Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Plot Spoiler

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 Plot Spoiler

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Oncenawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA : Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

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

Revert on 25 June after my directly related talk proposal on 22 June went unanswered for three days
Revert on 7 June after my directly related talk proposal on 30 May went unanswered for a week
Revert on 22 May

In return for talk page discussion, detailed sourcing and verification, and lots of patience, Plot Spoiler responds with reverts, silence, reverts, and occasional personal attacks on talk. For the avoidance of doubt I asked Georgewilliamherbert for advice in February re dealing with such behaviour from Plot Spoiler, and have been following his advice to ensure I have crystal clean hands.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

WP:AE/Archive139#Plot_Spoiler Sep 2013 ARBPIA enforcement
WP:3RR/User:Greyshark09_and_User:Plot_Spoiler Jan 2014 warning re slow burn edit war

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In response to User:Sandstein below, this is a clear case of slow burn edit warring from an editor who should know better. Whilst the slow burn nature means it didn't trip the 1RR 24 hour bright line, it has had the same effect via three reverts, and should be considered as such. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Sandstein, sorry i'm being slow. I have now linked to the specific remedy above. Plot Spoiler was blocked under ARBPIA about 9 months ago, so is well aware of the sanctions. I also reminded him about them on talk between the second and third revert above [1]. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And he was notified directly re the risk of sanctions from slow burn edit warring at User_talk:Plot_Spoiler/Archive_3#Discretionary_sanctions_notification. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Plotspoiler's statement does not attempt to justify or explain their own behaviour at the article of consistently reverting without explanation and personal attacks. I am very pleased that Plotspoiler has now found the time to do some reading on the topic, because one of the points in his/her post is very constructive (and need to be brought to the article talk page). Plotspoiler has clearly been busy in real life, so my advice to him/her in future when working with me is simply to say "I don't agree with your edit, but I am busy so please give me until [x] to explain", rather than aggressive reversion and personal attacks.

Anyway, since Plotspoiler's statement was dedicated to an Ad hominem attack on my editing, I will respond below:

The Gat 1988 article Plotspoiler links to was not in the article, and the quote is useful. I have not seen the same in Gat's 1997 book, and I don't currently have access to the 1988 article to confirm the context of the quote. This is a useful contribution and would have been a helpful response to this post from 2.5 weeks ago highlighting my inability to verify where Gat states his "belief"
My logic for the change to the lead has always been a very simple one. All sources who cover this topic conclude that noone knows who the culprits were, but all writers present the claims against Israeli / Zionist agents first, and then present the counter arguments / alternative theories. When I say "all sources", this includes both of the authors which Plotspoiler references below, and should be the case for our article. This is simply following WP:RS. Plotspoiler is welcome to a different point of view, but cannot evade this question forever.
Plotspoiler also questions my inclusion of (i) the views of Iraqi Jews, and (ii) the Lavon affair. Again, all the main authors in the article do exactly the same (as the 4 and 2 citations linked in this reverted edit show), including Gat, and Mendes in the article Plotspoiler links to below
On the "calls to honor two executed Iraqi Jews", despite disagreeing with Plotspoiler's interpretation of the implication, I responded to his previous objection by removing this from my last (22 June) proposal
I am not the first editor on the receiving end of Plot Spoiler's aggressive viewpoint on this article (see Talk:1950–51_Baghdad_bombings#Undue_weight_toward_fringe_claims) from four years ago
I will let my edit history speak for itself on Plotspoiler's last point.

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[2]

Discussion concerning Plot Spoiler

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 Plot Spoiler

Apologies, I'm unable to provide a thoughtful and detailed response until at least Tuesday, July 1. I will not be editing in the interim. Your patience is appreciated. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience. Much appreciated. As I noted on the talk page, I believe it is quite clear that Oncenawhile is engaged in glaring violations of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:LEAD. Let me explain:

Oncenawhile's proposed amendments to the lead at Talk:1950–51 Baghdad bombings#Revised proposal for lead clearly do not serve as a "concise overview" as a lead should, but cherrypicks information to make it appear that "Zionist agents" were responsible for the Baghdad bombings - i.e. purposely killing other Jews to cause them to flee Iraq. These are very serious charges, and the historiography shows that they are largely without merit. For example:
- Moshe Gat:"However in light of documents which have been made available by the National Archives in Washington, the British Public Record Office, the Haganah Archive, the Israel State Archive, and documents from the private records of Mordechai Ben-Porat, who was in charge of Jewish emigration in Iraq, we shall see that not only did Israeli emissaries not place the bombs at the locations cited in the Iraqi statement, but also that there was in fact no need to take such drastic action in order to urge the Jews to leave Iraq for Israel." http://www.jstor.org/stable/4283249
- Philip Mendes: "Gat also raises serious doubts about the guilt of the alleged Jewish bomb throwers. Firstly, a Christian officer in the Iraqi army known for his anti-Jewish views was arrested, but apparently not charged, with the offenses. A number of explosive devices similar to those used in the attack on the Jewish synagogue were found in his home. In addition, there was a long history of anti-Jewish bomb-throwing incidents in Iraq. Secondly, the prosecution was not able to produce even one eyewitness who had seen the bombs thrown. Thirdly, the Jewish defendant Shalom Salah indicated in court that he had been severely tortured in order to procure a confession. It therefore remains an open question as to who was responsible for the bombings, although Gat suggests that the most likely perpetrators were members of the anti-Jewish Istiqlal Party." Presented at the 14 Jewish Studies Conference Melbourne March 2002
- Etc etc etc (I can go back with more)
So Oncenawhile's claim that "I have fact checked a few more sources in this article, only to find that the support for scholars espousing the 'Iraqi culpability' theory have dwindled to zero" - is absolutely false. And given how much s/he brags about comprehensively researching, this is obviously not the case. Oncenawhile further misrepresents research by stating that Gat wrote: "There is wide consensus among Iraqi Jews that the emissaries threw the bombs in order to hasten the Jews' departure from Iraq." In fact, this is a footnote in which he is quoting archived material. It is not his assessment that that is the case. In fact, Gat believed that the perpetrators were members of the anti-Jewish Istiqlal Party.
Then Oncenawhile wants to cherrypick information that the Lavon Affair somehow indicates that Zionist agents were responsible for the Baghdad Bombings and because there have been calls to honor two executed Iraqi Jews, Shalom Salah Shalom and Yosef Ibrahim Basri, "whose names should be remembered alongside those who gave their lives for the country", this assumes that there sacrifice was in being agent provocateurs against their own people.
Oncenawhile is a single-issue editor that has shown a tendentious pattern of editing. One example is this glaring act of well poisoning and WP:SYNTH, which he insisted on maintaining. Clearly out of bounds. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Plot Spoiler

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

The complaint does not make clear which if any specific remedy should be enforced and/or which if any conduct rule these reverts are deemed to violate. It is not actionable as submitted. Sandstein 18:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even as amended, the complaint does not specify the remedy to be enforced and, if this is to be a discretionary sanctions request, does not indicate how Plot Spoiler was aware (as required) of these sanctions. Still not actionable. Sandstein 20:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, you issued 3-month ARBPIA ban to Plot Spoiler in September 2013. This should make them sufficiently aware. Though I haven't decided who is behaving the worst at 1950–51 Baghdad bombings we should think about some admin action which is sufficient to be sure that the conduct of all parties reaches the expected quality level for ARBPIA articles. It is tempting to think that a sanction to Plot Spoiler might be what is needed. In the September 2013 case, it was found that Plot Spoiler was applying different standards to the quality of the sources on the two sides of the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'm waiting for a statement by Plot Spoiler. Sandstein 18:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Spoiler now says he will be away until Tuesday July 1. How about we suspend this with no action, provided he does not edit Wikipedia in the mean time? EdJohnston (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sandstein 05:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Spoiler told us 'at least Tuesday, July 1' but that date has passed. So far there is no sign of his return. He has not edited Wikipedia since June 27. On July 5, I amended the banner to read 'complaint suspended until Plot Spoiler returns to editing'. We still expect to get a statement from him before action will be taken one way or the other. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored this as an active request since User:Plot Spoiler resumed editing on 8 July. I hope that he will provide the detailed response that was promised. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My assessment of Plot Spoiler's response is that it does nothing in Plot Spoiler's favor, because it consists only of

allegations of misconduct by Onceinawhile, which even if true don't count in Plot Spoiler's favor (see WP:NOTTHEM), and which at any rate are not accompanied by actionable evidence and are therefore in and of themselves disruptive (see WP:ASPERSIONS); and
arguments about the underlying content disagreement, with which the arbitration (enforcement) process is not concerned.

