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

HughD

Consensus here that the edits aren't covered by the TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:43, 7 December 2015 (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 HughD

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Champaign Supernova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log#Tea_Party_movement:

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

Date November 30 Makes minor edit to Watchdog.org, a project of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, a family of pages which HughD was blocked for one week for editing in October [1]
November 30 Makes substantial reversion of disputed content on Watchdog.org
November 30 Makes another substantial reversion of disputed content on Watchdog.org
November 30 Makes substantial edits to the Clarion Project, including section where funding by Donors Capital Fund is discussed. HughD has been told repeatedly to avoid editing content with connection to Donors Capital Fund, as the Fund has received money from the Koch brothers and he is banned from editing content related to them.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

August 28 HughD topic-banned from "any articles involving the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers, for one year."
October 11 After AE request, HughD warned that "further violations of the TBAN will likely result in a block (even if just minor)."
October 29 HughD blocked for one week "following editing on Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity." An appeal of this block was declined at AE [2].

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

HughD has repeatedly shown that he is not capable of editing within the confines of his discretionary editing ban related to the Kochs/Tea Party. His repeated failure to comply with the sanctions against him suggests that he should be banned from editing all of post-1942 U.S. politics. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand from the helpful comments on this complaint from various administrators that an article must explicitly state a connection to a topic-banned area in order to be considered a violation. Per SafeHaven's suggestion below, I believe I removed any shadow of a doubt regarding a Tea Party/Koch connection to Watchdog.org with this edit [3]. Hugh is, however, still editing the article. I don't know how much clearer a connection can be than "Watchdog.org represented the largest media investment to date for Charles and David Koch." If an editor banned from Koch-related articles continues to edit an article representing the Koch's largest media investment, I'm not sure what the point of such a topic ban is. Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

Discussion concerning HughD

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

Statement by HughD

No violation of topic ban. Sad, pointed, harassing retread of previous failed request for enforcement. Hugh (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC) A content dispute improperly escalated to AE; respectfully request involved editors to return to the article talk page in good faith. No disruptive edits reported. No boundary testing; our project's articles Watchdog.org and Clarion Project are clearly out of scope. Respectfully request decline again. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In evaluating this complaint readers are respectfully requested to note that the April 22, 2013 Columbia Journalism Review article cited by commenting involved editor Safehaven86 below is not currently included in our project's article on Watchdog.org, nor is it involved in any of the edits cited above by complainant. Please also note that on 10 July 2013 a fellow editor added a connection to the Kochs to our project's article Watchdog.org, supported by that very source, and the commenting involved editor Safehaven86 deleted it within minutes with an edit summary of WP:SYNTH, then today comes before our project's arbiters claiming a connection sufficient for enforcement. Hugh (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Safehaven86

Hugh has been given more than enough chances to show that he can meaningfully comply with his topic ban. See User talk:HughD#Editing ban, User talk:HughD#One week block for violation of topic ban, User talk:HughD#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by HughD, User talk:HughD#Draft WP:TBAN addition, and numerous discussions at User talk:Ricky81682. The ins and outs of the ban have been discussed at length, and it has been made clear to Hugh that he should not touch articles broadly defined in the Tea Party/Koch Bros realm. Whether the topic ban is too confusing because it is a unique and individualized ban or whether Hugh is willfully disregarding it doesn't really matter at this point--he's been given enough warnings and explanations. I agree that a broader ban is in order. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was banned for one week for editing Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity because of that group's Koch connection. Watchdog.org is the main project of the Franklin Center. If the Franklin Center was found to be in scope of the ban, it only seems logical that Watchdog.org would be, too. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, that makes sense. I think the issue at hand here is that while it doesn't currently appear that any Koch-related material is in the Watchdog.org article, there does seem to be a connection. See this Columbia Journalism Review article, which says "But there is a key clue to the Koch brothers’ vision of the media— the Kochs’ leading media investment to date, an ambitious right-leaning investigative outlet called the Franklin Center and its watchdog.org network..." So I guess the question is, does an article need to explicitly state a connection to Tea Party/Koch to be in violation of the topic ban, or does there just need to be a connection that a reasonable person could ascertain through basic research, whether or not such a connection is stated on the page? I don't know the answer to that. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arthur Rubin

