subjective, and is in fact the very reason we have talk pages in the first place! While providing insight to another user as to why his edit has been reverted, I used the discussion as an opportunity to provide him with clarity as to why he is unlikely to succeed. I pointed to the pervasive and ingrained {{neutrality}} issues with the Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 pages. The source material (using Foundation funds to pay for her wedding [58]) clearly alleges that Chelsea Clinton used Clinton Foundation funds to pay for her wedding. If Bishonen doesn't agree, that is her right, but a six month topic ban to voice that disagreement is not the proper course of action. I submit that I committed no BLP violations with the edit that she cited on my talk page, and thus should not be subjected to an extraordinarily lengthy TBAN on these grounds.

Lastly, the banning administrator, BIshonen, has admitted to being unable to comprehend "a good deal" of American politics, since she pejoratively describes our political system as "strange."[59]. This self-admitted lack of understanding calls into question her ability to accurately interpret complex American political issues, such as the Clinton Foundation-State Department Controversy and other issues I raised that she feels are BLP violations, especially if English is not her native language (note that this is in no way designed to be insulting or an attack, rather a legitimate concern of detecting nuance). For these reasons, I am appealing the 6-month TBAN, and requesting for a modification of this ban (reduction) to a 48-hour TBAN. While I vehemently maintain that I have done nothing wrong, I may benefit from a break from editing this weekend. Thank you for the consideration, and I apologize if I have violated any rules of etiquette or protocol, as this is my first banning and first appeal. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Hidden Tempo

Result of the appeal by Hidden Tempo

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.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 985: / Line 985: @@
 **KT has indicated that he's going to be offline for roughly a week to recover from his medical procedure. Unless there is some compelling reason, I intend to hold this request open until then. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 16:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 *This seems to be on the extremely minor side of things, and I don't see any reason not to AGF where the explanation is concerned; the user should be aware that using similar excuses in the future will probably not elicit a very sympathetic response.  [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 09:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC).
+==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Hidden Tempo==
+<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. <p>To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see [[WP:UNINVOLVED]]).''</small>
+; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Hidden Tempo}} – [[User:Hidden Tempo|Hidden Tempo]] ([[User talk:Hidden Tempo|talk]]) 05:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
+; Sanction being appealed : 6 month TBAN from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed. Imposed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hidden_Tempo&diff=752671246&oldid=752666243 here], logged [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2016&diff=752671910&oldid=752527892 here].
+; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Bishonen}}
+; Notification of that administrator : ''The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a [[WP:DIFF|diff]] of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.''
+===Statement by Hidden Tempo===
+Regarding the reasoning that I deserve a ban because I called Volunteer Marek's edit "filth" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hidden_Tempo&diff=752666243&oldid=752608697 on my own tak page]) this user has been harassing me for over a month, following me from article to article, violating [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:AGF]] almost every time.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton&diff=752607953&oldid=752604559][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton&diff=750199644&oldid=750184475][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016&diff=751062245&oldid=751062039]. I also asked him to stop harassing me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016&diff=750881105&oldid=750874083], which he ignored and continued to reply to my talk page edits and proceeded to continue [[WP:TEMPLAR|templating my talk page]]. I submit that I do not deserve a ban on the grounds that I removed a harassing editor's message from my talk page, or that I used the word "filth" to characterize said harassing message.
+Bishonen's second point is that I should be banned because I apparently violated [[WP:SOAPBOXING]] (as Volunteer Marek, the harassing editor alleged multiple times) with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=752604559 this edit]. However, my edit does not fit any of the requirements outlined in that policy. I have never voiced support for any political candidate or revealed my own political views, and yet have been accused of doing so by Bishonen and Volunteer Marek. In that edit, I provided links to RS for each statement. Was my frustration with the lack of neutrality on the [[Hillary Clinton]] talk page apparent? Undoubtedly. Did this fit any of the 5 requirements for [[WP:SOAP]] to be violated? Absolutely not. I submit that no violation of this policy took place, and strenuously object to a topic ban on these grounds. Bishonen also claims that my comments are disruptive and "foment strife," but is this not what this project is based upon? Healthy discussion and the melding of a variety of opinions are how articles are improved. I welcome (civil) conflict, and challenging the status quo brings about positive change. Whether or not I am viciously attacked by other editors is out of my hands, and therefore provides no justification for a topic ban.
+Bishonen's final reason for my topic ban is that I violated [[WP:BLP]] violations with the aforementioned edit: ''"Plus, you phrased wholesale attacks on Clinton and her family members ("Chelsea Clinton using Foundation funds to pay for her wedding") in a way that's not supported by the sources you linked to."'' With this accusation, Bishonen submits that my statement(s) (oddly characterized as an "attack" by Bishonen, therefore violating [[WP:AGF]]), meets the standards for a BLP violation. In actuality, whether or not an edit is reflected accurately in the source material is entirely subjective, and is in fact the very reason we have talk pages in the first place! While providing insight to another user as to why his edit has been reverted, I used the discussion as an opportunity to provide him with clarity as to why he is unlikely to succeed. I pointed to the pervasive and ingrained <nowiki>{{neutrality}}</nowiki> issues with the [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016]] pages. The source material ([http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/06/clinton-aide-targets-chelsea-in-email-as-foundation-audit-shows-issues.html using Foundation funds to pay for her wedding] [https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/52046]) clearly alleges that [[Chelsea Clinton]] used Clinton Foundation funds to pay for her wedding. If Bishonen doesn't agree, that is her right, but a six month topic ban to voice that disagreement is not the proper course of action. I submit that I committed no BLP violations with the edit that she cited on my talk page, and thus should not be subjected to an extraordinarily lengthy TBAN on these grounds.
+Lastly, the banning administrator, BIshonen, has admitted to being unable to comprehend "a good deal" of American politics, since she pejoratively describes our political system as "strange."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=747428353&oldid=747427648]. This self-admitted lack of understanding calls into question her ability to accurately interpret complex American political issues, such as the [[Clinton Foundation-State Department Controversy]] and other issues I raised that she feels are BLP violations, especially if English is not her native language (note that this is in no way designed to be insulting or an attack, rather a legitimate concern of detecting nuance). For these reasons, I am appealing the 6-month TBAN, and requesting for a modification of this ban (reduction) to a 48-hour TBAN. While I vehemently maintain that I have done nothing wrong, I may benefit from a break from editing this weekend. Thank you for the consideration, and I apologize if I have violated any rules of etiquette or protocol, as this is my first banning and first appeal. [[User:Hidden Tempo|Hidden Tempo]] ([[User talk:Hidden Tempo|talk]]) 05:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
+===Statement by Bishonen===
+===Statement by (involved editor 1)===
+===Statement by (involved editor 2)===
+===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Hidden Tempo ===
+===Result of the appeal by Hidden Tempo===
+:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
+<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the discretionary sanctions log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
+*

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