However, I think that three reverts are a somewhat thin evidentiary basis for a sanction for edit-warring, so I have no clear course action to propose at the moment. Sandstein 09:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should ask both of them to refrain from editing the main article for... Let's say at least 2 weeks. Talk page discussion allowed, but neither PS nor Onceinawhile should be the one implementing edits that result from discussion.
Also, PS should be reminded to reply to the article talk pages on a more regular basis, instead of just after Onceinawhile implementing the change (especially since this shows that PS made edits during the week that Onceinawhile waited regarding the June 6 edit). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to do this, go ahead, but I'm of the view that we should not use discretionary sanctions to micro-manage editors' conduct on individual pages. Rather, I see these sanctions principally as a safety valve for removing editors from a topic area altogether after it is clear that they can't get along with others. I don't have a clear opinion about whether we're at this point already here. Sandstein 13:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of Sandstein's mind on this one. Don't feel comfortable using DS for such a nuanced remedy, especially based on this record. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that nuanced, page ban for 2 weeks to force them to the talk page not the article. That's the one discretionary sanction the reminder is just that, (non-DS) advice from an admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose closing this with warnings to both Plot Spoiler and Oncenawhile, that further unilateral reverts may lead to a topic ban from ARBPIA. The history of the article and the talk page at 1950–1951 Baghdad bombings indicates that Oncenawhile made a big round of changes in late May that were intended as improvements. Some of Oncenawhile's reasoning is given in Talk:1950–51 Baghdad bombings#Proposed amendments to lead. Plot Spoiler then made some reverts of Oncenawhile's work that appear to be a reflex action and not carefully considered. The exchange suggests to me that Plot Spoiler may not have read the sources. Typical of Plot Spoiler's response is this comment of June 7: "More grossly unbalanced editing. Try again." The way for both parties to avoid making unilateral reverts is to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution and if necessary open a WP:Request for comment. Both parties are reminded that evidence of actually reading the sources will improve your credibility. I agree with Sandstein that short topic bans (or article bans) are scarcely worth it; the minimum that I see reasonable is three months from all of ARBPIA. I don't believe we are yet at the point of a topic ban, but we should allow both parties to show they can behave better before a sanction is issued. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself agreeing with Ed a lot this evening, but yes, I'd favor this over the suggested two-week individual-article ban. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scalhotrod

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 Scalhotrod

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Scalhotrod (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/Gun control#Discretionary sanctions

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

Scalhotrod repeatedly deleting the same info, not discussing, using only WP:REVTALK:

08:01, 6 June 2014 [3] First delete of info.
07:53, 7 June 2014 [4] Scal deleting discussion I started on his talk page, without reply (except for snarky edit summary, "Cleanup.")
17:51, 9 June 2014 [5] 2nd delete breaks WP:TALKDONTREVERT
18:51, 9 June 2014 [6] 3rd delete - edit summary: "Clean up" - not how to summarize
22:50, 9 June 2014 [7] Scal deleting second discussion I started on his talk page, without reply, again (except for snarky "Cleanup" edit summary, again).
08:29, 10 June 2014 [8] 4th delete again breaks TALKDONTREVERT (Consensus-building in talk pages)
08:34, 10 June 2014 [9] 5th delete "
11:59, 11 June 2014 [10] 6th delete "
10:49, 12 June 2014 [11] edit summary: "its only fuel for the fire..." Scal's WP:PERSONAL revtalk and reply to TransporterMan about me after he (TM) asked Scal to talk with me. (I thought Scal was done with this behavior.)
12:42, 30 June 2014 [12] 7th delete again breaks TALKDONTREVERT
08:05, 1 July 2014 [13] 8th delete - edit summary: "No consensus to keep."
08:32, 1 July 2014 [14] 9th delete again breaks TALKDONTREVERT
08:59, 1 July 2014 [15] 10th delete "
10:00, 1 July 2014 [16] 11th delete - es: "No consensus means no consensus" inaccurate revtalk (after I restored material with es: "No consensus [usually] means keep, not delete.")
13:36, 7 July 2014 [17] Adding this recent edit per Serialjoepsycho. In this one, Scal accuses me of "admitting to POV editing and adding content that is WP:UNDUE...."

Most of the edit summaries I did not copy have to do with his opinion that OpenSecrets is not reliable. Please see below for diffs to my attempts to talk about dispute.

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, on 6 May 2014 by Callanecc.[18]

>>> The following comment added to this section by Scalhotrod >>> resulting from this ANI--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 03:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

11:30, 6 June 2014 - Me starting a DISCUSSION on Scal's talk page: [19]. (I also added a suggestion [20] to this discussion about use of the term "clean up," which he continues to ignore, as shown in his edit summaries above.)

19:09, 9 June 2014 - Me starting a second DISCUSSION on Scal's talk page: [21]

09:12, 10 June 2014 - Me starting a DISCUSSION on the NRA talk page about the OpenSecrets material: [22]. Scal did not reply.

09:27, 10 June 2014 - Me starting a DISCUSSION on the NRA talk page about the Senate confirmations material: [23]. Scal did not reply.

11:45, 11 June 2014 - Me asking for a 3O re the OpenSecrets material: [24]

14:40, 11 June 2014 - 3O editor TransporterMan asking Scal to talk with me: [25]

By his actions it is clear that he is not editing "in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect." Also, that he is not allowing the addition of reliable, verifiable, NPOV, and due criticism to the NRA article against WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE. He does not discuss, so no consensus can be reached, and he may be "Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors [me] who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods...." (In case it wasn't clear, the preceding accused him of breaching the Gun control ArbCom Community policies: Purpose of Wikipedia, NPOV, and Battleground conduct.)

I have made numerous efforts to work with him, and I'm tired of wasting my time dealing with him. Please help.

Was it OK for Scalhotrod to make these edits,[26][27] which modified my section of this discussion/process?
Oh, and forgive me, but since Scal found it necessary to drag witnesses into this, I'll ping a few, who can perhaps help to put things into persepective, if that becomes necessary: StarryGrandma, Thenub314, and AndyTheGrump.

>>> The following question added to this Section by Scalhotrod >>> * I am familiar with Thenub and Andy, but who is StarryGrandma?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where Drmies picked up the "verbose" thing, but if that's what Scal is calling me, then it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Take for instance his reply below (04:07, 3 July 2014): almost 700 words, and not one addresses the diffs I gave above. His first two links [28][29] are to me saying I see myself as an article steward, not an owner. The third link [30] is to a nearly 8-month-old ANI that nearly boomeranged [31] on the editor who brought it against me. (It is also another example of pro-gun editors - three of whom are now topic banned - talking about my behavior, without diffs.) The fourth [32] is about what Scal calls my "stance." (Again, Scal is trying to paint me as an editor who has a POV - we all do, that is of no matter - and who can't edit for NPOV, which does matter and in my case is untrue.) Fifth, I don't think he should be dragging behaviors related to his renaming of the Assault weapons ban article [33] (to Assault weapons legislation) unless he wants to put his behavior in that mess under the spotlight. And as for his being the first to extend an olive branch, that was after I took him to ANI for multiple personal attacks without evidence. And I went there as a last resort, after he kept speaking badly about me - as he's done below - at just about every opportunity he had, whether it was an appropriate forum or not. I kept talking to him about this and asking him to stop and he didn't, so I went to ANI. Finally, I do edit a lot of gun related pages, as do many other editors, but I do not edit only gun related article. He has enough WP experience to figure that out, so why does he write that he "can't find a single edit that isn't gun-related"? (Answer, as I have learned: He exaggerates.)
Now, can we get back to the items I brought up first? If we're going to talk about me, I'd prefer a separate discussion. (I've made the same request before, but he hasn't respected it. And since he feels entitled to judge me I'll say this: He has edited many dozens of porn articles and, IMO, he doesn't have much respect for women.)
Here is an example of the behavior I'm talking about: [34]. If he or Mike has evidence for a complaint, bring it on and quit gossiping about me like children. Lightbreather (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I notified Scalhotrod with this edit on his talk page: [35]

Discussion concerning Scalhotrod

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 Scalhotrod

Question for the Admins

Every time that the accuser makes changes to the Sanction or remedy to be enforced, should I respond again?
Is the accuser allowed to make personal attacks (Ad hominem) during this process like she did here where she states, "He has edited many dozens of porn articles and, IMO, he doesn't have much respect for women."?