In his previous violations, he has made it clear by his edits that he believes that the article is related to the Kochs, whether or not that is actually the case. Objective analysis as to the degree of the relationship was unnecessary. Here, it seems more complicated. I'm not saying I think Hugh is a constructive editor of a benefit to Wikipedia; just that an objective analysis of politics, basically a subjective field, may be required to determine whether he's violated his TBAN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, many of his previous blocks were for making an edit to an article where he had previously made a Koch-related edit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

Looking at some of the diffs, it looks like a "simple" content dispute not a edit war. And the claim of tea party or Koch brothers topic ban seems too far, after all anything can then be claimed to be relevant to the topic by guilty by association. It seems to be that this is just a content dispute and other means should be used to resole before ARBCOM decides to banhammer someone. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning HughD

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

I'm not a fan of HughD's boundary pushing, but the edits in question have absolutely nothing to do with the Tea Party or the Koch Brothers as far as I can see. There are a limit to topic bans. For example, editors topic banned in the American Politics case are allowed to edit articles regarding climate change, despite the fact that climate change is a hot button issue in American politics. Perhaps HughD should be topic banned from American Politics (and there is certainly merit to this viewpoint as he demonstrates a clear battleground mentality), but a more limited Tea Party/Koch Brothers topic ban should not be treated as a de facto American Politics topic ban. Gamaliel (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that Safehaven86 is referring to User_talk:HughD#One_week_block_for_violation_of_topic_ban when they say that "He was banned for one week for editing Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity because of that group's Koch connection." What I see there is Ricky81682 blocking for making very specific edits that involve the Kochs ("You added content that specifically refers to the Koch brothers"). Edits to Watchdog.org (this, this, and this) do not seem to involve the Kochs at all. What I see is some slippage here, by Safehaven and by the complainant, Champaign Supernova, from "making a Koch edit in an article" to "making an edit in a Koch article"--that is, and I'm citing the complaint here, "following editing on Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity", the accusation was incomplete, and should have said "following Koch-related editing etc." Likewise, I don't see anything that violates the topic ban in this edit: HughD wasn't banned from editing that article either. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Safehaven86, you have a point, and one or two of the ~~fools~~ ~~suckers~~ reverend editors running for ArbCom have pointed in that direction also--the direction being "broadly construed". One could construe this topic ban broadly but since the connection with Koch is really, really tenuous in those edits, "broadly construed" practically extends to, as Gamaliel points out, "a de facto American Politics topic ban" (good thing Gamaliel isn't running for ArbCom--he has too much common sense) and that's stretching the original topic ban too far. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie231213

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 Ollie231213

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ollie231213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

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

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

Ollie231213's conduct at various AFD discussions is bordering into uncivil territory with numerous personal attacks. There has been numerous circular and odd policy debates that Ollie has created and required for months, few of which has improved anyone else's experience here.

December 4, 2015 "Legacypac, I'm sorry that you don't have basic critical thinking or research skills"]
December 4, 2015 Statement that "Not every bit of information in every source has to have citations. The original research has to be done somewhere." shows a fundamental misunderstanding of policy here.
August 2015 RFC Extensively long RFC arguing whether the GRG should get its own treatment as some "super reliable" source shows again problems with policy understanding.
November 3, 2015 "And again, why don't you try educating yourself on the subject at hand." as part of the extensively long RFC about whether to include succession boxes in longevity biographies.

Evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Ollie communicated at the motion to request reinstatement of discretionary sanctions and Talk:Yukichi Chuganji is using Template:WikiProject World's Oldest People which automatically includes a sanctions notice on the page. Ollie also extensively communicates at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People which has the same notice.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I simply think the editor would benefit from working away from WOP article and away from the flaws there. These repeated AFDs are getting heated (which isn't Ollie's fault) but at least a warning and a discussion would be helpful.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Diff

Discussion concerning Ollie231213

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 Ollie231213

Firstly, I apologise for being uncivil in a couple of instances. However, please understand my frustration when being faced by pro-deletion arguments which are based on both a poor understanding of the subject in hand and Wikipedia policy. The post I was replying to is a deletion argument which is original research and contains false assertions. Note that other users have challenged similar comments from Legacypac elsewhere.

Secondly, point number 2 is a misinterpretation of what I meant. I meant that not every bit of information in the sources themselves has to have citations, not the information in Wikipedia.