Based on Sandstein's comment, I am not sure what to say or if any comment is necessary on my part. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 21:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston, In the statement that you cite I was expressing my frustration with Lightbreather's methods and actions over the last several months and her POV that she has mentioned here and here where she states "my observation is that I am the only "pro-control" editor here". This is in addition to her various appearances at ANI starting here as far as I can tell with User Sue_Rangell and the WikiProject Firearms leader Mike_Searson. My apologies to them for dragging them into this, but I am not alone in my frustration with LB. There is further indication of her stance in a Dispute Resolution discussion (which I was unaware of until I began writing this text) here that was taking place during the recent Gun Control ARBCOM. One of the more telling IMO comments made in the discussion was by Ianmacm who states, "...why it is such a puzzle that Lightbreather seems obsessed with adding the much vaguer terms "assault weapon" and "high-capacity magazine" to articles. This appears to have become something of a personal crusade for Lightbreather, complete with an element of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it becomes clear that consensus is against him/her on this matter.". This was followed by Aoidh who stated, "...everyone who disagrees with Lightbreather is automatically "pro-gun", only those who agree with them should be listened to? That's absurd. I am not "pro-gun", I am however in favor of concise wording in an article, that is my issue with it and that is what I pointed out. Looking at Lightbreather's edit history, I can't find a single edit that isn't gun-related, so this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of "they have an opinion on guns so what they say shouldn't count" comes across as a little hypocritical."

Speaking of the Gun control article, LB recently made this edit a reversion of one of my contributions that was seemingly fine until her arrival and was under discussion. Her edit summary was a seemingly innocuous, but misdirecting with "removing some distracting, off-topic/related-topic (arms control) material; preserving on talk page". This was one of my earliest attempts at trying to narrow the topic focus enough so that it was not as contentious or inviting of tangential issues.

Since LB's arrival, I have been forced into more formal processes (ANI, Arbitration, etc.) in the last 6 months than my entire time on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I am thoroughly confused as to the use and proper purpose of these processes based on my forced experience. This is in addition to the onslaught of edits that LB makes to articles she is focused on that make use of those processes that much more difficult. While I applaud her sheer volume of edits, it comes across as domineering and worse yet she is defensive of her edits and additions and if anyone questions a series of edits on one or across several articles, then its immediately interpreted as a personal attack.

Admin Drmies has had first hand experience with how convoluted LB can make seemingly commonplace processes with regard to the Assault Weapons Legislation article move discussions here. In short LB started and RfC, but while it was open, then started a WP:Moverequest process and then changed tactics again with another discussion and went so far as to ask the MoveRequest closing Admin (Drmies) to reverse himself here

I pride myself on my ability to converse with all sides of an opinion in order to bring about not only consensus, but quality encyclopedic writing as I did on the Lead for the U.S. Second Amendment article starting here. It took well over a month, but we arrived at a Lead that was constructed through consensus as a true group effort and that has been stable ever since.

I have tried to communicate with LB and was the first one to extend an "olive branch" here. But LB's inflexibility has degraded every attempt at communication that does not result in content being exactly how she wants it worded or constructed and using her preference of sources. There have been some exceptions to this, but they are few and far between and rarely do not involve an Admin. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 04:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a while to remember this, but this is not the first occurrence of discussion regarding this source, OpenSecrets.org. It happened back in April at Talk:Gun politics in the United States here and here. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification regarding result

@ Sandstein, EdJohnston, Lord Roem, et. al. I am happy to abide by the recommendations made regarding better use of Talk pages, but I have to say that it is fairly clear by mine and Lightbreather's overall history of interaction that I have made numerous attempts to communicate and collaborate with her on the respective Talk pages. It's only recently that I have tired of the pointless debate, circular conversation, and her inflexibility.

As such there are some ongoing behaviors on the part of Lightbreather brought up (by me and others) that I feel need to be addressed such as article ownership, disruptive editing, POV editing, and (as User Sue Rangell pointed out) WP:CRUSH behavior which has affected her choice of articles to edit and how she edits along with Lightbreather's misuse of formal procedures.

She's obviously a dedicated editor and I do not wish to discourage her energy, but can someone mentor her so that she understands and can learn to apply WP Policy better than she has in the past? Maybe I'm wrong, but even editors who work often on contentious material do not seem to show up in ANI, ARBCOM, ARE, etc. as much as LB does.

This whole issue can simply "go away" or cease to be an issue if I, like Sue Rangell, choose to stop making changes to articles where Lightbreather is actively editing or has on her Watchlist, but I fail to see how anyone would consider that a reasonable, prudent, or logical solution that is in the best interests of Wikipedia.

I look forward to your comments. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I will heed the recommendations of yourself and the other commenting Admins as well as Admin Drmies advice. Best regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 19:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding topic ban @EdJohnston Would the topic ban include articles on specific firearms such as Remington Model 1858, Remington Model 1875, and Winchester rifle? I own a fairly decent number of firearms reference books and I would like to continue to edit these types of articles if that is permissible. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies, on the road

I was asked by Scalhotrod to have a look at this, though I am not quite sure why. I don't have the time or the energy right now to look very deeply into the matter. What I see in this edit (picked at random) is what appears to be a possibly valid edit (and the SYNTH note may well be accurate). However, in this contentious subject matter this is something that should be discussed on the talk page, and I don't know if this is a repeated revert or not but if it is that's also not a good thing. What should have happened with this edit is a discussion on the talk page which could have led to an improvement (in terms of who said what) of the text: the sources appear to be legit (Washington Post and SF Chronical). Though I like Scalhotrod fine, I believe he has a certain amount of intransigence. Not wanting to discuss something with a (specific?) opponent cannot be a reason for lack of talk page discussion in articles under arbitration. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Scalhotrod's comments, I agree that Lightbreather has a tendency to be on the verbose side, sure. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies (hopefully you're not on the road) But I was hoping you might comment regarding your observations here unless that was your intention with the above additional comment. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 20:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got home a few hours ago, thanks. Well, I have nothing to add to my comments there, which are critical of Lightbreather, sure--but this case should be judged on its own merits, and that was from a month or two ago. Maybe you and Lightbreather could meet in the middle: you, more process, Lightbreather, less process (and you certainly can't fault Lightbreather for not taking things to the talk page, which I believe was one of the issues here). Drmies (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies Thank you for your comments, fair points and well taken, but as its been demonstrated by the comments of other Editors in other "processes" there are several issues at stake here besides communication on Talk pages. I'm happy to abide by "more process", but more importantly I'd like to see LB abide by "more policy" starting with the 5 Pillars as they are understood by the WP community. The most important of which seemingly in this case and from my experience with LB is "written from a neutral point of view". --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 19:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sue Rangell

The editor Lightbreather's COMBATIVE edits are classic WP:CRUSH behavior, and it is Lightbreather who should be sanctioned in some way. I have stopped editing all topics where she involves herself because of this. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped editing the gun control articles because of Lightbreather's WP:CRUSH behavior. I got tired of her pulling me into ANI everytime she didn't like one of my edits. This is the result. Perhaps everyone should simply give up on those articles and allow Lightbreather to have her way with them. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lightbreather

I hope that it is OK for me to make a statement here related to comments about me.

First, regarding Scalhotrod's comments. As I pointed out above, none of his comments address the behavior I brought here. There is one big difference between when he reverts and when I do. When I do, and it's clear someone is warring with me, I start a discussion. He does not. He just keeps on reverting. (Drmies called it a "kneejerk" reaction the last time I asked for his advice. I've had a lot of respect for Drmies, but from my experience Scal's reverts are not kneejerks. They are calculated.) And he misuses edit summaries, often making it personal, or writing "Clean up" when he's making a revert or doing something other than "clean up." Then he drags in (or tries to) editors from old and unrelated disputes to try to back-up his unsupported claims that I'm generally a bad editor.

Five days ago, after I started this request, he gossiped about me on his talk page with another editor.[36] And yesterday, this was the "discussion" he started after I restored material that he deleted.[37] If these are the kinds of discussions I have to look forward to - "Forget the bad grammar for the moment," "the piece of information that the User chooses to include (and defensively revert)," "So you're admitting to POV editing and adding content that is WP:UNDUE" - they're not much improvement over the REVTALK.

Some of his accusations about me I answered above,[38] but I'll tackle another, even though it's almost three weeks old and unrelated to my complaints. 1. He wrote, "Speaking of the Gun control article, LB recently made this edit a reversion of one of my contributions that was seemingly fine until her arrival and was under discussion," making it sound like I swooped in from out of the blue to remove his addition. First, I preserved the material on the talk page, per WP:PRESERVE. Second, there were several discussions about the material in question, and here are a few:[39][40][41] There was no consensus to keep the material, and a pretty clear consensus that it did not belong in the Gun control article. Why none of the other editors did not remove it, I can only guess. I think the only reason Scal didn't revert my deletion is because he knew the material had virtually no support.

If y'all want to give me and Scal warnings, OK. But I want to make it clear that, IMO, I try a lot harder to follow the rules (that's part of why I do end up seeking outside help), and I think current, specific diffs and complaints, as I give, should carry a lot more weight than old complaints and character critiques "backed up" by editors you may not know from Adam. I think Scal has earned a much stricter warning, with specific instructions: Give accurate and appropriate edit summaries. Start discussions, keep them civil, and keep them on content, not character. Lightbreather (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if I did them right, but I just created three RSNs:[42][43][44] Lightbreather (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, EdJohnston, Lord Roem, and Callanecc: I realize that Scal has brought up some "new" things and made some new comments.

One I missed from three days ago,[45] when he brought up two discussions from three months ago. One was a discussion he didn't even participate in,[46] neither shows evidence of me doing something against policy, and both feature arguments from another editor (on Scal's side of the argument) who is now topic banned from gun control for his behavior.
Another, from yesterday, I refute. They are claims without evidence (diffs).[47]
Ditto here.[48]

Under those last two bullets he has accused me of: not editing in collaboration, article ownership, disruptive editing, POV editing, and "crush" behavior... all without a single diff! Where is the evidence of these? Despite what I've read everywhere, is it simply enough to accuse and judge other editors without evidence? Do I have your permission to do as Scalhotrod is doing here and simply write diatribes about him stating my opinion of his behaviors and motives? Please, may I have some feedback on at least some of the diffs that I have provided in response to his complaints?

Finally, re the RSNs I started per your advice. Here is Scal's most recent reply to me there.[49]

--Lightbreather (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My last request, barring any other accusations by Scal, please check out this discussion, including the edit summary that deleted it:[50] Lightbreather (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, please, would you mind being specific about what discussion here does not put me in a good light? (That is to say, discussion backed up by evidence.) Lightbreather (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to EdJohnston

Thank you, @EdJohnston, for your reply. Scalhotrod made many accusations against me without much in the way of diffs, but if it is my diffs that you are referring to as putting me in a "bad light," I can respond to those.

Of course I knew it was a risk to come here, because yes, I was the one who restored the content to the article in question after each of his deletions. But, as I showed above, I tried numerous times to discuss the content with him, on his page and on the article talk page. He deleted the discussions I started on his talk page and ignored the ones that I started on the article talk page. Then I asked for a 3O, but that admin declined and asked Scalhotrod to discuss the matter with me, which he did not do; rather, he disrespected me to the requesting admin - without evidence. Since he did not mention my restores/reverts in his reply, I will list them here, with my edit summaries (all between 6 June and 1 July):

[51] es: "restoring deleted paragraph; adding sources The Hill and Washington Post reporters; adding ref names"
[52] es: "restoring relevant, factual info with three WP:V, WP:RS"
[53] es: "restoring relevant, factual info with two WP:V, WP:RS - will add more sources if asked"
[54] es: "Undid revision 612294573 by Scalhotrod (talk) - As offered, I will add more sources."
[55] es: "restoring expanded Senate confirmations section with nine (9) different sources from the Los Angeles Times to the Wall Street Journal"
[56] es: "Undid revision 612534585 by Scalhotrod Washington Post, The Hill, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, SF Chronicle, Boston Globe, Washington Times, WSJ, and AP all WP:V WP:RS"
[57] es: "Undid revision 615058833 by Scalhotrod (talk) This was discussed recently with no consensus to remove."
[58] es: "Reverted to revision 615062221 by Lightbreather (talk): No consensus means keep, not delete."
[59] es: "Undid revision 615177221 by Scalhotrod Per WP:NOCONSENSUS: In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept. Pls see 2 discussions on talk page."

Surely his edits, which removed content, while refusing to discuss and improperly using edit summaries (often just variations on "clean up"), is far worse behavior than restoring content from reliable, verifiable sources, yes repeatedly - but while trying repeatedly to discuss and using other processes (like 3O) and using very detailed, proper edit summaries. Lastly, though no mention of it is made here, the majority of my edits are what appear to be called gnome edits: copyediting, standardizing source citations, fixing links (to pro-gun and gun-control sources). And I defend articles against vandalism and unsourced additions to gun-control articles, whether they're pro-gun or gun-control. Although Scal and others like to say that I make only POV edits, they provide no evidence that I do this. And, from my POV, many of the WP articles about gun-control are decidedly pro-gun. When I do add gun-control content, it is in an effort to achieve NPOV through WP:BALASPS. I hope you will reconsider your proposal, and please feel free to ask me more questions. I am prepared and happy to defend my editing history. Thank you for your time. I know these things must eat it up and I appreciate it. Lightbreather (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: And, as a follow-up, the RSNs that I started as suggested were all in favor of keeping the content Scal kept deleting, with a few minor changes. Those discussions are here:[60][61][62]. (FYI: The "Reliable" editor in those discussions was a sock puppet.) Lightbreather (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Sandstein and Scal

This is in response to the discussion started by Scal on Sandstein's talk page. I was going to respond there, but I think it belongs here.

Scal's comments here at ARE are his opinions about me, with weak evidence and often presented as fact. But I make one factual observation (that he edits a lot of porn, which is easy to verify by looking at his edit history) and say, "IMO, he doesn't have much respect for women" (based on the fact that A) He knows I'm a woman, B) He refuses to follow the civility policy with me, and C) He edits a lot of porn) - and that may be a personal attack?

Since Scal told Sandstein that he (Scal) has "lost track" of how many times I've asked him to keep his comments on content, not character, let me provide diffs here so you can see what he considers me being "sensitive" about the issue.

His edit summaries in bold (My comments in parentheses, italicized)

Article space

14:07, 5 May 2014 [63] The article is about legislation, not a POV agenda. (I didn't like the edit, but the edit summary is my main complaint on this one)

Article talk page

15:04, 5 May 2014 [64] (This one he later struck, at my request)
09:46, 6 May 2014 [65] (Unnecessary and snarky intro)
10:41, 7 May 2014 [66] (Uncivil - and untrue)
09:59, 8 May 2014 [67]
10:33, 8 May 2014 [68] some difs for ya... (Putting words in my mouth)
08:56, 28 May 2014 [69]

Scalhotrod's talk page

13:58, 9 May 2014 [70] (Disrepecting me to others; making accusations w/out evidence)
10:49, 12 June 2014 [71] its only fuel for the fire... (After TransporterMan asked Scal to talk with me, and Scal's reply is personal)
07:57, 3 July 2014 [72] (Gossiping about me with another editor)
11:10, 10 July 2014 [73] (Personal)
11:24, 10 July 2014 [74] (Personal and patronizing)
12:16, 10 July 2014 [75] ditto
12:53, 10 July 2014 [76] removing blah, blah, blah....

ANI[77]

07:00, 10 May 2014 [78] (Accusations with weak or no evidence - especially the last sentence)
11:10, 11 May 2014 [79] (When NinjaRobotPirate said, "This is a reasonable request. At some point, it becomes disruptive to continually make the same accusation without any intention of filing a report," Scal's reply was 100% personal - and he wrote as if he spoke for others.)
13:46, 11 May 2014[80] (Uncivil lecturing, and once again stating his opinions as fact)

While I was on vacation (Scal knew I was on vacation)

All on Talk:Assault weapons legislation in the United States

07:21, 19 May 2014 [81] No reason given for blanking of content, vandalism?
09:00, 21 May 2014 [82]
09:39, 21 May 2014 [83]
09:45, 21 May 2014 [84]
22:38, 21 May 2014 [85]

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About "sensitivity"

Also, since Scal has brought up sensitivity, and the word "sensitive" came up yesterday in regards to a Teahouse question that Cullen328 answered,[86][87] I might ask y'all to consider whether a forum made up of 85% men might have some issues communicating with women? Maybe, instead of me growing a "thick skin" (as someone once suggested) or external gonads, men on Wikipedia ought to consider whether or not they should modify their behavior for mixed company. Considering that Scal and I had the same number of reverts on the problem in question, they cancel each other out, so to speak. What's left? Civility, on my part - which is a policy - and none on Scal's part. Outcome? We are both warned, maybe even banned, for warring, Scal's incivility goes without comment - and I get labeled a "crusher"?