Thirdly, Ricky was an involved editor in the RFC mentioned above, and actually, in that discussion I argued that not all sources should be given the same weight, in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ollie231213

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

WP:ACDS specifically states that participating at WP:AE and WP:RFAR counts as awareness for policy purposes. I would think that since WP:ARCA is a subpage of WP:RFAR, that would qualify. I will add a proper alert notice to this editor's talk page in any case. Gamaliel (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah they are "aware" with the comment at ARCA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Realskeptic

Realskeptic indefinitely banned on Wikipedia from the topics of autism and vaccination. Gamaliel (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2015 (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 Realskeptic

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NeilN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Realskeptic (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#Discretionary_sanctions :

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

Nov 16, 2015 Edit summary shows attitude to sourcing
Nov 17, 2015 Fourth unblock request failing to get the point
Nov 17, 2015 More failure to get the point
Dec 5, 2015 Obvious declaration to push a fringe theory

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Nov 4, 2015 Edit warring on autism related material [5]
Nov 15, 2015 Edit warring to significantly soften description of Wakefield's fraudulent study. [6]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): Nov 4, 2015

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Looking through Realskeptic's contribution history, one quickly realizes that they're here to promote the idea that the 'autism-vaccine link is not "fringe" or "anti-vaccine"; the consensus against it is not a scientific consensus' [7]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Realskeptic

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 Realskeptic

1. I cited Statesman Journal, which meets WP:RS. I am not sure what the complaining admin's issue is with this. I do not believe "anti-vaccination" is justified as it is a WP:NPOV violation.

2. I wanted an admin to address the substance of my original unblock appeal, but the first reviewing admin refused to do so and instead failed to assume good faith on my part because of a misunderstanding I had about sourcing with another editor, for which I apologized. I stopped appealing after the last reviewing admin suggested I would be blocked longer if I continued appealing. So I did not. The admin who blocked me for a week later admitted to making reverts to my page in breach of WP:BLANKING, and accused me of edit-warring after I called out another admin for wikihounding my edits

3. That referred to my concerns about Washington Post and LA Times' independence from the CDC, for which an admin admitted I was right despite disagreeing with me that it was a problem: "Journalists being taught how to properly report on medical news? Must be a conspiracy...You're going to need a very, very good source suggesting malfeasance on the CDC's part, not simply that they work with journalists." My point was that these mainstream newspapers simply lacked the independence that should be expected of the press. Nonetheless, the complaining admin used this to comment on the contributor instead of the content.

4. My response here following my responses to the initial threatening admin on a talk page in which he asked for reliable sources that significantly disputed what he claimed was the scientific consensus on thimerosal and autism. I delivered on this request. He has yet to respond. Realskeptic (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing activity:

1. I admitted to lack of complete knowledge about 3RR rule. Nonetheless, following the editor's next revert, I updated the source to a more reliable one that was not self-published on the reverting editor's request. Yet it was reverted again not for being an unreliable source per wikipedia policies, but for being "anti-vaccine propaganda" - proving the editor is POV pushing as opposed to following Wikipedia guidelines.

2. My edits here referred to edits that collectively took issue with gross WP:BLP violations, particularly WP:BLPCRIME as the article currently makes accusations against the subject that he has either never been fully charged with or that have been overturned on appeal. I discuss on the talk page. There is a faction of editors who clearly despise the subject and wanted the subject's bio to reflect their hatred for him - including the admin calling for my sanctioning. The complaining admin engaged in edit-warring. When I started a thread on the talk page to discuss edits, the complaining admin instead used it as an opportunity to get me blocked as a punitive measure. Realskeptic (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments:

I will appeal any sanction taken. Realskeptic (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BullRangifer

RealSkeptic keeps on demonstrating his extreme POV pushing. The latest example is a clear example of IDHT. In response to a nice request by Kolbasz to get him to stop the battlefield discussion behavior and make a constructive edit suggestion, he replied with this IDHT reply. I then commented as follows:

"So after all this disruption by you, you have learned nothing and propose we accept a previous edit of yours which was roundly rejected? That's a very blatant example of I didn't hear that behavior, and since it comes after all of the above, it's very disruptive. It's time for a topic ban or long block. You are obviously not here to build an encyclopedia, but to advocate a fringe agenda."

This editor has been blocked a couple times (by EdJohnston & Acroterion), learned nothing from the experiences, and immediately returned to the same types of behavior. Numerous editors have engaged, explained, and warned him, but to no avail. A few of them are, in no particular order: NeilN, Guy, TenOfAllTrades, Jpgordon, Anthony Bradbury, Dave Dial, Huon, PhilKnight, MaxSem, RJaguar3, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, AgnosticPreachersKid, MastCell, Anthonyhcole, and myself. A more experienced group of editors and administrators would be hard to find, but even they have had no luck with him.