I've asked this question before in a separate discussion, but never received an answer. WP:CRUSH is an essay and a bad one at that. Here is why: Basically, it's an accusation of "uncivil" civility. As Sue Rangell has demonstrated, the charge can be levied without evidence. How does one defend herself or himself from that? --Lightbreather (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Sue Rangell

You made the same accusations without evidence here that you've made elsewhere. I also see you giving Scalhotrod an attaboy for bringing you here - and promising to help him in the future if I complain about anyone else.[88] And today, even though I have not yet been topic banned, you are already changing gun-control content that you and I disagreed about. Just a couple examples:

[89] Removing the entire Background section and Legal challenges sections I added (which even now topic-banned Gaijin42 did not dispute) to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban page.
[90] Restoring Scalhotrod's gun-control-is-arms-control OR/synth material that there was no consensus to keep.

I hope someone will tell me this is not an example of 5P editing. Lightbreather (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbreather, the only reason I left the gun control pages is because of your combative behavior. I've never had any problems with any of the other editors at all whatsoever. I am pro-gun control just like you are, and yet I have no issues with any of the gun-toters, only you, and we are politically on the same side of the fence. I kept trying to mentor you, begging you to step it down a notch, but that never happened. Perhaps after your topic ban is over you will have learned to separate your politics from Wikipedia and learn to edit via consensus. I look forward to editing along side with you when that finally happens. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sue_Rangel, where are the diffs for this behavior you call "combative"? Everything I read on WP says accusations s/b accompanied by diffs, but when talking about me, neither you or Scal give them. Lightbreather (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

If any uninvolved editor, after reviewing the discussions mentioned above, comes to the conclusion that I have been incivil, insensitive or unfriendly to Lightbreather, please let me know. I will apologize and correct my behavior going forward. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Scalhotrod

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

At first glance, the request is not actionable as submitted, because it does not make clear how these content removals of which diffs are provided violate any conduct rule (e.g., edit warring). The arbitration (enforcement) process cannot adjudicate whether these removals were justified as regards the encyclopedic merits of the removed content. If the complaint is mainly that Scalhotrod did not respond to requests for talk page discussion, then it is not clear from the request which policy or guideline would have required Scalhotrod to do so under the circumstances described. Sandstein 22:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit Scalhotrod explained to TransporterMan why he doesn't like dealing with Lightbreather. Not everyone enjoys having to deal with their opponents, but here we have a case where one party (L.) is willing and the other party (S.) is refusing. This situation will probably have bad results if they intend to work on the same controversial articles. Is Scalhotrod willing to voluntarily abstain from gun control articles where Lightbreather has worked, or does he have any other suggestion? If my analysis is correct, we should be viewing this as a case of long-term edit warring without discussion. The edits by Scalhotrod supplied above by Lightbreather (numbered as 'first delete' through '11th delete') appear to be reverts of material that came from OpenSecrets.org. After making these deletions of OpenSecrets.org material from the National Rifle Association article I did not see Scalhotrod going to a place like RSN to get opinions on its usability. The status of OpenSecrets.org as a reliable source shouldn't depend solely on his personal opinion. I haven't checked who was on the other side of all these 11 reverts. If it was the same person in each case we might have to think about this further. There was a talk thread at Talk:National Rifle Association#Deletion 3X now of info from OpenSecrets via Sunlight Foundation and other sources where Lightbreather participated but Scalhotrod did not. It's hard to perceive that Scalhotrod is making an effort to discuss or that he has any concept at all of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reviewed the evidence in this light, but my comment above should not be understood to mean that I oppose sanctions on the basis of EdJohnston's reasoning. Sandstein 19:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This might be closed with a warning to both Scalhotrod and Lightbreather to make no further reverts of contentious material where the other party is involved, without first having made reasonable efforts on the talk page to arrive at a consensus solution. From the evidence above, neither side enjoys consensus at National Rifle Association. Lightbreather has made better use of the talk page but no third parties have commented, and I don't see a consensus. In a case where no third parties have responded on the talk page to a call for comments, I urge both sides to cease reverting and await developments. If the matter is important, others are likely to participate sooner or later. Failure of either party to observe prudent restraint where the other party is involved could be a reason for issuing that person a three-month topic ban from gun control. On the matter of using material drawn from OpenSecrets.org in National Rifle Association, although LightBreather has tried to get a discussion going she herself has not made use of WP:RSN and she appears to have made nearly as many reverts as Scalhotrod. EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur in your suggestion for a warning to both editors to the effect you describe above. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your additional comments, (@Scalhotrod:), I still believe this is the best option at this time. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein's suggestion seems the best option at this stage. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made a suggestion. Do you mean somebody else? Sandstein 11:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ed's suggestion re a warning. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy that all the nudges have now produced some comments by both parties at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. This seemed advisable since the reliability of OpenSecrets.org was mentioned so often in the evidence above. But since the behavior at RSN by both editors indicates we have two one-note editors who are going to make edits favoring their own position on any mainspace articles, I would recommend six-month topic bans from the topic of of gun control. We expect at least a tiny bit of objectivity from anyone who intends to contribute to article space in a contentious area. I was originally doubtful about User:Scalhotrod's good faith but the continued discussion here does not put User:Lightbreather in a good light. A short topic ban might allow both parties to reflect on how their behavior might not be in their own best interest. The scope of a gun control topic ban for both editors would be as defined by Arbcom in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control#Locus and focus of conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightbreather: In your original filing here you identify eleven removals by Scalhotrod of certain material from National Rifle Association during the month of June. If he kept removing the material that implies that someone else kept putting it back. That person was presumably you. It takes two people to make an edit war. It appears that all your edits of article space are going to favor the pro-gun-control side of any debate and that Scalhotrod will be predictably on the opposite side. It does not appear that either of you has the ability to set aside your own POV when you edit Wikipedia articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A look through the NRA page the two have been editing confirms your suspicions. Some screencaps of the page history from June and more recently. I'd support your proposal for a six-month topic ban for both editors. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given their comments I too agree that this is an appropriate and necessary sanction and will impose it in 24-48 hours if it hasn't already been done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sepsis II

Sepsis II is banned from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict for six months. Sandstein 13:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Sepsis II

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Brewcrewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Editors reminded :: "Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks...."

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

Sepsis recently return from a block wherein his talk page access was revoked[91] for disruption and personal attacks.[92] After his talk page access was revoked, User:Bbb23 removed the disruption.[93]

In their first edit back from the block Sepsis restores the disruptive version (or most of it) with the edit summary "rvv". [94]

Subsequently Sepsis proceeds to falsely accuse me of hounding him on two pages. Sepsis accuses me of hounding him at Jennifer Rubin (journalist) [95] whereas i made edits to the article [96] before the Sepsis II account was started.

Sepsis further accuses of me of hounding him at Rachel Corrie [97] (canvasses for a revert also) because I reverted his reversion of multiple editors’ work [98] wherein I made 13 edits to the article even before the Sepsis II account was started.[99]

In another edit Sepsis makes personal edit summary and assumes bad faith [100] (I assume they meant “‘revert’ whitewashing”)

@Lord Roem. I limited this report to edits made coming right off the seven day block. More evidence of subject's overly confrontational approach/personalizing disputes/ personal attacks can be seen just by viewing the edit summaries of the diffs below. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have I violated NPA at times? Sure. I'm editing for ~7 years and have over 50k edits. Nobody is perfect and at times I have gotten heated. Overall a review of my interactions with other editors in contentious subjects will reveal that I am generally cordial and avoid personalizing disputes.

The above diffs regarding Sepsis took 10 minutes to find. His inability to get along with others is pervasive and constant. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

See block log

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

[115][116]. Sepsis has also participated in numerous discussions at this page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[117]

Discussion concerning Sepsis II

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 Sepsis II

Brewcrewer wants me sanctioned for editing my own talk page and for pointing out how he hounds me. I will put together a case on his hounding of my edits over the last year and how he was warned on several occasions by several admins to stop such behaviour if asked of me. Sepsis II (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Penwhale, I've now deleted my entire talk page as there were still many personal attacks against me on that page. I did not know that the material on my talk page was regulated to the tastes of passing admins. Your idea of using diffs to prove the harrassement I endure may go against the rules Bbb23 has placed on my speech. Sepsis II (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, I welcome it, the only thing burning me is the behaviour of admins. Sepsis II (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brewcrewer, that was funny, I opened a few diffs you added, one where I called User:GoGoTob2 a sock, another where I stated Plot Spolier should be banned for an edit, and a few days later he rightfully was! How many socks hound you brewcrewer, how many accounts are created each month to call you an anti-semitic nazi and more? You want me banned for calling a sock a sock, a POV pushing editor a POV pushing editor!?! Have you all lost your sanity? At this very moment Brewcrewer is misrepresenting sources in article space and he has the gull to seek a topic ban because I'm not afraid to point out bad editors? Sepsis II (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note is that those diffs are years old, some from when I had only been editing a few months.

revert palsbara troll from my talk page. stay away please -Brewcrewer to an admin

Roem, banning me from the IP area would not cause a significant deduction in the number of disrutpive socks, only a small fraction come here only to harrass me, most make racist edits to articles without knowing I would be here to undo them. The only calm you would get from banning me would be that brewcrewer could misrepresent sources and I wouldn't be around to call him on it. If you want calm, block brewcrewer and his group for life. Sepsis II (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of the admins here have experience in the IP area or are they just trying to come up with reasons for how they can deal out violence? It's clear to me that none of them are interested in the actual effects of a topic ban, they will ignore the conseqences, deny their responsibility for the damage done, the damage allowed, I still suggest that a number of admins present here be desysoped per WP:INCOMPETENCE. Will any of them take time to think on my honest words before blocking me? Of course not, they have their personal objectives which are clear to them, furthering wikipedia and it's quality is not among their objectives. Perhaps they are asking me to sock; I certainly would be treated better, no longer burdened by 1RR, free to file complaints at boards, warnings and warnings before any small blocks. No I'm not going to sock, can't you understand the difference of speaking on a matter and planning to actually act? Anyways, admins you are a drain on wikipedia, if you wanted to help, you would block yourselves. Sepsis II (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

Some editors like myself like to conserve hostile comments, and replies, that reflect fundamental clashes of opinion, on the talk page. People who dislike one as an editor should have a chance there at least to challenge you, and likewise, it can help that the talk page editor use the opportunity to clarify his POV, or why he made this or that edit, in terms of larger issues. On the other hand, Sepsis, you do come over frequently as aggressive (I have been myself in the past) and urgent at times, and this impression unnerves fellow editors. Given the chronic bad faith of socks, meatpuppets, IP paladins and what not,- bad faith editing which, to your credit - you're willing to try and weed out (I can't cope with the waste of time their intrusiveness causes and am negligent there)- you really need to grasp that in an area like this, there is absolutely no margin for either rising to the bait, or, alternatively, baiting. Whatever one feels or believes, passionately, should not show up in edit summaries. The fundamental pillar of the neutrality of the article overrides all other considerations. That Brewcrewer however brings a complaint however is not helpful. He too does useful work in riding shotgun to see that his view of that world is given due airing, but quite a few of his edits, and reverts, are questionable as well. Above all, Sepsis, you are too hasty to bring complaints, even when one's intuitions are probably correct. One needs patience here, even if that means putting up with, in the interim, a lot of nonsense. One should only have recourse to these administrative areas when the evidence is fairly solid. I don't think the evidence Brewcrewer provides warrants any drastic action. I do think that Sepsis needs a strong reminder that if he wishes to stay on board, he needs to improve his social skills and learn to (at least) appear less passionate. Sometimes I think the best 'punishment' for editors in these cases is to ask them to edit only articles that represent the 'other reality' (in this case Israel/Judaism; in Brewcrewer's case Palestine/Islam) for a week, exclusively to improve their readability, sourcing and quality.Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Shrike's diffs. This is getting ridiculous. The second diff shows Sepsis reporting the neutral description 'crushed to death' reported by numerous mainstream newspapers all over the world, right wing, left wing, centrist. Cf.Independent 21 May 2014;The Guardian 19 May 2014;Haaretz Aug 28 2012; Fox News 21 May 2014, and it took only half a minute to check by googling that the phrase is ubiquitous. It is not Sepsis's POV or POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

The vandalism on the user-page was done by JarlaxleArtemis; he was very active at that period, vandalising the user-pages of Sean.hoyland and myself, also. I noted it on AN/I here: "Well, this guy: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis is extremely active tonight: Please, guys and gals, watch User_talk:Sepsis_II and User_talk:Sean.hoyland." CU User:Alison then confirmed it was him.

For some reason only JarlaxleArtemis`s edits to Sean.hoyland and my user-page were over-sighted, and not those to Sepsis_II. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Sepsis: if you intend to continue to edit in the I/P area, you better get used to it. Its like getting used to sand, if you go to Sahara.

Statement by Shrike

Sepsis right after his block continues his disruptive editing for example he playing WP:GAME with 24h 1RR rule. [118] [119] The second revert is just 1.5 hour after the 24 limit.Also moreover the edit is problematic by itself he deleted information that doesn't suit his POV.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He tries to make some WP:POINThere [120]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ykantor

Sepsis latest edit of "Rachel Corrie" article shows tendentious editing. E.g:

previous version	Sepsis next edit	why Sepsis edit is tendentious
killed	crushed to death	emotionally magnifying effect
in a combat zone	(null)	wrongly implies an ordinary location
in part of an operation to eliminate tunnels used by terrorists to illegally smuggle weapons from Egypt into Gaza.	(null)	wrongly implies that the killing was the main activity
during an Israeli military operation	(null)	ignore to mention the background
fellow ISM protestors	eyewitnesses	implies there were no contradicting eyewitnesses
Israeli government eyewitnesses saying	Israeli government saying	taking advantage of people usual suspicions towards governments formal announcement of what could be their own wrong doing

Those samples are are found in the beginning of this long Sepsis edit. There are probably more of those along the text. Ykantor (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Sepsis II

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

Sepsis II, for me, there are very limited reasoning that would make the case for restoration of other people's attacks against you on your talk page. Please don't delete my comments or the attacks; it is important as it is the reason I was blocked, blocked for reverting them, filling an SPI, working at WP:ARBPIA isn't one of them. (You can easily use diffs and such to illustrate the attacks. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, the user talk page edits are out of the scope of the WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. In addition, users have wide latitude about what to retain, or not, on their user talk page. But the remainder of the evidence indicates a generally confrontative and mistrustful approach to editing, which could be grounds for a topic ban. We are a collaborative project, not a wrestling match, and our editors' conduct must reflect this. Sandstein 08:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, you are correct, Sandstein. However, given that we have the broader problem of sock puppet accusations in the ARBPIA area and that Sepsis II, as far as I know, edits only in that area (or at least principally), there is a relationship between what he did on his talk page and ARBPIA. I wouldn't give it as much weight as other misbehavior more directly connected to the topic, though. To his credit, after an extended discussion on my talk page, Sepsis II blanked his talk page, and it doesn't appear to me to have been done out of spite.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see some evidence of what Sandstein discusses above--the confrontational approach to editing--though, at least in the statements above, there's only a few diffs to work with. I'd be more comfortable discussing a sanction if there was more of a record to go on. Otherwise, I think a warning might be best. If this behavior continues, a topic-ban could then be imposed. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the additional diffs do demonstrate this consistently combative behavior is unchanged from last year. Even more, I find Sepsis II's reaction ("Have you lost your sanity?") doesn't help his case much. After examining both the new evidence and Sepsis II's reply, I think some time away from this topic-area may stem further disruption in an area that greatly needs calm discussion. I'd support a topic ban with the ability to appeal within six months. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a topic ban is in order, Bbb23's comments in this ANEW report show the problem is persistent. I think a topic ban for three-six months would be better rather than indef with appeal in six months. Other opinions? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That duration works for me. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sepsis II, openly discussing socking to evade a topic ban, whether you're being serious or not, is not funny. I would advise you to take a hard look at the discussion in this section before returning to edit in this area. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I think ignorance promotes neutrality. When I wade into the ARBPIA area, I'm not always sure which "side" some editors are on, even though they're not supposed to be on any side if they want to edit constructively. Occasionally while evaluating a particular situation, it becomes apparent to me, but, then, thanks to my erratic wikipedian memory, I often forget the next time what I learned about a particular editor's bias. Coming after my comments at ANEW and given the nature of that particlar report, I'm assuming that this edit by Sepsis II on my talk page is WP:POINTy. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm in favor of a 6-month ban given Sepsis's disruption and inability to see beyond the end of his nose.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the discussion above, and Sepsis II's confrontative attitude on this page, I too agree that their conduct is not compatible with productive collaboration in a highly emotionally charged topic area. I'm closing this request with a six-month topic ban. I hope to find evidence of collaborative, peaceful editing in other topic areas after that time. Sandstein 13:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herbxue

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 Herbxue

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: 2over0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience :

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

dismisses RexxS 07-05

1. Response: Not a dismissal – this is a detailed response about using WP’s voice to generalize a fact from a narrow set of data that is contradicted by other systematic reviews. Recent discussion on the source in question at Project Medicine supports the position I put forth here. Rexxs had been referring to his expertise in stats earlier and was talking down to me and others. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my comment here.