A very long block will likely be the only way to protect the encyclopedia from disruption, especially since most of his disruption is time-consuming misuse of talk pages. Since he is likely incapable of reforming, an indefinite block might be even better. Previous experience indicates that repeated unblock requests should not be allowed, and removal of access to his own talk page will be necessary, the sooner the better.

There is zero evidence of a positive learning curve, and no evidence of an ability to learn. On the contrary. He just gets further entrenched in his delusional beliefs. He demonstrates the classic signs seen in true-believer syndrome (not a true psychiatric diagnosis, but useful here) and the Dunning–Kruger effect. He is here solely to push a fringe agenda. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TenOfAllTrades

Realskeptic's edits have concentrated essentially exclusively on softening Wikipedia's coverage of vaccination related topics, particularly with respect to the once-hypothetical and now-discredited suggestions that there are links between exposure to vaccines or vaccine ingredients (especially the preservative thiomersal) and autism in children. Realskeptic would like us to present a fringe viewpoint – the idea that a link exists – on a substantial or equal footing to the established scientific consensus: a link is not supported by any good-quality, recent, reliable sources, and that the earlier works suggesting such a link was preliminary, low-quality, or outright fraudulent.

After a couple of recent blocks for edit warring, he's moved to perpetual WP:IDHT bickering on article talk pages. It's frequent and unpleasant enough – including repeated, unsupported accusations of BLP violations and libel – and spread across enough pages that a topic ban on all vaccine- and vaccination-related articles, broadly construed is warranted. (Since this constitutes essentially all of Realskeptic's editing, such a topic ban would be functionally equivalent to the out-and-out ban proposed by BullRangifer—and I admit that the risk of moving Realskeptic's editing approach to another topic area is concerning.)

Here are a few examples.

4 denied unblock requests in 24 hours (18 November). The IDHT and ask-the-other-parent and help-I'm-being-oppressed are all on clear display.
Talk:Andrew Wakefield#This article is not neutal. It is very one sided. Period., Talk:Andrew Wakefield#Suggest an edit or move on (continuing to present). After a month of bickering, I observed that talk pages were for discussing their associated articles, and that the encyclopedia would be best served if editors would suggest an edit or move on. Realskeptic first declared that he was making "irrefutable declarations", reiterated his spurious allegations of BLP violations and libel, but at least said he could "leave it there".
Sadly, he reneged on that a couple of days later, once again repeating again the spurious BLP and libel allegation.
The following day (within minutes of his response to this AE request) he finally suggested an actual edit. Unfortunately, the suggestion was simply to revert the article to his preferred version from mid-November, over which he had been nearly blocked (a third time) for edit warring.
Talk:2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference#Rife with BLP issues This talk section illustrates that Realskeptic's grasp of BLP and libel is just...bad. He cites BLP without understanding it, and asserts that well-sourced, factual statements are libel.

Realskeptic has clearly exhausted the community's patience. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to @Gamaliel: Realskeptic has been editing Wikipedia since 2011, albeit very infrequently—not for "two weeks". His recent, active editing began in late October, about five weeks ago. (He's spent eight days of that time blocked for edit warring, however.) He was advised of discretionary sanctions in this area just over a month ago, during his first block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Realskeptic

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

I'm not sure we're at the point where we can say "Realskeptic has clearly exhausted the community's patience" so a block would be inappropriate. Looking at Realskeptic's history, this user has been here for two weeks and appears to have only edited in a single topic area. It is tempting to conclude that this user is WP:NOTHERE. Realskeptic admits ignorance of some fundamental rules of Wikipedia, but insists that long-time editors are using other fundamental rules incorrectly, and throws around the term "libelous" far too freely. I am going to WP:AGF and assume this editor wants to edit Wikipedia in a positive manner, so I think this editor should gain familiarity with our rules by editing is a far less controversial and contentious topic area. I would support a topic ban of three to six months from this topic area, voluntary or otherwise. Gamaliel (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TenOfAllTrades: Facepalm I'm an idiot. I thought I clicked on "oldest" when examining his edit history, but maybe I only clicked on "older 50"? Well, I'm no longer concerned about newbie biting. If you've been here since 2011 you should have a better handle on policies and such if you are going to loudly challenge others regarding those policies in controversial areas. My "not opposed" for the indef has moved to "support". Gamaliel (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~I was surprised to see that Realskeptic has only 86 edits to articles and 76 to article talk space given the disruption that he is claimed to have caused.~~ Just to be clear, this complaint focuses on edits to primarily Andrew Wakefield along with Trace Amounts, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference and Joan Walsh on the subject of vaccinations? If DS are applied, it's important to know the scope of any problems that exists so a sanction can be targeted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who thinks that [8] was a BLP violation should not be editing Wikipedia, full stop. I would like to hear arguments from other administrators as to why an indefinite topic ban from anything relating to autism or vaccination, at minimum, would not be appropriate. NW (Talk) 17:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed to indefinite with possibility of reassessment after six months. My concerns are based on WP:AGF and WP:BITE, but neither one should prevent us from dealing with a disruptive editor appropriately. Gamaliel (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're a better person than I, Gamaliel. I assume very little good faith to new POV pushers. I will close this as you suggest, an indefinite topic ban in the areas of vaccination and autism with appeals as allowed in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications. NW (Talk) 17:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Full Protection --->via the ARB to exercising its defined Discretionary Powers regarding Electronic Cigarettes.