"did you not get the memo?" 07-05

2. Response: Context is important – Doc James had just recently started a new thread calling for editors to focus on content and not other editors (that is the “memo” I refer to. Rexxs started into dismissive and insulting rhetoric right after Doc James post. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my comment here.

dismisses QuackGuru 07-01

3. Response: This is my talk page. After respectfully indulging QG by answering his questions, he repeatedly badgered me unnecessarily. My comment is justified. I make few edits beyond talk page discussions and he had the gall to criticize my few reverts of other editors, while he has reverted the majority of my attempted edits on the article itself. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my comment here.

"Maybe if you didn't do so many hundreds of edits a day you would clearly remember all this and you wouldn't have to pester me here over this.1" 07-01

4. Response: Again, my talk page. I was being harassed by QG over something that was obvious and minor. The explanation he kept asking for was in an edit summary one edit earlier than a diff he linked to on my own page. I gave a detailed explanation even though I knew he was trolling me. More on that later. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my comment here.

"my beef is with QG" 06-30

5. Response: Hmm, my post starts with the word “sorry”. Not sure why you picked this one? This is me making peace with Kww, who thought I was insulting him when I was referring to BR. In this post, I also admitted to previously being out of line. Not sure why you think this is a violation. There is nothing wrong with my comment here.

dismisses BullRangifer 06-30

6. Response: I was truly out of line on this one. Doc James pointed it out on my talk page and I immediately edited it. I was wrong on this one for sure, both because I misunderstood the policy on reverting socks, and more for the uncivil tone and undeserved assumptions about Brangifer.

battleground mentality 06-30

7. Response: QG makes many changes to the article (including a recent misrepresentation of Ernst 2011 that was found by several neutral editors at project medicine). The context here is that Middle8 had just done quite a few valuable edits and QG recommended reverting to a version before those edits occurred. At the time, I believed this was an attempt to eliminate another editor’s work in a sneaky way. I could have AGF’d more.

"Are you just randomly linking to make it look like you are making cogent points?" 06-27

8. Response: I truly did not understand what QG was getting at with all those links. See my talk page for more lists of links that seem to be intended to look like damning evidence but really just seem random. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my comments here.

You are doing this because several of us have disagreed with your recent work and you want to sneak around us by undoing everything that has been done. That's edit warring. I have no reason to believe you are doing this in good faith." 06-27

9. Response: This again is about the massive revert QG was proposing. I still do not understand why it was necessary, just undo the SP’s edits and you don’t have to go through the trouble of restoring the more voluminous good edits that occurred since the problematic edits began. Perhaps I could have AGF’d more, but QG has in my opinion made many dubious edits.

edit warring 06-27

10. Response: QG was doing original research and identified the Vickers systematic review as a “fringe” and “unreliable source” and labeled its conclusions as “POV” in the article. I removed it, correctly. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my edit here.

"the POV summaries the QG is always cooking up" 06-26

11. Response: I fully stand behind this comment. QG often cherry picks the negatives out of mixed reviews and words the conclusions as seeming more definite and generalizable than they really are in the literature. I was pointing out the need to present the facts rather than a POV take on the facts. There is nothing wrong with my edit here.

edit warring 06-25

12. Response: I was restoring sourced text. Roxy had removed it because it had been supported by “fringe pushers”. Roxy’s edit summary had no merit, so I reverted it. There is nothing wrong with my edit here (read my edit summary for my reversion), though I have more recently argued for greater attribution of findings like these so it would have been better if I made the text more accurate (contextualized the finding) rather than restoring an overly-generalized statement.

edit warring 06-25

13. Response: Same issue as #12 above

"Just use the actual friggin numbers ... Sheesh" 06-24

14. Response: My suggestion here is to stick closer to the source. QG is accusing people of sock puppetry and edit warring right after coming back form a short topic ban. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my edit here.

"Wow you did it again" (in reference to Alexbrn) 06-16

15. Response: This was actually me PRAISING Alexbrn for introducing me to something I was unfamiliar with (the second time is a short period). Why is this included here? There is nothing wrong with my edit here.

characterizes an article as a "hit list", battleground/dismissive with Roxy the dog 06-16

16. Response: I was not the first to suggest that article had issues. I did not dismiss Roxy, I pointed out that Roxy referred to all the subjects on the list as “this kind of nonsense”. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my edit here. I dropped the issue after Alexbrn showed me that someone had unsuccessfully nominated the article for deletion in the past.

"Really, this article is just a list of things a majority of WP editors don't like or understand." 06-15

17. Response: Same as above

dismisses Jytdog 06-07

18. Response: That's not a dismissal – look at the whole thread. I clearly answered JYTdog‘s questions, with follow-up clarifications, and then he acted perplexed and made assumptions about me wanting to present pro-woo equally in weight to anti-woo. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my edit here.

accuses Adam Cuerden of bad faith 06-07

19. Response: I did not accuse Adam of bad faith. I gave a 3-part explanation of my stance. I argue against the proposition that more accuracy (attribution) = weasel wording. I react to the common wikilawering technique of “our hands are tied, we have to do it this way because of policy”. My wording could have been nicer, but it was not uncivil.

accuses "most people editing" of bad faith 06-05

20. Response: Poorly worded, but this is a response on my own user talk page discussing what I perceive as a general bias in WP. I did not accuse “everyone” of bad faith, just made an assumption. Again, on my own talk page.

dismisses Jytdog 06-05

21. Response: That’s not a dismissal, it is an in-depth content discussion. And I am quite even-handed in this one.

battleground, accusation of "bullying" 05-27

22. Response: This is me pointing out what I perceive to be double standards – many editors bite me and others regularly, but QG gets away with edit warring all the time. QG did finally get topic banned for a bit, but nobody reprimanded him for misrepresenting sources in the recent project med discussion. I shouldn’t have referred to Brangifers critique as “bullying” though, so I apologize for that.

"Your second post doesn't make a lick of fucking sense at all." 05-27

23. Response: I shouldn’t have sworn, but the post was a non-sequiter.

battleground 05-24

24. Response: I clearly must have mis-read something here because Zad and QG actually engaged the suggestion rather than dismissing it. I should have AGF’d better, but I was not uncivil.

"quack crusaders ... You guys (particularly QG, PPdd, DV, Roxy and Tippy) are just full of blood-lust and a desire to bury any alt-med subject." 05-22

Response: My point here is just let the article state the facts. The authors I name in that post are POV pushers, three of which have found themselves topic banned in the past, and Roxy has been warned on her talk page for unhelpful attacks on other editors. Perhaps this is a failure to AGF, but I have good reasons.

dismisses JzG as a "religious fundamentalist" 05-14

26. Response: I characterized the stance, not the editor. Please read the whole talk page entry. I do not believe there is anything wrong with my post here.

"Are you just choosing to ignore all other editors on these pages?" 05-09

27. Response: He was, and he did it again at project medicine discussion about his mis-read (and misrepresentation) of Ernst 2011. How can we generate consensus if some editors don’t even listen to the opinions of impartial editors that are asked to look at it with fresh eyes? I do not believe there is anything wrong with my post here.

"You are just full of it ... Are you capable of thought and consideration? 05-09

28. Response: Ok I clearly lost my cool a little bit. But look at what I’m reacting to – one problematic edit and he labels it “mass MEDRS violations” and wanted to undo other, well-sourced edits by doing a mass revert – others called him on it too.

jeez louise yet again ... Your ownership delusion is out of control." 05-07

29. Response: Read the whole exchange. I do not believe there is anything wrong with my post here, though I should have said “behavior” rather than “delusion”.