I am asking for a Full Protection premised upon the outcome of the last ARB, and that uninterested editors would be reviewing, and discretionary actions would be available as a product of those ARBs

Full details are found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Request_for_Full_Protection_---.3Evia_the_ARB_to_exercising_its_defined_Discretionary_Powers_reflected.2Fasserted_in_the_posted_ALERT

If there is an alternative approach please tell me. My method seemed correct, efficient and expedient. Thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A logical approach of course would be to remove the cause of the disruption.--TMCk (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel:, the premise of this request is that by delivering the generic Alert to all editors of Electronic Cigarettes, that it created an on going obligation to have people revisit to determine if further action is needed. I this body won't pick up my plea for action, I just need to be told that. Here in a nutshell is the most compelling reason for my request for the Admins to take up a Full Protection of the page.(broadly defined). S Marshall states quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&type=revision&diff=694133819&oldid=694129808

(Partial sequential quote, please see original source)I have described my intentions on this talk page on a number of occasions previously, but this may have been before you started editing. I intend to rewrite this article so that it's accessible to a schoolchild -- a vulnerable person who's heard of e-cigarettes and is considering taking a puff. This is the kind of person who is likely to be turning to Wikipedia for information. Everyone else here has heard me say this.
At the moment the article is written for and accessible to people with college degrees who make decisions for a living.
No, I am not going to submit each of my changes to the Article Edit Approval Committee on the talk page before I make them. I fought a four month Arbcom case so that I wouldn't have to do that. It's needless and bureaucratic. I do intend to discuss each controversial change on the talk page.

The above is a clear POV, a clear agenda, and clearly wanting to take over the entire page. IT IS VERY CLEAR. I am asking this body to enforce the sanctions required of it. When an ALERT is given, it must not be abandoned. The words of S Marshall are exceptional and remarkable. He is going to craft his very own advocacy handout, and use Wikipedia as his publisher. He is asserting that content needs to be removed to appeal to his target audience. This is simply outrageous. If you won't act PLEASE tell me. I think this is a consequence of ARB interplay....and the ARB can take it under their own impetus. You are however notified. Thank you. Mystery Wolff (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Wolff

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 Mystery Wolff

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: AlbinoFerret (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles#4.3.2 :

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

[12/3/2015 Disruptive talk page section on other editors.
[[9] 12/6/2015] Disruptive talk page section on other editors.
[[10] 12/5/1015] Disruptive talk page section on other editors.
12/6/2015 Wholesale reverts to stop article improvement
12/6/2015 Wholesale reverts to stop article improvement

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 11/29/2015

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Mystery Wolf is an WP:SPA. All of this editors edits save one have been in the topic or closely related [11]. This new editor which started editing November 11th has a good grasp of wikipedia syntax even being able to ping other users. Knew what was proper for the lede of an article within two days and used the "lede" spelling [12]. Within 4 days of starting knew the best format for a reference. [13] Has become protectionist over QuackGuru's edits and the specific wording used and understands "undue weight" a very experienced concept. [14] [15] His editing times match up pretty well when comparing his and QG both not editing after 14:00 and starting again about 22:00 UTC. Has opened multiple talk page section in an effort to stop improvement of the article and keep edits in place from QuackGuru [16][17][18] These sections have disrupted the articles talk page. Mystery Wolff has been informed of he correct DS locations [19][20][21] and was even offered to have a section started for them if they lacked the knowledge to do so. [22] But has continued to disrupt the page [23] instead of seeking DS.

Since the possibility of sockpuppets was brought up in the e-cig case, and seeing the advanced knowledge of Mystery Wolff a checkuser is requested. In any event if not a sock they are a disruptive SPA and should be stopped from adding to the disruption.AlbinoFerret 18:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel There have been no other sanctions against this user, I have removed the section. I have also removed all of the other ways of notifying except the one that is applicable and has a date/diff. AlbinoFerret 14:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian and S Marshaall. One things concerns me is the amount of knowledge Mystery Wolff has of the events long before his editing. "UK sockpuppets sniffed out" [24] refers to the investigation of FergusM1970 [25] how a new editor found this information is a very curious question. AlbinoFerret 20:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that Mystery Wolff has changed the name of this section.[26]AlbinoFerret 14:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: diff

Discussion concerning Mystery Wolff

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

Statement by Mystery Wolff

Archived to address feedback by Gamaliel below Mystery Wolff (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A. I am unfamiliar with this process (though I have read ARBs in detail), I believe this has been instigated as retaliation, as AlbinoFerret threatened actions on my TALK page prior to instigating this. I have made a request to put on Full Protection on Electronic Cigarettes (widely defined) because of problematic editorship. That request is contain on this very page, immediately above this item. 30 minutes after hence, my belief its retaliation. This idea was prompted in my mind after EdJohnston made the suggestion within the TALK page within the subsection which is the genesis of this complaint.
B. I have not engaged in Edit warring, and other editors have already affirmed this.
C. I have been told that BOLD editing is being done. My suggestion of a Full Protection addresses that masses of edits are being done, paraphrasing them: to address the long history of QuackGuru.
D. I am not knowledgeable to the entirety of QuackGuru, however I had issues with his editing style.
E. If there is a list of Edits by QuackGuru which are being suggested to be removed by any editor or group of editors, I am unaware of it. I have been told they are rapidly giving the ARTICLE a significant haircut. That haircut is POV, and its not being laid out prior to 15-30 edits per day.
F. I have noticed that some of these edits on the page calling out as copyedit....are re-crafting the language of the citations in order to present different context, different content, and ultimately POV push.
G. I have noticed that significant and important studies are being blanked out and removed.
H. I reverted 2 items, and gave full explanation. I was then told by the editor that they would not care about any reverts and simply move to the next item. That is S Marshall.
I. I raised the issues up in TALK. I also communicated to L235 put up a warning badge at the top of TALK, for the action that most recently concluded regarding Electronic Cigarettes. (There was another action regarding S Marshall...they are intertwined now due to enforcement by the ARB.
J. I do not believe this complaint as written here meets any criteria which is able to be reviewed, and should be closed. The assertion is simply "Mystery Wolff is using the TALK page of Electronic Cigarettes to work consensus, and raise concerns" FULL STOP.
K. That other edtiors who have said they are operating in the BOLD editing style and claiming they will give the article a significant haircut....do not like or share all mine or other editors comments in TALK is UNREMARKABLE. Rather it is part of the BOLD process.
L. Ultimately this complaint is simply over my speaking to the ARTICLE and its editorship, within the TALK page. How can that be the subject of Arbitration (my view are earnest) or Enforcement (I have followed procedures).
M. If we are assumed to be directed to be BOLD, is it not proper to be bold within the TALK page, vs being BOLD in a live and viewable pages of Wikipedia. We must be protective of the LIVE pages.
O. Electronic Cigarettes have been to ARB at least 3 times in the last year. The cohorts of these complaints and sidings, are the same. AlbinoFerret, the requester, even mentions QuackGuru in his complaint against me.
P. All editors are subject to an ALERT on Electronic Cigarettes. One that I posted in the very section which AlbinoFerret is concerned with.
Q. I am not subject to any enforcement, nor named in any enforcement. With exception of asking an existing and working ARB assit with problematic edits of QuackGuru, which was logged. I have had no inside interactions with any ARB.
R. Ultimately the only reason why this AE request is place here, is because I have taken up EdJohnston on his suggestion for Full Proctection of the article, which provides for controlled updates of the live pages, via admins. (some editors thing it freezes the pages
S. To my knowledge there has not been any ARB that sought to manage TALK pages....and I am using TALK pages.

To the specific allegations. All of which DO NOT explain how there is any Violation. A requirement. That alone should kick it out.