"Buzz off" 04-30

30. Response: Again, my talk page, and I am being told not to revert by someone that reverts most of my edits. Completely justified, and its on my own talk page.

accuses Alexbrn of editing in bad faith 04-13

31. Response: We he actually did it again, jumping on board with QG and Rexxs’ incorrect reading of Ernst 2011 (see discussion “acupuncture again” at project medicine). In the previous dispute with Tippy, Alexbr eventually walked his endorsement of their misrepresentation of sources back a bit. People accuse me of POV pushing all the time, but read my response. Maybe I shouldn’t assume what Alexbrn is thinking, but like Roxy, he regularly attacks me as a COI fringe pusher. I should get to fight back a little bit, especially when they are ignoring my correct reading of a source because they consider me a POV pusher.

"jeez louise ... You troll much? 04-13

32. Repsonse: Read QG’s question and look at the context its in, he was clearly trolling me. I asked him if it was a sincere question, just to be sure. It wasn’t. My comment was justified.

dismisses Second Quantization 03-11
edit warring / accusation of editing in bad faith 03-08

34. Response: I accused him of misrepresenting the source, which he has done more than once. This is about accurately reflecting the cited source. I do not know if it is willful misrepresentation, or lack of ability to read a scientific paper. I did not say it was willful in this post.

37. Response: Please read what I actually wrote. I would need to quit my job and smoke meth in order to edit at the pace QG does. That is different than suggesting he is a "basement troll" who smokes meth. Yes, I suggested his behavior is very similar to editor PPdd in this and one or two other talk page posts. In contrast, QG actually opened an official sock puppet investigation into me and 2 other editors that disagree with many of his edits - so which is worse?

"do you need some ether to wake up from your swoon Betty? ... Again with the over-the-top drama-Queen rhetoric." 12-28

38. Response: Bullrangifer actually had just accused A1candidate of malpractice and being a charlatan, and made assumptions about that editor's understanding of scientific literature. It was off-topic and uncalled for. I called him on it. My rhetoric was over the top, but was a fitting retort given the atmosphere BR had just created.

"for fuck's sake" 12-27

39: Response: Rude use of words but a heavy emphasis was needed for the misunderstanding that was being used to justify a weight problem in relation to Ernst as the "only" reliable expert on the field of acupuncture.

describes the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry as racist 12-24

40. Response: No, I characterized their report as racist. Perhaps "inappropriately ethnocentric" would have been more accurate. Read the whole thread for the explanation. At least one other editor read it the same way.

battleground 12-23
frustrated 12-14
accuses fellow editors of bad faith 12-12

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Herbxue is a single purpose tendentious account who edits solely to promote Traditional Chinese Medicine, a system they practice, and is frequently frustrated with many different editors and with the collegiality requirements of editing here. This is a long-existing problem that shows no signs of resolving; a talkpage requirement would not be effective at curbing this behavior, though it would at least stop the revert-warring. Nearly every day that Herbxue is active provides a new example. There appears not to have been a formally logged notification of the sanctions, but Hipocrite (talk · contribs) gave notice here and Herbxue is well aware of the toxic editing environment on alternative medicine topics. Please note that while I am not involved in this particular dispute, I hold myself WP:INVOLVED on all pseudoscience topics. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein below - I do not want to mess with Herbxue's responses above, so I am not sure the best way to reformat this. Sorry about the excess of links - either the 20 link limit is newish or I just never paid attention to it when I was working this board. "Dismisses Second Quantization" is an example of Herbxue being dismissive toward their fellow editors, a recurrent problem. The edit warring links are part of a pattern of instigating and participating in edit wars per WP:EW, not the nice easy classic 3RR problem; context is important. There are certainly other problems surrounding this family of articles, and if someone wants to step in and take a look that would be good. As noted in my opening statement, Herbxue is aware of the sanctions but has never been formally notified or added to the log. That is probably all that is necessary at this juncture, though if the behaviors continue a topic ban of some length would be in order. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification

Discussion concerning Herbxue

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 Herbxue

First of all, there is no excuse for the swearing and some of the rude comments and I take full responsibility for those and have apologized or agreed to edit myself on most occasions.

However, I believe my edit history has been largely mischaracterized above. I will respond in greater detail later. For an example, look at the way my accuser words the "meth" comment above, then read my actual talk page entry.

Almost all of my contributions are talk page comments and almost all are civil, in good faith, and are sincere attempts to inform the discussion on sources and context.

The very few article mainspace edit conflicts I have engaged in have been about serious content issues, and my reading on the sources in question has been validated by impartial editors and has lead to article improvements (or at least avoiding unethical misuse of sources) on multiple occasions. When a compromise is offered, I always take it and settle.

I will write more detailed responses later, but I urge anyone passing judgements to view my posts in the full context of the talk page discussions and sources they were prompted by. Also, read my talk page to see how my initial good faith attempts to satisfy questions or concerns often get ignored or misunderstood.Herbxue (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added some comments on individual diffs above. I did not have time to go through all of them, but could at a later time. Again, please read the context each talk page comment comes out of. Also note, many are my own talk page.Herbxue (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cardamon

@Sandstein: About your question to 2/0, user:Second Quantization is an editor. 2/0 wasn't accusing Herbxue of dismissing the theory of Second quantization. ;) Cardamon (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Herbxue

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

Awaiting a response from Herbxue, though a cursory look through the statement above demonstrates this is a serious issue. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2over0, can you please edit your request to make it more concise and understandable? For instance, you should limit yourself to about 20 diffs, and explain better what it is you think is bad about them. For example, "dismisses Second Quantization" is not a useful description because even if I knew what Second Quantization is, this does not make me understand how this amounts to a violation of Wikipedia's rules of conduct. Also, evidence of edit-warring should consist of multiple diffs that explain how the edit war happened (e.g., first revert on "Acupuncture", second revert 2 h later, third revert 4 h later), but individual diffs with the text "edit warring" are, to me, pretty much useless as evidence. Finally, you must cite the specific remedy you wish us to enforce, and if you request discretionary sanctions, you must show how Herbxue was previously aware of them, as described in WP:AC/DS. Sandstein 06:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@2over0: If you do not amend your request as requested above within 24 hours, I will close it without action. Sandstein 13:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Khabboos

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: Khabboos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Khabboos (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from the subject of religion or ethnic conflicts in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, imposed at [[121]] and [[122]]

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

Notified here

Statement by Khabboos

It has been three and a half months since I was topic banned (please see the link provided above). I am appealing that my TBan be lifted again now after a month based on the advice given to appeal again in a month when I appealed the last time here. If you admins see my contributions, you can observe that I have first discussed my edits on the Talk Page everytime, before editing the article. I therefore request you admins to lift my Topic Ban.

TenofallTrades, a discussion on the Talk page of an unrelated topic shouldn't be brought up here!—Khabboos (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

Statement by TenOfAllTrades

Not sure if I'm 'involved' in the weighty, Wikipedia-specific way or not, but I'll add my remarks in this section to avoid any distracting debate. I have had no interactions with Khabboos on articles related to India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan, and I can confidently say that I have no idea what his past disputes were about, or which 'side' he happened to be on. To my recollection I've never made any significant contributions in the area covered by his current topic ban.

Where I have encountered Khabboos is in the area of homeopathy, chiropractic, and other fringe medical therapies. As near as I can tell, within a few days of being topic banned from one contentious area – India et al. – Khabboos jumped in with both feet to another. His very first substantive edits after the close of his last topic-ban discussion were to begin posting long lists of dozens of references onto Talk:Homeopathy: [123], [124], [125], [126] (There are more consecutive diffs; I just got tired of copying at that point). It was obvious that he had not read the references he named, and that they were simply copy-pasted from other websites (which he did without attribution to the original sources). He proposed no specific edits, just made repeated, poorly-argued demands that negative, well-sourced descriptions of homeopathy be removed from the article.

Efforts were made to return him to the straight and narrow, but the lists of unread, contextless references were back again a couple of weeks later: [127]. The discussion at Talk:Homeopathy#WP:MEDRS (and elsewhere on that page) pretty clearly illustrates the issue. I officially notified Khabboos that discretionary sanctions applied to homeopathy and related articles on June 4 ([128]), and he received a final warning on July 8: [129].

He has noted that his primary purpose in editing these articles was to build up a track record to support this topic ban appeal: [130]. If this is what he does when he's on his best behavior, I have grave doubts about what would happen if his editing restrictions were relaxed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, these edits, posted a few minutes ago while I was writing the above comment, capture an essential problem with Khabboos' attitude:

"A discussion on a Talk Page doesn't break any rules, does it? I haven't even indulged in an edit war here!—Khabboos (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

At this point, I really can't tell whether he's just being disingenuous, or if he truly can't grasp the notion that it's possible for conduct on a talk page to be disruptive. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Khabboos

Result of the appeal by Khabboos

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]

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