1. This is a talk page talking about the ALERT, edits, how to proceed, forming consensus. Besides asserting TLDR I do not understand the issue.
2. This a section where I responded to a direct question from EdJohnston. I responded, he ASKED me to wind it down....I did, we agreed to collapse the section. What is the issue?
3. Exactly the same as #2. Its already collapsed. Am I to guess how these edits in TALK violate anything?
4. This is a revert I did. Here is the exact edit summary "(Undid revision 693989905 by S Marshall (talk) Wordsmithing is changing the context improperly. Poor grammar on rewordings. Agree on removal of Drug items however, just not in a slew of others)" ---- I stand by that, I DO NOT SEE ANY ISSUE? What did I do wrong, per AlbinoFerret??????
5. Same as above, but with this Edit summary "(Undid revision 693990051 by S Marshall (talk) Edits change the context and importance of the citations, replaced with the POV of the editor, with undue weights. REVERTED)" It removed the citation source "The Report states" and replaces it as fact, and then does other dilutive edits

I am aware that there are discretionary sanctions available to Admins for this page. It is the first item I posted in my subection being challenged here.

I have been accused of being a sockpuppet, and this AE does it again. I have an interested edtor go and make these charges at me on ARB clerks and other admins type pages.

The complaint asks that I be stopped. I do not know what being stopped means. Should I not use the TALK pages, to discuss things prior to edits. Should I just treat this page as if it is not ALREADY under Semi-Protection??
The amount of tag teaming on me, between editors who are associated to each other via their talk pages and ARB is so apparent to me.
What else would you like me to say? I think this should be kicked out....with Prejudice, for cause. Indeed I have asked for Full Protection....precisely to avoid needless ARBs. If copy edits are wanted....assign a non party non interested editor to do the mechanics of such. 25 edits a day for what should be a largely stable article is just silly. TLDR, what did I do wrong....its not shown or stated. Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by S Marshall

We don't know if this editor is a single-purpose account or not yet. He has ~150 edits and has had his account for a couple of weeks. On the one hand, it might not seem necessary to open an AE request because this editor has pinged everyone in arbcom and everyone who's tried enforcing. Twice now. I think we can assume the AE sysops already have this on the radar.

But on the other hand I do think this is a good idea. He clearly has an issue with me personally, and he needs to be given a forum to express that in. This venue is a better place than Talk:Electronic cigarette, so let's make this a welcoming place for him and encourage him to make all his points in full right here.—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will it be in order for me to respond to Mystery Wolff here? This might spark a back-and-forth discussion that isn't normal at AE, but I hope the AE sysops will indulge that for the time being. He and I haven't actually had the conversations about this which experienced editors would have before we get to arbitration enforcement; in fact he's never edited User talk:S Marshall and my only edit to User talk:Mystery Wolff was archived without comment.
On a personal level I don't think that Mystery Wolff is a sockpuppet or a new incarnation of a banned editor. I find his floundering with process and appeals to authority to be authentic and convincing for someone who's unaccustomed to Wikipedia. It's authentic for someone who's accustomed to academic rigour in writing and having some personal authority over how material is edited.
If this was QuackGuru returned, then he would know how it always ends when people with three weeks' editing history appeal to authority for help managing established editors' behaviour. QG was always canny with process and he has zero history of sockpuppetry. I'm sure this isn't him. Mystery Wolff wants to discuss what I'm doing and analyse it; he wants this to happen before I'm allowed to do it; and he asks for this as if it was perfectly normal and natural. This is an academic writer who expects to be in charge. Education rather than enforcement is the answer here.—S Marshall T/C 18:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Kingsindian

I have absolutely no opinion on the underlying dispute, but I agree with S Marshall that this doesn't look like a sock of an experienced user. It looks like an overenthusiastic new user. It is not surprising that some editor who knows about the topic will find a ton of things wrong with a Wikipedia article, and try to fix them all at once. Hell, this is my normal feeling whenever I see any article about which I have nonzero knowledge.

I see too many walls of text, but a basically good faith discussion in the talk page section. A lot of the section is simply them being confused by Wikipedia bureaucracy. The basic point is this: the edits by S Marshall were consequential, and it is perfectly proper to object to them, giving reasons. They were not simply copyediting. I would simply remind the editor of WP:AGF. It is more precious than ever in contentious areas, and the key to avoiding many misunderstandings. Also WP:TLDR, which is the iron law of the internet. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark

Following the removal of one obstructionist editor from the topic, a deluge of edits began. Mystery saw this as taking unfair advantage of the situation, but its actually the positive outcome that was hoped for. We do not need someone else to take up the obstructionist banner to keep the article from improving too much or too fast. I've looked at SM's edits, and the complaint that he is twisting context doesn't hold water. They're just deconvoluting tortured grammar. There are a few cases where SM regarded grammar as too poor to fix and removed an entire properly-sourced claim. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and I advise SM not to do that. Both sides should better focus on trying to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Rhoark (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tracy Mc Clark

In response to Gamaliel: A simple but strict "discuss content, not the editor" with serious consequenses if not followed should do.--TMCk (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Mystery Wolff

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

@AlbinoFerret: The links under "Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any" do not appear to be working. Also a number of links under "If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)" Gamaliel (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mystery Wolff: Your statement does not address the matter at hand. Can you provide something that either addresses the substance of the request against you or explains why this is "an abuse of process" according to Wikipedia policy? Please do not include personal reflections or opinions such as those in your statement above. Gamaliel (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unorthodox suggestion, but what do other admins think about imposing a daily word limit on the talk page for Mystery Wolff? It seems like only a quarter of the text they post is directly relevant. Gamaliel (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be against a complex sanction that might result in further dispute about adherence to the sanction. We should expect that new participants on a difficult topic like Electronic cigarette would be cooperative and diplomatic, and they would be able to express themselves clearly on talk pages. If such a user is inexperienced they should wait to get feedback from others before changing the article. (The combination of aggressive and uninformed can have bad results). It appears that User:Mystery Wolff doesn't meet those expectations. He is likely to use up even more space on admin boards the longer he continues to be active about this. I favor a six-month ban of User:Mystery Wolff from the topic of electronic cigarettes on all pages of Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TruthIsDivine

Topic banned by Gamaliel and blocked by Rschen7754. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:42, 7 December 2015 (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 TruthIsDivine

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Gaijin42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: TruthIsDivine (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 :

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

Personal attacks : (lying, stupid, idiot, fraud, etc )

Whatever. You're an stupid redneck hillbilly who is too uneducated to understand the most basic axioms of logic [...] you're also a liar, [...]. Enjoy your fraudulent encyclopedia, you intellectual fraud. i hope you enjoy mastrbating to your gun collection at night and your middle school education which thinks it's possible for there to have been 33 million gun uses. [...], but you have zero intellectual honesty or integrity and you might be the single dumbest two individuals I have ever met. Wikipedia is truly the last refuge for idiots who failed out of their formal education and cannot understand the most basic elements of logical argument. And you had no business removing all the other well sourced content I added showing that there WERE ONLy 1600 ACTUAL CASES REPORTED. God, how does someone as stupid as you manage to live?

Edit Warring/NPOV:

Asking for sources, being pointed repeatedly directly to the relevant sources, and then insisting the source does not say what it plainly says, while continuing to make personal attacks (whole section) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Defensive_gun_use#Pro-gun_fraud_in_this_article

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TruthIsDivine&diff=694065203&oldid=694064479

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

new WP:SPA editor, WP:NOTHERE, WP:TIGERS. Pinging Clpo13 who is also target of subject's personal attacks and edit warring.

UPDATE : as I was making this report, the user was already blocked for 3 days for harrassment, but given the other diffs, I think more may be in order. However, if this closes without additional action, I see that as valid too. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TruthIsDivine&diff=694069147&oldid=694069070

Discussion concerning TruthIsDivine

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 TruthIsDivine

Statement by Rschen7754

I did block the user for WP:NPA for 3 days. I suspect that further sanctions may be needed, but being out of touch with how discretionary sanctions work, I will leave that to you folks to decide. --Rs chen 7754 22:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by clpo13

One last personal attack before being blocked: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defensive_gun_use&diff=prev&oldid=694068806

Prior to this account being created, the IP user 2600:1017:b416:1586:bc10:35ea:70fe:b008 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edited the same pages with the same concerns.

I can't speak to most of their changes to Defensive gun use, but I did note their refusal to discuss the changes on the talk page. They chose instead to focus on the 33 million figure at the high end of defensive gun use estimates. Despite numerous explanations about where that figure came from (such as [27]) and its nature as an estimate, they obstinately stuck to declaring it was a logical impossibility and anyone who thought otherwise had "zero intellectual honesty or integrity" and that Gaijin42 and I were "the single dumbest two individuals I have ever met". clpo13_(talk) 22:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TruthIsDivine

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

I've seen all I need to see here. Imposing an indefinite topic ban. Gamaliel (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

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